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 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 . 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 . 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 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. The return plan assumed that some 40,000 people would return to the district. However, progress has been minimal due to a number of unresolved political issues between the Abkhaz and Georgians. In 1998, an outbreak of fighting in this area resulted in a second displacement of many of these returnees and the destruction of several rehabilitated buildings. Despite this, an estimated 40,000- 50,000 IDPs have spontaneously returned since 1998. Continued insecurity and criminality limits the ability of most humanitarian organizations to support these returnees. However, UNHCR has had a school rehabilitation programme in recent years to support those who are now back in Gali District. A tripartite peacekeeping (Georgian-Ossetian-Russian) force has been deployed in South Ossetia since June 1992 under the auspices of the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE). Repatriation to South Ossetia has also been slow, mainly due to the lack of economic opportunity and insecurity. The situation with the displaced populations in Georgia can no longer be regarded as a humanitarian emergency, although durable solutions have yet to be implemented. This is the case throughout the Southern Caucasus where negotiations on contested regions are for the most part frozen and families and individuals remain displaced. The protracted nature of displacement in these countries has obliged national authorities to find alternatives to decreasing international humanitarian assistance,

3 IDP Bulletin

Internal Displacement in Georgia especially by strengthening the capacity of the displaced to sustain themselves. However, the depressed economic situation and evolving legal regimes prevailing in these countries limit the chances of the displaced to integrate temporarily into their host communities and maintains them in an extremely precarious economic and social situation. The very issue of integration remains a political issue with some elements of the population who fear that this might affect the eventual return of IDPs or the loss of IDP status should they attempt to settle temporarily. Others fear that IDP integration will lessen the pressure on the government to continue negotiations with the separatist leaders to resolve the territorial conflict. One of the major initiatives of the international community to more affectively deal with the long-term effects of displacement, the New Approach to IDP Assistance, was launched in 1999 to advocate for more appropriate assistance and governmental policies to support IDP self-reliance during their displacement from their homes. This initiative is more fully described in the separate article included in this newsletter.

Data taken from “Conflict in the Caucasus” by WomenAid International 2000

Worldwide Programs for IDPs:

Few Options for Madurese IDPs in West Kalimantan

West Kalimantan in Indonesia is currently home to more than 50,000 Madurese internally displaced persons from the city of Sambas and its nearby areas. The ancestral homeland of the Madurese is Madura Island. Through regular migration and transmigration, they have settled throughout all of Indonesia. Among the causes of this IDP problem are government policies and competition among various indigenous groups for limited resources. The previous government policy of transmigration - giving people economic incentives to repopulate different areas of the country - altered the population balance in West Kalimantan, especially in cities such as Sambas and Pontianak. This has led to conflicts among the various ethnic groups, including Chinese, Malay, Madurese, and Dayak. The Dayaks were economically supplanted by Madurese transmigrants, who took many of the jobs and public positions they used to hold. The violence by Dayaks against the Madurese is rooted in the systematic marginalization of the Dayak community. Conflict between Dayaks and Madurese ethnic groups have occurred ten times over the past decade. As a result of the conflict in Sambas in 1997 and 1999, the Madurese were placed in IDP camps in and around Pontianak, the capital of West Kalimantan. Most of the IDP camps are in deplorable conditions with bad water and sanitation. The camps in Pontianak also face hostility from the primarily Dayak and Malay population, who oppose extended stays in the IDP camps. The IDPs in Pontianak fall into four categories: those who want to relocate to another camp, those who do not want to relocate, those who are undecided, and those who want to return to Sambas. Many have heard from other IDPs who have moved to relocation areas how difficult these sites are and will not move until they know the relocation sites are improved. More than 13,000 Madurese IDPs countrywide are currently waiting to be relocated in and around Pontianak. They want assurance that the relocation areas will provide security; formal education for their children; potable water, sanitation, electricity; health facilities, and other public facilities (mosques), as well as economic opportunities to support themselves. Ultimately, they want the option of returning to their original homes in Sambas, north of Pontianak, in the future. The government of Indonesia, however, says that no improvements will be made to the relocation sites until the IDPs move to them.

4

IDP Bulletin

Worldwide Programs for IDPs:

Few Options for Madurese IDPs in West Kalimantan

This policy leaves the IDPs living in deplorable conditions in the camps. In addition, as a result of government decentralization, the government of Indonesia has left many of the provincial areas in a state of confusion about their roles and responsibilities. The government of Indonesia has developed a policy that will reduce the number of IDPs in camps from 1.3 million to zero by the end of 2002. Implementation of this plan involved giving IDPs three options: localy integration with 5 million rupiah ($500) as compensation, or return or resettle in different areas with 2.5 million rupiah ($250) as compensation, or return to their place of origin with unspecified compensation. Addressing the root causes of displacement is the only long-lasting solution to the plight of IDPs in Indonesia. This is one of the reasons the three-option plan of the Government of Indonesia will take much longer to implement. The continued support of NGOs and aid organizations is critical. World Vision has begun a smallseeds, tools, and land preparation program to enable IDPs to farm. Other NGOs, such as Save the Children UK, Catholic Relief Services, and International Medical Corps, have programs in the relocation areas. The International Organization of Migration is planning aid to improve some of the sites. A consortium of NGOs drafted a comprehensive development assistance plan to IDPs. The plan includes: support for agriculture, health, water, sanitation, and education. NGOs would work with the government to improve the sites and provide support for long-term assistance. Unfortunately, NGOs that are providing assistance are doing so through very limited emergency funds and private funds. Additional funding and attention to West Kalimantan is needed. Last September, President Bush promised Indonesia’s president Megawati Sukarnoputri $10 million to help support the displaced. Some of that was earmarked for West Kalimantan. None of this money has apparently reached USAID or the NGOs so far.

Programs for IDPs in Georgia:

New Approach to IDP Assistance

Approximately half of the IDPs in Georgia live in overcrowded collective centers that were renovated several years ago to serve as temporary dwellings. Many others continue to live in crowded conditions with host families. Many IDPs are also unemployed and are unable to afford quality health care or education. In addition, the displaced are unable to vote in many elections. At the same time, these problems – the lack of job opportunities, non-unaffordable health care and low quality education – also affects a large number of persons in Georgia who have not been displaced. Yet a wide range of policies and programs exist, in theory if not in practice, specifically to support the displaced. These programs, however, have often done little to help displaced people restart their lives and take care of themselves in a sustainable manner, thus adding to the burden of their host communities. This combination of laws and programs that are supposed to help the displaced, but in fact can hurt them and the wider community, creates ill will between the different communities in Georgian society, and prevents Georgia from attaining its full potential. The laws and programs therefore, need to be revised to more appropriately assist the overall population, including IDPs.

5

Programs for IDPs in Georgia: IDP Bulletin

New Approach to IDP Assistance

The New Approach to IDP Assistance initiative, launched jointly by the Government of Georgia, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Bank and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in 1999, aimed to improve the lives of displaced persons in Georgia, as well as the conditions of host communities by reforming the government policy and by developing more appropriate assistance programs. The development objective of the initiative has been and still is to substantially improve the lives of IDPs in a manner that reduces tension between IDPs and host communities. This objective shall be achieved by eliminating discrimination and violations of human rights currently suffered by IDPs, primarily through activities that increase opportunities to access their full range of rights as citizens, including equality before the law and access to quality shelter, social services, and employment opportunities. This is to be done through advocacy work and policy dialogue between the Government and the New Approach partners. Achieving the objective is expected to contribute to negotiations toward a peaceful solution of the two conflicts. The New Approach recognizes the inviolable right of IDPs to return to their homes in safe and secure conditions. Absent these conditions, the New Approach also recognizes the right of IDPs to be treated in the same manner as all citizens in their areas of displacement. Categorization as an IDP need not result in social, political and economic marginalization, nor should it result in disproportional assistance compared to other vulnerable groups. The New Approach, therefore, favors the provision of humanitarian or other aid to IDPs only within the overall context of vulnerability in Georgia. It favors raising awareness within the government, the IDP community and society-at-large regarding possibilities to more fully engage IDPs in their present communities without prejudicing their right to return. Furthermore, the New Approach favors giving IDPs an opportunity to build skills and a level of self- reliance that will enable them to take advantage of opportunities to utilize their full range of rights as a durable solution. Such skills are usually available from development-oriented assistance rather than traditional humanitarian aid. More importantly, increased skills are capacities that IDPs will eventually be able to take home eventually and will contribute to the overall reintegration and rehabilitation at that time. The New Approach partnership also represents a novel response to a question that has achieved a global prominence – how does the international community best address IDP needs, especially in a frozen conflict? What are the most appropriate methods of assisting IDPs when their needs resemble the needs of the non-IDPs and are often not humanitarian? In 2000, the New Approach began its pilot phase of activity with some assessments to learn more about the conditions faced by IDPs and their hosts. These studies concerned shelter, access to social services, participation in the job market, community resources, and the law – all issues from IDPs’ perspective. In addition, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) conducted a detailed study of displaced and non-displaced households to learn more about how they live, and the difficulties they face. With the announcement of the Georgia Self Reliance Fund (GSRF) and the unexpected flurry of submissions and need to finalize internal modalities and institutional arrangements, the remainder of the planned assessments were indefinitely postponed. OCHA intends to resume these analyses in 2002-2003 to better inform overall advocacy and reform efforts. Two consultancies have already been undertaken in 2002 under the aegis of the New Approach initiative that will help the Steering Committee refine their intentions and develop a better understanding of the problems to be addressed and a way to target the remaining assistance.

6

Programs for IDPs in Georgia:

IDP Bulletin

Georgia Self-Reliance Fund (GSRF)

In order to determine more appropriate assistance programs that will help displaced people and host communities take care of themselves, the New Approach partners (the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Bank) established the Georgia Self -Reliance Fund (GSRF) to test potential projects and strategies for modalities that could be utilized at a latter stage. This was done in cooperation with the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Fund is currently capitalized by contributions from these agencies, totaling approximately US$1.3 million. The participation of additional donors is welcome. Through a series of grants competitions, GSRF grants ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 are awarded. The Fund will award a maximum of 20 grants per year. Each grant will range from US$25,000 to US$100,000. Projects supported by the Fund should be completed within one to two years. The first round of competition was held from October 2000 to April 2001. Out of totally received 267 proposals, three applications were selected for the final consideration. One of these projects has been rejected and one has been approved. The approved project from an Iindividual Entrepreneur and IDP, Otar Khvistani, utilizes abandoned houses in region for IDPs to live and work on agricultural activities for income. Its implementation is underway. The remaining project from the first round, from JSC “Orgteknika”, proposes to provide housing and jobs for IDPs at a rehabilitated tea factory in . This project was to be considered as a pilot project for a possible loan for certain business components, however the partners have been unable to find a local bank that could provide the required services within the UN and other partner requirements. The nature of the project prevented it to be considered solely as a grant, nor was it feasible to only review the grant-eligible components. However, after being encouraged to look for alternative ways of funding business components of the proposal, the applicant secured the credit from a local bank and resubmitted his proposal as recommended by the Steering Committee. Currently the proposal is under the Steering Committee review. The second round was announced in June 2001 and was finished in May 2002. Based on lessons learned during the first round, the eligibility criteria were modified to allow only non-governmental organizations with sufficient programming experience to participate in this round. A total of 85 proposals were received. Five applicants -- Accion Contra el Hambre (ACH), Charity Humanitarian Center “Abkhazeti” (CHCA), Counterpart International and Lazarus - were approved and started their activities during the summer of 2002. The approval of the fifth proposal, submitted by HVA International Worldwide Agricultural Development, is contingent on several preconditions to be met by the applicant. These negotiations remain underway. In brief, the applicants selected by the Steering Committee will carry out following activities: · ACH - to increase incomes of 140 families through the development of profitable agricultural income generation activities proposed by themselves; to strengthen the community by promoting self-reliance in management of communal installations in areas of IDP settlement and support cooperation between IDPs and local host populations; to actively explore potential larger scale replicability of the strategies pursued in the pilot and learn lessons for activities which promote self-reliance of IDPs and partnership between IDPs and local communities in areas of settlement. · CHCA – to strengthen the participation in decision-making in IDP communities and host populations in Tskaltubo concerning key issues of social exclusion; to increase the self-reliance of the IDP population; and to support IDPs’ integration within the local community. · Counterpart International - to increase the employability of IDP families by providing on the job

7 Programs for IDPs in Georgia:

IDP Bulletin

Georgia Self-Reliance Fund (GSRF)

apprenticeships and employment support and training in skill/trade areas in order to improve young, married IDPs’ income generation capacity while contributing to overall economic improvement in the community and the business sector; and · Lazarus - to pilot a strategy of training and employing IDP women through the development of beauty salons in collective centres on the outskirts of the city of . To help reform the government policy and support more appropriate assistance programs, a Presidential Commission was established and is chaired by the State Minister. The Commission is composed of Ministers, as well as technical experts, including many from the IDP community. The technical experts will help GSRF choose new programs by providing specialist comments on proposals. The experts will also help the assessments by providing access to government sources of information. A technical support unit has been established to handle the daily management of the GSRF programme in the future. The Georgian Social Investment Fund (GSIF) has been selected to provide this technical support. The existence of this unit enables OCHA to devote more time to the advocacy, policy development and coordination of the New Approach in Georgia. The main objective of all rounds of the GSRF remains to identify proposals that will develop and employ innovative strategies for sustainable improvement of IDPs’ self-reliance and also provide opportunities for enlargement or replication of projects in future. These projects also demonstrate valuable lessons regarding IDP ‘integration,’ self-reliance, and policy issues for future advocacy. It is envisaged to analyse these lessons and projects more fully as they continue.

Programs for IDPs in Georgia:

IDP Rehabilitation Association “Dioscuria”

The IDP Rehabilitation Association “Dioscuria” is a based local NGO established in 2000. The main activities of the Association are related to IDP problems and gender issues. There are approximately 7,500 IDPs in Poti. Among them, 3,500 live in collective centres, while others live with host families or in rented apartments/houses. Their living conditions are dire, especially in the collective centers. IDPs earn income mainly through running small businesses. The displaced population in Poti is isolated and lacks sufficient information about its rights. Dioscuria is trying to address some of the problems faced by IDPs. The Association selected 8 collective centers with more than 100 IDPs in each and addressed the city authorities to provide them with telephones. Now IDPs can contact each other and make calls within Poti. With Dioscuria’s support, collective centers were equipped with newspaper boards where the organization regularly provides free newspapers, information bulletins and brochures from various NGOs. While being involved in business activities, IDPs are not tax exempt. Through the effort of Dioscuria, the city Mayor’s office found some funds to reduce taxes for certain categories of IDPs. Many IDP families cannot afford sending their children to schools because of the lack of books and clothing. The organization identified such vulnerable families and organized a summer school for their children. In September, the children will attend regular schools or boarding schools.

8

Programs for IDPs in Georgia:

IDP Rehabilitation Association “Dioscuria” IDP Bulletin

This summer, the organisation started a census of IDPs living in Poti. The aim of the census is to compare the data with the existing one collected by the local IDP and accommodation committee, and to ensure fair participation of the IDPs in local elections.

For more information, please contact Ms. Nona Khukhia at: [email protected]

Non-governmental Organization “Ordu”

Ordu is a based non-governmental organization. Its first project, “Free Internet Centre for IDPs”, was funded by the United States Embassy in Georgia. Almost a year ago Ordu launched surveys on social conditions of 32 IDP communities residing in Zugdidi and its outskirts. Communities identified by Ordu include: , Orsantia, Chitatskari, Kakhati, Darcheli, Tkaia, Akhali , Akhali Sopeli, Ingiri, Abastumani, Rukhi, Koki, Ganmukhuri, Tsaishi, Jikhashkari, Chkaduashi, Chakvinji, Chkhoria, Shamgona, Urta, Rike, village Odishi, Narazeni, Kortskheli, Orulu, Didinedzi, Grigolishi, Oktomberi, Kulishkari, Zedaetseri, Ergeta, Matskhovris Kari, Odishi, Egrisi, Kolkheti. Ordu especially targets IDP families with family members under 18 years old, men, women, elrderly, and disabled. A Research Center was established within the organization to work on the data collection and processing. Surveys cover nutrition, social activity and employment issues. Results are computerized and updated on a monthly basis. Ordu has its representatives (approximately 39 persons) in all interviewed communities. Ordu representatives are responsible for data collection. Ordu actively cooperates with local authorities and some of the local NGOs.

For more information, please contact Mr. Vakhtang Gamsakhurdia at: [email protected]

Legal Protection of the Vulnerable: the Case of Older IDPs

The world’s population is aging at an ever-faster rate, with the relative increase in the older population most noticeable in the developing world. With women’s life expectancy still exceeding men’s by an average of five years, and the propensity of women not to remarry once widowed, the oldest in many parts of the world are predominantly women. Likewise, a majority of the displaced are female. A critical challenge facing aid agencies is the lack of reliable data concerning actual number, location and demographics of the displaced population. Although estimates exist suggesting older people now comprise between 10-30% of displaced people, specific information about where they are, how many of them there are, their gender, ethnicity, socio-economic and employment status, and the conditions in which they live, is still needed. This can only be achieved through wide consultation with affected populations and interagency cooperation. There is also a need to gather accurate and reliable gender disaggregated data about the internally displaced population. The gendered effects of conflict mean that young and adult men may be more likely to be targeted by armed groups and to be killed, recruited into militias or flee. This may leave older men

9 Legal Protection of the Vulnerable: the Case of Older IDPs as the head of a three-generation household. More often than not women, and, increasingly, older women, are left to care for the orphans or families left behind by conflict. Without a better understanding of the gendered experience of displacement and the gender and age composition of affected populations, appropriate interventions cannot be designed. IDP Bulletin

Because they often do not flee but remain in their homes, older IDPs are frequently invisible. Facing physical and mobility constraints that make leaving home difficult, they are reluctant to leave their house, land and/or livestock or other principle assets. Due to the need to ensure the safety of humanitarian staff, access to rural conflict zones is often difficult. Services therefore do not reach these older people, leaving them further marginalized at a time when their needs are most urgent. Older people are often bypassed by some humanitarian assistance efforts. They often sacrifice their own needs for those of the young and are at the bottom of the priority list in the planning and implementation of emergency programmes. Older people are not regularly consulted about their needs and how to address them. Their capacities may not be obvious to aid workers, and thus can be overlooked rather than utilized or developed to strengthen programming. Food distribution programs and medical services tend to require the attendance of, rather than delivery to, beneficiaries. Older persons often cannot access these services, especially if they have caring responsibilities and/or physical mobility constraints. Older people of ethnic minorities or indigenous groups frequently suffer from marginalization because they may face linguistic barriers with humanitarian assistance staff and are without the support of younger family members more familiar with the dominant language. Services for trauma counseling and post-traumatic stress disorder are not usually targeted toward older people in emergency-affected populations. Fear of violence, theft or other abuse can also reduce mobility and independence for people of all ages, but women – especially older women -- are particularly affected. The knowledge, skills and capacities of IDPs can, and in fact do, support relief efforts. Older people usually play important roles in community conflict resolution and reconciliation, in leadership of community self-help groups and with their families as protectors of grandchildren and property. Unfortunately, assumptions and societal stereotypes that portray old people as a burden can be exacerbated in times of emergency. International humanitarian agencies demonstrate only limited recognition of the practical and material contribution older people are making. To age is a universal and personal experience. Therefore, the rights we talk about and espouse, or deny, are our rights now and in the future. Legally, older people enjoy the same rights as the rest of the population. In practice, however, older people often fail to benefit from the human rights provisions currently in place. Older people’s rights are all too often denied or sidelined, especially in emergency situations. Is the life of an older person worth less than that of a younger person? Apart from violating the universal human right to life, such a valuation would fail to take account of the rights of older people and the important roles played by older people. Older people should have equal access to all services and the means to resettle, and their specific needs relating to shelter, nutrition, health and mobility must be taken into account. A principal problem for many displaced persons concerns legal identity papers as many IDPs suffer the loss or theft of their papers in natural hazards or conflict situations. One of the first exercises of humanitarian agencies is, therefore, to register people and issue them with some form of ID. In such circumstances, older people will often need additional help, as they frequently have never been issued these legal documents, including a birth certificate. The absence of such papers should not be used to deny their entitlement to services and assistance. Much of the discrimination facing older people in general, especially those in developing countries, is connected to the lack of proof of active citizenship. Human rights discourse is fundamentally based on the idea of citizenship and the rights of the individual to seek support and protection from their state. Under these circumstances, having a legal piece of paper that attests to one’s status as a citizen is essential for basics such as the right to vote, access to social security and the freedom of movement within one’s own country. Older people without legal papers therefore face particular problems. Issues

10 Legal Protection of the Vulnerable: the Case of Older IDPs relating to property and inheritance rights come into play in the relocation of returnees. Illiterate older people are particularly vulnerable under these circumstances. It is essential that appropriate action be taken to ensure that the rights of older IDPs are not abused or manipulated by authorities or other family members. More must be done to guarantee the security of IDPs upon relocation or return and to provide IDP Bulletin compensation for the losses they have incurred. The negligence of governments and the international community to include and address older people as equal citizens in times of displacement has serious consequences for the ability of older people to effectively exercise their rights. This is related to the extent to which older people’s rights are respected, prior to the emergency, by the community, by the family and indeed by themselves. Poverty and social exclusion play an important role in determining an older people’s ability to exercise his or her rights. It is fundamental that human rights legislation is applied equally to all persons and that the discrimination faced by older people, often as a result of the negative stereotypes of old age, is addressed in a way that guarantees equal access to assistance, opportunity and development for all. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement clearly state that no discrimination of any kind, including age, should influence the delivery of relief operations and the Principles make explicit mention of ‘the elderly as entitled to protection and assistance required by their conditions, and to treatment which takes into account their special needs’. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to older persons as much as to anyone else. It may be asked, however, whether or not the application of this declaration across age groups is universal. Older people are covered under international humanitarian law, and the Geneva conventions (1949) make specific mention of them. However, they do not figure as a ‘vulnerable’ group in the additional protocols (1977), and thus they may not receive special attention, unlike women, children and the disabled. Implicitly, older people could be part of two of these protocols but explicit reference would have to be made to older people, and action monitored and reported on, so that their needs and participation are not sidelined. Issues related to older persons and aging should be higher on the humanitarian – both relief and development – agenda. The UN has been concerned with aging since the First World Assembly on Aging in Vienna in 1982 when the UN adopted the Plan of Action on Aging. In 1991 the UN drew up a set of Principles for Older Persons to which a number of governments have signed. The UN also designated 1999 as the International Year for Older Persons. However, the Principles are not yet legally binding and a true commitment from member states to implementing them has been slow. In April 2002, a new International Plan of Action on Aging was agreed at the Second World Assembly on Aging in Madrid. The challenge now is to ensure that governments meet the commitments made in Madrid. As those who stand to be most affected, older people and their organizations have a vital role to play in getting their governments to act on the recommendations set out in the Plan, and in monitoring progress. The Plan does not commit governments or the international community to providing additional resources for implementation so this requires ensuring that resources are made available from in-country poverty reduction programmes.

11 IDP Bulletin

Brief Summary of Working Groups’ Meetings:

Meeting of the Working Group III on Economic and Social Issues of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides 25 June, 2002, Tbilisi

The last meeting of the Working Group III on Economic and Social Issues of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides was held on 25 June 2002 in Tbilisi. The meeting was attended by the Minister of Special Affairs Mr. Malkhaz Kakabadze for the Georgian side, Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Beslan Kubrava for the Abkhaz side and UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator Mr. Lance Clark. The following issues were discussed and agreed: (1) the gradual development of health care in Abkhazia - it was agreed that the Abkhaz side would provide proposals on the gradual development of the health care in Abkhazia taking into account the needs of Gali region; (2) the endorsement of the proposal on the treatment of children suffering from heart diseases – the sides agreed to conduct cardiac surgery for children suffering from heart diseases; (3) the endorsement of the sport proposal for youth in the conflict zones and adjacent territories – the sides endorsed the proposal and asked UNDP to assist in its finalization and to initiate consultations with potential donors; (4) the endorsement of the second part of the telecommunications project – the sides adopted mutually agreed points to be included in the second part of the telecommunications project, and expressed their gratitude to the German Embassy in Georgia and UNDP for their active support; (5) the endorsement of the proposal for the development of Zugdidi and electricity infrastructure - sides agreed to submit documentation for the development of Zugdidi and Sukhumi city electricity infrastructure within 2 weeks to the Working Group III, and afterwards approach UNDP to initiate consultations with donors on possible funding; (6) project on summer vacations for Abkhaz and Georgian children at the Artek summer camp in Ukraine; (7) Teaching in in Gali district schools was discussed - Georgian will be introduced as the language of instruction in 1-6 grades of Georgian schools of Gali region; the immediate translation of history and geography textbooks (following the Abkhaz curriculum) into Georgian to be initiated; (8) the endorsement of the proposal on publishing the poem “The Knight in Panther’s Skin” in the – the sides endorsed the project on publishing this poem for pre-school and elementary school children. Sides agreed to discuss the issue of publishing the works of famous Abkhaz writers in Georgian. A follow up meeting will be scheduled during the fall of 2002.

Meeting of the Working Group II on Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides 20 July, 2002, Chuburkhindji

The meeting of the Working Group II on Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides took place on 20 July 2002 in Chuburkhindji. The meeting was presided over by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Representative

12

IDP Bulletin

Brief Summary of Working Groups’ Meetings:

Meeting of the Working Group II on Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides 20 July, 2002, Chuburkhindji

Ms. Catherine Bertrand, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General Ms. Roza Otunbayeva, Minister of Special Affairs Mr. Malkhaz Kakabadze for the Georgian side and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Sergey Shamba for the Abkhaz side. Representatives of military observers of UN Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Peace-keeping Forces (PKF), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) were also present at the meeting. The following issues were discussed: the implementation of the recommendations of the Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) in Gali district (November 2000), particularly related to security; an update on UNHCR’s school rehabilitation project; and registration issues. In order to assess the security situation and activate recommendations to improve security, both sides decided to request UNOMIG to invite a group of international experts. After the completion of the work by these experts, discussions on registration issues can begin. It was decided to include one representative from each – (Georgian and Abkhaz) delegation that participates in the Quadripartite meetings to enhance activities related to monitoring and solving issues and problems of the returned population in Gali District. UNHCR has worked in close coordination with and on the basis of requests from the concerned authorities in Gali District. UNHCR assessed construction needs for school rehabilitation activities that are supplied to the local school committees. These committees have been established for this purpose to enable them to undertake the rehabilitation work on a self-help basis. This maximizes the utilization of community skills and labour. The rehabilitation assistance began in 2001 in Gali District and covered 24 schools, assisting more than 4300 students. . In addition, 1200 children benefited from the distribution of school kits. Taking into account the success of these works, Working Group III endorsed the expansion of the project to other parts of Abkhazia during its April session. As a result, 49 of the most needy schools were identified with the assistance of UNOMIG and other interested actors - 8 schools are from Gali district and 41 schools are from other regions of Abkhazia, (e.g. , Gudauta, , Sukhumi, and ). UNHCR supports an inter-agency cooperative approach. As a part of this initiative, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) agreed to make some 2002 funds available and channel through UNHCR. It is expected that approximately 3000 primary school aged children from the most affected areas will benefit from this assistance. UNICEF is also planning the distribution of recreational kits.

Meeting of the Working Group I of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides 20 July, 2002, Chuburkhindji

The meeting of the Working Group I of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides took place on 20 July 2002 in Chuburkhindji. The session was chaired by Major General Kazi Ashfak, the UNOMIG Chief Military Officer. The meeting was attended by the Minister of Special Affairs, Mr. Malkhaz Kakabadze, for the Georgian side, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sergey Shamba, for the Abkhaz side and Major General Alexander Evteev who commands the CIS PKF.

13 Brief Summary of Working Groups’ Meetings:

IDP Bulletin

Meeting of the Working Group I of the Coordinating Council of the Georgian and Abkhaz Sides 20 July, 2002, Chuburkhindji

The agenda included a whole spectrum of security and confidence building measures in the Kodori Gorge, as well as discussion of the situation in the security zone. The Georgian side stated its fulfillment of all obligations set by the Protocol of the meeting of the Georgian and Abkhaz sides in Sukhumi on 29 March 2002. In addition, the Georgian side informed the attendees of the substantial decrease in the number of Georgian border guards in the upper part of the Kodori Gorge. The Georgian side also announced that before the end of the month it would be ready to withdraw three mortars and ammunition that were left in the village after the withdrawal of the troops of the Georgian Ministry of Defence. The Abkhaz side agreed that the activities conducted under the aegis of UNOMIG, in particular the resumption of Kodori Gorge patrolling by UNOMIG and CIS PKF, would facilitate the stabilization of the situation. However, the Abkhaz side considered the existence of Georgian border guards and armed reservists in the Kodori Gorge as the violation of existing agreements, including the Moscow Agreement on the Ceasefire and Separation of Forces of 14 May 1994. According to the Abkhaz side, the establishment of UNOMIG and CIS PKF permanent check-points in the upper Kodori and the full demilitarization of the Gorge would strengthen and improve mutual trust. The discussions from this meeting are to be followed up later in 2002.

14 IDP Bulletin

IDP Statistics:

UNHCR Data as of 31 June 2002 IDPs from Abkhazia

SUKHUMI GAGRA GALI GUDAUTA GULRIPSHI OCHAMCHIRE SUKHUMI TKVARCHELI Total DISTR. 478 752 95 1690 1022 1752 799 100 6688 81 63 12 92 139 159 29 9 584 3836 3331 1223 4505 7816 5206 4124 539 30580 161 173 266 216 121 182 70 12 1201 KARTLI 235 339 45 282 429 436 295 49 2110 KVEMO 2334 1230 459 1766 1727 1293 836 269 9914 KARTLI - 78 129 120 218 172 226 19 24 986 MTIANETI RACHA- 307 39 76 70 146 186 325 20 1169 LECHKHUMI SAMEGRELO 3402 54462 1000 10566 13371 13169 4858 1241 102069 SAMTSKHE- 185 565 51 475 284 318 352 40 2270 JAVAKHETI TBILISI 10357 16216 2243 12489 10992 28029 6502 805 87633 Total 21454 77299 5590 32369 36219 50956 18209 3108 245204

IDPs from Districts of South Ossetia

TSKHINVALI ZNAURI Total 9663 2272 205 12140

Useful Links Brookings/SAIS Project on Internal Displacement www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/fp/projects/idp/idp.htm

Guiding Principles On Internal Displacement (in Arabic, Burmese, Chinese, French, Georgian, Portuguese, Russian, Sgaw Karen and Spanish) www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/principles_lang.htm

Norwegian Refugee Council's Global IDP Project www.idpproject.org

ReliefWeb - project of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) www.reliefweb.int

Internal Displacement Unit, OCHA www.reliefweb.int/idp/

Forced Migration Review, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford www.fmreview.org

Produced by OCHA-Georgia. For more information, please contact Coordination Assistant Ms. Tamuna Tsivtsivadze Tel/Fax: 99532-959516; Tel: 99532-943163; e-mail: [email protected] Contributions are welcome to OCHA-Georgia Office at UN House, 9 Eristavi St., Tbilisi 380079, Georgia

15