The Forced Migration Projects of the Open Society Institute
Preface
At the dawn of this decade, the world watched in wonder the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ensuing ethnic conflicts prompted the flight of at least three quarters of a million people from their homes and left villages in ruins. In the accelerated economic and political collapse, there were alarming predictions that millions more would flee the instability and swarm the borders of Western Europe.
Although a sea of refugees never swept across the western frontiers, at least 8 million people have been uprooted and relocated within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union, the most significant wave of forced migration since World War Two. It was out of concern for this uprooted population and the newly independent states that were overwhelmed by it that the Regional Conference to Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced Persons and other Forms of Involuntary Displacement and Returnees in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Relevant Neighboring States (CIS Conference) was convened in May 1996. The meeting took place, under the joint auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
Almost from the day the concept of a regional migration conference was broached by the Russian foreign minister in 1993, its impact was hindered by several constraints. Chief among these was the lack of political and financial commitment on the part of many donor countries, despite the United States' contribution of more than 25 percent of the $2 million budget for preparation of the conference. Over the years, the donors' disengagement from the region has severely weakened the process.
As a landmark effort for the newly emerging states of the former Soviet Union, the CIS Conference has largely been an odyssey of missed opportunities. It produced a five-year nonbinding Program of Action that was vague and lacked enforcibility. It failed to become a vehicle for developing a new legal or political framework incorporating existing international norms with the burgeoning migration problems in the post-Soviet region.
The conference did succeed, however, in drawing some international attention to this unfamiliar area, and the leading agencies-notably UNHCR and IOM-are now far better equipped to deal with the problems that arise within their respective mandates.
Another notable result has been the joint effort between the UNHCR and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities in repatriating two ethnic minorities deported under Stalin-the Crimean Tatars returning to Ukraine and the Meskhetian Turks (Meskhetians) who are still dispersed throughout the Caucasus region.
But the most striking and enduring result of the CIS Conference process is the increasing sophistication and capacity of the new field of migration-related nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This is particularly noteworthy given the reluctance of the sponsors and donors to include the local NGO sector in a substantive way in the planning and conduct of the Conference.
Through the CIS Conference its and follow-up process, fledgling local human rights groups and migration experts encountered a new venue through which to meet and collaborate with international organizations, NGOs, and regional colleagues. Their work has been enhanced by the establishment of an NGO fund, financed by several western donors, aimed at developing the strength of local NGOs.
With the follow-up period of the CIS Conference due to expire next year, the challenge now is to harness and formalize that capability through the formation of a new regional NGO association, and this is one goal of this report.
This report assesses the impact of the CIS Conference and follow-up process thus far. The importance of such a report lies in the first-hand perspective of the local independent NGOs that are tackling the daily challenges in various countries. Its publication in June 1999, coincides with the annual meeting of the CIS Conference Steering Group in Geneva.
This report seeks to articulate a strategy for the next decade, building upon the modest accomplishments in the CIS Conference process and engaging further international attention to the humane management of forced migrants.
Among the goals of the reporting activity itself is the provision of information of interest to donor governments and others to support further NGO activities beyond the follow-up period in 2000. In offering the conclusions reached by the members of the Working Group on NGO Legislation, the report aims to stimulate discussion of key issues relevant to sustaining that work in local settings. Local NGOs have a unique perspective with which to assess the Program of Action undertaken thus far, and identify the needs still not met by regional governments, international organizations, or NGOs.Methodology
This report is one of a series of special reports published by the Forced Migration Projects. In particular, in 1996, the Forced Migration Projects published Protecting Eurasia's Dispossessed, discussing lessons learned from independent-sector efforts in the former Soviet Union. The current report is based in part on the results of a lengthy survey questionnaire completed by 85 NGOs from 10 republics in the CIS. The bulk of the report was prepared by members of the Working Group on NGO Legislation: Natalia Ablova (Kyrgyzstan), Yuriy Buznytsky (Ukraine), Marina Murvanidze (Georgia), Dr. Gevork Pogosian (Armenia), Natalia Voronina (Russia), Vusal Rajabli (Azerbaijan), and Paata Zakareishvili (Georgia). Additional personal essays were submitted by several FMP consultants and are accordingly signed. Consultant Bernadette A. Brusco actively assisted in drafting the survey questionnaire, and consultant Kathleen Hunt edited the final draft of the report. We are especially grateful to Paata Zakareishvili and his colleagues on the Georgian Committee on Ethnic Minorities and Human Rights for their kind hospitality during the final meeting to edit the report in April 1999. Irina Chopikashvili provided invaluable assistance with translations.
In order to reach the widest selection of NGOs, the survey questionnaire was distributed at the 1998 follow-up meeting of the CIS Conference in Geneva. Further invitations to participate were issued through a variety of regional fora as well as Forced Migration Projects publications.
Members of the Working Group on NGO Legislation also made themselves available to the local NGOs in their region both by telephone and in person, to answer questions concerning completion of the survey form. For their time and effort, as well as the voluntary participation of the NGOs in the survey, we extend our gratitude.
From a statistical point of view, it should be noted at the outset that the responses of these NGOs reflect the experience and views of organizations already active in migration matters and cannot be taken to represent all NGOs across the vast expanse of the former Soviet Union. The extreme difficulty in communicating with groups located east of the Ural mountains, for example, impeded the participation of many groups. Further investigations are certainly warranted.
The CIS Conference follow-up has revealed the critical importance of the NGO sector, not only as an essential element of civil society, but as a valuable resource in states that have been hobbled by political and financial setbacks. As the decade draws to a close, and with it the mandate of the CIS Conference, no one senses the need for an extended follow-up mechanism more acutely than the NGOs that must continue to face the festering problems and periodic emergencies caused by population dislocation.
Indeed, this juncture calls not for abandonment of the NGOs that have persevered through this turbulent period, but for a renewed commitment by donor governments. Moreover, it calls for creative efforts by financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, to bring their expertise in economic development to bear on this crucial subject in this beleaguered region. Without such commitments from the international community, yet another opportunity from the CIS Conference will be lost.Arthur C. Helton
Director, Forced Migration Projects
June 1999
"Our transitional period demands us to ask questions to the government. We must let them know what the people of our countries are interested in and we will voice their concerns." -Natalia Ablova, Member of Working Group on NGO Legislation
Background to the CIS Conference
Since the start of glasnost in the 1980s and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there has been an explosion of local independent organizations and civic groups throughout the region, modeled after western nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Those dealing with forced migration first arose around the time of the events in Sumgait, Azerbaijan in 1988. With the democratization of these societies and their political institutions, NGOs have matured significantly. Today, they address a wide array of social problems that were previously the domain of the state, as well as the unimagined crises triggered by the transition from communism to more open systems.
One of the most complex problems has been the displacement of 8 million people since 1989 due to armed conflict, human rights violations, and economic collapse. Their relocation into a variety of settlements as varied as makeshift camps and defunct holiday resorts, has placed an added burden on host countries.
It was this wave of the dispossessed, compounded by warnings of millions about to flood into Western Europe that prompted the Russian foreign minister in 1993 to call on the United Nations General Assembly to support Russia's request for a high level conference on migration to include "consultations with interested states and coordination of appropriate intergovernmental, regional, and nongovernmental organizations."
Early in 1995 in Geneva, a joint CIS Conference secretariat was established to include the representatives of UNHCR, IOM, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)/Bureau of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). Thus the preparations for the CIS Conference began, with the cooperation of the CIS and neighboring countries, donor states, and a wide range of international actors.
From the outset, the NGO community, both international and local, has made a unique contribution to the preparation of the CIS Conference. With the participation of international NGOs such as International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), the Forced Migration Projects (FMP) organized a series of subregional consultations in Tbilisi, Moscow, Kyiv, Tallin, Novosibirsk and Warsaw, to identify and meet with the few local NGOs dealing with migration problems.
At the same time, local NGOs in the CIS were growing rapidly, but nevertheless had to struggle to be allowed to actively participate in the Conference. Even under pressure from international NGOs, including the Forced Migration Projects, the CIS Conference planning committee only reached a decision on the criteria for NGO accreditation six weeks before the Conference was to open.1 At last on May 30 and 31, 1996, the Regional Conference to Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced Persons and other Forms of Involuntary Displacement and Returnees in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Relevant Neighboring States (CIS Conference) took place in Geneva.
Organized under the auspices of UNHCR, IOM, and OSCE through ODIHR, the CIS Conference drew senior representatives of some 87 governments, 100 international organizations, and 80 NGOs. The final product was a five-year Program of Action, which became the framework within which to address the wide-ranging and complex migration problems emerging with the breakup of the Soviet Union.
For the fledgling national NGOs, the Program of Action gave occasion for hope: it called for strengthening cooperation between international organizations and NGOs, as well as significant measures to be taken by the CIS countries themselves. But the document was nonbinding, and a lack of financial support undermined the process from the start.
After a flurry of meetings during the first year, the UNHCR established an NGO fund aimed at developing local NGO capacity through the execution of projects pertaining to forced migrants. In addition, accredited NGOs could channel some of their work through the Program of Action by joining one of five thematic NGO Working Groups, ranging from direct humanitarian assistance to NGO legislation.
The problems stemming from the state of NGO laws in many of the former Soviet republics have been a recurrent theme in the meetings held throughout the CIS Conference process and the following section summarizes several of the persistent concerns in the NGO community.The Legal Environment for NGOs
Technically speaking, no law exists in the former Soviet Union on NGOs per se. Rather they fall into a generic category of "public associations" and operate under each republic's civil code, regulations, and normative acts. In general parlance, however, the term NGO encompasses a variety of subcategories, including foundations, funds, benevolent associations, and charitable associations among others. For the sake of clarity, this report generally refers to NGOs, with occasional mention of public associations and other categories.
Reflecting the incremental process of legal development in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union, NGOs in the region are registered through an array of federal and local government agencies, according to the diverse laws and regulations of each country. Some countries have built a solid foundation in NGO legislation, while others still operate under laws inherited from the legal codes of the Soviet Union.
In Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, for example, NGOs are registered under laws enacted in the early 1990s. Laws followed on public associations in Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova, which updated its law in 1996. In 1994, Belarus and Kazakhstan passed laws pertaining to NGOs, and Russia enacted its law on public associations in 1995, which stands along side laws on non-profit organizations, charities and others. Armenia and Georgia followed with legislation on NGOs in 1996 and 1997, respectively.
Even though a raft of laws, decrees and regulations have been issued since the breakup of the Soviet Union in relation to the burgeoning field of local NGOs, they have not always made life easier for them in practice. Some of the new laws may reflect a positive general step, such as the laws on "grants" in Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. But the gaps in the national tax legislation pose problems when grants are made to income-generating projects.
In the early 1990s, some republics simply transferred their laws on public associations from the Soviet legal code and later replaced them with new legislative acts drafted with the help of international legal experts in nonprofit law. But here again, local NGOs note that such a draft law may risk being interpreted by the government in the most restrictive way, thereby hindering the work they are able to accomplish under the existing codes. Moreover, as NGO representatives often point out, the passage of new laws related to public associations is often an occasion to force all existing NGOs to re-register, thereby constraining them still further.
This decade has demonstrated that it is an arduous process to improve NGO legislation, and one that has proven more problematic than initially anticipated. This may not be so surprising given that most of the government officials involved in implementing the CIS Conference goals have come from the executive branch, with possibly less influence over their own parliaments than their legislators might have. Furthermore, financial experts and local lawmakers who set tax policies in the region have been absent from the CIS Conference from the start.
Such omissions may be understandable in view of the top priority initially paid to the plight of the refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) themselves. But experience has shown that participation by financial officials and national lawmakers is now crucial to advancing this process. It is a positive sign that a representative of the Azerbaijani taxation committee was present at a meeting of the CIS Conference nongovernmental Working Group on NGO Legislation last year in Strasbourg, France.
Another relevant factor is that many government officials in the former Soviet Union today have had to make their own "transition" from their former methods and practices under Soviet rule. Moreover, the cavalcade of international training programs on civil society during the early 1990s paid less attention to shaping the views of government officials, and chose NGOs and the mass media as their main audience.
Thus, while many officials may be articulate on some matters of democracy, many of them are still relatively unfamiliar with the principles of an independent sector of community-based organizations. The nearly universal requirement for NGOs to follow complex procedures to register with the government in order to operate is a vivid illustration of this problem.
There is little doubt that international fora, including the CIS Conference, have begun to press governments to recognize the importance of the NGO sector, as in the case of the Strasbourg conference on NGO legislation co-sponsored by the Council of Europe, UNHCR, and the Forced Migration Projects. Laws guaranteeing freedom of association are a requirement for obtaining membership in the Council of Europe, an aspiration of most governments in the region. At the same time, laws on freedom of association exist on paper in some countries, but citizens are routinely denied that right.
As the NGOs involved with forced migration in the former Soviet Union have met to strategize and share information, they, and numerous other experts on NGO legislation have come up with several frequent observations.
First, there is no clear government policy with regard to NGOs, their registration, and taxation. The process of registration of NGOs is still a problem in most of the countries because political actors reverse many administrative decisions otherwise made in accordance with law.
The taxation policy is of pivotal importance for not-for-profit organizations and in most cases hampers the development of the NGO sector in general. Today's onerous tax policies induce most NGOs to avoid contact with the government and maintain a low profile. This, in turn, undermines the goal of the NGOs to furnish information to the government on the services it offers, thereby depriving some government offices of this potentially useful information.
Even in the countries where the legal environment is relatively friendly to local NGOs, as in Georgia and Ukraine, the organizations can still become confused about their rights and obligations when faced with a variety of federal and local governmental institutions issuing contradictory laws and regulations.
Although some progress has been made in Russia to defuse open confrontations that had impeded relations between NGOs and migration officials, a vein of mistrust still runs through the two sectors in much of the former Soviet Union. Some governments are ready to cooperate with NGOs, but often only those who demonstrate knowledge, experience, and, importantly, a positive attitude toward the government.
In addition, local financial institutions may express suspicion of NGOs as a facade for profit-making businesses. When talking about transparency, governments complain about lack of accountability from the NGOs; at the same time, NGOs criticize local and national officials for not acknowledging the need to be accountable themselves.
In sum, the whole theme of good governance remains a high priority for future follow-up activities in this field. NGOs are affected by a significant gap even in the government's understanding of the distinctions between legislative and executive responsibilities.Background To This Report
Having run the gauntlet of registration, taxation, and general capacity-building, members of the Working Group on NGO Legislation and other NGOs working in the migration field have acquired valuable expertise at the local and national levels, as well as in varied international fora. Many have developed formidable skills in analyzing and addressing the problems of their region, drafting and amending national legislation, and enabling international organizations and NGOs to identify local needs.
In some republics, the emerging NGOs in the migration field have surpassed the earlier sector of "nonformal" organizations during the Soviet period that pre-dated the development of a nongovernmental sector. Ironically, though, just as these NGOs are coming into their own, the approaching expiration of the Program of Action threatens to erode their progress and weaken their ability to confront the challenges of the coming decade.
With an eye toward the past and the future, several members of the Working Group on NGO Legislation decided in December 1997 at a meeting of 120 NGOs in Moscow, to begin the formation of a regional NGO association that would take the lead in pursuing the goals of the Program of Action beyond 2000. To that end, the group decided last year to prepare a report assessing the program's impact and to identify other NGOs capable of building an independent regional NGO association. As a preliminary guide to the achievements as well as shortfalls in the CIS Conference process, the results of an NGO survey are summarized in this report.
In seeking to discover the experience and perspectives of NGOs working in the field of forced migration, members of the Working Group on NGO Legislation developed a questionnaire corresponding to the themes set forth in the Program of Action. In addition to the general profile of NGOs, the items broadly included information on registration status, the main activities under the Program of Action, and forms of cooperation and collaboration with international organizations, governments and international and local NGOs. The respondents were also queried about the potential for conflicts and other instability that might trigger forced displacement in the regions. The survey answers will be posted on the Forced Migration Projects' website <www.soros.org/fmp2/ index.html> for the benefit of future research.
Particularly revealing were the questions that explored the depth of knowledge and information on fundamental issues such as the makeup of the NGO sector; national and international laws on migration; and details on the CIS Conference and Program of Action. Throughout the questionnaires the respondents selected the response N/A to indicate either that the item did not apply, or they knew nothing about it.
One of the striking findings of this survey, even within this specialized group of NGOs already active in the migration field, was the level of unfamiliarity with other groups working in their field; with details about the CIS Conference and Program of Action; and not surprisingly, with the web of laws and legal institutions in their republics that concern their own registration and operation.Profile of Respondents
A total of 85 NGOs completed the survey, with one closing down since responding last fall, and another responding just before the report went to press. The following is a breakdown by republic of the 83 cases included in the data:
Armenia 11 Kyrgyzstan 5 Azerbaijan 8 Moldova 2 Belarus 2 Russia 27 Georgia 10 Tajikistan 5 Kazakhstan 5 Ukraine 8 The majority of NGOs in the survey stated that they were based in the capital of their republic or another large city, with the notable exception of Russia. More than half (56%) of the 27 Russian NGOs were registered outside Moscow and carry out activities in the following regions: Kursk, Orlovsk, Saratov, Sverdlovsk, Tulsk, Tver, Voronezh, and Yaroslavl. One important NGO working with Russians returning from the "near abroad" is registered in Moscow, but conducts activities in about 56 percent of the Russian Federation through more than 70 regional affiliates.
In general, the survey data indicated that virtually all of these NGOs in the migration sector are registered by some department of the ministry of justice in the respective country. Roughly half of them stated that they were registered before 1996, the year of the CIS Conference in Geneva. But in Russia, where the Law on Public Associations was passed in 1995, NGOs in the migration sector said that they received a boost in development during the second half of 1996 to 1997.
Because of the often complex and time-consuming process of legal registration in the former Soviet Union, many NGOs reported that they had begun their activities while in the process of applying for registration. Indeed, none of the Azerbaijani NGOs was registered at the time they began working as NGOs, and it is worth noting that roughly two-thirds of all NGOs working in Azerbaijan are still not registered.
The profile of NGOs participating in the survey varied widely, from those providing humanitarian assistance (81.5%) and legal assistance (81.5%), to those involved research on migration issues (77.8 %) and in publications and information (96.3%). The majority of the groups reported having many lines of activity, ranging from providing targeted assistance to populations in need, to locating shelter and undertaking long-term development projects for reintegration.
Among the most active sub-sectors are the NGOs that provide legal consultation to forced migrants. Their work may begin with dispensing basic legal information and assistance in obtaining proper documentation. But in Russia, for example, legal assistance organizations help find employment and shelter for the displaced, provide mail service for migrants in remote regions, trace missing relatives in other regions, and even provide legal information through the local radio stations.
In addition, legal assistance groups conduct public fora at which they discuss the protection of human rights in general and also offer practical legal advice to avoid snags in the complicated and sometimes contradictory legal system.
On the matter of activities, there is some variation among countries, which appears consistent with the different problems confronting them. In the Caucasus, for example, NGOs were initially swamped with hundreds of thousands of persons suddenly uprooted by armed conflict. Today they are involved in a number of programs aimed at adaptation for these long-term IDPs, including education, psycho-social assistance for women and children, and assistance with legal documents. In Georgia in particular, some NGOs have taken the lead in bridging the gulf between Abkhazia and Georgia through periodic meetings among NGO representatives from both sides.
Given the impact of unresolved conflicts in the Caucasus, NGOs in the migration field have been especially active in forming a regional network, through which they share and publish information, and monitor developments within the region. Similarly, in Central Asia, which has suffered the impact of the refugee exoduses from wars in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, NGOs have organized regional seminars and worked on common problems concerning asylum legislation and repatriation.
Russia stands out in the region for its vast population of ethnic Russians who left neighboring republics during the decline and collapse of the USSR. Many of these returnees have formed their own NGOs as migrants, and mainly concentrate on setting up homes on plots of land selected for their new settlements. According to those that answered the survey, in addition to providing legal assistance for the new settlers, these NGOs also seek employment for the returnees and schooling for their children.Knowledge of the NGO Sector
Despite the list of activities provided by most of the NGOs responding to the survey, it is remarkable how variable the information is they have about other NGOs in their region. Few, for example, knew the precise number of NGOs in their republics-whether working in other fields or in migration specifically. The replies to these questions ranged from hundreds to thousands. Indeed, thousands of organizations have sprung up in most countries, and it is generally believed that from three to five percent of the total number of NGOs in a given republic concentrate in the field of migration.
In Kazakhstan, for example, none of the five NGOs knew how many groups were dealing with migration issues in their republic, and three of them did not know what kind of projects were being carried out within the Program of Action framework.
A similar pattern appeared among the NGOs from Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine, who offered estimates from 500 to 17,000 on the size of the NGO community. More than 40 percent of the respondents from that sub- region did not answer this question, and of those that did, more than a third of them guessed that up to 500 organizations were registered in their republics.
To illustrate this point, Ukraine alone reportedly has some 20,000 registered NGOs in various fields. Simultaneously, there are only about 30 NGOs working on migration problems, and this shows vividly the weak development of NGOs in this field and the low rank of migration issues on the scale of social priorities.Awareness of National Legislation
The majority of organizations that filled out questionnaires knew that there were laws in their regions regulating migration issues, and the two main laws they mentioned were on migration, and on citizenship. In addition, some NGOs (40%) referred to government resolutions and local regulations. Few of the respondents, however, could answer this question in detail, and some of the organizations did not appear to have any idea about their national legal framework.
In Russia, as elsewhere, the NGOs' responses to the survey question concerning migration legislation vary widely among the 27 that replied. The bulk of the Russian NGOs are not only familiar with the full range of federal and local laws, but some have been actively involved in drafting, monitoring and public education about them. In at least one region, a Russian NGO issues a legal educational publication geared to migrants' children. Some of the most developed NGOs have taken the lead in providing direct legal assistance to migrants, and have extensive knowledge and skills in avoiding the contradictions within the complex legal arrangements.
The Russian Federation has laws on citizenship, refugees, and IDPs, which it implements through numerous provisions and regulations. Although in most cases NGOs indicated awareness of the laws on refugees and IDPs, many were not aware that the Program of Action was used by government bodies to work out a national strategy on migration. Many Russian NGOs are nevertheless familiar with government policies and programs that have been implemented since the CIS Conference, such as the Federal Migration Program and Presidential Program "Russia's Children." There is a wide gap between the legal framework in Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine and the extent of some NGOs' familiarity with it. The largest proportion of NGOs knew about the existence of laws on refugees (50%) and citizenship (16,7%), and fewer were informed (8.3%) about laws pertaining to the legal status of foreigners. Yet, there are four main laws and at least ten governmental regulations in Ukraine, and four main laws with five regulations in Moldova. Belarus, too, has had a law on refugees since 1995, and at least three regulations issued by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Only one NGO in Azerbaijan was not familiar with the laws regulating the migration process, while the rest of the respondents referred to laws pertaining to refugees, entry and exit, the legal status of the foreigners, passports, and registration of residence.
Georgian NGOs also demonstrated various degrees of knowledge about existing legislation, with some naming the laws on emigration and immigration, citizenship, the legal status of foreigners, and the law on entry and exit. Four new laws have been passed in Georgia since the CIS Conference in 1996: the law on refugees, law on migrants inspection, law on taxation and inspection of migrants, and the law on foreigners. But the majority of NGOs in the survey mentioned only the law on refugees along with the fact that there are some other laws.
In March 1999, Armenia passed a new law on refugees, adding to the list of other recently passed laws on citizenship and the legal status of the foreigners that the NGOs noted.
In Kyrgyzstan some NGOs referred to provisional regulations on refugees as well as laws on citizenship, foreigners' status, and regulations on staying in Kyrgyzstan.
Within Tajikistan's difficult postwar circumstances, some of its more advanced NGOS are working in the area of migration and conflict resolution. Those that responded to the survey were well versed in legal information and noted the Tajik law on refugees, citizenship, law on migration, government resolutions and local regulations. Among the additions to Ukrainian migration law since 1996 are amendments to its law on citizenship (1997) and an international agreement between Ukraine and Azerbaijan on the formerly deported Crimean Tatars. And in Belarus, the Cabinet of Ministers issued a regulation in 1996 on the establishment of the government migration service and other related matters.
While a number of new laws on migration have been passed since the CIS Conference in 1996, the survey does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the CIS Conference process accelerated the development of legislation in every republic. In Ukraine, for example, 95% of its laws related to migration were passed before 1995. But in other republics, such as Kyrgyzstan, the CIS Conference process did contribute to a review of current legislation.International Law Awareness
If the NGOs' knowledge of national laws was uneven, it was nevertheless greater than their familiarity with international legal instruments for the protection of refugees and migrants. This is noteworthy, in view of the fact that a number of the republics are signatories to the United Nations refugee treaties. Indeed, Georgia is in the process of adopting the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees at this time.
Among the Central Asia Republics, Tajikistan was the first to sign the 1951 Convention in 1992, after suffering a brief but brutal civil conflict and facing tens of thousands of Tajik refugees returning from exile in neighboring countries. In addition, the dramatic increase of Afghan refugees fleeing war in their own country placed demands on the Tajik authorities for an immediate humanitarian response. Thus the legal framework was adopted to deal with these problems. Kazakhstan signed the Convention of 1951 most recently, and subsequently adopted its Law on Migration. Some of its earlier laws must still be brought into conformance with international standards, and the experience of other countries in the CIS shows that this process will take quite some time.Familiarity with the Program of Action
The majority of NGOs that participated in the survey reported that they were acquainted with the CIS Conference Program of Action (76.8%), but 20.7% did not reply to the question, indicating that they did not know about it. Answers varied among the regions. In the European subregion, which suffered proportionately less upheaval from armed conflict than the Caucasus and parts of Central Asia, 60% of the Russian and Ukrainian NGOs were aware of the Program of Action. But again, in Belarus and Moldova, half of the NGOs indicated that they knew nothing about it, consistent with the relative lack of information on the CIS Conference among NGOs.
By contrast, nearly all of the NGOs from the southern Caucasus-Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia-indicated that they were at least acquainted with the Program of Action (92.5%). Armenian NGOs had the highest awareness, at 100%, followed by Georgia (90%) and Azerbaijan (87%). Similarly in Central Asia, awareness of the Program of Action ranged from 100% among the Tajik NGO respondents, to 80% and 60% among the NGOs in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, respectively.
Some of the respondents were inconsistent in their answers to more specific questions about the Program of Action, suggesting that they did not distinguish between general programs supported by the international organizations in their regions and the activities specifically initiated within the CIS Conference process. Many NGOs had a more general awareness of the CIS Conference process rather than knowledge derived from direct participation in its projects. Their lack of involvement further poses a question concerning the availability of information about the CIS Conference process, and how thoroughly the local representatives of UNHCR and IOM have reached out to NGOs to furnish this information.
A potentially key factor in establishing contact with one of the main international organizations would seem to be whether or not the field office of the relevant international organization had a staff member whose duties included working with local NGOs. The respondents were asked about the presence of such a staff member in the nearest office of IOM and UNHCR, and the following were the results.
Just over half (52%) of the NGOs taking part in the survey stated that there was a staff person in the IOM office who did liaison work with the local NGOs, and 16% said that there was no such staff member in their area. But the remaining 32% did not reply to the question at all, which indicated that they did not know how to reply, or the question did not apply. It is worth exploring whether IOM staff members are in fact present, and whether their activities are sufficiently visible to come to the attention of NGOs.
Regarding the availability of a UNHCR official with the task of working with NGOs, 65% of the respondents answered yes, 10% answered no, and 24.7% failed to answer the question. Here again, in several republics, NGOs differed in opinion as to whether or not a UNHCR staff member was assigned to their local mission. Nine out of the eleven Armenian NGOs said yes, while in Russia, only 28% of the NGO respondents responded in the affirmative. An additional 47% of the Russian NGOs did not respond to this question.
One interpretation offered by local NGOs was that across the region, UNHCR missions vary markedly in the way they relate to local NGOs for any number of reasons, including the strength of the UNHCR's organizational structure, policies of the particular local office toward working with NGOs, and the allocation of staff assignments. The NGOs suggest that the same variation among countries applies to the IOM offices as well.
All things considered, there are sharp contrasts in the awareness of the CIS Conference Program of Action expressed by the NGOs, and Russian and Kazakhstan offer a vivid illustration. In the latter, the majority of the NGOs in the survey reported not knowing about the Program of Action, or left the question blank, whereas a number of Russian NGOs reported that they in fact participated in various NGO Working Groups within the CIS Conference follow-up process.Categories of Forced Migrants
As in previous areas, the survey found considerable variation in the NGOs' knowledge of the categories of persons specified in the Program of Action, as well as a lack of clarity in definitions of groups such as "noncitizens." Concerning the kinds of "noncitizens" present in their respective republics, NGOs gave responses ranging from "don't know," to the following list of specific groups: refugees, labor migrants, economic migrants, ecological IDPs, student-nonreturnees, illegal migrants, forced migrants, repatriates, formerly deported peoples. Moreover, responses to which kinds of IDPs the NGOs worked with varied among republics facing the effects of war, such as Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, and others where conditions have produced different patterns of forced migration. In Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, for example, NGOs mentioned working with ecological migrants, and formerly deported peoples (the latter were noted by NGOs in Georgia, as well).
In addition, some categories of people have appeared in Russia, where they are seeking humanitarian assistance and more precise legal status, but are not included in the framework of the Program of Action. They include groups such as former foreign students stranded in Russia, former citizens of the ex-USSR who have not gotten citizenship in the Russian Federation, forced migrants in Russia from other CIS countries, war prisoners, unaccompanied children, and Roma among others.Patterns of Cooperation
The majority of the NGOs mentioned that they cooperated with three to twelve other organizations, and tended to work more with international NGOs that had an office in their republic, which enabled them to learn more about that group's line of activities.
Among their leading international partners, they named IOM and UNHCR about equally, but preferences toward the two international organizations varied among the republics. In Ukraine and Georgia, as many as 70% of the responding NGOs indicated they were most involved with IOM, while in Kyrgyzstan the NGOs said they were more involved with UNHCR. NGOs from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan reported that they worked equally with the two organizations.
Several explanations offered by those who preferred working with IOM are its broad mandate in the migration field; its orientation toward working with local NGOs; and the relatively limited bureaucratic procedures demanded of NGO partners. The UNHCR, on the other hand, is limited to working with NGOs that deal directly with refugees, asylum-seekers and repatriates, according to respondents. By contrast, the NGOs reported that they had far fewer working relationships with OSCE, the third co-sponsor of the CIS Conference. It is worth noting that some of the NGOs in the survey failed to make the distinction between international and intergovernmental organizations and international NGOs. One even included the U.S.-funded Eurasia Foundation in a list of "international NGOs."
As seen elsewhere in this survey, the CIS Conference apparently helped familiarize local NGOs with international laws, organizations and procedures pertaining to refugees and other forced migrants. But it is not obvious that more than a superficial understanding of them-let alone the deeper underpinnings in human rights, humanitarian and refugee law-has yet been achieved by a number of local NGOs.
The lack of full understanding of the international community also contributes to the difficulty NGOs have in knowing which organizations to approach with requests for support.
When it came to identifying the main international NGOs they collaborate with, the vast majority of respondents listed two groups that have chaired NGO Working Groups in the CIS Conference follow-up: the Counterpart Consortium and Open Society Institute. Similarly, in the Caucasus and the European region of the CIS, NGOs mentioned Nordic NGOs active in the NGO Working Groups.
In any case, at least half of the NGOs reported that they are willing to collaborate with other organizations and would like to broaden the number of partners and donors.Cooperation Among NGOs: A Regional Approach
One of the most positive developments of the CIS Conference process reported by the NGOs in this survey has been the creation of regional networks through which local NGOs meet, exchange information, and strategize how to resolve existing migration problems and forestall future dislocation.
In all, the responses point to a progression of regional cooperation among local NGOs. Many NGOs reported working on joint projects and participating in programs to develop NGOs as a vehicle for carrying out the Program of Action and national implementation plans.
In Armenia, as well as Azerbaijan and Georgia, IOM provided funds for the creation of a resource/training center for NGOs dealing with migration- related problems. Through these centers, NGOs have held a variety of meetings and seminars, and also distributed small grants for national NGOs.
In addition, with support from the Norwegian Refugee Council and later UNHCR during 1996-1997, a project of regional cooperation evolved out of a series of regular meetings of organizations working in the Transcaucasus. This project has linked six cities of the Transcaucasus in a computer network, and also produces a quarterly bulletin in Russian and English, entitled, "Transcaucasian Migration Space," which is distributed among NGOs in the Transcaucasus.
In Azerbaijan, too, the creation of resource/training centers for migration-related NGOs with IOM funds in mid-1997 launched a period of intensive cooperation within the NGO sector. By mid-1998, NGO activists in Azerbaijan developed a plan to consolidate their efforts in migration and some 40 national NGOs signed on.
Similar resource centers in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan have significantly strengthened cooperation and information sharing among local NGOs through conferences, training seminars and joint projects.
Practically all the NGOs from Russia indicated that they conducted their activities in cooperation with other NGOs in the migration and human rights sectors, and also on a regional basis. These organizations pointed out that cooperation with other NGOs on migration-related issues can help address problems of refugees and displaced persons, and cited the efforts of the CIS Conference Working Groups as an examples.
In Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine, the NGOs appear to cooperate more on the local level than between countries, and Ukrainian NGOs report quite a high level of cooperation among NGOs within the republic. As an example, they highlight the region of Crimea, where local NGOs have formed strong ties in the process of solving problems connected with the repatriation of formerly deported peoples.
In sum, 70% of the NGOS that responded to the survey reported taking part in some form of cooperation, but it is not clear if the remaining 30% were definitely not involved in cooperative activities, or if they lacked full understanding of the question.
The survey results do indicate, however, that some NGOs do not fully see the importance of cooperating with NGO counterparts, or they have a limited understanding of the varieties of possible forms of cooperation. This does not apply, however, to the NGOs that have successfully undertaken joint projects with other groups, and are more willing and able to widen the scope of their collaborative projects.Cooperation with Government Agencies
Information about which governmental structures deal with problems of migration, refugees, IDPs, and other categories of migration was furnished by almost by all the NGO participants. For example, in Armenia the Ministries of Labor and Social Security are in charge of migration issues and refugees. Furthermore, according to an April 1999 governmental decree, a Migration Office has been established with special status within the Armenian government.
In Azerbaijan, a Migration Office operates under the Ministry of Labor and Social Defense, which deals with migration policy issues. Other governmental bodies in Azerbaijan that are concerned with migration problems include the Ministry of International Affairs, Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Governmental Committee on Refugee Issues, Republican Commission on Distribution of Humanitarian Aid under the Cabinet of Ministers, and the Republican Committee on Issues of Repressed Peoples.
In Georgia, too, an array of agencies deals with migration problems, and these include the Ministry of Refugees and Settlement, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of International Affairs, Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and National Minorities, Ministry of Justice, Parliamentary Committee on Migration Issues and the Council of Ministers of the Abkhaz Autonomous Republic.
Similar to Armenia and Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan's government mainly addresses migration issues through the Migration Office under the Ministry of Labor and Social Defense. In addition, some Kyrgyz NGOs stated that the local representative of the Russian Federal Migration Service based at the Russian Embassy in Bishkek also carries out work relevant to forced migration.
More than 80% of the respondents from Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine replied that one to three governmental agencies were dealing with migration issues, including the Governmental Committee on Nationalities and Migration, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs
While the NGOs' responses indicate a general familiarity with relevant governmental agencies in their republics, few respondents provided a complete list of such bodies. In Ukraine, for example, about six ministries and official bodies deal with issues in the migration field, twice the number named by most NGOs. The need is indicated to better inform NGOs about the governmental structures with migration-related responsibilities.
A review of the questionnaires from Russian NGOs shows that they are generally acquainted with governmental programs and policies adopted since the CIS Conference in May 1996. Many NGOs named the presidential program "Children of Russia" (section: "Refugee and IDP Children and Forced Displaced"), "Federal Migration Program till the year 2000," and other governmental decrees and programs in the sphere of migration. The Federal Migration Service is the principal governmental structure dedicated to the problem of forced migration in the Russian Federation.
In Ukraine since the CIS Conference, amendments to the law on Ukrainian citizenship have been introduced (April 1997) and more than six decrees and international agreements have been signed. The Ukrainian NGOs were quite well informed about government programs concerning the repatriation of formerly deported peoples. But some of the NGOs from Belarus and Moldova failed to name any governmental decisions or programs that went into effect after the CIS Conference in 1996. This may be further evidence of the lack of information among some NGOs concerning migration matters, compounded perhaps by the government's failure to distribute information on new decisions and programs.
It is worth underscoring that the general level of cooperation between Russian NGOs and the government has grown significantly in recent times. NGOs have become more active in the drafting of amendments to existing laws, and they increasingly address the government and Duma. Agreements on cooperation between NGOs and governmental executive bodies have been put into practice. Nongovernmental organizations have also participated in the development of recommendations concerning migration policy for the Federal Migration Service and the Russian Security Council. In December 1998, a consultative council on resettlement organizations and NGOs was established under the auspices of the Federal Migration Service.
Cooperation between NGOs and government agencies is also improving in Ukraine, where, as in Russia, NGO experts increasingly submit recommendations in the legislative process. Cooperation is especially obvious in Crimea, where local NGOs have introduced dozens of suggestions and participate in joint programs concerning the integration of the Tatar population.
In Azerbaijan, as well as in a number of other countries, cooperation between local NGOs and the government takes shape in the following ways: exchange of information, joint development of projects for forced migrants, joint efforts on issues related to NGOs and development of the "third sector."
Cooperation between Georgian NGOs and the government includes preparing reports for presentation at roundtables and conferences, participation in coordinating councils, and consulting with government officials, on the development of programs and legislation. One Georgian NGO called these activities "lobbying" of interests.
In Kyrgyzstan, cooperation between the government and NGOs in the migration sector is mainly limited to participation in roundtables and conferences (the NGO Forum), and periodic meetings with the president and parliamentarians. Two NGOs did not answer this question.
Armenian organizations did not name any concrete programs, policies, or decisions of their government and/or forms of cooperation between NGOs and government. In fact, such cooperation apparently does not exist. From time to time meetings and policy discussions between governmental agencies and local NGOs are arranged, but as a rule cooperation does not extend much further than this.Activities Within the Program of Action
Here, again, NGOs responding to the survey reported a span of one to 25 programs in their organization's portfolio, demonstrating the variation in capacity among the groups, and the potential for the more developed groups to implement the Program of Action. The three leading activities they reported were conferences, educational programs and distribution of information on migration issues.
These responses give a thumbnail sketch of the pattern of activities listed by the NGOs, a pattern that reflects a kind of "standard formula" for cooperation offered to all the countries by the international organizations. These include: NGOs receiving international grants to run their projects; NGOs implementing programs on the basis of agreements with offices of international organizations; sharing information among NGOs and international organizations; participating in joint information systems; NGOs participating in workshops, roundtables, and conferences held by international agencies; publishing reports and relevant information.
Uniting Migration NGOs in a Regional Association
This essay was contributed by Natalia Voronina, a leading researcher in the Ethnography Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and a consultant to the Forced Migration Projects.
So much has happened since the start of CIS Conference activities, but I would have to say that the turning point occurred in December 1997 at a meeting sponsored by UNHCR in Moscow, and attended by about 120 NGOs. At that meeting, members of the Working Group on NGO Legislation composed a memorandum to the CIS Conference Steering Committee. In it, we announced plans to establish an independent regional association of NGOs in the field of forced migration, comprised of the increasingly mature NGOs throughout the CIS.
The decision to create a regional NGO association was a result of our mounting concern that the deadline for the CIS Conference mandate was approaching and the international community's interest in the process was diminishing. Not only would the abandonment of this process undermine efforts to solve our numerous migration-related problems, but many valuable local NGOs would simply vanish without international support.
The CIS Conference process actually gave rise to a mass movement in the NGO sector. In the course of the activities coordinated under the Program of Action, the migration-related NGOs clearly realized the need to act as an independent force, with its own organizational structure, and to relate on an equal basis with international partners. This was a natural outcome of the UNHCR's regional strategy on cooperation with NGOS, aimed at creating networks and coalitions of NGOs, and developing a "mutual stance" on international and national issues.
In dealing with migration problems in the former Soviet republics, a key role that this regional NGO association will play is that of a partner for international organizations-notably UNHCR and IOM. It will also serve as an intermediary between the international community and local NGOs in the CIS countries. Such an organization is sorely needed to carry on the work of the CIS Conference after year 2000.
Once we made our decision, a whole new stage of work began. We attended a series of meetings for the working groups in 1) Almaty for the Central Asian countries, 2) Kyiv for Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, and 3) Strasbourg for the Caucasian countries, and gained support for this initiative. Numerous others were consulted for their support, including the Working Group on Integration, Repatriation and Relocation in May 1998. And in June, 1998, the NGO Working Group on Humanitarian Response in Extraordinary Situations stated in its report to the Steering Committee that relationships between governmental and NGOs should be based on principles of mutual respect and practical cooperation.
In the meantime, we developed and distributed a questionnaire to seek the views and expertise of migration NGOs that might be interested in joining a regional association. I also drafted the charter for the association and began to explore the best place to register it from the point of view of geographic convenience and financial stability for the grants we would be applying for. During the financial collapse last August, many nongovernmental organizations in the CIS found their bank accounts blocked, and eventually they lost everything. Even now, it is difficult to open an account for foreign currency at a private bank.
At one point we considered registering the association simultaneously in various CIS republics with plans to unite them at a later date. But that option failed when we learned that the complicated registration procedures in some republics would slow down the process. After lengthy deliberations, we selected Moscow as the operational headquarters for the regional NGO association. Eventually, it will be necessary to raise the association to an international level, in order to obtain observer status from international fora such as the UN ECOSOC and the Council of Europe.
In a way, our period of transition from Soviet rule is parallel to the historic period following the end of the second World War. When I began to look into the history of the creation of the United Nations, there was a period when all the main organizations of the U.N. family were forming. At the same time, large international NGOs like CARE were established, and since then, many more, such as Amnesty International have been formed. But all of these NGOs emerged from Western countries, and there has never been such an international humanitarian NGO that originated in the USSR.
Of course, during the Soviet period we had groups that sounded like "public organizations," like the Soviet Women's Committee or the trade unions, but they were really arms of the state and party structures. But now, seeing the gap between our own region and the whole community of international western organizations, we asked ourselves why not create an association that could function on the international level.
Although the seed for a regional NGO association germinated within the narrow mandate of a migration conference, the movement of NGOs has developed a wider political mission to strengthen democratic institutions that support civil society in these countries. At all the international gatherings, the local participants have been encouraged by the feeling of support, and came away with enthusiasm about working together.
The time has come for the NGOs in the migration field to harness that energy and take the first steps toward unification of nongovernmental organizations. It is a serious political mission that cannot be confined to the timeframe of an international conference process. But it would be a tragedy for international donors to withdraw from this work now. For most of this century we have not been developing civil society, and it is a moral mission to help strengthen the sector that will promote human rights and become an important balance to the states, themselves over the next century.Monitoring Polluters to Prevent Mass Displacement
This essay was contributed by Natalia Ablova, the director of the Kyrgyz-American Bureau on Human Rights and Rule of Law and a consultant to the Forced Migration Projects. It highlights the risks that industrial accidents and other environmental emergencies pose to local populations. New forms of legal work and advocacy are demanded to ensure that international financial institutions like the World Bank seek "preventive accountability" when negotiating loans.
In my ten years of human rights work, I could never have imagined that I would need to use my forced migration advocacy skills to battle a multinational environmental polluter. The disaster began on May 20, 1998, when I learned from our local newspaper that there had been a cyanide spill from the gold mining operation run by the Canadian corporation CAMECO and its Kyrgyz affiliate, Kumtor Operating Company.
At first it was just unbelievable. A tanker truck had overturned on a bridge and spilled 1.7 tons of cyanide into the river that flows into our high mountain lake Issyk-Kul. Two people died within the first days, and many more were poisoned. The people continued using the water for their domestic needs, but if the company and the authorities had warned the people immediately the deaths might have been avoided. By June, an exodus of more than 4,700 people from two villages near the scene of the spill fled to temporary shelter in sanitoriums hundreds of miles away.
This was totally unprecedented for Kyrgyzstan, to have such a crisis involving a big foreign commercial firm. It was even more complicated because of our government's inexperience in these kinds of things, and also the reportedly influential relationships between CAMECO and some Kyrgyz officials.
The press coverage of the accident was a public relations nightmare. But after the spill our newspaper, Evening Bishkek, showed a lot of courage. They run a lot of advertisements and are profitable enough, so they can be outspoken.
As human rights activists, we already knew how to use the international solidarity mechanisms and with the new technology, we were eager to report all this information. Also, we are very fortunate to have very good freedom of information laws in Kyrgyzstan. Every citizen has the right to demand any information which related to the safety of people and the region. I was asking for the amended emergency plan and pre-emergency plan for a spill.
It turned out that the company violated several safety standards. Before transporting this haul of highly toxic materials, CAMECO should have alerted the local population in the villages along that road. Then, the tanker trucks should have been escorted by local road inspectors. Instead they ran a chain of platform trucks, which is against our safety standards. The bridge was not safe enough, and when the truck hit the side of the bridge, one of the platforms rolled over into the river rushing below.
After the spill, our government agencies made the mistake of starting to dispense chlorine, supposedly to neutralize the cyanide, but instead it produced yet another poison. Because of this, CAMECO claimed that people died not because of the cyanide but because of the new poison, and therefore tried to pass blame to the government. The World Health Organization said that the people in the nearby villages should be moved immediately, but the likelihood of burglaries made the people reluctant to leave. So the women and children left and the men stayed behind.
The people lost their entire harvest-including the produce from their wonderful apricot orchards. There were also so many dead fish, and carcasses of horses, cows and birds everywhere. The Kyrgyz authorities were inexperienced in these matters and ordered teenagers to clean the area. After that the children got sick. They paid $25 to each child and $50 to every adult, and called it compensation.
We managed to explain to the villagers that they must collect all kinds of documents to prove that there were damages. But the local authorities had ordered them to give back all their original medical records and they had not anticipated the need to make copies in advance.
This year the Soros Foundation-Kyrgyzstan is opening an independent laboratory to do a variety of tests this spring. The villagers need to test the soil in their gardens, and to be medically examined on a regular basis themselves. Now CAMECO is pressuring the government so that there will be no lawsuits. This is very complicated legally and it demands much sophistication on the part of our lawyers. Also there are the court fees, although our legislation releases a plaintiff from paying if the case concerns a security issue.
Now our officials say that the area is safe, the soil is safe, and the inhabitants are safe. But this was contradicted by the research of the head of the Human Ecology Laboratory at Kyrgyzstan International University on the long-term health consequences of the spill. After her report was published in January 1999, Dr. Kalia Moldogazieva was fired from her job. This is now the first case on the violation of academic freedom in Kyrgyzstan.
After our aggressive campaign to inform international groups about the spill, I was invited to attend a meeting in Washington with environmental groups that monitor the World Bank. It has been very interesting for us to learn about new approaches to human rights, and the environmental link to economic and social rights.
Now we are calling for an international environmental audit. We want this case to go before an inspection panel of the World Bank and to the newly established ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation. We need to ask the World Bank and the IFC (its private investment arm) if they are ready to take responsibility for damages in case of a catastrophe.
Up to now, we have lost a total of four people due to this terrible accident, out of the thousands who live in the villages near the spill. But what about the potential for a huge disaster because of the shoddy safety measures at a gold mine in the snow-capped mountains?Women and War: From Healing to Empowerment
The following essay was contributed by Zaravshon Zuhurova, a Forced Migration Projects consultant in Tajikistan, who has worked for CARE and UNHCR, and continues to work today with OSCE in the southern province of Khatlon. It vividly illustrates the resourcefulness and tenacity of this local humanitarian worker, who helps women war victims in a traditional society.
When the refugees started to return from refugee camps in northern Afghanistan in 1993, nothing had prepared me for the plight of these women who came to us in the UNHCR office every day, desperate for help. Being the only female field assistant, I attracted many women with personal problems. Once they saw that I listened to them and cared about their problems, they opened up to me.
First of all, when they returned to their villages, some of them found their houses occupied by neighbors or combatants from the civil war. The woman would implore, "Give me back my house," and the occupier would accuse her menfolk of being in the Tajik opposition, saying, "No. You have no right to take your house back because you're 'opposition,' or you're Wahabi (an Islamic sect)."
She would believe what the occupier said because she is ignorant of her rights. A woman's family marries her off at an early age, not allowing her to think that she could become educated or have her own profession. She doesn't expect her husband will allow it, either. She may not understand the need for a housing document or a marriage certificate. It was not important before.
Then came the war. Husbands and sons were killed. Some of them left behind widows with five or ten children. These women had never been anywhere, and did not know about identity papers or how to get them. They did not even know who the local authorities were.
These women were poor. They picked cotton, but the communal farm did not pay them wages. Their kids didn't go to school because they have no shoes, books or pens. What is worse, the teachers have left their jobs because they don't receive their salaries any more. Everything is linked together. This is the reality for Tajik women, especially in ethnic Garmi villages.
This was the basic problem. But then I gradually realized that these women and girls had suffered great emotional shock and physical abuse during the war and afterward. Besides witnessing the murder of their children, husbands, and neighbors, many of them were victims of rape and still carried fears associated with this trauma. They needed to share these problems with others, but lacked the self-confidence and trust in others to do it. In addition, I found that many of these women were demanding to know their rights in Tajik society.
One women told us that her 14-year-old daughter was raped. Then, because of shame and poverty, she gave her daughter to an old man in marriage as his second wife. (In some cases, the girl is given to the man who raped her.) In another case, a 15- or 16-year-old girl was abducted by a former military man. She had never been touched before, but the man tore off her dress, laughed at her naked humiliation, and raped her all day long. She escaped, but did not tell her parents because of the shame.
When her parents married her off, her husband rejected her as a non-virgin. Then her parents gave her in marriage to an older man. The rape case actually went to court and the rapist went to jail. The prosecutor was courageous to pursue such a case and obtain a jail sentence-even if it was for only two years.
By now I had begun to work for OSCE. We had no experience in dealing with these awful problems, but I knew we had to do something to help these women right away. A Canadian from Save the Children/UK began a self-help group for her female staff members. The idea struck me as perfect for Tajik women, and I began to study how to initiate such a project myself. I attended a course of Education for Global Citizenship-Peace and Conflict Resolution at American University, where I developed the project. In September 1997 in Shahrituz, Tajikistan, I began with one group of ten women meeting once a week.
The first challenge was to help them develop essential survival skills, both for the immediate crisis and for the long term. To do this, it was necessary to introduce them to women's rights in the family and society. I didn't have all the knowledge I needed, but the job needed to be done. I collaborated with others and we learned as we went along.
Under our OSCE program, the women meet once a week for two hours in one of the field offices. Each session begins with a recap of the basic rules of group participation, followed by a presentation on a specific topic, and then a discussion of general events and concerns. About once a month, the women request a visit by an expert on a special topic.
After several months of participation in our groups, the women were practically transformed. They became attentive and dynamic-really inspired by a sense of their own competence. They were able to articulate their rights confidently, and they developed a clear sense of human rights. They have even started teaching others in their communities about their rights, frequently urging others to recognize unjust situations.
We started seven groups in Shahrituz, two in Kurgan-Teppe, and now two in Kubodion. Demand has grown so much by word of mouth that we have difficulty accommodating all the women who want to join. We've trained women from the groups to take over other groups. We have plans to set up support groups in 30 districts and to construct two women's support centers in Khatlon province.
Domestic violence, especially physical beating, is a very serious issue in Tajikistan, especially in the south. The police will rarely interfere in family disputes, and relatives often fail to offer each other moral support. In their worst despair, Tajik women sometimes seek to escape through self-immolation.
In addition to providing solace and moral support, we have developed practical methods for approaching and resolving conflicts in the community and family. Women have discovered that they all suffered during the civil war and they can reach across ethnic lines to support each other.From Emergency to Development: Building a Sustainable NGO
This essay was contributed by Marina Murvanidze, founder of Multiple Assistance to Georgia (MAG), and a consultant to the Forced Migration Projects. Her experience illustrates the opportunities and challenges encountered by local NGOs trying to make the transition from humanitarian relief to longer-term development.
Looking back on the last decade, I am amazed how fast the years raced by while I was completely immersed in Georgia's developing NGO sector. It all started for me when I began to work for the American Humanitarian Corporation, the first humanitarian relief agency to operate in Georgia. My jobs went from office manager to Executive Director until 1994, when I left to form a new NGO named Multiple Assistance for Georgia (MAG).
Georgia had been in a state of economic, political and social collapse for almost three years, practically surviving on international humanitarian relief. But I refused to accept that Georgia was simply a "refugee camp" of 5.5 million people, and was very concerned about the psychological dependency that the long-term relief programs seemed to be creating in our entire population. The mission of my new international fund was "to bridge the gap between pure relief and development, and to strengthen the NGO sector in Georgia." I strongly believed that even for the most vulnerable people like orphans and the elderly, development projects would be more appropriate.
To set up an NGO and operate in an environment that lacked appropriate legislation, funding sources, and a general understanding of the role of NGOs was an enormous challenge. Starting from scratch was not easy, since money was tight, and I felt a great responsibility to the small staff who had followed me from my previous job. We made do with very little money earned from my consulting assignments and start-up funds from United Methodists Committee on Relief (UMCOR) and private donors until we received our first grant from Stichting Vluchteling (Netherlands Refugee Foundation). But we survived and learned much along the way.
The most difficult challenge was to explain to people the role of NGOs. If you asked anyone on the street about NGOs, they would most likely say that an NGO was an organization that distributed food, medicine, and clothes. In fact we had a lot of disappointed visitors who could not understand why we were not distributing anything if our name included the word "assistance."
But it was easy to understand the lack of awareness in a population that had been so shaken by wars, natural disasters, hyperinflation, and food shortages. Hundreds of thousands of people were left without the most basic conditions for normal life and were deprived of access to basic social services. So there was a need to increase the public's awareness of the important role that NGOs can play by not only providing commodities, but also through long-term services and advocacy.
In this regard, we received a great boost from participating in the Partnership in Action process (PARinAc) started in 1993 by UNHCR. In addition, a number of international NGOs helped greatly with our series of follow-up "Workshops for Local NGOs," funded by UNHCR and the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). These provided basic information about the "NGO world," including the discovery in the records of the Ministry of Justice that almost all the Georgian NGOs operating in 1994 had been registered as public organizations under the Soviet Union.
One of our goals was to expand and vitalize this NGO sector, so we opened our workshops to anyone who was interested, and invited citizens who were socially active and might be candidates for new NGOs. Moreover we saw that it was also crucial to involve government officials who would support the idea of developing the NGO sector. I am grateful to UNHCR and the NRC for agreeing to fund this project without conditions.
Registering an NGO at that time was easy, but the legislative framework for NGOs continues to be a source of concern. The government still lacks clear policy-especially on non-profit taxation-that could encourage donations from corporations and the public.
This is crucial to the basic survival of NGOs like MAG, which had to struggle from the beginning to find funds for development projects rather than emergency relief. Our government's budget in 1994 had dropped to zero, so that was not a potential source. Nor was the private sector a source, as small businesses had just started up and were struggling with tax policies and racketeers simply to survive. Door-to-door fund-raising was hardly an option either, because most Georgians were living below the poverty line themselves.
The only sources available were the international NGOs, but we soon discovered that they had their own mandates and regulations set by their donors. Moreover, Georgia had not yet requested to qualify for development assistance from donors, as opposed to humanitarian relief only.
In addition, relations with government officials often revealed a lack of understanding and support for NGOs, whom some officials see as competitors for donors' funds. Those NGOs that have achieved some recognition from the authorities often owe it more to their individual reputations or personal relationships than to their organization's mission and activities.
In this regard, the CIS Conference process has improved some government attitudes toward NGOs, simply because it showed officials that the NGO sector could not be neglected.
While the NGOs realize the danger of dependency on outside grants and see the critical need to develop viable funding sources, most of them have few options for guaranteeing their long-term sustainability. They still have to "chase" donors whose requirements can also conflict with the priorities of the community at large. And until our legislation is amended, most NGOs will remain dependent on these grants.
Despite all the problems and constraints, the development of the NGO sector in the newly independent states appears to be an inevitable process, and NGOs in Georgia have started to emerge as independent and vital components of the social landscape. I consider the last ten years as the most intense and challenging period of my career. But my primary concern today is whether our inadequate legal framework, and the corruption it allows, will be too great an obstacle for our NGOs, or if they will become strong enough to help build a truly democratic society.Reintegration in Ukraine: NGOs Helping the Crimean Tatars Restore Their Lives
This essay excerpt was contributed by Yuriy Buznytsky, director of the Migra-tion Problems Research Center in Kyiv, Ukraine, and a Forced Migration Projects consultant. It reflects the vital work being done by local and international NGOs to enable minorities who were deported under Stalin to return and reintegrate into their place of origin.
During the past eight years, Ukraine has seen the development of a rather broad and powerful NGO sector, strengthened by new national laws allowing the registration of groups with varying profiles. According to the estimates of specialists from the Kyiv Center for Innovation about 20,000 organizations with the status of NGOs or charitable foundations are registered.
Of these, only a relatively thin layer of about 30 NGOs deals actively with migration issues, working on research, information, legislation, as well as in providing social services and grants to refugees, victims of the Chernobyl catastrophe, elderly migrants, and programs preventing the illegal trafficking of women.
Nevertheless, during this period, our NGOs have been able to implement significant projects in the migration field, thanks to the active assistance of donors such as IOM, UNHCR, UNDP, the International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), Eurasia Foundation, and the Know-How Foundation, among others.
Our activities in cooperation with the state authorities have grown noticeably, particularly through consultations, information exchanges and suggestions from our NGOs on ways to improve national legislation or resolve particular issues. And one area in which we have cooperated with state structures has been in Crimea, through the State Program of Assistance for the Deported Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Germans.
Through the CIS Conference and Program of Action, we have supplemented and amplified the laws regulating migration issues that were passed from 1991 to 1995; specifically, from the point of view of former deportees, the procedures for becoming Ukrainian citizens were simplified by a 1998 amendment to the law on citizenship.
In addition, the Program of Action has provided the framework for a major program to ease the plight of the former deportees in the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, carried out by a variety of donors.
In particular, in 1997, a program with which I am involved, "Integration into Ukrainian Community of the Formerly Deported Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Bulgarians, Germans, Greeks," was established in Crimea, which awarded more than $890,000 in grants to Crimean NGOs.
In some cases, programs for the deported peoples have been initiated by international organizations and international NGOs, and are actively supported by the state in its search for additional funding. One of these with which I have been very involved is the important cultural program to renovate the library named after Ismail Gasprynsky in Simferopol, which is an historic cultural monument to the Crimean people. Initiated and jointly financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and the IRF, this library project will be expanded in 1999 with the participation of the Ukrainian State Committee for Nationalities and Migration and the Committee for Nationalities Affairs of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (the initial financing was planned in the range of $360,000).
These programs for the deported people of Crimea are a striking example of active collaboration among international organizations, international NGOs, the Ukrainian and Crimean authorities, and local NGOs. It should be noted, however, that in general, the participation of international organizations in the development of the Ukrainian NGO sector has not been as effective as it could have been. Instead, we find ourselves in the situation where existing local NGOs that are working well, and have potential to do more, have not been involved enough in the CIS Conference process.
At the same time, I am concerned that there is a growing number of NGOs that operate with a single funding source within the Program of Action. They lack experience and do not make efforts to involve other resources in implementing programs and projects.
Yet, evaluating the implementation of CIS Conference decisions and the Program of Action in Ukraine, the programs for the Crimean Tatars illustrate how the Conference can provide a framework for developing and funding discrete programs and for involving the public in seeking effective solutions of migration issues. Moreover, the decisions of the international community helped to form public opinion on refugee and migrant problems, and helped to shape a positive attitude towards these issues.
Having implemented the first stage of the CIS Conference, we have established a basis for solving urgent migration problems and for building a mechanism to regulate these issues. Now, for the sake of all forced migrants in Ukraine, as well as for peace and security in the CIS and Europe, we must continue implementing the Program of Action.The Role of NGOs in the Humane Management of Forced Migration in the Former Soviet Union
This essay was written by the Forced Migration Projects, which were established to monitor circumstances in different regions of the world in order to provide the international community with early warning of forced movements of people, as well as to identify the social, economic, and political conditions which cause such dislocations. FMP have been involved in the preparations of the CIS Conference since 1995.
More than nine million people have been displaced in the former Soviet Union since 1989. A significant number of the displaced remain in limbo, hoping to re-establish their lives. International actors have struggled to develop nuanced approaches to displacement dilemmas, hindered by a tepid response of donor governments to funding appeals. Dwindling resources and mounting needs are fostering a sense of hopelessness. Under present conditions, building the capacity of local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the former Soviet Union may represent the best hope for easing human hardship in the region. A vibrant third sector can provide crucial momentum to civil society development, which would facilitate durable solutions for those already uprooted, as well as act to prevent future forced migration emergencies. As such, the international community should focus all available resources on strengthening local NGOs in the region.
Promoting the greater involvement of local NGOs in migration-related project implementation was one of the key goals established by the 1996 CIS Migration Conference, as outlined in the Program of Action, which serves as a framework for follow-up activities. Initially, NGOs were largely excluded from CIS Conference process. In subsequent years, however, NGO capacity building efforts have emerged as a major gauge of the CIS Conference's performance. Unfortunately, efforts to promote NGO development, as envisaged by the Program of Action, have been somewhat disappointing. A small fund administered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to promote local NGO capacity building has not been utilized in the most efficient manner possible. NGO working groups, established under the auspices of the 1996 CIS Conference, likewise have yet to fulfill their potential to foster a stronger third sector in CIS states.
Admittedly, the obstacles, in particular an inhospitable operating environment, have been daunting. But some non-governmental actors have persevered, registering notable achievements that provide some reason to hope. Modest success can also be found in the activities of the NGO Working Groups. For example, in 1998 the Working Group on NGO Legislation, provided the framework for the emergence of a local NGO initiative-a written survey of indigenous actors in the region. The survey is designed to serve as the basis for the expansion of an association of migration-related local NGOs, which was established in December 1998. The major aim of the association is to assume a measure of implementation responsibilities upon the expiration of the 1996 CIS Conference follow-up period, and provide a mechanism to present local perspectives to the international community.
The Forced Migration Projects (FMP) have sponsored over a dozen consultations and meetings in recent years designed to help local NGOs forge closer links on the local and international level, while also advocating wider NGO participation in the CIS Conference process. These meetings have not only helped identify potential areas of cooperation among NGOs, but additionally confirmed the need for a greater dialogue of NGO representatives with government officials in the region.
A key to fostering network-building is the creation of an adequate operating environment for local NGOs. In many countries, however, burdensome taxation and registration policies hinder third-sector growth. Some indigenous NGOs, with the assistance of other organizations have advocated the reform of taxation and registration legislation in order to provide incentives for NGO development. In carrying out such efforts, the Working Group on NGO Legislation in 1999 issued an appeal for pilot projects in that would promote reform and effective implementation of NGO legislation. They will include legislative initiatives, monitoring and advocacy, public education, technical advice, capacity building and government-NGO relations. These new local NGO pilot projects will be designed to promote systemic reform in this crucial area of promoting freedom of association in the region.
Pilot projects can develop into durable institutions. In soliciting NGO pilot projects on legislation, the FMP drew on experience gained since 1996. At that time, the FMP undertook small-scale initiatives to promote civil society and the rule of law. One of the pilot-projects undertaken was the establishment of a CIS Research Council on forced migration issues. The Research Council, for instance, is planning in 1999 to conduct opinion surveys of Meskhetian Turks, the results of which could help guide repatriation and protection efforts.
The efforts to establish a repatriation framework for Meskhetian Turks, a formerly deported people that is still seeking rehabilitation and the right to return to their homeland in Georgia, perhaps stands as one of the most significant achievements to date of governments in the CIS Conference process. The FMP, UNHCR, and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities have sponsored two meetings-in The Hague in September 1998 and in Vienna in March 1999. Those meetings brought together government representatives from Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia, as well as leaders of various Meskhetian Turk civic organizations to discuss issues and develop a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. The dialogue is ongoing.
The CIS Conference process has so far been mostly characterized by lost opportunities and unfulfilled expectations. The meeting of the Steering Group, to be held in Geneva in June 1999, offers a chance for the CIS Conference process to revitalize itself by embarking in a new direction. New strategies must be developed, otherwise the utility of the entire Conference process will be put into question. A new strategy based on local NGOs in the CIS offers perhaps the best chance for success. The international community should place greater emphasis on such NGO development. In addition, the nascent association of migration-related NGOs deserves the full material and logistical support of international organizations, including UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration.
Bolstering local NGO capacity in the former Soviet Union makes sense given current conditions. Donor governments likely will not make any significant changes in their giving patterns. Thus, the international community's ability to influence developments will remain restricted. In any event, the chief responsibility for the formulation of durable solutions rests with the governments and persons residing in the region.
Local NGO actors are often in the best position to identify those most vulnerable to hardships, assess needs, and provide assistance. However, even though they may have the desire, they often lack capacity to adequately address migration-related issues. If action is not undertaken now to bolster local NGO effectiveness, hundreds of thousands of displaced persons in the former Soviet Union could be doomed to ongoing hardships and a bleak future.
As a result of the CIS Conference process, the NGO sector in the migration field has taken real shape and been significantly enhanced in the region. New structures have emerged, while more traditional organizations have had a new impulse to develop.
Despite these positive changes in the framework within which local NGOs now carry out their work, wide variations among groups in the "third sector" still persist.
The survey clearly demonstrated that NGOs who undertook the difficult task of making assessments and evaluations of the Program of Action were seriously limited in their capability of doing so for several reasons.
First, only the most advanced and well connected NGOs knew in detail about the Program of Action. Others had a more vague idea about the CIS Conference and the documents adopted by it. Even fewer NGOs were aware of the national implementation plans that their governments agreed to work on following the CIS Conference. This significantly reduced the impact of the Conference documents and caused frustration both among the donor community and stakeholders in the Conference process.
Also, the majority of NGOs in the CIS emerged not as the result of any international fora, but as the response of committed and courageous individuals to problems in their respective societies when their governments were incapable or unwilling to solve them. The process of NGO development went further when local groups in each country felt the need to make connections with their fellow NGO partners in the former Soviet Union, and they enthusiastically joined the CIS Conference process.
Now as the end of the mandate approaches, it becomes clear that certain opportunities were lost, hopes were abandoned, and plans and objectives were not accomplished. But most importantly, the great potential of the NGO sector in the migration field failed to be fully realized.
At least one result, however, is obviously in place: NGOs in the migration field have become more consolidated, and are determined to continue and strengthen their established links and cooperation. The desire to create a regionally based NGO association is vivid proof of their commitment to this work. Although the termination of the CIS Conference process would be regrettable, a new regional NGO association will now bring together the local NGOs on a regular basis, regionally and subregionally, and then convey to the international community the various concerns expressed.
As the new vehicle for regional activities on forced migration, the NGO association will foster the involvement of local NGOs in the planning, design and execution of humanitarian assistance programs and in longer-term development projects. It will also encourage cooperation between local NGOs and government officials.
Many NGOs in the CIS migration sector are now sophisticated enough to understand that donors and international institutions have two major approaches toward the local NGOs. One of these is for the donor to create NGOs to implement their own projects-either ignoring the existing NGO sector, or filling the gap in a country where there is no real NGO community. The second approach is to seek out the already existing NGOs to empower them through the direct implementation of projects.
These approaches can have a positive impact when local NGOs are treated as real long-term partners and not merely as sub-contractors. Nevertheless, the self-sufficiency of NGOs is still in doubt, due to various constraints in the legislation and taxation policies concerning non-profit organizations. Unless these issues are properly addressed as soon as possible both by national governments and international actors, the whole NGO sector could be seriously undermined.
Here, again, a regional NGO association will be an effective intermediary through which to express and resolve some of the perceived imbalances in relations between local NGOs and other actors. At the national level in the CIS countries, the association can advocate for the proper enforcement of existing migration laws, as well as the development of better and more humane mechanisms for their enforcement.
From its inception, the CIS Conference process had a time limit on its mandate-the year 2000. But civil and ethnic conflicts, both current and emerging, have no such limits. New challenges further aggravate the situation for forced migrants and their advocates; the world financial crisis, donor fatigue, the severe refugee crisis in Kosovo and other potential hot spots will inevitably distract the attention of the world community elsewhere.
The handover strategy of the CIS Conference can only succeed if international organizations select appropriate criteria and adhere to them. If priorities and guidelines are established in conjunction with a regional NGO association, it will be significantly easier to sustain what has emerged within the CIS Conference process.
Equally crucial to the handover process is the engagement of a broader group of international organizations, both from the United Nations family, and from international financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. A regional NGO association will encourage more creative approaches to funding migration-related activities in the CIS region, and will encourage participation of these institutions in meetings on international law and the formulation of tax policies relevant to nonprofit organizations.
The responsibilities of the donors toward their beneficiaries include taking a well-balanced approach to national governments, NGOs and international organizations. Regrettably, the existing pattern of cooperation between international organizations, governments and local NGOs do not provide for equal opportunities in the field of cooperation.
CIS Conference sponsors tended to adopt stereotypes of interaction which either barred or limited NGOs from working out and designing their own projects. The survey results revealed these stereotypes as the familiar list: information exchange, training, and capacity-building.
It is of course easier for donors to support such pre-approved schemes rather than offer a free hand to their local partners. Similarly, donors use such repetitive approaches to promote cooperation with governments. The governments, on the other hand, are sometimes not truly interested in reforms, but think it both harmless and prestigious to be profiled at international social events generously supported by donors. As a result of such arrangements, no empowering of NGOs takes place.
Though a very fragile bridge of cooperation between governments and NGOs in the area of migration has been built, it is only in spite of some efforts undertaken by the international organizations, not because of them. One priority of a regional NGO association in the migration field will be to encourage grassroots education efforts to improve the image of NGOs among government officials, the business sector, and the general public.
Principally, a new scheme or pattern of relationship among the three main participants in the CIS Conference process must be introduced-that of mutual respect, benefit and understanding. This calls for the restructuring of priorities in the original Program of Action, and new strategies for coping with migration problems in the next decade. If this approach is achieved, a new era of progress in the region could result.
List Of Participating NGOs
Armenia
Ahazang
Grisha Oganezov, Chair
(home) Davidashen, 4 block, building 23, apt. 17, Yerevan, 375054 Armenia
(office) 49/2 Komitas str., Yerevan, Armenia
Tel: (3742) 23 58 42Armenian Fund for Protection Human Rights (Sakharov Fund)
Levon Nersissian, General Director
1 Djrashat str., Yerevan - 9, Armenia, 375009Armenian Sociological Association
Contact: Gevork Pogosian, President
44 Aram str., Yerevan - 10, Armenia, 375010
Tel: (3742) 53 05 71; Fax: (3742) 50 59 47
E-mail: root@gevork.arminco.comCenter for Civil Society Development
Solakhian Viktor, Vice Chair
15 Abovian str., room 37, Yerevan, 375001, Armenia
Tel: (3742) 561570, 585677
Fax: (3742) 505-947
E-mail: ngoc@moon.yerphi.amGhevond Alishan
Svetlana Aslanian, Chair
15 Abovian str., room 37, Yerevan, 375001, Armenia
Tel: (3742) 561570, 585677
Fax: (3742) 505-947
E-mail: ngo@moon.yerphi.am
League of Assistance to Armenian Refugees
Nina Bagdasarian, Chair
16 block, building 44, apt. 96, Yerevan, Armenia
Tel: (3742) 35 07 06, 58 10 77Mission Armenia
Ripsik Kirakosian, President
22 Yeghbairutian str., apt. 68, Yerevan, Armenia
Tel: (3742) 427608, 453538
E-mail: mission@ripsik.arminco.comNational Center for Democracy and Human Rights (NCDHR)
Vladimir Karmirshalian, General Director
50 Khanjian str., Yerevan, Armenia. Tel: (3742) 576-036, 575-336
Fax: (3742) 507-288
E-mail: cdhr@arminco.comRefugee Foundation Charitable Organization
Vladimir Aghayan, Chair
37 Airapetutian str., Yerevan, Armenia
Tel: (3742) 560687, (home) 446609Soldiers Mothers
Greta Mirzoian, Chair
5 Khanjian str., room 107, Yerevan, 375013, Armenia
Tel: (3742) 52 99 31Young Lawyers Union
Karen Zadoyan, President
30 Baghramian str., Yerevan, Armenia
Tel: (3742) 22 81 86
Fax: (3742) 22 81 86Azerbaijan
Azerbaijanian Center for Woman and Development
Elmira M. Suleymanova, President
3/6 S.Rustamov str., Baku, 370001, AzerbaijanCenter of Development Programs
Elmira E. Alekperova, Director
Gusi Gadjiev avenue, building 7, apt. 13
Baku, 370005, AzerbaijanCenter of Legal Assistance
Sabina Masimova, Lawyer
90/2 Safaroglu str.
Baku, 370009, Azerbaijan
Tel/Fax: 97 34 57
E-mail: imran@legal.baku.azChildren Humanitarian Foundation "Buta"
Adil E. Alekperov, Coordinator
Gusi Gadjiev avenue, building 7, apt. 14
Baku, 370005, AzerbaijanHayat International
Vusal Rajabli, President
72 Kasum Zade str., apt. 90
Baku, 370005, AzerbaijanPublic Protection of Women and Children Rights among Refugees of Azerbaijan
Dadashova Shartia, Chair
70 Navayi street, Baku, AzerbaijanUmid 98
Nidjat Karimov
Member of the Administrative Council/Information
69A Tbilisi str., Baku, Azerbaijan
Tel/Fax: 31 90 76Vatan: Union of Meskhetian Turks
Khalid Tashtanov, Chair
135 Inglab street, Baku, 370110, Azerbaijan
Tel/Fax: 64 01 73Belarus
Belarus Community of the Red Cross
L. Martianova, Leading Specialist
Minsk, 220030, Marx str. #35
BelarusUnited Way: Belarus Republican Public Organization
Elena Lipskaya, Lawyer-consultant
Uralskaya str. 3-30
Minsk, 220037, Belarus
Tel: (017) 230 32 76
Tel/Fax: (017) 230 80 54
E-mail: uwb@user.unibel.byGeorgia
The Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development
Emil Adelkhanov
Vice-Chair of the Institute Council
1 Aleksidze str. XI floor
Tbilisi, Georgia
Mail address: Tbilisi 8, Mail box 101
Tel: (995 32 or 883 2) 33 40 81; 33 41 63; 33 18 79
Fax: (995 32 or 883 2) 33 41 63
E-mail: cipdd@access.sanet.geCenter for Development and Cooperation Center of Pluralism
Ivlian Khaindrava, Program Director
31 Atoneli str., apt. 2
Tbilisi, 380000, Georgia
Tel/Fax: (995 32) 93 25 36Center of Population Research
Irina N. Bodurashvili, President-Director
75 Kostava str., 1 entrance
Tbilisi, 380071, GeorgiaDomus Mobilis Humanitarian Community
Malkhaz Chemia, General Director
37 Saburtalo str, apt.11
Tbilisi, 380000, Georgia
(reserve address Tbilisi, 49 Paliashvili str, apt.1)Foundation for the Development of Human Rights
Nodar Sardjveladze, Chair
16 Bakhtrioni str., apt. 100
Tbilisi, 380094, Georgia
Tel: (995 32) 37 56 40; 23 36 53
E-mail: fdhr@ip.osgf.geGeorgian Repatriates Union
Marat Baratashvili, President
12 Vedzatkhevskaia str.
Tbilisi, 380002, Georgia
Tel: (+095 32) 95 06 90IDP Women's Association of Georgia
Julia Kharashvili, Head
4 Chitaia str.
Tbilisi, 380064, GeorgiaThe International Center on Conflict and Negotiation (ICCN)
George Khutsishvili, Director and founder
5 Machabeli str., 1 floor
Tbilisi, 380007, Georgia
Mail address: Box 38, Tbilisi, 380079, Georgia
Tel: (995 32) 999 987
Fax: (995 32) 939 178
E-mail: ICCN@access.sanet.ge
E-mail: confpro@access.sanet.ge
http://members.tripod.com/~iccn
http://www.chat.ru/~iccnInternational Fund: Multiple Assistance for Georgia (MAG)
Marina Murvanidze, Founding President
37 Tabukashvili str.
Tbilisi, 380008, Georgia
Tel: (995 32) 94 28 10
Fax: (995 32) 92 21 57
E-mail: MAG@caucasus.net
E-mail: TCMS@caucasus.netYoung Lawyers Association of Georgia
Tinatin Khidasheli
Director of Juridical Training Center
II Irakli avenue, N7
Tbilisi, GeorgiaKazakhstan
APCOR Fund for Intellectual Support of Reforms
in Kazakhstan and Central Asia
Nurbulat Masanov, President
Kazakhstan, Almati, 480012, 22 Valikhanova str., apt 25.
Tel-fax: (327 2) 699494Association of Afghan Women-Refugees
Makay Areph, President
Kazakhstan, Almati, 480035, 8 micro-region, building 7a, apt. 16Kazakh-American Bureau on Human Rights and Rule of Law
Inara Aldybayeva, Project Coordinator
Kazakhstan, Almati, 480012, 57a Masanchi str., room 404-405
Tel-Fax: (3272) 62 68 11
E-mail: omaz@omaz.almaty.kzPublic Benevolent Fund "Migration"
Jury Rijov, President
Kazakhstan, Almati, 2 Djaidistva str., office 414
Mechikova str. 90, office 207
Tel: (+7 3272) 67 27 87; 44 64 41Public Union "Kazakhstan Legal Assistance to Refugees"
Djasur Z. Tainov, Executive Director
Kazakhstan, Almati, 480091, 61 Nurmangazi str.
Tel: (+7 3272) 626476
Fax: (+7 3272) 625938
E-mail: Krels@astel.kzKyrgyzstan
Advisory Center for Refugees (ACR)
Muhammad Alem Hashimi, Director
24 str. Sultan Ibraimura room #507
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, 720300
Tel: (3312) 42 19 30
Fax: (3312) 42 23 72
E-mail: acr@imfiko.bishkek.suForum of Non-Governmental Organizations of Kyrgyzstan
Tolekan Ismailova, Chairman
Bishkek, 16 Razzakhova str, apt.2Justice: Djalal-Abad Right Protection Organization
Valery S. Uleev, General Coordinator
Kyrgyzstan, 715612, Djalal-Abad, 27 Erkin-TooKyrgyz-American Bureau on Human Rights and Rule of Law
Natalia Ablova, Director
40 Manas Avenue, Bishkek 720001, Kyrgyzstan
Tel. 996(312) 21 18 74
E-mail: rights@imfiko.bishkek.suSlovenian Foundation in Kyrgyzstan
Valery Vishnevsky, President
Kyrgyzstan, 720040, Bishkek, 78 Pushkin Str.Moldova
Fund for Assistance to Democracy and Parliament
Grigory Kocheban, Executive Director
Moldova, Kishinev, 14A Kotokarilor Str.
Tel: (0422) 54 17 22; 54 17 17
Fax: (0422) 54 17 17Helsinki Citizens Association in Moldova
Natalia Sinaeva, Chair and Coordinator of "Development of Inter-ethnic
Tolerance in Moldova"
(UNHCR)
Moldova, 570 Kishinev, 2043
Tel/Fax: (0422) 24 32 74Russia
Academy of Humanitarian Researches
Khachatur E. Marinosyan, President
Russian Federation, Moscow, 117933
Leninski avenue, building 6, room G-384
Tel/Fax: (7095) 236 84 02
E-mail: ahr@redlain.ruAssistance Borisoglebsk: Urban Public Organization
of Social Support and Mutual Aid
Boris M. Kraenov, Chair of the Board
Russian Federation, Voronezh region, Borisoglebsk, 20 Tereshkova str.Assistance: Vladimir Regional Public Organization of Refugees and Forced Displaced
Valeri U. Madiarov, Co-Chair of the Board
Juridical address: Vladimir, 46-1 Ofitserskaia str.
Postal address: 600020 Vladimir, l/b 701Association of Forced Migrants of Suzdal
Andrey V. Zakhvatov
Association of Forced Migrants of Suzdal
President of Association
Russian Federation, 601260, Vladimir region
Suzdal district, village Ivanovskoe 78
Tel: (09231) 2 10 48Bejin Lug The Crimea
Valentina N. Ankusheva, Head of staff department
Russian Federation, village Chern, 18 K.Marks str.
Tel: 2-14-71Center for the Study of Forced Migration Problems in CIS
(Regional Public Organization)
Janna A. Zaionchovskaia, President
Tatiana D. Ivanova, Vice-President
Russian Federation, 117418, Moscow
47 Nakhimov avenue, room 1303
Tel: (095) 332 47 56
Fax: (095) 310 70 71
E-mail: migr@mail.ecfor.rssi.ruCenter of Ethno-political and Regional Research
Vladimir Mukomel, Vice-Director
Russian Federation, Moscow, 10 Jakovoapostolski by-streetCommittee on Civil Assistance
Contact: Svetlana Gannushkina
Dolgorukovskaya Street, #33/6
(7095) 973 5474Compatriots: Murom Co. Ltd. of Refugees and Forced Displaced
Jury F. Fabrugitsij, Chair of the Board
Russian Federation, 602200, Murom, Vladimir region, 5 Moskovskaia str.Compatriots: Russian Fund for Assistance to Refugees
Boris A. Sergeev, Chair of the Guardian Council, President
Russian Federation, 101000, Moscow, 40a Miasnitskaia str., building 6Dawn: Orlov Regional Migration Public Organization
Valerij P. Safonov, Chair
302001, Orel, Gostinaia str. Building 2 (3 floor)Flame: Jeleznogorsk Regional Public Organization of Refugees and Migrants
Anatoly V. Gorbunov, Chair of the Board
Russian Federation, 307130, Kursk region, Jeleznogorsk city - CDPForum of Migration Organizations
Aleksey Shimchuk, Head of information-analytical Center
Russian Federation, Moscow, Kostinski avenue 13, office 407Help Yourself: Vishnevolotsk Regional Public Organization of Assistance to Refugees and Migrants
Janna I. Gorina, Chair
171113, c. Bishni Volochek, Tver region
Pervomaisk str, bulding 5, apt.8
Tel: 1 29 65.Human Rights Center, Memorial Society
Tatiana Kasatkina, Director
Maly Karetny Pereulok 12
Russian Federation, 103051
Tel: 917 89 61/ 209 65 06International Assembly for Human Rights Protection
Michael G. Arutunov, President
Russian Federation, 113149, Moscow
4 Azovskaia str, apt. 88.
Also: 117034, Russia, Moscow,
Cheremushkinski passage, building 5, room 403Lukolia Charitable Foundation
Olga M. Klein, Chief Accountant
Russian Federation, 117917, Moscow
Leninsky avenue, building 63/2
Tel: (7095) 913 20 31.Migrant
Lilia V. Ivanova, Chair
Russian Federation, 51(A) Vladimirskaia str.
DRSU of Kovrov region (juridical address)
27 Barsukova str. Apt. 9 (postal address)"Order of Charity and Social Protection" Interregional Public Organization
Evgenia J. Poplavskaia, President
Russian Federation, 127490, Moscow, 6b Pestel str.Peace: Barristers Bureau on Protection of Compatriots Rights
Alexander P. Zamota, Head of BureauPereslav Regional Department of "Compatriots"
(Russian Fund of Assistance to Refugees)
Elena P. Slavinskaya, Candidate of History, Assistant Professor, Director
152140, Yaroslavsk region, t.Pereslav-Zalessky
21 Pushkin str., apt. 16Russian Representation of British Charitable Foundation "Charities Aid Foundation"
Olga L. Timshina, Lawyer-probationer
Russian Federation, 103064, Moscow, Ikovoapostolski avenue
building 10
Tel: (7095) 917 25 14
Fax: (7095) 298 56 94, 917, 25 14
E-mail: caflaw@orc.ru
E-mail: unay@glas.arc.orgSaratov Regional Assistance Committee of Forced Migrants from Chechnya
Olga G. Pochekina, Vice-Chair of the Board, Leading specialist
Russian Federation, 410031, Saratov, 67 Cheluskintsi str.Tulitsa: Tulsk Department Of "Compatriots"
(Russian Foundation of Assistance to Refugees)
Galina I. Stepanova, Chair of the Foundation
Russian Federation, Tula City, 20 Riazanskaia str, room 414
Tel: 25 78 59
Tver Regional Organization of Assistance to Refugees and Migrants
Nina V. Burakova, Chair of the Board
Russian Federation, Tver, 15 Fadeeva str.Ural Association of Refugees
Ludmila S. Lukasheva, Director
Natalya I. Pashltseva, staff
Ekaterinburg, 111a Mamin Sibiriak str., apt.2Ural Home: Public Organization of Refugees and Forced Migrants
Leonid Grishin, Chair
Sverdlovsk region, t. Zarechny, 9 May str., building 6, apt. 32
Tel: (34377) 7 27 67; 7 36 75; 7 39 75Tajikistan
Fidokor (To Work Devotedly)
Dilbar Khalilova, Executive Director
Dushanbe, 64 Rudaki str, apt. 2; 55 Turdieva str., apt. 15"Man and Disaster" Public Center
Svetlana Vinnichenko, Director
Dushanbe, 66/29 Furdavi str.
Tel: (3772) 34 73 63
E-mail: man@nature.td.silk.org"Mark" Information-Analytical Center
Muzafar Olimov, Director
Dushanbe, 7 Bofanda str., apt. 9
Tel: (3772) 21 89 95; 21 83 70; 21 96 18
Fax: (3772) 21 89 95"Open Asia" Information-Research Center
Muborak Sharinova, President
734025, Dushanbe, 1 avenue Kuibishev str. Building 6, apt. 2Refugee, Children and Vulnerable Citizens (RCVC)
Mavjuda Rakhmanova, Director
Tel: ( 7-3772) 218715; 218734; 271780
Tel/fax: (7-3772) 218715; 218734
E-Mail: RCVC@tajik.td.silk.orgTajik Center for Information and Analysis of Human Rights
Djunaidkhon Ibodov, Co-Chair
734001, Tajikistan, Dushanbe, 70 Rudaki str, apt. 129
Tel: (3772) 278 875
E-mail: junaid@academy.td.silk.orgUkraine
Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA)
Grigory Talan, Executive Director
Ukraine, 254107, 9B Lukianovskaya str.Afghanistan: Public Organization
Zekrulkhak, President
Kyiv, 19 M. Ratskovaya str.Charitable Fund for Assistance to Refugees
Leonid A. Derkach, Chair of the Board
31-A Voloshkaya str., Kyiv, UkraineCrimea 2000: Crimean Republican Charitable Foundation
Khubedin Kureibedinov, General Director
35 Leskova str., Simferopol,Ukraine
The Crimea Republic
Tel/Fax: 23 21 39
Tel: 23 36 40
E-mail: hubedin@pop.cris.netFund for Research and Assistance to Aboriginal Nations of the Crimea
Aider Khalimov, Project Coordinator
333000, Simferopol, 37/8 Jeliakova str., apt. 88
Tel/Fax: (380)(652) 278739Migration Problems Research Center
Petr G. Burlaka, Director
Ukraine, Kyiv, 31-A Voloshkaya str."Migration" Ukrainian Charity Foundation
Yuriy V. Buznytsky, Chair of the Council
252070, Kyiv, 70, 31-A Voloshkaya str.NGO Fund Crimean-Tatarian Initiative
Ajder Seitosmanov, Executive Director
333000, Ukraine, Simferopol, 1st Konnaya Army str., building 76, apt.74
Tel/Fax: (038 0652) 49 72 74
E-mail: cti@ngo.crimea.com