EPF Holds Peace-building Conference in Switzerland

Prepared by CRRC-Armenia International Fellow Benjamin Barnard

On 27 March 2012, EPF, in cooperation with the Swiss Peace Foundation, hosted a seminar aimed at exploring civil society’s role in building peace within the South Caucasus. The conference, held in Bern, Switzerland, was attended by a wide-range of civil society representatives, including World Vision Switzerland and International Alert Brussels, as well as the Swiss ambassadors to Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia.

In order to identify possible opportunities for civil society to impact upon the peace-building process, the seminar focussed on current research data on the attitudes of those living in the region to peace and to each other. It was hoped that, from such a foundation, it would be possible to develop confidence-building initiatives aimed at reducing mistrust, holding governments accountable for their decisions, and supporting current European conflict resolution activities.

In light of such a task, CRRC Regional Director, Dr. Hans Gutbrod presented data-sets providing information on values and attitudes in the South Caucasus and on the potential role of civil society in the peace-building process. Each of these was followed by expert analysis of the meaning of the results and a question and answer session.

In addition to Dr. Gutbrod’s presentations, CRRC-Armenia Country Director, Dr. Heghine Manasyan presented a data-set highlighting some of the main challenges to peace-building in the South Caucasus today.

The findings Dr. Manasyan presented indicated that such challenges were substantial. For instance, a significant majority of both Armenians (64%) and Azerbaijanis (99%) disapproved of doing business with each other.

Equally as concerning for those who aim to build peace was the fact that, in each of the countries involved in the analysis (Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia), overall levels of trust in the EU and the UN had fallen from their 2008 levels.

Perhaps, though, such results should not be viewed as step backwards, but as indicating a new way forward. The same survey revealed that the majority of respondents from both Armenia (72%) and Azerbaijan (53%) would welcome greater involvement from Russia in finding a solution to the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. Such results might suggest that, in some areas at least, there is a prevailing attitude that certain issues within the South Caucasus would be better dealt with by neighbouring countries which hold a better understanding of their intricacies.

Of course, such a solution will not be suitable in all cases, and the important role of the EU, the UN, and other international organisations in peace-building should not be undermined. Indeed, Dr. Gutbrod’s final presentation, which focussed upon the potential bright spots for peace-building in the region, highlighted that, while levels of trust in the EU may have fallen, the majority of citizens in each of the surveyed countries remain in favour of membership.

Additionally, in its concerted attempt not to be overwhelmed by the pessimism that often accompanies attempts at peace-building, the seminar’s final panel session identified several areas of commonality and encouragement. One such area was that the majority of respondents were in favour of the investigation and prosecution of suspected war criminals, thus displaying a universal respect for justice and human rights.

If the seminar and the results presented within it demonstrated anything, it is that peace-building is a difficult and complex process aimed at solving a wide variety of differing yet interlocking problems. As such, it would seem that resolving such problems will require an equally wide variety of solutions. But the results presented, and even the very existence of the seminar, demonstrated the existence of the most important starting point for peace-building; a universal agreement that the current situation is unacceptable.

View more PowerPoint from crrcam

NYU Students Pay Visit to CRRC-Armenia

Prepared by CRRC-Armenia International Fellow Benjamin Barnard

On March 21st, 17 students from New York University Abu Dhabi attended lectures at CRRC Armenia as part of their Spring School Programme in Ethnography. The students who came from countries spent a total of 3 days in Armenia, with the goal of contemplating how Armenian identity was created, and how it is expressed today. Political expert Alexander Iskandaryan of the Caucasus Institute gave a lecture about the current political situation in the country in light of the forth-coming elections, and Dr. Levon Abrahamian of the Institute of Anthropology and Archeology at Armenia’s National Academy of Sciences spoke on the issue of the Karabagh movement and national identity. Finally,CRRC Armenia Country Director, Dr. Heghine Manasyan spoke to the students about the issue of socio-economic developments in Armenia during the transition period.

In addition to this lecture series, the students, led by Professor Georgi Derluguian of Northwestern University, U.S. (who is currently teaching at NYU, Abu Dhabi), also gained some more hands-on experience to aid their studies. They visited various sites in Yerevan, such as the Central Bazaar and the Sergei Paradjanov Museum among other places, in order to make some first-hand ethnographical observations. On the final day of their visit they ventured into the countryside to visit various cultural monuments such as Geghard monastery and the excavated site of Erebuni fortress. While there they were given lectures on the history of the sites by local experts and were challenged to think about the role of that history in the formation of modern Armenian identity.

Preliminary Results of ETF Migration Survey Released

Prepared by CRRC-Armenia International Fellow Benjamin Barnard

Representatives of ETF partner countries (Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt) participated in a Migration and Skills seminar, organised by the European Training Foundation (ETF) in Turin (March 6-7, 2012). The conference focussed upon the migration dialogue of the European Union, as well as that of EU institutions and other international organisations, who gathered during the two-day seminar to share their knowledge regarding legal circular migration. The aim was to identify ways of creating win-win-win situations for both receiving and sending countries and for migrants. Special attention was paid to pre-departure migrants and the reintegration of returnees.

Part of the seminar was dedicated to the preliminary findings of the Migration surveys conducted in Armenia and Georgia (the Armenian element having been conducted in autumn 2011 by CRRC-Armenia). Dr. Heghine Manasyan gave a presentation on the survey’s preliminary findings. It was hoped that these findings might prove useful in guiding future policy-making.

"There are a lot of statements, papers, etc... it is all very politicised, so you really need to go back to reality, know what happens on the ground, have concrete figures, see concrete problems," said Miriam Brewka Pino of the European External Action Service (EEAS). "What we need are concrete migration facts, because when it comes to migration the devil lies in the details."

Ms. Brewka Pino’s comments could hardly have been closer to the truth when it comes to the Caucasus region. Armenia and Georgia have experienced pervasive levels of migration, with 25% of their citizens having emigrated at one time or another.

Of course, there exist different types of emigration, and many of those who leave Armenia in search of work end up returning. What is important, then, is to understand the motivation of those who leave.

Many of the survey’s findings will not surprise those living in Armenia. Although 34% of Armenians are currently seriously considering emigration, this seems to be a reflection of the country’s difficult economic situation (see previous CRRC blog post); with around half of all respondents citing their inability to find employment in their homelandas their primary motivation for leaving.

Russia was the most popular destination among both potential (57%) and returning (84.8%) migrants, with the country’s construction industry providing the primary source of income for Armenian immigrants.

The results imply that Armenians settle well in their new-found environment, with over 96% of returning migrants stating that termination of their employment (either through sacking or the natural culmination of their contract) was their primary reason for returning - compared to just 3.9% in Georgia. There were almost no cases of Armenians returning because of pressure from their families or homesickness.

Just as Armenia’s economic situation is the primary motivation behind migration, it can also be identified as the reason for this lack of a desire among emigrants to return. With over 58% of returnees not having worked since arriving back in the country, this can hardly be of great surprise.

Perhaps, then, there is a more positive way of looking at the results for Armenia. It is encouraging that no respondents mentioned cultural dissatisfaction or fear of persecution among the primary reasons behind their intention to move abroad. This demonstrates that, when it comes to emigration levels, Armenia is a victim of circumstance – and circumstances are much more amenable to change than cultures.

For a comprehensive breakdown of the preliminary results, see:

http://www.etf.europa.eu/web.nsf/pages/ETF_survey_adds_more_evidence_to_migration_debate_EN.

A more in-depth analysis of the survey findings in Armenia and Georgia will be available in the special country reports, which will be published in the second half of 2012.

Report by Policy Forum Armenia

Prepared by CRRC-Armenia International Fellow Drew Loizeaux

Policy Forum Armenia has released a new report, “Armenia: Averting Economic Catastrophe”, which describes difficulties of Armenia’s economic and political future, especially if the world economy were to experience any further shocks in the next few years. There are many important issues raised in this paper and although some of the analysis may be overcritical and pessimistic, most of the recommendations outlined are could be taken into consideration for improving political and economic future or Armenia.

The world economic crisis has left nearly every country in the world in a weaker position and Armenia is no exception. As the paper outlines in great detail, there are even a few areas where Armenia has been one of the hardest hit since 2008. Due to a confluence of vulnerabilities in the Armenian economy there was decline in GDP for 14% in 2009, forcing the government to take bold action. To avoid a total collapse of the economy, the government engaged in massive borrowing from abroad as well as the use of nearly three quarters of its foreign reserves. This borrowing has more than doubled the public debt to GDP ratio, which now stands at around 40% and leaves very little room for further borrowing. The paper concludes that when the limited borrowing capabilities, depletion of foreign reserves, a continued current account deficit and overvalued Dram are all considered together there is very high risk for a massive devaluation and default if another crisis arises in the next several years.

In addition to problems stemming from the financial crisis, the paper also highlighted several key parts of the Armenian government that it felt were corrupt and in need of immediate reform. Exchange rate policy is an area where the report makes a very strong case that there has been policies enacted that have benefitted a few well-connected importers and hurt the country as a whole. It also shows that tax collection is weak compared to other countries and that the collection process is irregular and subject to political pressures.

While it is true that Armenia was hit hard by the global financial crisis there are indications that the concerns raised in the report may be overly pessimistic. Though the 2% growth rate in 2010 was weaker than most had hoped, the IMF expects a growth rate of around 4% for 2011 and the Republic of Armenia’s National Statistical Service (NSS) has reported a growth of 6.5% through third quarter of 2011 over the same time last year. Another positive sign was seen in the indicator of economic activity, a proxy for GDP, which grew by 5.9% in 2011. In addition to the overall expansion, the make up of that growth is also very important. The construction sector, which was a main engine for bubble-fueled growth, has yet to return to its pre-crisis levels while other areas of the economy are growing a higher rate. Another aspect of this growth that will help Armenia going forward is the increase in exports that has helped drive it: according to NSS, the rate of exports growth in 2011 was much higher (27,7%, compared to 2010) than that of for imports (10.7%).

“Armenia: Averting Economic Catastrophe” raises many important issues for the political and economy future of Armenia, especially should another global economic crisis occur. And even though there is room for debate and disagreement in some of the predictions and analysis in the paper, its recommendations provide potential solutions for many of the problems facing the Armenian government and the economy today.

Ease of Doing Business in the South Caucasus: Georgia is Still the Pioneer; Armenia has Launched Reforms; and Azerbaijan Has No Improvements

Prepared by Veronica Grigoryan

One of our blog posts was devoted to “Doing Business 2011” report, the results of the South Caucasus. They showed that Armenia and Azerbaijan were far behind Georgia. Particularly, Armenia ranked 44, Azerbaijan 54 and Georgia 17.

After the issue of this report the Prime Minister of Armenia ordered all respective agencies of Armenia to take the necessary steps to improve Armenia's ranking in regards of doing business (read more: http://crrcam.blogspot.com/2010/11/prime-minister-of-armenia-urges-to.html). As a result, in 2012 report Armenia, along with Georgia is among the countries that were the pioneers in improvements in 3 or more areas for the ease of doing business in the country. Armenia is now ranking 55, compared to 61 in 2011. Improvements were made 5 in areas: “Starting a business”, “Dealing with construction permits”, “Getting credit”, “Paying taxes”, and “Resolving insolvency”. Armenia has the best ranking in “Registering property” (rank 3) and the worst in “Enforcing contracts” (rank 19). Overall, Georgia has better rankings compared to its South Caucasus neighbors, with the exception of “Enforcing contracts” (Azerbaijan is doing better, ranking 5).

Azerbaijan has also improved its ranking, ending up with the rank 66 (compared to 69 in the previous year). Unfortunately, there are no improvements in any area of doing business. Azerbaijan has the best rankings in “Registering property” and “Enforcing contracts” (rank 5) and the worst in “Getting electricity” and “Trading across borders” (rank 20).

Georgia is among the top 20 countries that best manage business regulation. Georgia made improvements in 4 areas: “Starting a business “, “Getting credit”, “Protecting investors”, and “Paying taxes” (the same made in Armenia, with the exception of “Resolving insolvency” in Armenia). It is ranking 1 in two areas: “Dealing with construction permit” and “Registering property”.

Like in the previous report, Georgia is the pioneer in the South Caucasus and among the best 20 countries in general. Armenia has made some improvements which resulted in better ranking this year. Azerbaijan improved its ranking slightly, with only one rank, though it has not made any improvement for making it easy to do a business in the country. Hopefully in next year’s report Armenia will continue to improve its ranking and Azerbaijan will start some reforms. As concerning Georgia, hopefully it will stay among top 20 countries with the ease of doing business and will try to move up further.

Completion of the 2011 World Values Survey-Armenia Data Collection Project

Prepared by Nicholas Kitzman

CRRC-Armenia has recently completed data collection for the 2011 World Values Survey (WVS). The survey results will give researchers, social scientists, policy-makers, and the general public an insight into the values, beliefs and motivations of the Armenian population. The WVS has carried out representative national surveys in 97 societies containing almost 90% of the world’s population. However, this is the first time WVS has been conducted in Armenia since 1997. Thus, contemporary Armenian views will be comparable to values throughout the world.

The survey included a standardized questionnaire and representative national sample of 1,100 Armenians to measure the values of Armenians on a number of issues. With over 250 questions on economic, political and social life, the WVS survey in Armenia aims to stimulate debate about changes since the last survey in1997, as well as to also give researchers and social scientists empirical data that can be compared to other countries.

As CRRC-Armenia staff continues to analyze the data, feel free to stop by our Yerevan office to take a first-hand look at the variety and depth of information gathered.

Here is a snapshot of some preliminary results.

2011 WVS- Armenia Survey:

• When asked to pick from a list of worldwide problems, a majority of respondents reported “people living in poverty in need” as the most serious problem (75.4%), followed by “environmental pollution” (10.1%);
• Of the respondents who noted that they consider it important to encourage tolerance and respect for others in children, 57.8% said they would not want to live next to someone who practiced a different religion, and 94.1% said they would not wish to live next to a homosexual person;
• 26.3% of male respondents described the republic of Armenia to be “not-at-all democratic” compared with only 16.2% of female respondents;
• If elections to the National Assembly were to be held at the time of the interview (September 2011), the two political parties that respondents would vote for the most would be the Armenian Republican Party (24.5%) and Prosperous Armenia (20.5%);
• 27.9% of male respondents reported that they felt they had a wide choice and control over their own lives while only 15.3% of women felt the same.

Lecture on Global Nuclear Technology Transfers and its Implications for the Caucasus

CRRC-Armenia, Yerevan State University and American University of Armenia organized a public lecture on “Global Nuclear Technology Transfers and its Implications for the Caucasus” conducted by Dr. Matthew Kroenig (Georgetown University, USA). The lecture was hosted by American University of Armenia on November 18, 2011.

The lecturer presented research from his recent book, Exporting the Bomb, in which he examines the historical transfer of sensitive nuclear materials and technology. In contrast to many analysts that consider nuclear transfers from an economic point of view, Dr. Kroenig argued that state decisions to provide nuclear assistance are the result of a coherent, strategic logic. He examined the most important historical cases, including France's nuclear assistance to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s; the Soviet Union's sensitive transfers to China from 1958 to 1960; China's nuclear aid to Pakistan in the 1980s; and Pakistan's recent technology transfers. After analyzing nuclear transfers in a global perspective, Dr. Kroenig discussed the implications of his research for nuclear smuggling in the Caucasus. The lecture was followed by a question-answer session and discussion.

The lecture was attended by different researchers, scholars and students.

Dr. Matthew Kroenig received his Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. He currently specializes in nuclear deterrence and is a professor at Georgetown University, as well as a special advisor to the U.S. Department of Defense. He is the author of the book Exporting the Bomb: Technology Transfer and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons (Cornell University Press, 2010), coauthor of The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global Survey (Cambridge University Press, 2009) and coeditor of Causes and Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation (Routledge, 2011).

Social Cohesion Research Data Presentation

On October 19th, 2011, the presentation on the survey of the level of social cohesion in Armenia was held at the Erebuni Hall, Erebuni Plaza, Yerevan, Armenia. The presentation was opened by Ms. Dafina Gercheva, UN Resident Coordinator/Resident Representative, and Mr. Vache Terteryan, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Territorial Administration, and hosted more than 50 people from different institutions. Hans Gutbrod, Regional Director, CRRC, presented the data with accents on challenges in socio-economic environment, apathy, distrust, opportunities, etc. The presentation was followed by a Q/A sessions that provide an arena for a lively discussion on the matters of a general concern.

The survey was conducted by CRRC-Armenia within the frames of UNDP "Enhancing Dialogue and Trust Building in Armenia" project and is the first comprehensive study on social cohesion in contemporary Armenian society. The nationwide survey captured 3170 records with adults over 18 years. Through quantitative and qualitative survey methods, CRRC-Armenia tried to outline the ways and patterns to improve the situation of social cohesion and to provide practical recommendations to those institutions that decide on the policies towards the change in the sphere. The survey revealed the potential in Armenian families, neighborhoods and local communities, and its main message is that whatever reforms are undertaken they should be targeted at local community’s level.

As UN residents coordinator Dafina Gercheva stated: "This research is only the very initial step. UNDP expects that it will trigger a countrywide discourse and more research. To that end, we will share the available database with the government, think tanks, universities and research centers across Armenia. UNDP expects this exercise to influence decision-making processes at all levels with the ultimate aim to equip national and local authorities with comprehensive social cohesion strategies.”

Armenian Economic Association Workshop Hosted by CRRC-Armenia

On October 24, 2011 CRRC-Armenia hosted a workshop in the scope of the conference organized by Armenian Economic Association. During the workshop presentations on “Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium” and “Factor-Based Dynamic Models” were delivered consecutively by Ashot Mkrtchyan and Karen Poghosyan from Central Bank of Armenia.

The workshop was attended by economists and other interested parties.

Webinar on Global Marketing Information Database (GMID)

On October 18, 2011, CRRC–Armenia organized a webinar on Global Marketing Information Database (GMID), conducted by Ms. Ecaterina Bondarenko from Euromonitor International.

The online presentation was on the information of Passport GMID of Euromonitor International (EI). EI presents objective data for different regions and 80 countries. It is providing market research for business and other type of organizations. Ms. Bondarenko presented Passport GMID in detail and answered the questions all interested participants.