Livelihood Support for IDPs in Georgia The Government of Georgia (GoG) adopted the IDP State Strategy in 2007 which has become the key guiding document for Government agencies, donors and civil society regarding the provision of durab- le solutions to IDPs. The IDP State Strategy was amended in 2009 with the adoption of its Action Plan in 2008. Until 2013 the Government’s core focus through the IDP State Strategy and the accompa- nying Action Plan was on the provision of housing coupled with a range of one-off allowances and tar - geted social assistance to IDPs. It was perceived that if an IDP received housing from the state s/he would immediately become self-reliant. Therefore livelihood potential of resettlement areas for IDPs was insufficiently analysed. As a result many IDPs were accommodated in remote and economically under-developed areas of the country with very lim- ited access to employment opportunities. This has significantly contributed to complete dependency of IDPs on state monetary assistance schemes which has hindered their local integration. Donor agencies, international and national non-gov- ernmental organisations (NGOs) including Danish Refugee Council (DRC) had been providing IDPs with livelihood grant or loan schemes in Georgia for more than a decade. The role of the Government of Geor- gia in the provision of livelihood support to IDPs had been very little and disrupted. In 2010 the Ministry of IDPs from the Occupied Ter- ritories, Accommodation and Refugees (MRA) of Georgia established a Legal Entity under Public Law (LEPL), “Community Development Centre”, with the financial support of the World Bank to implement livelihood support programme for IDPs. This was a first attempt of the GoG to create a state agency that would be responsible for the provision of livelihood assistance to IDPs. However the LEPL terminated its work in 2012 due to lack of funding. Later, in 2013 the GoG developed a Livelihood 1 Stra- tegy for IDPs with strong encouragement from the donor community and active participation of interna- tional and national NGOs including IDP Community Based Organisations. The Livelihood Strategy was adopted by the Resolution #257 of the Government of Georgia in February 2014. The goal of the Livelihood 1 IDP Livelihood Strategy defines Livelihood as follows: Household livelihood security has been defined as adequate and sustainable access to income and resources to meet basic needs (including adequate access to food, potable water, health facilities, educational opportunities, housing and time for community participation and social integration), Frankenberger 1996. LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDPS: LESSONS LEARNT FROM GEORGIA & STEPS FORWARD IN UKRAINE 1 Thematic Bulletin Issue #2 | June 2018 Funding provided by the United States Government
Transcript
Livelihood Support for IDPs in Georgia
The Government of Georgia (GoG) adopted the IDP State Strategy in 2007 which has become the key guiding document for Government agencies, donors and civil society regarding the provision of durab- le solutions to IDPs. The IDP State Strategy was amended in 2009 with the adoption of its Action Plan in 2008. Until 2013 the Government’s core focus through the IDP State Strategy and the accompa-nying Action Plan was on the provision of housing coupled with a range of one-off allowances and tar-geted social assistance to IDPs. It was perceived that if an IDP received housing from the state s/he would immediately become self-reliant. Therefore livelihood potential of resettlement areas for IDPs was insufficiently analysed. As a result many IDPs were accommodated in remote and economically under-developed areas of the country with very lim-ited access to employment opportunities. This has significantly contributed to complete dependency of IDPs on state monetary assistance schemes which has hindered their local integration.
Donor agencies, international and national non-gov-ernmental organisations (NGOs) including Danish
Refugee Council (DRC) had been providing IDPs with livelihood grant or loan schemes in Georgia for more than a decade. The role of the Government of Geor-gia in the provision of livelihood support to IDPs had been very little and disrupted.
In 2010 the Ministry of IDPs from the Occupied Ter-ritories, Accommodation and Refugees (MRA) of Georgia established a Legal Entity under Public Law (LEPL), “Community Development Centre”, with the financial support of the World Bank to implement livelihood support programme for IDPs. This was a first attempt of the GoG to create a state agency that would be responsible for the provision of livelihood assistance to IDPs. However the LEPL terminated its work in 2012 due to lack of funding.
Later, in 2013 the GoG developed a Livelihood1 Stra- tegy for IDPs with strong encouragement from the donor community and active participation of interna-tional and national NGOs including IDP Community Based Organisations. The Livelihood Strategy was adopted by the Resolution #257 of the Government of Georgia in February 2014. The goal of the Livelihood
1 IDP Livelihood Strategy defines Livelihood as follows: Household livelihood security has been defined as adequate and sustainable access to income and resources to meet basic needs (including adequate access to food, potable water, health facilities, educational opportunities, housing and time for community participation and social integration), Frankenberger 1996.
LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDPS:
LESSONS LEARNT FROM GEORGIA &
STEPS FORWARD IN UKRAINE
1
Thematic BulletinIssue #2 | June 2018
Funding provided by the United States Government
2 Thematic Bulletin | Issue #2
Strategy is to develop socio-economic conditions of IDPs through joint efforts of state agencies, donors, international organisations, national and local NGOs, private (business) sector in order to create opportu-nities for enhancing economic potential of IDPs and their host communities. This is meant to support the smooth transfer of IDPs from the state dependency to self-reliance as well as to intensify their role in the economic development of the country. The Liveli-hood Strategy envisages reaching the goal through the following objectives: 1) Effective governance/coordination of the IDP livelihood sector; 2) Creating an efficient mechanism for data collection, analysis and dissemination; 3) Identification, elaboration and implementation of livelihood programmes2. The Live-lihood Action Plan (LAP) was first approved in 2015 and it had been updated and revised biannually.
A new LEPL “IDP Livelihood Agency” (later in 2017 renamed as “Livelihood Agency”) was established in 2014 under the MRA. The rationale for the estab-lishment of the LEPL “Livelihood Agency” was to enable the GoG to coordinate and support livelihood programmes for IDPs at both strategic and opera-tional levels and enhance mainstreaming of IDPs in different state economic support programmes. The objectives of the LEPL “Livelihood Agency” envi-sions (a) consolidation of efforts of state structures, NGOs and private sector in providing livelihood sup-port, (b) coordination of the livelihood sector and (c) creation of the increased economic opportunities for IDP communities. Over the past two years, LEPL “Livelihood Agency” has been implementing various programmes with state and donor funding to support small business initiatives, agricultural activities, Vo-cational Education and Training (VET) and awareness raising of IDP communities on available state and non-state livelihood programmes.
2 Livelihood Action Plan 2015-2016 3 Photo credit to DRC and CHCA
Beneficiaries of Livelihood Projects in Georgia3
Thematic Bulletin | Issue #23
Successes and Challenges in Accessing Livelihood Opportunities for IDPs in GeorgiaInsight from Mr. Irakli Ujmajuridze, Director of the LEPL “Livelihood Agency”
After three years of establishment of Livelihood Agency, what key achievements can you high-light in the creation of livelihood opportunities for IDPs?
There were several state and non-state organisations which were allocating grants or disbursing loans to IDPs for income generation activities. However, IDPs rarely addressed these opportunities as either they did not know about the existence of such possibi- lities or there was a misperception that grants were allocated unfairly, and in addition many potential applicants had no skills for writing business plans or project proposals. Three years ago only 20% of IDPs were aware of projects directed to them while now this figure has increased to 84%. This has been a milestone achieved through the information cam-paigns carried out in close collaboration and with the support of our partners from state, governmental and non-governmental organisations. Thus, through regu-lar and effective coordination mechanism, IDPs have an opportunity to receive comprehensive information about scheduled programmes and registration pro-cedures. This can be considered as one of the main achievements of the Livelihood Agency.
Another achievement of the Livelihood Agency is effective provision of Vocational Education and Train-ing for IDPs in Georgia – in recent years the number of IDPs enrolled in vocational education institutions
has increased by 55%. In light of this, I would like to mention two programmes successfully implemented and tailored to IDPs’ actual needs. The programme supporting VET covers all travel related expenses of project beneficiaries from their houses to the voca-tional educational institutions while Self-Employment Supporting programme provides the successful graduates of the first programme with the tools and equipment relevant to their professions to start up the businesses. These projects were developed on an evidence-based research that demonstrated a high demand of such programmes among IDPs.
The Livelihood Agency in partnership with UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) success-fully implemented the project “Empowerment of socio-economic conditions of vulnerable internal-ly displaced persons, considering gender equality aspects, by co-funding their livelihood and stirring up their social activities”. The target groups of the project included: impoverished single parents with underage children, households with members with disabilities, households headed by youth and el-derly-headed households with minors. Around 900 beneficiaries were funded under the project. Instead of the monetary assistance, we granted IDPs with different necessary equipment identified during the needs assessment phase. I would say that this was a “know-how” of the Livelihood Agency as one of the state actors working on the IDP issues in Geor-gia. The Livelihood Agency’s success lies in small achievements. For example: 48 kindergartens were fully equipped for IDP children – out of which 20 are located near the Administrative Boundary Line (ABL) which represents one of the greatest achievements of the Livelihood Agency in terms of creating increased opportunities for IDP kids to have access to pre-school education and prepare themselves for primary education.
Livelihood State Strategy and Action Plan play a pivotal role here as the Strategy promotes livelihood support as a means for reduction poverty and hope-lessness among IDPs. The Georgian Government adopted the Livelihood Strategy in 2014 for the first
Thematic Bulletin | Issue #24
time and the Livelihood Action Plan in 2015, which was a good starting point towards systemic approach to the livelihood. LAP for 2018-2019 has been already developed, prioritising the creation of educational and employment opportunities for IDPs. For the past three years, 3000 IDPs have received different types of assistance from our Livelihood Agency.
What could have been done in a better way to im-prove the livelihood opportunities for IDPs?
To start from the very beginning, before establishing the Agency the Steering Committee under the MRA was monitoring the activities implemented by donor and international organisations to avoid overlapping of livelihood programmes and projects. However, task was not effectively performed due to the complexi-ty of the mandate of the Steering Committee at that time. Now the procedure has been simplified and as a result, we have minimised such overlaps.
For instance, this year we are collaborating with US-AID and ACF. Three of us target the same type of beneficiaries. Instead of being competitors, we pro-vide livelihood solutions to as many beneficiaries as possible through our joint efforts. This is a good example of coordination and cooperation in order to ensure that the financial resources of both state and non-state actors allocated in livelihood sector would contribute to more effective assistance.
How the Livelihood Agency maintains the co-ordination with other government initiatives on livelihood support and how the Livelihood Agen-cy contributes to the mainstreaming of IDPs into those programmes?
To achieve its goals, the Livelihood Agency closely cooperates with State Institutions and Municipalities, International organisations and NGOs, public and pri-vate legal entities as well as individuals. In addition, the Livelihood Agency actively participates in every initiated project, which considers the creation of livelihood opportunities for IDPs. Moreover, a well-de-veloped coordination mechanism ensures tackling IDPs’ livelihood concerns from different perspectives because no amount of funding will be effective with-out involvement of Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs and etc. Therefore, mid-lev-el management of all above-mentioned ministries are involved in the process of Livelihood Action Plan development under Livelihood Inter-Ministerial Com-mittee.
To what extent are the Livelihood Agency’s pro-grammes evidence-based and address the actual needs of IDPs?
It is crucial to provide data that is both compre-hensive in terms of coverage as well as adequately disaggregated in order to develop appropriate policy responses and interventions which are targeted at the specific needs of communities and specific types of IDP households. For this purpose, we established the Policy and Analytical Unit at the MRA that systema- tically collects and analyses the data regarding the la-bour market of Georgia and its dynamics, IDP needs and requirements in order to define the directions of the livelihood policy, facilitate evidence-based poli-cy-planning and targeted programming.
What can Ukraine learn from Georgia?
The readiness of the Ukrainian Government and the Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Territories and IDPs of Ukraine to work on creating the livelihood oppor-tunities for IDPs more than focusing on the Durable Housing Solutions (DHS) is quite visible to me. DHS is certainly important but not substantial. Therefore, my recommendations will be the following:
Structural reform should be implemented to de-velop the state vision on livelihood in a systematic way;
Establishment of an analytical unit within the Min-istry as effective decision making is only possible if it is based on reliable and transparent information col-lection mechanisms;
Ensuring engagement of IDPs in programme or policy development that directly concern the access of IDPs to livelihood;
Effective coordination mechanisms, streamlined and decentralised approach, including avoiding of overlapping in functions and ambiguity in the distri-bution of responsibilities between state agencies;
Close cooperation with donor community to en-sure that the allocated funds are spent effectively and cost efficiently in line with the needs and require-ments of IDPs.
What is the role of your NGO in the provision of livelihood opportunities to IDPs?
Our organisation plays a significant role in increas-ing access of IDPs to livelihood opportunities. More specifically, every year we enhance on average 500 IDP’s access to livelihood opportunities through the application of different mechanisms – educational activities and financial/in-kind support. We deliver the following services to our beneficiaries: vocation-al education training, internships, business grants, interest-free loans, supporting employment and self-employment process, business trainings, men-toring and coaching, establishment and development of social enterprises.
This assistance has greater importance if we consider that our beneficiaries represent extremely vulnerable and disadvantaged communities who have limited potential and possibilities to access traditional loan services and/or benefit from different state grant schemes.
CHCA spends on average 2 000 GEL (approx. 700 Euro) per beneficiary per year which makes one million GEL of direct contribution to beneficiaries an-nually.
How would you evaluate the current state poli-cies and programmes for livelihood solutions for IDPs?
It is worth noting that Georgia has witnessed pos-itive developments in the recent years in this direction. The most significant progress has been observed in agricultural sector where the Govern-ment of Georgia has launched the implementation of multiple state programmes such as “Plant the Future”, “Preferential Agrocredit Project”, “Agro Business Support Programme”, “AgroInsurance” and others. The Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development has also started the implementation of significant economic support programmes including but not limited to “Produce in Georgia” and “Start-up Georgia”. These above listed programmes are being implemented by the following state agencies: LEPL Agricultural Projects’ Management Agency (www.apma.ge) and LEPL Enterprise Development Agency (http://enterprisegeorgia.gov.ge/). Further-more it should be highlighted the role of the LEPL “Livelihood Agency” (http://livelihood.gov.ge) estab-lished under the MRA which offers different livelihood support projects to IDPs in Georgia.
The state policy and above-mentioned interven-tions are of utmost importance as they have tangible impact, however, these programmes are not fully tailored to the needs and requirements of extremely vulnerable IDPs. Overall, I would positively evaluate the state policy based on the recent positive and growing economic dynamics in the country, however, I believe that this policy will require significant modifi-cation, improvement and expansion.
In your opinion, do the state livelihood strategy and action plan address the current needs of IDPs? If not, what will be your recommendations?
The state livelihood support programmes do not fully reflect the needs of IDPs and other vulnerable persons. Many state programmes require financial contributions and collaterals from potential ben-eficiaries which hinder participation of vulnerable groups in such programmes.
Moreover a large number of IDPs do not have ac-cess to means of production (i.e. agricultural land,
Thematic Bulletin | Issue #25
Growing Hope by Developing Opportunities – Why Livelihood Solutions?Analysis and standpoint of Mr. Nukri Milorava, Executive Director of Charity Humanitarian Center “Abkhazeti” (CHCA)
buildings, equipment and machinery, financial start-up capital, financial collateral for credits, etc.) which limits their opportunities to benefit through state livelihood support programmes, launch real entre-preneurial activities and in the best case scenario achieve self-reliance through their micro economic activities. Furthermore, some gaps remain in the ef-forts of the state agencies in supporting IDPs in the provision of vocational education training as the vo-cational trainings do not effectively respond to labour market requirements and therefore the human capac-ity of the trainees is not fully developed.
Consequently the state livelihood support pro-grammes are not effective for vulnerable groups of IDPs. But there are also some objective reasons to be highlighted such as big new IDP settlements which are inhabited by low number of economically active IDPs and/or IDPs who have limited potential for fur-ther economic development.
Thus CHCA has the following recommendations to improve the state livelihood policy for IDPs:
More emphasis should be made on the periodic and individual research, assessment and analysis of IDP needs;
Capacity and potential of IDPs should be consid-ered in the design of livelihood support programmes;
Holistic approaches and state and non-state re-sources should be applied in the implementation of livelihood support programmes. The interventions should be evidence-based, results-oriented and fo-cused on tangible impact;
Effective coordination mechanisms should be employed in the implementation of livelihood pro-grammes to prevent overlapping of beneficiaries (i.e. the same beneficiaries participate in various projects while others are completely excluded from the pro-cess);
Selection criteria for livelihood support pro-grammes should be modified to ensure expansion of the programmes to different categories of vulnerable groups;
Along the micro/small entrepreneurial projects, more attention should be made on the design and im-plementation of large scale economic projects which would contribute to positive changes in economic context, create jobs and develop local production and markets;
Involvement of large business companies should be encouraged in the implementation of livelihood support programmes. Livelihood state strategy should be developed through active participation of large businesses and their recommendations and suggestions should be considered. This would result into increased investments for the development of sustainable livelihood opportunities for IDPs and oth-er vulnerable groups in Georgia.
What can Ukraine learn from Georgia?
The needs of target groups should be researched and analysed. The target groups should be clustered and tailor-made interventions should be designed for each cluster group. This approach will ensure effectiveness and efficiency of the allocated financial resources.
It is important to assess and study the economic con-text where IDPs reside. The specific features of host communities should be also considered while de-signing housing and livelihood support programmes for IDPs.
A comprehensive livelihood strategy should be de-signed which will enhance development of resources and capital (i.e. human capital, environmental capital, financial capital, physical capital and social capital) of IDPs. A well-planned strategy will be a prerequisite for identification of resources allocated by different stakeholders to design and implement result-orient-ed and holistic projects which would respond to the actual needs of IDPs.
The engagement of different stakeholders (govern-ment, NGOs, donors and private sector) should be encouraged and ensured in the provision of livelihood opportunities to IDPs. This should be facilitated by a well-structured coordination mechanism.
UNHCR’s engagement in IDP issues in Georgia goes back to the early 1990s. Since then, it has provid-ed various forms of support to the Government as well as IDP populations, both communities and in-dividuals. One of the key support projects was the UNHCR-Council of Europe’s (COE) joint project for the adoption of a Law on internal displacement, which was adopted in 2014. The law foresees in various forms of Government support to individu-al IDPs including the provision of durable housing and livelihood support. Since then, UNHCR has supported various durable housing and livelihood opportunities, together with other donors. Having gradually disengaged in operational terms from IDP support UNHCR is currently providing support to local partners involved in legal counseling and pro-tection services. Furthermore, UNHCR supports the MRA with the roll out of the announced IDP social al-lowance reform, which is taking place in consultation with IDPs and other stakeholders, and which would allow for social assistance to IDPs based on needs and vulnerabilities rather than registration status in the Governmental data basis. The reform would also lead to mainstreaming IDPs in the Government’s so-cial welfare system covering also the non-displaced.
Over the years, UNHCR has implemented various in-come generation and livelihood activities to support conflict-affected displaced populations in Georgia. UNHCR’s projects in this area often involved capac-ity building through training, skills training, support to develop small businesses, and community en-gagement. Projects were designed to ensure that the beneficiary was placed at the centre and his or her ability and capacity were maximized throughout the cycle of the project implementation. This also con-tributed to achieve sustainability of the project after UNHCR ceased to fund it.
A EU funded project “Support to conflict-affected people in Abkhazia and adjacent areas in western Georgia” of 2010-2013 set the basic livelihood stand-ards and ensured for increased self-reliance through training and capacity building and the provision of business grants to IDPs.
A UNHCR-UNDP Joint Programme was launched in 2015 to improve the livelihoods of vulnerable communities in the Shida Kartli region. A mapping exercise and assessment identified the most acute needs among the conflict affected communities living in the villages adjacent to the South Ossetia Dividing Line. It was decided to support the commu-nities not only with livelihood activities but also with rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, such as the kindergarten in the Abano village; developing a milk collection centre in Akhalubani village, and upgrad-ing the water supply system for the population of the villages Karaphila, Saribari and Zardiaantkari (Kaspi municipality).
UNHCR has further engaged in livelihood activities for the IDP returnee population in Abkhazia together with UNDP and DRC. Poverty continues to prevail in Abkhazia, the unemployment rate is high and affects all age-groups, and social indexes are extremely low in the sectors of health, education and livelihoods for the vast majority of the population. Various factors contribute to poverty in Abkhazia and prevent IDP returnees from achieving self-reliance. In addition to supporting livelihood opportunities, UNHCR contin-ues to address protection issues for IDP returnees such as documentation, access to services and free-dom of movement. UNHCR’s on-going livelihood project with DRC addresses the protection concerns of vulnerable population including SGBV victims. Its small-scale support to improve community infra-structure including the rehabilitation of schools and bridges, is also aimed to enhance community en-gagement and mobilisation.
In order to address the prevailing poverty in Ab-khazia, a long-term development plan needs the engagement of development actors. The 2015 – 2016 UNHCR-UNDP joint project, “Support for Agricultural Development and Livelihoods Enhance-ment in Abkhazia” was to improve livelihood security and employment opportunities across Abkhazia. This project was designed to support livelihoods and eco-nomic recovery in targeted communities in Abkhazia including IDP returnees, addressing vulnerabilities,
UNHCR’s Protectionand Livelihood Activities for IDPs in Georgia
Standpoint from UNHCR Regional Representation in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia)
ww
w.un
hcr.o
rg
building resilience to future crises, and providing a foundation for a transition towards sustainable de-velopment.
UNHCR’s protection mandate remains the basis for its interventions in IDP issues, such as legal coun-selling and livelihood support, to alleviate suffering, improve living conditions and ensure basic human rights for all. In order to achieve comprehensive and durable solutions for IDPs and IDP returnees, UNHCR will continue to engage humanitarian, protection and development partners.
Livelihoods of IDPs in Ukraine – Learning from the Experience of GeorgiaInsight from Mr. Sean Loughna, Adviser to the Minister of Temporarily Occupied Territories and IDPs of Ukraine
Attaining a sustainable livelihood is a key concern, and often the predominant one, for many displaced people worldwide. In Ukraine, many IDPs have lost their jobs since the conflict began in 2014; and household incomes have diminished significantly, especially for those living close to the line of con-tact and in non-government controlled areas. This article examines the case of Georgia, where most of
the IDPs were displaced in the early 1990s, to ex-plore if lessons learned there might be instructive in efforts to restore the livelihoods of IDPs and other conflict-affected people in Ukraine.
Georgia hosts some 300,000 registered IDPs (about 7% of the population), most of whom fled Abkhazia in the early 1990s. A further wave of displacement, mainly Georgians fleeing from South Ossetia, oc-curred in 2008. Most of those affected have been unable to return, and so have lost access to their land and properties. As in other countries of the former Soviet Union, there is an expectation of prop-erty ownership in Georgia; renting accommodation is viewed as an unacceptable financial burden. Many of those displaced in the 1990s have spent years since living in so called ‘collective centres’: state-provid-ed temporary accommodation, usually located in publicly-owned buildings. Others lived in rented ac-commodation, with relatives or (for some of those displaced in 2008) in purpose-built settlements.
Prior to the conflict in 2008, the Government of Geor-gia demonstrated little willingness to resettle IDPs into more secure, long-term accommodation. In response to the new influx, however, the Government and in-
ternational donors and agencies responded quickly to accommodate these newly displaced households. Over the next few years, the Government of Georgia’s efforts to assist IDPs were extensively focussed on widening this support by providing a durable housing solution to all the country’s IDPs.
However, the housing solutions provided were often not ‘durable’ because they were located in regions with few livelihood opportunities. Consequently, many beneficiaries did not settle there. In recent years, the Government of Georgia has placed increasing em-phasis on restoring the livelihoods of IDPs. But this has raised many challenges for the Government and its international partners. First, many IDPs are unwill-ing to take up formal employment as they lose the right to claim government-provided social assistance payments. Second, there is inadequate strategic planning in terms of matching the supply and demand side of the economy and workforce. Third, provision of loans to IDPs to establish and expand SMEs make good commercial sense for investors, but this needs to properly regulated and supported by the Govern-ment and its partners.
Most IDPs in Georgia rely on government-provided assistance as their main or only source of regular in-come. While the amount of money provided is barely enough to cover essential needs, there is extensive evidence to suggest that the provision of financial as-sistance over a protracted time period, solely based on status, serves to promote inertia and dependen-cy. It can also fuel intra-communal resentment and social tensions, given that hosting communities are often as impoverished as their IDP neighbours. In-stead, many IDPs earn additional income through the informal economy, which cost the government fur-ther in lost tax revenue.
While some IDPs do engage in income-generating activities and aspire to achieve self-reliance, there is little understanding about the social and economic needs and capacities of IDPs in Georgia and how
they relate to employment and other income-gener-ating opportunities in the regions where they reside. Over time, this has led to IDPs in Georgia feeling mar-ginalized and neglected by the State. There is a need for more targeted training to expand the semi-skilled workforce, and investment to support key industries such as manufacturing and agriculture.
Access to credit, loans and micro-finance is chal-lenging for IDPs in Georgia. Banks tend to regard displaced people as higher risk and are thus reluctant to lend them money. The failure rate of SMEs in Geor-gia has been relatively high in the past, albeit ones established by IDPs have been no less successful than others. The problem has been rooted largely in a lack of consideration afforded to market demand. Small and especially micro-enterprises are estab-lished that often provide products and services in a marketplace that is saturated at the local level. There is ample evidence from numerous other countries to suggest that businesses established by IDPs and refugees prosper better on average than those set up by host communities. But this should be based upon equitable – rather than positive or negatively discriminatory – access to credit, technical support and training; and banks need to be provided with the evidence which demonstrates that IDP businesses are a worthy investment.
Of course, most unemployed people are not able or willing to establish their own business – they simply want a job. Retraining people for employment is a huge challenge for many countries experiencing economic transition, and often necessitates an ex-pansion of the economy as a whole. In Georgia, as in Ukraine, these problems have been exacerbated by armed conflict and displaced people losing access to livelihoods, assets and services. A key lesson from the experience of Georgia is that interventions to re-store livelihoods need to happen early and be linked to durable housing if long-term impoverishment and dependency is to be avoided.
Thematic Bulletin | Issue #210
Livelihood Opportunities for IDPs in Ukraine Interview with Ms. Olena Panamarchuk, Head of Administration Department, Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Territories and IDPs (MToT) of Ukraine
What is the vision of MToT in the provision of live-lihood opportunities to IDPs?
Today the majority of internally displaced persons in Ukraine suffer from insufficient livelihoods and lack of clarity regarding their housing prospects. IDPs also face difficulties in exercising and protection of their rights, namely property rights, access to adequate housing, rights to restore documents certifying their Ukrainian citizenship or a special status to exercise electoral rights and access to information, education and healthcare services.
The Government of Ukraine has been making con-siderable efforts to solve the problems of IDPs. In particular, the Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Ter-ritories and Internally Displaced Persons of Ukraine introduced a number of initiatives to enhance social and economic integration of IDPs and improve the level of their self-sustainability while considering the needs and interests of host communities.
What initiatives has MToT implemented or plans to implement to support livelihoods of IDPs and other conflict-affected persons?
On 15 November 2017, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine issued the Order #909-p approving the Strat-egy of Integration of Internally Displaced Persons and Implementation of Long-Term Solutions to Internal Displacement until 2020 (hereinafter – Strategy). The Strategy envisions social and economic integration of IDPs and provision of long-term solutions to inter-nal displacement to ensure the implementation and
protection of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests. The policy also encourages establishment of effective interaction between internally displaced persons and host communities, state authorities and bodies of local self-government to achieve social co-hesion.
MToT is currently developing a draft Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On Approval of the Action Plan for Implementation of the Strategy of Integration of Internally Displaced Persons and Implementation of Long-Term Solutions to Internal Displacement until 2020.” The strategic objectives of the Action Plan entail creation of employment and increasing the employment opportunities of IDPs in-cluding people with disabilities to overcome poverty. These objectives are planned to be achieved in close collaboration and coordination with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Ministry of Social Policy, State Employment Service and local executive authorities.
Furthermore the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ap-proved the State Target Programme for Recovery and Peacebuilding in the Eastern Regions of Ukraine (hereinafter – Programme) by the Regulation #1071 as of 13 December 2017. The programme seeks to stimulate socio-economic development of territori-al communities to improve the living standards and social resilience, and incentivize economic activi-ty. More specifically, the achievement of the goal of the programme will be ensured through imple-mentation of three strategic components. One of the components will focus on economic recovery through capacity building in local economic plan-ning, structural changes and support for micro, small and medium-size businesses, increased access to financial services, in particular in the area of lending and micro-lending, ensuring development of indus-trial production, construction, agriculture and other spheres of economic activity based on principles of innovation and their migration to modern technolog-ical platforms; creation of new high-tech jobs and raising the level of employment, improving incomes and ensuring expended reproduction of human po-tential.
Thematic Bulletin | Issue #211
The “Action Plan for the implementation of certain principles of domestic policy regarding certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts temporarily outside the control of the government” was developed and approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as of 11 January 2017, #8-p. The action plan envisions, in-ter alia, providing civilians with psychological, social, medical, legal, information services and job place-ment in controlled territories, facilitating provision of legal services by free legal aid centres, enhancing the system for provision of administrative and social ser-vices to service recipients.
Who are MToT’s key partners (state and/or non-state agencies) in the implementation of livelihood programmes for IDPs?
MToT and German Corporation for International Co-operation (GIZ) signed the Partnership Agreement to ensure implementation of the project “Vocational Integration of Internally Displaced Persons” funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ). The project will contribute to improving employability of IDPs and local population of selected host communities in Dni-propetrovsk, Kharkiv, Poltava, Zaporizhzhya Oblasts and government controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. A special attention will be paid to provision of training and retraining opportunities to women. The vocational integration of IDPs and other conflict-affected population will be achieved through the following three components:
Providing short-term courses for up to four weeks (advanced training opportunities in accordance with the needs of the labour market in the fields of infor-mation technology, language, applied studies, etc.);
Retraining opportunities in accordance with the requirements and needs of the labour market;
Launching projects and establishing a partnership for cooperation among state, private, and non-gov-ernmental organisations in the field of vocational training and guidance.
Furthermore MToT cooperates with all interested cen-tral executive authorities on state level and multiple
international organisations to respond to livelihood needs of IDPs. On the international level MToT’s part-ners include World Bank Group, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Organization for Migration (IOM), International Chari-table Foundation “Ukrainian Women’s Fund”.
What are the gaps and challenges that remain to be addressed by MToT and other stakeholders in the planning and implementation of livelihood programmes for IDPs in Ukraine?
…The issue of integration of internally displaced per-sons and implementation of long-term solutions to internal displacement has become one of the top pri-orities that require a coherent activity of all national institutions in this area.
A lot of territorial communities with a high concentra-tion of internally displaced persons felt an additional burden on their limited local infrastructure, as well as a significant increase in housing and food prices, compounded by downward pressure on wages and employment opportunities. This state of affairs con-strains the process of combating poverty.
Today, many issues concerning integration of IDPs and implementation of long-term solutions to inter-nal displacement require a concerted and systematic solution, coordination of actions of state authorities and civil society with a view to implement the state policy towards this goal, which should remain one of the main priorities of the state.
Living and Leading by Example – Human Faces behind Livelihood Projects in Georgia and Ukraine Ekaterine Jologua, Designer, Owner of Felt Production Workshop “Eco-Handmade” in Zugdidi, IDP from Abkhazia, Georgia
When a conflict in Abkhazia broke out in 1990s, Ekaterine Jologua was forced to leave home with her family. Today Ekaterine lives in IDP settlement in Zugdidi. She still believes in returning to Abkhazia one day, but Ekaterine is also determined to create a better life for herself and her family in Zugdidi. Her journey and products can be found on Facebook page (fb.com/ecohandmadee) and her web-page (http://eco-handmade.business.site/).
It has been eight years since I started felt produc-tion business. Initially my working space was located in one bedroom flat in the state-owned collective centre where I had to sleep, eat and work. The dis-placement has created serious problems to all of us, but it would not be correct to do nothing and remain dependent on someone else or even on the state assistance itself. Therefore my extremely poor living conditions triggered me to start thinking about the ways through which I could make ends meet.
DRC’s grant made my job easier and increased my income. Before everything was done manually and
we lacked the capacity to produce more quantities. Now I can work faster and have better quality, which is crucial for our type of work. As a result my income has increased by 50%. During national holidays and festivals, we receive orders from Zugdidi Municipality, corporate companies and banks. Furthermore when turnover of my business is high, three IDP women from my neighbourhood are employed on a temporary basis. We produce tablecloth, napkins, handmade photo albums.
I know what it is to live in collective centres, I know how it feels when everyone around is indifferent. Nev-ertheless, there are hopes created by NGOs like DRC and many others whose efforts can turn vague lives of IDPs into success stories.”
The assistance Ekaterine received in 2016 was pro-vided by the European Union under a project “From Dependency to Self-Sufficiency – Innovative, Effec-tive and Scalable Livelihood Solutions for Georgia” implemented jointly by DRC Georgia and Charity Hu-manitarian Centre “Abkhazeti”.
Nadiya Skorobagatko, Designer, Owner of Atelier “NADIN” in Dnipro, IDP from Luhansk oblast, Ukraine
In 2014 due to the conflict, Nadiya moved to Dnip- ro from Rovenky, Luhansk oblast, to save herself and her four years old daughter. Having a degree in ap-parel design and being a professional seamstress, she has chosen Dnipro because of the economic op-portunities.
First it was tough” – Nadiya tells. – “I took any job available on the market, sewed at days and nights on my small machine. My rented apartment served me both a shelter and a workshop. I tried to sustain myself and my child and dreamed of a proper atelier, where I could do individual designs and grow pro-fessionally. But the income I received then was too small for that, and being an IDP I had neither access to banking loans nor friends who could lend me the necessary amount.
In 2015 I applied for a DRC business grant and was qualified for support that allowed me to buy profes-sional machines for sewing and embroidery. I rented a nice place in the centre of the city, moved there,
and hired an additional seamstress and also a spe-cialist on machine embroidery, both of them IDPs like me.
I always had a lot of ideas on how to use embroi-dery for modern design. My atelier now does not only produce traditional “vyshyvanka” shirts, but also em-broidered dresses, home textile, branded corporate clothing and other things. The demand is huge; we have a client queue of 1.5 months!
Dnipro is a new home for us. Today I am a happy mother, a designer, an owner of a stable business and a leader for my team of three people. I am very grate-ful for the support I received – without it my way to success would have been much longer.”
The assistance Nadiya received in 2015 was provid-ed by the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) under the “Emergency Support to Con-flict-Affected Populations in Southeastern Ukraine” programme, implemented by DRC Ukraine.
Thematic Bulletin | Issue #213
Thematic Bulletin | Issue #214
This thematic bulletin is issued under the project ‘Technical Assistance to the Government of Ukraine through the Georgian Experience’ which is implemented by the Danish Refugee Council Georgia and Ukraine Country Programmes with the financial support of the US Department of State – Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration. The primary objective of the project is to use the experiences of addressing internal displacement by the Government and civil society in Georgia to build the capacity of the Government of Ukraine to improve the lives of IDPs and conflict affected persons by supporting IDP integration and protection of the displaced to international standards.
This thematic bulletin stems from a recognition that many of the challenges to the support of IDPs currently faced by the Government of Ukraine, have after many years been addressed successfully by the Government of Georgia and civil society. The DRC Capacity Building Programme uses the respective experiences of the Georgian Government and NGOs to build the capacities of the Government of Ukraine and inform policies to enable effective response to IDP related challenges – by learning and applying successful lessons from Georgia.
About the Project
Study Visit for MToT Staff on Experiences of Georgian LEPLs, Georgia 2018
“This Thematic Bulletin was funded by a grant from the United States Department of State. The opinions, findings and conclusions stated herein are those of DRC and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Department of State”
