 |
 |
|
|
2.1 Participation in PRS implementation (overall perspective): Beyond the design, CSOs appreciated the progress made since signing the Partnership Agreement in October 2004; but still, they request to be involved more intensively. According to a recent GTZ survey, NGO respondents felt that "participation still only exists formally, without much influence, and can be characterized as 'fictitious'" (GTZ 2005: 75). IDHR even went so far to dropping out of the "so-called 'coordination and partnership' institutions" in March 2005 (IDHR 2005: 1). As lamented by IDHR, the participation exercise seems to end wherever donor expectations are met: "[The PRSP,] its' processes and written reports (the last one of August 2004) are mainly addressed to the foreign institutions, such as the World Bank etc., and aimed at reporting and satisfying them, but not, own Armenian people" (IDHR 2005: 2). Moreover, CSOs state that government and donors concentrate exclusively on economic growth and not necessarily on poverty reduction per se. Consequently, in their view, this might even lead to the increase of poverty or inequity (GTZ 2005: 74). 2.2 Participation in Policy Reforms linked to the PRS (specific perspective): An innovative approach to increase participation in policy reform processes is the creation of the Open Forum. The first Open Forum was held in Tekeyan in April 2005 to discuss the drinking water tariff increase. "The objective of the Open Forum was to find out whether the new tariff had been agreed with the PRSP policy and identify possible social impact, particularly on socially vulnerable groups. The Forum had around 80 participants from water government structure, PRSP state entities, NGOs, independent experts, international organizations and other stakeholders" (www.prsp.am). Another participatory instrument in the context of policy reforms are Poverty and Social Impact Assessments (PSIA). Two of them have been conducted in the framework of the PRSP implementation: while DFID contributed a PSIA in the water sector, GTZ implemented a PSIA study on social sector reform. However, there is little evidence that participation in policy reforms plays a significant role in Armenia to date: The most recent PRSP progress report contains a long chapter about "Macroeconomic and sectoral policies and reforms" (Republic of Armenia 2005: 15-32)-and in it no mention of stakeholders' participation in a single sentence. 2.3 Participation in PRS Monitoring: Like many other PRS countries, Armenia is still in the process of developing and implementing a PRS Monitoring System. The PRSP monitoring system as proposed by an experts group was adopted by the Government in November 2004 and introduced in a workshop to government bodies in February 2005 (Republic of Armenia 2005: 46). IMF/World Bank staffs "commend the government for their strong emphasis on monitoring and evaluation and for making data widely available, including through the web (www.prsp.am)." (IMF/IDA 2005: 7) Broad stakeholders' involvement in the monitoring institutions is intended, but there is no experience with the realization of this approach so far. 2.4 Participation in PRS Revision: no
information available as revision process has not yet started
3.1 Structures: Since early 2004 Government and non-state actors worked together in a so-called 'negotiation table' to develop a new multi-stakeholder institutional framework for the coordination of PRSP implementation and monitoring (Azizyan/ Mallmann 2005: 2). The discussions resulted in October 2004 in a Partnership Agreement that stipulates an institutional structure for participation, consisting of the Participatory Steering Committee, Working Group, and Open Forum. The Participatory Steering Committee and the Working Group play a large role in facilitating the coordination between donors and other stakeholders (Republic of Armenia 2005: 41-42; GTZ 2005: 44). A number of non-state actors from civil society as well as from the private sector are members of the committee and the Working Group (RoA 2005: 42; see also www.prsp.am). Despite this innovative institutional setting, some non-state actors heavily criticize the structures as "mostly formal and superficial" (IDHR 2005). The popular and influencial NGO states: "Actually these formal "participatory and partnership" institutions duplicate other ones and threaten the independent and harmonic development of our new established state's basic institutions." (IDHR 2005) NGOs base their criticism partly on earlier experience with participation through government structures: Serving as one example, the Economic Development Research Center (EDRC) proposed macroeconomic figures, which were included in the first draft of the PRSP-a truly remarkable sign of participation. When the final PRSP of 2003 was issued, though, the EDRC proposals were not longer included; in fact, the figures agreed between government and IMF made it into the document (Oxfam International 2004: 9). 3.2 Rights: A specific feature of the Armenian participatory PRS process is its legally binding Partnership Agreement (PA), signed by representatives of the government, the National Assembly, municipal governments, trade unions, NGOs, associations of executives and employers, Diaspora organizations, and the Armenian Apostolic Church. The PA establishes civil society and the private sector as integral to the PRS implementation and monitoring processes. It also stipulates an institutional structure for participation (GTZ 2005: 44; Republic of Armenia 2005: 41-42.). 3.3 Legitimacy: Parliamentary representatives are involved in the newly formed PRS structures (Steering Committee and Working Group), but their involvement as an institution is low (e.g. regarding decision-making in the context of PRSP). Non-state actors were granted formal legitimacy through the Partnership Agreement. Their legitimacy is further strengthened by network-building (see CSPN) and their frequent competent contributions to poverty debates in Armenia. Legitimacy is also increased by transparent and participatory selection of their representatives. Take the "negotiation table" as an example: The non-governmental representatives "have been chosen (elected/appointed) through a broad public process by the respective thematic or institutional constituencies. This lead to the promising broadening of the legitimacy base of the societal interest groups involved in the PRSP process, compared to the earlier NGO and independent expert lead participation in the PRSP elaboration process." (Azizyan/Mallmann 2005: 2) 3.4 Capacity: Civil society is a quite new phenomenon in Armenia. This means that-in many organizations-lack of resources (financial, staff) is combined with lack of experience in political processes. On the other hand, the example of civil society's macro-economic input into the PRSP design phase-that was not taken into account as documented above-demonstrates that civil society in Armenia has the skills to engage in core policy debates. A positive factor for the ability of non-state stakeholders to act is the open information policy of the Government (see for example the website www.prsp.am with lots of information including minutes of recent meetings in the context of PRS). Government undertook also other efforts to communicate the strategy content and its implementation plans, e.g. by dissemination of a popular PRSP version, a number of information workshops, and media activities (Republic of Armenia 2005: 40).
4.1 Statistical data a. Developmental status
b. Indebteness Armenia is not participating in the HIPC II initiative. For more information on Albania's debt status see: World Bank: Armenia Estimated Debt Service Payments c. Further statistical resources World Bank: Armenia Data & Statistics 4.2 Important documents a. Official PRS-related documents IMF/IDA (2005): Republic of Armenia. Joint Staff Advisory
Note on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report. April 8. IMF/IDA (2003): Republic of Armenia. Joint Staff Assessment
of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. November 4. IMF/IDA (2002a): Republic of Armenia. Joint Staff Assessment
of the PRSP Preparation Status Report. September 18. IMF/IDA (2001): Armenia. Joint Staff Assessment of the Interim
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. April 27. PRSP Working Group (2005): Minutes of the Meeting on June
6, 2005. Republic of Armenia (2005): PRSP Progress Report (August
2003 - Dezember 2004). Yerevan. Republic of Armenia (2003): Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.
Yerevan. Republic of Armenia (2002): PRSP Preparation Status Report.
September 2. Republic of Armenia (2001): Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper. March. For the most recent official PRSP documents see b. Major donor-related documents European Commission: Armenia Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006 IMF (2005): Republic of Armenia: Request for a Three-Year
Arrangement Under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility. Washington
D.C., June 2. World Bank: Armenia Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) For further donor-related strategy documents see http://www.countryanalyticwork.net 4.3 Reports and analyses a. PRSP-related publications Azyzian, H. (2003) The PRSP and its Development Process
in Armenia, in: Economic Periodical - Policy and Poverty, No. 1 May 2003. Azizyan, H./Christopher T. Mallmann (2005): Armenia - PRSP Strategy Development Project. Update April 22. Yerevan. Bojö, Jan et al. (2004): Environment in Poverty Reduction
Strategies and Poverty Reduction Support Credits. World Bank, Environment
Department, Environmental Economics Series, Paper No. 102, Washington
D.C., November. (includes data on Armenia) Bojö, Jan/Rama Chandra Reddy (2003): Status and Evolution
of Environmental Priorities in the Poverty Reduction Strategies. An Assessment
of Fifty Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. World Bank, Environment Department,
Environmental Economics Series, Paper No. 93, Washington D.C., November.
(includes data on Armenia) Coyle, Erin/ Evans, Alison (2003): PRSP Synthesis Note 6.
Experience with PRSPs in tranisitions countries. PRSP Monitoring &
Synthesis Project, Synthesis Note 6. (includes data on Armenia) Dewachter, Sara (2005): The Participation Conditionality
under Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: The Joint Staff Assessment -experience.
University of Antwerp, Institute of Development Policy and Management,
IDPM-UA discussion paper 2005-6, April. (includes data on Armenia) Economic Development and Research Center (EDRC) (2005):
Millennium Development Goals in Armenia. Localization Issues. Yerevan,
June. Economic Development and Research Center (EDRC) (2003):
Economic Periodical - Policy and Poverty, No. 1, May. (various articles
on the PRSP process in Armenia) Economic Development and Research Center (EDRC)/Oxfam (2002):
Growth with Equity. Policy Choice for Poverty Reduction Project. Yerevan. GTZ (2005): Making Poverty Reduction Strategies Work -Good
Practices, Issues, and Stakeholder Views-A Contribution of German Development
Cooperation for the 2005 PRSP Review May 2005. Eschborn, May. (includes
Armenia Good Practice sheet) Heidel, Klaus (2004): Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
- blind to the rights of the (working) child? The (I-)PRSPs' perception
of child labour. A problem outline and annotated collection of source
material. Kindernothilfe/Werkstatt Ökonomie, Duisburg/Heidelberg,
March. (includes data on Armenia) IMF/IDA (2002b): Review of the Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper (PRSP) Approach: Early Experience with Interim PRSPs and Full PRSPs.
Washington D.C., March 26. (includes data on Armenia) Institute for Democracy and Human Rights (IDHR) (2005):
COMMUNIQUE To the President, the Government, the National Assembly of
the Republic of Armenia, and all Armenian People; Yerevan, 3rd March 2005.
Lucas, Henry/David Evans/Katherine Pasteur (2004): Research
on the current state of PRS monitoring systems. Institute of Development
Studies (IDS), Discussion Paper 382, Brighton, December. (includes data
on Armenia) Mallmann, Christopher T. (2005): Fact Sheet Armenia. Appendix
I. In: GTZ 2005: Making Poverty Reduction Strategies Work-Good Practices,
Issues, and Stakeholder Views-A Contribution of German Development Cooperation
for the 2005 PRSP Review May 2005. Manoukian, Violeta (2002): Participatory Monitoring and
Evaluation Learning Event. Workshop Report. The World Bank Yerevan Office,
Congress Hotel, Yerevan, Armenia, June 24-26 2002. OECD/DAC (2004): Role of Infrastructure in Economic Growth
and Poverty Reduction. Lessons Learned from PRSPs of 33 Countries. DAC
Network on Poverty Reduction, Berlin, October 27-29. (includes data on
Armenia) Oxfam International (2004): From 'Donorship' to Ownership?
Moving Towards PRSP Round Two. Oxfam Briefing Paper 51, January. (includes
data on Armenia) Schmidt, Mary Beth (2002): Review of the Integration of
Social Funds With Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and Country Assistance
Strategies. Consultant's Report to Human Development Network, World Bank
Group, Washington D.C, May 31. (includes data on Armenia) World Bank (2005): Poverty Reduction Support Credits: A
Stocktaking. Operations Policy and Country Services (OPCS), Washington
D.C., June 24. (includes data on Armenia) World Bank (2004): Poverty Reduction Strategies: Their Importance for Disability. Disability and Development Team, Washington D.C., July 7. Zuckerman, Elaine (2002): Evaluation of Gender Mainstreaming
in Advocacy Work on Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). Synthesis
Report, Gender Action, May. (includes data on Armenia) b. Background reading American Bar Association/Central European and Eurasian Law
Initiative (ABA/CEELI) (2004): Judicial Reform Index for Armenia: Volume
II. December. American Bar Association/Central and East European Law Initiative
(ABA/CEELI) (2002): Judicial Reform Index for Armenia. April. Freedom of Information Civic Initiative (2004): Statement
- Amendments threaten to undermine FOI Law. Yerevan, February 19. Law of the Republic of Armenia on Freedom of Information.
Adopted by the National Parliament on September 23, 2003. Osmani, S.R. (2005): The Employment Nexus Between Growth
and Poverty. An Asian Perspective. SIDA Studies No. 15, Stockholm. (includes
Armenia case study) 4.4 Links to stakeholders involved a. PRSP PRSP Armenia PRSP News: Institute for Democracy and Human Rights (IDHR) Government of the Republic of Armenia Civil Society Partnership Network Economic Development and Research Center National Academy of Sciences in Armenia NGO Center Institute for Democracy and Human Rights Directory of some Armenian Civil Society Organizations Directory of Development Organizations (national / international) c. Donors / International actors International Monetary Fund (IMF) - Armenia country profile World Bank - Armenia country profile United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) - Armenia country
office Directory of Development Organizations (national / international) 4.5 General country information Development Gateway Armenia Development Gateway International Crisis Group (ICG) - Armenia country profile Freedom House - Armenia country profile 4.6 General links that also provide country-specific information European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) International Monetary Fund (IMF) The World Bank Group Paris Club
Source : www.prsp-watch.de (September 2005) © German Version: VENRO |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
