OCHA
Georgia
Humanitarian Situation and Strategy 2005
19 November 2004


Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

I.    SUMMARY
Rationale and Objectives

The Georgia Humanitarian Situation and Strategy 2005 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
action in the highlighted programming sectors. The recommendations
included herein are not necessarily those of the UN/OCHA, but represent
the collective recommendations of those actively involved 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.
That Document 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
populations in Georgia in 2003. It has also aimed at spurring further
debate, discussion, and action on the issues and recommendations contained
herein.

Similar documents were presented at the Georgia Humanitarian Situation and
Strategy 2003 and 2004 Conferences convened in February and November 2003.
They have in general been well received by humanitarian and other relevant
players and have become a solid reference document. The impact of these
documents and the Conference itself has been observed in raised awareness
among the international community in priority areas and has been perceived
as a useful exercise. It has also promoted more coordinated analysis and
planning. Following the previous Conferences, some recommendations have
materialised in programme modifications, e.g. in increased attention to
the needs in Abkhazia, some progress in addressing issues pertaining to
children, and an increased awareness regarding persons with disabilities
and the elderly.

As agreed by participants at the November 2003 Conference, OCHA prepared
the present document to accompany the Georgia Humanitarian Situation and
Strategy 2005 Conference on 17 November 2004. The objectives of the 2005
Document are similar to the previous ones. The Document, however, reflects
the perceived changes in the humanitarian context in Georgia, and is also
focused on "transition" issues.

Conceptual Context

Georgia today, almost a decade after its major clashes in the mid-1990s,
still presents outstanding challenges from a humanitarian point of view.
It continues to be overwhelmed by the economic consequences of the
break-up of the former Soviet Union.

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. Since the mid-1990s, the international
community has shifted away from primarily humanitarian aid into more
transitional/developmental programmes, reflecting the changes in both
society and the perceived priorities.

However, the purely humanitarian needs have persisted. Their scale has not
been declining in recent years, and may actually be incrementally
increasing. Thus, in humanitarian terms, Georgia is an example of an
extended emergency. Mediation attempts by the international community to
reach peace agreements and security arrangements in the conflict areas
have had limited success.

Very soon after the "Rose Revolution" of November 2003, the new Georgian
leadership embarked on quite an ambitious reform programme to fix the
fiscal sector, strengthen governance, combat corruption and smuggling,
foster economic growth and reduce poverty, and restore public confidence.
Despite the good will combined with certain progress in some areas
(simultaneous reforms / restructuring started, enhanced revenue
collection, timely payments of pending obligations, abolition of parallel
structures) and extended international support, many Georgians remain
vulnerable and dependent on humanitarian aid.

There are various interpretations of the underlying causes of
vulnerability, as well as of whom should be considered vulnerable and why.
For humanitarian purposes, the majority of vulnerable people 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. Many are in part victims of the non-functioning social safety
net, or are unemployed and simply poor.

The overall high-level of poverty, lack of adequate access to food, social
and health services, and high unemployment rate, make some strata of the
population particularly vulnerable. Among those most at risk are single
and other elderly without an adequate support structure; institutionalized
children and elderly; prisoners; persons with disabilities; families with
a large number of children or families where one or more members is
chronically ill; households living in the poorest districts/cities and/or
in remote areas with weak or no access to infrastructure and basic
services and often cut off completely during the long winter months. Also
at risk are, to a varying extent, subsistence farmers, the unemployed, and
a large number of those who are employed but are on a subsistence wage.
Overall, 54% of the Georgian population lives below the poverty line and
approximately 15-17% are extremely poor. Despite some positive
developments and implementation of additional coping mechanisms by the
State, the socio-economic situation remains problematic and is unlikely to
improve the lives of these people during the coming year.  Until such time
(supposedly in late 2005 or early 2006 changes in social assistance
schemes will be introduced) as Governmental structures can provide
essential services to the population, or systemic changes alleviate their
problems, the vulnerable strata within the Georgian population will remain
of humanitarian concern.

Some of the beneficiaries in Georgia today are broadly understood
humanitarian-related groups, some of whom are still highly dependent and
require targeted relief aid. Others, however, require a more proactive
grass-roots approach, self-help schemes, community mobilisation, or income
and employment generation projects. These should help address, together
with the basic needs of people, the underlying causes of their
vulnerability.

This approach should help to lift the more needy cases from their
desperate situation and at the same time help to prevent others from
falling further into poverty. On the other hand, systemic capacity
building and state reforms, which have already begun in certain areas, are
to be encouraged. The international community and the Government have
already exerted efforts to create conditions for a dialogue at the
national-level and to 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. It will be important
for Georgia to implement the key actions of the Economic Development and
Poverty Reduction Programme (EDPRP). In addition, as a signatory to the
Millennium Declaration, the Georgian Government has made a long-term
commitment to reduce poverty in Georgia and ensure socio-economic
rehabilitation and the social integration of vulnerable populations.

It is also noteworthy that the new government's state-building efforts
have attracted the attention of many donors, significantly increasing
interest in the country's development. Examples include the special
donor's conference in Brussels in June 2004 that pledged US$1 billion, the
new US government Millennium Challenge Account grants, and others. Much of
this assistance focuses on structural reforms, rehabilitation of
infrastructure, the energy sector, etc. These are certainly challenges and
much-needed in the Georgian context. However, it seems less emphasis has
been placed on humanitarian or transitional needs. It was strongly felt
that good coordination is required between humanitarian and developmental
players to enable a smooth transition. Linking actors and strategies from
both ends is vital to ensure continuity in strategic approaches and
effective interventions.

This document begins with a review of the roles and capacities of various
actors in Georgia followed by an overview of the 2004 situation, that
includes a section highlighting some of the significant programmatic and
funding trends and discusses the main operational challenges confronting
aid organizations. The Document then summarizes crosscutting
recommendations made in addition to those for the four priority areas
identified by participants during the consultation process. Even though
the majority of priorities for Georgia remain the same as in the past, the
current four areas are somewhat differently re-grouped and include:
Enabling Transition, Vulnerable Populations, Conflict-affected
Populations, and Natural Disasters. The rest of the document focuses on
priority areas and actions for 2005 described in detail, including a
contextual analysis, a summary of current strategies, progress made since
last year, and recommended actions for 2005.

II.  ROLES AND CAPACITIES

The primary responsibility in providing protection and care for the
affected populations, and in creating conditions for the 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 (MRA), the Ministry of Agriculture
(MoA), the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES), and the Ministry of
Labour, Health, and Social Affairs (MoLHSA). In addition, the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) have responsibilities
toward humanitarian activity in the country, e.g., the registration of
NGOs or decisions on the legal status of imported commodities.

There is no formally established state agency to respond to natural
disasters or emergencies. However, discussions are underway to create such
a structure with clearly defined responsibilities and authority. Due to
the internal restructuring of the Ministry of the Internal Affairs, the
Department of Emergency Situations and Civil Defence was abolished and a
new structure has not yet been established. Depending on the scale of the
natural disaster and its impact, some other Governmental district or
municipal bodies from the affected area may become involved or an ad hoc
state commission may be established.

UN agencies, the IOM, the ICRC, NGOs, the OSCE and other international
organizations active in Georgia have the competencies and capacities to
complement the Government in addressing the country's humanitarian and
related needs. The non-governmental community is key actor 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 countrywide peace, the advancement of democracy and
human rights, and reduction of poverty. The UN agencies provide
humanitarian-related 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.

In 1999, in light of the hard conditions faced by IDPs, a group of donors
(UNDP, UNHCR, OCHA, and the World Bank), and the Government of Georgia
forged an innovative partnership to improve the lives of IDPs in Georgia
and of their host communities by reforming government policy and
supporting a transition from humanitarian assistance to development
centred activities. Later, the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (SDC) and the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) also joined this initiative. The New Approach, guided
by an emphasis on sustainable development, aims at overcoming legislative
obstacles to the participation of IDPs in civil society, creating capacity
building programmes for IDPs, rationalizing subsidies to IDPs,
implementing comprehensive policy/advocacy activities, and piloting
development-oriented assistance to IDPs.

The ICRC provides assistance and expertise in the following areas:
protection of civilian populations, food and non-food items, medical,
water and sanitation, shelter, support to families of missing persons,
orthopaedic and orthotic services, TB control programme in prisons, visits
to detainees, re-establishing family links of separated persons, and the
promotion of international humanitarian law. ICRC's assistance programmes
are implemented primarily in conflict affected areas, such as Abkhazia,
Samegrelo/Imereti, and South Ossetia, while other programmes are
implemented throughout the country. The International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies, which suspended operations in Georgia in
late 2001 due to continuing problems with the Red Cross Society of
Georgia, has resumed limited support in the field of capacity building of
the latter.

Some 20 international NGOs and over 5,000 registered local NGOs (estimates
suggest that approximately 100 NGOs can be classified as very active)
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 parts 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 history. International NGOs are a vital resource for a
country facing extended transition and moving towards development,
offering a support base to local NGOs and assisting with capacity building
and growth. Many international NGOs are implementing community
mobilization projects encouraging civil society participation in
decision-making processes at grassroots level, which is also part of
strengthening social coping networks for vulnerable people.

III.  2004 SITUATION - OVERVIEW

A.  Programming and Funding

After peaking in 1996, humanitarian funding saw a steady annual decrease
until 2000, when an increase occurred in response to the droughts of 2000
and 2001. In addition, this trend also reflected a perceived modest rise
in humanitarian needs. By 2002, some major donors had increased their
humanitarian funding while other players expanded programmes addressing
the needs of food insecurity and vulnerable households.

On the other hand, some donors, such as USAID, made a policy shift to
development programmes after assisting Georgia for ten years in its
transition to market economy, civil society development and humanitarian
assistance. Now its strategy focuses on Georgia's long term development
needs by the support of economic growth, development of the energy sector,
strengthening the capacity of local governments to deliver services,
community mobilization, health and institutional capacity building. After
the end of its Georgia Community Mobilization Initiative, USAID is now
starting a new five-year programme -Georgian Employment and Infrastructure
Initiative - that will cover the eastern, western, and southern parts of
the country.

Even though European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) closed its
office in Georgia in 2001, it still provided funding for the drought
relief programs in 2000/2002. Taking into consideration the extent of
unmet humanitarian needs in western Georgia, including Abkhazia, ECHO
thereafter decided to renew support to the most vulnerable populations
there with a new allocation of =80 1.3 million in 2002. In 2003, ECHO
allocated an additional =80 2.2 million for Georgia through ICRC and ACH to
cover the basic food needs of the most vulnerable segments of the
population in Abkhazia and the rest of western Georgia. In 2004, the
European Commission approved a =80 4 million humanitarian aid package to
support vulnerable populations affected by the Georgian - Abkhazian
conflict. Funds are being allocated via ECHO.

In addition to its existing programmes, after a series of assessments in
2001 in western Georgia, ICRC began a large, multi-year programme to
provide food, health and shelter assistance to the 5% most destitute
individuals or households, restarting the programme that had been phased
out in 1995. This new programme began in mid-2002 and represented a 36%
budgetary increase from 2001 to 2002 for ICRC. After undertaking an
internal review in May 2003, ICRC moved to a "diversification" programme
and initiated ATC (Agriculture, Trade and Craft) grants in order to
increase the possibilities for beneficiaries to generate their own income
and ensure food security for their families. This did not apply to those
beneficiaries for whom no option other than food assistance was possible.
The programme will end in early 2006, when there will still be some 8,500
very destitute persons (very old, disabled, bed-ridden) for whom more
sustainable solutions should be developed.

In the mid-1990s, WFP expected to phase out by end of the decade. However,
a series of assessments carried out 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 includes food assistance for vulnerable
individuals and institutions, but a much larger component addresses
recovery in rural areas through food-for-work activities in the poorest
regions of the country.

It should be noted that many in-country donors implemented ad hoc projects
as a response to the new Georgian leadership's request to overcome the
harsh winter months in early 2004. Among such projects were heating and
nutritional assistance for social institutions as well as cash assistance
for the most vulnerable people in two districts of eastern Georgia,
implemented by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, and
amounting to 2 million Swiss Frances.

Also, as a response to floods and landslides in the mountainous Svaneti
region this Summer, various organizations have addressed the needs of the
affected population. This included providing emergency food aid by WFP and
ACH that has now been extended into the upcoming Winter months, basic
infrastructural rehabilitation through Counterpart International and CARE
International with the financial support of the US Government, SDC, DFID,
and other ad hoc assistance from various donors.

B.  Operational Challenges - Constraints to Effective Assistance

The issues presented below are those most widely voiced during the
stakeholder discussions as the most common and significant operational
challenges for humanitarian-related efforts, calling for further debate
and discussion.

Volatility and Instability: Georgia remains a volatile and unpredictable
country of complex scenarios, characterized by a number of intricate
factors presenting important challenges to planners and analysts. Two
unresolved conflicts, and tensions and civil unrest caused by social,
political and economic differences have contributed to the current
volatile and instable situation that is part of Georgia's everyday life.
Georgia is characterised as an extended emergency country and the very
term "transition" is often overused to describe and define the situation
in Georgia. This has been commonly disputed of late.

Dependency Syndrome:  The issue of dependency syndrome in Georgia has been
repeatedly emphasized. It is believed that dependency has penetrated
practically all levels of Georgian society, including Government and
beneficiaries. However, in the humanitarian field, many organizations feel
that beneficiaries have not really become dependent on assistance, since
the provided amount is often supplemental and therefore not significant
enough, though some are fully dependent.

Funding and Resource Mobilization: In 2004, widespread donor
disenchantment was replaced by a more optimistic approach towards the new
Georgian leadership. The interest and confidence have been significantly
increased (Brussels conference, MCC, other) though the majority of funds
are now focused on Governmental reform processes and rehabilitation and
strengthening of certain areas. While these are certainly very important
approaches, it seems that pure humanitarian programmes are no longer a
priority for donors. This is understandable, since 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.

Absence of Accurate and Reliable Data; Poor Statistics: The aid community
is still confronted by inaccurate and unreliable 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 the help
of an independent international-led body, which would carry out such
assessments to the benefit of the entire humanitarian and development
community in Georgia. Also, it appears that the high quality surveys
available are not sufficiently broadly utilized. The shortcomings of some
of these - even if in general of high quality - are mainly that they were
specifically donor-driven and did not necessarily cover the areas of
interest of all concerned. Also, many 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 the accuracy, reliability, and availability of statistics. This
should also help Government officials themselves to better comprehend and
articulate the true level of needs, poverty incidence, and priorities
across the country. Donors are advised to look for ways and means to
support the systematic upgrading of the Government's capacity.

Appropriate Targeting: The issue of appropriate targeting and the lack of
refined vulnerability criteria is still reported as an obstacle to
organizations trying to direct limited resources to the most vulnerable.
In addition, endemic corruption, coupled with people's general sense of
entitlement, also complicate attempts to reach the most needy. However,
the general trend shows that there is more understanding from the
Government's side that proper and continuous targeting is a programme
necessity, which is also manifested in positive policy action. In response
to the fact that the official assistance categories often do not reflect
reality, the respective aid organizations have defined their own criteria
that better delineate the level of need among a given population. Georgia
is characterized by a prolonged period of unresolved conflicts, lack of
durable solutions to the IDP issue, and a very limited number of
returnees. Nonetheless, those most directly affected by the conflicts can
no longer be considered, as an entire group, more vulnerable than other
categories, even though in the conflict areas and areas of high
concentration of IDPs a proportionally higher number of the most
vulnerable are found to reside. The increasingly applied needs- or
means-based targeting vs. category-based targeting requires 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
Government bodies, which tend to have only scant resources allocated for
such activities. On the other hand, considering the scarcity of assistance
resources, this approach is vital to ensure that those most in need are
those most likely to be assisted.

Corruption, Bureaucracy: Combating corruption continues to be among the
top priorities for the new Georgian leadership. There have been
significant changes in anti-corruption measures on an individual as well
as a systemic level. However, the endemic corruption that penetrated all
spheres of social, economic, and political life continues to be an issue
in Georgia. According to the recently published Transparency International
Corruption Perceptions Index 2004, Georgia has made minor progress but it
still ranked near the bottom. The situation has also changed with regards
to the excessive bureaucracy of Governmental structures. Certain positive
steps have been taken to abolish parallel structures, condense number of
staff and reduce "circles" in the chain of procedures and regulations.
Even though it is well-understood that reform processes in almost all
areas need time to be fully tested and put into practice, there are no
significant changes in certain procedures: such experiences have been
time-consuming and have increased costs, which may eventually result in
the reduction of funding available for aid. On the other hand, serious
constraints such as taxation, importation of goods, excessive auditing and
inspections, or bank closures that have confronted many NGOs in recent
past years, do not affect programme implementation any more. 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 also been addressed by
the UN and some donors.

Government Re-staffing and Restructuring: Many interviewees observed a gap
in decision-making in relevant Governmental structures. This is partly due
to the restructuring processes within ministries as well as frequent
movement of staff in key positions, such as relocation of ministers and/or
their deputies. Lack of technical level national counterparts was also
observed, especially during the first half of 2004. In addition, due to
the internal restructuring and abolition of parallel structures, which are
certainly positive initiatives, some key functions/areas have been
misplaced. Some temporary solutions have been found to such cases although
no systemic approach has yet been observed.

NGO Role: The beneficial role that NGOs can play in society has become
more commonly understood and clear for the Georgian population following
the revolutionary changes in November 2003. The process of establishing
the role of NGOs in society should, however, continue to progress. Local
and international NGOs also often indicate a lack of regional and/or
sectoral coordination. For instance, some NGOs feel that donors sometimes
focus overwhelmingly on the same area or sector, rather than spreading
assistance throughout the country, often to avoid additional costs or
risks. In addition, NGOs often voiced the desire to be better informed
about activities within local sectors and to have a stronger voice in
assisting donors and the Government in identifying beneficiaries.
Humanitarian practitioners are interested in participating in discussions
about the inclusion of their beneficiaries in longer-term developmental
strategies.

Security Considerations: Security concerns remain an important
consideration during both planning and implementation phases. These
concerns are not limited only to those organizations working in more
notoriously dangerous and otherwise insecure areas in recent years such as
Gali District and other parts of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Pankisi, or
Svaneti, and certain parts of Samegrelo. It is worth noting that the
Government has imposed special operations in such areas and some
improvement in the crime rate has been observed. Another positive
development is the introduction of Patrol Police and 24 hours emergency
hotline in Tbilisi. However, even in bigger cities, such as Tbilisi, aid
organization staff has continued to be victims of a number of crimes
including car-jacking, intimidation, office robberies, residence
burglaries, kidnappings, and brutal attacks.

IV.  2005:  ISSUES AND ACTIONS

While preparing for the Conference and developing this document, the
participants agreed on four areas as those requiring priority attention in
2005. The majority of priorities for Georgia remain the same as in the
past. However, the current four areas are somewhat differently re-grouped
and include:

- Enabling Transition;
- Conflict-affected Populations;
- Vulnerable Populations;
- Natural Disasters.

Special working groups formed by representatives of the organizations
concerned with these issues have been meeting since mid-October 2004 to
identify the main problems in these areas, analyze their causes, and
develop recommendations for future action. Relevant Governmental officials
were also consulted and in some cases actively participated in the
elaboration of inputs. 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 number of recommendations
that cut across the four priority areas, and continues with the
presentation of the findings and recommendations of the four specific
working groups.

A.  Summary of Crosscutting Recommendations (2005)

1.  Promote dialogue between humanitarian players, the development sector,
and those involved in structural reforms: Bearing in mind Georgia's
complex set of needs, which in turn require a complex response, the
international aid community should concede that the traditional concept of
continuum, in which emergency, transition, and then development are
consecutive, is not applicable. To effectively deal with the complex
challenges of the Georgian humanitarian plight, it is important 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. Until such
time as more coordinated joint efforts are put into practice by all
players, or the Government is fully capable of taking feasible steps
towards poverty reduction and addressing the acute needs of its most
vulnerable population, the vulnerability in-country will remain and
various approaches conducted independently would not result in a maximal
overall improvement.

2.  Ensure mobilization of adequate funding for well-targeted assistance
to extremely vulnerable and marginalised individuals/households throughout
Georgia, including conflict areas: Despite efforts by the Government to
address the immediate needs of the most destitute by ensuring timely
payments, etc. and anticipated reforms in health care, education, or
social assistance schemes, certain segments of the impoverished Georgian
society who cannot and will not be able to become engaged in any of the
transitional or development projects, are still vulnerable or have special
humanitarian needs, which the State is not yet able to fully address.
Reform of the Social Welfare System is a long-term goal of the Government
and is unlikely to significantly improve the living conditions of poor

people during the coming year. In the short-term, the Government is
focusing on severe cases and will initially target the extremely poor by
introducing new cash assistance schemes in late 2005 and/or double
existing pensioners' allowances in the nearest future. Therefore,
well-targeted humanitarian assistance is still needed in 2005. Adequate
advocacy efforts should be applied on their behalf and funding mobilized
to support well-targeted assistance.

3.  Effectively apply the needs-based concepts of vulnerability to
humanitarian assistance or other programming, and improve data collection
and analysis. Some aid organizations already shifted to needs-based
targeting. The Government has taken important policy steps towards
implementing such practices, such as shifting from the old category-based
approach to a needs-based approach within the framework of the new Social
Assistance Programme. However, this approach may not be applied until mid-
or late-2005 and thus, continued advocacy for the application of these
policies is still required. The Government's capacity for data collection
and analysis should be further strengthened to provide more accurate and
reliable information, to better assist decision-making processes.

4.  Support joint efforts to facilitate related State reforms and continue
capacity building efforts to strengthen national institutions, especially
health and social services, to support and protect vulnerable populations.
The Government, which has the primary responsibility for the care and
protection of its vulnerable populations, has now made a commitment to
address the needs of extremely poor persons. It is also well understood
that the Government's restructuring and reform processes, complimentary to
its national priorities or goals, require sufficient time and resources to
be fully accomplished. At present, there is a far more optimistic mood
about the eventual improvement in the country's economy accompanied by an
increasing number of foreign pledges or actual investments. However, it
will require support during this transitional period to ensure the
effective implementation of specific programmes targeting vulnerable
people, which aim to meet their basic needs and allow them to fully enjoy
their rights. These may include sharing methodologies and practices, and
the setting up of advisory boards as well as the implementation of social
assistance projects. Simultaneous support is required to strengthen civil
society and NGOs to complement the Government's response to these
challenges.

B.  Four Prioritised Areas

I.  Enabling Transition

Background:

"Transition" in the humanitarian perspective refers to the period in a
crisis when external assistance is most crucial in supporting or
underpinning fragile ceasefires or peace processes, and/or an unstable
political and economic situation by helping to create suitable conditions
for political and economic stability, security, justice and social equity.
In the past, transition processes were largely regarded as sequential or a
continuum from relief to development or from conflict to peace. But it is
now increasingly recognized that these facets exist simultaneously in
varying levels of intensity, susceptibility to reversals, and opportunity.
Interventions during transition should be designed to address medium- and
longer-term objectives or, in other words, more complex underlying and
basic causes, rather than just the immediate or usually regarded relief
needs. All kinds of needs have to be addressed in parallel: the need for
structural reform, the need for community-development programmes, and the
need for humanitarian programmes.

Following its independence in 1991, Georgia suffered a dramatic
socio-economic downturn. Macroeconomic stabilization and systemic
transformation commenced in 1994, with the Government's adoption of the
anti-crisis programme. The main thrust of the reform was seen in the
transformation of monetary policy and drastic fiscal adjustments,
initiation of an open-market economy, accelerated privatization, reforms
in health care, education and social protection, liberalization of
economic activity and trade, as well as price liberalization.
Implementation of these measures brought about a degree of macroeconomic
stabilization until 1998. The financial crisis of that year in Russia sent
shock waves through the Georgian economy causing market impairment with an
unstable GDP and inflation rate during recent years.

Leadership changes after the November 2003 "Rose Revolution" enabled the
establishment of a new framework for the consolidation of national
identity. The Government committed itself to restoring territorial
integrity and developing the country as a modern European state.

Trends: Poverty and Food Insecurity in Georgia

Despite certain positive developments, Georgia's overall socio-economic
situation remains difficult. Rapid and sustainable economic growth and a
significant improvement in the population's social situation are still to
be achieved. The current transition process in the country remains
characterized by high poverty rates and food insecurity.  The priority
focus should be on the poor and extremely poor, as well as other
marginalized groups.

Georgia remains a Low-Income Food Deficit Country (LIFDC) with a
net-cereal import of over 50% of its cereal requirement. In 2004, the
proportion of population living below the official poverty line was 54%,
slightly lower than 2003 in both urban and rural areas but still very
high. The extreme poverty rate remains unchanged at 17%. The latter, along
with the poverty gap and poverty severity, has not improved and has even
increased in rural areas. Poverty is unequally distributed by region and
population group. Higher poverty levels in many cases correlate with
geographical isolation, low density of arable land and seasonal factors.
Political, economic, and social developments in the past decade have been
particularly detrimental to mountainous and highland regions.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) standards place
Georgia's nutrition in the "risk" zone. Food insecurity closely linked to
poverty has all the characteristics of transition. Firstly, while food
availability seems to be improved as an indication of moving from
emergency to recovery, food accessibility remains a major concern,
particularly among the poor and destitute. An exceptionally high
proportion of total household expenditure is spent on food (75%) which
diminishes the household's ability to address other non-food needs and
competes with farm input requirements, preventing them from investing in
their land, thus maintaining low productivity and contributing to the
cycle of poverty. Secondly, while the overall diet is quantitatively
adequate in caloric terms and meets the needs of the population (except
for extremely poor households where it is 1,893 Kcal, which is lower than
the FAO's recommended 2,100 Kcal/person/day), it is qualitatively
imbalanced with a very high consumption of carbohydrates, especially wheat
flour, by the poor and destitute (over 65% vs. 55-60% recommended), and
high fat consumption by the middle group (35% vs. 30% recommended). The
consumption of animal and vegetable proteins is very low among the
destitute (8% vs. 10-15% recommended). The unbalanced diet may indicate a
high prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies (vitamin A, iron and iodine)
among the population, especially the poor. This poses a threat to the
overall health of the population and a risk of deterioration in human
resources. Thirdly, the population is heavily dependent on markets for
food purchases (above 50%). This factor underlines the role of market
price fluctuation in household vulnerability re food security. And
fourthly, to compensate the food gap, the population heavily relies on
using non-sustainable and even depleted coping strategies such as
contracting debts or selling productive assets, or even, in some cases,
sending their children to institutions /orphanages.

Poverty and food insecurity in Georgia has not changed significantly since
the socio-economic downturn following independence, because the underlying
causes have not been sufficiently addressed. These include inadequate
access to opportunities and services such as employment, markets,
resources, health, education; poor governance; and inadequate social
integration of certain disadvantaged population groups.

Analysis of Underlying Causes of Poverty and Food Insecurity

Inadequate Access to Opportunities:

Unemployment is the main contributor to extreme poverty.  According to the
2003 EDPRP, almost 40 per cent of the households living below the poverty
line do not have an employed member, while 45 per cent of poor households
have only one income to support two or more members.

Labour-intensive growth that creates jobs for the poor is key to enabling
the transition from humanitarian and development. Creating opportunities
for employment for the rural population both working in and outside
agriculture as well as job creation for the unskilled labour force
currently unemployed or earning a very low salary should be one of the
main objectives for poverty reduction.

In Georgia, agriculture and agriculture-related business are one of the
main sources of income for the rural population. The agricultural sector
employs more than 50 per cent of the physically active population.
Potential growth in the agricultural sector and agriculture-related
business remains one of the best options for rural poverty reduction.
Development in this area has been hindered by a number of problems:
embryonic land market, disrupted rural infrastructures, lack of inputs,
difficulty of or non-access to credit for farmers; small internal market
and lack of access to external markets, particularly for value added crops
and lack of skills in agriculture and know - how, and little availability
of equipment.

Small-scale farming, even though it plays a role in alleviating poverty,
is not sufficient to become a source of economic well-being. There is a
great need for economic diversification, particularly in the non-primary
agricultural sector. Increased development of SMEs is necessary to promote
job creation for the poor.

Inadequate Access to Health and Education Services:

Utilization of health services in Georgia is low compared to in other
countries and not everybody who reports an illness seeks care.  Most
people who seek care incur out-of-pocket expenses and only 12% of the
chronically ill, and fewer than 10% of those seeking out-patient care for
non-chronic illnesses report making no out-of-pocket payments.  The poor
do not seek medical care, mainly for economic reasons (50.7%).  Thus,
economic barriers, and inadequate information regarding entitlement to
services, are two of the major reasons for the poor not to seek medical
services.

Utilization of ambulatories is very low, due to the underfunded network of
ambulatories in the regions, poor quality services, low professional level
of health personnel, and poor transportation networks.

Within the education systems, fees and cost of textbooks are prohibitive
and limit the ability of poor households to access education.  In
addition, access to higher level education does not extend beyond the
larger urban centres.  For poor households outside the main centres,
therefore, access to education is further constrained by the additional
cost of relocation.

There is no vocational education system in Georgia oriented to labour
market requirements and the academic system is not equipped to provide
practical skills to students.  Finally, teachers/professors lack training
in modern teaching methods, which limits their ability to teach
effectively.

Inadequate Social Integration:

For the purposes of this working group, we will focus this discussion on
inadequate social integration into community structures and
decision-making processes which enable long-term sustainable human
development.

Certain segments of the population, particularly families who have
returned to villages or have relocated from their traditional villages due
to natural disasters, are not represented by traditional power structures
within communities.  These families are unable, therefore, to represent
their interests in debates, and participate in decisions to allocate
resources, whether within a government structure or a civil society
structure.  Similarly, households suffering social stigmas such as those
suffering from HIV/AIDS and persons with tuberculosis are less likely to
be included in community development activities.

Weak Governance:

The new Georgian leadership inherited a weak and disorganized public
administration. This, coupled with an unmotivated and poorly managed
cohort of civil servants, has negatively influenced the quality of
policymaking as well as delivery of public services, and is a decisive
factor contributing to a widespread problem of corruption. In addition,
coordination across public civil and private sectors continues to be weak.

Recognizing the shortcomings of the current system, the Government has
identified construction of an effective state administration as one of the
five pillars of its medium term Reform and Development Program
(2004-2009). However, an overall strategy will need to articulate the
civil service reform, its sequence, and the training needs of staff at
various levels.

Governance of civil society organizations, and the freedom to participate
effectively in promoting government reforms, is a continuing issue within
the Georgian context. The NGO sector is showing an enhanced ability to
address the environment in which they work, making them more effective in
representing constituency needs. NGOs are demonstrating growing capacities
to rapidly disseminate information, form coalitions, and take public
positions.

To enhance the ability of civil society to operate effectively and
represent their constituencies, a new NGO Law is being reviewed in
Parliament, which will enable civil society organizations to receive
grants from the government, as well as to raise funds locally, both of
which are critical to the continuation of civil society organizations and
their ability to support government reform.  At the same time, coalitions
of civil society organizations have been working together to prepare a
Code of Conduct that all members will sign, which will promote greater
transparency and accountability through publication of annual reports and
financial statements.

The prioritised recommendations for enabling transition in Georgia:

    Promote Dialogue Between Humanitarian Players, the Development Sector,
    and those Involved in Structural Reforms: The government, humanitarian
    actors, and the development sector, together with donors involved in
    structural and policy reforms, should find mechanisms for dialogue on
    how to best incorporate their various concerns and expertise into
    unified approaches. These would include, e.g., collaboration on
    prioritizing actions from the EDPRP.


2.  Enhance Access to Economic Opportunities:

a.  Support the adoption and implementation of policies addressing the
macro and micro economic environment to improve employment opportunities;

b.  Support the Ministry of Agriculture in its elaboration of the Action
Plan for the Sustainable Agriculture Development and Food Security
Strategy to address key components of poverty in rural areas;

c.  Strengthen surveillance and analysis of capacities, e.g., of the SDS
and the WFP Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) with regard to
poverty and food security, and better integration of such information in
Government planning mechanisms;

d.  Support recovery and rehabilitative programmes/projects targeting
subsistence farmers including access to micro-credit schemes.  Improve
legislative and bureaucratic conditions to stimulate the small and
micro-enterprise sector. Improve access to credit on terms and conditions
supportive of the agricultural and SME sectors;

e.  Promote the diversification of local economies and accordingly
increase the skills of the labour force to meet the demands of the labour
market and reduce migratory pressures.

3.  Strengthen Access to Health and Education Services:

a.  Support Health and Education Sector Reform, focusing on the following:
Standardizing services and capacity building to meet international quality
of care requirements; Improving equitable accessibility of services across
all population groups; Increasing awareness among the population of
service availability and related cost; Improving health-related behaviour
across all population groups, including awareness of the importance of
healthy diet, and prevention of infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS, TB, and
others).

b.  Finalize Education Sector Reform, focusing on the following:
Increasing budgetary allocation to support financing of textbooks, school
fees, transportation, and boarding allowance for students from households
living below the poverty line; Targeting resources to provide refresher
training to teachers in academic institutions; Re-orienting education
towards vocational training and skills development to meet labour market
demands.

4.  Promote Social Integration of Marginalized Groups by raising awareness
among the population of the rights of all people to be included in
decision-making and development structures. Community mobilization efforts
must explicitly target those traditionally excluded households to promote
their participation.

5.  Enhance Governance and Improve Accountability, Effectiveness and
Efficiency of the civil society sector to partner with government through:
Prioritizing the passing of the new NGO law; Making operational the Code
of Conduct of Civil Society Organizations by raising awareness about the
Code and providing support to CSOs to meet the standards laid out in the
Code.

II.  Vulnerable Populations:

Georgia's overall socio-economic situation remains complex. The most
vulnerable groups such as children in institutions, children and adults
with disabilities, single elderly without family support, elderly with
children, communities in remote, mountainous areas, and underpaid workers,
like the vast majority of the population, have no social protection
whatsoever. They and their families receive only symbolic assistance if
anything at all.  Fundamental steps must be taken to restructure the
system of state social protection and to create an economically viable,
affordable, and equitable social safety net that will begin to alleviate
poverty effectively, especially for the most vulnerable.

A particularly challenging problem today are certain communities in
Georgia's highlands, with seasonally harsh climatic and environmental
conditions, steep slopes, and, in certain cases, aridity. Often neglected
by both the Government and the international community, such communities
face harsh winter conditions without adequate stocks of food, healthcare
services, or information about their rights and benefits. The lack of an
adequate early warning system, preparedness, and mitigation mechanisms for
large as well as small-scale crises or natural disasters makes entire
communities extremely vulnerable.

A priority focus of donor attention should be on the extremely
impoverished and marginalized groups. For example, there is a danger of
worsened health in poor families, who make less use of preventative
measures and often have unhealthy lifestyles. Drastic deterioration of
health conditions, which requires hospitalization or long-term treatment,
can be disastrous for the economic status of such a household.

Food and livelihood security are other issues of concern for these
vulnerable population groups.  In the Household Food Economy Assessment
conducted in January-February 2004 by the World Food Programme (WFP), it
was found "that food security problems are more likely to be manifested by
qualitative imbalance in diet and inadequate economic access to food by
vulnerable groups at the household level rather than real food
unavailability at the national level". Groups below the poverty line rely
mostly on cheap, nutritionally poor calories in their diet.

Given the level of employment in the agricultural sector, activities such
as extension services, promotion of cooperatives, availability of rural
credits, food processing, marketing of food production, implementation of
food safety standards, and protection of domestic markets would likely
improve food security in rural areas. In urban areas, food insecurity is
mainly due to insufficient income to purchase food and other essential
household items, and a lack of access to family gardens.

Current Trends

With the change of Government in November 2003 came optimism about
eventual improvement in the economic situation. The political climate
seems to have improved, as the Government is aware of the needs and rights
of the elderly, disabled, and other vulnerable groups. It is very possible
that the implementation of policies addressing the needs of the most
vulnerable could reduce the need for external assistance. However, various
indicators show that despite the new Government's state-building efforts,
these will not affect the most vulnerable for at least a year's time, and
there are still unacceptable levels of deprivation in people's lives.
Georgia, as a signatory of the Millennium Declaration, has made a
commitment to integrate the Millennium Development Goals within its
national development strategies. In 2004, the new Government has
undertaken immediate steps in some fields resulting in a significant
increase in tax collection and custom duties, public servants' salaries
such as teachers, paid on time. Yet with only a slight increase in
existing retirement pensions and a very slight improvement in the social
welfare system and other types of social allowances, the situation is
still dire:  these amounts still represent less than the absolute minimum
for subsistence and have very little effect on poverty reduction even
though they are now paid on time. It is noteworthy that the Government
also plans to double flat rate pension in 2005 though it will still remain
below minimum subsistence level.

The Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs (MoLHSA), Ministry of
Finance (MoF) and State Department of Statistics (SDS) are working closely
for the elaboration of the new social assistance programme. As an
immediate step for the implementation of Social Welfare System reform, the
Government initiated a process of identifying beneficiaries in order to
shift away from social category-based assistance towards needs-based
assistance, and to provide cash assistance to the most destitute
households. This cash assistance will be financed from the State Budget
(general incomes) and recipients will be households rather than
individuals. These households will not be identified based on existing
vulnerable categories but, instead, on their income and assets. However,
while selecting recipient families, the social status of its members will
be considered though this will not affect the decision on welfare relief.

It is expected that approximately 150,000 -180,000 families will benefit
from this state budget-funded pilot programme starting by end of 2005. It
is estimated by the SDS that the extreme poverty line is 60 GEL for an
adult male with working capacity. The main purpose of the programme is to
fill the gap between income and this poverty line, to increase it to 60
GEL per month. The amount of social assistance is varied, e.g. in urban
areas it ranges from 60 to 130 GEL depending on family composition. In
rural areas a relevant vulnerability index coefficient will be calculated
in comparison with urban areas. The assistance programme will draw its
information from statistical data and state records at the local level,
social workers (double-checking beneficiaries' situations), and community
participation.

It is anticipated that the State Employment Agency (currently undergoing
reorganization as the Employment and Social Assistance Agency) will be
administering the new programme. This will be a centralized structure with
head office in Tbilisi and branches in regions and districts. A
significant emphasis is placed on social workers and community
participation in the process of programme implementation. Social workers
are the main human resource in this work, together with active
participation at community level. The government policy makers, mainly
from the MoLHSA, who are leading the reform process, are presently
initiating consultations with international organizations to share
experiences, and methodologies for targeting beneficiaries and monitoring
the programme, and concerning the implementation of social assistance
projects.

Since 2003 the planned health reforms are taking a frustratingly long time
to become reality. With the ongoing health reform, donors are tending to
give money to change the policies. However, to free up sustainable
funding, the potential reforms will inevitably entail the dismissal of
large numbers of health sector personnel and the closure of health
facilities. Although there is a desperate need to support health services,
the question remains as to which health facilities, doctors, and nurses
will remain after the policies are implemented.

The current child welfare system of Georgia has as its cornerstone a high
cost network of residential institutions. Despite the initiation of better
care alternatives through pilot initiatives the number of children in
residential care has continued to increase due to the failure of the State
to require effective gatekeeping measures.

Gatekeeping is a crucial mechanism in the care of vulnerable children. It
aims to ensure services are targeted properly through an assessment of
needs, and that the situation of children that enter care is examined
regularly and action taken to promote reintegration into the family and
community. Through gatekeeping only those children whose needs cannot be
met in the community are admitted to residential care. Gatekeeping is
managed by a social work service. There are fully functioning social work
services in 5 localities of Georgia.

A small number of international organizations provide food assistance to
the most vulnerable, ranging from soup kitchens in urban areas,
institutional feeding, or free food aid distributions. Given the scope of
needs, which are only partially addressed by the State, it is difficult to
ascertain whether the needs of the most destitute are being met. In
2005-2006, it is expected that among these humanitarian agencies, the
relief component of some of the WFP and ICRC programmes will phase out.
Considering the Government's present low capacity for substituting viable
social support, phasing out of this food aid will have a severe impact on
the nutritional status of vulnerable groups. By early 2006, some 8,500 of
the most vulnerable ICRC beneficiaries in western Georgia would require
continued external support, if they are not assisted by Government social
assistance programmes. This population group (including old, disabled,
homebound or bedridden) is seen, at the moment, as very destitute. They
are incapable of working or executing any other coping mechanisms, and in
need of special care and attention.

Under the framework of its Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation, until
the end of June 2006 WFP is planning to continue assisting approximately
8,000 beneficiaries in municipal as well as NGO-run soup-kitchens and
institutions for children and the elderly. Along with the data trend on
poverty increase in rural areas, WFP has been shifting its resources more
to districts and villages, given the fact the some of the well-off
municipalities are undertaking full financing of such institutions in the
capital after phase out of WFP aid.

Before phasing out such programmes, it is necessary to ensure that the
State is fully capable of stepping in with well-targeted initiatives
ensuring that all segments of the Georgian population have physical and
financial access at all times to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food and
health care services to enable them to lead an active and healthy life.

Progress Made In Special Populations Sector Prioritized in 2004 Document

In 2004 the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) developed an action
plan with a short, medium and long-term operational framework. The
ultimate goal of this plan is to make institutional reform feasible,
manageable, and linked to the overall social protection system. Inclusive
education efforts have been implemented in 11 public schools providing
opportunities for the inclusion and integration of marginalized, excluded
children with disabilities. In parallel, complimentary activities were
launched to support ongoing initiatives, including the development of
skills and capacities of childcare professionals that enables them to work
with children with disabilities. In addition, USAID has provided US$2.1
million for a three-year project to address the needs of street children
in Georgia.

In line with supporting the process of redirecting funds from institutions
to community-based services, WFP initiated a pilot school-feeding project
in two of the most vulnerable areas - Rustavi and Ozurgeti - both of which
have a high incidence of institutionalization of children, to facilitate
the process of gate -keeping and reintegration of children. There needs to
be, however, better coordination of efforts among donors and NGOs and the
relevant government ministries involved in care and assistance to children
in institutions in order to avoid donor initiatives which could be
counterproductive for the deinstitutionalization process and overall
reform of the childcare system.

Last year, 2003, was first year that the issue of the aging population was
discussed during the Georgia Humanitarian Situation and Strategy
Conference. As a follow-up, a working group on the older population was
established with the participation of local and international NGOs, later
forming a coalition of local organizations working on elderly issues: a
"Dignified Old Age".  The primary objective of this coalition is to
increase awareness among the general public about the elderly and issues
affecting them, and to encourage the participation of the elderly in
useful work, etc.

The plight of both those with mental and physical disabilities is still a
subject of concern for the aid community, society, and the Government.
Very few practical steps have been taken to improve their lives. A small
number of small-scale awareness-raising initiatives and innovative
micro-projects have been implemented. Also some organizations, such as the
Georgian Foundation for Prosthetic Orthopaedic Rehabilitation (GEFPOR)
continued to support those with physical disabilities by providing
prostheses and orthesis, crutches and wheelchairs. During 2004, the
Government developed and presented a draft version of a new Mental Health
Policy and pledged to demonstrate increased commitment during the coming
years.

The prioritised recommendations for vulnerable populations are following:

1.  Assistance programmes in support of "traditional" vulnerable
categories until new the State Social Assistance Programme is implemented:
These will include the provision of food and non-food humanitarian aid to
the most destitute such as children in difficult circumstances and without
parental care, disabled children and adults, elderly lacking a support
network, persons living below the poverty line and populations in remote
or mountainous areas lacking access to infrastructure and basic services
or affected by natural disasters.

2.  Social Welfare - cash assistance vs. service provision: The state
reform programme focuses (as an immediate requirement) on cash-only
assistance schemes for the most destitute. In parallel to this, a policy
on social care services should also be developed. Social welfare must
include services and not only cash allowances. The state has a far greater

responsibility to ensure the welfare of its population bearing in mind a
greater number of details such as their family situation, health care
needs, number of years employed, etc.  More advocacy and consultancy is
needed to address this issue.

3.  Intensive dialogue and partnerships between the central authorities,
business sector, and NGOs should be increased in support of Social Welfare
System Reform. These include advocacy and encouragement for the Government
to take responsibility for the destitute population, endorsement of
successful ideas and scaling up good practices and projects initiated by
international organizations, local NGOs, and business communities. These
would focus on diversity of services, social work, and community
participation, experience sharing in terms of methodologies and targeting
criteria used, utilization of existing data from various surveys /
assessments conducted by international organizations, or on-going support
in providing consultations and advice.

4.  Begin the training of professional social and case workers in all
regions, to extend and advocate for needed community services to the most
vulnerable groups and to correctly assess household poverty levels. It is
the third year that the necessity for developing social and caseworker
programmes is being reiterated through various channels including the
Humanitarian Situation and Strategy Document and Conference. Services
provided by well-trained social workers can vary widely from area to area
and include counselling, day care, protective services, family-based care
as an alternative to institutional care, services for people with physical
and mental disabilities, information and referral, home services, home
support, housing advice, health service advice, advocacy, and possibly
employment counselling. It is important to increase in-service training
expenditures for social workers and to improve the relationship between
social workers and beneficiaries.

5.  Specific recommendations for Children

a.  Take immediate steps to reduce the number of children in residential
institutions by immediately mandating via ministerial or Presidential
decree a gatekeeping system in all residential children's institutions
where a fully functioning social work service is in place to make
decisions about the best care situation for each child individually.

b.  Accelerate action to define criteria for the closure of specific
residential institutions and plans to phase them out.

c.  Actors in the family and child welfare protection system need to begin
to articulate and provide a continuum of community-based services aimed at
strengthening the ability of families to care for their own children.
This process should include the participation of children and families
directly impacted.  New services should not be developed only as a
by-product of deinstitutionalization in a limited number of residential
institutions but should have a system-wide approach to keeping families
together and place a strong emphasis on prevention.

6.  Specific recommendations for Persons with Disabilities

a.  Continue efforts to raise public awareness and promote employment and
education opportunities for the disabled. This will assist in the social
integration of disabled persons and help them to feel like full members of
society.

b.  Develop home- and community-based services with the assistance of
trained social workers, assisting families to be relieved from time to
time by local support centers.  This will lessen the likelihood of
disabled persons being placed in institutions.

c.  Support existing physical rehabilitation centres to ensure that all
the disabled in Georgia have access to appropriate, high quality, and
sustainable physical rehabilitation services.

7.  Specific recommendations for the Elderly

a.  Promote awareness of older people's issues and advocate with, and for,
them. Develop public awareness campaigns at universities and schools to
attract volunteers among the general public. The Government of Georgia
should adopt the International Plan of Action on Ageing and develop a
realistic and feasible action plan to address key issues pertaining to
older people.

b.  Develop community-based social services including a home-care service
for the house bound elderly and promote a healthy lifestyle with the
strong support of the Government. Prevent some of the diseases hazardous
for the elderly, such as the flu, through vaccination. Doctors, nurses,
and social workers should be retrained in working with older people.
Building on existing successful models, expand the number of "Social
Clubs" throughout the country using local resources such as young
volunteers, well-off elderly persons providing a warm space for meeting,
communicating, socializing, and working.

c.  Continue or restart "Winter Heating Assistance Programme" to ensure a
certain number of hours of heat inside each house during winter, perhaps
by giving cash to the elderly instead of to suppliers.

III.  Conflict-affected Populations

The situation regarding the conflict affected areas of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia, and of the IDPs in Georgia proper, remains of special
humanitarian concern. For Abkhazia and South Ossetia, one reason is the
role which humanitarian assistance to also help promote reconciliation and
recovery. Another is the special role which humanitarian aid (including
international aid workers) plays in being able to reach those in need,
given the constraints to access from Georgia proper. The events of the
past months have also reinforced the volatility of the situation in both
regions, including the temporary new displacement of thousands of children
and women from South Ossetia.

However, there is also a growing sense that many of the problems facing
populations in these two areas, and IDPs from them, are similar to those
of much of Georgia. Thus, there is also a growing sense among the
humanitarian community that humanitarian assistance to populations in
these conflict-affected areas, and to IDPs, needs to be based on
identification of specific vulnerable and needy persons and sub-groups
within the larger category of residents of these areas, or of IDPs.

The conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia displaced hundreds of thousand
people within Georgia, left many homeless and unemployed, and added to the
overall negative socio-economic development of the country after the
breakdown of the Soviet Union. The slow progress in the peace process, in
addition to other factors, has resulted in continued difficulties for the
affected civilian population. The longer the political stand-off between
the different sides remains, the greater is the likelihood of a continued
need for humanitarian aid to affected vulnerable groups in both the
breakaway regions and in Georgia Proper.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

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 in the peace process
in both regions has resulted in limited and inadequate support for the
populations in the breakaway territories.

The socio-economic situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is poor. The
collapse of the Soviet Union and its centrally-planned economy,
drastically reduced agricultural production and income from tourism,
destruction during the ensuing civil wars, 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.
Most salaries are meagre, equivalent to US$ 5-15. Unemployment rates are
very high, and typical survival mechanisms are subsistence agriculture and
petty trade. Poverty and lack of legal income and employment opportunities
result in increasing emigration, so that both areas face post-conflict
depopulation and an ageing, non-productive population.

The assistance situation in both regions is not the critical emergency
that it was in the period immediately following the two conflicts.
Recently some international organisations have begun to reassess the
qualifications of their beneficiaries, as more cash is finding its way
into the local economy.  However, existing humanitarian programmes are
essential and some unmet basic needs of humanitarian concern remain.
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 while the
situation remains unpredictable and volatile (the violence in Gali in 1998
stands out as a reminder). However, despite these concerns, support has
become for some rehabilitation and development projects has begun.

Donors should be aware that the needs in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are
probably more varied, and require different solutions, than those in the
rest of Georgia, and with far 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 or technical expertise 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 Eastern
Abkhazia. In July and August 2004, many private dwellings and communal
buildings were damaged in South Ossetia as a result of armed clashes. Such
damage is not conducive to encouraging potential returnees nor,
ultimately, to the peace-process itself.

South Ossetia Specific:

Traditionally the conflict in South Ossetia has received much less
exposure internationally and even within Georgia. In 2004, due to an
increase in tensions between the sides, this region has become more
isolated. Limited international assistance and renewed fighting in the
area has only further degraded the humanitarian situation for the most
vulnerable. The state of civil society and local NGO development in South
Ossetia, compared even to that in Abkhazia, continues to be significantly
weaker than elsewhere in Georgia. It is essential to further raise
awareness amongst donors to encourage appropriate assistance to the
region. In 2004 increased development and repatriation activities have
been affected by a deterioration in political negotiations, which has
prolonged delays in the implementation of some planned projects.

Abkhazia Specific:

Specific to Abkhazia, there are additional concerns for the international
community such as the high-level of crime and insecurity in some areas, as
well as an estimated 6,000 landmines in Abkhazia. 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 security concerns. However, as a
number of returnees - between 30,000 and 40,000 - are now residing almost
permanently in Gali District, and there is an understanding that
socio-economic conditions are not drastically improving for either the
returnees or the local population in the conflict affected areas, some
donors have indicated a greater willingness to support infrastructure and
small community-building projects.

Challenges of Operating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia:

There are many issues that challenge the work of the international
community when working in conflict areas. Logistically, travelling to
Abkhazia is more complicated than to other parts of Georgia and the de
facto authorities there require a five-day "clearance" process from the
personnel of most international organisations travelling to the region. In
the summer of 2004, the CIS Peace Keeping Forces also introduced a more
rigorous notification process for the vehicles of all international
organizations, except the UN, crossing the ceasefire line.  The de facto
authorities in South Ossetia often show a strong interest in and distrust
of programming which goes beyond a strictly humanitarian focus. 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 implementing cross border programmes between Abkhazia
and Georgia Proper. Some organizations have managed to traverse these
obstacles and have set up joint programmes. However, for many others the
difficulties prove too great. With South Ossetia, the parties at the local
level seem more willing to work together and the problems of strict
borders do not exist as in Abkhazia.  However, it is important to note
that the situation has deteriorated in 2004 and access to South Ossetia
has become more limited. These kinds of challenges, including security
concerns in parts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, can make working in the
conflict zones more difficult but are not so limiting as to prevent
organizations from implementing programmes there.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

The plight and status of IDPs in Georgia continues to generate much
debate. According to official Government data, there are currently 237,069
persons (224,947 IDPs from Abkhazia and 12,122 IDPs from South Ossetia)
displaced from the two ethnically fuelled conflicts in those regions, who
still reside in Georgia proper, unable to officially return to their
places of origin. After more than 11 years of displacement, approximately
42% of IDPs inhabit collective centres, only some of which were renovated
several years ago to serve as temporary dwellings, while the majority of
the remaining 58% continue to live in crowded conditions with host
families or in rented apartments.

IDPs, like other citizens, have political, civil, and socio-economic
rights and are also entitled to certain state benefits as envisaged in the
principal legal act - "The Law of Georgia On Internally Displaced Persons
(IDPs) - the Persecuted" of 1996. Efforts to enforce IDPs' political and
civil rights have long been neglected, mainly due to political
considerations. Despite legislative changes adopted in 2003, giving IDPs
the right to participate in single-mandate elections, their level of
activeness was still lower compared to the local population in recent
elections.

A positive event was noted when, as a result of the decision of the
Constitutional Court of July 2003, the "Law of Georgia on IDPs - the
Persecuted" was amended to grant IDPs the right to be registered in their
own actual place of residence (after purchase of property) without losing
their IDP status.

It is noteworthy to mention that as one of the durable solutions to IDPs'
accommodation problems there have been several recent cases of the
privatisation of collective centres by IDPs themselves. There are
currently a number of agencies carrying out various shelter rehabilitation
programs for IDPs, however, giving them ownership rights over their
property and thus increasing their responsibility to properly maintain it
is considered to be a much more efficient and long lasting solution.

Recent developments related to the relocation of IDPs from the Hotel
"Iveria" and some other buildings, clearly demonstrate the need for a
transparent policy on IDP resettlement and payment of compensation.
Lessons learnt should ideally assist in the development of the
Governmental strategy, which should be non-discriminatory, equal, and
clear to everyone concerned.

The intention of the Georgian Government to ensure that IDPs return to
their permanent places of residence in safety and dignity does not run
counter to the need to improve their present living conditions. The
further privatization of certain communal centres, together with a
well-targeted resettlement programme, can be put forward as a durable
solution for part of the IDP population. At the same time, a durable
solution for IDPs living in the private sector is still not proposed.

The 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 still those for better
housing, employment opportunities, and improved health and education
services. A desire among some IDPs to move from the private sector into
collective centres has been created after the purchase of the Iveria and
Adjara hotels by private investors and the payment of compensation to
those IDPs residing there. At the same time, although there has been an
increase in the shelter rehabilitation programmes for IDPs throughout
Georgia, most of the collective centres still fail to meet minimum living
standards.

The majority of IDPs are still engaged in petty trade and unskilled manual
labour and lack regular employment opportunities. Vocational training and
re-training of IDPs which would increase their competitiveness in the
labour market, is needed. Most IDPs remain dependent on state allowance,
since this constitutes the sole monetary income for many of them. It
should be mentioned that the state allowance distribution has been
significantly improved recently. No delays in transfers of allowances have
been reported lately.

Quality healthcare services are largely inaccessible to IDPs, mainly
because of the high costs involved. Moreover, IDPs are often unaware of
those few benefits they are entitled to. The funding provided for
healthcare policy holders has been only partial. The quality of medical
treatment for IDPs is negatively influenced by the insufficient
material-technical base of healthcare institutions for IDPs and lack of
medicines. Based on information provided by the Abkhaz Ministry of Health
in Exile, the IDP morbidity rate exceeds the average indicators for the
general population 2 - 2.5 times. IDPs mainly suffer from diseases of the
circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems.

Apart from isolated interventions, no comprehensive initiatives have been
undertaken in the field of psychosocial rehabilitation of IDPs.
Psychosocial problems, together with difficult socio-economic conditions
and unemployment, were named as the main motives compelling IDPs to
increasingly migrate toward Tbilisi and/or out of Georgia.

Pursuant to the "Law of Georgia on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) -
the Persecuted", IDP children are entitled to free education at secondary
schools. However, there still are problems with access to education for
IDPs. The problems remain the same: poor conditions and
neglect/discrimination of IDP schools, since often they are in much worse
conditions than regular schools; lack of new teaching methodology among
IDP educators, especially in the regions; lack of school materials;
growing illiteracy among IDP children/youth; unmotivated/unpaid teachers;
and lack of information on education reform. The findings of the IDP
Education Profile Review in Georgia indicate the need to integrate the IDP
schools into the general educational system and for IDP schools to
participate in educational reform.

The prioritized recommendations for the Conflict Affected Populations are
the following:

1.  Continue to facilitate international and local efforts to bring a
peaceful settlement in South Ossetia and Abkhazia: Continued efforts to
bridge the gap between the opposing parties, such as confidence building
measures, are necessary to keep negotiations open. Conflict prevention
efforts should focus more on socio-economic issues and promote contact at
all levels of the populations.

2.  Review the humanitarian and social situations in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, with an emphasis on the returnee/local populations there, and
address the existing gaps: There is almost no social data on
returnees/local population in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the situation
requires constant monitoring. Due to recent developments within the
Georgian/Ossetian conflict zone, special attention should be paid to the
needs of returnee and local communities residing there. Attention is
needed to reduce gaps in the health care sector, especially the lack of
outreach services and the irregular supply of essential drugs. The
psychosocial needs of the conflict affected populations should also be
assessed and addressed.

3.  Increase information sharing and co-ordination with the Government and
with/between international and local organisations. There is a strong need
for more sharing of information and co-ordination between the Government
and international and local organisations, in terms of Government strategy
and policy development regarding IDPs and the other conflict affected
populations. There should also be stronger information-sharing and
co-ordination between international organisations regarding their own
policies and programming.

4.  Support, to a much larger extent, the rehabilitation of basic
infrastructure and private dwellings in South Ossetia and Abkhazia: Acute
rehabilitation needs exist. Public infrastructure and private dwellings
suffer from war damage and years of poor maintenance. The de facto
authorities in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia lack sufficient financial
resources to address this problem and often lack the management and
technical skills to maintain these vital services. 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. However, security issues need to be reviewed and
constantly monitored for these types of programmes to move forward.

5.  Increase support for the rehabilitation of infrastructure and
dwellings for IDPs temporarily remaining in Georgia Proper and increase
efforts to seek durable alternatives to current shelter arrangements: The
improvement of living conditions for IDPs living in Georgia Proper
continues to be a priority. Years of neglect and lack of investment have
resulted in a continued deterioration of housing facilities and public
services (electricity, water supply, sewage). Apart from rehabilitating
shelters, the international community should work in close cooperation
with the Government and IDP communities to identify possible alternative
shelter arrangements for IDPs until such time as return becomes possible.
The search for alternative housing solutions is closely linked with issues
of IDP rights and needs to be closely coordinated and monitored.

6.  Increase income and employment generating activities: Lack of income
and employment opportunities is a central issue for the conflict-affected
populations. Populations are becoming more inactive and less productive
and are not using and therefore forgetting their technical skills or
educational experience. This loss of skills exacerbates the poverty cycle.
Small-scale income- generation and employment schemes are an effective way
of addressing some of the underlying causes of poverty. Community
initiatives in IDP and host communities, returnee communities, and local
communities should also be supported to improve the livelihoods of all
those involved.

7.  Improve access to quality education: For all of the conflict affected
peoples, access to quality education remains an issue that needs to be
further assessed and improved upon.

8.  Encourage coordinated support to civil society and local NGO/Community
Based Organisations (CBOs) development and sustainability: Local civil
society in Abkhazia, and especially South Ossetia, is weaker than in
Georgia Proper. There should be a focus by the international community on
the creation and strengthening of local capacity to address local
humanitarian and development needs.

9.  Raise awareness of IDP rights among IDPs themselves, Governmental
offices and the international community; enforce and promote the
implementation of existing IDP rights: Awareness raising campaigns should
be implemented for IDPs and those dealing with the IDP caseload. Special
enforcement mechanisms for the implementation of rights should also be in
place, including measures to increase the responsibility of public
servants and other relevant persons to honestly and fairly perform their
duties with regard to IDPs. Apart from awareness-raising among Government
officials, there exists a need to establish working relations with all
governmental agencies dealing with IDP issues in order to ensure
information exchange, coordination, and institutional support.

10.  Introduce vulnerability criteria to be considered while designing
effective assistance programmes for IDPs: This would differentiate IDP
status from IDP benefit eligibilities and might generate some savings for
the Government.

IV.  Natural Disasters

Georgia is a highly disaster-prone country. In the past it has been
frequently hit by serious natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods,
droughts, landslides and avalanches. It is exposed to a large number of
technological disasters. Georgia's current fragile social, political, and
economic environment, rapid urbanization, and improperly maintained
infrastructure increase the level of vulnerability and contribute to the
impact of disasters.

Georgia's institutional disaster management capacities are very limited in
terms of disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response. The
system does not have the human, financial, and physical resources to
respond to even small- and medium-scale disasters (recent example:
floods/landslides in Svaneti, July 2004). It also lacks a clear structure
in Government for crisis management, with an adequate level of authority
and lines of responsibility.

The lack of adequate national disaster preparedness and response
capacities greatly increases the destructive impact of national disasters.
Thus, such capacity building is a priority humanitarian concern.

National Disaster Management Structure

Until 21 July 2004, two bodies within the Government of Georgia shared
responsibility for disaster management. The main coordinating body was the
Standing Commission on Emergencies and Civil Defence under the National
Security Council. This body ultimately sanctioned all disaster response by
different ministries and advised the President on seeking international
assistance. On the operational level the Department of Emergency
Situations and Civil Defence (DESCD) was responsible, under the Ministry
of Internal Affairs (MIA). The DESCD had its head office in Tbilisi, a
duty office at the Tbilisi municipality level, and regional branches
country-wide. It also included various units and services, such as rescue
teams, a duty office, evacuation, medical, engineering, communication,
civil protection, etc. The National Guard have almost the same functional
obligations as the DESCD, but the duties, responsibilities, and
cooperation of the two structures were not defined.

However, even though this structure looks comprehensive, it was barely
implemented in practice. Overall non-compliance to regulations and
procedures for the crises management was observed. The reasons for this
included the lack of adequate authority and seniority of the DESCD in the
bigger circle of the national disaster management system, no clear lines
of responsibilities and roles of various players, and inadequate
legislation for crisis management.  The National Security Council
Commission was hardly activated during emergencies. In practice, Ad Hoc
State Commissions were established creating parallel structures with lack
of communication, info-sharing and coordination. Partly, this inefficiency
of the national disaster management system was also due to the irrational
use of available limited resources - the DESCD had up to 600 staff units
throughout Georgia.

As a result of internal restructuring of the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
on 21 July 2004 the DESCD was dissolved by a Ministerial decree. With this
decision the national disaster management structure became even more
unclear. The Rescue Base at Tbilisi Sea, earlier belonging to the DESCD
and rehabilitated and supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation, was transferred to the Internal Troops under the Ministry of
Internal Affairs. However, as of 1 November 2004, Internal Troops have now
been transferred to the Ministry of Defence, whereas the status of the
Rescue Base status has not yet been defined. There is an obvious vacuum
that needs to be filled by the definition of a new structure.

Recent Trends:

Presently too little is done by international agencies, donors and NGOs to
support Georgia in these fields. However, a few years ago significant
efforts were exerted by international organizations to build sustainable
national disaster management capacities, including institutional and
organizational strengthening, training and public awareness on disaster
preparedness, prevention, mitigation, response, policy development,
legislative, regulatory, and management framework, and supporting of
technical capacities. Amongst the organizations that have been active in
this field are the UN Development Programme (UNDP), Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC), the US government under its State
Partnership Programme, NATO's Partnership for Peace framework, the Eurasia
Foundation, and Save the Children.

SDC has been implementing the Natural Disaster Preparedness and Response
project with DESCD to improve its Search and Rescue (SAR) capacities in
order to cope with natural disasters. The focus was on the installation of
a functional rescue base and the conduct of regular training courses. With
support from SDC a number of buildings, including a training facility,
were reconstructed and rehabilitated at the Rescue Base. A rubble field
for practical training is also being constructed. Special rescue material
and equipment, and vehicles and uniforms for 100 rescuers were handed
over. Special training by the Swiss experts was provided to rescuers. When
the DESCD was dissolved, SDC suspended all project activities in this
area. Resumed collaboration is planned as soon as the new disaster
management structure of Georgia is established and a new memorandum of
understanding with the Government has been signed.

In 1999-2002, UNDP has focused on a National Disaster Management Capacity
Building Project with the DESCD providing support on a number of levels
including strategic and policy, legal background, Spatial Information
System and GIS-analysis for natural hazard monitoring, educational
programs (textbooks) for schools, and training of staff and other
professionals of national and local authorities.

Smaller programmes were implemented by the Eurasia Foundation in 2001-2002
under its South Caucasus Cooperation Programme (SCCP) that supported the
development of municipal emergency preparedness plans for the cities of
Baku, Yerevan, and Tbilisi in the event of a major earthquake. Emergency
preparedness plans were developed for 12 different municipal services
(infrastructure electricity, roads, fire, etc.). A second project was
implemented in 2002 for the consolidation of the above plans into joint
action plans, and for the improvement of the professional skills of the
relevant municipal and governmental services to handle emergency
situations.

Within the context of the west Georgia Assistance Initiative (GAI), in
2000/2001 Save the Children undertook an Emergency Preparedness and
Disaster Response project in Western Georgia that focused on communities
at risk, local Governments, and NGOs.

The US Government has organized various trainings and exercises for the
Georgian military and disaster management experts. In September 2003, for

instance, the US Air Force organized a relatively large scale exercise in
Georgia on disaster management for Georgian military units, rescuers, and
medical personnel. This exercise was conducted under the framework of
NATO's Partnership for Peace programme and included theory followed by a
practical simulation exercise.

>From November 2003 onward the same US State of Georgia National Guard
organized planning conferences for training exercises for September 2004.
This project had to be cancelled because of the dissolution of the DESCD
and the subsequent lack of a partner on the national level.

And lastly, the international Disaster Management Team (DMT), consisting
of relevant UN agencies, international NGOs and several donors with a
special interest in disaster preparedness and response, is an important
player. The DMT is an UN-led effort to prepare for and facilitate a prompt
and effective country-level response by the UN system and other DMT member
agencies in the event of a disaster or emergency. In addition, it is the
team's responsibility to facilitate the provision of necessary support to
the Georgian government in disaster preparedness, prevention, and response
activities. The DMT has been activated several times in Georgia (e.g. the
earthquake in Tbilisi April 2002, and the floods/landslides in Svaneti,
July 2004) and provided support to the Government in mitigating the
consequences of disasters. In both cases, the DMT member agencies have
provided immediate relief aid to the affected population.

Bearing in mind the current unclear situation regarding the disaster
management structure in Georgia, the current SDC project has been
suspended. Meanwhile, the SDC and the UN have been discussing (also with
the US-Office for Defence Cooperation/Bilateral Affairs Office)
possibilities for improving the current unstable and unclear situation.
The SDC also intends to initiate a revision of the national disaster
management structure by the Government of Georgia. The advice of a
specialist in organizational development has been offered, together with a
proposal for a round table meeting with the National Security Council,
relevant ministries, and the above-mentioned organizations. The aim is to
clarify the roles, duties, and responsibilities of all of the actors in
the case of major disaster. This will serve as a basis for possible new
support projects for some of these or other interested actors.

As soon as the roles, duties, and responsibilities of the SAR team and of
the Rescue Base near the Tbilisi Sea have been clarified, and a new
Memorandum of Understanding is signed with the government of Georgia, SDC
plans to resume training activities for the rescuers and the construction
of the rubble field. Certainly, as soon as an emergency management
authority has been established in Georgia, the US Office of Defence
Cooperation plans to organize joint training exercises with the National
Guard, the SAR Teams, the fire brigades, the centre for disaster medicine,
and other actors.

The prioritised recommendations for natural disasters are following:

1.  Promote and support the establishment of a functional disaster
management structure in the Government with adequate level of seniority,
authority and clear lines of responsibilities. There is a lack of know-how
and human, financial, and physical resources as well as a lack of a lean
structure in government for crisis management with clear responsibilities
and authority. It is important that, together with a lead civilian agency,
each of the participating Governmental entities have a clear definition of
their roles and capacities and of who is doing what in case of emergency.
Looking at the lesson-learned after the earthquake response in 2002, one
of the major problems was spontaneous actions and the existence of
parallel structures, weak or no communication, information sharing, and
coordination.

2.  Strengthen the Government's preparedness capacity to carry out an
adequate response. At present institutional disaster management capacities
are very limited in terms of disaster preparedness, prevention, and
mitigation. There is an urgent need to establish a viable mechanism for
disaster mitigation and to elaborate an emergency preparedness plans and
national disaster risk reduction strategy. Continued efforts for
strengthening civilian (search and rescue) response capacities by
providing the necessary training or assisting in its expansion to regions
(at present a Rescue Base is only available in Tbilisi), or networking
with civil society institutions should also be promoted. In addition,
strengthening of the Government's early warning capacity is of the utmost
importance, including seismic monitoring, drought-related early warning
and forecasting, and other related fields.

3.  Encourage the establishment of a full range of civilian and military
response capacities. Establishment of civil and military cooperation links
should be the next step, especially in the anticipation of a larger scale
emergency, where military assets could be temporarily used to overcome the
immediate consequences of a disaster. Such cooperation link should comply
with the international practice of civil-military cooperation, where roles
and responsibilities of both actors are well-defined.

4.  Encourage the adoption of necessary legislation for crisis management.
Without a solid legal basis, none of the above can be applied. There is
the possibility of reviewing existing draft laws (for instance, draft laws
elaborated under the UNDP Capacity Building project) that could be used as
a solid background for new legislation and its adoption should be
encouraged.

5.  Increase efforts to build awareness among the population of the main
risks, prevention measures, and coping mechanisms. There is a lack of
sufficient knowledge among the public about disasters, including disaster
prevention skills or coping mechanisms. Greater public awareness is needed
at all levels of society, such as behavioural skills, overcoming stress,
or first aid training. Georgian Red Cross Society's country-wide network
could be used for such community-based trainings, including emergency
preparedness and first aid. Advocacy efforts are required to encourage the
inclusion of related subjects (such as civil defence) in primary and
secondary school curricula.

6.  Strengthening capacities of the authorities to enforce seismic safety
standards and norms in the construction industry. At present, there is no
systemic approach in this area. Specific academic institutions are working
on earthquake engineering and seismology but there is no link with the
building codes. Bearing in mind that earthquake is one of the most likely
hazards in Georgia, an application of seismic safety standards in
construction industry should be initiated and enforced by the Government.

7.  Establish a Governmental cooperation mechanism with international
organizations, mainly the DMT. This would include an elaboration of a
Memorandum of Understanding clearly identifying the roles and
responsibilities of both the Government and the DMT. A well-established
cooperation mechanism makes a response to an emergency better coordinated.
This cooperation would also include increasing awareness among Government
officials on international response tools, services, and procedures.

V.  CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Georgia Humanitarian Situation and Strategy 2005 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 for all those interested in
humanitarian and related issues and needs, aimed ultimately at improving
conditions for the vulnerable populations 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Appropriate Donations for International Disaster/Humanitarian Needs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Center for International                  web: www.cidi.org
     Disaster Information             listserv: www.cidi.org/listsub.htm
                                    guidelines: www.cidi.org/donate.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -