OCHA Situation Report
Georgia
Humanitarian Situation and Strategy 2004
20 November 2003


Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

I.  OVERVIEW

Rationale and Objectives

The Georgia Humanitarian Situation and Strategy 2004 Document was prepared
by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA) Office in Tbilisi. It is based on interviews, consultations, and
inputs from donors, UN agencies, local and international NGOs, Government
officials, and other international and bilateral organisations. The
Document is meant to provide a range of views and opinions for proposed
actions in the highlighted programming sectors. The recommendations
included herein are not necessarily those of the UN/OCHA, but represent
the collective recommendations of those involved actively in these areas.

In the absence of the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) since 1997, and in
response to the Georgia-specific situation of extended emergency, in late
2002 OCHA initiated a review of humanitarian issues and actions to be
developed into a strategic document. One impetus for this initiative was
the widespread perception of reduced funding for humanitarian assistance,
while at the same time several assessments and reports indicated
increasing vulnerabilities and humanitarian needs throughout the country.
The Document has aimed at assisting donor agencies and other international
organizations, as well as the Government, in their strategic planning,
fundraising, advocacy and other efforts on behalf of the vulnerable
population in Georgia in 2003. It has also aimed at spurring further
debate, discussion, and action on the issues and recommendations contained
herein.

The Document was presented at the Georgia Humanitarian Situation and
Strategy 2003 Conference convened in February 2003. It has been in general
well received by humanitarian and other relevant players and has become a
solid reference document. Its impact has been observed in raised awareness
among international community in priority areas. It has also demonstrated
more coordinated analysis and planning. In the aftermath of the first
Conference, some recommendations have been materialised in programme
modifications, e.g. in increased attention to the needs in Abkhazia or
some progress in addressing pertaining children issues.

As agreed by participants at the February Conference, OCHA prepared the
present document to accompany Georgia Humanitarian Situation and Strategy
2004 Conference on 18 November 2003. The objectives of the 2004 Document
are similar to the previous one. The Document, however, reflects the
perceived changes in the humanitarian context in Georgia.

Conceptual Context

Georgia today, almost a decade after its complex emergency period in the
mid-1990s, still presents outstanding challenges from a humanitarian point
of view. Upon the end of the civil war in Georgia, as of 1994, the
international community started providing massive relief aid, in parallel
with some development-oriented support. Humanitarian and development aid
had been blended, suggesting the complexity of the situation in Georgia.

Since the mid-1990s, the international community has been gradually
shifting away from humanitarian into more transitional/developmental
programmes, reflecting the changes in the society and perceived
priorities. However, the humanitarian needs have persisted: in most recent
years they are no longer considered to be declining and the context of
Georgia became and has remained the one of extended emergency. Mediation
attempts by the international community to reach peace agreements and
security arrangements in the conflict areas have been largely
unsuccessful. This, compounded with a limited progress in political and
economic reforms and achievements, e.g. in establishing full democracy or
transition into market economy, did not enable the creation of necessary
preconditions for a full-scale development model in Georgia.

Interpretations differ over who is vulnerable and why in Georgia. Some
beneficiaries belong to the more traditional relief types, such as
conflict-affected persons, i.e. refugees, IDPs and their host communities,
returnees, or victims of natural disasters, such as droughts and
earthquakes. On the other hand, there are other humanitarian-related
vulnerable persons, the product of Georgia's painful prolonged
"transition" and recovery from socio-economic collapse, compounded with
lack of expected progress in development efforts. Many are victims of
weakened or at times virtually non-functioning state welfare related
services - the Governmental structures are not able to provide the
necessary range and level of social welfare and other protection or
assistance. Most are simply poor, and among them many are extremely poor.

The overall poverty and lack of appropriate access to food, or social and
health services, make some strata of the population particularly
vulnerable. Among those most at risk are the single and other elderly
without adequate support structure; the institutionalised children and
elderly, prisoners, and persons with disabilities; families with large
number of children or families whose member suffers a chronic disease.
Furthermore, on the next vulnerability level are, to a varying extent,
subsistence farmers, the unemployed, and a good part of those who are
somehow employed but earn little more than for bare survival. In addition,
a sub-group of those vulnerable live in more isolated mountainous areas,
often cut off completely for long winter months, and whose access to any
services can be limited or none. They are all potentially destitute: over
half of the population of Georgia live below the poverty line and in the
Georgian context it is difficult to assume they will develop additional
coping mechanisms on their own any time soon. Until such time that the
Governmental structures can provide essentially required services to its
population, or systemic changes alleviate their problems, the
vulnerability of the population of Georgia remains of humanitarian concern
to the international community.

The beneficiary caseload in Georgia today is a mixture of more broadly
understood humanitarian-related groups, some of whom still are highly
dependent and require targeted relief aid. But others require more
proactive grass-roots approach, self-help schemes, community mobilisation,
or income and employment generation projects. These should address,
together with their basic needs, the underlying causes of their
vulnerability. To adequately respond to the complexity of challenges of
Georgian humanitarian plight, it is important to reiterate the need to
promote creative approaches and concerted efforts to link in a more
substantive manner humanitarian and development programmes.

This approach should help lift the more viable cases from their desperate
situation and at the same time help prevent potential further fall from
poverty into destitution. On the other hand, systemic capacity building
and reforms are to be encouraged at all society levels. The international
community and the Government have already exerted efforts to create
conditions for a national-level dialogue and provide longer-term solutions
to the root causes of some of these situations, as well as to reduce the
likelihood of increased numbers of vulnerable cases in the immediate
future. These strategies are important as they should help bridge the gap
between populations and assistance efforts, and can have the most impact
in these peoples' lives. Perhaps the most important in the long run are
the expected achievements related to the implementation of the Economic
Development and Poverty Reduction Programme (EDPRP).

Interestingly, while discussing the links between humanitarian and
development programmes, some respondents have suggested that there should
also be, separate from a humanitarian one, a "development strategy
conference", to assist donors and international community in better
analysis and planning of development programmes in Georgia.

This document begins with a summary of overall conclusions and those of
the four priority areas identified by the participants in the consultation
process. These four areas include: Special Populations (Elderly, Children,
Persons with Disabilities), IDPs, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Food
Security. It then reviews the roles and capacities of various actors in
Georgia. An overview of the 2003 situation follows, with the section that
highlights some of the significant programmatic and funding trends, and
then discusses the main operational challenges confronting aid
organizations. The rest of the document focuses on highlighted issues and
actions for 2004: cross-cutting themes are first presented, followed by
the four priority areas described in detail, including a contextual
analysis, a summary of current strategies, and recommended priority
actions for 2004.

Summary of Recommendations (2004)

Some highlighted recommendations cut across sectors, whereas others are
more specific to one of the four priority areas. The crosscutting
recommendations include to:

1.  Ensure mobilisation of adequate funding for a well-targeted assistance
to extremely vulnerable and marginalised individuals/households throughout
Georgia, including conflict areas: Certain segments of the impoverished
Georgian society are especially vulnerable or have special humanitarian
needs, which the Government is unable to effectively address at present.
Among these population strata are single and isolated elderly without
support structure, the institutionalised persons, poor multi-children and
single-mother families, or those with chronic diseases. These populations
continue to face significant challenges in meeting their basic daily needs
and are unable to cope with their situations without external support.
Adequate advocacy efforts should be exerted on their behalf and funding
mobilised to support well-targeted assistance.

2.  Effectively apply the needs-based concepts of vulnerability to
humanitarian assistance or other programming, and improve data collection
and analysis. International community implementers have already largely
shifted to needs-based targeting. The Government has made important policy
steps toward legally appropriating such practices, although many of those
have yet to be applied. The Government's capacity for data collection and
analysis should be further strengthened to provide more accurate and
reliable information, and thus better assist decision-making processes.
The international community should consider funding a comprehensive
independent household survey study to the benefit of all humanitarian and
development actors.

3.  Bring specific programming gaps to the attention of donors: It has
been commonly perceived that there is a need for much broader and more
urgent support to basic rehabilitation of essential shelter/infrastructure
in particularly vulnerable geographical areas, such as South Ossetia,
parts of Abkhazia, or in collective centres hosting IDPs in Samegrelo,
Imereti and Tbilisi City. Living conditions are appalling in a large
number of locations, which constantly threatens those populations' safety,
hygiene and health status. Priority locations should be kindergartens,
schools, health facilities, and collective accommodation premises. Also,
there is a need for systematic addressing the absence of basic social and
health outreach services for the especially vulnerable population residing
in particularly isolated and 'forgotten' areas. Finally, there is a
noteworthy scarcity of psycho-socially oriented programmes, in particular
for the vulnerable groups, or for the population affected by conflicts,
including IDPs.

4.  Promote and expand linkages between humanitarian and
rehabilitative/developmental programming: To effectively deal with the
complexity of challenges of Georgian humanitarian plight, it is important
to reiterate the need to promote simultaneous efforts along the
relief-development continuum, encourage creative approaches and exert
concerted efforts to link in a more substantive manner humanitarian and
development programmes. This approach should help lift the more viable
cases from their desperate situation through proactive grass-roots
approach, self-help schemes, community mobilisation, or income and
employment generation projects to address, together with their basic
needs, the underlying causes of their vulnerability. At the same time, it
will help prevent further fall from poverty into destitution. Linking
actors and strategies from both ends is vital to ensure continuity of
strategic approaches and effective interventions. Focused efforts should
be made to include these groups into broader poverty reduction and social
assistance schemes, such as the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction
Programme (EDPRP).

5.  Support concerted efforts to facilitate and expedite a peaceful
resolution to the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to help
stabilize the situation in Georgia. Georgia cannot fully develop its
potentials until the resolution is found to its prolonged conflicts,
including a durable solution for the internally displaced. Its population
at large will continue to be affected by lingering effects related to the
unresolved status of the two territorial conflicts, in particular the
displaced people. All efforts towards conflict prevention but also towards
a peaceful settlement should be jointly made by the international
community in this regard.

6.  Continue capacity building efforts toward strengthening national
institutions, especially health and social services, and strengthening
civil society to support and protect vulnerable populations. The
Government, which has the primary responsibility for care and protection
of its vulnerable populations, has remained weak and insufficiently
financed to provide the range of services and assistance required by the
most vulnerable to cover their basic needs and rights. Simultaneous
support is required for strengthening civil society and NGOs to complement
the Government in responding to such challenges.

Among the recommendations more specific to a priority area are:

1. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs):

   Study in detail the legal and social situation of IDPs in South Ossetia
   and Abkhazia, the response of local authorities and the unattended
   needs.

   Support various income generation activities for unemployed IDPs in
   order to contribute further to self-reliance and self-sufficiency for
   the IDP community in Georgia.

   Find long-term and durable solutions to IDPs' living conditions, before
   they are able to return in safety and dignity.

   Raise awareness on IDP rights among IDPs themselves, Governmental
   offices and international community.


2. Abkhazia and South Ossetia

   Continue to facilitate international and local efforts to bring a
   peaceful settlement in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

   Review the humanitarian situation and address the existing gaps, with
   priority given to the health sector.

   Support, to a much larger extent, rehabilitation of basic
   infrastructure and private dwellings.

   Increase income and employment generating activities.


3. Special Populations (Elderly, Children, Persons with Disabilities)

   Action groups to be formed by international community to address
   jointly with the Government and civil society the pressing issues of
   special populations (Elderly, children, persons with disabilities,
   respectively).

   Mainstream older people's needs and participation into all development
   interventions. Increase information and awareness of the desperate
   plight of isolated elderly.

   Health services that specifically address older peoples needs should be
   developed, attention should paid to the home care services and
   psychosocial counseling for older people.

   Focus on gate-keeping and de-institutionalisation of children.

   Redirect funds from institutions to community-based services for
   children.

   Improve and fund services and care for the persons with disabilities.

   Promote employment and education opportunities for the persons with
   integration into education system.


4. Food Security

   Increase funding for recovery/rehabilitative and development programmes
   targeting subsistence farmers.

   Support for the Ministry of Agriculture's Strategy for the Sustainable
   Development of Agriculture and the Food Security of Georgia for
   2003-2005.

   Improved data collection for food security and early warning system.

   Enhance the budget for current strategies in relief and social welfare
   protection.


II.  ROLES AND CAPACITIES

The principle role in providing protection and care for the affected
populations, and in creating conditions for effective delivery of relief
throughout Georgia, belongs to the Georgian Government. The Ministries
involved in assisting the population are normally the Ministry of Refugees
and Accommodation, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Ministry of
Education, and the Ministry of Labour, Health, and Social Affairs. In
addition, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance have
responsibilities toward humanitarian activity in the country, e.g. the
registration of NGOs or decisions on the legal status of imported
commodities. In cases of natural disasters or emergencies, the Ministry of
Construction and Urbanization and the Ministry of Interior's Department of
Extreme Situations and Civil Defence, as well as some other Governmental
district or municipal bodies from the affected area, may become involved.

UN agencies, the ICRC, the NGOs, the OSCE and some other international
organisations active in Georgia have the competencies and capacities to
complement the Government in addressing the country's humanitarian and
related needs. The Red Cross movement and the non-governmental community
are key actors in relief and related assistance throughout the country.
These organizations represent a professional body of expertise, with
office networks across the country, and an invaluable knowledge of the
situation on the ground and beneficiary needs.

The UN humanitarian actors include UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF, UNDP, and OCHA.
Among others, the UN goals incorporate support to Georgia's population in
the consolidation of country-wide peace, advancement of democracy and
human rights, and the poverty reduction strategies. More specifically, the
UN agencies provide assistance and expertise in the following sectors:
human rights, conflict resolution, conflict prevention, relief assistance,
support to social, health and education sectors, children's issues,
economic development, food security, disaster preparedness and response,
etc.

The ICRC provides assistance and expertise in the following areas: food,
non-food items, medical, water and sanitation, shelter, psychological and
legal counselling, orthopaedic and orthotic services, TB control programme
in prisons, visits to detainees, re-establishing family links of the
missing persons, and promotion of international humanitarian law. ICRC
with its assistance programmes works primarily in Abkhazia and Samegrelo,
and throughout the country with some other programmes. The International
Federation, which suspended its operations in Georgia in late 2001 due to
continuing problems with the Georgian Red Cross Society, has resumed
limited support in the field of capacity building of the former.

Over 20 international NGOs and over 4,000 registered local NGOs provide
assistance and expertise in the following areas: protection, rule of law
and human rights, food, agriculture, shelter and non-food items, health,
water and sanitation, education, mine clearance, and economic recovery.
Most international NGOs are based in Tbilisi, although their activities
cover large part of the country. Some base their headquarters or maintain
field offices in the regions. Many have been operational in Georgia since
the early 1990s and have exceptional experience and institutional
memories. International NGOs are a vital resource for a country facing
extended transitional difficulties and arrested development, offering a
support base to local NGOs and assisting with capacity building and
growth. Community mobilisation projects, and grassroots civil society
structures are also part of a social coping network for the vulnerable
people.


III.  2003 SITUATION - OVERVIEW

A.  Programming and Funding

After the 1996 peak, the humanitarian funding had been steadily annually
decreasing until 2000, when the increase occurred in response to the
drought. The humanitarian funding trends have since then been similar or
even on slight increase by some donors, partly reflecting the perceived
modest rise in humanitarian needs. The somewhat reverse trends reflect
recognition by many that the hopeful assumptions of Georgia's development
prospects and reducing vulnerability of the late 1990s were too
optimistic, and that considerable humanitarian needs had not been met. In
2003, some major donors have increased their humanitarian funding, while
other actors announced expansions of programmes targeting food insecure
and vulnerable households. Other donors, notably USAID, have made a policy
shift to development programmes, thus significantly reducing the funding
for humanitarian programmes.

ECHO in 2001 closed its office in Georgia, which had a negative impact and
indeed resulted in temporary suspension of some programmes of
European-based NGOs. However, following assessments indicating
considerable unmet needs, ECHO in late 2002 announced Euro 1.3 million in
funding for humanitarian assistance in the conflict-affected regions of
western Georgia and Abkhazia. This support aimed primarily at targeting
vulnerable elderly and destitute households with food assistance, income
generation activities and canteen support, through programmes implemented
by ICRC and ACH. Upon another assessment mission in early 2003, ECHO
decided to allocate Euro 2.2 million under the 2003 budget.

In addition to its programmes, after a series of assessments in 2001 in
western Georgia, ICRC began a large, multi-year assistance programme to
provide food and health assistance for the 5% most destitute individuals
or households, restarting the programme which had been phased out in 1995.
This programme began in mid-2002, and represented a 36% budgetary increase
from 2001 to 2002 for ICRC. In 2003, ICRC continued its programmes with a
slightly lower budget. As per the latest field assessments, it is unlikely
that ICRC will be able to exit quickly from its assistance programmes.

WFP in the mid-1990s expected to phase out by end of the decade. However,
a series of assessments in 1999 and 2000 confirmed continued food security
gaps requiring assistance. In 2003, WFP commenced its new three-year
protracted relief and recovery programme, the largest one yet in Georgia.
The programme consists of food assistance for vulnerable individuals and
institutions, but much larger component addresses recovery in rural areas
through food-for-work activities in poorest regions of the country.

A non-traditional donor, British Petroleum (BP), granted in 2003 US$ 5
million to CARE and Mercy Corps for community mobilisation and development
activities targeting the populations situated along the route of the
proposed pipeline. These programmes are essentially similar to US AID
funded GCMI programmes implemented by the same two NGOs, but represent a
significant additional contribution to community mobilisation efforts in
Georgia. It should be noted that BP is apparently committed to provide
longer-term investment support in Georgia through international NGO
structure. Although this may not necessarily reflect the major donors'
contributions, a number of US and Western European-based NGOs reported
increased individual funding in 2003, mostly in development sector.
However, the overall trend estimates are not so optimistic for the coming
year.

B.  Operational Challenges -- Constraints to Effective Assistance

The issues presented below are those most widely voiced as the most common
and significant operational challenges in 2003, calling for further debate
and discussion.

Appropriate Targeting: The issue of appropriate targeting and the lack of
refined vulnerability criteria is still reported as an obstacle to
organisations trying to direct limited resources to the most vulnerable.
In addition to that, endemic corruption as well as people's general sense
of entitlement, also complicate attempts to reach the most needy. However,
the general trend shows some more understanding from the Government's side
that proper and continuous targeting is a programme necessity, which has
been manifested also in positive policy action. In response to the fact
that the official assistance categories often do not reflect reality, the
respective aid organisations have defined their own criteria that better
delineate the level of need among a given population. Georgia is
characterised by prolonged period of unresolved conflicts, lack of durable
solution to IDPs, and only limited number of returnees. Nonetheless, those
more directly affected by conflicts can no longer be considered more
vulnerable than others as categories, even though in the conflict areas
and areas of high concentration of IDPs reside proportionally a higher
number of the most vulnerable. The increasingly applied needs- or
means-based targeting vs. category-based targeting implies more extensive
monitoring, and thus financial and staff resources, making it at times too
costly and difficult to implement. This is of particular importance to the
Government bodies, which chronically have only scant resources allocated
for such activities. On the other hand, considering scarce assistance
resources, this approach is vital to ensure that those most in need are
the most likely to be assisted.

Absence of Accurate and Reliable Data: The aid community still is
confronted with inaccuracy and unreliability of statistical and research
data. There has been a lack of comprehensive household level studies that
would help target the most vulnerable in a given sector or region. It has
often been suggested that the interested parties should solicit an
independent international-led body which would carry out such assessment
to the benefit of the entire humanitarian and development community in
Georgia. Also, it appears that the available good quality surveys are not
sufficiently broadly utilised. The shortcomings of some of those -- even
if in general of high quality - are mainly that they were specific
donor-driven and did not necessarily cover the areas of interest to all
concerned. Also, many of such surveys cover only certain regions of the
country, or do not include conflict areas. Finally, the opinion of many is
that the Government should take the lead in efforts to improve accuracy,
reliability, and availability of statistics. This should help also the
Government officials themselves to better comprehend and articulate the
true level of needs, poverty incidence, or priorities across the country.
Donors are advised to look for ways and means to support the systematic
upgrading of the Government's capacity.

Dependency Syndrome: The issue of dependency syndrome in Georgia has been
repeatedly emphasised. It is believed that dependency has penetrated
practically all levels of Georgian society. The Government itself is
believed by many to be fundamentally dependent on external support for its
basic functioning. Some claim that it is the Government that has developed
a dependency, or at least, an over-reliance on the international community
to support its extremely needy population, while it focuses on
macroeconomic growth strategies. In the humanitarian field, many
organisations feel that beneficiaries have not really become dependent on
assistance, since the provided amount is often supplemental and not
significant enough. However, there are elements of dependency at the
beneficiary level as well.

Complexity of Response in Georgia: Georgia remains a volatile and
unpredictable country, of complex scenarios, characterised by a number of
intricate factors presenting important challenges to planners and
analysts. Most respondents have confirmed that humanitarian needs have
persisted and that conditions for a full-scale shift to development have
not been met, the main factors in play being slow progress in recovery and
development as well as the unresolved conflicts. The very term
"transition", overused to describe and define the situation of Georgia,
has been commonly disputed of late. Georgia is rather considered a more
chronically weak, poor, traumatised country, which has made some very
important achievements after independence and has a lot of potentials, but
in general has murky prospects of quick recovery. Since, however, the
country is not considered to be in an acute emergency, the focus remains
on broadened development actions. But it should not be ignored that some
groups or individuals are truly dependent on assistance owing to their
particular situation and vulnerability. Well-targeted assistance is and
will be required for them. Nonetheless, all efforts to discontinue relief
aid to those who are able to work, and to engage them in productive and
self-reliance activities should be instigated, so as to support them in
utilising their capacities.

Special Basic Infrastructure Rehabilitation Needs: The definition of
humanitarian aid and needs has been one of the controversial issues. It
has perhaps prevented international community from urgent action if the
problem is not perceived as a humanitarian, therefore emergency issue.
More concretely, the stretching of definitions of humanitarian aid needs
to be considered by donors when discussing possible support to basic
rehabilitation of essential shelter/infrastructure, in particularly
vulnerable geographical areas, such as parts of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, or in collective centres hosting IDPs in Samegrelo, Imereti and
Tbilisi City. For instance, the water supply, or sanitation conditions,
are appalling in large number of locations, many of which have been
totally devastated after years of poor maintenance. This constantly
threatens the hygiene and health conditions of the residents. Priority
locations should be kindergartens, schools, health facilities, and
collective accommodation premises. True to the matter, much of the
infrastructure throughout Georgia has been devastated and needs major
repairs, but the extent of dilapidation in the above-mentioned areas is
much higher and the needs more urgent.

Donor Frustration and Reaction: Many organisations have pointed out donor
fatigue (often qualifying it "acute"), as a rationale for funding
reductions of late, as well as those announced for the coming year. But it
has also been argued that it is not a real fatigue, since donors do
understand the situation, are willing and indeed do continue to assist
Georgia. Perhaps it is often instead a profound frustration with the
Government's performance. The deplorable status of revenue collection, for
instance, contributes to growing grey economy, and at the same time
prohibits the Government from investment into public spending. The level
of frustration with the central Government has led some donors to
progressively seek partnerships with local level administrations,
indigenous communities and local NGOs. Other donors, on the other hand,
still give high importance to strengthening support to better governance
practices, as the Government is ultimately responsible for providing
better services and for the overall well-being of the population. But the
Government is under increasing pressure from its key donors to act more
seriously on eradication of corruption, and to demonstrate more
responsibility, as well as more accountability to both its people and the
donor community.

Corruption: Endemic corruption continues to be a profound problem in
Georgia. It has deeply penetrated all spheres of social, economic,
political life. For the poor and destitute, who are the weakest parts of
society and usually have the least access to justice or recourse,
corruption practices can be yet more devastating. For instance, some
elderly pensioners must pay a bribe to receive monthly stipends, but other
examples of corruptive practices are to be found everywhere. Several
donors support various anti-corruption efforts and rule-of-law programmes,
including large-scale ones. In general, local and international
respondents feel that the focus of those programmes is in Tbilisi, or at
the central level. They suggest that much more attention should be given
to grass-roots level and to regions, so as to facilitate filtering down
some positive impact to poor and otherwise disadvantaged people. The
anti-corruption efforts should also consider ways to reduce the negative
impacts in the humanitarian context, such as corruption related to
stipends and registration, or pressure on NGO implementers throughout the
beneficiary targeting process.

Bureaucracy: Excessive bureaucracy of the Government structures and
perceived lack of commitment at various levels to support humanitarian
actors also frustrates some aid practitioners. Issues regarding taxation,
importation of goods, excessive auditing and inspections, or bank closures
have confronted many NGOs in past years. Due to the large number of
constraints, in 2002 several NGOs formed a consortium and hired a lawyer
to research actual tax liabilities and advocate collectively on their
behalf. Over 20 international NGOs have joined this consortium, which
continues operation to date. In 2003, NGOs and some other international
organisations reported difficulties with Government's new requests - e.g.
for new vehicle license plates or for translation to accompany importation
of drugs and medical equipment - which entailed UN and donor intervention.
So far, the new requirements have not resulted in any cancellation of
programmes, but such experiences have been time-consuming and have
increased the costs, which may eventually result in reduction of funding
available for aid. A separate problem has been at times access to conflict
areas, due to administrative procedures or other special demands imposed
by the respective de facto authorities. This is an ongoing problem, which
has been addressed also by the UN and some donors.

NGO Role: The Georgian population at large still does not commonly
understand the beneficial role that NGOs can play in society, and some
even perceive them as threats instead. The process of establishment of NGO
role in the society is, however, progressive. Local and international NGOs
also often indicated lack of regional and/or sectoral coordination. For
instance, some NGOs felt that donors sometimes focused too overwhelmingly
on the same area or sector, rather than spreading assistance throughout
the country, often to avoid additional costs or risks. NGOs often voiced
the desire to be more engaged with Government and donors regarding
strategies and technical assistance objectives. Others stressed the need
for stronger linkages between relief and development agencies to ensure
that as people or communities move off of humanitarian assistance, they
will be eligible for other community projects. Humanitarian practitioners
are interested to participate in discussions about inclusion of their
beneficiaries into longer-term developmental strategies. Local NGOs also
point out that the international community should exert more pressure on
the Government to improve its accountability in all sectors.

Security Considerations: Security concerns remain an important
consideration in both planning and implementation phases. These concerns
are not limited only to the organizations working in more notoriously
dangerous and otherwise insecure areas in recent years like Gali District
and parts of Abkhazia, Pankisi, or Svaneti and some parts of Samegrelo.
Even in large cities, such as Tbilisi, the international community has
continued to be victimized by instances of crimes, including car-jacking,
intimidation, office robberies, residence burglaries, kidnappings and
brutal attacks.


IV.  2004: ISSUES AND ACTIONS

Through the process of developing this document, the participants
identified four areas as those requiring priority attention in 2004:
Special Populations, IDPs, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Food Security.
Special working groups of the organisations concerned with these issues
met since October 2003 to identify the main problems in these areas,
analyse their causes, and develop recommendations for future action. As
noted above, the proposed recommendations reflect the respective groups'
opinions and are not necessarily those of the UN. The section below begins
by describing several themes and issues that cut across these areas, and
continues with the presentation of the findings and recommendations of the
four specific working groups.

A.  Crosscutting Themes and Issues

The prevailing sense of pessimism as to Georgia's grim prospects for
development has been prominent in both Georgian and international
respondents' comments on the year ahead. It has been felt that Georgia's
moderate economic growth has been captured by the elites, and has achieved
little to reduce the levels of poverty among the general population. In
fact, the incidence of poverty is growing and, moreover, the gap between
the rich and poor is on the rise. The "transition" has become an outdated
and outmoded term to describe the notable lack of anticipated progress,
and absence of viable strategies to move faster toward the progress.
Social welfare systems have failed to provide adequate support for the
most destitute and other entitled persons. The poor are increasingly
running out of any further assets to trade or coping mechanisms to escape
yet more poverty or fall into destitution.

At the same time, Georgia is among the world's most corrupted countries
(recent Transparency International report indicates Georgia is among 15%
of the most corrupted), and its tax revenue collection rates are among the
lowest in the world. Donors' frustration with the Government's performance
is intensifying and there are forceful indicators that donors are shifting
more and more from direct support to the Government toward community-based
or local administration partnerships. Furthermore, there is a strong
perception -- often clearly and publicly signalled among international
community and major donors - that Georgia should no longer take external
support for granted. The quality of Parliamentary elections in November
2003, for instance, could well serve as a defining determinant of the
quality of Georgia's international relations, related support and
development prospects, including integration processes of the country in
coming years (e.g. aspirations to join the European Union or NATO). The
above refers primarily to development-oriented support. It should be,
however, noted that any considerable reduction of external support to
Georgia may in turn have very serious repercussions on the humanitarian
situation in Georgia, as the Government's capacity to provide basic social
welfare services could shrink even further.

What is most worrisome at this stage is that a growing number of poor
people, who do not qualify as beneficiaries of direct relief assistance
programmes, are on the verge of destitution. While limited relief
assistance seems to be reaching the most vulnerable, there are others who
fall through the cracks because they may be in slightly better condition
but are still destitute or vulnerable, as they cannot fulfil their basic
needs. One of the most challenging tasks of the international community is
to successfully co-ordinate projects which would complement each other and
absorb ex-beneficiaries, where possible, into appropriate community
mobilization and self-reliance schemes, thus mitigating the adverse
effects of lack of other opportunities. Donors and implementers alike will
have to proactively look for more creative ways to better facilitate the
links between relief, rehabilitation, and development strategies and put
those in parallel where possible. Nonetheless, even if the above-suggested
scheme is effectively applied, there are vulnerable people who are not and
will not be able to be engaged in any of the transitional or development
projects. Others, even though able to work, may be too poor and thus not
have enough collateral to obtain a loan or participate in a group credit
scheme. These people require more particular attention.

In conclusion, well-targeted humanitarian assistance is still needed. In
the context of Georgia, it is unlikely that the overall economic growth
will sufficiently enhance the capacity of the Government to be able to
meet the needs of the most vulnerable populations any time soon. Even
under the best development scenario, it is predictable that the most
vulnerable will be dependant on external humanitarian support for some
years to come.

B.  Four Prioritised Areas

1.  Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

The plight and status of vulnerable and other IDPs in Georgia continue to
generate much debate. As per the official Government data, 262,000 persons
(7% of the population) who were displaced from the two ethnically fuelled
conflicts in South Ossetia (1989-1991) and Abkhazia (1992-1994), still
reside in Georgia proper, unable to return to their places of origin.
After more than 10 years of displacement, approximately 40% of IDPs
inhabit collective centres, only some of which were renovated several
years ago to serve as temporary dwellings, while a majority of the
remaining 60% continues to live in crowded conditions with host families.
A limited number of IDPs received private shelter with donor assistance,
but such approaches are costly and not widely applied.

When the acute IDP crisis struck, Georgia was ill-prepared to cope with a
completely new challenge. Initially, the Government's aid to IDPs was
purely relief-oriented, which made IDPs increasingly dependent, isolated
and in effect at risk of being further marginalised. The overriding
assumption that the IDPs would return home shortly gradually translated
into disregard of the IDPs' longer-term needs and full political rights.
Although the Government has recognized the IDPs' exposure to social and
economic disadvantages, owing to its meagre resources it has only been
able to run a specific IDP programme involving state allowances, free
electric and underground transport, limited amount (100kw/h) of
electricity per month and free public utilities for collective centre
resident IDPs.

IDPs, like other citizens, have their political, civil and socio-economic
rights. However, as the special category of the population, they are also
entitled to certain state benefits. Most of these benefits are envisaged
in the principal legal act that directly regulates IDPs' rights, "Law of
Georgia On IDPs -- Persecuted" of 1996. Although the IDP-related Georgian
legislation still has serious gaps, the core problem has been poor
enforcement of IDP rights due to the lack of the goodwill, chronic lack of
funds and outdated bureaucratic system of the State. Major obstacles also
are widespread misunderstandings and misinterpretations regarding IDP
rights amongst IDPs themselves, governmental offices and the international
community. In many cases, public servants and others working with IDPs are
either completely unaware of IDP rights or are dishonestly abusing these
rights.

Efforts to enforce IDPs' political and civil rights had long been
neglected, mainly because of political considerations. However, a major
progress has been achieved of late: at the November Parliamentary
elections, for instance, IDPs could for the first time exercise their
rights to passive (the right of a citizen to be elected as the President,
a member of the Parliament and the representative body of local
self-governance -- sakrebulo, a gamgebeli and a mayor) and active (the
right of a citizen to elect, as above) votes. On the other hand, IDPs
cannot exercise some of their social rights, e.g. right to own property
and related right to privatisation have been ignored and not protected.
The Governmental bodies fear that in case IDPs are entitled to privatise
collective centres, they will lose the incentive to return to their former
places of residence once conditions for return are met.

The temporary integration can still be considered a political issue. On
the one hand, the Government wishes to see IDPs temporarily settled in
places of their temporary residence. However, it prefers to do so without
entitling them to basic rights, e.g. right to privatise temporary
residences. Thus, temporary integration is prevented from growing into a
more stable and constant situation. On the other hand, many IDPs still
fear that the temporary integration may lead to the loss of their legal
right to return and loss of future compensation for lost property. Another
controversial point is the link between IDP status and IDP benefits. Of no
lesser importance is the question whether all IDPs without distinction
should be receiving benefits when there are many vulnerable locals who are
not assisted at all. IDPs are not a homogeneous group and their needs
differ. In many cases, IDP status is associated with social allowances
(such as financial, food and other types of aid) more than with IDPs' need
to these allowances and, what is more important, with their legal right to
repatriation. Even if more or less successfully employed IDP relinquishes
his/her right to state allowances, it would not be legally justified.

Majority of IDPs continue to demand effective services in support of
social and economic activities that would enhance their livelihoods while
displaced. The most prominent IDP demands are those for better housing,
employment opportunities, or improved health and education services. A
strong desire of majority of IDPs to move from the private sector to
collective centres has long been obvious, as they either can no longer
afford to pay rental or can no longer abuse hosts' hospitality. At the
same time, approximately 70% of collective centres do not meet minimum
living standards -- roofs are leaking, windows are broken, water
supply/sewage systems do not function, there is no access to safe potable
water in majority of buildings, there are constant problems with
electricity. The situation has been further deteriorated after the Tbilisi
earthquake in April 2002.

Some donor agencies perceive the privatisation of collective centres as
one of the solutions to IDPs problems. The positive side of this approach
is that after becoming bona fide owners of centres, IDPs will generate
increased feeling of responsibility towards the proper maintenance of
their residences. According to the official data from the Ministry of
Refugees and Accommodation (MRA), approximately 10% of all collective
centres are state owned, the rest are either privatised by private or
juridical persons or are recorded to be on the balance of various public
organizations. Although some donor funding for improvement of current
living conditions in collective centres is available, it is not at all
sufficient to cover basic needs. Majority of IDPs are still engaged in
petty trade and unskilled manual labour, lacking regular employment
opportunities. Most remain dependent on state allowances, since it
constitutes the sole monetised income for many of them. The state
allowance distribution is a recurring problem: long queues to collect
them, late transfers of allowances, rounding down of amounts, etc.

Quality healthcare service is largely inaccessible to IDPs, mainly because
of the high costs involved. Moreover, IDPs are often unaware of those few
benefits they are entitled to, e.g. there is a joint decree of the
Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs (MoLHSA) and the MRA
entitling certain groups of IDPs to the benefits of a state health care
policy, which makes overnight medical care, basic medicines and part of
in-patient treatment, if hospitalised, available to them free of charge.
It should be emphasized that apart from scarce interventions, no
comprehensive initiatives have been undertaken in the field of
psychosocial rehabilitation of IDPs. IDPs, like all citizens of Georgia,
are technically entitled to free psychiatric services, but these services
envisage only in-patient treatment and do not include psychological
counselling. Researches related to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder prove
that with a decisive impact on their economic activity, IDPs suffer from
depression and psychosomatic illnesses (e.g. alcoholism and suicide). The
change in traditional gender roles among IDPs (women becoming sole bread
winners) adversely impacted family structures. There have been
insufficient structures to assist women who have experienced trauma and
children with secondary traumatisation. Psychosocial problems, together
with hard socio-economic conditions, were named as main motives compelling
IDPs to increasingly migrate toward Tbilisi and from Georgia.

Pursuant to the "Law of Georgia on IDPs -- Persecuted", IDP children are
entitled to free education at secondary schools. However, there still are
problems with IDPs' access to education. Problems range from damaged
school buildings to shared schools, from lack of material resources (i.e.
textbooks) to lack of advanced training for teachers, from the poorest
status of parents to lack of attention towards children (e.g. parents who
spend most of the day working at the market do not have time to attend to
children's learning/developmental needs). In addition, in winter, IDP
families are compelled to share their firewood or kerosene to heat their
children's classrooms.

In light of the hard conditions faced by IDPs, UNDP, UNHCR, OCHA and the
World Bank have forged an innovate partnership to substantially improve
the lives of IDPs in Georgia and their host communities by reforming
government policy and supporting the transition from humanitarian
assistance to development centred activities. The "New Approach"
recognizes the inviolable right of IDPs to return to their homes in secure
conditions, as well as the right of IDPs to be treated in the same manner
as all citizens. Categorisation as an IDP need not result in social,
political and economic marginalisation. The New Approach, therefore,
favours the provision of humanitarian aid to IDPs only within the overall
context of vulnerability in Georgia; raising awareness within the
Government, the IDP community and society at large regarding possibilities
to more fully engage IDPs within the life of their present communities
without prejudice to their right to return; 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.

The New Approach, guided by emphasis on sustainable development, aims at
facilitating progress in each of the above priorities by: overcoming
legislative obstacles to the participation of IDPs in civil society;
creating capacity building programmes for IDPs; rationalising subsidies to
IDPs; implementing a comprehensive assessment of vulnerability, and
opening development-oriented assistance to the displaced. Joint UNDP/OCHA
Support Unit (SU), created by the decision of the New Approach donor
community, is undertaking monitoring and evaluation of activities of
project implementation processes of the Georgia Self-Reliance Fund, a
component of the New Approach joined by SDC and USAID; elaborating of the
public participation and awareness strategy for the New Approach to
increase the awareness of the society on its objectives and mechanisms, as
well as to ensure active involvement of various groups in the transparent
consultative processes; carrying out additional studies, surveys and
reports on educational profile of IDPs, financial instruments for
self-reliance (e.g. Study on IDP Rights; Working Paper on IDP
Vulnerability and Self-Reliance; etc.)

The prioritised recommendations for addressing the current IDP situation
in Georgia are the following:

   Effectively proceed with efforts to expedite and advance a peaceful
   resolution to the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Actively
   involve conflicting sides in confidence building and conflict
   resolution programmes. The protracted displacement and ensuing
   consequences will only be completely resolved after the displaced
   population starts to return to the places of origin.

   Study in detail the legal and social situation of IDPs in South Ossetia
   and Abkhazia, the response of local authorities and the unattended
   needs: There are almost no legal/social data on IDPs in South Ossetia
   and Abkhazia. Having information on their needs and responses
   undertaken so far to cover these needs will help key actors to better
   design programmes.

   Improve the "Law of Georgia on IDPs -- Persecuted" and approximate it
   to the "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement": The Law should
   include also ecological migrants, displaced as a result of natural or
   human-made disasters; IDP status should not be identified with the IDP
   state allowances, but with their legal right to return, etc.

   Support various income generation activities for unemployed IDPs: Since
   majority of IDPs are either solely dependent on the state allowance or
   are underpaid, various employment programs utilizing their skills and
   capacities, as well as envisaging their re-qualification, should be
   designed and supported. These activities should lead toward more
   self-reliance and self-sufficiency for the IDP community in Georgia.

   Find long-term and durable solutions to IDPs' living conditions before
   they are able to return in safety and dignity: Different approaches
   could be studied and tested to further address IDPs' accommodation
   problems, such as rehabilitation of collective centres, or assisting
   IDPs in privatising those after appropriate lobbying on the government
   level. More emphasis should be put on the maintenance of renovated
   buildings by active inclusion of collective centre residents in
   planning (i.e. pre-rehabilitation) and implementation (i.e.
   rehabilitation) of rehabilitation projects.

   Plan and undertake concrete steps to improve IDPs' access to affordable
   and quality healthcare and education; study psycho-social needs of IDPs
   and introduce psychological counselling for IDPs: Since medical
   treatment is connected with high expenses for all vulnerable and few
   health programmes explicitly target IDPs, health facilities of the
   Abkhaz Government in Exile (polyclinics, hospitals) could be better
   equipped and provided with relevant diagnostic means and medicines
   throughout Georgia; opening small medical points for IDPs at big
   collective centres and building capacity of IDP doctors/nurses who will
   be working there is also necessary. Programmes for IDPs suffering from
   psychological difficulties and related illnesses should be designed.
   Integrated approach could be used to improve IDPs' access to education
   -- starting from programmes providing IDP children with
   textbooks/clothes/footwear, including physical rehabilitation of school
   buildings, setting up libraries, organizing different circles for
   pupils, providing advanced trainings for IDP teachers.

   Ensure food provision to pre-school aged IDP children: Majority of
   pre-school IDP children suffer from chronic malnutrition. Special
   programmes should be launched to assist such children.

   Enhance support to the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation: This
   would improve the quality and accuracy of data processing, refine the
   state allowance distribution mechanism and obtain comprehensive
   demographic data on IDPs. Various data processed by the Ministry are
   widely used and quoted by international organizations in different
   publications or while planning future interventions. Thus, provision of
   accurate data should be of great importance for those who benefit from
   such service.

   Raise awareness on IDP rights among IDPs themselves, Governmental
   offices and international community; enforce and promote the
   implementation of existing IDP rights: Awareness raising campaign could
   be exercised through dissemination of various booklets/brochures,
   arrangement of workshops/seminars for IDPs and persons dealing with IDP
   caseload. Special enforcement mechanisms for rights implementation
   should also be in place, including measures to increase public
   servants' and other relevant persons' responsibility to honestly and
   fairly perform their duties with regard to IDPs.

   Introduce vulnerability criteria and consider them while designing
   effective assistance programmes for IDPs: This would differentiate IDP
   status from IDP benefit eligibilities and might generate some savings
   to the Government. Not receiving benefits should not mean relinquishing
   IDP status and hope to return.


2.  South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Similar to the rest of Georgia, international support until the mid-1990s
was relief-oriented in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Since then, relief
assistance has been reduced while modest transitional and development
projects have been introduced. The lack of progress, and by 2002 the
deadlock, in the political process has resulted in limited and inadequate
support for the populations in the two separatist areas. The international
community continues to exert efforts for a peaceful conflict resolution,
which also requires simultaneous efforts to address the basic needs of the
impoverished population.

The socio-economic situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is by all
accounts dismal. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its
centrally-planned economy, drastically reduced agriculture produce or
income from tourism, destruction during the ensuing civil wars, a major
natural disaster in South Ossetia, as well as the lack of maintenance and
general scarcity of funding, have devastated local industry and
infrastructure and brought the population to socio-economic and
psychological misery. Despite modest support from the international
community and some private investments, the situation remains precarious,
while poverty and despair grow.

Most official salaries are meagre, equivalent to US$ 5 -- 15, while
monthly pensions can be as low as US$ 1-2. These figures are lower than in
the rest of Georgia. Unemployment rates are very high, and survival
mechanisms are typically subsistence agriculture and petty trade. A large
part of the economy is in the shadow sector, often dangerously
criminalized. Poverty and lack of legal income and employment
opportunities result in increasing emigration, so that both areas face the
post-conflict depopulation and an aging non-productive population. The
local de facto authorities have no external donor support to their
respective budgets so they cannot financially encourage economic
activities or provide much social welfare support. Much of the population
thus remains doomed to poverty, while some segments of the population
remain highly dependent on international humanitarian support.

The assistance situation in both regions is not the critical emergency
that it had been in the period immediately following the two conflicts.
However, the existing humanitarian programmes are essential and some unmet
basic needs remain of humanitarian concern. Beyond humanitarian aid, there
is concern that rehabilitation and development activities are not
sufficiently promoted. Donors are reluctant to invest in development
programmes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Some of these considerations may
be political, but there is also genuine concern that such programmes may
be unwise or counterproductive when the situation remains unpredictable
and volatile (the violence in Gali in 1998 stands out as a reminder). Both
international community and the Government of Georgia consider Abkhazia
and South Ossetia territorially part of Georgia. The central Georgian
authorities have supported relief and humanitarian assistance to these two
regions in accordance with humanitarian standards. However, rehabilitation
programmes, and especially those that verge on development, raise concerns
with some Georgian authorities, as well as among some donors, as perhaps
constituting de facto strengthening, or recognition, of the separatist
regimes. Some rehabilitation and development projects have been supported,
usually through confidence building measures as part of peace
negotiations.

In spite of these rational and practical concerns, donors should be aware
that the needs in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are probably greater than in
the rest of Georgia, and with much less local capacity to address them.
Acute rehabilitation needs to benefit society at large and contribute to
dignified living conditions for the domicile and returnee population
exist. De facto authorities have little funding to invest in basic
infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, social welfare institutions,
and water and sanitation systems. There is also a great need to
rehabilitate private dwellings, especially in Sukhumi and in Eastern
Abkhazia. Such devastation is not conducive to potential returnees nor,
ultimately, to the peace-process itself.

Carefully targeted small-scale income and employment generation activities
are probably the most effective way of addressing some underlying causes
of basic needs. Local-level, participatory community projects aimed at
increasing opportunities for self-help and community building, while
preventing further de-capitalization and destitution, should be promoted.
A need to introduce targeted psychosocial programs has been repeatedly
highlighted by international and local interlocutors. Finally, proactive
efforts should continue in confidence building and civil society
development in the conflict areas.

Abkhazia Specific:

Specific to Abkhazia, there are additional concerns of the international
community such as the high-level of criminality and insecurity in some
areas. Moreover, an estimated 15,000 landmines are spread throughout
Abkhazia, which endangers humans and livestock, and restrict access to
peoples' land. The most complex security situation is in Gali District
where an estimated 40,000-60,000 IDPs have spontaneously returned or at
least seasonally returned to farm their lands, but where the
implementation of relief assistance or rehabilitative programming is
limited by these security concerns. Unfortunately, partly because of the
lack of rehabilitation on the most basic of infrastructure (i.e. schools,
health centres, houses, water, sanitation) and security concerns a good
number of these IDPs do not remain after the end of the summer. However,
as a number of returnees, between 30,000 and 40,000, are now residing
almost permanently in Gali District, and there is a broad understanding
that socio-economic conditions in Abkhazia are not improving, but rather
degrading for the most vulnerable strata of the population, some donors
have indicated more willingness to support infrastructure and small
community building projects. In late 2002 and throughout 2003, a somewhat
greater interest by donors to support projects in Abkhazia has been noted,
which resulted in launching or re-starting some important new programmes
and initiatives. Most importantly, this resulted in the reopening of the
office of Premiere Urgence in November 2002, while Accion contra el Hambre
reactivated its programme in January 2003, subsequently introducing two
other projects, one funded by SDC and another as implementing partner to
WFP.

South Ossetia Specific:

The conflict in South Ossetia has received much less exposure
internationally and even within Georgia. There is relatively free movement
enjoyed by both the Ossetian and Georgian populations in and out of South
Ossetia, as well as relative freedom of trade. Nonetheless, this region
has become more isolated lately. Limited international assistance and less
interest in the area have only further degraded the humanitarian situation
for the most vulnerable. The humanitarian situation continues to require
review by the international community. The state of civil society and
local NGO development in South Ossetia, compared even to Abkhazia, is much
weaker than elsewhere in Georgia. There has been, for quite some time, a
consensus among international humanitarian actors on the ground that
properly designed transitional assistance programmes could spur confidence
building, support and encourage return of IDPs/refugees, and promote
rapprochement at the political level. It is, therefore, essential, to
further raise awareness amongst donors to encourage appropriate assistance
to the region. Throughout 2002 and 2003, the trend has, however, been
quite the opposite. The deadlock in political negotiations, as well as
some misunderstandings between the local authorities and international
NGOs, have resulted in complete closure of most international NGOs and a
prolonged delay in implementation of planned projects by others. While
OSCE supports a range of activities in South Ossetia, and UNHCR and WFP
maintain some activities, it is noteworthy to point out that there is only
international NGO, i.e. ADRA, who currently has an office in South Ossetia
and who is working in the area of health matters relevant to the
humanitarian situation.

Challenges of Operating in the Conflict Zones:

There are many issues that challenge the work of the international
community when working conflict areas. Logistically, travelling to
Abkhazia is more complicated than to other parts of Georgia and the de
facto authorities there require "clearance" from the personnel of most
international organisations. The de facto authorities in South Ossetia
often show a strong interest and distrust to programming that is not
strictly humanitarian focused. This has led to some miscommunication
between some international organisations and the authorities and these
experiences have then in turn discouraged others from beginning programmes
in the area. The lack of international programming has kept the capacity
of the local NGO community at a very basic level. Another challenge of
working in Abkhazia is the difficulty in doing cross border programmes
between Abkhazia and Georgia proper. Some organizations have managed to
traverse the obstacles and have set up joint programmes, however, for many
others the difficulties prove too much. With South Ossetia, the parties at
the local level seem more willing to work together and the problems of
strict borders do not exist. These types of challenges, including security
concerns in parts of Abkhazia, can make the work more difficult in the
conflict zones but are not so limiting as to prevent organizations from
implementing programmes there.

The prioritised recommendations for addressing the current situation in
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are the following:

   Continue to facilitate international and local efforts to bring a
   peaceful settlement in South Ossetia and Abkhazia: The deadlock in both
   conflict resolution negotiations has only resulted in continued misery
   for the affected civilian populations. The longer these political
   standoffs remain, the greater the likelihood for continued humanitarian
   aid and needs of affected vulnerable groups on all sides of cease fire
   lines. Continued efforts to bridge the widening gap between opposing
   sides, such as confidence building measures, are necessary to keep
   negotiations open. Proactive conflict resolution efforts should focus
   more on socio-economic issues and promote contacts at all levels of the
   populations.

   Review the humanitarian situation and address the existing gaps, with
   priority given to the health sector: Current food and medical
   programmes are considered absolutely essential, and the situation
   requires constant monitoring. Attention is needed to reduce gaps in the
   medical sector, especially the lack of outreach services and the
   unavailability of particular drugs. Health professionals' training is
   often outdated.  Disease has a significant effect on households,
   especially vulnerable ones.

   Support, to a much larger extent, rehabilitation of basic
   infrastructure and private dwellings: Acute rehabilitation needs exist,
   especially in the Eastern regions of Abkhazia. Public infrastructure
   benefiting society at large, such as hospitals, schools, social welfare
   institutions, water and sanitation systems, and roads, suffer from war
   damage and years of poor maintenance. The de facto authorities in both
   South Ossetia and Abkhazia have insufficient financial resources to
   maintain these vital services. Many homes have also been destroyed or
   damaged from war or neglect, so that returnees and at times domicile
   population live in partial structures. Security and political
   considerations are important to review, yet concerted efforts to help
   rehabilitate basic infrastructure and homes will improve the depressed
   living atmosphere as well as create conditions more conducive to
   eventual return.

   Increase income and employment generating activities: In both areas,
   lack of income and employment opportunities is a central issue. The
   poor economic condition has caused an increase in poverty, which then
   is more threatening to already vulnerable groups since they do not have
   recourse to self-help schemes or other activities to help generate
   subsistence incomes. Populations are also becoming more inactive and
   less productive while forgetting their technical skills or educational
   experience from lack of utilization. Small-scale income generation and
   employment schemes are an effective way of addressing some of the
   underlying causes. The priority for such activities should be in the
   agricultural sector, as agricultural outputs are important means of
   survival in these areas. In South Ossetia there has been no income or
   employment generating activities attempted, while in Abkhazia this is
   only a most recent phenomenon.

   Consider more labour-based infrastructure and community mobilisation /
   development projects: As noted above, much public infrastructure is
   damaged and people have no real opportunities for income. Projects such
   as community-based infrastructure rehabilitation or Food-for-Work
   schemes would reduce some potential vulnerability and prevent further
   destitution while also repairing needed services or infrastructure.

   Encourage support to psycho-socially oriented projects aimed at
   addressing the various long-standing psychological problems related to
   the conflicts and their aftermath: Psychosocial rehabilitation projects
   are almost virtually non-existent in the areas, despite the fact that
   the populations (as well as IDPs elsewhere in Georgia) suffer from
   severe stress that manifests itself in a variety of psychological
   problems related both to the conflicts and their aftermath. The dismal
   socio-economic situation and present deadlock regarding a political
   settlement serve to compound these difficulties. Trans-generational
   psychological problems are also common, whereby parents transmit their
   stress to children, causing serious difficulties for the latter. These
   problems can manifest themselves in many ways, including
   hyper-activity, aggression, and introversion, all of which impact both
   within the family unit and on the education system. Failure to identify
   and assist those who require help now may result in longer-term
   familial and societal problems. Other programmes are needed to address
   at-risk groups such as the young and unemployed who can easily fall
   victim to crime, drugs, alcohol, and suicide.

   Coordinated support to civil society and local NGO development and
   sustainability: Local civil society in Abkhazia, and especially South
   Ossetia, is weaker than in other parts of Georgia because NGOs and
   other civil society actors have not had the training opportunities or
   programming experience that other NGOs have had. The role of civil
   society actors in environments transitioning from relief to
   rehabilitation helps meet individual or community needs that go
   unfulfilled by the de facto authorities. These resources should be
   developed further to also support the democratisation process in both
   areas. There should also be a focus by the international community on
   the creation and strengthening of the local capacity to address local
   humanitarian and development needs.



3.  Special Populations (Elderly, Children, Persons with Disabilities)

Various researches and studies recognise and anecdotal evidence suggests
that certain segments of Georgian society are especially vulnerable or
have special needs in the area of health care, shelter, food or livelihood
security, and social services. These special populations may bear a
disproportionate burden of disease and injury, or they may face barriers:
social, economic, or institutional. These most unprotected members of the
society -- the elderly, children, and persons with disabilities have
gravely endured the social cataclysms typical of the prolonged and painful
transitional period.

(a) Elderly:

Georgia is demographically aged country. Nearly one in 5 people in Georgia
are over 60 years old, with life expectancy in Georgia now 69 years for
men and 77 for women. This proportion is rising due to out-migration and
plummeting birth rates. In some rural areas of Georgia entire villages are
made up of older people. Isolated elderly, particularly those in conflict
areas, the displaced, or in remote mountainous pockets, are almost
entirely forgotten by society and often live in inhumane and undignified
conditions.

Older people in Georgia are disproportionately affected by the
socio-economic collapse that has affected the country and are less able to
recover psychologically and materially from its affects. The monthly state
pension is only one eighth of the subsistence level, and is often over 3
months late. The fact that older people queue for hours and pay bribes for
the desultory state pension that many rely on is testimony to the
desperate situation many pensioners face. Many older people are forced to
beg; others struggle to subsist in the lowest paying work e.g. street
hawking, sweeping etc. They are the most food insecure group in Georgia,
yet are not targeted by Food-for-Work and other such food security
interventions. They commonly reside in the most dilapidated dwellings, and
are unable to meet their basic needs e.g. to collect firewood and water,
and are particularly affected by poor communications and security. Even
though good health is fundamental to their ability to care for themselves,
health care is frequently inaccessible due to economic and institutional
barriers. Elderly people have particular difficulties coping with corrupt
and bureaucratic systems while trying to get information and assert their
rights. High incidence of multiple chronic diseases and mental health
disorders make older population even more vulnerable. They face
significant challenges in meeting their daily needs without external
support, though with minimal care older people can maintain their
independence.

Older people are generally identified as a vulnerable group in Georgia,
but despite the rhetoric, very few interventions address their needs. The
issue of pensions is used to garner political capital rather than express
a real concern for the situation of older people. Only a handful of NGOs
target older people and there are no associations or national-level
organisations that give older people a voice. For those older people with
families, support has not been undermined by institutionalisation,
however, these ties are weakening - many people have lost touch with
relatives who have immigrated or moved to the cities. Economic
difficulties and modern lifestyles undermine traditional support. Many
older people provide important social support e.g. childcare, yet are
often undervalued by society and regarded as out of touch with the new
realities. Furthermore, the elderly are in many ways affected by conflicts
and their lingering effects, including de-socialisation or destruction of
networks on which they rely for their subsistence.

Many international initiatives have been taken to promote the issues of
older people, however they have virtually by-passed Georgia. It did not
participate in the Second World Assembly on Ageing that took place in
April 2002 and was one of the few countries not to adopt the International
Plan of Action on Ageing, which was the first international agreement to
recognise the potential of older people to contribute to the development
of their societies, and committing governments to include ageing in all
social and economic development policies, including poverty reduction
programmes.

The prioritised recommendations for addressing the current needs of the
elderly:

   Instigate special programmes to reach isolated destitute older people,
   especially those in inaccessible areas: These will help the elderly
   spend last years of their lives in dignity. The Government and other
   social protection programmes should be directed towards this group as a
   matter of urgency.

   Mainstream older people's needs and participation into all development
   interventions: The Government, donors, national and international
   development agencies, EDPRP, through development interventions, should
   encourage older people, families and communities to address their own
   problems and strengthen existing coping strategies and support systems
   rather than undermine them. This should be done through information
   dissemination and awareness-raising on the plight of older persons and
   how their needs can practically be addressed. Support should be
   provided so that older people can advocate for their rights and be
   involved in defining policies and programmes that affect their lives. A
   working group of governmental, non-governmental and donor organisations
   should be established to promote awareness of the older people's issues
   and advocate with and for them.

   Promote healthy lifestyle: Such practices should be creatively and
   energetically promoted among older age groups with strong support of
   the Government. Health services that specifically address older peoples
   needs should be developed. Attention should be paid to the improvement
   of the home care services and introduction of psychosocial counseling
   for older people. Doctors, nurses and social workers should be
   retrained in working with older people.

   Recognize and encourage older people's contributions: As caregivers and
   as protectors of cultural heritage, encouraging and promoting their
   contributions and challenging negative stereotypes.

   The Government of Georgia should adopt the International Plan of Action
   on Ageing: Thus, the Government will develop realistic and realizable
   actions to address the key issues of older people.


(b) Children's Welfare and Protection:

Georgia's social transition has affected children due to severe reductions
in the social services that would normally support their growth and
development. For children from vulnerable or dysfunctional households or
for those suffering from physical or mental disabilities, these effects
have been felt most acutely. This section highlights three prioritised
categories of children that are of particular humanitarian concern to the
international community: institutionalised children, street children, and
children with disabilities.

Since independence, the situation of children in residential institutions
in Georgia has deteriorated greatly, under funding being a key reason. The
National Plan of Action for Children 2003-2007, signed recently by the
President of Georgia, confirms this. However, before one concludes that
the underlying cause negatively affecting the physical and mental
development of children in institutions is the deteriorating network of
state institutions, one must first question the concept of institutions
within the context of Georgian culture. Is there a need for large-scale
substitute parental care for children in Georgia and, if so, are
residential institutions the most appropriate means of providing
substitute care when it is required?

Georgia inherited the Soviet child welfare system. This cultural import
relies heavily on residential institutions. Yet Georgia is a
family-centred culture. The extended family network has a strong tradition
and remains an important feature of today's society. In Georgian society,
it is natural to absorb children whose family is in distress into the
extended family. Institutional care separates children from family and
community networks, which forms the principle means of support throughout
life with extremely serious consequences for the child. Institutions may
override existing obligation toward the child, and detach the child from
the support systems that exist within the extended family. Very few of the
children in institutions are actually orphans. It has been estimated that
over 95% of children in institutional care today have at least one parent
(UNICEF, 2000). The majority are children of single mothers, from
dysfunctional families (drug users, alcoholics, prostitutes, etc.), or
from homes that have been unsettled or poverty-stricken.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states unequivocally
that placement in a state institution ought to be a measure of last
resort. There are over 5,000 children in institutions in Georgia: 2,532
disabled in 21 institutions and 2,135 able-bodied children in 18 other
institutions. While responsibility for these institutions lies primarily
with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social
Affairs operates four, and the Ministry of the Interior four (for children
in conflict with the law). In addition there are several private
institutions.

Street Children:

The issue of street children has also grown more acute in the last decade,
a result of increasing numbers of extremely poor families who cannot
afford to raise their children. In 2000 the population was estimated at
2,500 in Tbilisi. Professionals involved in the sector report that there
have been major increases since then and that the total now ranges between
2,500 to 8,000, including children and adolescents who spend much of their
time working and playing on the street, as well as children living on the
street. Accurate statistics are a major problem and therefore estimation
is based on indirect evidence.

The majority of them are street-involved due to social and economic
reasons: unemployment of the parents, abandonment by the father, or death
of a parent. Studies and empirical evidence indicate that street children
are involved in a variety of income generating activities -- petty
trading, begging, even heavy labour, stealing and prostitution. High-risk
behaviour among them is common, including unprotected sex and intravenous
drug use in adolescence and young adulthood. Most appear to have homes and
give their earnings, or some part of it, to their families. About one
fifth sleeps in the streets. Street children are not generally from IDP
families. They represent all ethnic backgrounds, including Georgian,
Russian, Armenian, Kurdish and Gypsy.

Street children are often in conflict with the law. Children detained by
the police are placed in Gldani, an institution under the supervision of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs that serves as a screening centre. The
majority of children arrested are released. Some children end up there
several times per year. In 2002 Gldani registered 800 children, 211 of
them the first time, and other second or third time detainees. From the
group that was registered in 2002, it was estimated that the majority are
petty drug users, at least 50% are involved with crime and the majority of
girls are prostitutes. It should be noted that during 2002 the new
management of Gldani initiated a pilot child rehabilitation project, which
enabled 14 children to return to school.

There are several centres in Tbilisi and Kakheti, run by either NGOs, the
State or religious organisations. These offer a range of services from
residential care to drop-in day care services, including medical, catch-up
education and some vocational training, psychosocial rehabilitation and
reintegration. Education, both standard and vocational, is a major issue,
as is the reintegration of street children back into family networks and
formal schools. Youth sector professionals indicate that the situation is
reaching more serious proportions and that there are no ready solutions at
hand. Attempts to address the situation are mostly individual attempts
rather than a coordinated child welfare response. While consensus has been
reached on the need for action, little has been reached on the kind of
concerted response. Proposals have been initiated, including those
involving new residential institutions so as to remove children completely
from the streets and to provide them with constant attention. The question
must be asked: Given the overwhelming evidence that institutional care is
itself a problem and that some children on the street are residential
institution runaways, does the answer lie in creating another institution?
Many of the same alternative community-based care solutions for children
in institutions can be utilized for street children to facilitate their
reintegration into mainstream society.

Children with Disabilities

Approximately 50% of Georgia's disabled children come from poor, often
large families. For vulnerable families, care and rehabilitation for
children with disabilities are a considerable financial burden so that
these children often do not receive the care, treatment and appropriate
education. Due to social stigma still associated with certain
disabilities, especially mental disabilities, families often chose to
institutionalise their children rather then suffer public scorn and
embarrassment. An inclusive education approach supports mainstreaming some
children with disabilities into 'regular' schools, making certain changes
with infrastructure, technical aids, etc. It has been internationally
affirmed that mainstream schools provide the best educations for mentally
challenged children. In 2002, the CRC expressed its concern about the poor
implementation of inclusive education in Georgia and called for increased
efforts to design special programmes for inclusive education, further
de-institutionalisation, and support for societal integration for these
children.

Progress:

Actions recommended at the previous OCHA-Georgia Humanitarian Strategy
remain valid today, although progress has been made in several areas, e.g.
the need to develop human resources. While further efforts are needed,
social workers are working effectively in community-based child welfare.
The National Plan of Action for Children outlines several key areas of
need including de-institutionalisation and assistance to street children.
The De-institutionalisation Working Group is presently circulating for
input a National Plan for De-institutionalisation, as a suggested strategy
to achieve the de-institutionalisation goals set out in the National Plan
of Action for Children. Community-based services have increased although
there is still a significant need to support families to maintain their
children at home. Important steps have been undertaken in the field of
inclusive education for children with disabilities. In several secondary
schools and kindergartens inclusive education efforts have been
implemented in accordance with all necessary segments that include the
psycho-social rehabilitation and social adaptation of disabled children,
the preparation of their parents, schools and schoolchildren together with
their parents through information dissemination and awareness raising
activities.

The prioritised recommendations for addressing the current needs of the
children:

   Capacity building with youth serving sectors in HIV/AIDS prevention:
   street- involved youth are particularly vulnerable to contracting and
   spreading HIV/AIDS. Youth "aging out" of residential institutions, many
   of whom become involved in street crime and prostitution, are also
   highly susceptible to contracting and spreading HIV/AIDS. Prevention of
   high-risk behaviours and development of safe livelihood alternatives
   are needed.

   Focus on gate-keeping and de-institutionalisation: Gate-keeping
   (controlling admission into institutions), paired with
   de-institutionalisation, offers the greatest opportunity to prevent
   admissions to institutions, unless it is deemed in the best interest of
   the child. A key lesson learned from other countries is that
   gate-keeping and de-institutionalisation must take place simultaneously
   in order to avoid more children being admitted than leaving
   institutions.

   Move from institutional care to community-based alternatives: Greater
   emphasis on the participation of local entities to provide solutions
   and support to families and children in their locality is needed. The
   focus shifts from an institutional safety net to a family-oriented,
   social safety net, with the core objective to strengthen the capacity
   of families to care for and protect their own children. Services may
   include shelters, day care centres, employment counselling, job
   training and placement services, services for children with
   disabilities, including inclusive education, and crisis intervention
   services.

   Redirect funds from institutions to community-based services: a
   mechanism whereby "the funds follow the child" needs to be developed.
   Existing government financial policy covers expenses only for children
   in state care. This system creates possibilities for corruption by
   falsifying the number of children living in institutions, number of
   staff members, expenditures for food, etc. To achieve the objective of
   providing an effective childcare service, it is crucial to make
   structural changes to the present financial system to discourage
   maintenance of the status quo.

   Establish coordination among the agencies in charge of child welfare:
   responsibility within the present system of child welfare is scattered
   across various ministries, departments, municipalities and private
   groups. In order to undertake systemic reform of the child welfare
   system, interventions need to be coordinated and brought up to agreed
   standards of care. This is a clear recommendation of the June 2000
   Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

   Support inclusive education for children with disabilities: In 2002,
   the Committee on the CRC expressed its concern about the poor
   implementation of inclusive education in Georgia and called for
   increased efforts to design special programs for inclusive education,
   further de-institutionalisation, and support for societal integration
   for these children.


(c) Persons with Disabilities

According to unofficial data, there are more then 200,000 persons with
disabilities in Georgia, some 70,000 of whom are with mental health
problems. Due to the social stigma still associated with certain
disabilities, these persons are trapped by the lack of community-based
services, societal prejudice, and the shame of relatives within the walls
of their homes. Many of them are isolated from society in hospitals,
orphanages, shelters where they are subjected to inhuman and degrading
treatment, and where they face difficulties in advocating for their rights
and interests. Georgia's socio-economic collapse negatively affected their
plight and led them to the threshold of the destitution. Isolation from
society aggravates their disabilities.

Disabled persons face substantial barriers in different aspects of social
life. They have extremely poor access to education and/or professional
development resources. They have poor living conditions and miserable
chances to be employed. They experience major problems in their families
(dependency on the caregiver) and have substantial difficulties with
establishing personal social networks or planning leisure time activities.
Therefore, the best solution is the inclusion of the disabled and their
reintegration into the society by introducing alternative forms of care.
Institutions working on the disability are particularly concerned by the
negative attitude of the society to the persons with disabilities caused
by low public awareness on the specific issues and concerns of the
disability. There exist a state law on the social protection of the
persons with disabilities in Georgia which, unfortunately, is not
implemented due to lack of enforcement mechanisms. There is also a great
need of accurate database reflecting the number of the persons with
disabilities, their social status and needs.

Very few practical steps been taken to improve public opinion and
tolerance regarding pressing issues for the persons with disabilities,
e.g. the traditional paternalistic attitude to such persons, low level of
awareness of the population, stigmatisation of the society and isolation
of those persons from/by the society. Present pervasive fiscal crisis and
the consequent cuts in state budgetary funds on social care entail
worsening of the already unacceptable conditions. Beside a steady
reduction of financing, there has also been a steady reduction in the
qualified staff and educated caregivers. Medical staff members, especially
qualified doctors, nurses, therapists or social workers are deficient, or
not retrained, and not always informed about the innovations in the field.
No special institutions for their education are available. In addition,
there is very limited information about the rights of the disabled, as
well as leaflets, publications or other consultation resources to combat
the social stigma. In reality, there are no supported employment and
shelter workplaces for the persons with disabilities in Georgia. They are
not mainstreamed in any self-employment or income generation programmes.
Furthermore, donor strategy efforts towards the disability issues are
often in conflict with the existing situation due to the lack of
coordination between various actors.

The prioritised recommendations for addressing the current needs of the
persons with disabilities:

   Raise public awareness: It is necessary to strengthen public relations,
   e.g. publish information leaflets and bulletins, hold seminars and
   workshops, develop mass media campaign in order to increase the public
   awareness and change the existing stigma about persons with
   disabilities. These activities include distribution of electronic and
   print newsletters, strengthening organisational networks and promoting
   sign language.

   Improve services and care for persons with disabilities: The immediate
   focus should be on the establishment of new social therapy entities, on
   the development of the community-based approaches and care mechanisms,
   and on the support of the existing institutions and NGOs. In addition
   to that, the attention must be given to the restoration and
   modification of the home care services and provision of essential
   equipment to the disabled persons. The most destitute among the persons
   with disabilities should be considered for external support. More
   efforts should be applied to support and extend existing physical
   rehabilitation facilities in order to increase accessibility (satellite
   workshops) for physically disabled persons in order to implement and
   maintain sustainable physical rehabilitation services (physiotherapy,
   prosthetics and orthotics), which is essential for their social
   reintegration. The disabled persons should be provided with sufficient
   amount of medicines, orthopedic appliances, wheelchairs, crutches and
   walking sticks and other necessary equipment.

   Develop better cooperation among state institutions, donors and
   international and local organisations: Recommended activities should
   include the development and advocacy for various policies addressing
   the critical needs of the disabled population, including social
   passportisation, legislation on charity, creation of the mental
   healthcare reform conception, preparation of changes in existing
   legislations.

   Develop human resources: Medical staff members, such as doctors and
   nurses, paramedical staff like orthopaedic technicians,
   physiotherapists, occupational therapists, or caretakers and social
   workers should be trained, retrained and upgraded in accordance with
   the innovations in the field. It is also recommended to establish new
   educational entities in Georgia for specific training of the required
   staff profiles.

   Promote employment: Focusing on the establishment of transitory,
   supporting employment and shelter workplace for the persons with
   disabilities, their inclusion in various income-generation and
   self-employment programmes.

   Promote education opportunities: Increased efforts should be undertaken
   to design special programmes for inclusive education and re-education
   for the persons with disabilities, mainstreaming them into regular
   kindergartens, schools and vocational training institutions.


4.  Food Security

Food insecurity exists when people are undernourished as a result of the
physical unavailability of food, lack of social or economic access to
adequate food, and/or inadequate food utilization. Food-insecure people
are those individuals whose food intake falls below their minimum calorie
(energy) requirement, as well as those who exhibit physical symptoms
caused by energy and nutrient deficiencies resulting from an inadequate or
unbalanced diet, or from the body's inability to use food effectively due
to the diseases. The World Food Summit estimated that approximately 840
million people in developing countries subsist on diets that are deficient
in calories. Classified by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
as a low-income, food-deficit country, Georgia imports over 50 percent of
its cereal requirements. Market prices for staple foods are in line with
or above world market prices, while wages are at the level of the world's
poorest developing countries.

A sizeable portion of the Georgian population is food insecure and will
remain so for the foreseeable future. Factors for this include a
traditionally imbalanced agricultural sector with low levels of domestic
food production and high levels of dependence on imports, unemployment and
under-employment. Liberalisation of prices, loss of former Soviet
suppliers and markets, and the failure to develop significant new export
markets, led to a deep crisis in the food sector. Despite the low food
production rate, the real problem in Georgia is the one of access to food.
The socio-economic circumstances that lead to increasing poverty,
vulnerability and unemployment restrict the poor and vulnerable
populations' access to food. The incidence of poverty increased both in
urban as well rural areas and is now at the same level, i.e. 56 and 55
percent respectively as per the State Department of Statistics (SDS),
2002.

In urban areas, increased food insecurity is the result of insufficient
revenue to purchase food and other basic items. Based on 2002 official
statistical data, the average salary amounted to GEL 114 (91% of the
official subsistence minimum); the minimum salary equalled only 33 percent
of the extreme subsistence minimum of GEL 60; and flat rate pension
equalled 23 percent (SDS, 2003). Over half of the population lives below
the poverty line of GEL 125.1, i.e. US$ 58 per adult per month.

For people in rural areas, the problem is more linked to agriculture
production. Agriculture, accounting for more then 19% of GDP (2002), is
the main source of income and employment for the majority of the
population. The output for this sector, however, is only about 70 percent
of its 1990 level, although agricultural employment has doubled since land
privatisation in 1996. Over 50 percent of the employment in the country is
in agriculture and more than 80 percent of the rural population is
self-employed in this sector. Privatised farms are so small that only few
farmers are able to develop workable farming systems. The state of
irrigation and drainage systems is also a major constraint to increasing
crop yields and competitiveness of domestic produce with imports. Damaged
infrastructure, unsuitable machinery and insufficient cash earnings, which
prevents farmers from buying fertilizers, pesticides and improved seeds,
and high costs associated with transport and marketing, have affected the
quality of food production. Furthermore, the lack of farming skills among
rural population, weakened by the decades of Soviet state-run management
and collectivised farming, result in extremely low yields. Most farmers
are unable to produce enough to cover even the basic nutritional needs of
their families.

The frequent climate changes and the occurrence of natural disasters such
as hail, heavy rains, flooding, landslides and droughts adversely affect
agricultural production. For example, in the areas affected by the 2000
drought, there was a 40 percent reduction in agricultural production
(FAO/WFP Food and Crop Assessment Survey, 2000). Other external factors,
such as illness or death of a family member, a bad harvest, a lost job, or
a delay in pension or salary, increase vulnerability of households.
Consequently, people experience transient poverty at least at one point
during the year. Besides, there are geographical and seasonal factors in
play. Population, urban and rural alike, heavily relies on solidarity or
using non-sustainable coping strategy, such as contracting debts or
selling remaining assets. People also proceed with various coping
mechanisms, such as petty trading, labour migration, or economic
diversification. In extreme cases, in an attempt to ensure their children
are fed, parents send them to orphanages and state-run boarding schools in
an effort that ultimately proves damaging to their psychological and
emotional development.

There is an increasing tendency for poor people toward eating less
nutritious foods, decreasing number of meals, or taking more of wild plant
like nettle, bur and wild fruits. According to the MoLHSA survey in 2001,
the post-drought year, the average energetic value of the food intake per
person corresponded to 2,107 kilocalories, while the accepted calorie
intake standard for Georgia was 2,300 kilocalories per day. The biggest
portion of consumed food ration consists of bread and carbohydrates. The
reason in not solely the eating habits of Georgians -- who traditionally
consume much bread - but also the fact that half of the population can
afford little more than just bread.

Surveys conducted in 2000-2001 show that acute malnutrition (wasting) in
children is not a widespread problem. It also shows that, while chronic
malnutrition (stunting) has not yet reached alarming rates, it is on rise.
In traditional households, mothers are first to reduce food intake to
assure adequate nutrition for their children. According to the MoLHSA,
existing system for assessing/controlling the nutritional and health
status of the Georgian population is not sufficient and regularized.
However, poor nutritional and health status of the adult population -
prevalence of iodine and iron deficiency (40-45 percent) - give basis to
assume that people consume cheap and low quality food. Additional reason
might be the lack of public awareness and nutritional knowledge.

Aid agencies and the Government presently undertake relief, rehabilitative
and developmental strategies to reduce food insecurity in Georgia.
However, these programmes are symptomatic and range from pure relief aid
(food aid to vulnerable groups through soup-kitchens or take-home rations)
to rehabilitative-development activities (rehabilitation of social and
agriculture infrastructure in rural areas, micro-credits, small scale
agricultural enterprises, training/capacity building for communities,
etc.).

As regards to policies and schemes, the relevant state ministries have
developed long-term strategies and programmes to improve respective areas.
However, these programmes (social welfare as well as agriculture
development strategy) are characterised by poor state funding. This
affects efforts to launch transitional programmes aiming at establishing
connection between humanitarian and rehabilitation-development assistance
so that vulnerable strata of the population are kept from regressing.
Another trend is to be observed in vulnerability approaches. Until
recently, the vulnerability criteria had been based on social risks.
However, there have been significant improvements of late, at least at the
policy level, in understanding the appropriateness of using needs-based
criteria, for example in the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction
Programme in Georgia (EDPRP). In view of the time-lines set for the
implementation of the EPDRP, in particular the social security system,
funding constraints and the needs that will continue to exist,
transitional food aid continues to be required.

The recommended priority actions for 2004 to improve food security in
Georgia include:

   Support to the programmes addressing food insecurity and agriculture as
   well as social welfare area in the adopted EDPRP: Insufficient state
   funding prevents relevant ministries from implementing projects
   envisaged by the programme approved in 2003. However, external funding
   could be provided for these programmes. Since there is a linkage
   between improving the social welfare system and recovering agriculture
   sector with the increased number of food insecure and poor population,
   it is vital to provide necessary support for these programmes. The
   Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Agriculture and the Food
   Security of Georgia (see below) absolutely complies with the 2003-2005
   EDPRP.

   Support for the Ministry of Agriculture's Strategy for the Sustainable
   Development of Agriculture and the Food Security of Georgia for
   2003-2005: Ministry's budgetary constraints do not allow for
   implementation of programmes that would improve food security for
   subsistence farmers. This makes unfeasible the activities such as
   extension services, promotion of cooperatives, increased availability
   of rural credit, enabling environments for primary production, food
   processing and marketing of food production, use of environmentally
   sound and sustainable farming methods, upgrading of the tax system,
   harmonisation of food safety standards, or protection of domestic
   markets. With such a large proportion of Georgia's population involved
   in agricultural activity -- often at subsistence levels -- such support
   would improve food security and increase self-reliance.

   Facilitate redefining vulnerability/social risk criteria from the
   category-based to needs-based approach to better target humanitarian
   assistance: Current criteria are based on social status and not on
   actual needs. However, with the Government policy on redefining of
   criteria to be needs based having been approved, the emphasis should be
   on the application of this policy on all levels. This would result in
   more effective and efficiently targeted programmes to direct assistance
   to the worst cases as per their vulnerability.

   Increase funding for recovery/rehabilitative and development programmes
   targeting subsistence farmers: Projects that aim to raise incomes of
   subsistence farmers through access to rural credit, infrastructure
   rehabilitation, provision of agricultural inputs (such as fertilizers,
   quality seed and plant materials), and increased extension services are
   very important for ensuring a secure livelihood for small-scale
   farmers.

   Improved data collection for food security and early warning system:
   The SDS's Food Security Observatory has made attempts to improve its
   data collection ability and quality of trend observation, but has faced
   financial constraints. It will be appropriate to augment the
   Department's capacity to undertake regular surveys focusing on food
   security monitoring needs, such as actual food (calorie and
   micronutrients) intake and nutritional status of the population.
   Improved data and trend analysis would also facilitate better targeting
   of vulnerable groups as well as the creation of functional early
   warning and forecasting systems within the Government to better predict
   slow onset disasters such as droughts or likely crop failures.

   Enhance the budget for current strategies in relief and social welfare
   protection: In place of a functioning social welfare system, many
   vulnerable groups rely heavily on the food assistance provided by aid
   agencies either in direct distributions or at communal soup kitchens.
   Other institutions rely on the budgetary support that such provision
   provides at a time when official budgets are only partially fulfilled.
   Until such time when provisions of pensions and allowances are paid
   regularly and timely, people reliant on these payments will also
   require assistance in meeting their daily food consumption needs.
   Public works schemes can serve as a means of income transfer.

   Re-start school feeding activities: In 2003, the school feeding
   programmes ended, thus leaving an important gap. From the perspective
   of food security and nutrition (in addition to the educational and
   social benefits), school feeding provides an important source of
   supplemental nutrition to children whose caregivers do not provide them
   with an adequate diet due to a lack of means and/or information. It
   also creates a forum for the education of children and their parents in
   essential child nutrition and health information as well as provides
   nutrition and health-related interventions such as distribution of
   iron-tablets, vitamin supplements, iodised salt, etc.


V.  CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Georgia Humanitarian Situation and Strategy 2004 Document represents a
continuation of strategic discussions between the international community
and the Georgian Government regarding the evolving humanitarian situation
in Georgia. It is meant to be useful to all those interested in
humanitarian and related issues and needs, aiming ultimately at improving
the condition for the vulnerable population of Georgia.

The process itself has involved a wide range of relevant stakeholders, and
the recommendations included herein reflect this range of views. OCHA
would like to thank all those who participated in this process and
contributed to the creation of this document.


distributed by
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Center for International                  web: www.cidi.org
    Disaster Information             listserv: www.cidi.org/listsub.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
comments/suggestions/requests to incident@cidi.org