Assessment: Reception of Population on Upcoming Reforms of the Local-Self Government System

Perceptions of the Population on Upcoming Reforms of the LG System

Assessment

Brief Report

This assessment is conducted by The Urban Foundation for Sustainable Development with financial support of the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation

November, 2013 Armenia

Perceptions of the Population on Upcoming Reforms of the LG System

Content:

Chapter 1 : Objectives of the assessment, selection and methodology ………….3 Chapter 1: Experts on coming reforms …………………………………………………….…..4 Chapter 2: Perceptions of population …………………………………………………………...8 Chapter 3: Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………10 Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………..11

2

Chapter 1: Objectives and methodology of the assessment

This assessment is conducted by The Urban Foundation for Sustainable Development with financial support of the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

Since 2002, after signing the European Charter of Local Self-governance as well as its Utrecht Protocol in 2011, Armenia has committed to reform its local self-governance system. The aim of the reform is to make the system effective and efficient and to promote citizen engagement in the affairs at local level. Consolidating huge number of communities and decentralizing power are key aspects of the local government and public administration reforms that are currently high on the agenda of the government of Armenia.

The objective of this assessment is to find out the knowledge base of the population regarding the upcoming reforms, their perceptions and opinions on reform related issues. Such assessment is the first one in its kind, and although many of its finding may seem to be obvious to those who are involved in the LG reform related issues, this assessment provides factual evidences that will be useful for designing and fine-tuning further reform-related activities.

Particularly, the findings may help facilitate policy communication between government, local stakeholders and population. They may also serve as a baseline for further assessments against which any progress can be measured.

Methodology During the assessment two methods have been used: in-depth expert interviews and interviews with residents in different regions of Armenia. For both methods instruments were developed – a Guide for interviews and questionnaire. While the Guide includes topics that relate to specific aspects of upcoming reforms - administrative efficiency and effectiveness, quality of service provision, community development opportunities and issues related to local democracy, the questionnaire is designed to reveal the extent to which population is interested and engaged in community life and their perceptions of possible enlargement of communities.

Selection The UFSD conducted 18 in-depth expert interviews with community heads and local opinion leaders representing different regions (Shirak, Lori, Tavush, Armavir, Ararat, Vayots Dzor) persons who are supposed to be best informed about the LG reforms.

The interviews with residents were carried out in 18 communities of northern and southern marzes –Lori (5 communities), Shirak (6 communities), Vayots Dzor (2 communities) and Syunik (5 communities). Among 18 selected communities are:  4 urban (one in each marz),  7 rural with population of 1000 and more people  7 rural with population of less than 1000 people. Total 385 interviews were held.

3

Chapter 2: Perceptions and Opinions of Experts on Consolidation of Communities and Decentralization of Power In- depth expert interviews is one of the methods of the current assessment. In general 18 interviews were carried with community heads, Union of Communities representatives from 6 marzes of Armenia (Shirak, Lori, Tavush, Armavir, Ararat, Vayots Dzor). All interviews were conducted according to the interview Guide that included the following sections: I. Awareness about reforms II. How consolidation is perceived III. Effectiveness and improvement of services IV. New opportunities V. Local democracy I.

Awareness about the reform: In most cases, interviewees are aware that the government is going to initiate a reform of Local Government system towards enlargement of communities, although the level of their awareness is different. Some of them even know in what configuration the consolidation will take place. These interviewees have participated in discussions organized by government, either in the National Assembly or in the Marzpetaran. Many refer to the annual conference in Jermuk. Some of them have participated in study visits to Germany and Poland and have learned what results are possible to achieve.

However, there has not been any official communication regarding specifics of how consolidation will take place apart from what was learned from sporadic meetings and discussions. Weak knowledge base is a common situation which, however, was expected if the general uncertainty about the reforms is taken into account.

Most of interviewees would prefer to have more in-depth and official knowledge about the coming reforms, mentioning that population need to know implications of the reforms to have an objective opinion about them. As for means of information, interviewees would prefer that community meetings were organized to initiate discussions and information sharing. They also mention importance of TV as the most popular media.

II. Is consolidation a good idea for reforming the system or not?

The opinions for are founded on basically two arguments: firstly, the budgets of small communities are so tiny that it is impossible to fulfill obligatory responsibilities on service provision stipulated by law and in addition take care of the variety of problems that occur in their commonplace life. The success of the reforms in Germany, where some of the interviewees have visited, has convinced them that enlargement is the right strategy for reforming the system.

Quote: Along with understanding that ‘Things cannot be continued like this’, all interviewees express different level of reservations and apprehensions regarding the

“It cannot be continued like this. Is it normal for a community to have 29 inhabitants?”

4

outcomes of possible consolidation. These can be grouped in the following way:  Consolidation has no alternative  Consolidation is necessary, but it should be accompanied with a strong public education effort and considerable investments into the infrastructure.  Consolidation is reasonable in case of very small communities with population less than 1000 residents.  There is no confidence that the small communities of the Quote: cluster will not be neglected in terms of resources. They bring ‘Young people do not even examples from former negative experiences (Hobardzidate’.

Vardablur; Lukashin-Noravan, Horom-Hovtashen). «Շաշ բան ա։ Իրար հարս  Strong localistic tendencies of neighboring communities that չեն տալիս» often result in animosity between neighbors  The voice of the small communities will always remain unheard  Small communities especially the bordering ones will run the risk of depopulation.

It is interesting though that one and the same apprehension is expressed by both small and large communities. Thus, large communities fear that the small ones will ‘swallow’ their resources while they have their own unsolved problems, and the smaller ones, on the contrary, believe that resources will not reach them as the large ones are ‘closer’ to the budget.

When asked to express their own vision about improvement of the local governance system, many interviewees mention that although previous (before 1995) administrative-territorial division had drawbacks, it worked well. Therefore amalgamation of communities, somewhat like the former system, with joint management system would be a good option; however it should not be a copypast of the former districts as ‘much time has elapsed since then’.

In several interviews an opinion was expressed that consolidation of services rather than administrative-territorial consolidation would have been a ‘milder’ option.

III. Effectiveness: This issue is interpreted in various ways: in terms of cost effectiveness, all interviewers agree that some money will be saved by cutting staff costs which will allow engaging higher quality specialists in the united municipality or outsource some services to specialized companies.

However these savings will not be enough to cover other necessary expenditures (for example, improvement of intercommunity roads) that will inevitably occur, and therefore considerable investments will be needed.

Quote: If 5 poor villages are joined they we will get one big poor village.

Հինգ քյասիբ գյուղ իրար միացնես՝ էլի նույն քյասիբն ա մնալու։ Գումարելիների տեղերը փոխելիս գումարը չի փոխվում։

Example: “In the neighboring village only 4 children attend to school. If the school is optimized, a lot of resources will be saved. However, if no additional investments are made to ensure that those four children access school, it will mean that we are cheating our people (թոզ ենք փչում)”.

Consolidation is bad: In case of small villages, the underlying concern is that consolidation will lead to depopulation of small villages.

5

For example, in case of Gomq consolidation will mean loss of 28 workplaces (teachers, village mayori, etc.) with uncertain perspectives for schoolchildren as in winter months the roads are impassable to take children to school in another community. In case of small bordering villages security issues are brought up by interviewees. Possible reduction of staff worries communities (not only small ones) and creates resistance towards reforms.

Community heads and their staffs are the strongest ‘opposition’ to the consolidation as they clearly see the danger of losing their jobs, while new opportunities for them personally and for the community in general are deemed vague.

Quote: We are stuck in routine work and become rusted. If specialized unites provide services we will be relieved, and a new development front will open up.

Consolidation is good Interviewees also see positive perspectives in terms of Խրված ենք ամենօրյա access to more quality services which either are not հոգսի մեջ։ Արդեն available in many communities or are not affordable – ժանգոտել ենք։ Որ մի քիչ էդ such as lawyers, qualified accountants, etc. Almost all հոգսից թեթևանանք, մեզ communities experience need for high quality specialists. զարգանալու ֆռոնտ For example, the joint tax collection body will be able to կբացվի։ reduce numbers of tax inspectors versus bigger work load and higher salaries. In some cases tax collection is organized efficiently through the Unions of Communities (UoC). Some interviewees do not believe that administrative consolidation is able to improve the quality of services. It will happen if services themselves are consolidated. Provision of tax collection and waste management services through UoCs are good examples. Those interviewees who have been exposed to international experience are more open towards consolidation of efforts.

Efficient work of UoC especially in property and land tax collection and waste management is recognized in the communities. Electronic submissions of tax collection records, as well as improved household waste collection have nurtured new management culture which is appreciated by everyone. It is a common understanding that people will be ready to pay even higher fees if they get better services.

IV. Opportunities for Development Interviewees do not know if in case of consolidation new services will be added to the current obligatory ones or not. However, irrespective of that fact, they see some development opportunities once a part of their daily operations is commissioned to specialized bodies – hopefully to be created in the result of optimization.

For example, consolidation may create supporting environment for consolidation of land plots which are now so much fragmented that their cultivation is not lucrative. Tourism is another opportunity which is impossible to develop individually in one community, while regional approach is much more realistic according to interviewees. Enlarged Before: Why should Germans teach me how to communities can offer spaces/lands for collect garbage? Նեմեցը պետք ա սովորացնի՞, թե ես ոնց industrial and/or business development and զիբիլ հավաքեմ ։ better condition for exploitation of mines.

After: It is not matter of money, it is a matter Another opportunity for enlarged of management. communities is collection of maintenance Էնքան փող չի կարևոր, որքան fees from outside advertising placed on մենեջմենթը։ intercommunity roads.

6

Consolidation of land plots is brought up very frequently as the only possibility to make agricultural production profitable. Although this issue is not directly connected with the LG reforms, it can create a good setting for consolidation of communities as it will bring along additional business opportunities such as creation of agricultural machinery stations, wholesale storages, logistic services and others, which otherwise will not be feasible because of low productivity of fragmented plots.

V. Local Democracy The views of interviewees on implications of administrative-territorial consolidation on democratic rights of the population differ very much connected with different perceptions of what democracy is. This part of the interview came to prove that for many people democracy still remains a ‘buzz word’ with little to none practical meaning.

Quote If they are going to direct people, we’d rather not have another fake event.

Եթե էլի պետք ա ուղղորդեն, ավելի լավ ա չլինի։

The interviews reaffirmed the Urban Foundation’s former evidence-based knowledge that the concept of ‘democracy’ is narrowed down and understood by the communities merely as ‘provision of information’. Most of the interviewees mention that lack of awareness about reform negatively affects the moods of population: people make assumptions based their own understanding and previous negative experiences. Indeed, information is a necessary but insufficient condition for any democratic process, and a big deal of work has to be carried out in the communities to turn the attention of local people to other aspects that constitute local democracy – electoral process, participatory process, local civil society, local media, etc.

Some interviewees mention that it would be a good manifestation of democracy if local referendum on the reforms was organized, however others fear that it will be held as elections are held - with pressuring people’s freedom of choice as it is evident that majority is going to say ‘no’.

Opinions are unanimous that larger communities have better chances to be heard at national level.

Example: “… if our population were not this many, the President would not include the construction of our community center in his pre-election promise list”.

Meantime, even those who are positive about consolidation, admit that existence of a mayor in a small community has a psychological importance for the villagers (It is a ‘hopeless hope’; ‘without a mayor, people are somewhat lost’).

The structure of the enlarged community council is considered very important factor by some of the interviewees. If equal number of councilors are represented in the decision making body from all communities irrespective of their size, that would be an acceptable option. However many fear that nepotism and localistic relations are going to prevail during decision making.

In general, people do not know what arrangements will be in place to limit the risk of physically distancing the decision making body from them. This creates additional tension and in the communities and resistance towards reforms.

Key findings  Consolidation is necessary, but population needs more in-depth and official knowledge about the coming reforms, as well as implications of the reforms in order to be supportive,

7





   

it should be accompanied with strong public education effort. People would prefer formats that allow interactive discussions, like town hall meetings in the communities.

There is a concern that small communities will be neglected as result of reforms. This generates lack of confidence towards reforms. Therefore communities and their population need to know clear mechanisms of resource distribution and decision making as a result of consolidation.

Consolidation generates unemployment and it is unclear to communities and population how reform will address this issue.

Consolidation of communities is considered inevitable by many, however they recognize the risk of its failure with predictable consequences if supporting infrastructural and other investments are not made. Such principles as fairness, impartiality, balance, participatory approach in decision making are as important as physical investments.

Interviewees consider that financial savings will not be sufficient to cover other costs related to consolidation It can seem illogical, but more drastic consolidation (similar to the former system) could be accepted better than the cluster approach.

While consolidation is necessary, ‘soft” consolidation – consolidation of services rather than administrative-territorial consolidation would be preferable.

Consolidation of land (although it does not refer to local governments but rather to individual landowner) could serve as a good prerequisite supporting the idea of community enlargement

Chapter 3. Perceptions of Population on their Engagement in Local Affairs and Enlargement of Communities While designing the questionnaire it was believed that due to lack of policy communication it would be not effective to ask general public about reforms. Therefore, it was interesting for the team to find out the level of people’s participation and interest in community life, sense of ownership and their opinion on possible enlargement.

In their answers to the questions regarding their interest and engagement in the life of their community, more than 70% of people mention that they are ‘somewhat’ interested or ‘not’ interested and engaged at all in the public life / events that take place in the community. Residents in rural areas are more interested and engaged in the life of their communities than those in urban areas. About 78% mention they ‘never’ or ‘sometimes’ discuss community related issues with coresidents.

Urban residents tend to discuss community related issues less than in rural areas.

Residents of Syunik Marz are the most active, while Vayots Dzor region is the most passive in this regard.

When asked to evaluate the quality of life in their community from 1-10, the scores given by around 75 % of interviewees are below 5. However surprisingly, further in the assessment, the scores given to specific municipal services are pretty high. Thus, 63% are ‘fully satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with garbage collection, 67% are ‘fully satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with transportation, more than 60% are satisfied with health care and 49% are satisfied with the condition of the roads. More than 72% of interviewees say they are satisfied with the lighting on their streets. Analysis shows that urban respondents have given higher scores than those from rural community as hardly any rural

8

community can afford street illumination. Mostly the residents of Syunik Marz are satisfied with a quality of municipal services. Rural communities (except Syunik Marz) are mostly dissatisfied with a quality of services while urban communities are satisfied. Respondents are mostly satisfied with provision of medical services, while the most prevalent dissatisfaction is from community roads.

As for information about consolidation, around 69% of respondents mention that they have never heard about the plans of the government on consolidation of communities.

The others have heard ‘something’ but do not know the details. The latter mention friends and TV as the source of their information. Only 4% believe they are well aware of the government plans and follow the developments. Majority of people watch TV and particularly news programs. The most informed Marzes turned out to be Syunik and Vayots Dzor, and less informed are Shirak and Lori. Residents of urban communities are less informed about the government plans on consolidation of communities.

Perceptions of the population on possible effects of consolidation can be summarized in the following way:  More than 75% do not agree that consolidation will result in improvement of services;  69% do not agree that consolidation of financial, human and other resources will reduce community expenditures;  66% agree that the voices of residents from smaller settlements will remain unheard and the head of the joint community who is not from their village cannot be effective in solving their specific problems.  Half of the interviewees think that if consolidated, their village will lose their specific cultural and heritage features.

86% of respondent have participated in the recent local elections. However apart from participating in elections, about 75% have not had any involvement in the community life:  never raised any issue regarding community life,  have not alerted about an environmental problem,  have not volunteered in a public activity  have not participated in a campaign.

44% among the remaining 25% of respondents have applied to the municipality on questions regarding their own household. This result correlates with the results of the question asked earlier about people’s interest and engagement in community life.

The high percentage on lack of interest and involvement in public life correlates with the ratings when asked to assess the importance of family, employment, education, recreation, policy, religion.

98% of respondents mention family as the most important thing for them, while policy/politics have received the highest percentage in the category ‘not important at all’. It may seem inconsistent that people who are indifferent to local socio-political life actively participate in local elections.

However, this indicates the state of local democracy in the communities - lack of political and participatory processes between elections and weakness of local government and civil society, as well as local media institutions in promoting and reinforcing those processes. Therefore, people, indifferent between elections, see the elections the only opportunity that allows them to voice for changes in their lives.

Key findings:

9











There is severe lack of information about government policy of decentralization and consolidation and upcoming reforms of local government system among population. The scanty information available cannot be considered accurate as its main sources are word of mouth and TV news programs. Although people spend much time watching TV news programs, this source, cannot be considered as a satisfactory channel of information due to its specifics (brevity, irregular coverage) and complexity of issues.

In general, people are not interested in community life and policy issues. This is due to high level of poverty and severe social conditions of majority of population outside Yerevan, for whom daily bread is the major concern. On the other hand, the politically active middle class layer is very thin and unstable as a social status.

Indifference of people to the public and political life is an indication of immature local democracy in the communities - lack of political and participatory processes in between elections and weakness of local government and civil society, as well as local media institutions in promoting and reinforcing those processes. Therefore, most of people see the elections the only opportunity leading to changes in their lives.

Most of the population do not favor consolidation of communities, see some threats to their identity and are apprehensive about being neglected once joined with their neighbors. However they cannot ground their opinion on objective arguments due to lack of information and therefore they may change their opinion if properly explained by respected opinion leaders. The role of community heads is crucial in shaping attitude towards reforms.

Majority of people do not consider that consolidation of financial, human and other resources will reduce community expenditures;

Recommendations  

  

Elaborate a set of key messages, an informational ‘menu’ to be packaged accordingly and communicated to the population A comprehensive and ongoing communication flow and explanatory works should be ensured to keep people up-to-date with the developments within the pilot communities and outside.

Provide alternative to community mergers by promoting consolidation of services through unions of communities.

Encourage local authorities’ more active engagement in regulation of land use related issues Strengthen local democracy to promote political and participatory processes, which will make the process of reform more understandable by all stakeholders and will create a good setting for governing enlarged communities and/or services.

10

Acknowledgments

The Urban Foundation for Sustainable Development thanks the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation for its financial support in conducting the assessment.

We are also grateful to the following individuals for their valuable contribution to this assessment: Artsrun Igityan –Head of community, Akhurian Sokrat Suvaryan – Head of community, Jajur Hakob Baghdasaryan - Head of community, Mayisian Vardan Ikilikyan- Head of community, Azatan Rostom Kocharyan - Head of community, Stepanavan Mher Gevorgyan - Head of community, Kurtan Martun Mirzoyan - Head of community, Hobardzi Mher Vardanyan - Head of community, Jiliza Levon Grigoryan - Head of community, Aygehovit Shahen Shahinyan - Head of community, Gandzakar Mayis Abrahamyan - Head of community, Nor Kyank Khzhak Davtyan - Head of community, Zaritap Mkhiktar Hovhannisyan- Head of community, Gomq Varuzhan Barseghyan- Head of community, Vedi Yura Harutunyan –Union of Communities, Vedi Garnik Ghalumyan –Union of Communities, Ijevan Andranik Petrosyan - Head of community, Myasnikyan Artur Mikaelyan - Head of community, Noravan

11