|
To a traveler visiting Samtskhe-Javakheti for the first time – like me - the region or Southern Georgia seems a fairy tale: velvety hills full of flowers, waterfalls and sparkling springs, fertile soils, flowering potato fields and mais plants as tall as a man, fluttering in the wind, and now and then a small grey donkey carrying a barrow full of green grass from the field to the village.
However, the reality for people living in this region is one of economic hardship, climatic and topographical obstacles and great privations. Parts of this region are among the poorest in Georgia. There is little or no industry, and the sale of agricultural produce, including the potatoes for which the area is famous , has become problematic. Cold and dry winters, here and there alpine conditions, the deterioration of transport facilities and roads, together with outside competition are serious challenges to agricultural production. In addition, in the past, the region of Akhalkalaki has been an inaccessible, isolated and highly protected military zone at the border of the Soviet Empire. This led not only to its economic underdevelopment but also to its isolation from the capital. The possible withdrawal of the Russian military base in Akhalkalaki fuels fear: not only it threatens over one thousand people (70% percent of them Armenians) to lose their job, but it also takes away from the region a balance that protected the region from the nationalizing efforts of the Georgian state and from the traditional fear of Turkey.
Main challenges
According to a survey conducted in January 2001 , the population of the Akhaltsikhe district gives a negative assessment of the economic and social situation. Most people report living conditions to have considerably worsened in the last 2-3 years. Unemployment and economic difficulties are perceived as the most acute problems. In both the Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikhe districts, these difficulties force large numbers of the male population to migrate to Russia seasonally to work and to return home in the winters. Secondly, a problem of almost the same importance for the rural population is the energy crisis. Thirdly, the majority of the population in the district, irrespective of age, nationality or place of residence, is concerned about the resettlement of the Turk-Meskhetians, an ethnic Turk minority deported under Stalin to the Fergana Valley in Central Asia on suspicion of siding with the Germans in 1944. Even so, ethnic tensions and the deterioration of the criminal situation are not perceived as an acute problem. The survey further identified difficulties in the sphere of education as well as inaccessibility of information as matters of concern. Many people feel their basic human needs are not covered.
It is with this difficult background that the Horizonti Foundation has begun to support community based development in Samtskhe-Javakheti. In its approach aimed at reducing rural poverty and unemployment, Horizonti promotes collective action by communities. It puts them in control of development interventions by making community based organizations (CBOs) the driving forces in the process. Horizonti’s initiative is based on the chance that, as the same survey showed, a significant part of the population believes in its own potential and its ability to contribute to the solution of problems: both Georgians and Armenians in the region, both rural and urban residents - and particularly young people - are quite optimistic about creating community based organizations, although only about 17% of the respondents have heard about such organizations. Most people – over 70% - are still completely unaware of NGOs in the region. Correspondingly, only about 6% of respondents participate in NGO activities (8.2% in the cities and 2.6% in rural areas). Equally, the majority of the population is unaware of international funds financing NGO programs, but many – particularly rural residents – have expressed the desire to learn the contact numbers of the funds.
The difficult task of building confidence
The main stumbling block in initiating community development projects is people’s lack of trust. Only 15 out of 110 villages who received information about Horizonti’s grants program decided to set up a community development project and to apply for funding. Many restrained from applying because they were not confident that problems could be solved by the community itself. The recent survey shows that rural population is less confident about its own potential than the urban group, with Armenians being more pessimistic than Georgians. Only 58.8% of the population prefer a democratic political system, while 20.7% wish for “the rule of a powerful individual” and 18.2 percent want a communist regime.
Mistrust and pessimism towards community based projects and NGOs are the result of a long history. Interviews conducted with members of the initiative groups in Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki in July 2002 and the above mentioned survey in January 2001 provide some explanations about the roots of this mistrust.
• First, the mentality that “someone will solve the problem for us” and will take on the responsibility for the whole village is still shared by more than half of the population: 52.9% of the respondents think that responsibility for people’s well-being lies with the state. The survey shows that the older the person, the more the individual will generally expect from the state. Although most respondents give preference to a democratic political system (58.8%), 20.7% still wish for “the rule of a powerful individual”, and 18.2% want a “communist regime”. Such a passive basic attitude and inertia of half of the population can be a millstone around those people’s necks who engage in community based activities.
• Secondly, NGOs are often mistaken for governmental structures. As most inhabitants clearly have a negative attitude towards the activity of governmental structures (they criticize them for their lack of transparency, inaccessibility of information on their functions and objectives, and for their inefficiency - especially in rural areas), the population’s alienation and negative attitude towards these structures are mistakenly transferred to NGOs.
• Third, many of the NGOs that mushroomed at the beginning of the 90s and that planned actions with villages had to close down in the following years due to difficulties of funding, never putting their plans into action. The apparent weakness of the Third Sector fuelled mistrust in non-governmental structures. Furthermore, many villages have seen NGOs come to visit the site and, after making a choice of whom to support, leave without having achieved anything.
• Fourth, many of the active and innovative individuals who decided to fight for a better quality of life have left the villages to look for a job or education in the cities. Thus, many of those who understand the meaning of civil society, community development and planning a project as well as the implications of development, have left the villages, and thus, their driving force is missing.
Most leaders of the initiative groups are confident that with a successful first community based project, trust will be the by-product. Meanwhile, many sceptical villages are still waiting to witness a successful example of community based development in their neighbor villages before engaging themselves in similar activities.
In addition, some of the involved members emphasized when interviewed that the level of confidence depends on how people from the NGO behave and on the image the NGO gives. The more NGO staff invests in terms of time, workshops, and face-to-face explanations, the more likely they are to win people’s confidence. Furthermore, several interviewees mentioned that stylish and imposing NGO offices automatically makes the people skeptical; most found a modest and adequate furnishing to make a more trustworthy impression.
Horizonti’s approach
Choice of the site. At the end of 2001, Horizonti and its co-sponsors for the Community Building Projects – the Open Society Fund (Soros Foundation) and initially also Eurasia – decided to offer the villages in Samtskhe-Javakheti support for their initiatives to improve their situation. The focus on Samtskhe-Javakheti is primarily due to the fact that the region is one of the poorest in Georgia and has an extraordinary combination of various challenges. Furthermore, the choice of this region depended to a certain extent on the sponsors’ goals and principles. This region already lied within Horizonti’s reach, and the Foundation could rely on its officials working in Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki: in the capital of the region, Horizonti has three permanent members of staff, and in Akhalkalaki one close co-operator facilitates the contact with the Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda districts.
Determination of the aims. Unlike many other NGOs fostering rural development, Horizonti decided not to determine any focus of development before hand. Its aim was not to support exclusively water supply, infrastructure, or education, but to help the villages solve whatever problem they consider as their most urgent one and to provide funds for the support of their initiative. The only predetermined aim was to use the task they would chose as a kind of apprenticeship in asset-based community development – for both sides.
Informative meeting. Once the two districts of Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki were agreed upon, the work at the grassroots level began. With a description of the idea and the functions of the community development projects written on posters and explained in an informational session, Horizonti announced its program to all Sakrebulos of the Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki districts. Sakrebulo members then spread the announcement to their villages – and soon, in every school, club, center, clinic and such one could read about Horizonti’s offer. Those people in the villages who wanted to invest their skills, creativity and labor met two weeks later. About 8-10 people from every village (i.e. ca. 40 people per Sakrebulo) turned up for Horizonti’s informational meeting to learn about the meaning of community development and the idea of the program.
Election of an initiative group. In a democratic procedure, they elected an initiative group of 7 to 18 people, depending on the size of the village. The candidates were examined and confirmed in a general meeting of the village. Those who were interested in participating but were not elected were encouraged to form a body to monitor the activities of the initiative group.
Strategic plan of development. The first activity of the initiative group was to elaborate a strategic plan of development. The aim of writing such a medium term perspective (coming 5-7 years) was not so much to have a scientifically correct and detailed description of the villages situation. More important was to give people an opportunity to investigate the situations in their village, and to discover their problems, their resources, their strengths, their ideas, their dreams and their hopes. Most groups determined their difficulties by the means of a brainstorming, and all groups found a consensus on which problem(s) was/were the most urgent to tackle. This process of gathering ideas and finding a consensus is one of the most important steps in community building and required a few weeks time.
Elaboration of a project. In the following weeks, a couple of members of each initiative group traveled to Horizonti’s Akhaltsikhe office for a 3-5 hour training to learn how to elaborate and to write a plan for the problem their village had chosen to tackle. The following period was one of intensive cooperation with the Horizonti office; some initiative groups came almost every day to sort out their most recent questions. By mid-July, 15 villages were able to hand in their project plans – including a project description, business plan and budget.
Selection for funding. All candidates took part in the final selection made by the Soros and Horizonti Foundations. With engineers and other specialists, Horizonti staff visited each village to examine whether the project seemed feasible, sustainable, and whether the proposed budget is realistic. Some villages had to adjust and to amend their projects within a few days, which was an additional challenge.
Selection/Approval of projects. The Open Society Fund and Horizonti are glad to be able to support projects in all 15 villages that had applied. Every village will work with a budget of max. 15,000 US$. First construction work will start in September. Most projects are expected to be completed by the beginning of the winter; a few will be finished only at the beginning of the next year.
The dilemma of whom to support
Imagine you find yourself on a boat during a heavy storm with waves as high as a house. Around you, in the churned up sea, over a hundred people are swimming, desperately trying to save their lives. Among them, you see all levels of swimmers – excellent ones, less trained, and even some who cannot swim at all. As the nearest island is far away, even those who swim well cannot be expected to survive without help. The captain puts 10 life vests into your hands and asks you to rescue ten people. You find yourself with a hundred people crying to survive, but with only 10 life vests at your disposition. Whom do you rescue?
Organizations making decisions about grants for community development projects face a similar dilemma. “Good swimmers”, i.e. villages with a high percentage of active and motivated people, deserve to be rewarded for their efforts. However, “bad swimmers”, i.e. villages in which society is very skeptical about the success of joint efforts, and in which building up an initiative group meant successfully surmounting many obstacles, such villages deserve it even more to be supported. If they will be disappointed once by a potential founder, the ‘doubting Thomases’ will merely have their prejudices reinforced, and any further initiative would be doomed to failure.
It is needless to say that Horizonti’s dream would be to be able to fund the projects of all applicants. Any community based initiative and any effort of people to take their lives in their own hands seems to be worth to be supported per se. It was Horizonti’s close co-operation with the Soros Foundation (Soros contributes more than half of the funds) finally made it possible to reward all initiatives with support.
|
A target region for Development Projects
A few years ago, Samtskhe-Javakheti seemed to be merely another semi-forgotten remote province in southern Georgia. In the last years, however, the region has become the focus of attention for many international organizations focusing on rural development. The assistance Samtskhe-Javakheti received includes a whole range of activities, from humanitarian relief, infrastructure rehabilitation, health projects until income generation.
To name but a few examples: between 1999 and 2000, for instance, the Evangelical Mission Society of America (EMSA), together with the International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) and Lazarus (Georgian Patriarchate Charitable Foundation) engaged in humanitarian relief activities such as distributing cloths and drawing materials for children, iodized salt, wheat flour, soybean oil, rice, beans, etc. From 1996 until 2001, CARE International was running a Small Farmers Support Project aiming at improving the quality of potato seed through importation and multiplication of certified stock. With on-farm demonstrations, CARE helped to promote improved crop husbandry practices and more effective crop storage techniques. The Georgian Social Investment Fund funded the renovation of schools and community centers in Spasovka and Gorelovka. And in 1997, the British Embassy provided all Ninotsminda schools with footballs and volleyballs. These randomly chosen examples show that donors are spoilt for choice. Therefore, it is increasingly important that there is communication between different project agencies and that donors know how their project fits into the overall picture of project work in the region.
A short and concise guide for donors and agencies working in Samtskhe-Javakheti has been issued by the Forum on Early Warning and Early Response (FEWER) . In its Stability Consolidation Plan, Fewer identifies four main objectives in the region: the establishment of a prosperous economic zone; political/social integration and multiculturalism; good governance (civil society development), and improved regional relations (Turkish-Armenian-Georgian-Russian relations). Roads and communications are considered a priority by Fewer. In its analysis of projects implemented in the region in the last years, Fewer expounds that
• the geographical focus is clearly the Ninotsminda district: about 33% of the projects are concentrated in Ninotsminda, while the Akhalkalaki district, for instance, only hosts 7% of the projects in the region
• the social groups that benefit most from the projects are young people and the NGO community.
Among the donors and implementors of the projects investigated, the main dynamics show the following tendencies:
• The majority of projects in the region are capacity building projects for NGO or small business. Among others, United Nations Volunteers (UNV), Horizonti, the Eurasia Foundation, as well as the Consumer’s Rights Organisation (CRO) have funded such capacity building projects.
• The second strongest focus identified in the Fewer report are children / youth activity projects, of which UNV is by far the largest funder.
• Infrastructure projects have, amongst others, been financed by Oxfam, the Georgian Social Investment Fund, and PA Consulting.
• The UNV has funded several cultural exchange / multi-lingual projects. Public Movement ‘Multinational Georgia’ also works as an implementing agency for similar activities.
In general, Fewer points out two major needs for the future development of the region potential donors may want to consider:
• There are very few projects directed at improving inter-ethnic relations. The region needs more projects that foster multi-lingual education and broadcasting, stimulate inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue and help establishing a management plan for the repatriation of the Meskhetian population.
• In Fewer’s sample, there is no single organization that runs projects for professional (re)training. However, there is an urgent need for such training, because it is a precondition for the emergence of new and successful SMEs and NGOs.
Generally, Fewer notes that while the number of projects conducted in Samtskhe-Javakheti is quite impressive, the majority of them are under-resourced. Fewer considers current resource allocations as insufficient to tackle the scope of the problems in the region.
The projects Horizonti is supporting in Samtskhe-Javakheti will be a first step for a sustainable process of development. On the one hand, the supply of some basic infrastructure (energy, water, communication) means for many villages the step over a threshold. It is only when infrastructure is provided that, for instance, small enterprises can take up activities and that microcredits make sense. Such small business activities will eventually lead to tax income for the village and to a public budget. A public budget in turn can be the beginning of a new autonomy and self-confidence. On the other hand – and maybe even more importantly – Horizonti and its partner, the Open Society Fund (Soros) are confident that these communities have gained another asset. Now they have learned how to determine their problems, to identify their assets and resources, to draft a strategic plan, to draw up a project, to elaborate a business plan and to write a budget. The indisputable progress communities have made in the last months gives us hope that they will know to use their acquired skills at other opportunities in the future.
|
