IDP Policy Formation and Implementation in Georgia: Shelter for the 1990’s IDPs 11 November 2009 European Union-Georgia Civil Society Human Rights Seminar on Media Freedom and Internationally Displaced Persons

Positive Developments Political will for IDPs is strong, and not isolated to only one ministry TEGs are getting the details right Commitments to transparency

Commitments to Transparency State Strategy (Feb 2007): “In monitoring implementation of the strategy, much importance is given to the participation of IDPs themselves and of the civil society as well as to the transparency of the process.” (p. 13) Presentation by Nika Gilauri (PM) to donors, Feb 2009: Establishment of a Steering Committee “to ensure proper coordination and transparency” May 2009 Action Plan: “ In order to achieve transparency of the overall process of rehabilitation and privatization of CCs, the MRA commits itself to prepare an overview of all CCs (that will be targeted in 2009) with clear indication of their future in terms of privatization and rehabilitation, two months following the adoption of the Action Plan. The latter will explain the criteria governing the CCs’ identification process.”

Shelter Timeline: Actions precede Planning Feb 07: State Strategy on IDPs adopted July 08: Action Plan to the State Strategy approved Aug-Sep: conflict and post-conflict emergency period Sep 08: JNA drafted (though not publicly released), $3.2 billion requested Oct 08: Brussels Donors Conference, $4.55 billion pledged Dec 08: Action Plan annulled, new AP due within 1 month Feb 09: PM presentation to donors on progress achieved in reintegration of old IDPs Self-privatization of CCs already underway in 301 CCs Tenders for rehabilitation of 164 CCs (50 mln GEL) announced by MDF May 09: New Action Plan adopted Sep 09: Rehabilitation standards developed/approved Sep 09: MDF, municipalities identify vacant land for building more IDP settlements

Problems, Gaps (1) Action precedes planning, leads to distrust, inefficiencies Communication with, and accountability to, beneficiaries: Lack of awareness among IDPs on their choices Unclear who should be accountable (MRA, MDF?) MRA’s main communication tool with IDPs (hotline) is ineffective Communication is a one-way street to IDPs when it does happen

Problems, Gaps (2) Persistent problems with registration complicate self-privatization Capacity constraints within the MRA Regional Representatives Difficulties in forward planning and securing financing Coordination with NGOs working “off-budget” on IDP issues a huge, unfulfilled task AP is a “living document” and already outdated

Problems, Gaps (3) Shelter does not equal integration – is the ‘fix’ for the new IDPs the most appropriate solution for the old IDPs?

Recommendations - Government Slow down, tailored approach is critical to success for IDPs (and politically) Better vertical and horizontal information sharing within government: Regional Representative offices of MRA Other government bodies (MDF, MoHLSA, MoI, MoF, MoJ…) Two-wayinfo sharing with general public and IDPs (builds trust!) Why were decisions taken? What was the rationale? Never forget: greater information builds trust with ALL stakeholders Locus of decision making at the cabinet level makes IDP assistance unnecessarily political Results of MDF monitoring of CC rehabilitation should be public; Involve IDPs in monitoring efforts by sharing budgets and contracts, setting up a call-in center Registration issues of old IDPs must be solved before fair housing solutions can be offered

Recommendations - Donors Make long-term commitments to financing the Action Plan Funding must contribute towards increased local capacity – include strategic planning, TA, management systems assistance Require the implementation of a comprehensive communications strategy, and fund it! Make funding contingent upon benchmarks in communications and accountability to IDPs, transparency of process Off-budget funding for IDP issues: Must be communicated regularly (monthly) to MRA Must meet same requirements for accountability to beneficiaries (hotlines, complaints mechanisms, etc.) Donor transparency, fragmentation of information: Disclosure of financing information on websites – amount, mechanism, main program areas, contact info