Skip Navigation
Armavir, Armenia

Inception Report – Action plan – Armavir, Armenia, 2022 – 2025

Overview

Name of Evaluator

Arpine Hakobyan

Email

arpine@ngoc.am

Member Name

Armavir, Armenia

Action Plan Title

Action plan – Armavir, Armenia, 2022 – 2025

Section 1.
Compliance with
co-creation requirements

1.1 Does a forum exist?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The Government of Armenia joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP) initiative in 2011 and already presented its first action plan in 2012.
“In order to facilitate local processes within the Open Government Partnership (OGP), the municipality of Armavir issued a public announcement regarding the establishment of a working group. This announcement was made on August 17, 2022, via the Armavir community administration’s Facebook page and was also disseminated through the social media channels of the ‘Armavir Development Center’ NGO, which operates within the community.

However, the announcement was not presented separately but rather merged with another announcement of collecting proposals. This merging may have caused some confusion, as the details regarding the formation of the group were not clearly delineated. It is notable that the municipality did not publish the announcement of the group’s formation on the official website of the community.

“Each participating community in the ‘Local Open Government’ initiative is tasked with developing a ‘Local OGP’ action plan through collaboration with civil society partners and active citizens. Subsequently, organizations and individuals involved in this process would be integrated into the Armavir local OGP coordinating group”, this was the only part concerning the development of the group in the whole announcement.

Despite the announcement, a formal working group failed to materialize due to a lack of respondents. Nevertheless, following the collection of commitments, the “Armavir Development Center” NGO took the initiative to convene a discussion on these commitments. The discussion included representatives from four NGOs operating within the community as well as municipal representatives.”
To ensure the formation of the working group, you might consider the following recommendations:

  • Clarify Announcement
  • Utilize Multiple Channels
  • Highlight Importance
  • Engagement Strategies
  • Deadline Extension

Provide evidence for your answer:

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

1.2 Is the forum multi-stakeholder?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Tamara Sharoyan was appointed the contact person of the Armavir municipality, and Naira Arakelyan and Ani Harutyunyan were appointed as representatives of the CSO. Through regular online meetings in June, the stakeholders agreed to cooperate and invest efforts to develop the local action plan. As it was mentioned above the working group was not formed officially, because there were no respondents, but after the collection of commitments, “Armavir Development Center” NGO organized a discussion of commitments, where it invited 4 non-governmental organizations operating in the community and employees of the municipality.

One representative of the focus group discussion, who is a member of the Council of Elders of the Armavir community and representative of the “Youth Avangard” NGO, also confirms about this meeting.
2-3 years ago, a meeting was held in Armavir community hall, which was attended by three to four non-governmental organizations: “Huysi Metsamor”, “Avangard”, “Armavir Development Center” and another NGO and representatives of Armavir community hall, including the head of the community. There was only one meeting in the course of the activity of the OGP, and one document was signed at the meeting with that working group. However, subsequent to that meeting, no further deliberations or actions were undertaken.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

1.3 Does the forum hold at least one meeting with civil society and non-governmental stakeholders during the co-creation of the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

During the joint development of the action plan, a number of meetings and discussions were held, where the problems of the community, the principles and priority directions, and the reforms of the sector were discussed. For participation, the Armavir Municipality and “Armavir Development Center“ NGO developed an online proposal submission form and it was recommended to submit proposals by August 25 of this year by completing this proposal submission format. Then a meeting was organized on August 17, 2022, the purpose of which was to discuss the process of forming Armavir’s “Local OGP” action plan, priorities, and further commitments.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

1.4 Has the action plan been endorsed by the stakeholders of the forum or steering committee/group?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

There are different opinions regarding the approval of the action plan.

The first was developed by the community administration/community head/ and the Armavir Development Center NGO, after which it was approved by the Armavir community council. However, there is no record of the meeting of the Council of Elders in this regard.

The second is that it was approved by the head of the Armavir community, Davit Khudatyan, which substantiates the document officially approved by the head of the community, which was published on the official website of the Armavir community.
In any case, no information was received about the approval of the action plan by the multi-stakeholder group.

Suggestions for this part:
The statement highlights the need for clarity and transparency in the approval process of the action plan within the context of the multi-stakeholder framework.
It is crucial to emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in the development and approval of the action plan. Given the diverse interests and expertise of the stakeholders involved, a multi-stakeholder working group should be convened to thoroughly discuss and refine the proposed actions.
The proposed actions should be studied and debated within this working group to ensure alignment with the community’s needs and OGP priorities. Once consensus is reached, the finalized action plan should be formally approved by the multi-stakeholder working group.
Subsequently, the approved action plan should be presented to the Armavir community head and council for further review and endorsement.
Additionally, it is imperative to document and publicly disclose the proceedings of the multi-stakeholder working group meetings, as well as the council meetings where the action plan is discussed and approved. Transparency in this process fosters trust and accountability within the community.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

Section 2.
Recommended practices
in co-creation

2.1 Does the government maintain a Local OGP website or webpage on a government website where information on the OGP Local process (co-creation and implementation) is proactively published?

No

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Armavir municipality does not have a separate page on its official website, where the information about the OGP local process (co-creation and implementation) is published.
The municipality has a Local OGP-Armavir FB page, where information about the local OGP process (co-creation and implementation) is published. At the same time, the announcements are also distributed on the FB page of the Armavir community, as well as on the FB page of the “Armavir Development Center” NGO.

At the same time, only one of the 7 NGOs participating in the focus group discussion and operating in the Armavir community was informed about the OGP Facebook page, the others were completely unaware.

FG participant: “We don’t have a separate social page for the Aramavir Health Care Center, there is not even a separate section on the official website of the municipality, they are always only in the form of announcements.”
FG participant: “Despite being active on social media sites, I have not noticed any announcements or pages related to OGP and I suggest that the working group deal with this issue and create a separate page where all announcements and details regarding OGP will be posted.”
FG participant: “It would be good if Facebook or Instagram pages were launched and information about the FGD was posted.”

Suggestions for improvement of this section:
Separate an OGP section on the official website of the Armavir community, where there will be information about OGP processes only. This approach will ensure that information on the co-creation of commitments as well as progress is available to interested parties.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

2.2 Did the government provide information to stakeholders in advance to facilitate informed and prepared participation in the co-creation process?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Information about the OGP initiative, and the importance of joining the latter, was mainly provided by the “Armavir Development Center” NGO, which is included in the working group of the National OGP and is aware of the processes.
The information was spread as much as possible through the FB pages of the municipality and the NGO. However, the participants of the focus group discussion posted that even they did not have a clear idea about OGP.

– FG participant: “As a journalist and NGO representative, I am familiar with the local OGP as much as the circles of interest allowed from various platforms, meetings, and discussions. I am not familiar with the composition of the OGP working group, nor am I familiar with the process of forming the OGP. I did not participate in public discussions, and if there were any, I did not receive an informal or official invitation. I have not seen any announcements about public discussions on official websites.”
– FG participant: “They did not have regular meetings did not present the program in more detail and had no idea what their function was or what reform should be done by joining the OGP.”
– FG participant: “Youth Avanguard” NGO, before becoming a public organization, as an initiative group, frequently participated in various discussions organized by BCG. Earlier, he was informed about the activities of BKG in 2016-2017, participating in national-level discussions and workshops.”

Provide evidence for your answer:

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

2.3 Did the government ensure that any interested member of the public could make inputs into the action plan and observe or have access to decision-making documentation?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The local government emphasized that the public should participate in the development of the action plan. The involvement of the “Armavir Development Center” NGO was very important there, which greatly encouraged the citizens to be informed about the processes, and to submit suggestions.
Furthermore, within the framework of the “Community budgeting by the people, for the people” project implemented by the “Armavir Development Center” NGO, a 2-day capacity building course was held on November 28 and 29 in the meeting hall of the Armavir community. The topic of the course was participatory budgeting, the participants were representatives of local self-government bodies, civil society, mass media, and active citizens of the enlarged Armavir community. The training aimed to develop the participants’ abilities to contribute to participatory decision-making and active civic participation in the community.
However, in the co-creation process, the call for proposals stipulated certain participation criteria that did not initially encourage participation by all. The criteria are:
“All individuals (organizations) whose activities comply with the following principles can participate:

  • at least five years of specialized work,
  • organizations whose charter objectives derive from the fields and directions of garbage collection, public transport, tourism, healthcare, services provided to the population, ensuring a stable social environment, benevolence, participative management, green economy, fighting against corruption,
  • are familiar with the “Open Government Partnership” initiative, as well as have implemented projects based on OGP principles and have experience in cooperation with national or local authorities.”

Provide evidence for your answer:

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

2.4 Did the government proactively report back or provide written feedback to stakeholders on how their contributions were considered during the creation of the action plan?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Mainly the stakeholders were informed about the processes related to the action plan. At the same time, there is no clear information on how many proposals were initially collected and how many were rejected. The representative from the Armavir municipality noted that the proposals were suggested only by the “Armavir Development Center” NGO, which generated the two during meetings with other NGOs, which became an Armavir OGP Action plan commitment.
In this case, there are no rejected proposals and therefore we cannot talk about the feedback mechanisms.

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
Focus group participants

2.5 Was there an iterative dialogue and shared ownership between government and non-governmental stakeholders during the decision-making process, including setting the agenda?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

At least two non-governmental organizations, together with the representatives of the municipal administration, are included among those responsible for the implementation of initiatives, which proves that there was cooperation between the local government and non-governmental organizations. Moreover, the agenda was mostly formed by the partner NGO. However, this cooperation is not complete, because other stakeholders are not included.

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

2.6 Would you consider the forum to be inclusive and diverse?

Somewhat

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

As mentioned above, the formal working group was not formed, but non-governmental organizations operating in the community were involved in the discussions. However, the comprehensive working group envisages participation from all sectors, that is, the private sector, mass media, active citizens, etc. In this case, only local governments and NGOs participated in the discussions.

Provide references here (e.g. interviews):

  • Ani Harutyunyan/Armavir Development Center (ADC) NGO
  • Tamara Sharoyan/ Armavir Municipality
  • Focus group participants

Section 3.
Initial evaluation
of commitments

1 Commitment :

Participatory budgeting implementation

1.1 Is the commitment verifiable?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

In this section, each commitment was assessed if it clearly identified the problem that it seeks to address, the expected result of the commitment, milestones and implementation dates, available resources, and the responsible organizations for the implementation of the commitment.

Specific: The problem that this commitment describes is the following:
At the core of democratic development is citizens’ confidence in their elected representatives that the latter will address their concerns for the improvement of community life. This is especially important at the community management level, where the efficiency and quality of service delivery are directly felt, and a transparent and accountable decision-making process increases the possibility of social and economic development. The analysis of the current situation shows that there is a low level of participation of citizens at the local level in Armenia, although the necessary prerequisites for participation from a legal point of view are provided. Since the municipal budget affects every resident of the community, budget decisions provide a great opportunity for residents to engage in participatory democracy. The participation of citizens in the local budgeting process will help the municipal authorities to be more informed and make more effective decisions, as well as allow the residents to see and realize that their voice and views are important, that their proposed ideas and plans are discussed, considered and get a chance to be implemented by local authorities.
We can prove that the commitment precisely describes the problem it is trying to solve At the same time, the description of the commitment does not specify expected outcomes.
• Verifiable: In order to ensure accountability of commitment implementation, it is necessary that a commitment can be demonstrated to be completed. This means that the Monitoring Body and citizens are able to check the status of the commitment. So the commitment could be assessed whether it is verifiable.
The main objective of the commitment is: Through the implement participatory budgeting, promote direct participation of residents in the community decision-making process, community budget planning and management, increase trust in local self-government bodies and citizens’ civic responsibility:
The milestones are: Mapping the necessary features for a participatory budgeting system; implementation of the participatory budgeting electronic subsystem in the community management information system in order to promote citizens’ participation in the decision-making process at the local level; Drafting of guidelines and statutes, drawing up position profiles of organizers on participatory budgeting issues and including them as necessary activities in the community action program.
So there are three milestones for the implementation of the commitment: They are specific, but there are no clear indicators and deadlines for the latter. The commitment also does not provide measurable results, which again makes it difficult to verify the commitment’s implementation.
• Answerable: The commitment clearly specifies the representative of development programs and external relations of Armavir municipality as the responsible person for implementation. The Financial and Economic Department of Armavir Municipality is also specified as the supporting agency. Civil society organizations: “Armavir Development Center” NGO and “Youth Avangard” NGO have a role in implementing the commitment as well.
• Time-bound: There are no clearly stated dates for the milestones and the commitment overall.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.2 Does the commitment language/activities clearly justify relevance to OGP values?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The commitment to the implementation of participatory budgeting contributes to the processes of making the operation of the Local government structure and the decision-making process more transparent, participatory, and accountable. The commitment promotes the direct participation of residents in the community decision-making process, community budget planning, and management by using an innovative electronic approach. It can increase trust in local self-government bodies and citizens’ civic responsibility. So this commitment is consistent with all OGP values: accountability, transparency, participation, and innovation.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.3 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

a new regulation, policy, practice, or requirement.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

As a new model of participatory budgeting is implemented, it implies internal regulations and behaviors

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.4 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

will result in a change of the rules, practices, or policies that govern a policy area, public sector, and/or relationship between citizens and is binding or institutionalized across government or specific institution(s).

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Perhaps, the formation of the community budget according to the Local Government Law should be carried out by ensuring the participation of residents, but in 2022, a completely new model was used, in which citizens do not participate in the discussion of the already designed budget, but propose programs themselves and then choose the successful program by the vote of the population. This approach causes a radical change in resident-municipality relations and implies a change in certain regulations.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.5 Are there any recommended changes to the design of the commitment to help improve its implementation?

While the commitment to implement participatory budgeting demonstrates a clear recognition of the importance of citizen engagement in local decision-making processes, there are areas where improvements can be made to enhance its effectiveness.

Clarity of Objectives and Expected Outcomes. While the commitment outlines the main objective, it lacks specificity regarding expected outcomes. Clear and measurable outcomes are essential for assessing the impact of the commitment and ensuring accountability. Adding specific indicators and measurable results will facilitate monitoring and evaluation.
Verifiability: The commitment should include clear criteria for assessing its completion and allow for easy verification by both the monitoring body and citizens. This entails setting clear milestones, deadlines, and measurable results that can be objectively evaluated.
Time-bound. Establishing clear timelines for each milestone and the overall commitment is essential for accountability and progress tracking. Setting deadlines ensures that implementation progresses in a timely manner and enables stakeholders to assess the commitment’s effectiveness within a specified timeframe.
Responsibility and Collaboration: While the commitment specifies responsible individuals and supporting agencies, fostering collaboration among all stakeholders, including civil society organizations, is crucial for successful implementation. Clearly defining roles, responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms will enhance synergy and ensure effective collaboration.
Promoting Transparency and Accountability. Emphasizing transparency and accountability in the implementation process is essential for building trust between residents and local government bodies. Providing regular updates, engaging in dialogue with stakeholders, and incorporating feedback mechanisms will enhance transparency and accountability throughout the implementation process.

2 Commitment :

Implementation of an integrity system

2.1 Is the commitment verifiable?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

In this section, each commitment was assessed if it clearly identified the problem that it seeks to address, the expected result of the commitment, milestones and implementation dates, available resources, and the responsible organizations for the implementation of the commitment.

Specific: The problem that this commitment describes is the drawback of the integrity system. Although the Corruption Prevention Commission has launched exemplary forms of code of conduct, there is still a need to put them into practice and shape them according to community needs. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the scope of implementation of the integrity system and to develop its implementation measures and regulations for both community/civil servants and other stakeholders. We can say that the commitment precisely describes the problem it is trying to solve. At the same time, the description of the commitment does not specify expected outcomes.
• Verifiable: In order to ensure accountability of commitment implementation, it is necessary that a commitment can be demonstrated to be completed. This means that the Monitoring Body and citizens can check the status of the commitment. So the commitment was assessed whether it is verifiable. In this regard, we can say that there are two milestones for implementing the commitment, but there are no clear indicators and deadlines for the latter. The commitment also does not provide measurable results, which again makes it difficult to verify the commitment’s implementation
• Answerable: The commitment clearly specifies the representative of development programs and external relations of Armavir municipality as the responsible person for implementation. There are more agencies, such as the Department of Secretariat, Personnel Management, and Information Technologies of Armavir Municipality specifically as the supporting agencies. Civil society organizations: “Armavir Development Center” NGO and “Youth Avangard” NGO have a role in implementing the commitment as well.
• Time-bound: There are no clearly stated dates for the milestones and the commitment overall.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.2 Does the commitment language/activities clearly justify relevance to OGP values?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The commitment on the implementation of an integrity system can contribute to the processes of making the operation of the Local government structure and the decision-making process more transparent and accountable. This commitment is consistent with at least two OGP values: accountability and transparency.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.3 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

a continuation of the ongoing practice in line with existing legislation, policies, or requirements.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

In 2018, the legislation on public service mandated the establishment of a framework to govern conflict of interest, financial asset declaration, incompatibility, and gift acceptance, thereby delineating rules of conduct and ethical standards. The Corruption Prevention Commission was created to regulate it. However, the commission primarily addressed central management concerns. Consequently, there arose a necessity to implement elements of the integrity system at the local level to foster a conducive environment. Thus, this commitment represented a proactive step toward facilitating these processes.։

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.4 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

will result in a change of the rules, practices, or policies that govern a policy area, public sector, and/or relationship between citizens and is binding or institutionalized across government or specific institution(s).

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The Integrity system is a new approach to regulating the activities of local communities, the application of which will lead to certain behavioral changes.

2.5 Are there any recommended changes to the design of the commitment to help improve its implementation?

The proposals mainly relate to making the disclosure more detailed and defining more clear and measurable pillars․ By incorporating undefined strategies, the commitment aimed at introducing the integrity system in the Armavir Municipality can be made more effective, ensuring meaningful impact and sustainable improvements in governance practices.

Stakeholder Engagement: Ensure active involvement and consultation with relevant stakeholders, including community members, civil servants, local authorities, and NGOs, to gather diverse perspectives and ensure the integrity system reflects community needs and concerns.
Needs Assessment: Conduct a thorough needs assessment to identify gaps and challenges in the current integrity framework. This analysis should consider local context, cultural norms, and specific challenges faced by the Armavir Municipality.
Capacity Building: Provide training and capacity-building programs for community members, civil servants, and integrity organizers to enhance their understanding of ethical standards, conflict of interest regulations, and other integrity-related matters. This will empower stakeholders to effectively implement and adhere to the integrity system.
Collaboration with Government Bodies. Collaborate closely with relevant government bodies, such as the Ministry of Territorial Management and Infrastructures, to align the integrity system with existing legislative frameworks and operational procedures. This collaboration ensures consistency and facilitates the integration of integrity measures into broader governance initiatives.
Monitoring and Evaluation. Establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the integrity system to track progress, identify areas for improvement, and ensure accountability. Regular reviews and assessments will help maintain momentum and address any emerging challenges effectively.
Public Awareness and Transparency. Promote public awareness of the integrity system through outreach campaigns, community forums, and information sessions. Transparency in the development and implementation process fosters trust and encourages active participation from community members.

Filed under: Eastern Partnership Inception Report Local Local Monitoring Body

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership