Internal displacement is a longstanding issue in Georgia, rooted in historical conflicts and the collapse of the Soviet Union. More than thirty years after the outbreak of armed violence in the Tskhinvali region (South Ossetia) and Abkhazia, approximately 308,000 individuals officially remain displaced. They lack the prospect of returning due to the presence of Russian military forces, widespread destruction, and severe discrimination by the de-facto authorities. On Georgian-controlled territory, they face myriad interrelated challenges regarding local integration, particularly in securing durable housing, employment, and establishing sustainable livelihoods.
Remarkably, the Georgian government was among the pioneers worldwide to enact a national law on internal displacement in 1996 – even two years before the publication of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. In 2007, it further bolstered its commitment with the publication of a national policy, known as State Strategy for IDPs. These documents have undergone continuous development to align with international standards. Despite these legislative advancements, however, IDPs have continued to experience marginalization within Georgian society.
The question arises: why have the legal and policy frameworks on internal displacement not been effectively implemented so far? Understanding the hindrances to the implementation is crucial, not only for addressing the situation in Georgia but also for comprehending challenges in other – perhaps less favorable – displacement contexts worldwide.
The Situation of IDPs in Georgia
Compared to other unresolved conflicts that triggered significant displacements, such as Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, and Sudan, Georgia’s internally displaced persons (IDPs) are not experiencing an acute humanitarian crisis. However, IDPs still face many challenges to integrate locally into their host communities. Many of them are still waiting for durable housing solutions and more often than the local population rely on financial and non-financial support to meet their basic needs.
The situation for IDPs living adjacent to the Administrative Boundary Lines (ABLs) with South Ossetia and Abkhazia is especially challenging. The closure of crossing points along the South Ossetian and Abkhazian ABL since 2017, despite temporary openings, severely restricts movement and impedes trade. Notably, the ongoing process of “borderization” by the Russian forces and de facto authorities of the breakaway regions – involving the installation of razor and barbed wire fences, trenches, and anti-fire dividing lines along the ABLs – negatively affects various aspects of life, including family relationships, access to property, grazing, and farmlands, as well as religious sites and graveyards.
Although the UN General Assembly annually adopts a resolution recognizing the right to return, it is clear that the Russian government has no interest in relinquishing its occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Hence, it is possible that the human rights situation for ethnic Georgians will further deteriorate.
Adapting Responses: Approaches to Internal Displacement over Time
From the outset, addressing conflict-induced displacement has been a top national priority for the Georgian government. Nonetheless, for many years, it prioritized the return of IDPs to their homes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Legal frameworks and government rhetoric highlighted the temporary nature of displacement, limiting IDPs’ ability to exercise their rights – including their voting rights – and participate fully in civic life, perpetuating their lives in limbo.
After the Russo-Georgian War in 2008 and Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, the Georgian government and IDPs realized that a return was not feasible in the near future. With massive donor support, the Georgian government built new settlements along the administrative boundary line with South Ossetia. Yet, instead of improving their socio-economic conditions, the new settlements kept IDPs isolated from society, with few opportunities for employment, sustainable livelihoods, and access to basic services. Moreover, these housing programs entirely overlooked IDPs who had lived in displacement since the early 1990s. This violated principles enshrined in the 2007 State Strategy on IDPs, which emphasizes the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement as the basis for government action.
Subsequently, international organizations invested heavily in raising awareness so that durable housing solutions would no longer be treated as a stand-alone issue. They advocated for a holistic human rights approach from which all IDPs could benefit. In 2014, a new law on IDPs came into effect, aiming to protect IDP rights, facilitate local integration during displacement, and promote durable solutions. Furthermore, the new government adopted Livelihood Action Plans and established a Livelihood Agency – now called the IDPs, Eco-Migrants and Livelihood Agency – to facilitate the implementation of the State Strategy on IDPs and coordinate the national response in promoting IDPs’ self-reliance. Particularly, the Livelihood Agency has been working on improving the socio-economic conditions for IDPs through (1) raising awareness on available livelihood programs, (2) supporting vocational education and training colleges, and (3) supporting small business initiatives and agricultural activities.
Adaptations to the IDP housing policy were also made to accelerate integration of all IDPs into their host communities. Instead of moving to newly constructed settlements, the new policy offered a variety of options for IDPs, which apart from housing include granting ownership rights of living units to IDPs as well as monetary compensation. Specific housing allocation criteria were developed to prioritize particularly vulnerable IDP families and define standards to protect IDPs from arbitrary and illegal evictions.
However, implementation is proceeding slowly. Only half of the families in need of durable housing have benefitted from a government program so far. Moreover, labor market outcomes for IDPs lag far behind those of local residents. A previous study has shown that unemployment constitutes one of the biggest obstacles to local integration, contributing to apathy and a lack of engagement in public life.
Implementation Challenges
The underlying reasons for slow implementation are manifold and mainly relate to (1) decline in donor support, (2) lack of information and transparency of decisions, and (3) coordination flaws in decision-making.
Decline in Donor Support
After the Russo-Georgian War, donors invested heavily in new settlements for IDPs. At a conference in Brussels in October 2008, donors from thirty-eight countries and fifteen organizations pledged a total of US$4.5 billion of financial post war assistance. As years went by and other more acute crises came into focus, donor support for IDPs gradually declined, especially for programs that focus on durable housing. Thus, expenses have to be covered mainly from the state budget. Georgia, as a developing economy with a gross domestic product per capita of less than US $5,400, can only slowly meet the housing demands. Hence, the speed of rehabilitation, acquisition, and construction of new homes for IDPs has starkly decelerated since then. Furthermore, the Livelihood Agency – established to improve the socio-economic conditions for IDPs – fell short of its intended impact. Especially, its co-financing model as a requirement for financial support discourages many IDPs from applying for funding. Apart from their monthly allowances, IDPs usually lack a regular income. Furthermore, health services and medications, although supposed to be free of charge, still carry costs and usually result in incurring debt among poor and vulnerable segments of society to which many IDP families belong. Hence, in its first three years of its existence, only 3,000 IDPs had benefited from the Agency’s programs.
Lack of Information and Transparency of Decisions
Local integration also faces obstacles as IDPs often lack awareness of relevant laws, regulations, and opportunities. When seeking information on housing, employment, and financial services, they typically rely on private sources or turn to international and local organizations for guidance due to limited government outreach. Indeed, government representatives rarely visit IDPs in collective centers and engage in face-to-face outreach. This fosters distrust toward the state and contributes to disengagement from public life. Even worse, the lack of transparency leads to tensions and unrest within IDP settlements and communities. For example, housing allocation criteria are often unclear for many IDPs, leading to frustration and confusion when some families receive housing while others do not. In one of the collective centers in Zugdidi, a town near the Abkhazian ABL, some IDPs resorted to a hunger strike after their housing application were rejected.
Coordination Flaws in Decision-Making
Another problem is the gaps in cooperation among the plethora of governmental and non-governmental actors involved in the national response to internal displacement. Decision-making processes are opaque, with even high-level officials often unaware of the basis for decisions on housing allocation or livelihood support. Furthermore, frequent staff rotations and cabinet reshuffles complicate the landscape, leading to ambiguity regarding responsibilities, competing priorities, and varying degrees of commitment. The absence of systematic mechanisms for incorporating the voices and positions of IDPs and the civil society in decision-making processes exacerbates challenges in anticipating and addressing the needs of IDPs. For instance, several livelihood programs failed to sustainably support IDPs due to their limited professional skills, restricted access to agricultural land, inadequate social networks, and difficulties in accessing loans due to lack of collateral.
Moving Ahead and Lessons for Other Displacement Situations
Rectifying the consequences of past one-sided policy strategies and addressing implementation challenges is a difficult undertaking, especially in light of limited funding for IDPs. Yet, the government has made notable progress to facilitate local integration, for example by improving their housing programs from building isolated settlements to offering a variety of housing options underpinned with specified allocation criteria. However, even after more than thirty years since the mass displacement in Georgia, significant efforts are needed to enhance transparency in decision-making, improve access to housing and information, overcome structural barriers to employment, and improve coordination among stakeholders.
Other countries facing internal displacement should heed the lessons from Georgia’s experience. Firstly, they should recognize the importance of establishing comprehensive legal frameworks that adhere to international standards and avoid a too narrow focus on return.
Secondly, policies and strategies must complement legal provisions to ensure implementation. These must be tailored to meet the diverse needs of IDPs, encompassing not only housing provision but also livelihood opportunities, access to basic services, and social integration. Such efforts demand sustained commitment from government bodies and donors, acknowledging that implementation rarely follows a linear path.
Thirdly, housing programs, income generation activities, and projects promoting participation in public life must consider the ideas, needs, and concerns of the IDPs. This requires face-to-face outreach and regular communication through institutionalized platforms with decision-makers, IDPs, and host populations.
Fourthly, effective coordination mechanisms involving local authorities and civil society organizations are imperative, fostering transparency, information sharing, and meaningful participation decision-making processes.
By embracing these principles, countries grappling with internal displacement can work towards more effective and inclusive solutions, promoting the rights and well-being of displaced populations.
KEYWORDS: Legal frameworks; political will; capacity-building; displacement; Georgia
Carolin Funke is currently executive assistant to the President of TU Dortmund University. She is the author of Durable Solutions: Challenges with Global Norms for Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia (2022). For this book, she performed extensive field research in Georgia in 2017 while working with an international NGO. This blog post is based on research for this book, which is also available here.