Social management plan and stakeholder engagement plan

UKRAINE EARLY RECOVERY PROJECT

Promoter: Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine Funder: European Investment Bank

SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN

base

This project is funded by the European Union

2016

EXPERT SUPPORT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UKRAINE EARLY RECOVERY PROJECT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK

This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union in the frame of the project “Expert support to the implementation of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project of the European Investment Bank: Development of Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement Plans” (the Grant Contract ENPI #2015/362-383). The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the International Renaissance Foundation and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

This publication has been produced for the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine, and subprojects implementers of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project of the European Investment Bank.

CONTENTS List of acronyms

4

1. Executive Summary

5

2. Introduction

6

2.1. Ukraine early recovery project background 3. Participatory IDP Needs Assessment and Social Impact Assessment

8 10

3.1. Regulatory and institutional frameworks for addressing the early recovery and IDP needs

10

3.2. Baseline IDP needs assessment

10

3.3. Local infrastructure needs

17

3.3.1. Health Care

18

3.3.2. Education

18

3.3.3. Housing

19

3.3.4. Employment

19

4. Risk Analysis and Risk Management

21

5. Sub-project Preparation, Selection, Implementation Procedure: Links to SMP and SEP

26

5.1. Integration of social management and stakeholder engagement planning into UERP

26

5.2. Tranche one sub-projects

27

6. Social Impact Management

28

6.1. Ensuring compliance with eib social standards

28

6.2. Social impact management approach and measures

28

6.3. Conflict sensitivity

29

6.4. Mitigation measures for adverse impacts

30

6.4.1. Labour Standards

30

6.4.2. Involuntary Resettlement

31

6.4.3. Cultural Heritage

32

6.4.4. Rights and Interests of Vulnerable Groups

32

6.4.5. Protecting and securing public and occupational health, safety and security of workers and other individuals affected by the UERP

32

6.4.6. Stakeholder Engagement

33

6.5. Anticipated positive social impacts

33

7. Capacity Building Program

34

8. Monitoring and Evaluation Program

35

8.1. Scope of monitoring and evaluation of social impacts

35

8.2. Participatory monitoring

36

2 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

9. Social Management Plan

37

10. Stakeholder engagement plan 44 10.1. SEP: principles

44

10.2. SEP: development methodology

44

10.3. SEP: scope

45

10.4. Definition of stakeholders

46

10.4.1. Roles and Participation of the Stakeholders

46

10.4.2. Stakeholder Identification and Analysis

49

10.5. Stakeholder engagement mechanism

51

10.5.1. Assigning management functions and resources for performing stakeholder engagement

51

10.5.2. Planning and targeting stakeholder engagement

52

10.5.3. Information Disclosure

54

10.5.4. Regulatory Framework for Information Disclosure

54

10.5.5. UERP Communication Plan

55

10.5.6. UERP Communication Tools

56

10.6. Stakeholder consultations

57

10.6.1. Legal Provisions for Stakeholder Consultation

57

10.6.2. Building Functional Partnerships with Stakeholders

59

10.6.3. Independent Accountability Mechanisms

59

10.7. Grievance redress mechanism

60

10.7.1. Managing Public Grievances

60

10.7.2. International commitments under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

60

10.7.3. Ukrainian Legal Provisions for Submitting Appeals, Complaints and Grievances

60

10.7.4. The Judiciary Grievance Redress Mechanism in Ukraine

61

10.7.5. Non-Judiciary Grievance Redress Mechanism for UERP Implementation

61

10.7.6. Grievance Redress Mechanism: Management Process

62

10.8. Stakeholder engagement timetable

65

Annex A

68

Annex B

71

Annex C

96

Annex D

101

Annex E

107

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 3

LIST OF ACRONYMS ATO

– anti-terrorist operation

CBP

– capacity-building program

ERP

– Early Recovery Project

EIB

– European Investment Bank

EU

– European Union

ESMS

– Environment and Social Monitoring System

GoU

–Government of Ukraine

IDP

– Internally Displaced Person

ILO

– International Labor Organization

IRF

– International Renaissance Foundation

M&E

– Monitoring and Evaluation

MES

– Ministry of Education and Science

MH

– Ministry of Healthcare

MSP

– Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine

MRD

– Ministry for Regional Development, Construction and Communal revises of Ukraine

NGO

– Nongovernmental organization

OECD

– Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation

PIU

– Project Implementation Unit

RMCA

– Regional and Military Civilian Administration

RPA

– Recovery and Peace-building assessment

RSA

– Regional State administration

SEP

– Stakeholder Engagement Plan

SMP

–Social Management Plan

SMS

– Social Monitoring System

UN

– United Nations

UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UERP

– Ukraine Early Recovery Project

4 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

UKRAINE EARLY RECOVERY PROJECT: SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STAKEHOLDERЯENGAGEMENT PLAN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This SMP outlines the principles, approaches and sets out measures required to maximise the benefits of the UERP, avoid, minimise, mitigate or remedy any adverse social impacts. The elaborated Social Impact Assessment (including Risk Analysis, Baseline IDP Situation Assessment and local infrastructure priorities) establishes the background conditions for the integration of Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement planning into the EIB-funded, and MRD managed, early recovery project preparation, selection, and implementation procedures.

The SMP (and the integrated SEP) has been designed as a tool for building local government capacity, enabling the institutionalization of participative processes that ensure project implementer accountability, and build trust in the target communities.

The baseline research conducted in preparation of this SMP reveals relatively low levels of identitydriven conflict potential in the region. However, some structural stress due to competition for limited economic resources is in evidence. Higher levels of competition for social resources is generally reflected in higher levels of “localist” identity and lower levels of activism within the IDP community. The capacity of IDPs to engage in community projects as active stakeholders needs further development through training, communication, and empowerment.

Management of infrastructure projects, and the social risks involved, must be conducted on a caseby-case basis with heavy emphasis placed on engagement of local stakeholders. Throughout the target region, social infrastructure (including housing, educational and health care facilities, roads) is in poor condition, and local government capacity to cope with strains resulting from an influx of IDPs into their communities leaves room for significant improvement. Emphasis should be placed on improving infrastructure that will benefit both IDPs and local communities, and high priority given to projects that create re-qualification opportunities and non-specialized jobs as part of their realization (e.g. construction of housing, schools, nurseries). Decision-making as to specific infrastructure needs must take into account district-level data (priority districts identified in SMP) because significant variance exists between communities Based on the baseline research conducted prior to preparing this SMP (including population surveys, semi-structured interviews with IDPs, and focus groups with local government and local NGO stakeholders), risk analysis has been performed to assess probability and impact of various factors, and to recommend measures to be taken to address them or mitigate their impact.

To mitigate any adverse social impacts of the Ukraine ERP projects that cannot be duly avoided or prevented, this SMP identifies a number of measures that involve instituting procedures for: a) ensuring compliance with labour protection standards, b) avoidance or management of involuntary resettlement, c) mitigation of adverse impacts on cultural heritage; d) protection of rights and interests of vulnerable groups; e) protecting and securing public and occupational health, safety and security of workers and other individuals affected by the UERP. The Capacity Building Program is designed as a tool for implementation of this SMP at the national and local levels.The CBP’s basic training materials are designed to build skills nationally and locally needed for the SMP and SEP implementation. They are organized into three modules targeting different groups: (a) MRD and relevant regional authorities; (b) relevant local sub-project implementers, and (c) community-based stakeholders, including NGOs and citizen groups.

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program seeks to measure achievement of the UERP’s social management and stakeholder engagement objectives. The methodology for M&E has been developed for a) social outputs and outcomes of individual sub-projects or a group of sub-projects implemented in the same municipality, b) social effects for the regions that host UERP sub-projects funded with the EIB loan funds, c) UERP’s contribution to introducing social management and stakeholder engagement practices to early recovery work in Ukraine as a whole.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 5

2. INTRODUCTION This Social Management Plan has been designed for the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction, Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine by the International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) and funded with a grant provided to IRF by the European Union.

The overall objective of this Social Management Plan (SMP) is to enhance the EIB Early Recovery Project contribution to strengthening of social cohesion and inclusion in Ukraine, and to mitigate any social risks related to the execution of the EIB loan in the target regions.

The specific objectives are: •• to identify and mitigate any social risks related to the implementation of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project; •• to establish a meaningful stakeholder engagement mechanism to accompany the implementation of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project.

The purpose of the SMP is: •• to analyze the socioeconomic profile of potential end beneficiaries and undertake a participatory assessment of their short-term recovery needs and priorities; •• to maximize positive impacts of project interventions for the end beneficiaries; •• to prevent and/or mitigate any negative impacts; and •• to remedy any negative social impacts and risks that could neither be avoided nor reduced.

The purpose of the SEP is: •• to outline a project’s stakeholder engagement strategy which sets out the actions required to develop a meaningful engagement throughout the planning, implementation, monitoring and decommissioning phases of the project.

The adoption and implementation of the SMP and SEP at the national and sub-project levels are designed to produce the following estimated results: •• Strengthen the MRD’s, relevant regional actors’ and local implementers’ capacity to plan and implement social management and stakeholder engagement in early recovery projects in the Donbas and neighbouring and other regions that host the largest numbers of IDPs, ensuring the compliance with relevant social standards and good practices; •• Provide conflict-sensitive analysis and participatory assessment of the IDP and affected communities’ situation with a detailed baseline study for the areas selected for the 3-4 subprojects available to inform the UERP planning and implementation; •• Pilot the SMP and SEP in the 3-4 sub-projects of UERP; •• Create and deliver a targeted Capacity Building Program designed to provide the implementers with necessary skills of applying social management and stakeholder engagement to early recovery projects; •• Design and roll out an effective and accessible Grievance Redress Mechanism; •• Create and deliver a Monitoring Program focusing on the SMP and SEP implementation and enabling participatory monitoring to be integrated into the overall monitoring and evaluation of UERP; •• Introduce a communication model that identifies key stakeholders relevant to the project, and institutes processes of information disclosure, consultations, and accountability; •• Collect and analyse the lessons learned from the UERP implementation to be used as recommendations for further early recovery work in Ukraine.

This SMP is based on provisions of the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other relevant treaties to which Ukraine is a signatory, UNHCR standards of assistance to

6 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

IDPs, European Union Directives1, European Commission’s standard on stakeholder consultations and other relevant documents issued and/or endorsed by the European Union, including the Agenda for Change (European Commission, 2011); the European Consensus on Development (European Union, 2005); the Paris Declaration (2005); the Accra Agenda for Action (2008); and the Busan Partnership Agreement (OECD, 2011); EIB’s Social Standards (2013) that involve ensuring respect for human rights, gender equality, internationally recognized labour rights and standards, conflict sensitivity, stakeholder engagement and grievance redress, and the Ukrainian legislation including: Laws “On ensuring of rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons” (dated 20.10.14), with amendments dated 24.12.2015; “On the Local Self-governance in Ukraine” (1997), “On Civic Associations” (2014), “On Citizens’ Appeals” (1996), “On Access to Information” (2011); the Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution # 1094, dated 16.12.2015 “On Approval of the Comprehensive National Programme for Support, Social Adaptation and Reintegration of Citizens of Ukraine Internally Displaced from the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine and Anti-Terrorist Operation Conduct Area to Other Regions of Ukraine for the period until 2017”.

The SMP outlines the principles, approaches and sets out measures required to maximise the benefits of the UERP, avoid, minimise, mitigate or remedy any adverse social impacts.

The SMP has been designed as a tool for building local government capacity, enabling the institutionalization of participative processes that ensure project implementer accountability, and building ownership and trust in the target communities.

The Social Management Plan will be implemented in conjunction with the Stakeholder Engagement Plan as parts of the integrated Social Management System (SMS), which feeds into the overall UERP management system. The SMS outlines required institutional, monitoring, reporting and accountability arrangements and processes that are expected to ensure compliance with the EIB social standards.

Social Management System (SMS)

The overall outcome of the SMP implementation is expected to be the introduction of a new participatory approach to early recovery projects that will go beyond reconstructing specific 1

Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities

and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation; Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information, which implements the European Community signed a Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (the Aarhus Convention)

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 7

infrastructure objects to empowering stakeholders and creating conditions for their inclusion in project planning, stakeholder participation in monitoring and evaluation, and social management as an integral part of the overall development process resulting in building a culture of confidence and accountability. This approach will contribute to development of a comprehensive Social Management System (SMS), based on awareness and repetitive processes supported, practiced and improved on an ongoing basis internally at MRD and in cooperation with the key partners and stakeholders. This SMS will encompass actions designed to identify in a timely way, and address social impacts and ensure their management and improvements throughout the whole SMS chain: policy, identification of risks and social impacts, management inputs, capacity and competence development, conflict sensitivity, emergency response and resilience plans, stakeholder engagement, communication and information disclosure, grievance redress mechanisms, accountability to stakeholders and affected communities, monitoring and evaluation.

Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement Process

2.1. Ukraine early recovery project background The armed conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine has caused injuries, deaths, displacements and destruction. Despite the announced ceasefire brokered in the course of the Minsk Agreements (Sept. 2014 and Feb. 2015), throughout 2015, the conflict continued to cause devastation of civilian lives and infrastructure. The situation in Eastern Ukraine has impacted the socio-economic and human rights situation not only in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts where military activity has been most intense. Neighbouring Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkiv oblasts have been affected in large measure also, as have been other regions of the country. The conflict changed the lives of over 5 million people, with women, children, the elderly and vulnerable groups particularly badly affected. At the close of 2015, over 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens had registered with the authorities as internally displaced people (IDPs).

The Eastern Ukraine Recovery and Peace-building Assessment (RPA) was launched in November 2014 as a joint effort between the UN, World Bank and EU with the objective to: (a) support the Government of Ukraine in the assessment of short, medium and long-term recovery and peace-building needs, related strategic and programmatic priorities and associated financial requirements; (b) inform the development of a collective vision and strategy on longer-term recovery and peace-building for the Donbas and other conflict-affected regions, including within the frameworks of the Government’s Donbas Recovery Program, the 2014-2017 Ukraine Economic Recovery Plan and future policy reforms

8 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

linked to the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement; and (c) provide a platform for coordinated and coherent provision of support from the UN, the World Bank, the EU and bilateral donors. The RPA report was finalized in March 2015. The RPA findings were reviewed and taken into account in the process of preparation for this SMP. In December 2014, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Government of Ukraine signed a framework loan to finance early recovery of small scale, multi-sector damaged infrastructure investments to cope with the consequences of the conflict that ravaged parts of eastern Ukraine.

The loan is expected to be executed in the period of 2015-2017, and it is likely to be followed by a post-conflict reconstruction project in conjunction with other donors in a subsequent phase, as part of the overall Ukraine Early Recovery Project (UERP). In accordance with the EIB’s transparency and accountability policy and EIB’s environmental and social principles and standards, the UERP stipulated social management and stakeholder engagement as key to preventing and mitigating environmental and social risks and maximising positive social impacts of the projects funded by EIB. The UERP will be implemented in 2015 – 2020. The funding will be provided to communities hosting the largest numbers of internally displaced people (IDPs) in the Ukrainian government - controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as the Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhya regions that require reconstruction of key social infrastructure, improved access to public services, water and sanitation, electricity, central heating, road reconstruction, administrative facilities, with a special focus on improving the overall situation of IDPs. In November 2015, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved the first tranche of 72 fast-track early recovery projects in the five target regions.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 9

3. PARTICIPATORY IDP NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1. Regulatory and institutional frameworks for addressing the early recovery and idp needs The UERP implementation requires a robust and well-coordinated legislative and institutional system of governmental agencies responsible for addressing the aftermath of the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine and supporting the affected population, including internally displaced persons (IDPs). For UERP, the MRD serves as a single major center of coordination and implementation. MRD interacts with a number of governmental institutions that are in charge of various aspects of the early recovery efforts and IDPs issues. MRD implements projects in accordance with the legislative framework outlined in ANNEX A.

MRD’s Interlocutors in UERP and Sub-project Implementation

3.2. Baseline IDP needs assessment Socio-economic Situation of IDPs in the Target Regions According to the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, as of November 30, 2015, social protection departments have registered 1,621,030 IDPs (1,279,918 families) from the Donbass and the annexed Crimea – an almost 100,000 person increase from 1,529,848 IDPs (or 1,203,603 families) officially registered as of October 12, 20152. In the target regions – Ukrainian government controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, as well as Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts – the number of registered IDPs is 1 229 825. Over 915 thousand (56%) of the registered 2

The Ukrainian legislation introduced a mechanism of registration of IDPs (Decree by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine # 509 of October 1, 2014;

Law “On Amending Some Laws of Ukraine for Enhancing Guarantees for the Observance of Rights and Liberties of Internally Displaced Persons”, # 921-VIII of December 24, 2015) Although not sufficiently flexible, the system allows collecting basic demographic and geographic data. A more comprehensive data collection approach has been discussed at the national level but not developed yet. Several institutions collect IDP statistics independently. These include the Inter-Agency Coordination Headquarters (at the moment of first contact at one of its regional headquarters), the State Employment Service and local authorities that consolidate data by territorial entities.

10 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

IDPs throughout Ukraine are pensioners and over 195 thousand (13%) are children3.

621,636 families have applied for financial assistance, and such financial assistance was provided to 582,149 of them. The total amount of financial aid provided to IDPs has amounted to UAH 2.84 billion.

The large numbers of pensioners and minors in the IDP registry suggest that individuals of employable age either are present in the IDP population in very small numbers, or that for some reasons such individuals did not register with the authorities. One could speculate that actual IDP numbers in the target regions should be much higher than officially reported. However, reports from the field (specifically, data gathered in the course of Baseline Research for this Social Impact Assessment) indicate that the physical presence of IDPs in the region is significantly less than official registration data would suggest. Although individuals may register as IDPs, many do not stay in their place of registration for long, migrating regularly across the line of contact in the ATO zone; others migrate to other communities further away from the conflict zone in search of employment and housing.

For UERP sub-projects to provide significant benefit to IDPs, understanding their actual living conditions on a local level is imperative. Procedures for this shall be included in sub-project-level social management planning and outlined further in this SMP. Reliance on Ministry of Social Policy IDP registration data is not sufficient. Local authorities must be engaged.

Infrastructure needs in the target regions are sizeable. IDP migration patterns are pendular: given poor living conditions, IDPs will migrate to any town in the region where employment and housing can be secured. As long as the status of the territories beyond the Ukrainian government’s control remains undefined, and the risk of armed conflict escalation persists, the high probability of “pendulum migrations” of IDPs within the target regions remains. Such “pendulum migrations” may be difficult to trace, but they can affect the local economy and labour market, causing social tension due to competition for scarce resources. Social management of infrastructure projects aims to address changeable local needs, and to enhance capacity of local administrations to deal with varying demands for social services provision.

3

Source: http://www.dcz.gov.ua/statdatacatalog/document?id=351058

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 11

In addition to the practical socio-economic needs, the early recovery efforts in the regions close to the frontline have a very significant symbolic and communicative impact on social cohesion by addressing the human dimension of the areas affected by the conflict. Therefore, the EIB financed infrastructure improvement projects themselves may be seen as mechanisms of social management.

The current social atmosphere in the target regions is generally cooperative: only a small minority of local stakeholders see the influx of IDPs among their major concerns, and so the likelihood of conflict is low (see Legal Background - ANNEX A). However, local infrastructure improvements must be targeted at a broader base of beneficiaries (both IDPs and local communities), both because IDPs represent a highly mobile population, and also to avoid manifestation of any possible latent conflicts between IDPs and host communities. This risk shall be mitigated through stakeholder engagement measures outlined in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). Periodical conflict sensitivity risk assessments will be performed by MRD in order to ensure early identification of possible increases in related risks.

According to early field research conducted in late 2014 and early 2015, most IDP’s complaints focused on difficulties with registration (obtaining official IDP status), cumbersome state aid application procedures, etc. By the summer of 2015, however, the focus of reported problems shifted towards economic concerns, with finding semi-permanent employment and housing becoming high priorities (living with friends and/or in unheated sanatoria ceased to be options over time). Clearly, any savings that may have been accessible to IDPs during the first year of hostilities in the Donbas had become exhausted by late 2015, as had some of the goodwill of host communities. Therefore, the immediate needs of IDPs have changed since the start of hostilities in the Donbas in mid-2014; by late 2015 IDP needs focused more on housing, employment, and education (i.e. priorities that reflect semipermanent settlement intentions) rather than on survival needs such as food, shelter, medication (i.e. priorities resulting from temporary displacement).

Field research conducted during the second half of 2015 has shown a significant reduction in living standards experienced by IDPs which should have led to increased risk of animosity between them and local host communities. Contrary to such expectations however, IDPs in several populated centers reported having received significant support from humanitarian aid providers and local NGOs, and although competition for resources reportedly had caused price rises and increased queuing at employment and welfare offices, overt tensions between IDPs and host communities had not developed.

The only exception to these findings seems to have been Ukrainian controlled Luhansk oblast, and some regions of Kharkiv oblast, where persistent political tensions between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian factions within the local population seem to have also spilled over into negative attitude towards incoming IDPs.4 The baseline research conducted in preparation of this SMP5 reveals relatively low levels of identitydriven conflict potential in the region. However, some structural stress due to competition for limited economic resources is in evidence. Unemployment has increased fivefold in the target regions since the start of the military conflict in the Donbas, and has directly resulted in financial hardship for both host communities and IDPs, and is a particularly serious problem for newly arrived migrants. Over half of respondents in the interviewed sample reported having been employed prior to displacement, whereas only 26% now have jobs. This fact generates significant suffering given that 60% report living in rented accommodation. Although the plight of many is not as dire as it was at the beginning of 2015 when large numbers of IDPs reported being dependent on volunteer donations of foodstuffs and medicine, the employment and housing situation in the target regions is not improving, and is causing significant difficulty for both IDPs and host communities.

4

Research into the IDP situation in Severodonetsk (Luhansk oblast) also found higher levels of social tensions there than in other towns in the target

regions. The activism of the “Stantsiya Chuhuyiv� NGO seems to have diffused the similarly tense social situation in the town of Chuhuyiv (Kharkiv oblast).

5

The methodology of the research conducted in preparation of this SMP (See the Review of studies of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine,

by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, October-November 2015) called for concentration on smaller urban centers in the target region (population of 165 thousand or less), rather than on oblast centers, because IDP integration into less populated towns was presumed to be a greater challenge than in large administrative centers (e.g. Dnipropetrovsk, Mariupol, Zaporizhzhia or Kharkiv) where infrastructure and local government capacity are more developed, and therefore absorption capacity is higher. Five urban centers that had previously submitted preliminary infrastructure development proposals to be financed under the ERP were identified as the targets of investigation. The targeted towns were: Severodonetsk (Luhansk oblast), Slovyansk (Donetsk oblast), Prymorsk/Berdyansk (Zaporizhzhia oblast), Nikopol (Dnipropetrovsk oblast), Derhachi/Chuhuyiv (Kharkiv oblast). These towns are not necessarily representative of the target regions, but variance between them is representative of the differences between population centers experiencing IDP influx, and so on an aggregate level, provide sufficient insight to enable one to draw a baseline of the IDP situation in the target regions.

12 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

When confronted with hardship IDPs naturally contact local authorities for help. In the researched sample 94% of IDPs reported having interacted with local social protection agencies, and 97% with the State migration service; 76% reported having accessed medical services since their displacement; 40% interacted with local offices of Ukraine’s pension fund; 24% with the State employment agency; 36% enrolled children in schools, 17% in nurseries (Review of studies of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine, by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, October-November 2015).

IDPs in the current sample assessed their interactions with these state services positively. In general, they reported the process of receiving services in state agencies as relatively simple, and their quality as good or very good. Procedures for school and nursery enrollment, and accessing pensions, medical services, and obtaining IDP status were assessed most positively (average rating above 4 on 5-point scale), whereas evaluations of service provision by the State employment service were somewhat lower (averaging 3.5 on 5-point scale). The main causes of stress in all cases were queues and waiting times. Few respondents reported discrimination against IDPs in state agencies, although a significant number complained of unequal treatment by employers in host communities (e.g. lower wages, reluctance to hire IDPs).

Approximately one half of interviewees see their migrant status as temporary, and intend to return home within a few years. Approximately one quarter doubt that they will ever return, and an additional quarter report having decided to out-migrate from their previous homes permanently.

Are you planning to return home for permanent residence in the next few years? (% of the respondents)

Yes No Difficult to say / Refused to answer

Slovyansk

Nikopol

54% 18%

51% 36%

Derhachi, Chuhuyiv 67% 17%

29%

14%

15%

Berdyansk, Severodonetsk Prymorsk 82% 11% 5% 56% 13%

33%

Total 54% 26% 20%

The issue of future intentions is key to understanding the mechanisms for social management in the target regions. Furthermore, intentions are often reflections of the degree to which IDPs are integrated into their host communities - whether they feel comfortable and welcome; the degree to which competition for resources has caused cleavages between IDPs and the host population.

In the context of the recent civil strife in the region, it is possible that tensions between IDPs and host communities could be tied to identity issues. It is therefore pertinent to ask, do IDPs adhere to a Ukrainian identity, or do they maintain a separate / new identity (e.g. based on their community of origin)? Does the maintenance/development of a separate identity foreshadow the emergence of a long-term “diaspora” identity, and should avoidance of ghettoization be a priority of social management of infrastructure projects?

More than two-thirds of IDPs consider their former residence a part of themselves (86%) and miss it (78%), the IDPs in Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk regions have less such feelings When queried about access to 8 key social resources (employment, housing, schooling, nurseries, health care, social services, support from NGOs and volunteers, welfare), responses from IDPs differed by region. Whereas IDPs in Severodonetsk (Luhansk oblast), Berdyansk (Zaporizhzhia oblast), and Slovyansk (Donetsk oblast) indicated some degree of scarcity and competition, respondents in Kharkiv oblast (Derhachi and Chuhuyev) and in the relatively large city of Nikopol (Dnipropetrovsk oblast) reported few problems with access.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 13

% of IDPs that reported the existence of competition for resources with local residents by regions

State assistance to the vulnerable groups Jobs Reception hours at state agencies (long queues) Assistance to the vulnerable groups from volunteers and NGOs Admission hours in medical institutions (long queues) Places in schools Places in kindergartens Affordable housing

Slovyansk Nikopol Chuguyiv, Berdyansk, Severodonetsk Dergachi Prymorsk 39% 17% 13% 47% 93%

Total 42%

46% 79%

37% 33%

40% 24%

76% 49%

90% 83%

58% 53%

34%

20%

13%

63%

78%

42%

63%

31%

8%

51%

56%

42%

10% 21%

14% 20%

9% 6%

46% 61%

46% 45%

26% 32%

46%

35%

51%

45%

35%

43%

Significantly, these regional differences correlate with differences in self-identification among IDPs: higher levels of competition for social resources is generally also reflected in higher levels of “localist” identity and lower levels of activism within the IDP community. For example, Severodonetsk has the highest levels of reported competition for social resources, the lowest levels of self-identification of IDPs as “Ukrainians” (and highest levels of self-identification with town of origin), and lowest levels of reported mutual self-help among IDPs.

Average index of competition of IDPs and local residents for resources by regions (minimum 0 “no competition”, maximum 8 “competition for all 8 resources”)

Severodonetsk Berdiansk Sloviansk Nikopol Chuhuiv, Prymorsk Dergachi

14 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

All

Amongst themselves, IDPs report some level of mutual aid provision: 62% report interactions with other IDPs as friendly; 69% report having similar political views; 65% report having accessed networks of mutual assistance – generally in the form of psychological and moral support, but also for sourcing useful information on job opportunities, housing, access to humanitarian aid. In their places of settlement IDPs generally maintain regular interaction with each other in the first instance (58%), with local communities in the second (23%), and with those who remain in areas not under Ukrainian government control in very few cases (9%).

Mutual assistance among the IDPs by regions. (% of those who answered “yes� when queried about whether IDPs in their communities help each other in times of need) Severodonetsk

Chuhuiv, Derhachi

Slovyansk

Berdiansk

Nikopol

50%

60%

65%

71%

79%

Data from the representative survey of the host communities in the target regions suggests that interaction between IDPs and the host population in the target regions is regular and untroubled.

76% of respondents report knowing that IDPs reside in their town, 49% have interacted with them, 17% have IDPs in their circle of friends and family, and 2% have accepted IDPs into their homes. 89% of respondents regard IDPs positively or neutrally with only 4% expressing negative attitudes toward them.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 15

What is your attitude toward the IDPs? Positive All

Neutral

51%

Lugansk Donetsk

Negative

Hard to say

38%

59% 53%

31% 34%

4% 7% 2% 7% 5% 8%

Zaporizhzhia

51%

39%

5% 5%

Kharkiv

49%

42%

3%5%

Dnipropetrovsk

45%

40%

6%

9%

However when queried further, almost half of respondents could not say whether the political views of IDPs concur with their own, and almost one third expressed no opinion as to whether the worldviews and behavior of IDPs differed from their own. Presumably, these data reflect a tendency to avoid discussion of controversial issues – a behavioral practice particularly widespread in the region in the immediate aftermath of the civil strife of 2014.

Only 12% of respondents reported knowing of the existence of NGOs that provide assistance to IDPs. On the other hand, approximately two thirds of IDPs report having received assistance from nongovernmental, charitable and/or volunteer organizations.6 24% of interviewed respondents expressed interest in participating in projects aimed at improving the infrastructure of their host communities, whereas 43% were not interested, and 33% were undecided. These figures indicate that although many IDPs have experienced the benefits of NGO activism, few (as yet) see a role for themselves in such activities. Their capacity to engage in community projects as active stakeholders therefore needs further development through training, communication, and empowerment. Furthermore, specific infrastructure improvement priorities must be identified on a case-by-case basis.

6

In large part, the data reflects a culture of dependency among IDPs, and feelings of helplessness. For example, when asked where they would turn if

faced with financial difficulty, 35% of respondents stated they would not know where to turn, and 22% stated no one would help; only 26% would access support from volunteers and/or NGOs, and 22% would turn to the state.

16 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

3.3. Local infrastructure needs The ERP identifies infrastructure reconstruction as the main goal of the EIB loan. Priority projects involve housing, schooling (nursery and primary education), and hospitals. Transportation infrastructure renewal (roads, bridges) will be examined in the second half of the EIB loan implementation period.

What city infrastructure improvement, in your opinion, is required in your current place of residence?7

Housing for IDPs Roads Schools, kindergartens Jobs Water supply Other Cleanliness in the city Street lighting Greening, parks, recreational facilities Repairs of entrance halls, yards Centers for IDPs Transport

Slovyansk

Nikopol

Chuhuyiv Dergachi

Berdyansk, Severodonetsk Total Prymorsk

2% 41% 2%

13% 43% 4%

13% 46% 0%

71% 0% 36%

36% 33% 0%

35% 26% 14%

0% 52% 11% 0%

4% 2% 20% 33%

13% 4% 13% 8%

26% 0% 3% 1%

0% 3% 3% 0%

11% 11% 9% 9%

5% 9%

4% 11%

4% 0%

0% 1%

36% 13%

8% 7%

7%

0%

0%

0%

26%

5%

0%

2%

4%

10%

5%

5%

5%

9%

17%

0%

3%

5%

Statistical indicators on the state of local infrastructure in the target regions, based upon which policy-makers might draw reliable conclusions as to priority needs are often outdated. Although each local authority collects comprehensive statistics based on which development plans and budgets are derived (see Infrastructure data below), this process is not in step with the rapidly changing situation on the ground, and does not account for sudden population changes. Management of infrastructure projects, and the social risks involved, must therefore be conducted on a case-by-case basis with heavy emphasis placed on engagement of local stakeholders.

Throughout the target region, social infrastructure (including housing, educational and health care facilities, roads) is in poor condition, and local government capacity to cope with strains resulting from an influx of IDPs into their communities leaves room for significant improvement. A key role in this endeavor is to be played by external donors, and the relevance of external financial support is particularly high given the national authorities’ decentralization plans. Emphasis should be placed on improving infrastructure that will benefit both IDPs and local communities, and high priority given to projects that create re-qualification opportunities and non-specialized jobs as part of their realization (e.g. construction of housing, schools, nurseries).

7

These figures reflect responses of interviewed IDPs (appx. 80 in each town); therefore, the margin of error is high, but the general trends can be seen.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 17

3.3.1. Health Care Oblast level statistics show that number of beds in hospitals and numbers of doctors in policlinics and outpatient clinics has not experienced major change as a result of the conflict, with the exception of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast where the military conflict has had a direct effect and therefore investment into healthcare infrastructure must be considered a priority throughout the governmentcontrolled districts.

However, when examined at a local (rayon) level, stress caused by the influx of IDPs on healthcare infrastructure becomes obvious. For example, the number of hospital beds and doctors per 10 thousand inhabitants in Kharkiv oblast on a per rayon basis (See ANNEX B - Socio-economic situation of the conflict regions) superimposed with the percentage of IDPs registered in each rayon as a percentage of the overall population indicates that the Pechenihy, Vovchansk, Derhachi rayons are highest priority for healthcare infrastructure improvement.

In Zaporizhzhia oblast, Rozhivskyi, Berdyansk and Primorsk rayons are highest priority for healthcare infrastructure improvement.

In Dnipropetrovsk oblast, Vasylkivskyi and Mezhivskyi rayons are high priority in comparison with others for healthcare infrastructure improvement.

3.3.2. Education At the end of August 2015 the IDP registry included 184.9 thousand children - 12.7% of the total number of registered IDPs. However, significant inter regional differences are apparent. Regions that are closer to active military activity have lower than average share of children among IDPs – a fact that is explained by parents’ intention to take their children to safer and more distant places. Children constitute an average 12% of IDPs in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia regions and 18% in Dnipropetrovsk region, compared to 9% and 8% in Donetsk and Luhansk respectively. Very often women with children were first to leave areas of military conflict, that is why for better integration of females into local labor markets it is important to provide adequate education infrastructure.

Structure of IDPs cohorts (official registrations)

Children

Share of children in total number Pensioners of IDPs

Ukr. controlled Donetsk oblast 50,150 9% 390,645 Ukr. controlled Luhansk oblast 16,689 8% 158,551 Kharkiv oblast 21,798 12% 115,969 Zaporizhzhia oblast 11,877 12% 66,809 Dnipropetrovsk oblast 13,441 18% 32,830 Source: Regional departments of social protection; authors’ calculations

Share of pensioners in total number of IDPs 69% 74% 62% 66% 45%

Although the number of schools decreased in all near conflict regions in 2014/2015 compared to the 2013/2014 school year, the number of children attending schools increased by 2-4%. In absolute numbers, depending on the region, the number of students per school increased by 8-13 persons on average – an indicator of increased pressure on school infrastructure. In Dnipropetrovsk region the number of teachers in schools increased during this period also, resulting in a very slight increase in the ratio of students per teacher, whereas in Kharkiv region the students per teacher ratio increased more dramatically.

The data show that school infrastructure is more stressed in Kharkiv and Zaporizhia regions than in Dnipropetrovsk region, but this conclusion is misleading since at a regional (rayon) level, stress on school and nursery infrastructure caused by the influx of IDPs is in evidence in all three oblasts

18 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

bordering on the conflict zone (in varying degrees).

In Dnipropetrovsk region the priority for education infrastructure is in the Verkhnyodniprovsky and Pokrovsky rayons.

In Kharkiv region the significantly increase pressure on the education infrastructure is in Izyum, Kupiansk, Chuhuiv, Derhachi, and Pervomaisk.

In Zaporizhya region, education infrastructure should be a priority in the Berdyansk, Melitopol and Energodar rayons.

3.3.3. Housing Statistical indicators for utility access and housing stock gathered for each of the target regions show an overall situation that on the surface seems acceptable:

Availability of housing

Gov’t controlled Donetsk oblast Gov’t controlled Luhansk oblast Kharkiv oblast Zaporizhzhia oblast Dnipropetrovsk oblast Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine

Housing stock - m2 per inhabitant 2013 2014 23.0 11.8 24.5 8.0 23.6 23.9 23.1 23.2 23.9 24.1

Percentage of housing in hostels 2013 2014 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

As a result of the military conflict, in absolute numbers the housing stock in Donetsk and Luhansk regions decreased by 50% and 32% respectively between 2013 and 2014. The situation in neighbouring regions has not been affected due to the absence of military conflict there.

Given that a large portion of IDPs eventually plan to return home at some time in the future (specific intentions examined in 3.2.1 above), and most lack resources to buy or build a new dwelling, accommodation in hostels is often seen as optimal. However hostels account for only a small portion of available housing (2%) in the target regions, and their capacity and quality (energy efficiency, regular access to utilities – water, heat, sewage) are often limited.

Another issue is the quality of houses and access to basic utility services. It should be noted that aggregate data on access to utilities is available for all housing types except for hostels.

Decision-making as to infrastructure needs must take into account district-level data because significant variance exists between communities (See ANNEX B).

In Dnipropetrovsk oblast the largest infrastructure priorities are in Vasylkivskyi, Mezhivskyi, Yuriivskyi, Piatykhatskyi districts.

In Kharkiv oblast the greatest infrastructure needs are in Barvinkivskyi, Izumskyi, Dlyuzniukivskyi, Kolomatskyiy, Sakhnovshynskyi districts.

In Zaporizhzhia oblast the highest priority districts are Rozivskyi, Kuibyshevskyi, Chernihivskyi, Novomykolaivskyi, and Velykobilozerskyi.

3.3.4. Employment Employment is the key issue in post-conflict recovery, and most directly affects the living conditions of IDPs. According to the State Employment Service, only a minority of working-age IDPs (16.6%) seek

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 19

assistance from public employment centers. In 2015, 55,775 IDPs sought assistance from the State Employment Service; 32,641 persons were entitled to receive unemployment benefits, and 13,919 persons were employed with the help of the State Employment Service.

To address the issues, the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Strengthening of Social Protection of Internally Displaced Persons”8 legislates the provision of assistance for retraining for changing profession and updating qualifications. IDPs who are employed in the priority economic areas will be provided with certificates for such retraining.

Article 30 of the Law “On Employment of the Population” describes a voucher system of payment for re-qualification. The cost of training that can be covered with the voucher is up to 10 times the subsistence wage (fixed at UAH 1,280 until December 2015). Furthermore, in order to stimulate the employment of IDPs, the government will compensate their wages to their employers within the average wages in the region for up to 6 months, provided the IDP stays on the job for at least twice as long as the period of compensation payments.

The Ministry of Social Policy is preparing a simplified registration procedure for the State Employment Service. An obstacle for many IDPs to enter official employment is that their “labor books” are still held at the enterprises located on occupied territories and are therefore unavailable.

A number of international donors and NGOs run programs facilitating employment and selfemployment of IDPs9.

8

The Law of Ukraine “On Making Amendments to Some Legislative Acts of Ukraine about Enhancing Social Protection of Internally Displaced Persons“,

http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/245-19

9

E.g. projects by ILO (funded by the European Union), UNDP (with the funding from the Government of Japan) and the IRF.

20 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

4. RISK ANALYSIS AND RISK MANAGEMENT Based on the baseline research conducted prior to preparing this SMP (including population surveys, semi-structured interviews with IDPs, and focus groups with local government and local NGO stakeholders), risk analysis has been performed to assess probability and impact of various factors, and to recommend measures to be taken to address them or mitigate their impact.

Power struggle between different stakeholders causes tensions in broader communities, further undermines credibility of the public institutions

3

Responsibility to implement risk management

Value

Security risks Deterioration of the 2 armed conflict affects communities near the contact line and further damages their infrastructure Political risks Different status of elected 3 self-governance bodies and military-civilian administrations may impede local ownership of sub-projects Public trust in the 3 governmental institutions at the national and local levels remains low

Risk management measure(s)

Impact

Risk factor

Likelihood

The methodology of the risk analysis for this SMP is based on assessing the likelihood (L) and impact (I) of the key risks using a 1-to-5 scale with 1 being the lowest risk and 5 the highest. The value of the risk is calculated as the result of multiplying likelihood by impact. Accordingly, the risks are differentiated into Low (green), Moderate (yellow) and High (red) Risks with the value of 9 – 11 are considered medium, and risks of 12 and above are considered high and require risk management measures to mitigate their impact on the project.

5

10

Close monitoring of the implementation of the ceasefire agreement; prioritising the activities to the communities lying at least 15 km from the contact line

MRD, based in ongoing updates from local authorities / implementers

3

9

MRD

2

6

3

9

Identify and engage key interlocutors with the highest level of power and legitimacy; create mechanisms for engaging other relevant stakeholders Enhance transparency and communication on UERP and sub-projects; create participatory accountability and grievance mechanisms Maintain impartiality and non-partisanship of UERP and sub-projects; prevent conflict of interest; emphasize value for the whole community; enhance communication and transparency

MRD / local implementers

MRD / local implementers

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 21

Major change in the 3 distribution of functions and authority at the sub-national level, the emergence of new institutions envisaged by the reform, amalgamation of communities and changes in the budgeting and reporting lines will cause natural difficulties of the transition period that may affect the project implementation MRD bears full 3 responsibility for the project implementation but may lack instruments to influence local implementers

3

9

Early assessment of impact of decentralization on the power relationships; early information to local implementers; clear description of functions and relations within UERP

3

9

Clear description of functions MRD and relations within UERP; standards and compliance mechanisms are included in sub-project contracts; monitoring program is in place and implemented

4

3

12

Capacity building program MRD, PIU relevant to implementers’ needs is in place and implemented; additional resources allocated for capacity building; monitoring and evaluation of sub-projects

Institutional capacity gaps 4 in the non-governmental sector: few NGOs and self-governed bodies have experience of strategic engagement in international projects and consultations with stakeholders Corruption risks Insufficient transparency 3 and conflict of interest undermine trust and may jeopardize sub-project delivery

2

8

Targeted capacity-building inputs, emphasizing community development, participation, monitoring

4

12

Selection of projects is done in a way that raises issues about selection criteria and transparency

3

12

Transparency of the subMRD, local project preparation and implementers selection process have specific measures identified in project contracts and monitored on a regular basis Disclosure of information MRD / PIU about the selection criteria timely and transparently to all key stakeholders; SEP and SMP to specify when and how this information should be disclosed

Institutional risks Limited absorption / implementation capacity at the national, regional and local levels prevents proper delivery on anticipated results

4

22 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

MRD

NGOs

Attention of Ukrainian government; communities is diverted from the project by more pressing issues

3

2

6

Local communities lose confidence in the subproject

2

3

6

The sub-project(s) doesn’t 2 meet needs of local communities, IDPs and others affected by the conflict

4

8

Project implementation causes tensions and grievances

2

3

6

Limited willingness of authorities to cooperate with civil society and other stakeholders

3

3

9

Communication strategy and plan are in place and focus on national government and other key stakeholders; explain value for government to prioritize early recovery; work with media to build public demand for effective UERP; shift key attention to regional and sub-regional levels to ensure more interest Development and implementation of an effective communication strategy, involving all relevant target audiences; deliver information properly and timely to the stakeholders at all stages of the project; put the procedures and processes for the project in lace that will enable participation and monitoring by local communities; establish an accessible and effective grievance mechanism Participatory needs assessment preformed as part of UERP project selection phase; SEP developed and local implementers trained in applying it; stakeholder engagement in place early and throughout the project Putting in place a clear, transparent, user-friendly and efficient non-judicial grievance redress mechanism; ensuring availability of information about the grievance redress mechanism to stakeholders and general population; appointing a Public Liaison Officer for UERP at the municipality level and at MRD Building early awareness of local authorities about the importance of participatory approach within the EIB Project; developing local capacity to understand and engage non-governmental stakeholders; organizing community events within sub-projects to build trust

EIB, MRD, local implementers

MRD to provide processes and procedures in SMP and SEP; local implementers to include them in their operational routines

Consultants, MRD

MRD, local implementers

MRD

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 23

Risks related to IDPs’ grievances and conflicts between the host communities and IDPs Lack of a comprehensive strategy to address the needs of IDPs results in lack of targeted and adequately resourced long-term state or regional recovery programs

5

A comprehensive state strategy is beyond the scope of UERP; IDPs’ needs should be adequately reflected in the regional socio-economic development plans; local stakeholders / communitybased projects to be engaged in planning for sub-project sustainability Tensions between IDPs 3 3 9 Clear and careful planning and hosting communities and implementation of the grow due to increased sub-projects so that they will competition for resources serve needs of both IDPs and and services host communities; additional meetings/consultations/ awareness raising activities engaging both host communities and IDPs Risks related to insufficient stakeholder engagement Local implementers 3 3 9 SEP in place; local resist inclusion of implementers trained and representatives of NGOs use it; local community aware and communities at the of consultation procedure; local level NGOs promote local participation in consultations; monitoring and reporting on consultations is part of subproject cycle Consultations are 4 reduced to a one-way communication process, e.g., an opportunity to ask a question and listen to a presentation

2

10

MRD, local NGOs and communities

Local implementers

3

12

SEP in place; local MRD, local implementers trained and implementers use it; local community aware of consultation procedure; NGOs promote local participation in consultations; monitoring and reporting on consultations is part of subproject cycle

4

4

16

Deficits in communication 3 and stakeholder engagement practices due to the lack of tradition and capacity Communication and 3 stakeholder engagement lacks resources

3

9

3

9

Adequate project planning and timelines; SMP and SEP included in project practice at early stages of the project; planning to allow time for consultations and engagement Identify and disseminate best practice of stakeholder engagement from other projects funded by EIB and other donors Adequate resource planning; capacity building

Capacity deficits in local projects implementers requires more inputs than planned under this project

4

16

Management risks Tight project schedule limits possibilities to respond to demands for consultations and other support with using SMP and SEP

4

24 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

MRD, local implementers

NGOs

MRD, local implementers, communitybased projects Adjust the training program MRD, PIU, to the newly identified needs; consultants, hold additional training/ communityconsultation if necessary based projects

Local implementers fail to 2 ensure proper monitoring and evaluation of subprojects

3

6

Citizens are not willing to participate in M&E

4

2

8

Future yet unknown risks New risks will emerge on 4 the ground as the UERP project evolves

3

12

Develop and present M&E program, engage PIU and local implementers in roll-out, ensure efficient communication within the project; build capacity locally for participative M&E Develop awareness and capacity to participate in M&E; communicate value of participation for enhancing the project’s delivery Ongoing monitoring of the situation; repeated assessment of risks on a quarterly basis

MRD, PIU

Local implementers, NGOs

MRD, PIU

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 25

5. SUB-PROJECT PREPARATION, SELECTION, IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE: LINKS TO SMP AND SEP The elaborated Social Impact Assessment (including Risk Analysis, Baseline IDP Situation Assessment and local infrastructure priorities outlined above) establishes the background conditions for the integration of Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement planning into the EIB-funded, and MRD managed, project preparation, selection, and implementation procedures. The process diagram and links are displayed below (SMP shown in yellow – top boxes; SEP shown in orange – bottom boxes; UERP project cycle shown in blue – middle boxes):

5.1. Integration of social management and stakeholder engagement planning into UERP

Results of Local Infrastructure Needs assessment will be used for identifying the focus of subsequent Calls for Proposals. The MRD will communicate district-level project financing priorities for healthcare, educational, and/or housing infrastructure reconstruction and improvement projects to local governments in the target regions. The risk analysis results will be taken into account in the MRD sub-project criteria.

In order to engage all interested parties at the Call for Proposals stage, Stakeholder Analysis will be performed (see SEP below) at the MRD level, and recommendations for engagement issued will be provided to local authorities by MRD. Local authorities planning to submit local social infrastructure recovery sub-projects under the MRD Call for Proposals will be required to inform their local communities according to the SEP. At the Project Documentation Stage, local authorities are required to hold public consultations, and to conduct a Local Impact Assessment in accordance with section B.1.6 Screening for Social Issues of the the EIB Environmental and Social Practices Handbook.10 Specifically, local authorities should identify anticipated adverse and/or positive social impacts from the proposed sub-project (with special attention to conflict (de-)escalation due to increased/decreased competition for resources, identity based tensions and risk of “ghettoization” of IDPs), and provide a risk assessment with respect to local conflict potential.

The above data is taken into account by the MRD/PIU during sub-project selection. In particular, the selection process takes note of the composition of the proposed consultative boards (Sub-Project Coordination Units (SPUs)) for the sub-project. The membership should reflect influential local stakeholders that could affect project implementation success, and provide for participation and community-based monitoring. SPUs are expected to provide accountability and build trust in the local and national authorities during the sub-project implementation. http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/environmental_and_social_practices_handbook_en.pdf

10

26 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

For sub-projects selected for financing, MRD will issue implementers with monitoring standards and procedures (including EIB Social Standards and Social Impact Management Procedures – see Section 6), and inform them of their contractual obligations to comply. A component of sub-project approval communication should be the appointment and public announcement of the consultative board membership and its role in project monitoring.

It is anticipated that the local governments, representatives of implementing organizations, and members of the consultative board will lack capacity for project monitoring according to EIB standards. It is therefore envisaged that capacity building activities will be required, and appropriate requests for funding for such activities will be issued by the MRD. An important aspect of project implementation will also be the institution of a transparent and effective grievance redress mechanism (see SEP) according to instructions provided to implementers

by MRD/PIU.

5.2. Tranche one sub-projects Due to the need to launch the implementation of the UERP social infrastructure sub-projects before the end of 2015, and prior to the completion of the SMP and SEP, 72 fast-track infrastructure projects addressing needs of IDPs were pre-selected in 2015 with limited prior stakeholder consultations.

The sub-projects were selected in accordance with the early recovery needs identified in the RPA and in line with the participatory needs assessment conducted for this SMP in September – October 2015. Specifically, Tranche1 includes recovery and improvement of education facilities (37.5% of selected projects), health care facilities (41.47%), buildings that provide housing and shelter (9.72%), administrative buildings (8.33%), and energy efficiency sub-projects (2.78%).

In order to introduce the social management and stakeholder engagement practices for these sub-projects, MRD, PIU and the social management and stakeholder consultant, IRF, will pilot this SMP/SEP in Derhachi (Kharkiv oblast), Berdiansk (Zaporizhzhia oblast), Artemivsk (Donetsk oblast), Syeverodonetsk (Lugansk oblast). The pilots will include implementation of monitoring procedures, capacity building and grievance redress mechanism assessment.

Tranche2 sub-projects are expected to be prepared and selected according to the Sub-Project preparation, selection, and implementation procedure described above (linked to SMP and SEP).

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 27

6. SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT The UERP is designed to address the conflict aftermath in the East of Ukraine by bringing significant material benefits to the affected communities, contributing to reducing the conflict potential and creating an added value through stakeholder engagement and capacity building. While expected positive social impacts on the target communities are significant and potential adverse social impacts are relatively small, the usual social impacts that accompany early recovery work are present, and need to be duly addressed.

6.1. Ensuring compliance with eib social standards The definitions of social standards used in this SMP are based on the definitions given in the UERP Loan Agreement and include: •• Any piece of Ukrainian legislation or regulation and international legislation or regulation to which Ukraine is a signatory, on social issues; •• EIB Social Standards; •• Any standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO); •• Any UN convention on human rights that is signed and ratified by Ukraine and/or which is mandatory for Ukraine.

The social issues covered by the Standards and referred to by this SMP include: •• Labour and employment conditions; •• Occupational and labour safety and hygiene; •• Protection of rights and empowerment of the vulnerable groups and minorities; •• Material and immaterial cultural heritage; •• Public health, public safety and security; •• Involuntary resettlement and/or loss of a stable economic status and livelihood; •• Civic participation and stakeholder engagement.

6.2. Social impact management approach and measures The hierarchy of social impact management measures used by this SMP is as follows: •• Where possible, avoiding the impact altogether by not taking steps that are likely to create adverse impact; •• Minimizing impact by limiting the magnitude of actions that cause it; •• Repairing and restoring the affected environment and infrastructure; •• Reducing adverse social impact over time by changing behavior and introducing practices that reduce social risks (e.g., legal and physical protection of workers, waste management, public health measures); •• Compensating for the adverse social impacts (e.g., by having a robust environmental and social management program at the level of local implementers; introducing and maintaining grievance redress mechanisms); •• Adding value by maximising positive social impacts resulting from increased transparency, participation and accountability.

The social impact management chain, therefore, is as follows:

28 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Social impact management measures are planned to be in place for each stage of the sub-project design, planning and implementation. Ongoing monitoring and documentation of social impacts shall be part of the project management routine. Actions will be taken – including by ensuring the compliance with the current environmental and social protection legislation and through the ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders – to maximize environmental and social benefits for affected communities.

6.3. Conflict sensitivity Given the nature of the UERP and the challenges that Ukraine is facing in connection with the armed conflict in the Donbas and the related destruction of infrastructure and displacement of the population, conflict sensitivity is key to the UERP implementation. The MRD operations within the UERP are based on the approach specified in the EIB Conflict Sensitive Investment Framework, which specifies the three simultaneously pursued goals: •• Conflict Risk: Awareness and Prevention (Risk-based); •• Conflict Risk: Mitigation (Do no harm); •• Conflict Opportunities: Recovery and Reconstruction (Do good).

These principles will be implemented through the following actions: Risk-based: a thorough analysis of security, political, institutional, social and reputational risks was performed at the early stage of the UERP in the target regions and selected municipalities in order to realistically assess the conflict potential in the affected communities and among affected stakeholders.

Do no harm: the MRD has taken the approach of avoiding or preventing, to the extent possible, any adverse social impacts and any risks of increasing tensions that may lead to the deterioration of the conflict or the emergence of new conflict lines when operating in conflict-prone and affected environments within the UERP. Do good: whenever possible and depending on context, the UERP will seek to contribute to building communication, confidence, participation and accountability in the affected communities in order to amplify positive social impacts of the early recovery work funded by the EIB. The conflict sensitive approach will be applied to reduce and mitigate the conflict-related risks and maximize positive impacts for the stakeholders at every stage of the project. Conflict intensity assessment indicators will be included in the UERP Monitoring Program at the national level and local sub-project’s monitoring plans.

EIB’s approach to social impact mitigation aims that projects implemented with its funding contribute to sustainable development by ensuring that: •• only projects that meet the EIB’s social standards are approved; •• quality of documents provided by potential implementers is duly reviewed; •• projects are not approved if they were not subject to a social impact assessment; •• social and developmental impacts of each project are evaluated after its completion.

This approach has been taken on as condition and good practice by MRD and local implementers.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 29

The SMP and related local social management work plans are subject to annual assessment and review that will be led by PIU.

6.4. Mitigation measures for adverse impacts To mitigate any adverse social impacts of the Ukraine ERP projects that cannot be duly avoided or prevented, this SMP identifies a number of measures that involve: •• Assessment of social risks connected to works and other activities carried out within subprojects; •• Inclusion of requirements / criteria for mitigation of social impacts in the procurement provisions (bidding announcements), and inclusion of obligations to ensure social impact mitigation measures into contracts with suppliers; •• Inclusion of measures aiming at mitigation of adverse social impacts and maximizing “added value” social impacts among the overall progress monitoring indicators; •• Making information about the EIB social standards available throughout the UERP implementation; •• Ensuring due control over the contractors’ / implementers’ sufficient level of capacity to perform their duties within the EIB-funded sub-projects in line with their contracts.

Approaches and measures to be taken to ensure the compliance with the EIB social standards at all stages of the UERP implementation process are detailed below.

6.4.1. Labour Standards Ukrainian labour protections standards for construction workers are generally on par with international legislation. However, their practical implementation is often neglected by construction contractors, who routinely avoid investing in the safety of workers, safety trainings and other safety management measures. The use of unregistered temporary labor, and lack of reporting of cases of occupational injuries are widespread. In an effort to minimize costs, contractors often hire individuals to work on tasks for which they are not qualified or that are supposed to be performed by others.

Safety procedures are routinely overridden in order to avoid work stoppages. Other violations of labor legislation include imposing involuntary extra overtime, infringement of employees’ rights, deterioration of their working and living conditions, groundless dismissals, delays and discretionary reductions in payments, unregistered out-of-pocket payments, and violation of social standards.

In line with requirements of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Ukrainian national legislation and the EIB Social Standards 8 and 9, the MRD will ensure control over the local implementers’ compliance with the ILO’s Core Labour Standards of fair, safe and healthy working conditions, nondiscrimination and fair and equal treatment, freedom of association and collective bargaining, as outlined in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

The MRD will monitor local implementers to ensure that their contractors comply with international labour standards. Local implementers will be required to ensure that all workers have employment contracts, and that the social standards delineated in this SMP are reflected in all procurement documents, contracts and monitoring arrangements. Local authorities / implementers will be responsible for reviewing contracts for compliance with the social standards delineated in this SMP, and to ensure implementation in accordance with requirements of the EIB / EU standards and this SMP. MRD will ensure overall oversight and, with support of PIU, communication of SMP requirements to local implementers, relevant stakeholders at the national / ministerial and the parliamentary level, local social and environmental authorities, and elected councils. MRD / PIU will also be responsible for preparing and disseminating the UERP’s annual social progress reports.

The labour standards to be maintained throughout the UERP will include: •• prohibition of any forced or compulsory labour; •• observance of the restriction on the minimum working age; •• prohibition of discrimination on any grounds;

30 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

•• a documented human resources management policy disclosing information about employees’ rights, working conditions, entitlements and compensation, disciplinary procedures, access to capacity-building, grievance resolution.

The information about the standards outlined in this SMP will be availed to prospective bidders and contractors in order to ensure that adequate social and environmental mitigation costs are factored into construction costs. Local implementers are expected to prepare their own social management work plans in line with the SMP. To ensure compliance with the EIB labour standards, the MRD may initiate a periodical or ad hoc labour audit, to be conducted by an independent assessment entity, e.g., local NGOs or other relevant stakeholders. Such an audit will be mandatory if requested by the consultative board of a subproject.

The labour audit may focus on the level of compliance with requirements for the minimum labour standards to identify necessary improvement areas and corrective actions.

Safer working conditions will be an important input of UERP into improving the labor protection practices; they will benefit the stakeholders and the community and add to the overall positive perception of the project.

6.4.2. Involuntary Resettlement The sub-projects supported within UERP do not envisage new construction that would involve resettlement, land acquisitions etc. The sub-projects will be taking place on territory affected by armed conflict and therefore resettlement issues are not foreseen. The predominant majority of sub-projects in areas not directly affected by military activity involve reconstruction of local social infrastructure that deteriorated before the conflict.

To the extent possible, the MRD will seek to avoid involuntary resettlement that might be caused

by UERP – related land acquisition and/or restrictions on land use. In cases of unavoidable land acquisition and/or restrictions on land use, resulting in the temporary or permanent resettlement of people from their original places of residence or their economic activities or subsistence practices, the MRD will act in accordance with the EIB Social Standard 6 on Involuntary Resettlement and will ensure full involvement of all relevant stakeholders, in particular the affected individuals, in designing and taking measures to minimise and mitigate its adverse impacts from an early stage, with due respect for the rights of those affected and their access to effective remedies.

In cases where resettlement may be required, the UERP sub-project implementers will notify the MRD in advance of sub-project selection, and propose relevant compensation and income restoration measures to be implemented, without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, disability or other prohibited grounds. Equal treatment of women during compensation and income restoration processes will be observed with regard to women’s rights and interests in land, property, assets, and compensation and relocation assistance, even where these are not recognised in formal law. The affected persons or groups will be identified locally by means of the census and will be entitled to adequate compensation, resettlement assistance, safe and secure access to essential social services.

No forced evictions will be allowed, except in unique cases when it is unavoidable and for the general benefit of the community, of which the MRD will notify the EIB in advance and ensure that any eviction action is authorized by law and is carried out in accordance with international human rights standards, including with the procedural protections against forced evictions.

To prevent and mitigate potential conflict, the MRD will ensure that initiators of relevant local subprojects organize stakeholder consultations, in accordance with the EIB’s Standard 10 on Stakeholder Engagement, in collaboration with local NGOs and community representatives. The consultations will give all relevant stakeholders the opportunity for informed participation in resettlement planning to ensure that the mitigation of the adverse project impacts is appropriate and the potential benefits of resettlement are sustainable. Special attention will be given to enabling the participation of women and vulnerable groups, including the IDPs, in the consultations.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 31

6.4.3. Cultural Heritage The UERP project operations will, to the extent possible, seek to avoid and/or mitigate any adverse impacts on cultural heritage. Pursuant to the EIB standard on cultural heritage, the MRD commits to ensuring respect for both “tangible heritage”, including sites and objects of archeological, historical, cultural, or religious value to the local communities, as well as “intangible heritage”, including the local language, religious and customary practices11.

During the risk analysis and social impact assessment exercises performed while preparing this SMP, potential impacts of the UERP sub-projects on cultural heritage was assessed as very low. During the field research for the UERP, no cultural heritage objects that could be adversely affected by the UERP sub-projects were identified.

The likelihood of archeological finds or other material cultural objects in the areas to be covered by Tranche 1 of the UERP sub-projects is very low. The works in the selected sub-project locations are not expected to cause any damage to historical, archeological and cultural sites. For the subsequent tranches, the screening for any possible impacts on the cultural heritage will be done at the subproject preparation and assessment stages. Local authorities will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements for the preservation of cultural heritage.

6.4.4. Rights and Interests of Vulnerable Groups In accordance with the EIB Social Standard 7, the MRD will seek to prevent all forms of discrimination and avoid actions that may disadvantage women, minorities, senior persons, children and people living with disabilities.

While women comprise the largest proportion of the registered IDPs, they are particularly exposed to risks of unemployment, with fewer temporary jobs available for them. They are also more likely to be affected by the shortage of access to housing and social services, primarily to healthcare and childcare and education.

Opportunities for engagement of women, pensioners, representatives of minority groups and people living with disabilities in the communities in general, and among IDPs in particular, will be created by local implementers, and information about formats of engagement, including consultations and grievance management, will be made available at the sub-project information points and other appropriate channels.

A gender-sensitive approach to management of social impacts of the sub-projects in the communities will be taken to timely identify, avoid, minimize and remedy possible impacts. Gender-relevant indicators will be included in the Monitoring Program and will be collected regularly in the sub-projects’ communities by local implementers in collaboration with NGOs.

6.4.5. Protecting and securing public and occupational health, safety and security of workers and other individuals affected by the UERP In line with the EIB Social Standard 9, the MRD undertakes to abide by the following principles throughout the UERP project life cycle: •• duly anticipate, avoid or minimise, and effectively mitigate risks and adverse impacts to the health and safety of host communities of the sub-projects; •• ensure safe, healthy, hygienic and secure working conditions that are consistent with international human rights standards and principles12; •• develop and implement health and safety management plans at the national and local levels; 11

The principles to be applied to the management of impacts of cultural heritage will be based on the applicable international conventions and other

legal instruments, primarily those of UCESCO and the Council of Europe, of which Ukraine is a part, including UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972; Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Archeological Heritage of Europe, 1992; Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, 2005; the Laws of Ukraine “On Protection of Cultural Heritage” (2000) and “On Protection of Archaeological Heritage” (2004) .

12

As specified in the Guidelines on occupational safety and health management systems:

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_publ_9221116344_en.pdf

32 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

•• ensure proper information provision, awareness building, safety training, and implementation of safe and healthy practices in the operations within sub-projects; •• ensure public consultations to receive feedback on public health and safety measures undertaken within UERP sub-projects; •• report and record any accidents, incidents and/or breach of relevant legislation and standards; •• ensure effective access to grievance mechanism and recourse to remedy for all stakeholders and broader communities.

6.4.6. Stakeholder Engagement In accordance with the EIB Standard 10 on Stakeholder Engagement, MRD will implement a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) to ensure a meaningful participatory process aiming at the efficient implementation of UERP through effective identification, assessment, and management of any social risks, impacts, and opportunities. The SEP, designed to build a constructive relationship between MRD with relevant stakeholders at all levels is part of the integrated Social Management System and is detailed further in this document.

6.5. Anticipated positive social impacts The EIB-funded sub-projects are expected to generate improvements to the local livelihoods of residents in the target regions through the reconstruction of previously forlorn social infrastructure.

Preliminary information about the UERP sub-projects communicated in 2015 raised positive expectations among local community residents and IDPs alike. Opportunities for local businesses, as well as temporary or permanent employment add to the positive expectations. Some nongovernmental stakeholders also anticipate improvement in interaction with their local authorities and new opportunities for community engagement around the reconstruction and development goals.

However, the hopes are cautious based on the population’s previous experience of limited gains from development and investment projects dominated by vested interests and fraud. It is for this reason that the Sub-project Preparation, Selection and Implementation Procedure has been linked to SMP and SEP activities, and presupposes the creation of accountability-generating institutions for each sub-project.

The UERP brings added value by creating opportunities for significant improvement in the local communities by contributing to the restoration of decaying social infrastructure facilities. This will benefit the local population as well as help respond to the additional pressure on the local social infrastructure created by the arrival of significant numbers of IDPs. The construction works envisaged by the sub-projects will contribute to creating local jobs (mostly temporary and unskilled). They will also indirectly contribute to local economic growth by benefitting the local SMEs and other contractors, which will have a positive effect on the local budget.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 33

7. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM The Capacity Building Program is designed as a tool for implementation of this SMP at the national and local levels. It is based on consultations with stakeholders, analysis of existing institutional arrangements and capacity gaps identified during the baseline analysis – specifically during interviews with public servants, local officials, non-governmental social service providers and IDPs. The purpose of this Capacity Building Program (CBP) is to provide practical, demand-driven and targeted support to current and future local sub-project implementers to carry out social management and stakeholder engagement measures. Details of the CBP content is provided in ANNEX C. The CBP’s basic training materials are designed to build skills nationally and locally needed for the SMP and SEP implementation. They are organized into three modules targeting different groups: (a) MRD and relevant regional authorities; (b) relevant local sub-project implementers, and (c) communitybased stakeholders, including NGOs and citizen groups.

In addition to its direct purpose of enhancing the implementers’ and participants’ capacity to deliver on the projects, the CBP will be beneficial for further development of skills and collaborations within the target communities.

The CBP objective is to contribute to: •• Fostering effective social management and contributing to social cohesion throughout UERP and particularly in the sub-project communities through improved results-based management, communication, transparency and conflict management; •• Integrating practices of stakeholder consultation, participation, monitoring and accountability by building stakeholder’s skills to engage effectively.

34 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program seeks to measure achievement of the UERP’s social management and stakeholder engagement objectives. The monitored indicators are designed to identify equal access to the project benefits for the project-affected population, including IDPs, based on the principles of non-discrimination, participation and transparency.

The methodology for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the SMP and SEP has been developed for a) social outputs and outcomes of individual sub-projects or a group of sub-projects implemented in the same municipality, b) social effects for the regions that host UERP sub-projects funded with the EIB loan funds, c) UERP’s contribution to introducing social management and stakeholder engagement practices to early recovery work in Ukraine as a whole.

8.1. Scope of monitoring and evaluation of social impacts At the sub-project level, specific social effects of sub-projects to be monitored and evaluated include changes in: •• the community’s social infrastructure; •• levels of competition in the community for access to social services; •• capacity of local implementers to manage social impacts and engage stakeholders; •• access to information about the sub-project and its effects for stakeholders and the broader community; •• opportunities for stakeholder participation; •• availability of an accessible and fair grievance redress mechanism; •• any specific benefits to the vulnerable groups, including IDPs; •• availability of transparency and accountability mechanisms; At the level of a cluster of sub-projects within the same community or region, social effects of subprojects to be monitored and evaluated will include: •• the number of local residents benefitting from the sub-projects (disaggregated by gender); •• the number of IDPs benefitting from the sub-projects (disaggregated by gender); •• the number of improved social infrastructure objects; •• changes in the level of consumer satisfaction with social services; •• evidence of interaction between communities and stakeholder groups; •• new stakeholder engagement practices in place and used; At the national level, the social impacts monitoring and evaluation will focus on: •• overall implementation of SMP and SEP approaches and plans within UERP •• implementers’ compliance with the EIB social standards; •• relevance of the sub-projects outcomes for meeting the identified early recovery needs; •• changes in capacity to design, implement and account for sub-projects at the local level; •• grievances and their redress records.

The M&E cycle will include the following stages: •• Ongoing monitoring, to be performed by the sub-project implementers with the involvement of relevant community-based stakeholders; •• Periodical monitoring by relevant regional authorities and MRD (real-time monitoring and evaluation during the sub-project implementation to provide immediate feedback in order to

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 35

improve the sub-project implementation quality and make adjustments in accordance with the M&E results); •• Mid-term evaluation, to be performed by relevant municipal, district or regional authorities with the involvement of relevant community-based stakeholders (third-party monitoring; independent assessment); •• Final evaluation, to be performed by MRD, possibly with the involvement of relevant stakeholders.

The implementation time frames for the M&E within the sub-projects in communities are defined by the conditions of the competition for allocation of EIB loan funds. Restoration of social infrastructure facilities is expected to last for 24-36 months.

Recommendations ensuing from evaluation of the sub-projects financed by a previous tranche are used to adjust the rules of financial support for the sub-projects under the next tranche.

Evaluation of sub-project impact can be conducted not earlier than 6 months after completion of the sub-projects.

8.2. Participatory monitoring Participatory monitoring is a key part of this M&E program. It will proceed from the UERP overall social management and stakeholder engagement goals and objectives and will be conducted in accordance with social and ethical standards, legislative provisions, and balanced representation of all key stakeholders and relevant vulnerable population groups. The monitoring and evaluation capacity will be built through training and methodological support throughout the UERP implementation cycle.

To enhance key stakeholders to participate effectively in sub-project M&E, capacity building inputs will also be provided to local stakeholders. Independent (third-party) evaluation will be organized at the regional and national level, and for local clusters of major sub-projects. A sample monitoring and evaluation plan and sample Terms of Reference for independent monitoring and evaluation are provided in ANNEX D. For ensuring ongoing M&E and enabling learning from the sub-projects, authorized representatives of the MRD and the relevant regional state administrations will form the UERP’s M&E working group, facilitated by PIU and aiming at organizing regular monitoring visits to the sub-projects and ensuring ongoing information exchange between the MRD and the target regions. The monitoring visits will be organized on a quarterly basis at the early stages of the sub-projects and on semi-annual basis after the initial six months of the sub-project implementation.

36 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

9. SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN Resources Indicators of needed / Responsibility implementation Development of a Social Management System (as part of UERP’s ESMS) Design and Clear mechanism MRD Reports on the introduce of implementing review and systems internal Social social management improvement Management measures is in place recommendation System Establish a process Identify social MRD / PIU Social impact of identifying impacts at the management and managing national and process is in place social impacts sub-national and used at all throughout UERP levels and assign stages of the lifecycle responsibilities for project managing them Action

Assign responsible officer to coordinate performance on SMP

Risks to offset / benefits to gain

Clear MRD responsibilities for SMP implementation identified and assigned Plan and conduct Risk mitigation early PIU / MRD social impact warning system / local mitigation reviews in place; periodic implementers/ progress review on NGOs social indicators Repeat Identify shortages Consultants / representative and project MRD socio-economic interventions’ survey in target relevance; collect regions perspectives on changes in access to healthcare, education, public transport, other relevant public services and facilities, community safety Introduce Social Best practice MRD / PIU / Management sub-projects Review Social management practices in sub-projects Establish social Compliance with MRD, local targets to be met social standards implementers by contractors; improved raise contractors’ awareness of social standards

Designated officer tasked with overseeing SMP implementation throughout UERP

Timeframe

At sub-project implementation start Early stage of implementation of Tranche 1 sub-projects; inception of sub-project proposals for Tranche 2 Early stage of UERP implementation

Participatory monitoring on key social standards in place

Semi-annually

Survey results and recommendations in place to inform SMP review

Late 2016

SMP review documents

Annually

Number and records of awareness actions; compliance capacity verification

At sub-project implementation start

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 37

Provide information materials and training to local implementers in social impact management

Capacity of local implementers to understand and manage social impacts

Develop and introduce social impact indicators in sub-projects monitoring and evaluation plans

PIU / contractors

Social impact indicators are traced throughout sub-projects and inform general implementation of UERP Social Standards Compliance Inform sub-project Raise awareness implementers and of social other stakeholders standards among of EIB Social stakeholders Standards

PIU, local implementers

Include requirement to describe adequate social impact assessment and management measures in the sub-project applications Include value added social effects (improved access to social services for vulnerable groups, including IDPs; improved information disclosure and transparency, etc.) as criteria for selecting bids in the procurement process Require that bidders have employment policies that ensure compliance with the EIB / ILO labour standards

Compliance with best practice; improved attention of local applicants to social effects of proposed subprojects

MRD / PIU

Create incentives for bidders and contractors to resource and implement social impact management actions

MRD, local authorities

MRD, contractor

Improve awareness MRD, local of and protection of authorities labour rights

38 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Number of workshops and consultations delivered; number of local implementers’ staff and relevant stakeholders involved; local staff has improved social impact management skills Indicators available; baseline data identified; monitoring focused on the indicators

As needed

Materials about EIB social standards produced and available to local implementers, contractors and other stakeholders Expected social effects included in sub-project applications and taken into account during appraisal process

At early stages of sub-project implementation

Bidders are aware of and plan for social management actions and valueadded social effects

At drafting calls for bids in procurement of services and works

Sub-project applicants and implementers are aware of the standard.

All sub-projects are checked for compliance with the standard

Early stage of project implementation; during procurement

At sub-project implementation start

With every call for applications

Ensure awareness of and compliance with EIB standard on involuntary resettlement

Early assessment of sub-project proposals to avoid involuntary resettlement or, where impossible, ensure that resources are in place to comply with the standard Ensure awareness Gender and nonof and compliance discrimination with EIB standard awareness to on rights and achieve compliance interests of with legal vulnerable groups requirements; information provision in place to comply with the standard

MRD, local authorities

Sub-project applicants and implementers are aware of the standard.

All sub-projects are checked for compliance with the standard

At subproject design stage, then at proposal appraisal

MRD, local authorities in cooperation with NGOs

Ongoing

Ensure awareness of and compliance with EIB standard on cultural heritage

MRD, local authorities

Sub-project applicants and implementers are aware of the standard.

All sub-projects are checked for compliance with the standard during participatory monitoring Sub-project applicants and implementers are aware of the standard.

All sub-projects are checked for compliance with the standard

Ensure awareness of public and occupational health, safety and security of workers and other individuals affected by subprojects

Early assessment of sub-project proposals to avoid damage to cultural heritage sites; ensure referrals to archeologists and culture conservation specialists in case of unexpected discovery of cultural sites Identify and minimize health, safety and security hazards

Local implementers; NGOs and other stakeholders to monitor

At subproject design stage, then at proposal appraisal

Information; Ongoing warning signs, relevant protective closing and equipment available on site

Stakeholder Engagement: Participation, Transparency and Accountability Adopt and Effective PIU / MRD Records of implement engagement with / local implementation; Stakeholder stakeholders; legal implementers stakeholder Engagement Plan requirements engagement for consultation events; grievance and information resolution disclosure are met Share information Improved MRD Relevant UERP about UERP social information information is effects with other exchange, available at MRD Ukrainian and coordination website; regular international and cooperation communication actors working on between agencies with relevant early recovery and involved in assisting actors takes place livelihoods at the IDPs and conflictnational level affected territories

Prior to implementation start; then ongoing

Ongoing

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 39

Organize stakeholder consultation process

Develop and implement a communication strategy and plan

Feedback from stakeholders received; best practices of stakeholder engagement implemented

Stakeholders and broader communities informed; risk of resistance due to lack of awareness offset Identify and Improved communicate stakeholder value-added social participation; effects of the reputational project benefits Where relevant, Build skills; facilitate access to maximize positive information and social impacts; social services, assist access to vocational information and trainings, services, integration participation in of IDPs consultations and monitoring, access to employment and other support for IDPs

PIU / MRD / local implementers

PIU / consultants / local implementers

Local implementers, NGOs Local implementers, NGOs

Stakeholder consultation plan in place; Public Liaison Offices assigned and trained; documentation of consultation organized Information dissemination tools are in place and used

Stage 1 of sub-project implementation; then as needed

Early stage of project implementation

Percentage of Ongoing stakeholders and final beneficiaries aware of the project Information on Ongoing assistance and opportunities for IDPs available at implementers’ Information Points; local implementers proactively engage with IDPs; cooperation with aid agencies and relevant Ukrainian authorities improved

Develop and introduce effective and accessible grievance redress mechanism

Conflicts over PIU / impacts of project consultants implementation are / MRD, local timely addressed; authorities compliance with the law Develop, adopt Transparency and MRD, local and publicize accountability authorities policies and improved; procedures for corruption risks preventing conflict reduced; best of interest practice followed Gender rights and vulnerable groups protection Introduce gender- Availability disaggregated of currently data collection missing genderand analysis in disaggregated data government on early recovery practice needs and assistance to IDPs Include gender Build awareness PIU / and nonand capacity for contractor discrimination gender and nontopic in capacitydiscrimination building modules monitoring and advocacy

40 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Conflict of interest Early stage policy adopted; of project staff, contractors implementation and stakeholder aware of conflict of interest procedures

Capacity-building modules, training materials

During capacitybuilding roll out

Include genderMonitor social sensitive criteria in effects of UERP and M&E plan sub-projects on gender equality Assign promotion Improved of gender communication rights and nonand monitoring on discrimination gender and donamong tasks discrimination; of Community prevent harassment Liaison Officers and other malpractices on site Site-specific Social Impact Mitigation Ensure supervision Assign an external and external non-technical control supervision with focus on possible social concerns; promote compliance with social standards and good practices Monitor and Waste management; minimize adverse timely and efficient impacts of construction waste construction removal; works noise level monitoring, silence hours; dust and pollution monitoring; guards in place Communicate Public notices of early and clearly changes in public about any likely transport routes impacts or possible delays; danger warning signs Occupational Health and Safety Verify that Trainings in contractors safety, information allocate resources about danger, for providing personal protection safety facilities equipment, toilets, prohibition of alcohol and drugs in working sites Ensure site access Restricted/guarded control and safety access to sites; traffic safety measures; speed limits if necessary; warnings of heavy construction vehicles, site lighting Develop and Ensure awareness of disseminate the emergency plan emergency plan and capacity to act on it

MRD / local implementers

Contact Point working at national and sub-project levels Local Community Liaison implementers, Officers keep local gender rights and Community non-discrimination Liaison Officers on

Early stage of project implementation

Local implementers

Supervisor and supervision process in place; monitoring reports

Early stage of sub-project implementation; then ongoing

Local implementers, NGOs

Regular monitoring in place; information available to stakeholders and population; complaint and grievance procedure used

Ongoing

Local implementers, contractors

Public Liaison Officer ensures timely communication

Ongoing during construction phase

Local implementers, contractors

Develop and use checklist; monitor availability of safety facilities; documentation of monitoring findings

During bids appraisal; then during construction phase

Local authorities, implementers, contractors

Supervisor to monitor

During construction phase

Contractors

Supervisor to monitor

During construction phase

Early in sub-project implementation stage, then ongoing

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 41

Monitoring and Evaluation of SMS Actions Adopt Monitoring Ensure inclusion MRD / PIU and Evaluation of M&E in project Program and operation make local documents and implementers and practices contractors aware of it Provide training M&E skills PIU / to sun-project enhanced; consultants implementers participatory and stakeholders monitoring enabled in use of M&E Program Facilitate thirdObjective MRD / local party monitoring assessment and implementers and independent recommendations evaluation of subprojects

M&E Plan; records of presentation of M&E Plan to stakeholders

Q1 - 2016

Number of trainings; number of attendees; training modules; participants’ feedback Reports available; recommendations acted upon

Q1 - 2016

According to M&E Plan

Conflict Sensitivity Risk Assessment Monitor security situation in the target regions

Plan and conduct regular conflict sensitivity risk assessments /

Early identification of risks; possibility to make informed decisions on safety to implement subprojects within 30 km from the contact line Awareness of existing problems, possible conflicts and impacts on/of other activities in the area

MRD, based on Situation analysis reports from reports RMCAs; NGOs; OSCE SMM reports

Quarterly

Consultants / PIU / MRD

Prior to implementation start; then ongoing monitoring and reviews as needed or semiannually

Collect and analyze information about levels of social cohesion, social and economic vulnerabilities

Early identification Consultants / of vulnerabilities PIU / MRD and analysis of their impacts; informed decision-making

Ensure coordination with other early recovery aid providers

Informed and MRD / PIU coordinated decisionmaking and complementarity in implementation of aid projects

42 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Risk assessment report and recommendations for mitigation measures in place and regularly updated; participatory monitoring on key social standards in place Social Cohesion and Economic Vulnerability Assessments (containing genderdisaggregated data) Regular meetings; information materials exchange

Quarterly

Quarterly

Disseminate findings and recommendations of the Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment; contribute to updating as appropriate

Sub-project implementers and other sub-national actors aware of RPA and able to participate in providing data for keeping it up to date

Train local NGOs and other stakeholders to monitor security and social cohesion situation, collect and analyze data

Validation of reports Consultants by key stakeholders, including NGOs and IDPs

Number of Initial 6 months trainings delivered; of sub-projects number of participants; training materials available for cascading the skills

Encourage community participation in planning and implementing recovery work as a method of building social cohesion, trust and peace

Foster cohesion in communities; promote trust

Local implementers; NGOs

Number of community events; number of participants; number of new collaborative community-based initiatives

Ongoing

Promote dissemination of information and sharing good practices of community engagement through subprojects

Improve awareness of MRD and EIB contribution to peacebuilding and conflict mitigation; spread ideas for further recovery work in communities

Local implementers; NGOs; media

Number, volumes and audience coverage of publications, broadcast programs, social media posts

Ongoing

MRD

Ongoing

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 43

10. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN This Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) was designed as part of the Social Management System (SMS) of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project in order to contribute to enhancing the UERP’s contribution to strengthening of social cohesion and inclusion in Ukraine, and ensure community participation, transparency and accountability by means of building stakeholder engagement and communication models, developing capacity of local civil society and the authorities to work together on social recovery projects; and mitigating social risks in the project’s host communities.

10.1. SEP: principles This SEP builds on the principles and standards established by the EIB Standard 7 of Rights and Interests of Vulnerable Groups and Standard 10 on Stakeholder Engagement and by the Ukrainian regulatory requirements for consultation and disclosure.

The EIB’s requirements for consultation, participation and disclosure, reflected in the EIB Public Disclosure Policy (PDP), include the compliance with the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters; and specifies public consultation as a general environmental and social safeguards.

All policies, practices, programmes and activities developed and implemented by the promoter should pay special attention to the rights of vulnerable groups. Such groups include minorities, women, migrants, the very young and the very old. The livelihoods of vulnerable groups are especially sensitive to changes in the socio-economic context and are dependent on access to essential services and participation in decision-making.

The approach adopted by this SEP based on the above principles is as follows: •• Starting the engagement as early as possible without waiting for a problem or tension to develop in order to engage; •• Understanding stakeholders and the dynamic context in which they operate; •• Designing targeted stakeholder engagement techniques to reflect the different project scopes and stakeholder profiles; •• Reaching out proactively to stakeholders and building relationships; •• Planning for a long-term stakeholder engagement; •• Preparing the management and resources for stakeholder engagement in advance and providing for them early in the sub-project cycle; •• Taking stakeholders’ complaints and grievances seriously and designing clear and practical mechanisms for addressing them.

10.2. SEP: development methodology The methodology of the SEP development process included: •• Desk review of previous research conducted during 2014-2015 aimed at understanding the current IDP situation in Ukraine (ANNEX E) •• Compiled statistical indicators gathered from the target regions/towns on the state of local infrastructure, NGO registrations, employment, school attendance, health care provision (ANNEX B) •• Semi-structured face-to-face interviews conducted with over 425 IDP respondents in five targeted urban centers (one in each of the target oblasts) (This and following two points are based on the Review of studies of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine, by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, October-November 2015) •• Representative survey of the population of small urban centers (population under 165 thousand)

44 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

in the 5 target oblasts, 2,000 respondents •• Focus groups with local NGO activists, local government and IDP community representatives, and in-depth interviews with higher level local government officials in the 5 targeted urban centers (one in each of the target oblasts).

10.3. SEP: scope The ongoing process of stakeholder engagement is integrated in every stage of UERP: participatory risk assessment, planning, sub-project proposal appraisal, project management, monitoring and evaluation (as shown in the chart of SMP and SEP links to the UERP cycle)

The SEP Process: Ongoing Engagement When preparing the draft law “On Ratification of the Financial Agreement Between Ukraine and the EIB (Ukraine Early Recovery Project)” for the ratification by the Ukrainian Parliament, the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Communal Services received endorsement from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Other consulted stakeholders included the Ministry of Social Policy, regional and district state administrations, and local councils in major municipalities in the UERP target regions. During scoping and the field research, multiple individual and group meetings, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to identify and prioritize key stakeholder groups, to collect their views, concerns and expectations, and validate them through a stakeholder assessment.

Stakeholder engagement, as seen in this SEP, is not a one-off exercise at the project appraisal or project design stage. It is an iterative process that envisages awareness of changes in the context and the stakeholders themselves, and continued engagement to ensure that all relevant processes within the sub-projects are planned, designed and executed with the awareness of the key stakeholders’ positions.

The list of stakeholders will continue to be reviewed and expanded throughout the engagement within the UERP implementation process. Stakeholders and the general public will be have opportunities to participate in consultations and other processes as detailed below.

This SEP approaches stakeholder engagement as a reiterative process involving: •• Public disclosure of information in order to build awareness of the goals, objectives and progress of the sub-projects and the ERP as a whole; •• Identifying stakeholders and engaging them in structured consultations and dialogue; •• Developing mechanisms of accountability through communication and information disclosure; •• Building an effective, accessible and non-discriminatory grievance mechanism.

This SEP includes conclusions from the research and consultations undertaken within this project, as

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 45

well as descriptions and recommendations on the following: •• Stakeholder analysis, definition of their roles and engagement mechanisms •• Description of information disclosure procedures •• Description of the stakeholder consultation process •• Stakeholder engagement timeframe •• Description of a grievance redress mechanism

10.4. Definition of stakeholders This SEP defines stakeholders as persons or groups who are (or may be) affected – directly or indirectly – by a project, who may have interests in the project and are able to influence the project and/ or its outcomes in a positive or negative way. Stakeholders are identified at the national, regional and local levels. The main focus of this SEP is on the stakeholders relevant for the specific sub-projects in the target communities. However, these approaches and techniques can be adjusted and applied to managing stakeholder engagement at any level.

10.4.1. Roles and Participation of the Stakeholders To facilitate inclusive and participative early recovery efforts MRD / PIU and local implementers need to engage at different levels and in targeted ways (information disclosure, consultations, solicitation of feedback, and complaint / grievance management) with a variety of stakeholders, which can be conditionally organized into Group A, Group B and Group C, based their role in the UERP, levels and sources of influence, interest in and relevance for the UERP, and modes of engagement. An adequate and sufficient level of engagement needs to be develop for each group of stakeholders.

Group A – stakeholders directly involved in the ERP implementation: EU Delegation, EIB, Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Communal Services (MRD); Project Implementation Unit (PIU), regional state administrations and military-civilian administrations; local councils in the UERP’s host communities Group B – community-based stakeholders affected by the UERP and essential for an inclusive and effective ERP implementation: local private sector, civil society organizations, NGOs and initiatives of IDPs, community leaders Group C – governmental stakeholders that influence Ukraine’s progress towards addressing the early recovery needs: Ministry of Finance; the Ministry of Social Policy; the Ministry of Healthcare; the Ministry of Education; Ministry of Economic Development and Trade; Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Inter-ethnic Relations; Committee on Social Policy, Employment and Pension, the Budget Committee; Committee on State-building, Regional Policy and Local Self-Governance.

46 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Group A Stakeholders directly involved in the ERP implementation # Organization Function or Role in UERP National Stakeholders 1 Ministry for Regional Development, Construction and Communal Services of Ukraine (MRD) / Department for International Cooperation and Interaction with International Financial Institutions / Department for Interaction with International Financial Institutions / International Projects Department / Department for Interaction with Mass Media and Society 2 Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine

Selects the projects Projects’ main implementer Project communication Projects oversight Project reporting Project monitoring

Formally approves the projects pre-selected by the MRD 3 European Investment Bank / EIB Office in UERP Loan provider Ukraine Party to UERP Agreement Projects approval and oversight 4 European Union / Delegation of the European Expert Support to Early Recovery - Donor Union to Ukraine Project oversight and consultation 5 Project Implementation Unit (MRD) Consultations/expertise Project oversight Procurement Environmental management 6 International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) Expert Support to UERP Develops Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Social Management Plan (SMP/SEP) Pilots the SMP and SEP in 4 sub-projects Capacity building 7 Luhansk Regional Military - Civilian Coordinates sub-project submission in Administration Luhansk Oversees Luhansk oblast sub-projects Political and organizational support 8 Donetsk Regional Military - Civilian Coordinates sub-project submission in Administration Donetsk oblast Oversees Donetsk oblast sub-projects Political and organizational support 9 Zaporizhzhia Oblast Administration / Coordinates sub-project submission in Department of Capital Construction of Zaporizhia Zaporizhzhia Oblast Administration Oversees Zaporizhia oblast sub-projects Political and organizational support 10 Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Administration Coordinates sub-project submission in Dnipropetrovsk Oversees Dnipropetrovsk oblast sub-projects Political and organizational support Novomoskovsk Regional Council Implementer of Tranche 1 sub-project in Dnipropetrovsk oblast 11 Kharkiv Oblast Administration / Coordinates sub-project submission in Department of Healthcare of Kharkiv Oblast Kharkiv Administration Oversees Kharkiv oblast sub-projects Political and organizational support 12 Artemivsk City Council, Department of the Responsible for the sup-project of public Urban Development of the Artemivsk City hostel reconstruction in Artemivsk Council (Donetsk Oblast) Artemivsk Management Company of Housing Sub-project implementer / contractor and Communal Services

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 47

13 Zaporizhzhia regional council / Department of Health of Zaporizhzhia District Administration

“STMO “Dytynstvo”” ZOR CE 14 Prymorsk Regional Council in Zaporizhzhia Region 15 Kharkiv Regional Council

16 Dergachi District Council (Kharkiv Oblast) 17 Severodonetsk District Council (Luhansk oblast) / Department of Construction and Architecture / Department of Education / Department of Economic Development 18 Slovyansk District Administration (Donetsk oblast)

Responsible for the project of Dismantling of an old and construction of a new surgical block of the “Zaporizka District Children’s Hospital” ZOR CE in order to provide revitalizing medical services in the category “Children and Youth” District Children’s Hospital to be renovated Responsible for the Project of Central District Hospital” CE in the city of Prymorsk.

Expansion. Hospital for 300 visitors – amendment Project name: major repair of the ophthalmic department letter Н-3, educational and diagnostic block letter М’-9, and medical block premises letter Ch-9 of “The District Hospital – First-Aid and Emergency Medicine Center” KZOZ Implementer of the Healthcare, education and shelter related projects in the town of Dergachi Implementer of all sub-projects of the town of Syeverodonetsk (including healthcare, shelter and educations projects) Pilot for full-cycle roll-out of SMP and SEP Potential applicant for Tranche 2

Group B Community based stakeholders affected by the UERP and essential for inclusive and effective UERP implementation #

Organization

1

UNDP Office in Ukraine

2

IOM Office in Ukraine

3

UNHCR Office in Ukraine

4

UN Food and Agriculture Organization Office in Ukraine People in Need, Czeck Republic

5 6

USAID/OTI OTI / Ukraine Confidence Building Initiative USAID/OFDA

7

Krym SOS / Crimea SOS

48 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Function / Focus Early recovery/capacity building Humanitarian issues Work in the affected areas Migration / IDP monitoring IDP access to employment Humanitarian aid in affected areas IDP monitoring IDP assistance Humanitarian aid in affected areas Food and humanitarian assistance Humanitarian assistance in the affected areas Assistance to the IDPs Situation monitoring Assists the local governments to tackle the humanitarian situation in their regions Community-based confidence-building projects Assistance to the IDPs coming from Crimean and conflict affected areas of the Eastern Ukraine Consulting the government “Watchdog” functions

8

Vostok SOS

Assistance to the IDPs coming from conflict affected areas of the Eastern Ukraine Consulting the government “Watchdog” functions

9

Donbass SOS

Assistance to the IDPs coming from Crimean and conflict affected areas of the Eastern Ukraine Consulting the govern “Watchdog” functions Humanitarian assistance (Both legal and in kind) to the IDPs Volunteer Center

10 Frolivska 9/11

11 Volunteer movement “New Donbass”

Community-based recovery initiatives IDP assistance

Group C Governmental Stakeholders that influence Ukraine’s progress towards addressing the early recovery needs # Organization Functions 1

Ministry of Finance

Loan fund management

2

Ministry of Social Policy

3

Ministry of Healthcare

Formal oversight of IDPs’ issues State Assistance to affected population Healthcare related projects expertise

4

Ministry of Education

5

Ministry of economic development and trade

6

Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, Ethnic Minoritiesand Inter-ethnic Relations Inter-ethnic Relations Committee for Social Policy, Employment and Pension

7 8

Education related projects expertise IDPs access to education Legislation on IDP - related issues

Social protections of IDPs and residents of conflict-affected territories Protection of vulnerable groups Committee for State-building, Regional Policy Infrastructure recovery issues and Local Self-Government

10.4.2. Stakeholder Identification and Analysis For the purpose of this SEP and related SMP, the stakeholders were analyzed with the use of desk research and consultations, at the national, regional and local levels with regards to the following parameters: •• Level of engagement (low, medium, high) •• Capacity to engage (low, medium, high) •• Interest to engage (low, medium, high) •• Level of influence (low, medium, high) •• Mechanism(s) of influence •• Attitude (positive, negative, neutral) •• Relevance / importance (low, medium, high) •• Strengths and weaknesses •• Related risks

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 49

Each Stakegolder Group has been engaged at the level, scope, frequency, and with tools that ensure its most effective engagement and avved value to the UERP.

The selection and analysis of the key stakeholders was performed with the help of this Stakeholder Engagement Planning Checklist: Who will be positively affected by the project’s environmental and social impacts?

Who will be adversely affected by the project’s environmental and social impacts?

Who are the most vulnerable to the project’s effects?

Who are the strongest supporters?

Who are the strongest opponents?

Who is critical to engage with?

What potential grievances at the planning stage?

What potential grievances at the construction stage?

What potential grievances at the operation stage?

50 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

10.5. Stakeholder engagement mechanism In the Ukrainian context, the notions of “stakeholders” and “stakeholder engagement” are still rather new. Public entities at all levels have departments or units for interaction with the media and “hromadskist” (i.e., members of the society), which usually perform the functions of information dissemination and liaising with members of the community.

This SEP, together with the SMP, is aimed at becoming a tool an integrated Social Management System, which includes: •• Assigning management functions and resources for performing stakeholder engagement •• Planning and targeting stakeholder engagement •• Information disclosure •• Stakeholder consultations •• Building functional partnerships with stakeholders •• Grievance management •• Stakeholder participation in monitoring and evaluation •• Reporting to stakeholders and independent accountability mechanisms These components of the Stakeholder Management Plan are discussed in detail below.

10.5.1. Assigning management functions and resources for performing stakeholder engagement To facilitate sub-project implementation with the engagement of relevant stakeholders and broader communities, during the SMP / SEP roll-out phase a collaborative entity, provisionally referred to as “Sub-Project Coordination Unit” (SPU), will be established within each of the 3-4 pilot communities.

SPUs will consist of representatives of: •• Municipal council: a designated member of the Council; •• Mayor’s office; •• Local state administration; •• Department of Education, Healthcare or other relevant unit (local implementer); •• Contractor(s); •• Community Liaison Officer, designated jointly by the local implementer and key nongovernmental stakeholders •• Optionally: NGOs and community-based initiatives, members of the local councils, the business community.

The purpose of the Sub-Project Coordination Unit will be to organize and implement communitybased scoping, participatory needs assessment, risk reviews, external communication, stakeholder consultations and other stakeholder engagement events, grievance management and participatory monitoring and reporting back to the community, the regional authorities and MRD. The SPU will select a Community Liaison Officer, who will play a key role in ensuring the ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders, early identification, prevention and mitigation or potential conflicts and grievances.

With this SEP, MRD will require that sub-project implementers designate staff with relevant skills to work with stakeholders (Community Liaison Officers, CLOs). CLOs will be formally given the tasks to perform stakeholder engagement.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 51

Sub-Project Coordination Unit

In the Ukrainian context, the notions of “stakeholders” and “stakeholder engagement” are still rather new. Public entities at all levels have departments or units for interaction with the media and members of a broder community, which usually perform the functions of information dissemination and liaising with members of the community.

10.5.2. Planning and targeting stakeholder engagement Stakeholder Group B Group C

Group A Group B

Method of engagement Provision of information

Scoping meetings, conferences, presentations

Purpose of engagement Create information flow; make information available; spread awareness of decisions

Action description

Decisions made by authorities / implementers have been finalized and should be shared with stakeholders before action is taken.

Stakeholder engagement is limited to receiving information. No feedback or further engagement expected.

Test would-be Present proposed decisions, decision(s) before receive feedback they are finalized

52 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Timeline Upon sub-projects’ formal approval and implementation start

Scoping phase

Group A Group B

Public hearings

Decision or plan to be heard before the decision is taken

Group A Group B

Consultations in working groups

Influence decision-making

Group A Group B

Collaboration through advisory groups

Influence and inform decisionmaking

Group A

Delegation (through local councils, community partnerships, membershipbased associations)

Joint decisionmaking by authorized representatives

Group B

Selforganization / selfmanagement

Group B

Third-party monitoring

Authorities make their initial decisions and stakeholders are informed about their decision / plan(s) to give their feedback or agreement to the decision. Public hearings are open to all and announced in advance.

A formalized procedure of holding the public hearings can be described in a local Statute or a separate regulation. Final decisions are made with the consideration of the feedback from the public hearings Improve quality of decisions by bringing in additional perspectives (women’s, youth, elderly, IDPs’)

At sub-project start, then at project end to present monitoring and evaluation results

Make and implement their decisions and bear / share responsibility for implementation

Empower stakeholders; engage them as co-owners; involve their resources in the implementation

During sub-project implementation phase; participatory monitoring (quarterly)

Ensure structured and unbiased assessment of the process and outcomes

Build capacity and trust, enable identification of gaps and management of improvements

Quarterly, then at sub-project end

Scoping phase; monitoring after 6-12 months of the sub-project Increase interaction with Scoping decision-makers at the stage / needs of decision formulation; assessment; to stay directly informed sub-project about contents of drafts appraisal and plans; to provide advice and recommendations on specific matters affecting the project; to make early warnings of potential risks and participate in mitigation Present and discuss issues Consultations and challenges and options at scoping and for addressing them; receive sub-project proposals of alternatives start phases; evaluation meetings

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 53

Group A

Grievance redress mechanism(s)

Ensure effective, nondiscriminatory, accessible grievance management

Design an roll out a Within initial grievance mechanism for 6 months of sub-projects; appoint and sub-projects train CLOs; disseminate information about grievance redress mechanism; ensure communication on, and documentation of grievances

10.5.3. Information Disclosure The arrangements for the information disclosure outlined in this SEP are based on the EIB’s Public Disclosure Policy and Ukraine’s legislation on access to public information. The information disclosure within the UERP and sub-projects follows the good practice principles: •• Early disclosure, aiming at providing stakeholders with relevant information before the decisionmaking process is over; •• Objective information, including factual information to an extent possible; •• Disclosure prior to consultation, to allow informed inputs from the consultation participants and reach out to more stakeholders who would be interested to take part in the consultation; •• Informing stakeholders about any major changes in the project; •• Information provision in a format and language that is understandable for groups of stakeholders.

10.5.4. Regulatory Framework for Information Disclosure The Law of Ukraine “On Access to Public Information” grants open access by request to all information created or owned by the public authorities in the process of implementation of their official duties.

This includes the city master plan, public procurement conditions for any bids, calculation of utility tariffs, budget funding available for any specific programs and projects, etc.

The three reasons when the information disclosure request may be rejected are state secret, confidential information (e.g., personal data), working documentation (internal correspondence, draft documents etc.). If information request is not satisfied, justification (reference to a relevant legislation) shall be given.

The information requested shall be provided within 5 working days. In case the information requested concerns people’s life or health, it shall be provided within 48 hours. If a large amount of information is requested, the law gives 20 days to respond. The delay should be communicated and justified to the requestor within the initial 5 days.

All public authorities are obliged to publish their decisions within 5 days. The decision shall be also published online on the authority’s website. This applies to decisions of local councils on allocation / sale of land, investment, publicly funded construction works, etc. Income and assets declarations of elected public officials and civil servants are openly available – and online from 2016 on.

An information request can be submitted by any individual or legal entity orally or in writing, personally or by mail, e-mail, telephone or fax. There is no pre-set form of the information request; however, there are required data that the requestor must provide: full name, organization title, postal, electronic address or contact number (if available); general description and contents of the information requested. A written information request must be signed and dated. A sample request form should be available at the information holder’s website or available from the information holder’s staff.

A public authority is obliged to provide space within its premises where an information requestor can read or copy the document(s). Any information shall be provided free of charge by public authorities, state enterprises and corporations that receive public funds. The rejection of an information disclosure request can be challenged by submitting grievance to the superior entity or filing a court case.

54 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

10.5.5. UERP Communication Plan To raise awareness of the UERP contribution to early recovery MRD will develop a UERP Communication Plan.

The Communication Plan will be aimed at five target groups:

(A) Parliament of Ukraine, Cabinet of Minister of Ukraine, relevant Ministries, Presidential Administration (B) EIB, other IFIs, international and bilateral donors and organizations that support Ukraine’s early recovery efforts (C) Regional and local elected and executive authorities – project implementers (D) Stakeholders in the corporate and non-profit sectors (E) Final community-based beneficiaries – general population including IDPs Alongside with these external stakeholders, the Communication Plan will involve building a robust internal communication channels and information exchange within MRD, between MRD and local sub-projects implementers, and between MRD, local sub-project implementers and EIB. To enhance the capacity of MRD to design and implement strategic communication for the ERP, a Communications Advisor has been included in the PIU. The tasks of the Communications Advisor include: •• developing the MRD’s Communication Strategy and Communication Plan, •• designing communication messages for each of the key target groups •• developing information materials for dissemination to external stakeholders •• developing the concept and Terms of Reference for the UERP website or a designated section at the MRD official website to ensure the official and comprehensive source of information on the UERP progress at the national and sub-project level The Communication Plan will be regularly reviewed and adjusted to the needs of the MRD / PIU and local sub-project implementers. Implementation of the Communication Plan will require additional resources to be found within the ERP budget.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 55

10.5.6. UERP Communication Tools Tool

Description

Stakeholders targeted

Timeline

Website

Online presence of UERP at the MRD website

Government, IFIs, population

Q2- 2016

Information Points

Information Points / Public Information Boards at MRD, regional authorities in UERP regions, local sub-project implementers

General public, communitybased stakeholders

Q2 - 2016

UERP leaflet

Key facts and figures about UERP

Q1- 2016

Press release

Call for Preparation of Tranche 2 sub-projects

General public; subprojects; partner NGOs; grantees; MRD and other governmental stakeholders

Project brochure

Q2- 2016

Announcement of interim results of UERP

Q4-2016; Q4 2017

Dissemination at working and public events

As needed

Design and preparation in Ukrainian and English

General public; subprojects; partner NGOs; grantees; MRD and other governmental stakeholders

Q2-2016

Presentation by MRD / PIU to relevant government / parliament stakeholders

MEDT, MI, MSP, MH, MES, Parliament

Q1-Q2 -2016

Presentation to local stakeholders – potential applicants for Tranche 2, 3, etc.

Local authorities, partner NGOs; business; local media; other relevant stakeholders in the regions

Q1-Q2 -2016

Press briefings

Updates on the UERP implementation

Mass media / journalists

Semiannually

Stakeholder consultations

5 consultations in ERP target regions

Local authorities, partner NGOs; business; local media; other relevant stakeholders in the regions

Semiannually or as needed

Open House events in the regions

1 Open House event in each UERP region

Local authorities, partner NGOs; other relevant stakeholders

Semiannually

Final conference

Presentation of the projects outcomes; discussing a key findings and lessons learned; exploring paths for future cooperation

EU, EIB, governmental stakeholders; sub-projects; partner NGOs;

2018

Final report

Design and production in Ukrainian

General public; subprojects; partner NGOs; grantees; MRD and other governmental stakeholders

2018

Dissemination at working and public events UERP update to key stakeholders

Translation into English; printing Presentation and dissemination

56 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Ongoing

10.6. Stakeholder consultations 10.6.1. Legal Provisions for Stakeholder Consultation This SEP uses EIB’s definition of a public consultation: “Consultation is defined as a tool for managing culturally appropriate two-way communications between project sponsors and the public. Its goal is to improve decision-making and build understanding, by actively involving individuals, groups, and organizations with a stake in the project. This involvement increases a project’s long-term viability and enhances its benefits to locally affected people and other stakeholders”13. Public consultation is always included in an EIA14.

Provisions for stakeholder engagement are outlines in Ukraine’s Constitution, the Law “On Local Self-Government”, a number of other laws, local regulations, the Statutes of local communities. The regulations relevant for the purpose of this SMP refer to a variety of forms enabling individual and group participation in public consultations.

Stakeholder engagement, primarily the information disclosure and consultations, is envisaged by the Ukrainian legislation: the Law “On Local Self-Governance in Ukraine”, city Statutes, and provisions of the European Self-Governance Charter, ratified by Ukraine in 1997. The city statutes, particularly the ones approved since March 2014, provide communities with the power to use local participation instruments.

Multiple possible formats include public discussions, public expertise (which is possible in accordance with the Cabinet Resolution “On Approving the Order of Enabling the Conduct of Public Expert Assessment of Performance of Bodies of the Executive Power” (2008)15 but not used in full by both the authorities and the civil society), local initiatives, general community meetings, public hearings, local elections, individual and group appeals and grievances submitted to local governments.

General assembly of the residents at their place of residence There are legal provisions for the right of community members to hold a general assembly to address any issues relevant for their residential area. The norm is mostly a declaration in the current Law “On Local Self-Government” (Article 8). It is also present in the “Regulations for the General Assembly of Citizens According to Their Place of Residence in Ukraine”16, in the part that does not contradict the local self-government law. The Statute of the Local Community defines the specific local mechanism of carrying out the assembly.

Public hearings These are local residents’ formal meetings with the mayor, local government officials or local parliament members to hear and approve their reports, submit proposals and approve decision drafts. There is a legal norm on calling up a public hearing at least once a year and on mandatory consideration of its decisions. The Statute of the local community defines a specific mechanism for organizing a public hearing and the incorporation of results in the local decision-making.

Public hearings are mandatory for the consideration of public interest during the development of the drafts of city planning documents, including the settlement’s master plan, zoning plans and detailed territory development plans. Citizens’ proposals are submitted in writing and must include justifications according to requirements of the law, construction norms, state standards and rules.

As a result of the consideration, the applicant is provided a response about the proposal being approved or declined. In case of a dispute, a conciliation commission is organized of representatives of a government body, the public, and experts.

The Law on the Regulation of City Planning Activities provides for the Procedure for Public Hearings for EIB Environmental and Social Practices Handbook (2007), Social Assessment Guidelines–Guidance Note 5

13

EIB Environmental and Social Handbook, 2013.

14

15

http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/976-2008-%D0%BF

adopted by the Parliament’s Decree #3748-12 on 17.12.1993

16

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 57

Consideration of Public Interests during the Development of the Drafts of City Planning Documents on Local Level. The procedure was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers’ Decree #555 of 25.05.2011.

Local initiative The law “On Local Self-Government” grants citizens the right to initiate the local council’s consideration of a particular issue or a decision draft. The procedure of organizing motions at the local initiative is outlined in the Statute of the local community.

Public examination of a government body Examination of activities of a government body by the public (stakeholders) is mandatory for the state government bodies, and optional for local government bodies (usually not applied). The right to carry out the examination belongs to NGOs, unions, creative associations, charities, religious organizations, self-organization bodies, non-governmental media, other citizen associations. Within a week after the submission of an application, the government body issues an order about the examination; it appoints responsible staff members (and a workgroup, if necessary). The government body is obliged to facilitate the examination and provide all the requested documents. The examination initiator is obliged to submit its expert conclusions within three months. The conclusions are to be published at the government entity’s website and consideration at a board meeting which should approve a plan of measures to execute the accepted recommendations.

Public consultations These are mandatory for state government bodies, and optional for local government bodies (usually not applied). Every year, the public authorities adopt a provisional plan of consultations and open it to public proposals. If three civil society institutions support a proposal, then the consultation on it becomes mandatory. The consultations take three forms: 1) public discussion: conferences, forums, public hearings, roundtables, assemblies, meetings; 2) electronic consultations; 3) public opinion research: sociological studies and observations, hotlines, monitoring. It is mandatory to publish consultation results on the website and take them into consideration in decision making. The process is outlines in the Procedure for Consultations with the Public on the Issues of Designing and Implementing State Policies, approved by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers #996 of 3.11.2010.

Advisory bodies These can be public councils for local government bodies. Their activities are regulated by the Default Regulations for a Public Council, adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers’ Decree #976 of 5.11.2008. The establishment of public councils is mandatory for state government bodies, and optional for local government bodies (usually not applied). Aside from public councils, other advisory bodies can be established.

Citizens’ appeals to government bodies These can be of three types: proposals (comments), statements (petitions), complaints. They can be submitted: 1) orally: during personal reception of citizens by government officials, via a hotline; 2) in written form: via mail, in person; 3) electronically: without electronic digital signature. The appeal must include a last name, a first name, a patronymic, a return address, a signature, a date. The reply or justified decline must be provided with a signature of the head of the government body within one month.

Electronic petitions Article 23 of the Law “On Citizens’ Appeals” requires only the full name and e-mail address to initiate a petition. Within 2 days the petition is checked and published. When the required number of signatures is collected, the consideration of the petition starts within 3 days. Within 10 days, the government body must consider the petition and publish a decision about its approval or decline on the website. Local petitions are regulated by the Statute of the local community, which defines the

58 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

specific mechanism of organization, the number of signatures and a period within which they must be collected for the petition to be considered by the local government body.

10.6.2. Building Functional Partnerships with Stakeholders This SEP involves actions to empower local implementers and stakeholders to build lasting sustainable partnerships that will be beneficial for the sub-project implementation and for the communities as a whole.

The roles and possible inputs that different stakeholders bring to UERP at different levels are summarized in the table below:

Multi-stakeholder Partnership Framework EU, EIB

MRD, other national bodies

Large-scale Regulatory recovery funding framework

Regional and local implementers Institutional capacity

Private sector

Civil society

Engagement in local project implementation Provision of works and services

Grassroots connections, representation Access to vulnerable population

Policy development incentives

Policy and administrative solutions

Infrastructure

International standards of governance and accountability

Institutional capacity

Local knowledge and influence

Jobs creation

Representation and intermediary role Â

Environmental and social standards Funding for pilot projects

Further matching funding

Delivery of the project results

Further cofunding, leverage

Communication with other stakeholders Participation in consultations and other actions to support the project implementation Significant social capital

Grievance redress Ensuring that mechanism grievances are property addressed

Innovation

Ability to replicate and scale up effective pilots Monitoring Monitoring and evaluation and evaluation standards procedures and practices in place

Funding resources Corporate social and leverage responsibility

Repository of knowledge, best practices and lessons learnt Capacity building Capacity building

Convening mechanisms

Ensuring access to information; enabling participatory monitoring

Capacity building

Participatory monitoring

Monitoring and evaluation practices

Source of practice, cases Capacity building

Capacity building

10.6.3. Independent Accountability Mechanisms Consultations with non-governmental stakeholders during the baseline socio-economic assessment in the target regions identified insufficient access to information about UERP and issues of transparency

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 59

and accountability of the local authorities and potential implementers as a source of risk. The consultations also highlighted a demand for more participation in monitoring the implementation of ERP sub-projects.

While the local and regional capacity for undertaking effective, objective and constructive third party monitoring (TPM) is currently limited, inputs in this capacity will be an effective contribution to developing independent accountability mechanisms (IAM) at the sub-project level with the potential to cascade them to other sub-projects.

Third party monitoring (TPM) and principles of building independent accountability mechanisms (IAM) will be discussed within the local seminars for community-based NGOs and other stakeholders during the roll-out of this project’s Capacity-Building Program and the Monitoring Program.

10.7. Grievance redress mechanism 10.7.1. Managing Public Grievances No standardized complaints management practice or grievance redress mechanism exists at the national or local level. Grievances and complaints are addressed on an ad hoc basis in accordance with arrangements provided for by the agency, company or institution involved – or are not addressed.

Within 3-4 selected community-based sub-projects of Tranche 1, MRD and consultants will pilot a grievance redress mechanism based on the criteria outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals”, Recommendations of the International Labour Organization (ILO), and the Ukrainian law “On Citizens’ Appeals”.

10.7.2. International commitments under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide criteria for effectiveness of nonjudicial grievance mechanisms, which should be: Legitimate: enabling trust from the stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended, and being accountable for the fair conduct of grievance processes: •• Accessible: being known to all stakeholder groups for whose use they are intended, and providing adequate assistance for those who may face particular barriers to access; •• Predictable: providing a clear and known procedure with an indicative time frame for each stage, and clarity on the types of process and outcome available and means of monitoring implementation; •• Equitable: seeking to ensure that aggrieved parties have reasonable access to sources of information, advice and expertise necessary to engage in a grievance process on fair, informed and respectful terms; •• Transparent: keeping parties to a grievance informed about its progress, and providing sufficient information about the mechanism’s performance to build confidence in its effectiveness and meet any public interest at stake; •• Rights-compatible: ensuring that outcomes and remedies accord with internationally recognized human rights; •• A source of continuous learning: drawing on relevant measures to identify lessons for improving the mechanism and preventing future grievances and harms.

10.7.3. Ukrainian Legal Provisions for Submitting Appeals, Complaints and Grievances The Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals”17 regulates the process enabling individuals to submit comments and proposals to bodies of state government, local self-governance and public associations, http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/393/96-%D0%B2%D1%80

17

60 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

to challenge actions by public authorities, and to demand that their legitimate rights and interests are restored. The law defines grievance as a reason to demand restoration of rights and protection of legitimate interests adversely affected by actions, inaction or decisions made by state authorities, local self-governance bodies, enterprises, institutions, organizations, public associations or officials thereof.

All grievances, submitted orally or in writing, must contain the full name and address of the complainer and description of the matter of grievance. Anonymous grievances shall be rejected. Grievances that meet these requirements and are submitted to relevant bodies are mandatory for assessment and response. The law explicitly prohibits the rejection of grievances based on political views and affiliation, gender, age, nationality, language or religious beliefs of the complainer.

If the matter of the grievance is beyond the sphere of authority of the body to which the grievance was addressed, the recipient of the grievance must re-send the grievance to the authorized entity or official within 5 days, in which case the acknowledgement of the receipt and referral of the grievance shall be sent to the complainer.

If the grievance does not contain the information necessary for taking a justified decision by the relevant entity or official, the grievance shall be returned to the complainer within 5 days with detailed explanation of the reason why the grievance submission is returned.

The law prohibits forwarding grievances to the entities or officials whose actions or decisions have caused the grievance. Confidentiality of the complainer is protected by the law.

Grievances must be reviewed within 30 days from the day of receipt. Grievances that do not require additional investigation must be responded to no later than 15 days after their receipt. If the resolution of the grievance is impossible within 30 days, the authorized executive official of the public authority, enterprise, institution or organization identify the necessary term for the grievance review. In no case the term shall exceed 45 days.

10.7.4. The Judiciary Grievance Redress Mechanism in Ukraine The court practices of material and moral (non-material) grievance redress are based on the provisions of the Constitution, the Civil Code, and laws (including the laws on consumer rights protection, property rights, on access to public information, and others), which entitle individuals and legal entities to compensation of material and moral damages caused by illegal actions or inaction that have led to the violation of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.

Ukrainian courts rely first and foremost on the Ukrainian legislation and rarely use current international treaties of which Ukraine is a signatory (including the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights18, the European Convention on Human Rights19) as the key guidance in addressing grievances.

When making the judgment on the volume of the grievance redress, the court would take into account the nature and graveness of grievance, status of the complainer (including his or her health conditions, life circumstances, the damage done and the time and resources needed to redress the damage). The volume of the moral damages redress can be based on the degree of guilt of the perpetrator and the material / financial status of the defendant.

If the damages have been caused by illegitimate decisions, actions or inaction of the governmental or local self-governance bodies of their officials, the grievance redress will be financially resourced by the state or relevant local self-governance bodies.

10.7.5. Non-Judiciary Grievance Redress Mechanism for UERP Implementation An objective of this SEP is to propose an effective, realistic, predictable, participatory and transparent grievance mechanism that affords all stakeholders, in particular impacted individuals and communities, the ability to provide feedback, channel their concerns and, thereby, access http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx

18

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

19

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 61

information and, where relevant, seek recourse and remedy. The grievance mechanism will be critical for strengthening of non-judicial access to grievance at the sub-project level and will contribute to establishing a good practice at the overall UERP level. To launch the grievance mechanism, MRD and sub-projects will: •• identify a contact point to which questions, complaints and grievances should be addressed; •• provide relevant information and communicate with affected individuals and groups before an issue or complain becomes a grievance; •• provide public information to all stakeholders about the process of submitting a question, complaint or grievance and the timeframe within which the answer or other relevant action should be expected; •• ensure that questions, concerns and any actions taken in response to them are properly documented at the level where they are received (normally, at sub-project level); •• address concerns promptly and effectively, using an understandable and transparent process that is culturally appropriate and readily accessible to all stakeholders, at no cost and without retribution.

The complaint and grievance resolution will be done on a sub-project basis by: •• a designated representative of the local implementer (Community Liaison Officer); •• a member of the local elected or executive body who is well informed about the project but not directly involved in its implementation; •• a respected member of the local community (e.g., a member of the local public council, senior education or public health professional, or an NGO leader) who would serve as a mediator between the community and the sub-project; •• a member of the sub-project’s informal “public supervisory board”; •• a representative of a local community law information and consultation center.

Selection of a particular format and representative for the complaints and grievance management will be done through a consultation process between the local implementers and key stakeholders during the SMP / SEP roll-out phase. This approach will help build credibility and trust in impartiality of the grievance redress mechanism.

A guide to identifying potential grievances and dealing with them will be offered to the sub-projects during the roll-out phase within the capacity-building program.

10.7.6. Grievance Redress Mechanism: Management Process The Grievance Redress Mechanism includes several levels of addressing / redressing a grievance:

Submitting a Complaint The local implementer shall specify the postal or e-mail address, and/or fax number to which a complaint can be sent. There will also be a specific address and/ or a telephone number (hotline) at which the complaint can be made orally. The information about the office hours and, where appropriate, the name and title of the complaint management representative, shall be provided together with the contact details. The complaint shall clearly identify the subject matter and formulate the action desired by the complainer. A sample Public Complaint or Grievance Form will be proposed to the sub-project implementers for their use. The form will be made available to the public at the sub-projects Information Points and on the local implementers’ websites or web pages.

A formal written Grievance Procedure will be adopted by MRD and subscribed to by local sub-project implementers. The Grievance Procedure shall guarantee confidentiality of the complaint or grievance, non-discrimination and privacy of the Complainer.

Keeping Track Record of the Complaint A Complaints and Grievances Register/Database (in an electronic form and a hard-copy ledger) shall be established and maintained by each sub-project in order to keep the record of:

62 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

•• date of complaint / grievance •• name and affiliation of the complainer •• contact details of the complainer (mailing address, e-mail address, telephone / fax number(s) •• preferred form and language of contact •• matter of the complaint / grievance •• action(s) taken to resolve the grievance •• name and position of the Implementer’s representative responsible for addressing the complaint / grievance •• information on whether the complaint / grievance was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainer, or elevated to a higher level for resolution.

The Complaints and Grievances Register will be maintained in an electronic form and paper by the Grievance Officer/ Community Liaison Officer within a sub-project.

Responding to a Complaint, Managing and Redressing the Grievance Having local mechanisms of addressing complaints and grievances through mediation will contribute to the local authorities and communities’ capacity to manage their own development. This will be particularly relevant in the context of the decentralization reform and related empowerment of local implementers and communities.

The local implementer’s Community Liaison Officer or other designated grievance manager will ensure that acknowledgement of receipt of the grievance to the complainer, follow through the process of assessing the grievance and preparing the grievance redress or other relevant response.

The following actions will be taken in response to grievance: •• the head of the local implementing body (LI) will formally issue the order to the CLO to assess and investigate the grievance •• grievance investigation process will be launched; based on the investigation results, recommendations will be made to satisfy the grievance completely, partially, or to reject it; •• if requested by the complainer, (s)he will be granted access to the grievance review process and will have the right to receive all relevant materials related to the grievance; •• urgent measures will be taken to discontinue any illegitimate actions that caused the grievance; •• causes and conditions that have caused the infringement on right that resulted in the grievance will be identified and removed; •• ensure implementation of grievance redress decisions agreed upon between the LI and the complainer.

For processing the grievances within this Grievance Redress Mechanism, the following timeframe will apply: •• Acknowledgment of receipt of grievance within 5 working days; •• Responding to grievance within 15 working days; •• Resolution of grievance within 30 days (except in cases when the extension to 45 days as provided by the law can be applied).

In a case when the matter cannot be resolved, despite the best efforts of the local authorities and other relevant parties involved, or when the redress of a particular grievance is beyond the power of the local implementers, the grievance manager (local Public Liaison Officer) will provide primary advice and referral to the judiciary, relevant administrative bodies, or to the Office of Ombudsman.

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 63

Grievance Management Process

MRD will be responsible for exercising the control over the overall implementation of the Grievance Redress Mechanism within UERP. MRD will designate a Public Liaison Officer for receiving and addressing grievances that go beyond the scope of an individual sub-project and / or refer to the implementation of the ERP as a whole. A designated e-mail address will be available at the MRD website for filling out and submitting a grievance form. Where necessary, MRD will engage its Legal Department or refer to appropriate external bodies for the grievance settlement.

64 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

10.8. Stakeholder engagement timetable Objective

Stakeholders

Stakeholder identification and analysis Update information MRD, PIU, local on stakeholders sub-project and their interests implementers, community-based stakeholders Information disclosure Have information ready for stakeholder consultations Create and Community-based maintain stakeholders permanent Information Points

Engagement Actions

Resources / Management Timeframe

Analyze stakeholders for tranche 2 and subsequent tranches of sub-projects; Perform stakeholder mapping on a semi-annual basis

PIU

semi-annual

Leaflets and explainers with key project data, goals and outcomes;

MRD / PIU

Q1 - 2016

MRD / PIU; local implementers

Q1-Q2 2016

MRD / PIU; local implementers

Q2 - Q3 2016

IRF, PIU

–Q1 - 2016

Local implementers

–Q1 - 2016

Identify and disseminate information about contact points for further information and feedback (staff, telephone number(s), e-mail addresses, links to websites) at MRD and each municipality hosting sub-projects; ensure availability of contact phone numbers and email addresses throughout the subproject process Keep key Community-based Public events to provide stakeholders stakeholders; sub-project updates informed Ministries; MPs; Ombudsman Office Stakeholder Consultations Agree on the roles MRD, PIU, Run four Stakeholder and responsibilities Regional and Engagement meetings of each key local authorities for PIU and local stakeholder – sub-project stakeholders on draft involved in UERP implementers EMP, SMP and SEP implementation presentation, group discussions, feedback Select and train Local authorities Each municipality / sublocal staff to – sub-project project implementer be responsible implementers will designate for organizing a stakeholder / stakeholder Community Liaison consultations Officer, whose duties will be to maintain and update a stakeholder database, organize and manage stakeholder consultations, keep records of the consultations, follow up with stakeholders

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 65

Prepare and roll out a stakeholder consultation procedure

MRD (towards national authorities); regional administrations; city councils / local implementers

Consultation will be announced publicly at least 10 working days in advance.

The announcement will be displayed in writing on public message boards, in a municipal newspaper, on the local council’s / administration’s website. Additionally, the announcement can be made via the media and social networks. Civil society organizations can serve as a disseminator Ensure Regional and local Call consultations in consultations councils; local regions / municipalities prior to Tranche implementers; where ERP sub2 of sub-projects NGOs projects are expected and subsequent to be designed for tranches subsequent tranches of UERP funding Capacity to do Stakeholder Engagement

IRF / PIU

Q1 - 2016

MRD / PIU

Q1 – Q2 2016

Improve communication between stakeholders

PIU MRD, PIU, regional Communication authorities, local mechanisms on implementers aspects related to implementation of SMP and SEP between PIU, other relevant national and local authorities, and other key stakeholders are proposed Build capacity MRD, regional Local implementers IRF of implementers authorities, local will receive assistance to plan and do implementers in developing their Stakeholder own communication Engagement channels, providing information and feedback. At least 2 trainings for MRD / PIU/ RSAs? RMCAs; 2 trainings for subproject implementers; 2 trainings for NGOs and community monitors Grievance Mechanism Facilitate nonMRD / PIU, local judicial access to implementers grievance redress at sub-project level

Develop and pilot IRF community-based grievance redress mechanism; collect stakeholders’ and users’ feedback, finalize the Grievance Redress mechanism accordingly

66 UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Ongoing

Q1 – Q2 2016

Q1 – Q2 2016

Inform impacted Local individuals and communities, IDPs communities how they can channel their concerns and, where relevant, seek recourse and remedy Build skills locally to use the Grievance Mechanism

Local implementers, NGOs, IDPs, community members

Produce a guide on IRF identifying potential grievances, and dealing with them; Present the draft grievance mechanism to a focus group / consultation meeting to get the feedback Run the Grievance IRF Mechanism module as a topic in 4 workshops in the target communities

Q1 – Q2 2016

Q1 - Q2 2016

Make the Complaint / Grievance mechanism accessible for stakeholders and broader community

Post information Local Q2 - 2016 about the Complaints implementers / Grievances procedure at the Public Information stands, project’s Information Point, local implementer’s website Create and maintain a Local Q2 - 2016 Complaint / Grievance implementers Register Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, Independent Accountability Mechanisms Facilitate participatory monitoring

Sub-projects

Build local capacity Local of using M&E implementers, instruments NGOs Promote participatory M&E

Local implementers, NGOs

Create a transparency, participatory monitoring and accountability mechanism at the local level; set up monitoring working groups in 3-4 selected sub-project municipalities Deliver training on M&E for 3-4 sub-projects and stakeholders Support communitybased participatory M&E projects

Develop positive lasting relations with stakeholders Build local Community-based Open House events, ownership of the stakeholders site visits, photos and project outcomes progress presentations in sub-project communities Provide Sub-project Project-related opportunity to implementers experience-sharing share experience, from the 3-4 preevents; Final conference network and learn, selected target present initial communities, PIU, results of the suband other relevant projects stakeholders (possibly, representatives of other (future) subprojects)

Local Q1 – Q2 implementers, 2016 NGOs

IRF

Q1 - 2016

IRF

Q1 – Q2 2016

Local implementers

Annually

Local Q3 – Q4 implementers, 2016 NGOs

UERP: Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 67

ANNEX A Legal background The Government of Ukraine has created a regulatory framework for addressing the challenges caused by the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine and the related massive ruination and displacement. The legislation includes the Law “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Internally Displaced Persons” that provides the framework for the development of policies regarding IDPs1. The policy development function has been assigned to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The government’s official Program identifies social security, employment and integration of IDPs as its priority2. However, policies, legislation and implementation approaches to addressing the IDP challenges are formulated by a range of state bodies, international organizations and volunteer initiatives, often without proper coordination between the various units and themes. The Ministry of Regional Policy is tasked with coordinating efforts aimed at aiding IDPs with the Ministry of Social Policy, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, as well as with relevant parliamentary committees, to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach. Additional inputs are needed to strengthen the Ministries’ policy capacity and human resources that can manage those tasks.

The Ukrainian government’s first effort to establish the institutional arrangements for meeting the needs of IDPs was the order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of April 1, 2014, “On the Approval of the Plan of Additional Measures for Temporary Placement of Ukrainian Citizens who Move from the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea and the City of Sevastopol to Other Regions of Ukraine”3.

The Plan provided for the establishment of the Regional Headquarters tasked with ensuring accommodation, registration and legal aid for IDPs. The plans for provision of educational and social services were also approved, and a “hotline” for IDPs was launched. By the order of the Cabinet of Ministers N588-p of June 11, 2014, those institutions were transformed into the “Interdepartmental Coordination Headquarters”4. According to the “Plan of Measures”, the Headquarters is responsible for the operationalising and maintaining interaction between state bodies on the provision of support to IDPs. The establishment of the Interdepartmental Coordination Headquarters was an adequate step for the first stage of the IDP crisis. The institution made it possible to collect primary data about the number of IDPs and move forward in the assessment of the IDPs’ needs. However, as the early recovery process is moving on, there is a need to update the mechanisms of communication and coordination on IDP relief and early recovery issues.

An entity designed to address the recovery of the infrastructure in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, most severely affected by the armed conflict, is the State Agency for the Donbas Recovery (SADR)5.

Its mandate is to facilitate the implementation of the legislation on the social provision for IDPs. The SADR agency is expected to play a key role in the development of policies for the restoration of social infrastructure and collecting and analyzing the information on IDPs’ needs in housing, medical care, access to services and social protection. Upon becoming fully operational, the SADR is expected to serve as a coordinator of the activities of state institutions and local self-governance bodies aiming at the recovery of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions; collect and analyse information about infrastructure recovery needs and IDPs’ demand for access to housing, healthcare, and other social services; draft proposals for recovery of individual objects and for a targeted state program aiming at

1

Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring Rights and Freedoms of Internally Displaced Persons”,

http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1706-18

; Law of Ukraine“On Making Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine on Enhancing Social Protection of Internally Displaced Persons”, http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/245-19

Program of the Cabinet of Minister of Ukraine, http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/26-19.

Cabinet Resolution # 298-p of 1 April 2014, “On Approving the Plan of Additional Measures for Temporary Housing of Citizens of Ukraine

2

3

who Relocate from the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea and the City of Sevastopol to other regions of Ukraine” // http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/298-2014-%D1%80.

4

Cabinet’s Regulation # 588-p of 11 June 2014, “Issues of social provision for citizens of Ukraine who have relocated from the temporarily

occupied territory and areas of the anti-terrorist operation” // http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/588-2014-%D1%80/paran10#n32.

5

Cabinet’s resolution of 26 November 2014, # 655, “Some Issues of the State Agency for the Donbass Recovery”, http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/

show/655-2014-%D0%BF

68 ANNEX A

a complex and balanced development of the Donbas; and prepares investment proposals for funding by international donors. Meanwhile, UERP’s scope is broader geographically and focused on early recovery needs. *** Multiple state bodies are responsible for different areas of challenges and needs caused by the mass internal displacement of the population. Their coordination is ad-hoc, communication between them is insufficient, and adequate resources and competencies are missing.

Basic material support for IDPs is provided in accordance with the Decrees by the Cabinet of Ministers # 505 of October 1, 20146, and # 535 of October 1, 2014.7 The amount of monthly targeted aid to IDPs is UAH 442 for employable persons and UAH 884 for non-employable persons to cover accommodation and utility costs. The total aid for one family cannot exceed UAH 2,400 for up to 6 months (with the possibility of extension for an additional 6-month period).

6

Cabinet’s resolution # 505 of 1 October 2014 “On the Provision of Monthly Targeted Aid to Persons who Relocate from Temporarily Occupied

Territories of Ukraine and Areas of the Anti-terrorist Operation, for Covering their Living Expenditures, Including the Payment for Utility Services“ // http:// zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/505-2014-%D0%BF.

7

Cabinet Resolution # 535 of 1 October 2014 “On Approving the Order of the Use of Funds that Arrived from Individuals and Legal Entities for

the Provision of Single Monetary Aid to Victims and Individuals Relocating from the temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine or the Area of the Anti-terrorist Operation” // http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/535-2014-%D0%BF.

ANNEX A 69

Cabinet Decree # 535 regulates the use of funds received from international donors. A key element of this scheme is further use of these funds to provide one-time aid for IDPs by special committees. No lasting solutions for IDPs are involved. For IDPs registered before 1 February 2015 and holders of IDP certificates, the Cabinet Decrees # 509 and # 637, “On Social Benefits to Persons who Moved from the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine and the Territory of the Anti-Terrorist Operation”8 guarantee pension payments (a monthly lifetime allowance), lifelong state stipends, all types of social assistance and compensation, material security, provision of social services provision of social services funded from the State Budget and from the funds raised through the compulsory social insurance aimed at support for IDPs. Needs assessment surveys indicate that IDPs’ access to social services, including education and health care, is generally satisfactory. When confronted with hardship IDPs naturally contact local authorities for help. In the researched sample 94% of IDPs reported having interacted with local social protection agencies, and 97% with the State migration service; 76% reported having accessed medical services since their displacement; 40% interacted with local offices of Ukraine’s pension fund; 24% with the State employment agency; 36% enrolled children in schools, 17% in nurseries. At the legislative level, access to social services is stipulated by the law “On the Rights and Freedoms of Internally Displaced Persons”. The access to education is also stipulated in the amendments to the law.9 The Ministry of Education and Science communicated the legal requirements on 1 September 2014 in its formal letter to educational institutions in order to ensure access to pre-school and school education.10 The legislation does not provide for redistribution of funds for IDPs’ needs in favor of those regions where there is high number of IDPs. The issue was raised by local authorities but so far no legal amendments have been adopted to provide adequate financial and organizational resources for the real numbers and needs of IDPs. The exception is the Donetsk and Luhansk regions: pursuant to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers #68 “On the Approval of the Procedure of Making Intragovernmental Transfers to Local Budgets in the Settlements of Donetsk and Luhansk Regions Located on the Territory of the Anti-Terrorist Operation and in the Settlements Located on the Contact Line” those regions receive additional funds that can be used to satisfy the needs of IDPs. The Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine (MSP) drafted a Complex State Program of Integration, Social Adaptation, Protection and Reintegration of IDPs for 2015-2016 and the Plan of Measures attached to it. The key focus of the program is on “relieving the social tension” by a set of decisions regarding the provision of social, physical, medical, psychophysical and material support of IDPs. The mechanisms of cooperation with civil society were defined, and micro grant programs were organized for IDP support. Also, MSP developed a Program of employment and professional education of IDPs for 20152016. The goal of the program is to enhance employment and competitiveness of IDPs on the labor market by the means of professional training, retraining and advanced training. The program also provides for reforming the State Employment Service, which is currently unable to meet the jobs challenge of IDPs. Implementation of the program is at risk at the state and regional governments’ levels due to the lack of resources needed to meet the proposed activity plans. The link to addressing challenges related to the shortage of social infrastructure and adequate public services is beyond the scope of the program.

Cabinet Resolution # 637 of 5 November 2014 “On Making Social Payments to Individuals Relocating from the temporarily Occupied Territory

8

of Ukraine or the Area of the Anti-terrorist Operation” // http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/637-2014-%D0%BF Law of Ukraine “On Making Amendments to Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal

9

Regime on the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine” with Regard to the Right on Education” // http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1237-18

10

Letter of the Ministry of Education # 1/9-441 of 1 September 2014 “On Provisions for the Rights of Children to the Out-of-School Education”

// http://osvita.ua/legislation/pozashk_osv/42679/

70 ANNEX A

ANNEX B Socio-economic situation of the conflict effected region1 The economic role of conflict-affected regions cannot be overstated. Donesk and Luhansk regions (together referred to as Donbas) alone constituted 14.5% of gross regional product in pre-crisis 2013. Total population of the region was 6.6 million people equivalent to 14.6% of country’s population. According to the estimates of State Statistics Service of Ukraine gross regional product dropped by 29.8% in Donetsk region and by 50.4% in Luhansk region in 2014. Manufacturing sector which employed 24% in Donetsk region and 20% in Luhanks region contracted by 31.5% and 42% respectively.

As a result of the conflict a large number of people fled the region due to security issues. According to the estimates of Ministry of Social Policy by the end of August 2015 there were 1.46 million internally displaced people (IDPs) in Ukraine from which 857 600 (58.7%) were pensioners, 346 800 (23.8%) were of working age, 184 900 (12.7%) were children, 60 700 (4.2%) were disabled. Most of the IDPs were relocated to the government controlled areas of Donbas, namely Donetsk (543 300) and Luhansk (216 000) regions and nearby regions of Kharkiv (187 700), Zaporizhzhia (100 500) and Dnipropetrovsk (72 900). However the large share of pensioners and concentration of IDPs nearby the conflict areas cast doubt on reliability of these numbers (see Annex C for the structure of IDP flows by districts).

Moreover official statistics doesn’t show systematic increase in trade of bread and dairy products in regions with high concentration of IDPs (Annex B).

Therefore the magnitude of labor market pressure due to arrival of IDPs and their impact on the social infrastructure calculated on the basis of official statistics, especially in regions with high share of registered retired IDPs, might be exaggerated.

Labor market absorption capacity Prior to the conflict economic activity in Donbas was in line with labor market situation in Ukraine on average (Table 1). However near-conflict regions were more economically active slightly outperforming country’s average indicators of labor force participation rate and employment level. During 2014 (the year the conflict start) labor market situation in conflict affected regions deteriorated significantly.

Slight improvement of indicators in the first half of 2015 could be misleading as they are calculated only for government controlled areas. It should be noted that despite the crisis near conflict regions still show better than country’s average indicators of labor market. This might indicate high absorption capacity of these three regions near conflict territory. However the possibility to effectively integrate IDPs in local labor markets depends significantly on their numbers and skills.

1

Research made by the CEDOS in 2014 in the frame of the project “Expert support to the implementation of the Ukraine Early Recovery Project of the

European Investment Bank: Development of Social Management and Stakeholder Engagement Plans”

ANNEX B 71

Table 1. Workforce profile Indicator

Period

Conflict effected regions

Near-conflict regions

2013 65% 2014 60% Jan - Jun 2015 66% 2013 35% Labor force non2014 40% participation rate Jan - Jun 2015 34% 2013 60% Employment level 2014 53% Jan - Jun 2015 57% 2013 7% Unemployment level 2014 11% Jan - Jun 2015 14% Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine; authors’ calculations Note: Data for 2015 does not include temporary occupied territories Labor force participation rate

66% 65% 64% 34% 35% 36% 62% 59% 60% 6% 8% 7%

Ukraine 65% 62% 62% 35% 38% 38% 60% 57% 57% 7% 9% 9%

As expected the largest ratio of IDPs registered from the start of the conflict to the end of August 2015 to active population in host territories in first half of 2015 is in Donetsk (12%) and Luhansk (6%) region. The respective ratios in Kharkiv, Zaporizhhia and Dnipropetrovsk region are significantly smaller. However this doesn’t automatically mean that Donbas region experiences more pressure on the labour market.

Table 2. Ratio of working-age registed IDPs to total active population in destination territories Economically active population January June 2015

Working-age IDPs (registers by August 2015)

Ratio of workingage IDPs to total economically active population

Donetsk region 883,600 103,268 12% Luhansk region 366,900 23,743 6% Kharkiv region 1,312,600 41,162 3% Zaporizhzhia region 825,100 20,575 2% Dnipropetrovsk 1,608,400 23,862 1% region Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine; Regional departments of social protection; authors’ calculations Note: Data for 2015 does not include temporary occupied territories

As represented in Table 3 only small portion of registered working-age IDPs in Donetsk and Luhansk regions pointed out that they need employment. This might indicate that IDPs in these regions are more likely to stay in some type of relationship with their previous employer who is situated in conflict region and register as IDPs to be eligible for social protection.

72 ANNEX B

Table 3. Employment of working-age IDPs

Donetsk region Luhansk region Kharkiv region Zaporizhzhia region Dnipropetrovsk region

Workingage IDPs who needed employment

Share of workingage IDPs who needed employment

Number of working-age IDPs who applied to state employment service

Share of working-age IDPs who applied to state employment service

16,536 2,671 17,312 10,355 16,124

16% 11% 42% 50% 68%

7,209 2,978 5,182 3,166 4,175

7% 13% 13% 15% 17%

Source: Regional departments of social protection; Regional offices of State employment Service; author’s calculations

Even smaller share of working age IDPs register with State Employment Service. This means that working age IDPs opt for more informal ways of searching job.

Despite the lower pressure and better conditions on local labor markets in near conflict regions IDPs on average still may encounter difficulties in finding employment due to low match of their skills with the employers’ needs. It should be noted, that the structure of employment by economic sector prior to the conflict was rather similar comparing to country’s average (Figure 1) which means that the possibility to absorb additional working-age population is comparatively high.

Figure 1. Employment structure by economic sectors prior to the conflict (2013 years)

Source: Labour Force Survey, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 73

However, in order to understand what the obstacles for effective inclusion of IDPs into local labor markets are also field research should be conducted.

Social infrastructure capacity By the end of August 2015 there were 184.9 thousands of children registered as IDPs which is equivalent to 12.7% of all registered IDPs. But if we consider each region separately we will find significant inter regional differences. Regions that are closer to the territory of active military actions have lower than average share of children among IDPs. Children constitute average 12% of IDPs in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia regions and 18% in Dnipropetrovsk region. It is explained by the parents’ intention to take their children to safer and more distant places. Very often women with children were first to leave areas of military conflict, that is why for better integration of females into local labor markets it is important to provide adequate education infrastructure.

Table. Structure of IDPs cohorts

Children

Share of children in total number of IDPs

Pensioners

Share of pensioners in total number of IDPs

Donetsk region 50,150 9% 390,645 Luhansk region 16,689 8% 158,551 Kharkiv region 21,798 12% 115,969 Zaporizhzhia region 11,877 12% 66,809 Dnipropetrovsk region 13,441 18% 32,830 Source: Regional departments of social protection; authors’ calculations

69% 74% 62% 66% 45%

Schools The number of schools in Donetsk and Luhansk regions decreased twice and the number of students and teachers in schools declined even more. That is why ratios of students per school and per teacher declined. It means that in these regions there is no additional pressure on educational infrastructure.

Table. Secondary education infrastructure Number of schools

Number of students

2013/ 2014/ 2013/ 2014 2015 2014

2014/ 2015

Number of teachers

Students per teacher

2013/ 2014/ 2013/ 2014/ 2013/ 2014/ 2013/ 2014/ 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015

Dnipropetrovsk 1023 1016 294,398 302,963 27,942 28,100 Donetsk 1115 558 338,226 158,891 32,399 15,433 Zaporizhzhia 611 609 155,305 159,685 17,884 17,613 Luhansk 690 315 170,920 58,593 18,158 6,512 Kharkiv 847 837 220,011 228,060 23,538 23,345 Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine; authors’ calculations

74 ANNEX B

Students Teachers per school per school

288 303 254 248 260

298 285 262 186 272

27.3 29.1 29.3 26.3 27.8

27.7 27.7 28.9 20.7 27.9

10.5 10.4 8.7 9.4 9.3

10.8 10.3 9.1 9.0 9.8

Although the number of schools decreased in all near conflict regions in 2014/2015 compared to 2013/2014 study year the number of children attending schools increased by 2-4%. This automatically resulted in increase of students per school ratio. Depending on the region on average the number of students per school increased by 8-13 persons which might be a signal of increased pressure on school infrastructure. In Dnipropetrovsk region the number of teachers in schools increased that is why ratio of students per teacher increased only slightly. In Kharkiv region the number of teachers decreased almost with the same rate as school number which led to higher increase in students per teacher ratio. Despite the fact that number of teachers decreased in both Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia regions on average for each teacher in these regions there is one student less than in Dnipropetrovsk.

We may conclude that the capacity to absorb inflow of IDP students is larger in Kharkiv and Zaporizhia regions than in Dnipropetrovsk region.

Kindergartens Starting from 2005 in Ukraine there is more children in kindergartens than available places and the pressure on the infrastructure was high even prior to the conflict.

Thus in Donetsk and Luhansk region the deficit of places in kindergartens was 18% in 2013. In 2014 the number of kindergartens decreased more than two times but deficit almost vanished due to more drastic decrease in number of children attending them. Only 28% and 13% children of eligible age respectively attended kindergartens in 2014.

Table. Primary education infrastructure Places available   2013 2014 Dnipropetrovsk 98,694 99,056 Donetsk 118,819 54,548 Zaporizhzhia 47,408 47,881 Luhansk 49,064 14,900 Kharkiv region 71,152 71,979 Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine

Children attended

Deficit of places in kindergartens

2013 113,912 139,736 57,660 58,137 76,014

2013 -15% -18% -22% -18% -7%

2014 115,670 55,323 57,477 15,655 78,792

2014 -17% -1% -20% -5% -9%

Coverage 2013 69% 75% 73% 62% 67%

2014 70% 28% 73% 13% 70%

The highest deficit of places in kindergartens among near conflict areas was in Zaporizhzhia region.

However it dropped slightly to 20% in 2014 because of increase in available places and decrease in number of children. In Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv region increase in children attending kindergartens was higher than increase of places that is why the deficit of places in kindergartens in these two regions in 2014 became more visible. Notwithstanding this, Kharkiv region remains the region with the lowest deficit of places in kindergartens (9%) and thus with highest but still limited capacity to absorb inflows of IDPs children.

However still these conclusions may be misleading and further analysis should be done on district level (see Annex D).

Healthcare Vulnerable groups of IDPs may experience difficulties in accessing health care services in host communities. Firstly, they may simply do not know that they have the right for health care services.

Secondly, those groups that are entitled to free medication may compete for it with local population as procurement is made based on the number of registered permanent population. Some health care institutions use their reserve funds for meeting increased needs in medicine that otherwise could be

ANNEX B 75

spend on bonuses for doctors and medical personal. On the other hand, IDPs lack incentive to register as permanent population because they will automatically lose their status and corresponding state allowance.

Furthermore, the health care infrastructure is also financed according to the number of permanent population and the structure of morbidity of local population. Moreover such a system of financing led to excessive number of beds in hospitals and capacity of policlinics and outpatient clinics that is why there shouldn’t be additional pressure on it due to inflow of IDPs. However the quality of free health care service might be low and require additional private spending.

Official statistics concerning healthcare infrastructure in Donbas region is misleading. Number of beds in hospitals and capacity of policlinics and outpatient clinics decreased significantly due to that fact that health care institution located in conflict effected area were not included. However ratios of beds per 10 000 persons, visits by shift per 10 000 persons and persons per doctor and medical staff are understated as they are calculated for total population in the regions, including those who inhabit conflict affected area.

Table. Health care infrastructure Number of hospitals

Dnipropetrovsk Donetsk Zaporizhzhia Luhansk Kharkiv region

Number of beds 2014

Number of Capacity of policlinics policlinics and and outpatient outpatient clinics clinics

Beds per 10 000 persons

Visit by shift per 10 000 persons

2013 2014

2013

2013 2014

2013

2014

2013 2014 2013

143

144

29892 29885

836

846

94752

94355

90.9

91.3 288.1 288.3

2014

186

75

35892 12597

844

402

86420

35953

82.9

29.4 199.5

84

83

15843 15754

373

443

38095

39458

89.3

89.3 214.6 223.5

126

27

21155

4895

558

198

49328

17365

94.7

22.1 220.7

129

128

24687 24054

681

698

66863

66019

90.7

88.6 245.7 243.1

83.9 78.4

Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine

When corrected for the number of population in conflict affected area the pressure on infrastructure decreases twice on average. However, both regional centers and thus institutions that provide tertiary health care are located on territories not controlled by Ukraine which hampers access to health care in very acute and most difficult cases even on government controlled area of Donbas.

Table. Medical staff provision persons per doctor

Dnipropetrovsk Donetsk Zaporizhzhia Luhansk Kharkiv region

2013 217 234 212 239 174

Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine

76 ANNEX B

2014 216 784 211 1091 174

person per medium medical staff 2013 110 113 106 108 110

2014 111 295 107 416 111

Moreover one should keep in mind that although retired people use healthcare system more often their number probably is overestimated in districts close to Donetsk and Luhansk regions (for more detail see Annex E).

Shelter Access to housing is one of main problems for IDPs as rent usually constitute a significant part of household income. Influx of population in near conflict areas doesn’t influence stock of housing immediately as some time is needed for developers to react and construct new houses. Moreover high share of IDPs plan to return home in future and even those who would like to settle lack resources for buying new dwelling. That is why increase of total housing stock in Dnipropetropsk and Kharkiv region is rather a reaction to economic developments in these regions. For this reason accommodation in hostels seems to be a possible solution of the problem, however hostels accounts for only small portion of housing (2%), thus their capacity is very limited.

Table. Availability of housing   Dnipropetrovsk Donetsk Zaporizhzhia Luhansk Kharkiv region

Housing 2013 78842037 99773709 41023718 54928916 64699676

2014 78891876 50591284 40981945 17655950 65284752

Housing in hostels 2013 1661683 1720716 1016996 845517 1361968

2014 1643403 630169 959875 269109 1357928

Share of housing in hostels 2013 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

2014 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%

Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine

In absolute numbers the housing stock in Donetsk and Luhansk regions decreased by 50% and 32% respectively. However, after rough adjustment of housing stock numbers for the change of population stock availability of housing measured as squared meters by person decreased not so drastically.

Another issue is the quality of houses and access to basic utility services. It should be noted that aggregate data on access to utilities is available for all housing types accept for hostels. Comparing to 2013 access to utilities improved almost for all regions and types of utilities. The highest increase was observed for access to heating, but this is due to methodology change. Starting from 2014 access not only to central heating but also to individual and stove heating was counted. Despite this Luhansk region had rather low rate of access to water supply, hot water supply and both Luhansk and Donestk region to heating and gas. Damage to utilities network due to military activities can further hamper access to basic utilizes.

ANNEX B 77

Table. Quality of housing

Dnipropetrovsk Donetsk Zaporizhzhia Luhansk Kharkiv region

number of flats 2013 1502553 1986925 762115 1063897 1233868

water supply

hot water sewerage supply

2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 1501968 69% 69% 47% 48% 66% 67% 1009282 71% 70% 44% 49% 69% 68% 760557 65% 65% 59% 59% 63% 64% 342151 59% 56% 33% 39% 58% 55% 1232658 68% 68% 61% 61% 67% 67%

heating 2013 73% 64% 65% 55% 82%

2014 81% 73% 81% 62% 93%

gas 2013 90% 65% 88% 60% 90%

2014 89% 66% 88% 71% 89%

Source: State Statistics Service of Ukraine, authors’ calculations

Access to utilities varies from district to district, however those people who live in rural areas usually have less access to such basic utilities as water supply and sewerage (see Annex F).

78 ANNEX B

Annex A

Table.Employment structure by economic sectors prior to the conflict (2013 years) Â Wholesale and retail trade Agriculture Manufacturing Education Healthcare Transportation and storage Public administration and defense Construction Science Other types of activities Administrative and support service activities Accommodation and food service activities Real estate activities Insurance and financial activities Telecommunications and IT Arts, entertainment and recreation

Ukraine

Dnipropetrovsk region

Donetsk region

Zaporizhzhia region

Luhansk region

Kharkiv region

22.3%

25.6%

23.7%

22.4%

26.8%

23.6%

17.5% 16.0% 8.3% 6.2%

6.9% 26.3% 7.6% 5.5%

10.7% 25.2% 6.3% 5.6%

16.4% 22.9% 7.3% 6.0%

12.9% 23.8% 6.8% 5.6%

13.5% 19.4% 8.3% 5.6%

6.0%

6.1%

6.8%

4.8%

6.1%

5.7%

5.0%

4.1%

3.8%

4.0%

4.3%

4.3%

4.4% 2.6%

3.8% 2.5%

5.2% 1.8%

4.0% 2.5%

4.1% 1.6%

4.3% 3.5%

2.2%

2.0%

2.4%

1.4%

1.7%

1.5%

1.8%

2.1%

2.2%

1.4%

1.3%

1.5%

1.8%

1.5%

1.4%

1.9%

1.6%

1.4%

1.6%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

0.8%

3.0%

1.6%

1.9%

1.1%

1.1%

0.8%

1.3%

1.5%

1.8%

0.9%

1.2%

0.9%

2.2%

1.2%

0.8%

1.2%

1.1%

0.9%

0.9%

ANNEX B 79

Figure. Nominal average wage and cumulative real wage index by regions

80 ANNEX B

Annex B

Figure. Number of IDPs at the beginning of 2015 and changes in trade turnover for selected products (Zaporizhia region)

Source: Regional department of social protection, Regional statistical office, authors’ calculations

Figure. Number of IDPs at the beginning of 2015 and changes in trade turnover for selected products (Dnipropetrovsk region)

Source: Regional department of social protection, Regional statistical office, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 81

Annex C

Figure Structure of IDPS at the beginning of 2015 by districts (Kharkiv region)

Source: Regional department of social protection, authors’ calculations

Figure Structure of IDPS at the beginning of 2015 by districts (Zaporizhia region)

Source: Regional department of social protection, authors’ calculations

Structure of IDPS at the beginning of 2015 by districts (Dnipropetrovsk region)

Source: Regional department of social protection, authors’ calculations

82 ANNEX B

Annex D

Educational Infrastructure Figure. Inflow of IDP children at the beginning of 2014 (Kharkiv region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

Figure. Change of load on secondary schools infrastructure (Kharkiv region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 83

Figure. Change of load on kindergartens infrastructure (Kharkiv region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

Figure. Inflow of IDP children at the beginning of 2014 (Zaporizhia region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

84 ANNEX B

Figure. Change of load on secondary schools infrastructure (Zaporizhia region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

Figure. Change of load on kindergartens infrastructure (Zaporizhia region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 85

Figure. Inflow of IDP children at the beginning of 2014 (Dnipropetrovsk region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

Figure. Change of load on secondary schools infrastructure (Dnipropetrovsk region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

86 ANNEX B

Figure. Change of load on kindergartens infrastructure (Dnipropetrovsk region)

Source: Regional departments of education and social protection, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 87

Annex E

Health care infrastructure Figure. Load on hospitals and policlinics corrected for the number of IDPS

Source: Regional departments of healthcare and social protection, authors’ calculations

Figure. Load on doctors and medical staff corrected for the number of IDPS

Source: Regional departments of healthcare and social protection, authors’ calculations

88 ANNEX B

Figure. Change in incidence of selected social diseases

Source: Regional departments of healthcare and social protection, authors’ calculations

Figure. Load on hospitals and policlinics corrected for the number of IDPS

Source: Regional departments of healthcare and social protection, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 89

Figure. Load on doctors and medical staff corrected for the number of IDPS

Source: Regional departments of healthcare and social protection, authors’ calculations

Figure. Change in incidence of selected social diseases

Source: Regional departments of healthcare and social protection, authors’ calculations

90 ANNEX B

Annex F

Housing infrastructure Figure. Availability of housing (Kharkiv region)

Source: Regional statistical offices, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 91

Table. Quality of housing in Kharkiv region Acess to water supply Izium Barvinkivskyi Borivskyi Chuhuiv Balakliiskyi Kupiansk Pechenizkyi Kharkiv Blyzniukivskyi Iziumskyi Chuhuivskyi Dvorichanskyi Lozova Liubotyn Pervomaiskyi (Ń ity) Sakhnovshchynskyi Kharkivskyi Zmiivskyi Velykoburlutskyi Vovchanskyi Derhachivskyi Bohodukhivskyi Valkivskyi Zolochivskyi Shevchenkivskyi Novovodolazkyi Kupianskyi Krasnohradskyi Krasnokutskyi Zachepylivskyi Kolomatskyi Kehychivsky Lozivskyi Pervomaiskyi

67% 20% 42% 78% 52% 90% 27% 92% 19% 17% 59% 43% 74% 26% 94% 15% 44% 56% 24% 22% 39% 25% 43% 23% 31% 29% 35% 42% 34% 23% 12% 39% 31% 21%

Acess to Access to hot water sewerage supply 47% 6% 31% 77% 40% 80% 13% 90% 4% 7% 39% 21% 69% 18% 88% 7% 36% 47% 11% 12% 25% 3% 35% 12% 11% 24% 14% 14% 23% 9% 2% 21% 19% 6%

Source: Regional statistical offices, authors’ calculations

92 ANNEX B

67% 17% 42% 78% 51% 90% 18% 92% 18% 12% 58% 39% 74% 26% 92% 15% 44% 54% 24% 22% 39% 23% 43% 21% 31% 28% 33% 39% 29% 20% 12% 35% 31% 18%

Access to central heating 73% 74% 90% 99% 87% 91% 72% 100% 88% 98% 97% 86% 80% 91% 97% 52% 89% 91% 86% 71% 90% 73% 98% 92% 95% 93% 91% 62% 89% 71% 90% 79% 85% 95%

IDPs to Access to population gas ratio,% 89% 87% 83% 99% 82% 90% 94% 92% 90% 72% 95% 81% 94% 99% 98% 79% 88% 86% 89% 88% 90% 75% 89% 90% 93% 90% 76% 79% 78% 60% 71% 95% 86% 81%

38.4% 18.0% 17.4% 10.2% 9.0% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.8% 3.5% 3.1% 3.0% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4%

Figure. Availability of housing (Zaporizhia region)

Source: Regional statistical offices, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 93

Table. Quality of housing in Zaporizhia region

Acess to water supply

Acess to Access to hot water sewerage supply

Rozivskyi 10% 4% 9% Huliaipilskyi 23% 8% 22% Berdiansk 73% 65% 73% Prymorskyi 40% 19% 22% Polohivskyi 20% 13% 19% Kuibyshevskyi 13% 2% 10% Berdianskyi 21% 12% 16% Vilnianskyi 58% 45% 55% Zaporizhzhia 92% 90% 92% Chernihivskyi 15% 2% 15% Tokmak 71% 46% 47% Novomykolaivskyi 12% 1% 11% Melitopol 64% 63% 64% Pryazovskyi 26% 23% 25% Enerhodar 100% 100% 100% Yakymivskyi 36% 24% 35% Orikhivskyi 30% 17% 30% Melitopolskyi 54% 46% 52% Vasylivskyi 53% 48% 53% Mykhailivskyi 37% 30% 34% Kamiansko-Dniprovskyi 46% 39% 44% Tokmatsky 47% 16% 43% Zaporizkyi 37% 24% 33% Veselivskyi 36% 16% 36% Velykobilozerskyi 12% 7% 10% Source: Regional statistical offices, authors’ calculations

Access to central heating 61% 52% 74% 70% 70% 59% 86% 84% 92% 74% 47% 72% 64% 75% 100% 61% 76% 99% 92% 66% 85% 76% 62% 72% 89%

Figure. Availability of housing (Dnipropetrovsk region)

Source: Regional statistical offices, authors’ calculations

94 ANNEX B

IDPs to Access to population gas ratio,% 78% 89% 84% 98% 91% 64% 90% 89% 92% 83% 96% 83% 85% 87% 34% 93% 88% 95% 92% 98% 86% 86% 82% 86% 89%

18% 11% 11% 10% 9% 8% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%

Table. Quality of housing in Dnipropetrovsk region Acess to water supply Pokrovskyi Vasylkivskyi Petropevlivskyi Mezhivskyi Pershotravensk Ternivka Pavlohrad Dnipropetrovsk Pavlohradskyi Novomoskovsk Synelnykove Dnipropetrovskyi Dniprodzerzhynsk Nikopol

Acess to Access to hot water sewerage supply

Access to central heating

Access to gas

IDPs to population ratio,%

27% 18% 18% 12% 98% 90% 75% 76% 24% 57% 68% 46% 87% 90% 5% 94% 98% 91%

5% 8% 2% 1% 38% 83% 0% 55% 23% 53% 61% 18% 71% 81% 1% 45% 95% 9%

26% 18% 17% 12% 98% 90% 75% 75% 23% 56% 68% 43% 87% 86% 4% 94% 98% 91%

80% 60% 57% 80% 98% 90% 82% 74% 96% 96% 76% 70% 89% 90% 83% 93% 98% 100%

84% 74% 89% 68% 99% 88% 82% 94% 92% 82% 86% 91% 91% 91% 82% 91% 98% 100%

10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 5% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Verhnodniprovskiy Kryvyi Rih Novomoskovskyi Ordzhonikidze Synelnykivskyi Petrykivskyi Tsarychanskiy Mahdalynivskiy Apostolivskyi Solonianskyi

47%

10%

44%

62%

75%

1%

83% 46% 79% 32% 26% 16% 31% 69% 49%

72% 26% 67% 15% 4% 11% 16% 37% 31%

82% 37% 78% 27% 23% 14% 23% 62% 48%

82% 71% 100% 68% 60% 71% 98% 95% 100%

88% 85% 100% 77% 78% 90% 89% 92% 96%

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Piatykhatskyi Kryvorizkyi Krynychanskyi Nikopolskyi Tomakivskyi Sofiivskyi Shyrokivskyi

25%

15%

19%

78%

90%

0%

74% 34% 50% 36% 29% 66%

30% 17% 8% 8% 4% 13%

37% 30% 29% 32% 18% 31%

88% 76% 87% 83% 81% 70%

84% 73% 94% 75% 93% 87%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Yurivskyi Marhanets Vilnohirsk Zhovti Vody

Source: Regional statistical offices, authors’ calculations

ANNEX B 95

ANNEX C Capacity building program The CBP includes a detailed roll-out plan, goals and benchmarks, and estimated resources, based on the analysis of capacity-building needs within the 3-4 pre-selected sub-projects. The CBP roll-out in the pilot sub-project areas will be used for forecasting the costs of running the capacity building inputs for the entire UERP beyond the pilot phase.

At an early stage of the Tranche 1 sub-projects, six training workshops to be delivered by IRF, with the participation of the MRD and PIU, to regional implementers and the selected sub-project communities. The focus of the trainings will be on social management and stakeholder engagement principles and tools that can be employed by sub-project implementers and key stakeholders for maximising positive social impacts and mitigating possible adverse effects of the sub-projects. The CBP will also contribute to social resilience by building the stakeholders’ capacity to address other recovery and development issues facing their communities and, in particular, the vulnerable groups.

The mutually enhancing capacity-building elements and topics included in the training modules are as follows: •• Understanding and Using the Social Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan •• Understanding and Meeting EIB Social Standards •• Human rights, Non-discrimination, Gender awareness and Inclusion •• Participation, Accountability and Transparency instruments •• Strategic Planning and Results-based Project Management •• Risk Analysis and Conflict Sensitivity Assessment •• Conflict Management •• Community Development tools •• Understanding and Using a Grievance Mechanism •• Effective Communication •• Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation The list of topics will be further refined in the course of UERP implementation in cooperation between MRD / PIU, and adjusted to meet the identified capacity-building needs of MRD, local sub-project implementers, and participating communities. After the roll-out, the workshops and seminars delivered within the project, may be followed up with a one- or two-day consultations provided

by PIU or external contractors. In addition, each of the pilot sub-projects will be able to request specific consultations, based on their social management work plans and needs. Consultations for representatives of sub-projects will be available on a routine basis by telephone, e-mail, or during regular site visits by PIU / MRD. During the SMP / SEP roll-out phase community-based small projects will be implemented in 3-4 selected communities to facilitate the process of learning and to encourage development of partnerships and synergies between the sub-project implementers. The experience sharing events in communities will be instrumental in fostering confidence-building and cooperation between the host communities and IDPs, as well as between the government and self-governance authorities and other community-based stakeholders. At the end of the roll-out phase, a final conference will bring together MRD, sub-project implementers, PIU, and other relevant stakeholders (possibly, representatives of other (future) sub-projects). The conference will be a communication, experiencesharing, networking and learning event, presenting the initial results of the sub-projects in the target regions and summarizing their progress in social impact management and stakeholder engagement.

The key concepts to be presented and discussed during capacity-building events are arranged in three thematic pillars: Good Governance

96 ANNEX C

•• Values and principles •• Transparency, access to information, accountability •• Leadership and management •• Good practice •• Communication, teamwork, participation •• Sustainability Strategic Social Management •• Situation analysis and needs assessment •• Social cohesion and diversity •• Risk analysis and mitigation •• Rights, principles and social standards •• Goal setting and results-based management •• Monitoring and evaluation Stakeholder Engagement •• Stakeholder analysis •• Levels and mechanisms of participation and necessary resources •• Effective communication •• Grievance redress •• Conflict management

ANNEX C 97

Capacity Building Modules at a Glance

The CBP will be organized in three modules depending on the roles and objectives of potential participants on UERP:

Module 1: MRD, PIU, representatives of RSAs and RMCAs Objective: fostering knowledge and skills necessary to effectively perform the following tasks: •• Organize the processes of participatory needs assessment and stakeholder analysis; •• Identify social impacts and risks; •• Organize the process of planning, scoping, design, appraisal and selection of sub-projects; •• Organize communication with key internal and external stakeholders; •• Identify performance indicators and ensure ongoing monitoring and due evaluation; •• Ensure oversight of operation of grievance redress mechanism; •• Monitoring and evaluation of sub-projects and effective reporting to donors, the government and stakeholders.

Module 2: District and municipal executive authorities and Councils, social service providers, sub-project implementers Objective: fostering knowledge and skills necessary to effectively perform the following tasks: •• Understand how early recovery work is organized; •• Learn about support provided to Ukraine by the EU, EIB within UERP and other projects; •• Organize the processes of participatory needs assessment and stakeholder analysis in the community; •• Identify social impacts and risks linked to sub-project implementation at the community level; •• Develop sub-project proposal that would respond to needs and interests of community as a whole, as well as of specific vulnerable groups, including IDPs and people affected by the armed conflict;

98 ANNEX C

•• Understand and ensure compliance with EIB social standards; •• Organize communication with key stakeholders and the community as a whole; •• Ensure mechanisms of transparency and accountability of sub-project implementation; •• Identify performance indicators and engage stakeholders in participatory monitoring; •• Create and use community-based grievance redress mechanism; •• Report on project implementation results to MRD, other stakeholders and the community.

Module 3: NGOs, community based initiatives, business associations and other stakeholders Objective: fostering knowledge and skills necessary to effectively perform the following tasks: •• Understand how early recovery work is organized; •• Learn about support provided to Ukraine by the EU, EIB within UERP and other projects; •• Understand EIB social standards; •• Participate in needs assessment and scoping consultations in the community; •• Participate in regular risk analysis and conflict sensitivity assessments; •• Ensure that voices of the community and vulnerable groups are heard in the sub-project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; •• Understand and use mechanisms of transparency and accountability of sub-project implementation; •• Understand performance indicators and engage in participatory monitoring; •• Build awareness of and monitor the use of community-based grievance redress mechanism; •• Contribute to building confidence and social cohesion in the community.

Tentative Schedule of Training Sessions Training topics to be covered Social Management Plan implementation Stakeholder Engagement Plan implementation Assessment and Mitigation of Social Risks Strategic planning Communication and outreach

Mode of training

Training recipients

Seminar

MRD, regional authorities

Seminar

MRD, Local implementers

Training

MRD, Local implementers

Training Training

Project Monitoring and Evaluation

Training

Local implementers, NGOs Local implementers NGOs, other communitybased stakeholders

Best practices of stakeholder engagement in communities Third-party monitoring and other independent accountability mechanisms Grievance management

Workshops, experiencesharing events

Local implementers

Training

NGOs, other communitybased stakeholders

Seminar

Local implementers, NGOs

ANNEX C 99

The capacity-building inputs are expected to enable the following progress of the event participants: •• Understanding key factors that influence success or failure of their project; •• Understand principles and approaches of social management as an integral part of post-conflict recovery; •• Understand strategic project planning and results-based management; •• Learn to identify and analyze risks, impacts, stakeholders; •• Raise awareness of social standards required by international institutions; •• Understand added value of stakeholder participation in project planning, implementation and monitoring; •• Understand and manage stakeholder expectations; •• Learn about community development and engagement instruments; •• Understand conflict transformation and management and grievance redress approaches; •• Learn to set, collect, analyze, and use good indicators.

If requested, local implementers and communities will be able to request more in-depth training in strategic planning, project management, monitoring and evaluation, communication and conflict transformation.

The capacity building inputs are expected to contribute to a better quality of preparation of subprojects to be submitted for Tranche 2 and subsequent tranches of UERP and, more broadly, to the local capacity to design and implement good recovery and development projects.

100 ANNEX C

ANNEX D Monitoring and Evaluation Program To ensure participatory M&E at the local level, sub-project implementers will be recommended to set up local participatory monitoring working groups (WGs) consisting of representatives of stakeholders and beneficiaries of one or more UERP sub-projects implemented in a given municipality. Participants of such WGs may include representatives of local self-governance bodies and their executive bodies, contractors, NGOs and community-based organizations, local activists, and representatives of IDPs currently staying in the community and potential final beneficiaries of the social infrastructure objects and services. Participation of representatives of contractor organizations is mandatory, while the involvement of invited external experts is desirable.

The WGs will develop their procedures, elect their leadership and document their meetings, decisions and M&E findings. the working groups’ documents will subsequently feed into the sub-project evaluation.

There will be no restrictions on the size of the participatory monitoring working group. Its participants will be expected to have analytical skills, general competence, diligence and responsibility, communication and reporting experience. If required, the working group will have access to external expertise and consultations with PIU. Relevant training inputs will be made available to participants of the monitoring WGs at the roll-out stage of this SMP. The monitoring WGs will determine an adequate level of engagement of stakeholders and beneficiary representatives in the work depending on the sub-project scope, nature of its objectives to be achieved, and resources available. The monitoring WGs will identify, document and analyze any obstacles for interaction with stakeholders and beneficiaries and recommend measures to be taken by sub-project implementers to enhance stakeholder engagement.

The key task of the local monitoring WG will be to collect and maintain data and feedback relevant to the implementation of the sub-project(s), focusing specifically on the non-technical transparency, social management and stakeholder engagement. The basic monitoring methods will include: •• Visual observation (site access, any potential hazards, availability of protection, relevant warning signs, any safety measures, availability of relevant information, etc.); •• Measuring and testing (at the level of, and with the equipment relevant for the sub-project scope and level of capacity of participatory monitoring actors); •• Interviews (consultations with internal and external stakeholders and beneficiaries to gather their perspectives, feedback and concerns; to test their awareness of and readiness to use opportunities to engage with the sub-project and grievance redress mechanisms; and to perform early assessment of risks and social impacts); •• Questionnaires and surveys (to collect primary data with the use of written answers to preformulated questions); •• Document review (of officially disclosed project information; of relevant regulations, policies and procedures; of social management and stakeholder engagement plans; of permits, licenses, procurement bids, relevant contracts, health and safety plans, inspection records, formal information requests, appeals, complaints / grievances registers, official correspondence, including replies to information requests and grievances); •• Community book (a community-maintained document on the sub-project implementation, with written records, photographs, questions, complaints and feedback, etc.); •• Checklists of items for validating whether procedures/standards of conduct have been followed, allowing for systematic review of sub-project implementation and containing periodic units to measure progress within individual sub-projects.

In line with good practice, summaries of participatory monitoring and evaluation reports will be published at relevant implementers’ (municipalities’) websites.

ANNEX D 101

Specific M&E plans will be designed by PIU or external consultants engaged by the MRD for local subproject implementers to help them achieve the following objectives: •• ensure due compliance with social standards; •• encourage inclusion of civil society representatives in the implementation of sub-projects, inter alia their monitoring and evaluation; •• consider and measure social effects of a project for different stakeholder and beneficiary groups, including forcedly displaced persons; •• identify and systematize new social practices and tools; •• evaluate quality of stakeholders’ and community members’ participation in sub-project implementation; •• create conditions for accumulation and transfer of new knowledge to other sub-projects and communities in across Ukraine.

System of Indicators The M&E methodology used in this SMP provides for indicators designed to measure actual and potential social effects both throughout the UERP and sub-project implementation process (process indicators) and their results (results indicators). The indicators selected shall be easy to collect and use for the sub-project implementers and the stakeholders engaged in participatory monitoring and evaluation: •• indicators are the same for all sub-project types, regardless of the sub-project size, location and of what social infrastructure facility is improved, renovated or reconstructed; •• all indicators of social effects of sub-projects (community level) can be identified without any complicated calculations; •• all sources of information for gathering sub-project indicators are accessible to implementers of these sub-projects and local stakeholders;

Number of local residents who benefit from the sub-project (disaggregated by gender)

102 ANNEX D

Anticipated Method of Participating Frequency of Outcome Collecting stakeholders Collecting Improved local social infrastructure and access to social services

Survey; observation reports; user records

Monitoring WG members; Direct beneficiaries

At subproject end; then at UERP end

Baseline

Total

population using the social infrastructure object(s).

Genderdisaggregated data unavailable

By project end

Indicator

After 12 months

•• complex analytical indicators are not used for sub-projects; they can be used for the overall M&E of the UERP.

Number of IDPs who benefit from the sub-project (disaggregated by gender)

Improved local social infrastructure and access to social services

Survey; observation reports; user records

Number of new or improved social services provided

Reduced competition for access to social services

Register of access to services; survey results

Number of temporary and permanent jobs created (disaggregated by gender)

Improved well- Implementers’ being; levels reports; of poverty reduced

Number of stakeholders engaged in consultations

Improved communication and cooperation in the community; early prevention of grievances; voices of vulnerable groups and other stakeholder heard Number of Communityparticipants of based capacity-building stakeholders events develop new skills for more proactive and effective participation Number of Improved specialists in awareness RSAs, RMCAs, and skill to district and local practice social councils and their management executive bodies and ensure trained in social compliance standards and with social SMP/SEP use standards

Consultation participants lists; records of consultations

Questionnaires and surveys of capacitybuilding events participants; trainers’ reports Lists of participants, trainers’ reports, questionnaires, informal feedback

Monitoring WG members; Direct beneficiaries

At subproject end; then at UERP end

Total registered IDPs in subproject areas.

Number of IDPs to benefit from sub-project (planned).

Genderdisaggregated data unavailable Monitoring At sub sub- Amount of WG members; project end; social services Direct then at UERP provided; beneficiaries end identified deficits as presented in sub-project proposals Contractors Quarterly, Number of then at sub- jobs to be project end, created within then at UERP sub-projects end (planned).

Genderdisaggregated data unavailable Local At the No implementers; scoping consultations NGOs, other stage, at or information stakeholders; sub-project unavailable monitoring WG launch, then as needed

Capacity building events organizers, trainers

Initial 6 No capacity months of building sub-projects, events then at subproject end

RSAs, RMCAs, district and local councils and their executive bodies

Initial 6 Information months of unavailable sub-projects, then at subproject end

ANNEX D 103

Number of community residents and stakeholders participating in the project implementation, including monitoring Grievance redress mechanisms created and operational at the UERP and subproject levels

Better engagement, improved collaboration and trust, developing ownership of sub-project outputs Improved access to grievance redress; reduced conflict potential

Multy-stakeholder monitoring WG created and operational at all levels

Interaction between stakeholders and participation is improved; participatory monitoring in place; transparency and accountability improved Number of joint Improved / integration social cohemeeting for local sion; reduced residents and conflict risks IDPs Number and Improved audiences awareness of of UERP and stakeholders sub-project and information beneficiaries materials Number and attendance of communication and peer learning events involving different subprojects

104 ANNEX D

Improved interaction between stakeholders; collaboration opportunities; exchange of knowledge

Lists of participants, reports, questionnaires, informal feedback

Local implementers; NGOs and community activists

Quarterly, then at subproject end

Information unavailable

Procedures of the grievance redress mechanism in place; information available on the grievance redress mechanism; users’ feedback

Local authorities, implementers, NGOs, Ombudsman

Semiannually, then at subproject end, then at UERP end

Court mechanism exists; grievance management practices vary significantly and are applied discretionary; general stakeholder awareness low or absent PIU in place

WGs’ proto- Monitoring WG cols, meeting members: local minutes authorities, NGOs, social service providers

Semi-annually, then at sub-project end

Participant lists, questionnaires, informal feedback Publications, print-runs, website and social media statistics

Local impleDuring menters, NGOs, events community activists, IDPs

Events reports, number and diversity of participants

Local implementers, contractors, NGOs; local, regional and national authorities; other donor projects

Local implementers, NGOs, media

0 – or no information available

Quarterly, UERP loan

then at sub- agreement; project end EIB and MRD presentations; loan ratification and Tranche 1 news reports During 0

events

Number of good practices, new social management instruments, initiatives, partnerships prompted by sub-project implementation

Enhanced capacity and collaborations in communities; new social management instruments in place and used

Description of instruments and initiatives; practice reports; feedback from stakeholders; surveys

Local implementers, NGOs, monitoring WGs

At subproject end

0

Resources required for the implementation of the M&E Program Human, material and financial resources needed to conduct continuous monitoring and evaluation of the social management and stakeholder engagement efforts within the UERP include: •• at least one dedicated staff person (or a consultant within the PIU) at the MRD level to oversee the overall M&E work throughout the UERP; •• staff time of a dedicated offier at the regional level overseeing the sub-projects’ design, submission, implementation and reporting at the regional level - in each of the project’s target regions, primarily in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions; •• staff time of a dedicated offier at the municipality level overseeing the local sub-projects’ design, submission, implementation and reporting; facilitating participatory monitoring and self-evaluation of the local sub-projects, and preparing reports for M&E at the higher levels of the UERP implementation; •• at least one M&E awareness and capacity-building seminar at the national level for the MRD and relevant representatives of the regional authorities involved in overseeing the preparation and implementation of sub-projects in the target regions; •• at least one M&E awareness and capacity-building seminar in each of the UERP’s five target regional centers or major cities, which will be attended by relevant local authorities and implementers from the sub-projects’ municipalities; these participants may include members of local councils, officials of relevant local executive bodies in charge of social service provision, local contracting authorities and sub-project implementers; •• at least one M&E awareness and capacity-building seminar in each municipality that implements two or more UERP sub-projects - for local stakeholders, including NGOs, development agencies, business and professional associations, community-based organizations, and the media.

Participants from territorially close municipalities may be invited to attend; •• training, capacity-building and information materials; •• premises / space for conducting participatory monitoring and evaluation events; •• basic equipment for data recording and storing; Internet access; During the roll-out of this SMP and related SEP, at least three M&E awareness and capacity-building training seminars for different levels of implementers and stakeholders will be performed by the International Renaissance Foundation as part of the Capacity Building Program. This pilot roll-out in 3-4 target municipalities that implement the UERP sub-projects of Tranche 1 will serve as a tool for M&E capacity needs assessment and measurement of the resources required to implement the M&E activities at the sub-project and regional level.

Further M&E awareness and capacity-building inputs may be provided as needed and resourced with the funds included for M&E in the sub-project proposals at the design stage.

The presence of a functional M&E program providing for participatory monitoring and independent evaluation of the sub-project will be included as a criterion for the project design and appraisal stages.

ANNEX D 105

Reporting is the most important part of the M&E system within which the collected and analyzed data will be presented as a source of information to key stakeholders for subsequent use. the Capacity Building Program for implementing this SMP and the related SEP will include training local implementers and key stakeholders in producing relevant, coherent, objective, complete, reliable, timely, simple and user-friendly reports.

106 ANNEX D

ANNEX E Desk research On Internally Displaced people (IDPs) in Ukraine Political situation in Ukraine in 2014 related to the annexation of Crimea and beginning of the military operations in the East of Ukraine led to the significant social problem in the Ukrainian society – the outflow of internally displaced people (IDPs) from the conflict zone. The appearance of the IDPs reveals many challenges: political, economic, social, household, organizational, etc. In particular, the presence of the IDPs requires establishment of proper legislation to regulate the rights of this layer of the population; to solve urgent needs of the IDPs: housing, employment, secure social and psychological adaptation into the society at the new place of residence.

To provide an efficient response to the new challenges, it is necessary to have deep understanding of the social and demographic structure, needs and problems of the internally displaced people. Since there is no accurate and current information on this even with the government bodies, different NGOs and especially international organization, analytical centers, sociological companies started actively to look into this issue from different dimensions. Unfortunately, not all the results are publically available; we know of some relevant and deep assessments done on the request of international organizations, which the general public cannot use because they are currently not accessible. Lack of dissemination and exchange practice on statistic and sociological data on the situation regarding the IDPs requires the stakeholders, in order to solve the problem, to spend extra resources to collect information for own needs, partially duplicating the work which has been already done.

The methodology described below and the main results of the research on the IDPs are publically available.

The majority of the IDPs are accepted by the oblasts, neighboring with the conflict zone: Dnipropetrovska, Kharkivska, Zaporizhska, Donetska, Luganska - and also Kyivska. Per the information from the Ministry of social policy, by the end of 2014 more than 500Â 000 IDPs1 were registered. But with the deterioration of the situation in the East, the number of the registered IDPs exceeded 1 mln by the end of February 2015. Per estimates of the international organizations (UNICEF, World Bank, UN) the real number of the IDPS can be higher2, since not every IDP register. In particular, IDPsmen apply less for the IDP certificate since they have the risk to be mobilized; others do not want to register, since have concerns that the registration would prevent them from coming back home. On the other hand, there are evidence that some of the IDPs actually live not at the place of registration, but on the territories outside of the government control, but thanks to the IDP certificate get social payment from the government. Return migration should be also considered, especially during the period of ceasing the active military operations in Donbass. Thus, the real number of the IDPs could be higher, as well as lower than the official registration data.

Ukrainian institute for social research named after O.Yaremenko conducted pointed focus group assessments with the IDPs in July 20153. 1 focus group was held in Kharkiv (8 participants) and 2 focus groups in Kyiv (23 participants). Mostly women with children who came from Donetsk oblast and stayed at the places of compact residence participated in the assessment. The main reasons for relocation were the following: referendum, Presidential elections and the military actions. They left as members of the organized groups, as well as using their own funds and efforts. The experience of these IDPs demonstrates high activities of the public sector, which promoted the establishments of the hot-lines, aid centers and other. Many respondents had negative experience of communication with the government bodies, which indicates the problem of non-readiness of the government in general to solve the situation with the IDPs. At the same time, the IDPs require complex solution of the number of problems: housing, employment, care of children. The IDPs are certainly accompanied with material problems: time is needed to transfer pensions, bank cards are blocked, it is important http://www.mlsp.gov.ua/labour/control/uk/publish/category?cat_id=160211

1

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/06/11/090224b082f1bea9/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Recovery0and0p0

2

0in0Eastern0Ukraine0.pdf http://www.uisr.org.ua/news/83.html

3

ANNEX E 107

to register with the employment center, to get aid on unemployment. Also, the participant of the assessment demonstrated complains on the household problems: they stay at the premises, which are not ready for that, lack of heating, kitchens, washrooms, unstable electricity supply, etc. Also, the IDPs are often facing the psychological difficulties in adaptation at the new place of residence due to non-tolerant attitude to them in the society.

The assessment raises the need to introduce targeted government aid to the IDPs. This aid could consist of the following: the opportunity to break labor relationship, employment, temporary release of payment for communal services (at the place of former residence), tax vacations for the entrepreneurs, registration with health care institutions, placement of children at kindergartens and at schools, beneficial credits, preferential loans to those, who cannot or does not wish to return, “social” housing (partial compensation for the leased premises), temporary beneficial payment for local transportation.

Per information from the Internews, the main territories to accept the IDPs – the territories under the government control, the rayons of Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts, and neighboring Kharkivska, Zaporizhska, Dnipropetrovska oblasts4. Internews team interviewed the IDPs and the hosting communities in Eastern Ukraine during the month of January 2015. The purpose of the assessment was to identify information needs of the IDPs and access to the information channels. The assessment included more than 50 interviews with the IDPs and representative of the local volunteer groups, NGOs, Ukrainian and international humanitarian organizations and local media groups in seven different cities in the East of Ukraine: Slovyansk, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk, Svyatogorsk, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhya and Kyiv. One of the conclusions of the assessment – most of the IDPs consider that Kyiv government did not do enough (if did anything at all) to provide assistance to the people from the East of Ukraine. The conclusion of the focus groups assessment from the Ukrainian institute for social research named after O.Yaremenko is confirmed on the increase of the social tension, discrimination in the society. In spite of the generosity displayed by the local population, there is a negative attitude from the local communities, which see that the IDPs get certain benefits due to “positive discrimination”. This increases stigmatization and impact the ability to lease housing or to find employment.

As in the previous research, the Internews tells about lack of clarity in the Ukrainian legislation on the IDPs and assistance mechanisms. Among the IDPs there is a wide perception that the government does not “give them a hand of assistance”. Imperfect system of passes, bureaucracy and difficulties to access the aid cause confusion, frustration and increasing feeling of isolation among the IDPs. There are many rumors and disinformation in circulation within these groups of people. The Internews assessment fixes low level of trust to the traditional mass media and to Ukrainian TV in particular, especially among the IDPs as well as among the inhabitants in Eastern Ukraine in general. The IDPs are more inclined to trust to internet communication. But not all age-gender groups have access to internet, which complicates the search for information.

Also, the importance of operations of the NGOs is conformed to solve the issues of the IDPs. But the new problem arises – the IDPs obviously lack the information on the operations of the nongovernment organizations. It is necessary to disseminate contact information of these organizations and type of assistance which can be obtained there.

Per the goals of the Internews assessment, the basic information needs of the IDPs were identified: how to evacuate; practical information to safe life; what assistance is offered and how to get it; search for those who disappeared. The main sources of information for the IDPs: personal communication, mobile phones, local groups of volunteers and churches, social network, Russian TV channels, national TV channels (especially «1+1», «Inter», «СТБ», «ICTV», «Kanal Ukraina»), and less to the local mass media. In general, the trust to the media and assessment of the reliability of the information which they provide is low.

The research project “Donbass studios” of the “Isolation” Fond questioned the IDPs in February 2015.5 They questioned 168 IDPs who left Donbass at different times.

https://www.internews.org/sites/default/files/resources/IDPs_eastern_Ukraine_needs_assessment_report_2015-02-Ukr.pdf

4

http://issuu.com/katerynaiakovlenko/docs/donbas_report_release__3_

5

108 ANNEX E

The social demographic profile of an IDP was created on the basis of the assessment: •• 70% women, 30% men •• 5% up to 21; 68% in the rage of 21-35 years; 27% in the rage of 36-60 years; Among the IDPs who were interviewed, there was a section on professional occupation: •• Philology and journalism – 18% •• IT – 17% •• Culture and arts – 14% •• Finance and economics – 13% •• Students – 6% •• Service providers – 6% •• Health care – 5% •• Scientific activities – 4% •• Jurisprudence – 2% Most of the respondents live in Kyiv. Also, there was a representation from Dnipropetrovsk, Lviv, Vinnitsa, Odesa. In the continuation of the above mentioned assessments, this one also reveals the problems of professional realization, housing and psychological rehabilitation of the IDPs. In particular, the IDPs constantly face the difficulties in finding the employment; often have to change the area of activities which results in psychological problems. Sometimes, they have to work at several places in order not to go below the poverty level. 40% of the respondents mentioned that they work a lot, sometimes during the weekends; 41% work per work schedule and 17% are currently unemployed. Among the respondents, who are employed, the majorly found the jobs during one month. At the same time, the absolute number of the respondents is not going to return to Donbas in the nearest future.

The research in details assessed psychological problems and emotional condition of the IDPS. This problem was also brought up in the above mentioned assessments. The IDPs often have a feeling of lost hopes, uncertainty and fear of the future, over-fatigue, feebleness, despair, uncertainty and feat of the obstacles, lack of opportunities for self-development and individual independence. Also they raise the problem of IDPs finding themselves in a new environment and perception of an equal member of the society at the new residence.

There are several local assessments from different oblasts in the East of Ukraine which are publically available. They try to identify main problems related to the IDPs. One of those is the assessment in Kharkiv oblast done by Chuguyiv group on human rights protection (administered by the NGO “Socialna diya” with the support on the International Renaissance Foundation).

In February 2015 they interviewed 114 people on the territory of the city of Chuguyiv, Chuguyiv, Shevchenkivsky and Pechenizsky rayons of Kharviv oblast.6 Per the result of this assessment, the IDPs moved in small groups like 2-6 family members, in most of the cases three individuals. Every fifth family has from one to three minors. Most of the respondents lease out premises (40%), the others either live with relatives, friends or at the hostels/rooms/apartments provided by the government for free.

Only some of the respondents mentioned that they stay with unfamiliar people, who provided them housing for free or with the volunteers. The following problems of the IDPs were identified: search for housing (66% of all the responses), need in food (43%), difficulties in employment (41%), lack of money to return back home (26%), need in warm clothes (25%). They are similar to the assessments described above.

All the respondents were registered as the IDPs. Unlike in other assessments, the IDPs in Kharkiv oblast did not mention problems when applied to the government institutions. Thus, the majority of the IDPs receive proper financial aid, can apply for free to the health care institutions and to medical services. http://www.khpg.org/index.php?id=1426109999

6

ANNEX E 109

Also in August 2015 they interviewed 100 individuals who currently live in the city of Chuguyiv, Chuguyiv, Pechenizsky, Shevchenkivsky and other rayons of Kharviv oblast, who applied to the Center for support and consultations for the IDPs “Stantsiya Chuguyiv”.7 In the assessment the migrants from Lugansk and Donetsk oblast have equal representation. Over 70% of the respondents moved over than half a year. The majority currently live at the leased out premises (62% of the respondents). Also, some of the respondents stay with their relatives, friends – 17% and at the places of compact residence for the IDPs -21%. As in the previous assessments over the IDPs in Kharkiv oblast, the majority of the IDPs do not feel hostile attitude from the locals; did not experience oppression at the bodies of social protection of the population, employment centers, health care institutions, when placing the children at the kindergarten of at school, dealing with law enforcement bodies. But significant problems of discrimination of the IDPs were discovered when they were looking for employment (prejudiced attitude from the employers and reduction of salary) and when leasing out the premises (increase of rent and prejudiced attitude from the tenants). Also, one third of the respondents indicated that they witnessed obstacles trying to get pensions and other social payments.

The assessment described above covered only small number of respondents – not more than 170 people. Below, there are examples of bigger scale assessments of the IDPs. International NGO “Socialni initsiatyvy z ohorony pratsi ta zdorovja” (Social initiatives of labor protection and health care) during December 2014 through January 2015 conducted the first in Ukraine quantitative sociological assessment8, which was aimed to analyze immediate and secondary needs of the internally displace people in Ukraine. Also, they assessed the quality of the services provided by the government and non-government organizations, level of satisfaction with these services. 471 immigrants participated in the assessment. The regions covered by the assessment are the following: city of Kyiv, Poltavska, Zaporizhska, Dnipropetrovska, Chernigiska, Kharkivska, Luganska, Zakarpatska, Ivano-Frankivska and Lvivska oblasts. The needs assessment of the IDPs showed that the immediate needs of this category of people are: employment, food and clothes, permanent or temporary housing, and medical aid. 45% of the respondents are not satisfied with their material condition and employment.

The majority of the respondents (60%) were women with children which require special social care, medical care at home, distance employment, re-qualification and post graduate training, and also, intensive psycho-social support.

NGO “Institute rozvytku ta sotsialnyh initsiatyv” (Institute for development and social initiatives) conducted interviews with 500 IDPs during January – February 2015 in order to analyze immediate and secondary needs of the internally displace people.9 The targeted group of the assessment – immigrants who live on the territory of Lugansk oblast. The following main problems of the IDPs were identified: lack of government support (44% of the respondents); prejudiced attitude in the society (2/3 of the respondents), discrimination during employment, leasing or in other household situations (one third of the respondents). The immediate needs of the IDPs in Lugansk region: financial needs (needs for employment and permanent salary), humanitarian needs (food and clothes), housing needs and medical needs. Very often the IDPs do not have financial opportunities to get necessary medicines and hope only on volunteers or humanitarian missions. The IDPs consider as secondary needs the following: participation in community life, protection of rights and quality legal aid, participation in political life of the state. The majority of the respondents applied for assistance to the government bodies and remained unsatisfied. At the same time, the level of trust to the local authorities by the IDPs remains low.

The assessment analyzed the reasons for rejections by the employers to hire the IDPs. In the majority of cases it happens due to the lack of vacancies. A quarter of the employers-respondents have a fear that the employee would work only for some time and may leave very soon. 12% of the employers are concerned with possible psychical condition and negative impact on the quality of the future work.

But, in spite of the strong discrimination factors, which prevent the IDPS to find a job, 62% of the respondents-immigrants indicated, that they found jobs at the new places of residence. Among the

http://www.khpg.org/index.php?id=1439424767

7

http://www.lhsi.org.ua/images/2015/Doslidzhennya_VPO_LHSI2015.pdf

8

http://www.irf.ua/content/files/zvit_monitoring.pdf

9

110 ANNEX E

most popular professions, where the respondents are employed in Lugansk region are cashers in the stores, constructors and specialists at support services, public utilities services (janitors, metalworkers).

Another big scale assessment was conducted by the OSCE in June-July 2014 in 13 oblasts of Ukraine.10 During in depth interviews and focus groups they assessed 400 IDPs. 46 immigrants from Crimea were among those, as well as the others from Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts. The interviews were conducted at the places of compact residences of the IDPs. Over a half of the respondents are women, 25% are men, the rest – children of different age which is in line with the gender-age structure of the immigrants from the previous assessments. The IDPs in Ukraine came mainly from the occupied cities and suburban areas. The majority or the respondents left their places of residence in May-June 2014. The immigrants from Crimea left earlier – in March, April. The IDPs from the East are mainly from Gorlovka, Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, Lugansk and Donetsk.

At the time of interviews, the majority of the respondents had the place to live, though the conditions of housing were very diverse. Those, who stayed either at private houses and apartments with friends and relatives, or leased them out by themselves, were more satisfied with housing conditions. Though, the problem of cost of housing is very sharp for them. The immigrants, who stayed at different sanatoriums and settlements, provided by the local communities, complained more on difficult housing conditions.

Per the results of the OSCE assessment, the problem of receiving of social payments by the IDPs, namely for children and pensions, was confirmed once again. So, the immigrants had to spend months to overcome bureaucratic problems to re-address the payments to the places of new residence. Another reason for such situation is lack of information on the algorithm of actions for the immigrants and their right in this context.

The IDPs from Crimea and from the East have different vision on their return home. The IDPs from Crimea are less optimistic and are not going to return in the nearest future, since they think that the situation has no quick solution. At the same time, the IDPs from the East, in their majority, plan to return back as soon as the military operation is over, and hope that this would happen in the nearest future.

In addition to the IDPs, several research organizations interviewed local population (accepting communities).

Fund “Demokratychni initsiatyvy” (Demicratic initiatives) named after Ilko Kucheriv conducted several assessments among the local population in the East of Ukraine. In particular, in March – April 2015 they interviewed in the city of Severodonetsk (496 respondents) and Starobilsk (499 respondents) of Lugansk oblast.11 Per the results of the assessment the IDPS form 13% of the population of Severodonetsk and 3% of the population of Starobilsk. At the same time all the respondents in Severodonetsk are registered at the local level, and in Starobilsk only two thirds of the IDPs did so.

Over half of the IDPs in both cities plan to return back home after the conflict in the East is over.

The IDPs in Severodonetsk consider that the main support they get from the Ukrainian NGOs and charitable organizations, central government, relatives and friends. The IDPs in Starobilsk feel more the support from the volunteers, Ukrainian NGOs, charitable organizations, relatives and friends. Also, it was identified that the problems of the IDPs are of the concern of the local population of these cities. 20% of the inhabitants of Severodonetsk and 31% of the inhabitants of Starobilsk consider the problems of the internally displaced people as urgent ones and should to be solved at the local level. Also, the inhabitants express readiness to provide assistance to the IDPs from the territories of Ukraine where no government control (12% of the population of Severodonetsk and 7% of the population of Starobilsk).

In October 2015 the Fund “Demokratychni initsiatyvy” (Demicratic initiatives) named after Ilko Kucheriv interviewed inhabitants of Donetsk and Lugansk oblast on the territories under the government control. 1000 people were interviewed.12 Among those who were interviewed there were 3,4% of the IDPs from Donbass region, which is not under the Ukrainian government control. http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/122620?download=true

10

http://www.dif.org.ua/ua/polls/2015a/luganshinannoe-mnenie.htm

11

http://www.dif.org.ua/ua/polls/2015a/donbas2015eastei-.htm

12

ANNEX E 111

The inhabitants from Lugansk and Donetsk regions feel the problem of immigrants since 15% of the population indicate the IDP problem as an urgent one to be solved in their cities/places of residence.

At the same time, only 3% of the inhabitants from Donbas, who were interviewed, consider the IDP problems as such, which could be solved. So, in general the situation with the IDPs is estimated by the local population as urgent and which requires solution. 11% of the respondents are ready to provide funds from the local budget to solve the problems of the immigrants.

In November 2014 the Fund “Demokratychni initsiatyvy” (Demicratic initiatives) named after Ilko Kucheriv made an assessment of the public opinion of the inhabitants of Kramatorsk and Slovjansk after those cities were liberated from the LNR and DNR guerrillas.13 The number of the respondents is 510. At the time of the interview the IDPs were 8% of the population of Slovjansk and 3% of the population of Kramatorsk. Some of the population left theses cities during the military operations, and some of the population came back to their own houses. Per the results of the interviews, 27% of the inhabitants of Slovjansk left the city for the whole period of military operations; 29% were on the territory of the city during the military operation and were out only temporarily; 44% of the population did not go anywhere.

In Kramatorsk the allocation is different: 11% left the territory for the period of military operations; 11% were on the territory of the city during the military operation and were out only temporarily; 75% did not go anywhere. Amongst those who were out in both cities, they mostly relied on their own resources and family resources. At the same time 47% of the immigrants from Slovjansk and 67% of the immigrants from Kramatorsk did not have enough of these funds.

The State employment center analyzed social demographic features of the IDPs, who got the unemployment status with the employment services as of January 2015. 14 The majority of immigrants are women (70%). Age structure: 15-24 years 10%, 25-29 years – 18%, 30-34 years – 20%, 35-44 years – 25%, 45-54 years – 23% and over 55 – 4%. So, about half of the unemployed IDPs are youth up to 35 years old. Another typical feature of the unemployed IDPs is their higher education – 70% among the IDPs. At the same time only 19% have professional and technical education, and only 11% have preliminary and secondary education. As a summary, per the data from the State employment center, the situation with the offer of the work places is insufficient if compared with the number of unemployed. So, in average, there are 14 bidders for 1 offer. The problem of employment of the IDPs is very sharp.

The World Bank in the “Analysis of the impact of the crisis and needs in the East of Ukraine“ in March 2015 assess the profile of the IDPs per the registration data.15 The share of men among the registered IDPs does not exceed 17%. But this share could be somewhat low, since men are less willing to be registered than women, they are afraid to be called to the army. On the directions of migration, 75% of the IDPs came from 5 eastern oblasts: Dnipropetrovska, Donetska, Kharkivska, Luganska and Zaporizhska, including 49% who stay on the territory of Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts. Also, it is mentioned in the report that the majority of the IDPs in Ukraine moved at least twice during their migration. One third moved three or more times. Repeated moves, as a rule, were caused by the search of more secure, adequate residence for reasonable cost.

Also, the World Bank provides analysis of the biggest problems of the IDPs per the focus group assessments with the immigrants.16 The focus groups were conducted during October 2014 – February 2015 in several cities in Ukraine: Kharkiv, Slovjansk, Lviv. Again, the increase of tension between the IDPS and the accepting communities was noted. This was caused by the significant economic pressure on 5 mentioned oblasts, which has the biggest number of the immigrants. In particular, the presence of the IDPs promoted price increase for the food in the accepting regions. Also, the local population track relationship of cause and effect between prices, criminal situation, general instability and increasing number of IDPs. Another problem was also confirmed: low level of trust http://www.dif.org.ua/ua/polls/2014_polls/obshestvennavjansk.htm

13

14

https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/Profile%20of%20IDPs%20registered%20by%20State%20Employment%20

Service%20ofUkraine.pdf

15

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/06/11/090224b082f1bea9/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Recovery0and0p0

0in0Eastern0Ukraine0.pdf

16

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/06/11/090224b082f1beaa/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Recovery0and0

p00in0Eastern0Ukraine0.pdf

112 ANNEX E

to the power bodies and institutions, which especially sharpens during the crises. On the territories, where there is a significant concentration of the immigrants, the risk of exasperation of animosity increases, and even of armed conflicts. The law enforcement bodies often are not able to prevent and to stave off such situations. Also, the assessment brings up the problem of increasing household, sexual and gender violence. In addition, the problem of psychological health is a common one among the immigrants, since these people witnessed or participated in armed confrontations, which could lead to traumas, both physical and psychological. Systemic expert assistance is needed in such cases.

So, most of the assessments on the immigrants are focused to identify key problems for this target group, other than to recognize its social and demographic features. Often this information is missing in the publically available reports. But, the assessments are similar that the majority of the IDPS are women and children – about 70-80%. Thus, less than one third are men. Per official statistics, the biggest shares of the IDPS are pensioners, but the assessments show that significant share of the IDPs are youth of the employment age. The most popular directions for IDPs migrations – 5 eastern oblasts (Dnipropetrovska, Donetska, Kharkivska, Luganska and Zaporizhska) and Kyivska.

Key issues, related to the IDPs, which are highlighted in the assessments are: •• Housing and employment: one of the key priorities for the internally displaced people; •• Basic services for the IDPs: safety, education, health care and social payments; •• Social and psychological rehabilitation, relationship with the local population at the place of new residence.

Less often the assessments describe information coverage in mass media of IDPs practices, problems of violence in the society, level of trust to the institutions. Practically this is no information publically available on the employment strategy for the IDPs, characteristics of their jobs. The researches bypass a touchy political ideological issue, which is ethically justified practice, but it is very difficult to assess the IDPs attitude to the Ukrainian governance, which community they identify themselves.

The internally displaced people are hidden population; the searches for them is getting more complicated, when they integrate more into the community with time, and get less assistance from different government or non-government organizations. Probably, for that reason, in order to assess this category of people, different qualitative approaches are used – focus groups, in depth interviews, or small scale interviews. The researches, often local, are done either in big cities, or in well-known locations in the Eastern Ukraine, not paying attention to the small places (exception – Chuguyiv group on human rights protection and “Stantsija Chuguyiv” this approach allowed to understand the problem deeper, but does not respond, to which extend the results can be disseminated to the general number (or on any sub-group of the IDPs) .

Another methodological problem of such assessments – real lack of information on the recruitment method of the respondents (places of compact residence, volunteer organizations, other type of search and selection), which complicates understanding, profile and needs of the assessed IPD category. There is a high probability, that the most vulnerable groups get into the focus of attention of the researches during the quantitative interviews, when those who successfully integrated into the community and do not contact with the institutions, which cooperate with the IDPS, are out of scope of the researches.

The results of the researches are more or less in compliance with the basic features of the social; demographic profile of the IDPs and their key problems (employment, financial difficulties, leasing of housing/unsatisfactory conditions of housing). The list of the most common and sharp problems and needs of the IDPs is practically without any modification is reflected in each research. The respondents mainly accept their status as a temporary one, and plan to return back home, once the military operation is over. But, there are differences within some of the key issues. For example, most of the assessments demonstrate significant social tension between the IDPs and local population, but some of them indicate that this is not a very common problem. The immigrants assess differently the work of the government bodies and the services provided by them: some of the researches just list the problems, others indicate that the IDPs get what they are entitled to get, and sometimes even more if compared to the local population.

ANNEX E 113

Thus, the assessment of the current problems of the IDPs is necessary as on local levels, as on the all-Ukrainian level. It is reasonable to try to conduct qualitative assessments which cover different categories of the IDPs per life situation, level of adaptation and integration into the community. Since there is sufficient general information on social and demographic profile and immediate needs, it is better to focus on more deep and versatile assessments of one-two issues, trying to get an outcome more useful for the development of specific strategies of work with the IDPs.

114 ANNEX E