From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National - Brookings
From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National - Brookings
From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National - Brookings
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Georgia <strong>From</strong> Solidarity <strong>to</strong> Solutions: The Government <strong>Response</strong> <strong>to</strong> Internal Displacement in Georgia<br />
registered IDPs—as well as the registration of individuals<br />
who were displaced by the conflict and then lived<br />
abroad (IDP status is terminated if the individual leaves<br />
the country and establishes permanent residence or<br />
acquires citizenship of another country) but who have<br />
since returned <strong>to</strong> Georgia but still cannot return <strong>to</strong> their<br />
areas of origin. 39<br />
IDPs displaced by the August 2008 conflict initially<br />
were registered through another process. Although IDP<br />
registration is a mandated responsibility of the Ministry<br />
of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied<br />
Terri<strong>to</strong>ries, Accommodation and Refugees, in the aftermath<br />
of the August 2008 conflict, the suddenness and<br />
scale of displacement—130,000 persons became internally<br />
displaced in five days—overwhelmed the capacity<br />
of the MRA in many respects, including registration. As<br />
MRA was considered <strong>to</strong> be ill equipped <strong>to</strong> mount emergency<br />
registration of the newly displaced, the government<br />
turned <strong>to</strong> the Civil Registry Agency (CRA) of the<br />
Ministry of Justice <strong>to</strong> complete this essential task. The<br />
CRA, with support from USAID, recently had upgraded<br />
its information technology and invested in staff training,<br />
both of which were mobilized for this purpose. 40<br />
Significantly, UNHCR also decided <strong>to</strong> partner with and<br />
support CRA rather than MRA in registering the new<br />
IDPs. Inevitably, that experience raised serious questions<br />
within government as well as among international<br />
stakeholders of whether data collection responsibilities<br />
for IDPs—and even focal point responsibility for IDP<br />
issues overall—should remain with the MRA in the<br />
long term (see also Benchmark 7). 41 MRA, for its part,<br />
39 Government of Georgia, Law of Georgia on Forcibly<br />
Displaced–Persecuted Persons, Article 6(3), paras. (c)-(d).<br />
40 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),<br />
“Georgian Agency’s new Infrastructure Is Put <strong>to</strong> the Test,“<br />
14 February 2009 (http://georgia.usaid.gov/ka/node/126).<br />
41 Interviews by author and Guy Hovey, with government<br />
representatives, UNHCR, international NGOs and<br />
donors, Tbilisi, February-March 2009, in connection<br />
with the USAID-FORECAST project <strong>to</strong> provide technical<br />
assistance on IDP issues <strong>to</strong> the Ministry for Refugees and<br />
Accommodation; the project ran from February 2009 <strong>to</strong><br />
July 2010.<br />
187<br />
voiced concern about discrepancies in the data and in<br />
the methodology used by the CRA. 42 The information<br />
collected by the CRA on the “new” IDPs eventually was<br />
integrated in<strong>to</strong> a new, comprehensive database developed<br />
by the MRA beginning in May 2009.<br />
Yet the MRA has been slow <strong>to</strong> grant official IDP status,<br />
as provided for under the Law on Forcibly Displaced<br />
Persons–Persecuted Persons, <strong>to</strong> all of the “new” IDPs<br />
who were unable <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> their home areas in the<br />
weeks and months immediately following the end of<br />
hostilities and who, factually speaking, remain IDPs. By<br />
law IDPs are <strong>to</strong> be registered within ten days of presenting<br />
their application. 43 While the government did begin<br />
granting IDP status <strong>to</strong> those cases in the second half of<br />
2009, specific groups of IDPs from 2008, namely those<br />
from terri<strong>to</strong>ries outside the control of the government<br />
of Georgia, have been left out of the process (for further<br />
discussion of this issue, see Benchmark 5). It therefore is<br />
important <strong>to</strong> note that government figures for the 2008<br />
caseload refer only <strong>to</strong> IDPs who have been granted IDP<br />
status; thus, while the government reports 17,916 “new”<br />
IDPs, other observers—including the Public Defender<br />
of Georgia (see Benchmark 8), UNHCR, and other international<br />
ac<strong>to</strong>rs—report 22,000 IDPs remaining from<br />
the August 2008 conflict.<br />
According <strong>to</strong> the most recent official data, dated May<br />
2011 and based on the ministry’s database of persons<br />
registered as having IDP status, currently there are<br />
256,103 IDPs (88,834 households) in Georgia. 44 Data are<br />
broken down according <strong>to</strong> whether individuals are “old”<br />
or “new” IDPs. The vast majority, 238,187 persons, are<br />
IDPs (and their descendants) as a result of the hostilities<br />
in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the early 1990s—the<br />
42 Interviews by author and Guy Hovey with officials of the<br />
MRA, February-March 2009.<br />
43 Government of Georgia, Law of Georgia on Forcibly<br />
Displaced–Persecuted Persons, Article 2, para. 9.<br />
44 E-mail correspondence with the MRA in June and July<br />
2011. Note that these figures received from the MRA,<br />
based on its IDP registration database, differ slightly from<br />
the statistics (undated) that were posted at the time on the<br />
MRA website (http://mra.gov.ge/main/ENG#section/50).