Coping with marginality and exclusion: can refugees

Coping with marginality and exclusion: can refugees communities successfully integrate into mainstream urban societies in Georgia?

Compiled by:

Joseph Salukvadze (Project manager) Revaz Gachechiladze (Research leader) David Gogishvili (Senior researcher) David Sichinava (Senior researcher) Anna Javashvili (Junior researcher) Ketevan Tugushi (Junior researcher) Mariam Bregvadze (Junior researcher)

Scientific report of a research project financed by ASCN

Tbilisi 2013


Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 3 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3 2 INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT – A NEGLECTED PROBLEM? ................................................................ 5 3 IMPORTANT DEBATES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: DISPLACEMENT, SEGREGATION, RESILIENCE ....................................................................................................................................10 4 METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................................15 5 GENERAL INSIGHTS OF DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................17 5. 1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS – ORIGINS, HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND MOBILITY .................................................................................................................................. 18 5.2 HOUSING AND LIVING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 20 5.3 EVERYDAY HARDSHIPS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 22 5.4 NETWORKING AND MEASUREMENT OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS LOCAL POPULATION ............... 24 6 THE FACTORS OF ALIENATION AND SEGREGATION .....................................................................29 7 POLICY AND PRACTICE TOWARDS THE IDP POPULATION – EFFECTS OF RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM IN GEORGIA ..................................................................................................................................35 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................39 ENDNOTES ....................................................................................................................................42 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................................43

2|Pa g e


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The suggested scientific report is an attempt to summarize the results of the two-year spanning research project carried out by the Department of Human Geography, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, with the generous help of Academic Swiss Caucasus Network (ASCN). ASCN is a programme aimed at promoting the social sciences and humanities in the South Caucasus (primarily Georgia and Armenia). The ASCN programme is coordinated and operated by the Interfaculty Institute for Central and Eastern Europe (IICEE) at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). It is initiated and supported by Gebert Rüf Stiftung. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent opinions of Gebert Rüf Stiftung and the University of Fribourg. The authors would like to thank ASCN for generous funding, the students of ‘Human Geography’ academic programme at Tbilisi State University for their assistance in launching the interviews and all respondents who participated in this research.

1 INTRODUCTION The period after the regaining of independence (1991) in Georgia was characterized by violent ethno-political conflicts as well as the struggle against their negative consequences in the society which were additional factors of a massive economic dislocation and political instability. The first wave of the conflicts started soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and yielded around 300 thousand1 of internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and South Ossetia2, the population, which were forced to

1

More precisely, UNHCR statistics showed 278,500 IDPs in Georgia, and was usually rounded up to 280,000 (NRC 2004:33; see Kabachnik et al. 2012: 3). 2 During the Soviet era South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast (“district”) within the Georgian SSR, but in September 1990 its Communist leadership (not without instigation from the Kremlin) attempted to change the autonomous status of the region upgrading it to a “Union Republic”. Supreme Council (Parliament) of the Republic of Georgia elected in October 1990 and dominated by nationalists completely abolished the autonomous status of South Ossetia and since the name if used in Georgia is consider to be within inversed 3|Pa g e


leave found refuge in the other parts of the country and had spread in urban and rural areas. The Russo-Georgian war of 2008 resulted in additional influx of 128,000 displaced people, majority of whom returned to their original places of residence within Georgia proper (i.e. controlled by Tbilisi) but close to 26,0003 people were ethnically cleansed from South Ossetia in 2008 whose de-facto rulers declared that they will never let them back (small number of the IDPs was from Abkhazia). They are unable to return to their homes and have been settled mostly in collective rural settlements constructed by the Georgian authorities with the generous help of international donors. It should also be noted that while the majority of the displaced persons reside within Georgia proper, there is an additional number of over 45,000 people of e Georgian origin from the earlier conflict registered as IDPs, who reside in their own houses in the Gali district adjacent to Georgia proper of the former conflict zone in Abkhazia4, but still labeled as IDPs by the Georgian government. This can be explained by their unstable position under the Sukhumi de-facto government (recognized as “independent state” by Moscow since August 26, 2008). The aforementioned group retains citizenship of Georgia and is under constant pressure and humiliation of the de-facto authorities. In this report, aiming at studying several aspects of displacement in Georgia, first of all there will be reviewed general problems of internal displacement in global and regional context with the emphasis on Georgia, and important theoretical applications and scientific debates in this field. In the main part of the report we will examine two main aspects of internal displacement in Georgia: what are the strategies that the internally displaced population of Georgia uses to cope with alienation, exclusion and segregation in the urban context and, on the other hand, how official policies help or prevent collectively settled IDPs to integrate into mainstream societies in the urban areas of Georgia.

comas: more frequently the area was and is referred as “Tskhinvali Region”. In this report we use the term referring to the region within the borders of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. 3 Amnesty International, In the Waiting Room: Internally Displaced People in Georgia, London, Amnesty International Publications, 2010, available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR56/002/2010/ en/7c07f880-b002-4f0c-87f2-fab9a6690a85/eur560022010en.pdf (last visited 6 Sept. 2013) 4 G. Tarkhan-Mouravi, Assessment of IDP Livelihoods in Georgia: Facts and Policies, Feb. 2009, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4ad827b12.pdf 4|Pa g e


2 INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT – A NEGLECTED PROBLEM? The notion of the “internal displacement” highlights two vital points: involuntary character of movement and movement within the borders of the country. They are often referred to as refugees, although they do not fall within the current legal definition of a refugee as different from them IDPs have not crossed international borders to find sanctuary but have remained inside their home countries. Even though that displacement occurs within the borders of the state IDPs rarely find a viable return solution to their original living location. Thus, displacement becomes protracted, a process lasting for a longer time than expected in the beginning. As IDPs are displaced within the borders of their homeland their own government bears the primary responsibility for protecting and assisting them, even though that government might be the cause of their flight in some cases. Displaced people retain all of their rights and protection under both human rights and international humanitarian law. Some countries around the globe have implemented special legislation that defines frameworks of state action towards IDPs, obligations and relation between these two groups. This provides a specific status to the IDP population. Georgia is one of the countries with such legislation and first adopted it in the early 1990’s soon after the armed conflicts and has revised document several times since. Though not required under international law, such a status usually provides for the registration of those entitled to the status and provides beneficiaries with social, economic and legal assistance to safeguard rights endangered by displacement and support the implementation of durable solutions. These statuses should not deprive IDPs of their rights under human rights and humanitarian law5. According to the Law of Georgia on Internally Displaced Persons (2006), "Internally displaced person (IDP) is the citizen of Georgia or stateless person permanently residing in Georgia, who was forced to leave the place of his/her habitual residence and was displaced (within the territory of Georgia) as a result of threat to his/her or his/her family member’s life, health or freedom due to the aggression of foreign country, internal conflicts or mass violation of

5

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. The definition of an internally displaced person (IDP) – National IDP Status. Available at: http://www.internal-displacement.org/idp 5|Pa g e


human rights”. Based on the same law IDPs get limited financial aid and some municipal services for free. The circumstances of people’s displacement and their long-term prospects were as diverse as the situations of violence or conflict which had forced them to flee. Some 26 million people worldwide currently live in situation of internal displacement as a result of conflicts or human rights violations (see fig 1). There is a common trend spread across the globe related to the settlement type of those who are internally displaced. IDPs were residing in urban areas in 47 out of 50 countries with such stratum of the population, generally live among other groups including poorer long-term residents and other migrants. IDPs also are more likely to have less “social capital” such as support networks from community organizations to fall back on, which have various, mostly negative, results. While IDPs bring skills and resources with them, their presence also presents significant demands on the capacities of the governments and host communities of these countries. Internally displaced persons, or IDPs, are among the world’s most vulnerable people and often they have no or only very limited access to food, employment, education, sufficient housing and health care. The conditions and the environment (social and physical) IDPs are forced to live in causes various problems to them and though particular situation of an internally displaced person may vary it creates “urban underclass” of people that are forced out of the mainstream society. The IDPs in every region face a range of risks related to their displacement, including threats to their physical security and integrity, a lack of access to basic necessities such as clean water, food, shelter and health care, and to the livelihoods which would improve their standard of living. They also face violations of their rights relating to housing, land and property, separation from family and community members and violations of their civil and political rights. These risks frequently overlap: for example, an IDP whose physical safety was threatened may not be able to commute to his/her place of work or farmland, limiting his/her ability to purchase or access basic necessities. In most countries, failures to identify such threats faced by diverse members of communities not only resulted in the IDPs’ needs going unaddressed, but it often led to actions that inadvertently increased the risks they faced and further marginalized them.

6|Pa g e


Although internally displaced people now outnumber refugees by two to one, their plight receives far less international attention6. The state response and action towards displaced people should consequently be based on their needs and not on the general status. However, it can be still said that various groups of IDPs (especially ones located in urban areas) share certain common problems that can be traced in various countries and communities. At the end of 2011, many governments were still in the process of formulating a plan of action to protect IDPs’ rights; in several countries, the lack of an effective national policy on internal displacement led to discrepancies in the assistance provided to different displaced communities7. FIG 1. IDP POPULATION OF THE WORLD

Source: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre / Norwegian Refugee Council / The Guardian

The IDP community in Georgia could be seen as a newly evolved socio-cultural group of society, united by common destiny, hardship and desire of getting back to their previous residences as soon as possible. Displacement is the main aspect that unites this group of 6

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. Who is an IDP? Available at: http://www.internaldisplacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpPages)/985E40F60D95A6DF802570BB005EE131?OpenDocument 7 Internal Displacement Global Overview: People internally displaced by conflict and violence. 2011: 8 7|Pa g e


people, though they also experience common fait such as unemployment, non-durable housing option and other issues that act as an obstacle towards cohesion into the urban communities and broader society where they live. Nowadays (2013) IDPs comprise more than 5 percent of Georgia’s population and have been labeled as one of the most vulnerable social groups in the country, as usually they belong to low income stratum and are characterized with limited integration with the non-IDP population. In 2010 the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia8 reported about 250,658 registered IDPs. Geographically their distribution throughout the regions and municipalities of Georgia is very uneven. More than 70 percent of all IDPs are concentrated in two areas: the capital city of Tbilisi and Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti region in Western Georgia, in the immediate neighborhood with the conflict region of Abkhazia. Urban areas accommodate more than 2/3 of the entire IDP population (see fig. 2). The two sub-types of IDPs could be identified: a) individually accommodated persons, and b) groups of IDPs settled compactly in collectively acquired buildings and places. The latter subtype, which comprises slightly more than 45 percent (113,210 persons) of the entire IDP population, is the target group of our study. The great majority (at least 80 percent) of them lives in urban areas – in Tbilisi and several other big and medium-size cities. They are concentrated in so called “Collective Centers”, i.e. a building, initially owned privately or by the state, where people displaced from Abkhazia or South Ossetia settled themselves or were invited to settle. The fact is that majority of these buildings are in poor condition and negatively affect surroundings. Besides significant number of the IDPs live in the buildings which do not suit living purposes as they were constructed as non-residential buildings (e.g. research institutes, kindergartens, hospitals, hotels, etc.) and have very little or no living standards and insufficient inner residential space. Usually, these buildings also lack very basic utilities such as sewage, central water and gas pipelines. Additionally, quite often they are located in substantial distance from the main residential areas of the cities, thus creating a

8

Formerly, until 2010, the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation of Georgia (MoRA). 8|Pa g e


suitable environment for geographic isolation of IDPs which affects their further alienation and spatial segregation from the mainstream societies. FIG. 2: MAP OF THE IDP DISTRIBUTION

There might be many arguments both in favor and against the collective resettlement of displaced population. However, our main hypothesis/assumption is that collective accommodation and artificial clustering of the IDPs in “Collective Centers”, without implementation of a comprehensive state policy assuring their provision with basic frameworks for decent livelihood and economic activities, significantly hinders possibilities of their integration in mainstream urban societies and processes, in terms of both social and spatial dimensions. Presumably, the official policy of the Government of Georgia towards the displaced groups of Georgia’s population largely contributed to their substantial segregation by locating them into concentrated collective centers scattered across the large urban, mostly remote and disconnected, areas. As for the second wave of the IDP resettlement in 2008 although

9|Pa g e


recognizing substantial effort of the government, it is hard to argue that the new policy reversed the situation dramatically and positively. Arguably, just slightly improved living standards could not be considered as the way of better integration of IDPs into the local society. The spatially isolated pattern of the newly created collective centers and complicated access to the basic social needs (including employment opportunities) contribute to the further marginalization of the IDP population. Thus, the attitude and policies have not been so different in addressing two separate waves of displacement.

3 IMPORTANT DEBATES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: DISPLACEMENT, SEGREGATION, RESILIENCE

Displacement, in a global context, is determined as the forced removal of a person from his/her home or country, often due to armed conflict or natural disaster. Consequently, Internally Displaced Person (IDP), according to the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, is defined as a “person or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border” (Asylum and migration Glossary 2012: 53). Internal displacement as a separate theoretical concept in many cases is defined and discussed as a part of global process of forced migration and a form of existence of a vulnerable social group. The discussions refer to migration, coping strategies, resilience, as well as aspects of social exclusion and social capital. The question of internal displacement is directly linked to the peculiarities of migration and more specifically, to the forceful displacement. Unfortunately, the relevant literature doesn’t make difference between the internal and international displacement, thus mostly covering the situation of international forced migration, i.e. refugees. Weiss and Korn (2006), who have been working on the issues of internal displacement, describe how this term emerged from the scientific and humanitarian discussions during the last two decades. They define IDPs as ‘forced migrants who physically remain within their own countries’. The authors also 10 | P a g e


underline the importance of such re-definition when linking the growing number of internally displaced population and the necessity of answering their different needs from refugees. Another important work addressing to the problems of forced displacement in Europe and in Central Asia is the publication by Holtzman and Nezam (2004). Generally, they discuss a set of important questions such as material well-being, employment, human and social capital of the displaced population and the role of state actors. They argue that despite geographic location or belonging to a particular country, displaced population in the above mentioned region ‘do constitute a significant source of vulnerability in affected societies’. The authors underline the relatively high level of social exclusion from the mainstream society; additionally, they mention the role of broader social networks which exist beyond their original society and contribute to the better integration and improved livelihoods of the displaced population. Holtzman and Nezam point out several important issues which are typical to the forced displacement in the region: considerably higher level of unemployment, very vulnerable survival strategies; the role of extended family links and kin relations is very important. However, due to the overall deterioration of inter-personal relations those networks are also under substantial danger, the housing situation is very poor which also contributes to the additional vulnerability of the displaced population. When describing the scientific approaches of investigation of IDP lives in Georgia, it is worthy of mentioning about a huge gap in analyses and explanation of survival and coping strategies of IDPs and spatial peculiarities of their everyday lives. Despite the fact that different international organizations work on the IDP-related issues, there is a significant lack of academic studies in this field and especially among local scholars. We can point out only few joint papers by Kabachnik, Mitchneck and Regulska (e.g. Kabachnik et al. 2012; Mitchneck et al. 2009), which deal with IDP issues, especially underlining the fact that return, local integration and even estimating the number of internally displaced population of Georgia were subjects of political games until very recently, and, perhaps, nowadays too. The resettlement policy and new state action plan and policy is criticized by Kurshitashvili (2012). The article concentrates on the new developments and steps taken by the Government of Georgia both towards first and second wave IDPs and points out the lack of holistic approach,

11 | P a g e


which results in depletion of displaced families from their main living assets and increased unemployment and severe shortage of “survival options”. However, another important aspect of the theoretical framework is not directly linked to the displacement, as it suggests the basis for the theoretical discussion about the livelihoods and strategies of vulnerable (and not only) population groups. There are several key theoretical concepts like coping strategies, resilience, social exclusion and social capital, which are discussed below. Moreover, there are several important theoretical notions which show the spatial particularities of behavior among the minority and other vulnerable social groups. The issues of integration, social segregation and discrimination are described in the work of Paul Knox and Steven Pinch “Urban Social Geography” (2010). They assess the positive and negative sides of cohesive minority groups living in a city in details – why it is an advantage for various minority groups to concentrate in space, and what are the undesirable effects that they have on urban environment, as well as how the social environment in the cities has an effect on them. Minority groups with strong group ties manage to preserve their own cultural values and traditions, meanwhile preventing themselves from assimilation into mainstream urban societies. On the other hand, after a while their exclusiveness might turn into full social alienation between them and other groups residing in the city. In addition, the minorities are being viewed as a troublesome group that intentionally tries to avoid contacts with outsiders. The shortage of communication between these groups support formation of false stereotypes and negative attitudes creating a fruitful ground for confrontation and social exclusion, thus affecting formation of unhealthy urban environments as well. The authors also point out several reasons of voluntary segregation strategies – which, in our opinion, sometimes might be rather an outcome of improper official policies than a voluntary measure – typical to the minority groups: a) clustering together for defense - the minority groups separate themselves and concentrate in mutual spaces in order to defend themselves from mainstream urban societies. The spatially concentrated settlements of minority groups act as defensive clusters against the possible violence and fear; b) clustering for mutual support - minority groups unite in physical space and thus strengthen the social and economic ties within the groups; c) clustering for cultural preservation – minority groups stick together in order to preserve and promote a distinctive cultural heritage that is present within the 12 | P a g e


social group. One can observe the above described situation, when there is a clear ethnic, religious or other types of difference between the host, mainstream society and certain social group. Furthermore, the clustering can be manifested not only through the operation of ethnic institutions and businesses but also through the effects of residential propinquity on marriage patterns. The marriage between the IDP groups and to avoid the inclusion of “outsider” in their community is quite common, especially in the rural areas and in physically segregated collective settlements; d) spaces of resistance: clustering to facilitate ‘attacks’ – the groups try to settle close to each other in order to prevent and defend themselves from the hostility of the other groups in society. Additionally, spatial concentrations of group members represent considerable electoral power and often enable minority groups to gain official representation within the institutional framework of urban politics (Knox & Pinch, 2010). This is far less common in Georgian case were IDPs are not represented as a separate electoral power so far, however, the examples could be found when they represent quite significant part of voters in particular electoral precincts, and, hence, cause an interest of political players. It is especially true in cases of the collective centers that emerged after 2008 as many of them have been formed as separate voting precincts. It is noticeable that according to the results of the 2012 parliamentary elections, the IDP voters from collective settlements of Gori municipality overwhelmingly (more than 77%) voted for then-ruling United National Movement – the difference in percentage between those IDP represented precincts and the average district and settlement levels was about 37-40% . Furthermore, the hostile environment between IDP population and local groups was also evident during the first years of displacement which is almost not evident anymore. Ronald Van Kempen in his article “Rotterdam: social contacts in poor neighbourhoods” (2006) tries to outline the importance of the effects of residence and social contacts on the ability of individuals to aggregate and collect relevant information that would be helpful for a proper employment, education and social benefit opportunities. Van Kempen presents two types of social capital – bridging and bonding capitals – that differentiate and determine the amount and type of information that an individual will be getting. Those that hold bonding capital have several strong ties with relatives and few close friends, which lead to a low amount of 13 | P a g e


new information. On the other hand, an individual with bridging capital is holding higher amount of weak ties that provide more information and better opportunities. The quantity and quality of the contacts of individuals from various minority groups very much influence the developments and achievements in an individual’s life. Couple of other concepts are highly relevant to our study. Social resilience is the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stress and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change. According to Adger (2000) there is a link between social resilience and its ecological counterpart, especially when we talk about the usage of natural resources by the societies. Studying the case of the coastal Vietnam, the author suggests an interdisciplinary approach to the problem. Another example of reviewing social resilience is to look at it from the point of view of international labor migration, which describes the approaches of migrants who broke up their tense ties with the original background. In their case remittances serve as main factor of resilience from the original communities (Julca 2010). Another concept, which also could be important for our case, is the strategies of coping. The article by Bærenholdt and Aarsæther (2002) discusses this issue using the example of the Nordic countries. Coping strategies include three dimensions: innovation, networking and formation of identity. Innovation is the process of changing in economic structures resulting in new solutions to local problems, as responses to the transformations of a globalizing and increasingly knowledge-based economy. Networking means the development of interpersonal relations that are transcending the limits of institutionalized social fields. Formation of identity reflects cultural discourses on identity building from the local to the global perspectives. As usual, coping strategies are discussed together with ‘social capital’. According to them, social capital is an asset, while coping strategies are socio-spatial practices producing social capital. Case-studies have shown that successful, i.e. reflexive, coping strategies depend on institutional regimes encouraging participation and other associational virtues. The attitude of government of Georgia and its plans towards groups of internally displaced people were officially first reflected in the in 2007 when government adopted the State Strategy on IDPs, which was amended by the Action Plan in 2008 and updated a year later. The plan aims to provide a long-term, durable solution to the IDPs’ housing problem, to 14 | P a g e


promote their socio-economic integrity into the local community, thereby reducing the IDPs’ dependence on state-support and integrating them into the local communities. A durable housing solution includes several steps, such as the conversion of the collective centers into permanent housing units and their transfer to the ownership of the displaced for free, wherever feasible; constructing buildings in different regions of Georgia and resettling the IDPs there; and assisting those who do not need accommodation with one-time monetary support. Although durable housing opportunities are one of the main priorities for displaced groups state policy mostly ignores the spatial aspect of the newly constructed housing districts and does not provide any details on the issue. As for the socio-economic features the action plan is unfortunately even more blur in this aspect and state mostly does not provide any clarity on the strategies that will be used to support this process.

4 METHODOLOGY The research launched by the Department of Human Geography aims to reveal, based on a representative survey, how those socioeconomic and spatial factors shape IDPs’ strategies to cope with the tense economic situation and problems of social integration in new places of their residence. In the presented report we try to answer several research questions related to coping strategies, mobility, attitudes etc. of the displaced population. First set of questions refers to the everyday challenges of the IDPs - the main vulnerabilities and coping strategies which the IDPs face in their everyday activities and the troubles that they need to overcome. The second set of the questions refers to the particularities of spatial practices of the IDPs, especially their mobility patterns and housing practices. These questions are important for defining the main physical obstacles towards the integration into mainstream urban society. Additionally, we measure the attitudes of the IDPs towards the representatives of local societies, which is by itself an important indicator to see how involved and integrated the IDPs are with the other social groups.

15 | P a g e


Furthermore, the research looks at the national and local governments’ policies and activities towards the IDPs and their influence on the IDPs lives and coping strategies. The literature review, fieldwork and interviews revealed and allowed to analyze relevant aspects of IDPrelated issues in the context of adopted legislation, implemented policies and strategies, and practices of responsible governmental and public institutions, such as, for instance, the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia. The study employed both quantitative and qualitative research methods in order to answer the identified research questions. A representative survey comprising 900 face-to-face semistructured interviews in nine urban settlements of Georgia with the highest concentration of collectively accommodated IDPs, as well as in one collective rural settlement that emerged after 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, were held along with up to 50 in-depth interviews with IDPs. Further analyses were carried out based on government documents, international organization reports and academic resources. TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTIVELY ACCOMODATED IDPS IN THE FIELDWORK SITES (EXCEPT TSEROVANI)

Settlement Batumi Gori Zugdidi Tbilisi Rustavi Poti Kutaisi Tskaltubo

Collective Centres

Number of IDPs

3 6 391 504 23 27 109 34

169 718 12647 9784 718 1061 2483 2025

Source: Social Service Agency of Georgia, Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association

The survey was conducted in form of interviews and used a semi-structured questionnaire which covered the issues relevant to the research, such as demographic peculiarities of the respondent, the history of living in collective centers, level of adaptation to the current situation, attitude towards local population, networking and socio-economic situation, etc. 100 respondents have been interviewed in each selected urban settlement, hence, collecting almost 900 interviews in all. A quota sampling was used for respondent selection based on

16 | P a g e


proportions of major gender-age groups - males and females of age of 18-25, 26-34, 35-55, 56-70 and older than 70 (see table 1). This method assured achieving a sufficient level of randomness and an acceptable representation of the target population, i.e. collectively settled IDPs. The collected data was coded and transferred into SPSS statistical format/database. Collected survey data was coded and entered using open-source web-based data entry platform “Limesurvey”. STATA statistical database was used for further data cleaning (check for wild codes and illegal values, running logical consistency tests, searches ensuring the presence of all basic demographic and geographic variables, etc.) and analysis. The methods of univariate and bivariate data analysis have been used, including contingency tables and checks for the significance of the correlations (Chi-square, Pearson’s coefficient) depending on the type of examined variables.

5 GENERAL INSIGHTS OF DATA ANALYSIS The first dimension of our analysis refers to the general review of survey results; it takes a look on the key analysis. From the thematic point of view, analyzed variables could be grouped as follows: i)

general characteristics of the respondents,

ii)

housing and living conditions,

iii)

everyday hardships and economic activities,

iv)

networking and measurement of attitudes towards local population.

Additionally, an important aspect of our analysis implies comparison of two groups of collectively accommodated IDPs – (a) those of resettled in the rehabilitated collective centers, i.e. recipients of new state program, and (b) IDPs which were not affected by the abovementioned program.

17 | P a g e


5. 1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS – ORIGINS, HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND MOBILITY Collectively accommodated IDPs in the cities of Georgia do not comprise a uniform population group according to the origin and activities they were engaged in the places of origin. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are the two areas from where our target group originates, however, there are several waves which formed current IDP population: 77.6% IDPs from Abkhazia were coming in 1993 and later, 21.8% - IDPs from South Ossetia (SO) relatively small number of whom arrived in 1990-91 and the majority – in 2008 after Russo-Georgian (“August”) War. Proportion of the IDPs from these two regions of Georgia is roughly 4:1. From geographic perspective, there is a clear difference among the study areas when it comes to the origins of IDPs. In the cities of Western Georgia (Zugdidi, Poti, Batumi, Kutaisi, Tskaltubo) natives from Abkhazia are in absolute majority and come from the first wave emerged in the beginnings of the 1990s. Meantime, the settlements in Eastern Georgia have mixed IDP population, especially Gori and Rustavi, where we can find representatives of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as the population fleeing both in the last decade of the 20th century and 2008 August War. Tserovani represents exclusion as it is a new settlement of semi-urban type designed for the IDPs of 2008 from South Ossetia: the residents of this settlement have very small land for agricultural use and they are mostly engaged in urban professions in the nearby cities. The areas of origin of IDPs were generally regarded as an important agricultural hubs with special orientation on citrus and tea-producing activities in Abkhazia and growing fruits, winemaking and corn in the territory of South Ossetia. On the other hand, these areas had important urban centers as well. Consequently, almost 55% of the respondents come from the urban areas and 45% - from rural settlements respectively. Interestingly enough, most of the IDPs (81%) used to live in their own houses with garden plots in the places of their origin (either in urban or rural area); 14.8% used to live in the urban block houses and only 1.7% had a separate house without garden. That compels to suggest that most of the IDPs regret their former living condition and might be suffering from the present-day one. It could be an important notion because urban areas offer different types of job opportunities and especially the IDPs of rural origin could find it difficult to be employed.

18 | P a g e


The process of displacement did not cease even after moving from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Half of the respondents reported that they have changed their living place at least once after fleeing conflict zones. Mostly they were relocated from the temporary shelters to the permanent residence areas in the collective centers or were moved to the newly (re)constructed dwellings. There are important differences between the study areas – overwhelming majority (84%) of IDPs in Batumi and Rustavi were relocated, followed by Tbilisi (79%). Only 5% of respondents in Gori indicated that they changed their living places after fleeing homes. Tskaltubo and Kutaisi also were the areas with the least mobile IDP population (18% and 14% respectively). FIG 3. HOUSEHOLD MOVED AFTER LEAVING ABKHAZIA / SOUTH OSSETIA? (%)

Batumi Rustavi Tbilisi Tserovani Poti Zugdidi Tskaltubo Kutaisi Gori

84 84

79 63 55 33 18 14 5

Quarter of the interviewed IDPs mentioned that they didn’t live in the collective centers all the time (see figure 3). There were different opportunities, for example, renting a home or living in the relatives’ dwelling with their permission. From the geographic perspective, Tbilisi has the highest proportion of IDPs with experience of living somewhere else rather than collective centers (44%) followed by Tserovani (30%) and Batumi (26%). The IDPs of Kutaisi and Tskaltubo had the fewest proportion of those that did reside outside the collective centers (13% and 11%).

19 | P a g e


We will see later that family is the main unit in which the IDPs are socializing and spending their free time. When looking at the household composition, the data indicates to the prevalence of nuclear families among the residents of collective centers, which could be a sign of deterioration of family bonds due to the war or scarce living conditions. The mode size of a household is 4 persons (27.4%). Average size of the households is 3.7 persons. The figures almost correspond with mode and average size of that peculiar to Georgia as a whole. Small households with just one person are rare (6.2%) and with two members account to 18.3%. Large households with 7 or more members are similarly rare (6.3%).

5.2 HOUSING AND LIVING CONDITIONS We can trace different stories when looking how IDPs appeared to their current residences. 63.9% of them were given the place of residence by the official authorities of Georgia. But 30.8% are a sort of “squatters” who occupied their current dwellings by force. In Zugdidi majority of the dwellers, about 71%, have occupied the buildings forcibly, whilst in Tbilisi the half of the respondents indicated themselves being squatters. In Batumi and Tserovani where the IDPs were resettled in a centralized way, absolute majority mentioned that they were assigned by the government and did not use force to take up their dwellings. Only 2% of IDPs had purchased the dwelling they live now. Privatization of the dwelling is an important indicator as it emphasizes the emergence of some kind of real estate in the hands of the IDPs. In general, status of dwellings where the IDPs reside is as follows: 19.2% are privatized, 23.1% are in the process of privatization, 55.3% belong to the state. The status of privatized estates differ among the study areas – in Zugdidi and Tskaltubo vast majority (92% and 89% respectively) did not privatize their homes, whilst in Tbilisi, Rustavi and Tserovani the largest part of the respondents stated that they already owned dwellings or were in the process of privatization. Convenient housing is an important drive for the integration and better lives, however, not many IDPs consider their current dwelling as convenient (see table 2). Only 5.3% consider it very convenient; 15% - convenient; 36.9% are more or less satisfied with conditions; but 42.1% consider dwelling conditions as inconvenient or very inconvenient. Living conditions annoyed 35.9% of all the IDPs, especially in Zugdidi (65.3%) and Tbilisi (50%). By gender and 20 | P a g e


age only insignificant differences were observed: 40% of female and 32% of male complained and all the age groups fit within the margins of 33-37%. TABLE 2: CURRENT DWELLING CONVENIENT FOR YOU (BY SETTLEMENT, %)

Settlement Batumi Gori Zugdidi Tbilisi Rustavi Poti Kutaisi Tserovani Tskaltubo

Inconvenient More or less convenient 11 38 39 39 58 31 56 31 34 49 35 41 61 26 23 58 61 22

Convenient 50 23 11 13 16 23 13 18 16

Relatively small number of the IDPs improved their dwelling conditions by their own: 4.4% extended the living surface; 2.6% added WCs; 23.3% substantially refurbished their dwelling, and 15.9% mentioned “small (cosmetic) renovation”. But more than half did not (or could not) make any improvement in their current dwelling which they always consider as “temporary”. Only 38.2% of the IDPs claim that authorities had helped them in improving living conditions, while 58.7% deny such aid. Being located generally in more remote areas of the cities, some of the IDPs complain because of lack of several infrastructural services in the area of their present residence: 8% mentioned lack of grocery shops, 5.6% - schools, 9.1% - ambulatory care facilities, 4.2% - pharmacy shops, 3.9% - kindergartens, 1.3% - public spaces. But the absolute majority expressed no complaints. 20.9% of the IDPs manage to use a small plot around/nearby their current dwelling for agricultural purpose, but that is mostly “hobby farming”, as the plots are very small to give any substantial product and this sort of activity couldn’t be considered as “occupation”. Land around collective centers is used for agricultural purposes in Tserovani by 73.3% of residents, Kutaisi 36.3%, Zugdidi 22%. On the average 21% used land for “hobby farming.” If the IDPs had a possibility to change their dwelling 42.3% of them would prefer to move to a private house within a city (this would have bear a semblance to the dwelling they lived in 21 | P a g e


before taking refuge); 29% would prefer an apartment in an urban block house; 13.5% named as their preference the return to a village house. 14.3% had no idea about their own preferences. It is no surprise that the IDPs who come from rural area would like to move to a village house three times more (21.2%) than those who come from urban area (7.2%). Urban IDPs would prefer a private city house (50.4%), while among rural IDPs such answers were received from 34.3%.

5.3 EVERYDAY HARDSHIPS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES The study aimed to identify what are the major challenges to the everyday lives of the IDPs. Unemployment was mentioned as a major problem in their life by 49.8% of the respondents. From the geographic point of view, more than half of the interviewees residing in Kutaisi (64%), Tskaltubo (61%) and Batumi (57%) identified it as a main obstacle. Interestingly enough, the problem was more important for the males (53.5%), younger generations - 56% among the people aged 18-25, 52.5% by those of 26-35 and the middle-age population (56.8%) than the elderly people. The second most mentioned obstacle were general socioeconomic problems, which were considered as main difficulty in their life by 42.4% of the IDPs. Especially profound they seem to be in Zugdidi (63.3%), Rustavi (58.3%) and Tbilisi (55.3%). Health problems, including the lack of medical services, seem to be rather serious among the IDPs residing in Zugdidi (59% against the average of 22% among all the IDPs). This problem is more frequently mentioned by women (26%) than men (17%) and naturally, by elderly people 39% among these over 70 and were 8% among the young people of 18-25. It looks like the most affected with health problems are IDPs from Gali district (40% mentioned it), followed by those from Ochamchire district, adjacent to Gali (25.4%). And finally, living conditions were mentioned by the 35.9% of the respondents. As it was noted above, unemployment was named as the most important obstacle for the everyday lives by the respondents. It was not a surprise, that the self-assessment of employment situation is also significantly low among the IDPs rather than general population. Consequently, only 22.8% of the respondents claim to be employed. If we break down the answers by the settlement type of the respondent’s origin, there are some differences between these two groups: among the IDPs originating from the urban areas of Abkhazia and 22 | P a g e


South Ossetia, 26% claim to be employed, while among the “rural IDPs” just 19.7%. What refers to the type of employment, among those employed 36% are engaged in service sector, 14% - in retail trade, 17% - in physical work (the rest didn’t identify the type of employment). It seems that IDPs residing in the collective centers, hugely depend on state monetary assistance – about 67.8% mentioned this sort of aid as a main source of income. In general, different types of social security benefits form lion’s share of IDP household income: pensions (for 39.7%) and social security assistance (22.9%). The role of wages and salaries is relatively low, 31.6% nationwide. Financial aid of relatives residing within Georgia, or outside of it is relatively scarce: only 6.5% and 3.5% of the IDPs mentioned this sort of aid as their main source of income. FIG. 4: PERCEIVED ECONOMIC SITUATION BY POPULATION GROUPS – AGE AND SETTLEMENT TYPE (%)

Very poor

Poor

Middle

77 62

53

52

52

4142 29

27 23 24 21 19 13

10

16

14 14

27 15

41 36

3937 41

36

32 16

18

23

27 29

28 18 11 12

Age

Tskaltubo

Tserovani

Kutaisi

Poti

Rustavi

Tbilisi

Zugdidi

Gori

Batumi

70+

56-70

36-55

5

26-35

18-25

46

46

46 33

52

Settlement

When asked to evaluate their monthly income 40.7% of the respondents mentioned 101-350 GEL, less than 100 GEL was income of 17.2%, 351-500 GEL was mentioned by 14.8% and only 10.5% mentioned more than 501 GEL. 15% didn’t answer to this question. The above 23 | P a g e


mentioned circumstances make it obvious that majority of the IDPs live below the poverty level: 46.5% percent of them consider themselves “poor” and 18.8% “very poor”. Only 27.6% consider themselves “middle-class” and 0.5% - “well-off”. In the cities where the IDPs currently reside most of them consider themselves as “poor” or “very poor”. This is especially peculiar to Zugdidi, Tskaltubo, Kutaisi and Tbilisi, while in Batumi and Tserovani there were relatively less complaints. It is obvious that the older the IDPs are they perceive their economic condition the worse. The younger generations are generally more optimistic about their economic status: e.g. among the 18-25 cohorts of ages 51.7% consider themselves close to the middle class (see fig. 4).

5.4 NETWORKING AND MEASUREMENT OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS LOCAL POPULATION The IDPs are tied quite strongly to the places of their current residence. These are the areas where they do spend most of their free time socializing mainly with family members and the other IDPs. Quite few of the IDPs have plenty of free time as many of them are unemployed; 63.2% of the respondents would spend their free time in the settlement they live, together with the other IDPs and only 11% of them with the local residents of the same urban area. The observation could be emphasized by the fact that empirical results also show that vast majority of IDPs spend their time in the collective centers - 64.6% of the interviewed respondents would stay there all day long. It refers more to the female IDPs – 73.8% answered so, and to the elderly people: among those of 56-70 years old 77.6% answered so and among those over 70 – 90.5%). Among the employed IDPs 55.6% travel daily to other areas of the city, 17.7% - 2-3 times a week and only 7.8% - once a week. Males travel daily almost twice as frequently than female IDPs – 30.9% versus 18.9%; among the younger generations intra-urban mobility is more conspicuous (18-25 years old 43% travel daily, and 29% of them 2-3 times a week), while among the elderly this is less profoundly seen (7% and 7% respectively). This is a prerequisite of better integration of the younger IDPs in urban life. Naturally, more unemployed IDPs do not travel and spend whole day in the collective centers than those employed (76% versus 24%). 24 | P a g e


Consequently, majority of the IDPs got used to the area where they reside at present (52.2% liked the place they live) while 36.7% would prefer to move to another newly constructed collective center in the same city. Overall results suggest that the IDPs prefer to stay in the city of their current residence – the fact which in many cases is disregarded by the state policy of resettlement. Maximum effort should be provided in order to integrate the IDPs inside the same city rather moving them outside even if giving them some benefits, e.g. allocating some sort of property in rural area. Urban environment offers more opportunities to the interrelations of the population. Consequently, cities and towns are the spaces where even IDPs have chances to be reincluded into society. Of course, the level of interaction does depend on numerous sociocultural factors, however, we can observe quite intense relations among native and displaced population. 34.8% of the IDPs claim having constant contacts with local non-IDP population, while 25.2% have “quite frequent” contacts. That means that ⅗ of them have intensive contacts with local population. 42-45% of the IDPs residing in Tskaltubo, Kutaisi and Zugdidi have constant relations with the local population. But on the whole relations between the IDPs and local non-IDP population are fairly similar in all the cities - over ⅗ of them have constant or quite frequent contacts. There is rather small difference by gender - males and females show practically identical patterns of behavior. As for the age the younger the IDPs the more contacts they have with local population: e.g. people of 18-25 of age, who were actually brought up in the area of their present residence, 71% have constant or quiet frequent contacts with local non-IDP population as compared with elder people of 56-70 years and over 70 of age (28% and 24% respectively). Additionally, 96.7% of the IDPs had no problems with local non-IDP population and 79.2% considered that relations with the locals either improved or stayed positive. Only 3.2% considers them worsened or staying bad (5.4%). However, it is important to mention that the network of contacts is more or less limited inside the borders of Georgian proper. Only 33% answered positively, while 66.2% do not have any relations with them. Even less intensive are relations with the population who live (stayed) in the occupied territories - only 27.1% mentioned such contacts. IDPs from South Ossetia are more likely to have relations with the residents staying in the occupied territories – almost

25 | P a g e


one third states so, whilst quarter of the respondents coming from Abkhazia had such contacts. Mixing of children during their schooldays is one of the best ways of integration within the new milieu. The majority of those IDPs who had (or have) children of school age claim that their boys and girls make/made friends with locals and the IDPs in a similar manner (82.6%). Among those who have preference among schoolmates - 10% mentioned only children of local population and 7.5% - only the IDP children. 8.5% mentioned that their children made friends predominantly with local non-IDP school-mates: the latter average figure was exceeded in Batumi (18.2%), Rustavi (14.1%), Tserovani (12.5%) and Gori (10.1%). 68% of the IDPs do not make (or cannot make) distinction who are friends of their children at school. Especially clearly revealed is this in the largest city of Georgia - Tbilisi (83% answered so), in Zugdidi (80%) and Kutaisi (78%). Gender differences are insignificant, however, by age group the best indications could be given by the youngest generation of 18-25 who were actually raised outside of their forefathers’ area of residence (this is more true in case of the IDPs from Abkhazia, who had to leave in 1993): within this group of people absolute majority - 83.5% do not make distinction between local or IDP friends, 11.6% (the highest proportion) claim to have school friends mostly within the local non-IDP population and mere 4.1% (the lowest proportion) has friends only among the IDPs. Even more important for integration is marital status. 16.7% of the IDPs who married in the last years formed families with non-IDP population while 12.2% with fellow IDPs. 54.8% could not distinguish preference and considered that such marriages occur with locals and IDPs almost equally. The IDPs residing in Gori and Rustavi claim that more than third of marriages that occurred during the last years were between the IDPs and locals: that reveals quite intensive integration of the IDPs. In most of the cities the IDPs responded that marriages with local population is more intense than within the IDP community (exclusion were Zugdidi and Tserovani where IDPs constitute large communities themselves). “Urban IDPs” marry with locals more intensively (20.5%) than the “rural IDPs” (12.3%). The self-assessment of the adaptation could be an important indicator to the overall improvement of the relations to the local population. The respondents were asked whether they felt as full-scale citizens of the place they reside now. Overall, 81.9% of the IDPs feel 26 | P a g e


themselves “full-scale citizens” of the town/city they live at present. However, we have very clear geographic distinctions between the IDPs residing in Western and Eastern Georgia: this was more profoundly expressed in Kutaisi – by 92.1% and in Zugdidi – by 90.9%. Whilst 15.6% of all the IDPs do not feel themselves “full-scale citizens” - this was more revealed among the IDPs residing in Tbilisi – 36.6% and in Gori – 28.0%. As it can be observed from the data, most adapted the IDPs feel themselves in Kutaisi, Zugdidi and Tskaltubo, whereas the least adapted they are in Tbilisi which surprisingly seems to be the least “hospitable” for the IDPs (see figure 5). FIG. 5: DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AS THE CITIZEN OF THIS SETTLEMENT? (%)

96

92

91

82

82

77

69

63

It is interesting how the heritage of original residence areas is reflected in the self-assessment feelings. Among the former urban dwellers the sense that they did not become full–scale “citizens” of the city they currently live was expressed by 19.6% that exceeded twice the feeling of the former rural dwellers: it could be assumed that urbanites have higher expectations than villagers. We used another self-assessed measurement of adaptation. The respondents were asked whether being IDP was an obstacle in the current city of residence. Majority of the respondents (61.2%) disagreed to the statement, 17.1% agreed completely and 10.6% agreed 27 | P a g e


partially. Although overall majority do not feel themselves discriminated, more than a quarter considered themselves as such. Especially frequent were the latter answers in Tserovani (39% on the aggregate) where IDPs from South Ossetia reside in a sort of a ‘ghetto’, as the settlement has been constructed specially for them and is lacking opportunities for employment or even for agricultural activities. Tserovani is followed by Tskaltubo (32%), a spa resort close to Kutaisi where health-recreational functions dramatically decreased after the sanatoria were occupied by the IDPs themselves. Above average are such “negative” attitudes revealed in Batumi (29.6%), Gori (29.2%). But Tbilisi has figures on the average level (26.9%): 68.8% in this city disagreed with the existence of “discrimination”. Male IDPs feel themselves ‘discriminated’ more (19%) then females (15.4%). Young people of 18-25 feel less the same thing (agreed completely 6.6%, partially 15.7%) than the age groups above them (e.g. among the 36-55 age group 21.7% agreed completely with that statement this is the highest proportion, 10.3% agreed partially). The IDPs who originate from urban area feel “discrimination” more frequently (completely 19.2%, partially 11.1%) than those from rural areas (completely 14.7%, partially 10%). It is noteworthy that the employed IDPs disagree with the statement that being an IDP is an obstacle for promotion more frequently (67%) than the unemployed IDP population. Attitude of the local non-IDP population towards the IDPs changed to the better - this is opinion of 30.2% of the IDPs. Especially profoundly this opinion was revealed in Tbilisi and Batumi (43.5% - 43.9%), in Gori, Rustavi and Poti (35-36%). It was considered “positive as ever” by 49% (In Kutaisi and Tskaltubo by 65-68%). Just 3.2% considered that the attitude worsened and 5.4% considered it to stay “bad as before”. There is almost no difference in the answers by gender. Younger generation does not notice deterioration of attitudes. Among the IDPs from South Ossetia the feeling that attitude towards them stays bad is more profound: 13.5% of originating from Akhalgori district and 19.7% of those from Tskhinvali district consider that attitude is “bad as before”.

28 | P a g e


6 THE FACTORS OF ALIENATION AND SEGREGATION The fact of over-politization of displacement issues in Georgian reality is undisputed (see e.g. Kabachnik et al 2012). Unfortunately, the state has been using this issue for manipulation of IDP groups, making them to believe that one day, in foreseeable future, they would go back to their homes. As a result of inconsistency of such promises and high expectations the problem has been exacerbating on and on and IDP groups have been kept aside from other parts of Georgian society. Apparently the situation with the IDPs in Georgia was not as harsh as in some other countries, e.g. the neighboring Azerbaijan. However, as some authors argue (Kabachnik et al 2012), the ignorance of existential problems of IDP population, initially derived from the harsh socioeconomic situation in the country, and followed by the politically motivated policies of the post-Revolutionary government9, resulted in deep societal problems. Different policies elaborated by the government, e.g. the “My Home” program10, mainly aimed to create a false expectations rather than real outcomes. In general, we observe that IDP resilience and adaptation strategies are expressed in four main ‘dimensions’: physical, socio-cultural, economic and political. Two of them – physical and economic – are mostly determined by IDPs themselves, while two others – socio-cultural and political – are largely determined by the state policies. The study shows that the form of residence significantly affects peculiarities of IDP communities’ socio-cultural and economic features as well as their spatial behavior. Majority of IDPs has changed their living place at least twice before moving to current locations. About a quarter (more than 200 persons) of the respondents report that they have lived in different places prior to moving in to the last destination. The main reasons of moving were: (i) the wish to improve their housing conditions, (ii) the government’s advice and involvement in their resettlement or (iii) the intention to move separately from homes of their relatives and

9

The government of Georgia that came into the power after the ‘Rose Revolution’ of November 2003 is meant; until the 2008 war with Russia they systematically fueled the IDPs by promises of fast return to their home places. 10 The Presidential Program “My House” was launched based on the Presidential Decree #124 of February 2006 ‘Measures to Register the Rights to Immovable Property located in the Abkhazian Autonomous Region and Tskhinvali Region’. It aimed at identifying and registering all property claims of Georgian IDPs from the conflict regions using the modern remote sensing technologies. 29 | P a g e


friends who offered primary shelter right after fleeing from Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Frequent movement aggravates a feeling of homelessness and prevents development of social contacts and could be seen as an obstacle for social integration. People have to accustom to the new situations and try to get new employment opportunities. Another issue is how IDPs change living spaces in order to adjust them to their living conditions for making their life better. As none of collective centers was built for residential purposes, IDPs had to apply ‘Do-It-Yourself’ practices to redesign buildings, mainly interiors, for making spaces and rooms “livable”. Such changes involved shifting rooms, extending living space by using areas and facilities which were meant for absolutely different purposes other than living. Entrances used as living rooms, windows turned into walls, spaces under stairs as utility or storage rooms, etc. (see fig. 6). FIG 6: EXAMPLES OF ADJUSTMENT OF BUILDING SPACES FOR LIVING PURPOSES BY IDPS IN “COLLECTIVE CENTRES”

Image courtesy: David Gogishvili, 2010-2011

Besides significant internal changes to their buildings, shortage of living space and desire to improve the living standards pushed IDPs to extend their living areas too. As a result, in order to have few square meters of extra living space, they have constructed attached extensions to the buildings, deteriorating safety, healthiness, and aesthetical image of the buildings. However, even after extensive modification of buildings and living compartments the 30 | P a g e


problem of lack of living space and safety stays unresolved. Noticeably, such an in situ modification (qualified as ‘improvement’ by dwellers) of living spaces is not peculiar only to the IDPs: as residential resilience approach it was widely practiced in Tbilisi and other Georgian cities by the regular local population too, especially in the 1990s and early 2000s. (Buzarovski et al 2011). Education is one of the issues that can lead to the improvement of IDP’s status and current conditions. However, we argue that up to nowadays it has been a factor that hinders integration of IDP youth into society. Currently 13 secondary schools specialized exclusively for the IDP children still exist (earlier there were more than 50 of them). Such specialized schools for IDPs provide jobs for up to 20,000 IDP teachers and related workers that were employed in the education sector in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Such practice also keeps IDP children within their original society and helps to “preserve” their identity. The applied policies apparently have been designed with good intentions for IDP community.11 However, it has resulted in increasing level of segregation, and decreasing level of the education. Nevertheless, many parents expressed their satisfaction with keeping their children in IDP dominated environment, despite of clear trends of segregation from the mainstream society. There are different explanations, presented by experts and scholars, of such a situation with secondary education in IDP community that is completely shared by us: “While many IDP youth have no issues in attending local schools, some IDP parents opt to send their kids to IDP schools for financial (cheaper), practical (closer), and psychological (avoid stigmatization) reasons. Another reason parents prefer IDP schools is that they want their children, many of whom don’t remember Abkhazia, to develop love and pride for their homes” (Kabachnik et al 2012:8). These schools instill and reserve IDP children’s pride, belonging, and patriotism to Abkhazia (Scarborough et al 2006).

11

An interview (April 2013) with a former high-ranked official of the The Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia confirmed that the preservation of specialized schools for the IDP children was determined by the preference of the IDP parents and intention of securing the IDP children from discomfort of quite frequently expressed unfriendly attitudes from regular local pupils. But it seems that the major incentive was to preserve jobs for the teachers among the IDPs. 31 | P a g e


The problem of unemployment is not specific for IDPs only. Just 23% of interviewed IDP respondents have paid job. The self-assessment of employment status is rather different in the nationwide opinion polls. According to the results of ‘Caucasus Barometer’ (2012), an annual survey covering the countries of the South Caucasus, shows that 35% of the entire population of Georgia is employed, revealing more than 10 percent points of difference with the IDPs (Caucasus Barometer, 2012, see fig. 7). FIG 7: UNEMPLOYMENT ACCORTING TO THE PROJECT DATASET AND CAUCASUS BAROMETER

94 82 68

Coping with marginality

Rural

Urban

Capital

National

65 63 64 68

Zugdidi

Tbilisi

Poti

Kutaisi

Gori

Batumi

Rustavi

66

65

National

75

Tskaltubo

77

Tserovani

82

76 78

Caucasus Barometer 2012

On the other hand, unemployment twinned with displacement significantly aggravates IDPs’ position. As a study suggests, locals have more access to the wages / salaries than the IDPs (Holtzman&Nezam, 2004) – the fact that indicates that most IDPs make their lives using either informal economic activities or using remittances or cash donations sent from their family members or relatives residing both inside and outside the country. There is a significant stratum of respondents (about 27 percent) which claim that being an IDP in a particular settlement is some kind of obstacle for getting a job.

32 | P a g e


Unemployment rate, in general, is especially high in urban areas12 and so is that of IDP population. However, we can argue that there are several reasons which explain the existing high level of unemployment: a) large number of IDPs residing in Tbilisi and other urban settlements formerly were employed in agriculture, industry and education sectors, who barely could find similar employment after being displaced; b) private sector, mostly “open air markets”, was a main niche that was occupied by IDPs. Nowadays, an extent of this type of markets is largely limited. Moreover, local governments in some cities, e.g. in Zugdidi, Tbilisi, etc., close down (often forcibly) street and open air markets, thus leaving vendors, both local population and IDPs, without job and sources for existence. As for employment structure of IDPs in different sectors of economy, it is clearly seen that they are more employed in the private sector. They rarely get a job in public sector, and this can be viewed as a source of segregation as well. So called structural assimilation has not taken place yet. Political participation of IDPs in local politics has been limited since the early 1990s. Three institutions: the Government of Abkhazia in Exile, Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia and the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia has been responsible for IDP issues. Because of implemented policies for more than ten years IDPs could not participate in local (municipality) elections and could not vote for a majoritarian candidate13 to the Parliament of Georgia in the district they lived. “The governments in exile” make IDPs “feel different”, ones that have “other government”, even though their responsibilities were and still are by far symbolic rather than practical and not oriented on resolving problems. Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia cannot solve the problem of IDP’s participation in local elections and local political processes, as well as in urban affairs.

12

This is because rural dwellers that own small agricultural plots granted through land reform are considered and statistically counted as (self)employed. 13

Georgia has mixed electoral system where 73 out of 150 MPs are elected in single-member (majoritarian) districts. 33 | P a g e


Importantly, collectively accommodated IDPs, submitted to ‘virtual government in exile’ that is always loyal to any ruling party, are seen and used as one of the main sources for getting relatively easy electoral votes in support of an acting ruler in any election (Parliamentary, Presidential and/or local). This fact apparently is considered by governments, when formulating policies for IDP problem resolution. There were some evidences from the Parliamentary and Presidential elections of 2008 that at the polling stations which were established for newly accommodated IDPs the ruling party (the United National Movement at that time) enjoyed a landslide victory. It refers both to the settlements created for the displaced population affected by the war in 2008, as well as the recipients of the state resettlement policy. Social contacts play a vital role in displacement. Mostly people try to settle in a place where they know someone. Social Network means close contacts developed when there is a concentration of IDPs. Dense network among IDPs can be qualified as a concentration of poverty. It emerges because IDPs try to attract people with similar background around their community, and as IDPs want to feel safe in their living area. It results in the overrepresentation of people with the same background. The concentration of unemployed people does not motivate IDPs to actively look for a job. The concentration of poverty might lead to specific social and spatial behavior. The analyses of the research dataset make it evident the fact that IDPs form mostly closed communities and are attached to their residential areas even during their free time. About 87 percent of the respondents indicated that they spend whole or half of their time inside the collective centers. Only quarter reported that they travel to other parts of the settlement every day. The others indicated that these kinds of movements are less frequent in their lives. However, the research outcomes show that there are important networks created not only inside the IDP communities but outside as well. Especially the young people often engage in the active relations with local population. More than half of the surveyed IDPs report that they have quite frequent relations with local population. Interestingly, the respondents usually abstain from reporting on any problems to their families which were caused by the local non-IDP population. However, we can argue that the history of relations to the local population is a story of improved attitudes. About 30 percent of the respondents stated that 34 | P a g e


the attitudes of locals towards IDP population improved, that is, in the beginning there were some negative attitudes, which later changed to the positive. Another important measure of emerging networks with the local residents is the cases of inter-marriages. About 56 percent of the respondents stated that the members of their communities were married either to representatives of IDP or non-IDP population without having special preferences, which indicates to the reduced or even non-existing marital priorities.

7 POLICY AND PRACTICE TOWARDS THE IDP POPULATION – EFFECTS OF RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM IN GEORGIA Since the early-1990s, IDPs represent a distinct social group in terms of their identity, status and role in the society, networking, and mobility, residential and place-making patterns. It is worth mentioning that the official policy towards this stratum of Georgia’s population largely contributed to their substantial segregation by allocating them into concentrated collective centers scattered across the large urban areas of the country. The second wave IDP resettlement dates back to the 2007 when the new state program of construction of new IDP collective centers was implemented, however, it is hard to prove that the policy changed the situation substantially and in a positive direction. Arguably, only improved living standards, very positive factor by all means, could not be considered as the sufficient way of better integration into the local society. The spatially isolated pattern of the newly created collective centers and complicated access to the basic social needs (including employment opportunities) contribute to the further marginalization of IDP population. The establishment of new collective centers or rehabilitation process of the older ones began in 2007 when the Ministry of Refugees and Resettlement (currently the Ministry of Forced Displaced People from the Occupied Territories, Resettlement and Refugee Affairs). According to the official statistics, about 23,344 IDPs were satisfied with long-term shelter since then. As it is worth mentioning, the rehabilitation process generally affected collective centers in urban settlements outside Tbilisi. Several new collective centers were constructed or organized in Batumi, Poti, Tskaltubo, Jvari and Rustavi.

35 | P a g e


The review of the literature shows different aspects which are also important for the investigation of internal displacement in Georgia. As it was mentioned above, IDPs are one of the most vulnerable social groups which in many cases were left without considerable state help and thus had to make their lives by themselves without significant government involvement. Consequently, the research aims to investigate the coping strategies that IDPs undertake in order to survive the challenging circumstances of their everyday life, and to understand the role of social networks, dominant power relations/institutions, and spatial practices for their coping strategies. On the other hand, one could observe considerable state involvement in new resettlement process, which did not intend to cardinally and positively change IDP lives, but just temporarily resolve their residential problems as well as materializing political aspects. Our discussion will refer to several aspects of IDP lives. More specifically, we study their attitudes towards changes, the physical renovation/modification conducted by themselves in their residential areas, employment and integration patterns. Finally, we will touch the problems of integration and relationship with local residents. For the analysis we compared two groups of the respondents – those who were participants of the resettlement process and who were not. The comparison led to the significant differences especially in terms of participation, relations with local population and other important aspects. The main hypothesis is that collective accommodation and artificial clustering in “collective centers” of forcefully displaced people significantly hinders possibilities of their integration in the mainstream urban societies and processes, in terms of both social and spatial dimensions. The implemented state policies so far have not favored an efficient resolution of this problem; furthermore, some state actions have supported further social exclusion and disintegration of IDP groups from the parts of Georgian society. Importantly, the hypothesis suggests that the artificial spatial clustering of the newly created IDP settlements, along with formerly emerged collective centers has negative consequences on the level of integration of newly relocated population. The existing realities about collectively settled IDP community, resulted from both public policies and self-elaborated coping strategies, tend to be supportive for social alienation and territorial segregation of this vulnerable group of the contemporary Georgian society. 36 | P a g e


Additionally, newly created settlements do not provide IDPs with basic social needs, as they are characterized by their remoteness and with physical significant distance from the central areas of the corresponding urban settlements. Importantly enough, spatial clustering of the newly created/rehabilitated collective centers negatively affects successful process of integration into local society. The newly introduced program of resettlement of collectively accommodated IDPs created an important stratum of IDPs which became owners of their dwellings, i.e. real property. As the theory suggests, the last option could contribute to the improved situation of the affected population (Holtzman & Nezam, 2004). A very important question which arises here is how state resettlement projects affected the lives of IDPs. It is worth mentioning that if we take into consideration employment status, there is no significant difference between the two groups; however, resettled IDPs are more likely to have longer history of looking for a job. About 11% of resettled IDPs said that they are looking for a job for the last four months whilst only 4% of non-resettled IDPs were in the same position. Shortage of living space and a will to improve the living standards pushed IDPs to extend their living spaces. As a result they have deteriorated safety, healthiness, and image of the living place for a few square meters of extra living space, but the problem of space and safety stays as it was. Noticeably, such an approach towards living space is not characteristic for only IDPs; it is widely practiced among the local population too. Due to the lack of living spaces in the majority of collective centers people started the appropriation of public space or “no-man’s-land/space” around their living area or inside the buildings. Interviewed IDPs are in general less likely to have any extension of the existing building – about 90% of non-resettled and 95% of resettled respondents report so. However, when it comes to the agricultural activities, there is a 12 percent point difference between the two groups. About 20% of non-resettled IDPs report that they engage in some kind of agricultural activities around their living space. It is true for the urban settlements as well, as the residents of rural Tserovani are excluded from these calculations.

37 | P a g e


Another important issue is to see how resettlement affected the lives of the policy recipients. First of all, they are more likely to perceive the dwelling as convenient – a hefty 74% stated so in difference with the non-resettled individuals. In the latter group about 49% thinks so. Visual examination (see fig. 8) of the newly created and rehabilitated settlements in Tskaltubo and Rustavi show that almost all basic utilities for living are in place, including running water, hot water pumps, the buildings are undergone to the capital renovation process (repaired). We can argue that visible part of the rehabilitation process went quite well. On the other hand, it’s very important how the IDPs themselves perceive the quality of the work. Importantly enough, only 45% of the interviewed stated that their lives changed positively after moving into new dwellings and what is worth mentioning, 72% of the respondents indicated to some kind of problems. They experience a significant lack of services, on which about 60% of the respondents complained. They mention ambulatory, grocery shops, schools, pharmacy shops and even churches as desirable facilities/services to be opened nearby their new dwellings. FIG 8: REHABILITATED LIVING HOUSE FOR IDPS IN RUSTAVI (LEFT) AND POTI (RIGHT)

Image courtesy: NETGAZETI.GE

To summarize, the existence/residence of large numbers of IDPs in collective centers, twinned with a very high rate of unemployment among them, stimulates the deepening of social disintegration and creates a precondition for segregation. Additionally, other studies indicate to the existing structural differences between local and IDP population’s employment status. After resettlement, the majority of the IDP population felt the improvement of their living standards, however due to the remoteness of the area, they complain about the lack of 38 | P a g e


services. Resettled IDPs didn’t change their habitats after moving, whilst non-resettled IDPs were more likely to do so. The feeling of being a member of local community is less strong in the resettled IDPs. Resettled IDPs are less likely to have frequent relations with the local nonIDP population. When speaking about the level of integration into local society, there is a split in evidences. Despite the fact that the representatives of IDP population due to the remoteness of the collective centers or other factors are concentrated and closed into their residential areas, they report few problems with locals and also indicate to the rising number of social networks regarding the local population. The existing policy approach from the Georgian government in some instances was oriented on hindering the integration of IDPs in Georgian society, in order to keep their motivation of returning to the places of previous residence, though they knew about miserable chances of achieving it, especially after Russo-Georgian war of 2008. However, we can argue that in a different time periods the motivations were quite dissimilar of doing so.

CONCLUSION IDP community in Georgia could be seen as a newly evolved (since the early 1990s) sociocultural group of society, united by common destiny and expectation of getting back to their previous residences, as soon as possible. Displacement is the main condition/aspect that unites this group of people. Since their emergence, IDPs had to live in the places and conditions which kept them somewhat distanced from the mainstream societies of their new places of residence. It is especially true for those IDPs who lived and/or still live compactly in ‘collective centers’. The overall image of IDP population contains quite negative shade; belonging to IDP community residing in a ‘collective centre’ almost automatically means lower social status of a person and points at his/her vulnerability and poverty. As our study shows less than 1% of IDPs consider themselves as well-off and successful.

39 | P a g e


Due to such circumstances a feeling/perception of being ‘different’ arose among IDPs, which apparently is shared, albeit to different degrees from place to place, by the population of hosting settlements. The governments’ attitudes towards IDPs, lack of solid and sustainable policies, neglect of their vital needs, etc., and the ways they have been treated by the official structures during many years had further aggravated this feeling of differentness that largely stimulated alienation of IDPs from the rest of the population. Isolation and concentration of large numbers of IDPs in collective centres, twinned with a very high rate of unemployment among them, stimulated the deepening of social disintegration and creates a precondition for spatial segregation even when they live close from local population. Additionally, one can observe the existing structural differences between local and IDP population’s employment status. The existing policy approaches from the Georgian government, including non-provision them by decent housing, in some instances was oriented with or without purpose, on hindering the integration of IDPs into Georgian society, in order to keep their motivation of returning to the places of previous residence. Meantime, the governments always knew about miserable chances of achieving it, especially after the Russo-Georgian war of 2008. Apart from the state policies, the coping strategies exercised by IDPs so far usually don’t promote integration into local societies. The representatives of IDP population are concentrated and closed into their residential areas due to the remoteness of the collective centers, lack of incentive and motivation in business mobility, alienation from other groups of local societies, etc. In addition, an extremely acute aspect of IDPs existence in almost every city was and still is a necessity to forcefully occupy their living spaces and settle non-residential buildings with further adjustments of acquired spaces for living purposes. This process usually leads to deterioration of buildings and surrounding areas, and severely destroys an image of IDPs in eyes of local population. Consequently, such resilience and coping approaches, although imposed by external circumstances, do not add to IDPs’ capital, presents them as ‘negative space producers’ and confront them with the rest of population. Although regular Georgian citizens often apply for unhealthy ‘do-it-yourself’ practices themselves, IDPs’ cases of negative impact on built and natural environment are considered as extreme. The case of 40 | P a g e


former hotel ‘Iveria’ (modern ‘Radisson Blue’) in central Tbilisi is iconic for illustrating deterioration of environment by IDPs (see fig. 9). FIG. 9 HOTEL ‘IVERIA’ WHEN OCCUPIED BY IDPS AND AFTER RECONSTRUCTION INTO ‘RADISSON BLUE’ HOTEL

In spite of such overall grave situation and unfavorable circumstances for IDPs to get closer to the rest of population, the study revealed very positive trends of adaptation and gradual integration of the most of IDPs in the mainstream local societies. The fact that over 80% of displaced persons, especially younger generation, consider themselves ‘full-scale’ citizens, members of local societies, emphasizes a tendency of closing a gap between IDP and non-IDP population. This observation can be strengthened by findings of other similar studies (e.g. Frichova Grono 2011). Hence, in long-term, IDPs as a peculiar phenomenon for Georgian society apparently is going to vanish in couple of decades as the displaced population will fully integrate in the mainstream societies. However, the historical memory on the former places of residence and a desire to get back will live longer, if the problem won’t be solved before.

41 | P a g e


At the same time, the current process of adaptation of IDPs to new places of residence and their painless integration in mainstream societies requires from the government and civil society the following measures: 

Provision of IDPs with decent housing together with offering them employment opportunities. The employment is a single most important item that might assure IDPs relatively fast and full-scale integration in the mainstream urban society. Housing is very important item too, but insufficient without employment.



Provision of quality education and good healthcare to displaced persons in all cities and settlements of their residence. The state policies towards achieving this goal must be solid and forthcoming.



IDPs should have equal property rights with the rest of population. Property ownership of IDPs in Georgia proper must be secured in spite of chances of return to native settlements.



IDPs must have equal political rights; participate in political and socioeconomic processes in the places of their recent habitation. The government and political parties should stop manipulation of IDPs for their own political purposes and feeding them with false expectations, and civil society must systematically monitor this process.

ENDNOTES The presented report provides only relatively superficial analyses of the literature and survey data that was acquired during the study. In the coming months we intend to carry out wider analyses in order to produce more scientific writings for publishing in prominent scholarly editions, as well as to use the research outcomes in producing of a doctor’s thesis and other academic productions.

42 | P a g e


BIBLIOGRAPHY Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography , 24 (3), 347-364. Asylum and migration Glossary 2.0. (2012). A tool for better comparability - produced by the European Migration Network Baerenholdt, J. O., &Aarsaether, N. (2002) Coping strategies, social capital and space. European Urban and Regional Studies , 9 (2), 151-165. Bouzarovski, S., J. Salukvadze and M. Gentile. (2011). A Socially Resilient Urban Transition? The Contested Landscapes of Apartment building extensions in Two Post-communist Cities. Urban Studies. Volume 48, issue 13, year 2011, pp. 2689-2714 Caucasus Research Resource Centers. (2012) "Caucasus Barometer". Retrieved from http://www.crrccenters.org/caucasusbarometer/ on June 28, 2013. Frichova Grono, M. (2011) Displacement in Georgia IDP attitudes to conflict, return and justice. An analysis of survey findings. Conciliation resources. London Gachrchiladze, R. (1995) The New Georgia: Space, Society, Politics. UCL Press Holtzman, S.B. and T. Nezam (2004) Living in Limbo: Conflict-Induced Displacement in Europe and Central Asia. Washington, DC: The World Bank Julca, A. (2011). Multidimensional Re-creation of Vulnerabilities and Potential for Resilience in International Migration. International Migration , 49, e49. Kabachnik, P., B. Mitchneck and J. Regulska (2012) Return or Integration? Politisizing Displacement in Georgia Knox, P., and Pinch, S. (2010) Urban Social Geography: An Introduction. (6th Edition). Pearson Education Limited Lundgren, M. (2012) Crossing the border – an intergenerational study of belonging and temporary return among IDP of Abkhazia. [Manuscript, part of a dissertation work] Manning, P. (2009) In: The Hotel/Refugee Camp Iveria: Symptom, Monster, Fetish, Home Van Asche, K., J. Salukvadze& N. Shavishvili (editors). 2009.Urban Culture and Urban 43 | P a g e


Planning in Tbilisi: Where West and East Meet. Lewiston, Queenston&Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press; pp. 319 – 349 Mitchneck, B., Mayorova, O. V. and Regulska, J. (2009) '“Post”-Conflict Displacement: Isolation and Integration in Georgia', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99: 5, 1022 — 1032 On Internally Displaced Persons (2006). Law of Georgia. Tbilisi. http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session10/GE/NRCIDMC_NorwegianRefugeeCouncil-LawonIDPs-Annex2-eng.pdf

Salukvadze, J. (2009) Market Versus Planning? Mechanisms of Spatial Change in Post-Soviet Tbilisi. In: Van Asche, K., J. Salukvadze& N. Shavishvili (editors). 2009.Urban Culture and Urban Planning in Tbilisi: Where West and East Meet. Lewiston, Queenston&Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press; pp. 159-187 Scarborough, G., T. Tavartkiladze and A. Agranashvili (2006) Rapid assessment of the protection and livelihoods situation of internally displaced children and youth living in collective centers in the Republic of Georgia. Tbilisi: UNICEF Van Kempen, R., (2006) Rotterdam: Social Contacts in Poor Neighbourhoods, in Musterd, S., Murie, A., Kesteloot, C. (Eds) Neighbourhoods of Poverty - Urban Social Exclusion and Integration in Europe (pp. 102-119). Weiss, T. G., & Korn, D. A. (2006) Internal Displacement: Conceptualization and its consequences. Taylor & Francis. UNHCR (2009) Protection of internally displaced persons in Georgia: A gap analysis. Tbilisi Web sites: The Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia: http://www.mra.gov.ge The Central Elections Commission of Georgia: http://www.cesko.ge Georgia Election Data: http://data.electionsportal.ge The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/picture/2013/apr/29/world-mapshowing-where-people-displaced 44 | P a g e

Coping with marginality and exclusion: can refugees

Coping with marginality and exclusion: can refugees

Suggest Documents

Coping with Stigma and Social Exclusion of Terror ... - NSUWorks

Can Reproductive Allometry Assess Population Marginality in ...

Coping with Infertility: How Family and Friends Can Help - Resolve

SOCIAL EXCLUSION OF PALESTINIAN REFUGEES IN LEBANON ...

Coping with College Series Having an Alcoholic Parent Can Make ...

MARGINALITY: Concepts and their Limitations

Coping with coping assessment: a critical review

Nursing and Coping With Stress

Coping and resilience in refugees from the Sudan - Taylor & Francis ...

Education and Marginality: Race and Gender in

From Coping with Stress to Positive Coping with Life

Coping with Bereavement

Coping with Infertility - CiteSeerX

coping with lies

Coping with Climate Change

Coping with chemotherapy

Coping With Globalization

coping with childhood disability

Coping with Minority Status.indd

Coping With Diabetes - CDC

COPING WITH STRESS

Coping With Diabetes - CDC

Coping with Climate Change

Election Marginality, District Homogeneity, and ... - SHAREOK Journals