Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-201528. As its name indicates, this project embodies a more proactive approach to the issue of disaster by not focusing primarily on the response to disasters but by making a full inventory of all the risks that can be identified, assess their probable costs and initiate risk-mitigation strategies. The effective start-up of the project had been delayed by the events of August 2008 and its activities have started early in 2009. 4.4.3 ASSESSMENT Effectiveness
The scope of what was to be achieved in this focus area, as indicated by the outcome, has been very modest in relation to the magnitude of the issues regarding man-made and natural disasters in Georgia. The most significant UNDP contribution has probably been the assistance to a new approach to the IDPs, which led to the elaboration of a national strategy. However, due to the politically sensitive discussions within the Government as to how best to deal with the IDPs, the process of developing and finalizing that strategy took no less than seven years, during which several thousand IDPs households continued to survive in extremely precarious conditions. The key instrument to reach the outcome as stated is support to livelihood. However, support to livelihood should be seen as the transition from emergency assistance until the start of the implementation of a development project. The FOSTER project in Shida-Kartli clearly follows that model. In contrast, what is meant to be achieved by livelihood projects, as in Abkhazia, remains quite unclear without a clear prospect of transition into the development process or successful confidence-building process in sight. The rationale underlying these projects seems largely circumscribed to trying to avoid a further deterioration of living conditions and, while sustainability of outputs in a number of areas
should be seriously questioned, no realistic exit strategy seems to exist. Furthermore, the need for confidence building among the different groups is not addressed specifically or sufficiently, and seems to be largely expected as an indirect output of better living conditions. It is understood that political considerations preclude the implementation of development-oriented projects in Abkhazia in the foreseeable future. However, these constraints should not lead UNDP to substitute itself for humanitarian agencies where no immediate development prospect is in sight, but rather spur its corporate competencies to such projects where it could have a substantive impact. Activities under the Disaster Risk Reduction project have started effectively only recently and therefore their impact cannot be assessed. However, it can be noted that this project is trying to introduce a fundamental change in the approach to disaster by shifting the focus from the ex-post reaction to the ex-ante mitigation. A similar approach may well be considered regarding ethnic and religious tensions with initiatives targeting that aspect of national life with the objective to prevent these tensions from turning into violence at which time the attitudes within the respective groups have hardened and become less susceptible to moderation. To better reflect this shift in emphasis in the activities, the programme in this focus area could be re-conceptualized as Risk Reduction dealing both with man-made and natural risks. Sustainability
The national strategy on IDPs can be expected to continue to guide the Government on the issue. It is also likely that the Government would accept the disaster risk reduction strategy, once finalized, as a key policy document. Regarding the livelihood projects in Abkhazia, one can expect that the groups of farmers and small entrepreneurs that benefited from direct assistance would continue their activities.
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm.
28
42
CHAPTER 4. UNDP CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOPMENT RESULTS