| Grant Profile: |
| Project Title: |
Georgia Self Reliance Fund for Internally Displaced Persons |
| PCF/LICUS/SPF: |
PCF |
Status: |
Closed |
| File Number: |
127-a
| Region: |
ECA |
| Sector: |
Social Protection |
Country: |
Georgia |
| FY approved: |
2001 |
Grant Theme : |
Social protection and risk management |
| Keyword(s): |
Civil society / NGOs;Multi-Donor Trust Funds;Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons |
Approved Amount: |
$100,000.00 |
 |
Grant Recipient:
Accion Contra el Hambre (ACH) |
Grant Purpose:
The grant was part of a larger grant aiming at reintegration of refugees and internally displaced persons in Georgia. More specifically, the purpose of this grant was to support a pilot project in six villages in the Tsalendjikha and Chkhorotsku districts, in the north of Samegrelo Region, whose objective was to test strategies for improving living conditions of vulnerable internally displaced persons and local population in rural areas of Samegrelo Region in a sustainable way, by enhancing their self-reliance, integration, and community integration.
|
Grant Activities:
Activities under the project included:
(1) Income Generation Activities:
(i) Support to the creation of thirteen community-based organizations (CBOs), composed by an average of 60 percent of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 40 percent of host families (locals), each one composed of an average of ten to 15 families.
(ii) Provision, through a participatory approach, of technical and managerial training to members of each CBO, in order to improve their self-reliance skills at personal and collective level.
(iii) Development of extension activities including a workshop in Business and Activity Plan design for participating communities.
(iv) Provision of agricultural inputs to CBOs (animals, fertilizer, construction materials, etc.) in conjunction with provision of land by local farmers for agricultural activity which includes both locals and IDPs, as well as establishment of mechanisms for division of benefits of resulting economic activities between locals and IDPs in the event of any possibility of return by IDPs to their homes during the project life.
(2) Community Development Activities
(i) Support to the creation of "solidarity funds" in each participating village with parts of profits of income generation activities. The funds were used to repair and/or rehabilitate and/or upgrade as well as to maintain communal installation like schools, health centers or others, according to the needs identified by the community.
(ii) Support to the establishment of Participatory boards in each village, including representatives of CBOs, local authorities and village representatives, to define decision-making process and participation of all village members in this initiative.
|
Results:
The Georgia Self-Reliance Fund aimed to test a strategy for improving the living conditions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in a sustainable way by enhancing their capacity to take a proactive stance in shaping their future as well as their integration in society. The Fund was based on the newly developed approach for integration of IDPs which was seen as a very innovative mechanism at the time of its conception.
The New Approach was conceived by UNDP, UNHCR, UNOCHA and the World Bank in 1999. It focused on IDPs from conflict regions who fled interethnic conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the early 1990s. Its objective was to support the Government of Georgia in pursuing a targeted approach to IDP assistance by selecting the most vulnerable and increasing help for them, rather than simply providing them with limited financial resources. As withdrawing relief after immediate assistance presents the danger or continuing the plight of IDPs, the New Approach developed the concept of “self-reliance”. The purpose of the new “self-reliance” mechanism was to serve as an alternative to humanitarian aid and stimulate the IDPs to take their future in their own hands by increasing their employment, employability and integration willingness and capacity.
Obtaining know-how on IDPs – what works and does not work, and what it takes to make things work – was one of the most valuable outcomes of the Project. It supported policy research and the commissioning of studies on different aspects of the IDP population. In addition, the project supported the implementation of sub-projects, to test the New Approach. Fifteen field projects were implemented successfully during the GSRF. Diverse in achieving the common objectives, these projects provided needed assistance to IDPs and made a valuable contribution to the life of communities in the areas in which they were implemented.
One of the resettlement projects aimed at helping ethnic Svan IDPs from Abkhazia settle into the houses of ethnic Greeks who left Georgia for their kin state. Nine out of the 10 families involved in the project settled as a result of the project. They managed to establish friendly relationships with the local community and even participated in projects aimed at rebuilding local infrastructure. Another project aimed at creating a model village by distributing farm animals and creating jobs at a tea plantation, in addition to resettlement. The project quickly became popular among IDPs, as participants in the project worked very hard and improved their livelihoods. The initiative also proved more efficient and sustainable than another project that was implemented in temporary IDP dwellings nearby which did not sustain IDPs’ interest.
Another project, implemented in Otar Khvistani village in Tsalka district, provided IDPs with on-the-job training, aiming at increasing their employability. The idea was to help beneficiaries become employed by local businesses or start their own business. Forty-one people found employment as a result of the project. Women were key beneficiaries, as they worked in the sewing industry and sold their produce to maternity wards, nursery homes, etc. Other similar projects in Tskhaltubo district and Samegrelo and Zugdidi regions assisted the rehabilitation of local infrastructure, and promoted income-generating activities such as bee-keeping, goat farming, as well as the establishment of community business organizations. Small businesses established as a result of these projects ranged from carpentry, equipment for borrowing during special occasions, bakeries, sewing workshops, greenhouses, etc. These provided IDPs with the chance to become more self-reliant than before. Some of the projects received further funding by other international donors after the GSRF ended.
Other projects in Tskhaltubo and Gori districts aimed at building good relationships between IDPs and the local communities in which they settled. The projects brought together representatives of local authorities, local population, and IDPs around a common objective to identify infrastructure rehabilitation priorities using a participatory approach. In Tskhaltubo, the project worked remarkably well, contributing to the implementation of a number of sub-projects, from improvement of sanitary conditions in the collective centers to renovation of the main fountain. In Gori, the project assisted infrastructure rehabilitation, small business development, and exchange of land plots among IDPs and host communities.
Projects also focused on providing jobs for IDPs. One project succeeded in providing jobs for IDPs through ceramics production and carpentry in Tbilisi. The carpenters workshops established during the project proved successful, as their production found markets and provided employment for more than 10 people. Twenty-two IDPs were also employed at a ceramics stove. A hairdressing project in Tbilisi also provided employment in hairdressing and manicure for female IDPs. Some women opened their own businesses, while others found jobs at beauty parlors.
The GSRF also supported information outreach projects which proved to be highly appreciated by beneficiaries. The objective of the projects was to preserve social capital through increased access to information and involvement in media programming. One project assisted the establishment of local radios involving both IDPs and host communities. The Post-Factum project in Tbilisi supported programs prepared by IDPs as well as ones prepared by professional journalists. Another project supported the distribution of radio sets with solar panels (which charge the battery in absence of electricity) in 30 villages of Zugdidi region. The objective was to provide IDPs and local communities access to the programs of Radio Atinati popular in the west of Georgia with its focus on local issues and interactive format. Yet another project supported the White Crane, a children’s magazine bringing together IDP and non-IDP children. The magazine provides an opportunity for participation of children and teenagers from remote areas and conflict zones. Among other things, the magazine provided coverage of economic issues to teenagers. As a result of the GSRF, the magazine provided summer camp for mixed groups of teenagers from IDP and host communities, where they provided training in economics and management.
|
Lessons Learned:
There are a number of donors working in the area of IDP assistance, such as IOM, DRC, NRC, Save the Children, etc. who were not part of the New Approach framework. There are also a number of national organizations in Georgia working with IDPs. It is important that international and national partners are brought into the consultation process regarding World Bank IDP projects. A donor consultation process is much needed to debate visions, strategies, and challenges of the implementation of IDP projects.
Projects also need an engaged government partner with whom working relations can be established and maintained. In the case of the New Approach, the change in government brought confusion during project implementation. However, there were a number of Members of Parliament who were interested in IDPs issues as individuals for one reason or another. It was thus important to use the New Approach as a facilitator of links between the Parliament and IDPs through identification and engagement with the relevant MPs and helping with regional liaison. In this, the New Approach could be utilized to enhance coordination among local authorities in the area of IDP assistance.
The GSRF also proved that involving leaders from IDP communities is also essential to project implementation. People who are most capable to drive difficult projects forward are likely to be active members of the IDP community. Investment in local organizations is also more strategic in the long term, compared to engagement of international NGOs.
It is also essential that sustainability mechanisms are built in future projects which bring together IDPs, host communities, and local authorities. In the case of the New Approach, this relationship worked well, but it needed to be maintained after the end of the project. However, extension of projects through additional donor support enjoyed mixes success.
It was also important that the New Approach remain visible throughout project implementation. While the logos of the funding partners remained always seen, many organizations and government officials were unaware of the existence of the New Approach. The project was often confused with other assistance programs for IDPs. It is thus significant that projects are widely publicized, to increase awareness of their existence.
Recommendations on increasing the efficiency of IDP projects, based on the New Approach model and the projects developed as a result of the GSRF, include:
1/ Provide IDPs with vocational education, in addition to English language training. Training people in professions which are in high demand can provide them with the skills necessary to find employment and start their own business, thus improving their livelihoods in ways more tangible than English language and computer training.
2/ Resettle IDPs in the countryside where they can work the land and revive traditional practices and crops. Construction of alternative shelter should be supplemented by provision of productive assets in agriculture and/or chances of employment;
3/ Develop projects targeting youth. There are many idle youth our of school and out of work who could be engaged in projects, to keep them off the streets and away from disillusionment and delinquency.
4/ Settlement should go hand in hand with income generation and social inclusion. Otherwise, getting people settled would be difficult. Learning from experience in other countries is important and beneficial. Serbian experience led by UNHCR would have been beneficial for the New Approach.
5/ Build permanent, rather than temporary shelter.
6/ There should be community contribution, at least in kind, to ensure ownership of the resettlement process.
7/ Micro crediting schemes need adjustment if revolving funds are slow for everybody to have access to benefits.
8/ Projects for IDPs in collective centers and for those in private accommodation should be designed differently.
9/ In case of dispersedly living IDPs, it is better to create jobs for a mixed community. This allows to avoid tensions between IDPs and the locals, and promotes a combination of resources and knowledge, thus increasing effectiveness of the projects. Establishment of councils bringing together representatives of IDPs, host communities and local authorities proved a successful model.
10/ Implementation of projects in mixed communities demonstrated that creation of mixed groups of beneficiaries (local Georgians/IDP Georgians/local Ossetians) is more effective and contributes to an increase in self-reliance, and builds confidence.
11/ It is important to conduct risk assessment and have contingency plans for risk management (e.g. severe winter).
12/ Projects should be designed for a duration of 18 months to two years, and support should reduce gradually.
13/ Community mobilization training should go hand in hand with distribution of productive assets.
14/ Farming projects are not enough on their own. There needs to be a small business or trade component, to carry a project through if weather or market conditions are averse for a while. For example, the “Wedding Equipment for Hire” service for special occasions proved a good combination with a goat and cattle farm.
15/ Purchases of equipment for agricultural projects should be envisioned.
16/ Access to credit should be improved and simplified, accompanied by awareness measures that it is feasible to repay credits.
|
|
