Armenian Environmental NGOs Struggle for Support

by Narine Karamian and Victoria Ter-Nikogossian & photo courtesy of Armenian International Magazine

Today there are more than 1,700 NGOs registered at the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, 200 of which registered as environmental organizations. However, the Armenian Assembly of America's NGO Training and Resource Center (NGO Center) believes that only about 20 of these are active. These NGOs are working to build a legislative basis for environmental protection and to promote sustainable development, as well as advocating for public participation and linking concerned groups with decision-makers. They have worked to establish cooperation with the ministries and the government, particularly the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Mineral Resources (MEPMR), Ministry of Education and Social Security and Academy of Sciences. This has met with some success, and the NGO community has participated at government seminars and meetings at the MEPMR, and vice versa.

Looking further into the situation of NGOs in Armenia reveals that while great progress has been made in some areas, resources for NGOs are tight and enthusiasm within the sector has dropped off since the heyday of activity between 1988 and 1992. The financial and organizational conditions of Armenian NGOs leave much room for improvement. Of the total number of registered NGOs, less than 30 percent have office space. The majority of NGOs are located in the apartment of a member. Only five to ten percent of NGOs own equipment; the rest mostly rely on equipment available at work places of members, and 80 percent use the equipment services provided by the NGO Center (computer access two hours per day, printing and copying, fax machine, mailing service). Since local NGOs generally do not have access to computer networks, it is difficult for them to establish and expand contacts with counterparts in other countries.

The financial state of Armenian NGOs is even worse. Government support is almost non-existent. The overwhelming majority of these organizations cannot be self-supporting, since income generating projects are just starting. Usually they do not have a membership fee-members' contributions consist of volunteer work, knowledge and skills. Sources of funding for NGOs are limited, mostly grants from international organizations. Environmental NGOs are overall in an even worse financial state than other types of NGOs. As the number of organizations grows, competition for funds and public recognition increases, distracting organizations from their mission and hindering the development of cooperation between them.

There has been a great lack of organizational training for NGOs. Ninety percent of Armenian NGOs are club-based organizations that lack knowledge about the real function, structure and mission of a public organization. The exceptions are a few professional associations.

People most often join an organization not because of a common goal, but because they are the acquaintances of other members. In many cases NGOs have minimal administrative structure (administrative board, executive board), and fear an increase in membership. Unlike the period of social activity between 1987 and 1992 when NGOs were strong and carried out work on a volunteer basis, some current NGOs were formed in order to win grants, driven by current economic conditions and the difficulty of earning a sufficient salary.

Weak collaboration among environmental NGOs is another obstacle in their work. Due to financial constraints and competition for grants from international donors, the majority of organizations rely on short-term strategic plans, making it difficult to form associations. It is still early to expect any overarching environmental association, but collaboration to meet specific needs might be possible.

Another hurdle for NGOs is their lack of practical experience in running NGOs and advocating for projects. This prevents environmental NGOs from participating both in decision making and in raising public awareness to enhance and shape recent legislative reforms.

Interesting conclusions can be drawn from analyzing the results of a survey carried out by the author and a comparison of Armenian NGOs with other environmental NGOs in the former Soviet bloc. These conclusions arose from discussions with the European NGO community at the CEE Bankwatch Network Annual Meeting.

• The pattern of NGO development and work across the former Soviet bloc is similar.
• Governments currently assume full power in the decision-making process, rather than allowing for consultations and discussions with the public. Government leaders assume that since they have been elected democratically, they express the opinion of the whole population. Precisely because their mandate comes from the public, they should not forget to ask the opinion of the population they represent.
• The strategy of these governments toward environmental issues is to raise money for huge projects in order to show that work is being done. Unfortunately, in the majority of cases, funding such projects is not the best decision and no assessment is done to prove that realization of such a project is the best alternative.
• Officials throughout the region tend to be fearful of NGOs.

In general, the public in the FSU is concerned with environmental issues and could be active in decision making on the local level. Unfortunately, public opinion is not taken into account by the authorities. Lack of experience, training and funds limits the potential of the public to advocate for sounder environmental policy.

Narine Karamian is a student at Central European University. She would like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Sudhir Chopra of Central European University and Ms. Magdolna Toth Nagy of the Regional ronmental Center.