EVICTIONS OF IDPs CAUSE PUBLIC OUTCRY IN GEORGIA
On January 20, the process of evicting internally displaced persons (IDPs) from temporary accommodation in Tbilisi was resumed after being halted for several months, following sharp criticism from local and international organizations.
The eviction process was initiated during the summer of 2010 when several thousand IDPs were evicted from temporary settlements in Tbilisi and instead offered either alternative accommodation or financial compensation of US$ 10,000. International organizations such as the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), Amnesty International (AI) and the Council of Europe, criticized the Georgian authorities for failing to meet international standards during the process. Residents were not given prior notice of the exact date of eviction, alternative accommodation was inadequate or not offered at all, and the financial compensation promised was not always paid to those eligible. Many IDPs also refused to accept the alternative housing offered, as it was located in remote rural areas lacking essential infrastructure, basic services and employment opportunities.
The eviction process has been highly politicized and triggered a series of protest rallies in Tbilisi. The street protests were supported by the oppositional Conservative Party and People's Party, which were criticized for using the situation for their own political gain. Since the first wave of evictions, some IDPs have also been camping outside the office of the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees (MRA), demanding accommodation in Tbilisi. In November, one IDP woman set herself on fire outside the Ministry in protest of the relocation to rural areas.
Most of the evicted IDPs were displaced during the Georgian-Russian war in August 2008, although some fled the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia already during the wars of the early 1990s. Legally speaking, the IDPs have never been given the right to stay permanently in the buildings that are being vacated, as they were merely meant as temporary shelter after the August war. Therefore the authorities are now relocating these IDPs to long-term accommodation or offering them financial compensation. The relocation is part of a process initiated in 2009 to integrate the around 250,000 IDPs in Georgia and provide them with durable housing solutions – until they can return to their original place of residence.
In response to the public outcry, the MRA halted the evictions pending the adoption of standard procedures to regulate the eviction and relocation. Based on these standards, the process was resumed in January, but again sparked criticism. In a public statement, AI expressed concern that the standard procedures were not fully adhered to and that the observers monitoring the process were not granted full access to the affected IDPs. The MRA in turn replied in a statement that these allegations were “biased and unfair” and that AI did not possess full information about the process.
Adding to the already complex situation is the fact that the police – and not the MRA – is responsible for the actual forced eviction, making it difficult for the latter to effectively control the procedure. The NGO Transparency International-Georgia also identifies the government’s inadequate public communication as contributing to the problem and asserts in a blog message that "[m]ore effective public communication about decisions” concerning how and why the evictions are carried out would serve to mitigate public concerns.
In an attempt to prevent further politicization of the issue, UNHCR issued a statement on February 3 acknowledging that the recent evictions were an improvement and that they had largely been in line with international standards. The statement was viewed with disappointment by other stakeholders, as it was perceived as being out of touch with the harsh reality of the evicted IDPs. However, UNHCR recognized that relocation and eviction may cause “significant hardship for persons concerned” and called upon the parties to refrain from polarization emphasizing that “[t]he plight of IDPs is too important to be abused for quick political gain.”
Whether the eviction process meets international standards or not, uprooting and relocating IDPs to isolated settlements lacking essential infrastructure is unlikely to ease the burden of an already vulnerable group. Durable housing is a start, but without means to earn a living and access to basic services such as grocery shops, schools and medical centers, the IDPs cannot be said to have been offered a long-term solution.
