VA R D E N I S A N D C H A M B A R A K R E G I O N S O F G E G H A R K U N I K M A R Z : C U R R E N T S I T UA T I O N

A N D P E R S P E C T I V E S F O R D E V E L O P M E N T

© ADVANCED SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES

YEREVAN, 2005 WWW.AST.AM

2

Author Anna Minasyan Edited by Elmira Bartelsian Cover designed by Web Studio Text designed by AST Anna Minasyan Vardenis and Chambarak regions of Gegharkunik marz: Current Situation and Perspectives for Development, Yerevan, 2005, 66 p. Gegharkunik marz differs from other regions of Armenia with large number of refugees who populate small mountainous villages. Poverty and vulnerability are particularly dire in remote rural areas of Chambarak and Vardenis regions. This publication covers the results of sociological research carried out by Advanced Social Technologies in March-November 2004 in 32 poorest settlements of Chambarak and Vardenis. Combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection allowed for needs assessment of the population, in-depth multi-dimensional situation analysis and elaboration of a long-term community development strategy for the regions of concern. The publication can be used by Local Self-Governing Bodies, community development organizations, Mass Media and other interested readers. © Advanced Social Technologies NGO, 2005 © Anna Minasyan, 2005

3

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 5 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 5

Opinion Poll ............................................................................................................... 5 Participatory Rural Appraisal .................................................................................... 7 In-depth Interviews ...................................................................................................... 7 Focus Groups .............................................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL OVERVIEW ...................................................... 7 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITIES ........................................................ 7

Gegharkunik Marz .................................................................................................... 7 Vardenis Region ......................................................................................................... 8 Chambarak Region ..................................................................................................... 9

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONDENTS ...................................................... 10 Age-Gender Distribution .......................................................................................... 10 Occupation ................................................................................................................ 11 Education ................................................................................................................. 11 Proportion of Local Population and Refugees ............................................................. 11 Household Size ......................................................................................................... 12 Monthly Household Income ....................................................................................... 13

DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS.................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 2. INFRASTRUCTURES ........................................................ 18

IRRIGATION .................................................................................................................. 18 POTABLE WATER ........................................................................................................ 19 ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS ........................................................................... 19 TELEPHONE LINES ..................................................................................................... 20 ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................... 22

Roads ........................................................................................................................ 22 Public Transport ....................................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURE ................................................................. 23 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 23

Land Plots ................................................................................................................ 23 Seeds, Insecticides and Fertilizers ............................................................................... 26 Agricultural Machinery ............................................................................................. 27

BRANCHES OF AGRICULTURE ................................................................................... 28 Main Branches .......................................................................................................... 28 Land Cultivation ...................................................................................................... 29 Animal Husbandry .................................................................................................. 32

THE PROFITABILITY OF AGRICULTURE .................................................................. 33 The Profitability of Plant-Growing ............................................................................ 34 The Profitability of Animal Husbandry .................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 4. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS........................................... 36 NATURAL AND MAN-MADE DISASTERS .................................................................. 36 THE LEVEL OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS ............................................................. 37

4

CHAPTER 5. LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND MASS MEDIA ................. 38 COMMUNAL AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ 38 MARZ AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 41 MASS MEDIA ................................................................................................................ 43

CHAPTER 6. PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ................................................ 46 PROBLEMS AND NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES ................................................... 46 NEEDS AND PROBLEMS OF SELECTED SOCIAL GROUPS ..................................... 50

Problems of the Refugees ............................................................................................ 51 Needs and Problems of Women and Children ........................................................... 52 Needs of the Youth.................................................................................................... 52 Needs of the Elderly Population ................................................................................ 52

CASE STUDIES .............................................................................................................. 53 Vardenis ................................................................................................................... 54 Arpunk .................................................................................................................... 55 Geghamasar .............................................................................................................. 56 Mets Masrik............................................................................................................. 57 Kutakan ................................................................................................................... 58 Torfavan ................................................................................................................... 59 Tretuk ...................................................................................................................... 60 Tretuk ...................................................................................................................... 60 Ttujur ....................................................................................................................... 61 Getik ........................................................................................................................ 61 Martuni .................................................................................................................... 62

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 63

5

INTRODUCTION

Gegharkunik marz occupies 18% of Armenia’s territory and is the largest marz in the country. Gegharkunik is also the neediest marz of Armenia. According to UNDP estimates, a considerable part of Armenia’s vulnerable population is concentrated in Gegharkunik marz: every 4 persons out of 10 are poor or extremely poor.

Severe social and economic conditions are more intensely reflected in bordering Vardenis and Chambarak regions of Gegharkunik. This situation is conditioned by a number of factors, one of which is that many communities of these regions are populated by refugees. Having emigrated from urban settlements of Azerbaijan and mainly from Baku, the majority of inhabitants of these communities have no experience in agriculture.

The main objectives of this research were to comprehensively describe the social-economic situation of Vardenis and Chambarak regions of Gegharkunik marz, to assess the needs of the population, to reveal the potential of the communities and to suggest a community development strategy for the abovementioned region.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

In order to obtain comprehensive information regarding the social and economic state of the communities, the research team has chosen a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis.

Sociological research was implemented in two phases. A public opinion poll and a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) conducted during the first phase of the research helped to describe the social and economic situation of 32 sampled communities of Vardenis and Chambarak regions, to reveal the major problems and assess the needs of the population.

The second phase of the study aimed at in-depth analysis of the main problems of the 10 communities that deserved primary attention and to design possible strategies for the development of the region. In-depth interviews and focus groups were used for data collection during this second phase.

OPINION POLL

The purpose of the opinion poll was to obtain primary information about the main activities, social conditions, problems and needs of population of the communities.

The poll was conducted with the residents of communities through the method of face-to-face structured interviews. The data was quantitatively analyzed with SPSS software.

The poll was carried out using a random representative sample. In total, 1016 respondents participated in the poll. Their distribution by place of residence is presented in Table 1.

6

Table 1. Sample of the opinion poll

Community Number of respondents

Percent in total

Vardenis region Town Vardenis 60 5.9% Tsapatagh village 23 2.3% Pambak village 33 3.2% Areguni village 25 2.5% Daranak village 18 1.8% Geghamasar village 40 3.9% Avazan village 20 2.0% Pokr Masrik village 35 3.4% Mets Masrik village 60 5.9% Arpunk village 29 2.9% Kakhakn village 33 3.2% Kutakan village 25 2.5% Tretuk village 20 2.0% Sotk village 39 3.8% Kut village 13 1.3% Azat village 19 1.9% Shatjrek village 35 3.4% Vanevan village 25 2.5% Torfavan village 30 3.0% Norakert village 25 2.5% Norabak village 16 1.6% Subtotal 623 61.3% Chambarak region Town Chambarak 60 5.9% Dzoravank village 20 2.0% Drakhtik village 50 4.9% Martuni village 33 3.2% Getik village 31 3.1% Ttujur village 37 3.6% Vahan village 39 3.8% Aghberk village 22 2.2% Shorzha village 33 3.2% Artanish village 34 3.3% Jil village 34 3.3% Subtotal 393 38.7% Total 1016 100.0%

7

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is a special method of assessment of rural communities, which supposes direct communication with the community for the purpose of discussion of main problems as well as finding solutions to those problems.

For effective implementation of the PRA, the research team consisting of 6 surveyors lived in the sampled communities for 2.5 months. During that time the team held discussions with the population of the communities and conducted visits to existing public institutions such as schools, kindergartens, medical institutions, cultural clubs and etc. The key purposes of the assessment were to disclose main needs of various social groups, to observe the lifestyle of the communities and to get an impartial evaluation of their current situation.

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

Out of 32 communities studied during the first phase, the following 10 communities were selected for more detailed analysis: Vardenis, Arpunk, Torfavan, Geghamasar, Kutakan, Mets Masrik, Tretuk (Vardenis region) and Ttujur, Getik, Martuni (Chambarak region).

In-depth interviews were conducted with two groups of experts: representatives of Local Self-Governing Bodies (City Mayors or Village Mayors) and representatives of organizations, which are active in the region.

FOCUS GROUPS

Focus groups were conducted with the participation of the active population (businessmen, successful farmers, and heads of functioning public structures) from ten communities, which were selected for more detailed analysis.

During the one-hour focus groups, the participants discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their communities, problems and possible ways of their solution, as well as the roles of different structures in the community development process.

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL OVERVIEW

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITIES

GEGHARKUNIK MARZ

Gegharkunik marz is located in the eastern part of the Republic of Armenia around the shores of Lake Sevan. From the East, the marz is bordering with the Republic of Azerbaijan.

8

General information about Gegharkunik marz Marz center Town Gavar Total area 5348 sq. km Agricultural lands 240.033 hectares Among them: arable lands 95.148 hectares Urban settlements 5 Rural settlements 93 De facto population as per census’ 2001 215.371 people Among them: urban population 70.858 people rural population 144.513 people

Gegharkunik marz includes Gavar, Chambarak, Martuni, Sevan and Vardenis regions. As of January 1st, 2003 population of marz comprised 7.4% of Armenia’s total population. 67.1 % of inhabitants live in rural areas. Marz includes 5 towns – Gavar, Chambarak, Martuni, Sevan, Vardenis, and 93 rural areas.

The marz length from northwest to southeast is 115 km, from west to east – 85 km, the deepest gorge is the Canyon of Getik River; the highest peak is Azhdahak Mountain (3598 m).

More than 80% of the communities (with more than 90% of marz population) are situated on and above altitude of 1900 m above see level, which gives very limited opportunities for income generation through agricultural production.

VARDENIS REGION

Vardenis region is located in the southeastern part of Gegharkunik marz. Previously the region was included in Syunik State of Mets Hayk and was named Sodk.

Population of the region comprises 16.9% of the whole population of marz. Density of population is 34 people per 1 sq. km.

More than 35% of arable lands of marz are located in this region, which can help to promote farming and land cultivation.

General information about Vardenis region Total area 1151 sq. km Arable lands 37651 hectares Urban settlements 1 Rural settlements 37 De facto population as per Census’ 2001 36.305 people Among them: urban population 11.465 people rural population 24.840 people

Town Vardenis and 20 rural communities were studied in Vardenis region. Their demographical structure is presented in Table 1.1.

9

Table 1.1 The demographics of studied communities in Vardenis region

Community De jure population

De facto population

Males Females

Vardenis 12753 11465 5671 5794 Mets Masrik 2806 2589 1270 1319 Geghamasar 1080 1068 509 559 Sotk 1118 1053 501 552 Norakert 867 857 441 416 Pokr Masrik 744 676 319 357 Pambak 590 596 288 308 Shatjrek 568 517 262 255 Torfavan 505 507 255 252 Arpunk 458 436 212 224 Kakhakn 432 417 204 213 Areguni 375 360 175 185 Norabak 345 334 162 172 Vanevan 349 325 178 147 Kut 226 283 148 135 Tsapatagh 275 274 132 142 Avazan 269 253 115 138 Kutakan 254 230 108 122 Daranak 170 205 97 108 Tretuk 183 189 86 103 Azat 165 165 75 90

CHAMBARAK REGION

Chambarak region is located in the eastern part of Gegharkunik region. Previously the region was included into Artsakh and Ayrarat states of Mets Hayk.

General information about Chambarak region Total area 646.3 sq. km Arable lands 10647 hectares Urban settlements 1 Rural settlements 17 De facto population as per Census’ 2001 15.176 people Among them: urban population 6.198 people rural population 8.978 people

Chambarak region contains 7% of Gegharkunik’s population. The density of population is 25 people per 1 sq. km. town Chambarak and 10 rural communities were studied in this region. The demographic structure of these communities is presented in Table 1.2.

10

Chart 1.1 Gender structure

Female57.9%

Male42.1%

Table 1.2 The demographics of studied communities in Chambarak region

Community De jure population

De facto population

Males Females

Chambarak 6405 6190 2964 3234 Ttujur 1069 1054 512 542 Vahan 1181 1161 573 588 Drakhtik 1044 1023 496 527 Artanish 735 720 321 399 Jil 680 681 319 362 Martuni 696 671 336 335 Shorzha 565 551 262 289 Getik 495 471 214 257 Aghberk 298 289 134 155 Dzoravank 223 222 106 116

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONDENTS

AGE-GENDER DISTRIBUTION

Out of 1016 respondents 57.9% are females and 42.1% are males. The fact that the gender breakdown deviates from the official statistical data

(according to the 2001 census, male population of Gegharkunik marz comprises 48.2% of total population) is first of all conditioned by the timeframe of the survey. Public opinion poll was conducted in April and May when considerable part of male population was busy with seasonal agricultural activities.

Breakdown of respondents by age and gender is presented in the Table 1.3 below.

Table 1.3 Age-gender breakdown

Age Gender Male Female Total

18-30 5.0% 7.8% 12.8% 31-40 7.8% 12.5% 20.3% 41-60 16.8% 22.8% 39.7% 61 and above 12.5% 14.8% 27.3% Total 42.1% 57.9% 100.0%

11

Chart 1.2 Occupation of the respondents

Housewife30.2%

Pensioner26.8%

Other 6.1%

Farmer11.4%

State sector employee

13.3%

Unemployed12.1%

54.3%45.7%

59.8%

40.2%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

Vardenis Chambarak

Chart 1.3 Distribution of local and refugee population by regions

LocalsRefugees

OCCUPATION

13.3% of the respondents are state sector employees, 30.2% are housewives, 26.8% are pensioners, and 12.1% are unemployed. It is remarkable that only 11.4% of respondents have mentioned agriculture as their primary occupation. This outcome is probably conditioned by the fact that rural population does not consider agriculture to be a source of income and therefore does not think of agricultural activity as economic activity.

EDUCATION

The majority of respondents have secondary or specialized secondary education, 44.7% and 23% accordingly. Only 11.3% of respondents have incomplete higher education, whereas 19.9% of respondents have incomplete secondary or elementary education. Perhaps this was an expected result since the majority of respondents (88.2 %) live in rural areas of the marz.

PROPORTION OF LOCAL POPULATION AND REFUGEES

56.3% of respondents are indigenous population and 43.6% of them are refugees. The percentage of refugees in Vardenis region is higher than in Chambarak region.

All

12

respondents of Vardenis city, Norakert, Getik, Ttujur, Vahan and Martuni villages are locals. Proportion of local and refugee population in the studied communities is presented below.

Table 1.4 Breakdown of local and refugee population by communities

Community Locals Refugees Vardenis 100.0% 0.0% Vahan 100.0% 0.0% Getik 100.0% 0.0% Ttujur 100.0% 0.0% Mets Masrik 85.0% 15.0% Vanevan 88.0% 12.0% Shatjrek 68.6% 31.4% Torfavan 66.7% 33.3% Kutakan 56.0% 44.0% Daranak 55.6% 44.4% Pambak 51.5% 48.5% Azat 42.1% 57.9% Geghamasar 40.0% 60.0% Kut 38.5% 61.5% Tretuk 35.0% 65.0% Arpunk 34.5% 65.5% Pokr Masrik 34.3% 65.7% Sotk 33.3% 66.7% Norabak 31.3% 68.8% Avazan 30.0% 70.0% Areguni 28.0% 72.0% Tsapatagh 13.0% 87.0% Kakhakn 12.1% 87.9% Chambarak city 91.7% 8.3% Shorzha 30.3% 69.7% Artanish 26.5% 73.5% Dzoravank 25.0% 75.0% Jil 20.6% 79.4% Aghberk 18.2% 81.8% Drakhtik 14.0% 86.0%

HOUSEHOLD SIZE

In the studied communities majority of families (45.7%) consists of 5-7 members. Families with 2-4 members comprise 40.6% of the sample. Some families have 8 and more members (8.1%), while others consist of single pensioners (5.7%).

13

13.1%

51.6%

26.5%

8.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

less than 5.000AMD

5.000-20.000AMD

20.000-50.000AMD

50.000 AMDand more

Chart 1.4 Monthly household income

Table 1.5 Number of respondents’ family members

Number of members Frequency Percent 1 58 5.7% 2-4 412 40.6% 5-7 464 45.7% 8 and more 82 8.1% Total 1016 100.0%

On average, respondents’ families consist of 5 members (4.68). This indicator is a bit higher in Vardenis region as compared to Chambarak region (4.67 and 4.55 accordingly). It is important to mention that refugee families on average consist of 4 members (4.37) while families of local population usually have 5 members (4.92). As a result, the families in mostly refugee-populated communities are comparatively small. Thus, in Artanish, Tsapatagh and Avazan villages average number of family members is lower than 4, whereas in Mets Masrik, Norakert and Martuni villages families on average have 6 members.

MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Monthly household income of majority of respondents does not exceed 20.000 AMD, whereas only 8.8% of families generate monthly income of more than 50.000 AMD (see Chart 1.4).

The average monthly income of surveyed households is 22.935 AMD. Since the respondents’ families typically consist of 5 members, each family member gets an average of 4.500 AMD per month. Moreover, in some communities conditions are much more severe. In Daranak, Tretuk, Torfavan and Aghberk each of respondent’s family members gets only 3500 AMD, while in Pokr Masrik and Vanevan villages the amount is even less than 3000 AMD.

14

DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS

For the purpose of more apparent presentation and justification of the social and economic situation of communities, we have elaborated certain development indicators that allowed for preliminary classification of the communities.

The development indicators resulted from evaluation of the communities against certain objective criteria, such as the average household income in the communities, access to infrastructures, agricultural resources and social-cultural structures. These can be regarded as necessary but certainly insufficient prerequisites for development of the communities. The assessment was based on the results of the public opinion poll. Descriptions of each criterion and the basis for the assessment are presented below.

Criterion 1. Incomes (highest score – 4)

MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME: 1 point was given to those communities where at least 40% of sampled generate a monthly income of more than 20.000 AMD.

INCOME GENERATED FROM LAND CULTIVATION: 1 point was given to those communities where the average annual income generated from land cultivation is more than 100.000 AMD and 2 points were given to those communities where average annual income generated from land cultivation is more than 150.000 AMD.

INCOME GENERATED FROM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: 1 point was given to those communities where the average annual income generated from animal husbandry is more than 100.000 AMD.

Criterion 2. Infrastructures (highest score – 6)

IRRIGATION: 1 point was given to those communities where at least 50% of sampled households have access to irrigation water and 2 points were given to those communities where more than 80% of sampled households have access to irrigation water.

POTABLE WATER: 1 point was given to those communities where at least 50% of sampled households have potable water and 2 points were given to those communities where more than 80% of sampled households have potable water.

PHONE LINE: 1 point was given to those communities where at least 50% of respondents have phone line.

NATURAL GAS: 1 point was given to those communities where at least 25% of respondents have natural gas.

Criterion 3. Agricultural resources (highest score – 13)

SEEDS: 1 point was given to those communities where seeds were available to at least 60% of the sampled households.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY: Points have been given for availability of the following types of agricultural machinery in the community: tractors, combines, sowing units, wheat

separators and trucks. 1 point was given to those communities where the same type of

15

agricultural machinery was mentioned 1-3 times and 2 points were given to those communities where the same type of agricultural machinery was mentioned 4 or more times. An additional 1 point was given to communities where more than 80% of respondents could financially afford to rent agricultural machinery.

LAND: 1 point has been given to those communities where sampled households have on average 2 and more hectares of arable lands.

Criterion 4. Public structures (highest score – 2)

FUNCTIONING STRUCTURES: Points were given for the following public structures functioning in the community: schools, kindergartens, first aid posts, libraries, culture centers, theatres and cinemas. 1 point has been given to those communities where one, two or three out of all mentioned structures are functioning and 2 points were given to those communities where four and more of these structures are functioning.

The outcome of evaluation of the communities against the development criteria is

presented in Table 1.6.

Table 1.6 Results of evaluation of the communities

Community Incomes Infra-structures Resources Public

structures Total score

Vardenis 1 3 0 2 6 Tsapatagh 1 1 3 1 6 Pambak 0 2 1 1 4 Areguni 0 4 3 1 8 Daranak 0 2 3 2 7 Geghamasar 1 2 6 2 11 Avazan 1 3 2 2 8 Pokr Masrik 1 0 4 2 7 Mets Masrik 2 1 10 2 14 Arpunk 2 3 5 2 12 Kakhakn 2 3 6 1 12 Kutakan 3 3 6 2 14 Tretuk 0 2 1 2 5 Sotk 1 1 4 2 8 Kut 1 3 2 2 8 Azat 2 3 4 2 11 Shatjrek 4 4 2 2 12 Vanevan 0 1 4 1 6 Torfavan 1 0 2 1 4 Norakert 4 1 6 2 13

16

1.41.0

2.12.8

3.93.8

1.71.6

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Incomes

Infrastructures

Agriculturalresources

Public structures

Chart 1.5 Development indicators by regions

Chambarak

Vardenis

Community Incomes Infra-structures Resources Public

structures Total score

Norabak 3 2 7 1 13 Chambarak 1 2 3 2 8 Dzoravank 0 3 3 1 7 Drakhtik 1 2 4 1 8 Martuni 3 4 5 2 14 Getik 1 4 5 1 11 Ttujur 1 3 2 2 8 Vahan 2 3 7 2 14 Aghberk 0 1 4 1 6 Shorzha 1 3 3 2 9 Artanish 1 2 2 2 7 Jil 0 4 4 2 10

It is notable that the average aggregate development indicator of Vardenis region’s communities is 9 points whereas the same indicator of Chambarak region’ communities is 9.3 points. At the same time, communities of Vardenis region scored higher than Chambarak communities in “incomes” and quite lower in “infrastructures”. The average indicators of both regions against all criteria are presented in the Chart 1.5.

Ranking of the communities according to aggregate development indicators resulted

in the following picture (see Table 1.7).

17

Table 1.7 Development indicators of the communities

1. Higher than average development indicator Mets Masrik 14 Vahan 14 Martuni 14 Kutakan 14 Norakert 13 Norabak 13 Arpunk 12 Kakhakn 12 Shatjrek 12 Geghamasar 11 Azat 11 Getik 11 Jil 10

2. Average development indicator Shorzha 9 Chambarak 8 Areguni 8 Avazan 8 Sotk 8 Kut 8 Drakhtik 8 Ttujur 8 3. Lower than average development indicator Artanish 7 Dzoravank 7 Pokr Masrik 7 Daranak 7 Aghberk 6 Tsapatagh 6 Vardenis 6 Vanevan 6 Tretuk 5 Torfavan 4 Pambak 4

We would like to emphasize the fact that this classification is comparative. Communities, which scored 14 points out of maximum 25 possible, obviously cannot be considered as “developed”. Nevertheless, such classification is useful in terms of interpreting the outcomes of the study and suggesting action steps.

18

Chart 2.1 Accessibility of irrigation system

Accessible45.8%

Not accessible54.2%

60.7% 39.3%

22.3% 77.7%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Vardenis

Chambarak

Chart 2.2 Accessibility of irrigation system by regions

AccessibleNot accessible

CHAPTER 2. INFRASTRUCTURES

IRRIGATION

Irrigation, which is an essential precondition of any agricultural activity, is accessible to only 45.8% of respondents.

It is necessary to mention that the situation in Chambarak region is comparatively worse; only 22.3% of respondents have access to irrigation.

The worst conditions in terms of accessibility to irrigation were observed in the Martuni and Ttujur villages of Chambarak region where none of the respondents had access to irrigation, and in Drakhtik, Getik and Vahan villages of the same region, where

water for irri-gation was accessible on average to only one household out of 15. Tretuk and Shatjrek villages of Vardenis region are in the best con-ditions: water for irrigation is accessible to all respondents.

To the question of how the villagers deal with the lack of irrigation water, the majority of respondents (62.5%) answered that their lands are irrigated only with rain-water. 9.2% of respondents use water from artesian well and 6.1% of respondents use potable water for irrigation purposes. In a considerable number of villages, irrigation water suffices only for the homestead land. The rest of the lands are not used, since the villagers are not able to pay for artesian and potable water. In some villages, for example in Norabak, the water pools, which previously irrigated more than 500 hectares of land, are now out of order and it is impossible to collect and keep water in them.

19

53.9% 46.1%

80.4% 19.6%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Vardenis

Chambarak

Chart 2.4 Accessibility of potable water by regions

Accessible

Not accessible

Chart 2.3 Accessibility of potable water

Not accessible35.9%

Accessible64.1%

POTABLE WATER

The majority of respondents (64.1%) have potable water. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the vital importance of drinking water, this indicator certainly cannot be rated as satisfactory.

As opposed to irrigation water, the overwhelming majority of respondents in Chambarak region have potable water.

Vanevan village of Vardenis re-gion where none of the re-spondents had drinking water is in the worst condi-tion. The problem of drinkable water is also critical in Pokr Masrik, Mets Masrik, Tretuk, Sotk,

Tsapatagh, Torfavan and Norakert villages, where on average only 30% of respondents had access to potable water.

81.4% of those respondents who did not have individual access to drinking water use public taps or springs. At the same time, 7.2% of respondents use irrigation or artesian water instead of drinking water, which is very dangerous to health and may lead to many undesirable consequences.

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS

Like elsewhere on the territory of the RA, the electricity supply in the studied regions is stable: 99.4% of sampled households are provided with electricity and only 8 respondents do not have it.

20

11.1% 88.9%

64.1% 35.9%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Vardenis

Chambarak

Chart 2.6 Accessibility of telephone line by regions

AccessibleNot accessible

Chart 2.5 Accessibility of natural gas

Accessible5.4%

Not accessible94.6%

On the contrary, only 5.4% of households have natural gas. As of May 2004 only Vardenis city and Martuni, Getik, Ttujur villages of Chambarak region were partially provided with natural gas.1

In the absence of natural gas, majority of respon-dents (52.5%) use wood as a source of energy. The respon-dents also use cow dung, (26.6%), li-quid gas (11.3%) and electrical hea-ters (3.3%). However, liquid gas and electricity are comparatively more expensive than other types of fuel. In this regard, natural gas supply may be very beneficial for all communities. Besides, for some communities it can be easily organized, since gas pipelines pass near these communities.2

TELEPHONE LINES

Personal telephone lines are accessible to only 31.7% of the respondents. However, in Chambarak region telephone lines are accessible to the majority of the respondents (64.1%), while in Vardenis region – to only 11.1%. Moreover, in Chambarak region, the overwhelming majority (more than 70%) of respondents in almost all communities was provided with telephone lines and only in Aghberk village there was no telephone line. In comparison, only in Vardenis city and Norakert village of Vardenis region did the majority of respondents have telephone lines. In Vardenis region telephone lines are not accessible at all to 15 communities. In these villages there is only one telephone line, either in the post office, the Village Hall or in the house of one of the villagers. Besides, the respondents state that it is very expensive to use the telephone line.

1 As of November 2004, Chambarak, Vahan and Shorzha were partly provided with gas. 2 The gas pipeline from Martuni to Vardenis is passing nearby Vanevan and Torfavan, while the pipeline that goes to Ttujur, Martuni and Getik villages is only 3 km away from Drakhtik.

21

Table 2.1 summarizes the data on respondents’ access to all infrastructure discussed above.

Table 2.1 Accessibility of infrastructures by communities

Community Infrastructure

Irrigation water

Potable water

Natural gas Telephone line

Vardenis region Vardenis 16.7% 72.9% 28.8% 61.0% Tsapatagh 52.2% 34.8% 0.0% 0.0% Pambak 54.5% 69.7% 0.0% 0.0% Areguni 84.0% 88.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daranak 77.8% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% Geghamasar 60.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% Avazan 90.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pokr Masrik 17.1% 22.9% 0.0% 0.0% Mets Masrik 65.0% 38.3% 0.0% 11.7% Arpunk 65.5% 86.2% 0.0% 0.0% Kakhakn 69.7% 90.9% 0.0% 0.0% Kutakan 80.0% 72.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tretuk 100.0% 40.0% 0.0% 5.0% Sotk 66.7% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% Kut 84.6% 69.2% 0.0% 0.0% Azat 89.5% 63.2% 0.0% 0.0% Shatjrek 100.0% 94.3% 0.0% 0.0% Vanevan 58.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% Torfavan 44.8% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% Norakert 20.0% 32.0% 0.0% 92.0% Norabak 75.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% Chambarak region Chambarak 3.3% 76.7% 0.0% 80.0% Dzoravank 45.0% 90.0% 0.0% 80.0% Drakhtik 4.0% 52.0% 0.0% 52.0% Martuni 0.0% 87.9% 30.3% 84.8% Getik 6.5% 96.8% 80.6% 87.1% Ttujur 0.0% 91.9% 5.4% 83.8% Vahan 5.1% 97.4% 0.0% 69.2% Aghberk 18.2% 77.3% 0.0% 0.0% Shorzha 63.6% 87.9% 0.0% 36.4% Artanish 62.5% 52.9% 0.0% 38.2% Jil 73.5% 91.2% 0.0% 70.6%

22

60.7%

22.3%

53.9%

80.4%

2.7%9.4% 11.1%

64.1%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Irrigation Potable water Natural gas Telephone

Chart 2.7 Accessibility of infrastructures by regions

VardenisChambarak

To conclude, in terms of infrastructure, communities of Chambarak region are more developed than the communities of Vardenis region. This difference is more clearly illustrated in Chart 2.7.

ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION

ROADS

The Yerevan-Martuni (M4, M10) and the Martuni-Vardenis (M11) segments of the interstate highway that connect the Capital with Vardenis city are comparatively in good conditions.

In comparison, the interstate passing through Vardenis and connecting the city with villages is in a desperate condition, with the exception of only the M14 segment of the road that goes from Pokr Masrik to Geghamasar village, which is in an acceptable condition. However, the asphalted part of the same segment ends right after Areguni village and alternates with dirt-road up to Tsapatagh, which makes nearly 25 km of interstate highway almost impassable and blocks the connection of Vardenis with Dprabak, Pambak and Tsapatagh villages.

Attention should particularly be drawn to the interstate going from Vardenis to Mets Masrik and Pokr Masrik, and connecting Vardenis with other roads to Norakert, Avazan, Arpunk, Kutakan, Kakhakn and Tretuk villages. The unevenness and the pot holes that are caused by the absence of asphalt make it hard to pass the road even in dry and sunny weather. It should be mentioned that in winter, inhabitants of villages located far from the interstate or state roads often do not have any chance to go out of the village, since the dirt-roads get blocked with snow.

The M4 and M14 parts of the interstate highway connecting Yerevan with Chambarak are in good condition. The road becomes even a little better in the Drakhtik -Tsapatagh segment. However, the M14 segment of the state road that leads to

23

Chart 3.1 Do you own a plot?

No 5.7%

Rural areas22.4%

Chambarak25.9%

Vardenis51.7%

Yes94.3%

Chambarak is in very poor condition (partial reconstruction has started in October 2004). The state road connecting Chambarak with Vahan, Ttujur, Getik, Martuni, Dprabak

and Dzoravank is in terrible condition. It is being repaired only once in few years through filling and covering the huge holes with soil, which is a useless solution as right after the first rain the road returns to the same condition of disrepair.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Transport communication between rural areas of studied regions and other marzes of RA and even with Vardenis and Chambarak regional centers is unsatisfactory. This significantly complicates the sale of agricultural products.

Only the inhabitants of Geghamasar, Areguni, Daranak and Shorzha villages have relatively good access to public transport. These villages are connected with the regional centers, Yerevan and some cities of Kotayk marz with everyday bus routes.

In Vanevan and Aghberk villages no public transport operates at all. Other studied communities are only provided with public transport to either Vardenis or Chambarak cities. Moreover, in majority of these communities buses are available only once or twice a week.

CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

LAND PLOTS

94.3% of the respondents have a plot and the majority of those respondents who do not own a plot reside mainly in urban communities (see Chart 3.1).

24

99.0% of all those respondents who have plots have arable land. Moreover, the majority of the respondents own up to 1 hectare of arable land and only 6.2% own over 5 hectares.

Table 3.1 How many hectares of arable land do you have?

Arable land (hectares) Frequency Percent Do not have 10 1.0% Up to 0.25 313 32.7% 0.25 – 1 190 19.8% 1 – 3 254 26.5% 3 – 5 119 12.4% Over 5 59 6.2% It is difficult to answer 13 1.4% Total 958 100.0%

Although a household gets on average 1.5 hectares of arable land, the size of plots in Vardenis region differs from the one in Chambarak.

Only 35.5% of the respondents have pastures, and their size does not exceed 3 hectares.

Table 3.2 How many hectares of pasture do you have?

Pasture (hectares) Frequency Percent Do not have 618 64.5% Less than 1 134 14.0% 1 – 3 154 16.2% 3 – 5 21 2.2% Over 5 16 1.7% It is difficult to answer 15 1.6% Total 958 100.0%

On average the respondents have 1.9 hectares of pasture. Here again, the communities in Vardenis region have advantage over the communities in Chambarak.

The average size of plots (arable land and pasture) owned by respondents in each of the communities is presented in the table below.

Table 3.3 Average size of plots by communities

Communities Arable land (hectares) Pasture (hectares) Up to 1 1,1-2 2,1 + Up to 1 1,1-2 2,1 +

Vardenis region Vardenis X - Tsapatagh X X Pambak X -

25

Communities Arable land (hectares) Pasture (hectares) Up to 1 1,1-2 2,1 + Up to 1 1,1-2 2,1 +

Areguni X X Daranak X X Geghamasar X - Avazan X X Pokr Masrik X X Mets Masrik X X Arpunk X X Kakhakn X X Kutakan X X Tretuk X X Sotk X X Kut X X Azat X X Shatjrek X X Vanevan X X Torfavan X X Norakert X X Norabak X X Chambarak region Chambarak X X Dzoravank X X Drakhtik X X Martuni X X Getik X X Ttujur X X Vahan X X Aghberk X X Shorzha X X Artanish X X Jil X X

26.5% of those respondents who own plots also rent additional plots. The overwhelming majority of the respondents (94.7%) rent the plot from the village

administration. The mean cost for arable land is 5150 AMD per hectare and the cost for pasture is 4550 AMD per hectare. Some villagers claimed that the village administration, which owns many hectares of plots, not only charges high prices per hectare but also absolutely refuses to lease them.

26

54.7% 45.3%

66.2% 33.8%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Vardenis

Chambarak

Chart 3.2 Do you afford to acquire seeds?

YesNo

51.1%

48.9%

40.4%

59.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Insecticides Fertilizers

Chart 3.3 Do you afford to acquire insecticides and fertilizers?

No

Yes

SEEDS, INSECTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS

62.6% of the respondents are supplied with seeds to some extent. However, it is important to note that seeds are more easily accessible to the respondents in Chambarak than in Vardenis region.

We should mention that only 30% of the respondents in Pambak, Pokr Masrik, Tretuk villages of Vardenis region and Ttujur village of Chambarak region are supplied with seeds. In addition to the scarcity of seeds there is also a problem of seed quality. Most of the respondents claim they are not able to get high quality seeds. In contrast, some oligarchs have imported high capacity potato seeds which allowed them to harvest quality potatoes and sell it for a lower price, while the average villager’s harvest stayed in storage and was damaged.

As we mentioned, most of the respondents are supplied with seeds. The picture, however, is quite diffe-rent with insecticides and ferti-lizers. These important agricultural resources are available to only 4 out of 10 respon-dents.

27

44.1% 55.9%

56.7% 43.3%

56.8% 43.2%

72.7% 27.3%

73.2% 26.8%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Wheat separator

Combine

Sowing unit

Tractor

Truck

Chart 3.4 Can you afford to rent agricultural machinery?

YesNo

The majority of those respondents who do not have means of getting these resources do not use them at all. A small percentage of the villagers borrow these resources, get help from relatives or receive aid.

According to the villagers the high prices of fertilizers and insecticides have negative effects on agriculture. For example, the main problem regarding fertilizers is the absence of a cheaper, 3700 AMD niter. The villagers claim that the fertilizer is sold at a higher price (5000 AMD) and/or to those outside the village. As a result, many respondents end up not using fertilizers, which has a damaging effect on the harvest.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

A small percentage of the respondents have their own agricultural machinery. For example, only 6.2% has a truck, 5.2% has a tractor, 1% has a sowing unit, 0.9% has a combine and only one respondent has a wheat separator. Moreover, these types of agricultural machinery were mostly mentioned by the respondents of the villages in Vardenis region (Arpunk, Mets Masrik, Geghamasar, Kakhakn, Norakert, Norabak and Vahan).

Those respondents who do not have the necessary agricultural machinery mainly rent those from their village or the nearby villages. The high rental prices prevent villagers to cultivate substantial parts of their plots. They have to cultivate their land without any machinery, which complicates the job to a great extent and makes agricultural business unpromising: according to the villagers, it results in 25-30% harvest reduction.

Chart 3.4 below pictures the proportion of respondents that are able to rent agricultural machinery.

Although the majority of the respondents are able to rent agricultural machinery, the scarcity and disrepair of this machinery does not allow the villagers to cultivate their land in time.

28

Chart 3.5 Main branches of agriculture

Potato39.0%

Wheat and other crops

29.8%

Animal husbandry

22.0%

Land cultivation

68.8%

Other9.2%

58.3%

92.1%

8.9% 12.5%37.6%

74.6%

35.8%

52.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Animal husbandry Potato Wheat Other crops

Vardenis

Chambarak

Chart 3.6 Main branches of agriculture by regions

BRANCHES OF AGRICULTURE

MAIN BRANCHES

In the studied regions the major agricultural branches are land cultivation (particularly growing potatoes, wheat and other types of grains) and animal husbandry. Other branches of agriculture in some communities include cabbage cultivation and other vegetables (Tsapa-tagh, Pambak, and Shorzha) and gardening (Daranak, Tsapatagh, Pambak, Artanish, Jil, and Dzoravank). Previously, Mets Masrik and Norakert villages grew tobacco, which is currently impossible due to the absence of irrigation system.

It is important to note that animal husbandry is widespread in Chambarak region, where majority of the respondents stated it to be the main branch of agriculture. In contrast, the respondents of some villages in Vardenis region (Areguni, Tretuk, and Torfavan) did not at all consider animal husbandry as a widespread agriculture branch.

The most developed branch of land cultivation in Chambarak is potato growing. The difference between the two regions is presented in Chart 3.6 in greater detail.

The most probable answer to these differences is the scarcity of arable land in Chambarak region, due to which the villagers have limited opportunities for plant-

29

Chapter 3.7 Profitability factor by branches

14.3%10.4%21.9%

78.1%89.6% 85.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Animal husbandry Potato production Grain-crops production

Other factorsProfitability

growing. (Remember, that according to the survey results, the average household has 0.73 hectares of arable land in Chambarak region, which is a much lower indicator compared to Vardenis region). At the same time there are more meadows in Chambarak region which stimulates the development of animal husbandry.

Apart from natural conditions, the respondents have mentioned other factors influencing the choice of particular agricultural branch. The most important factor that was mentioned by every respondent was the desire to provide for the basic needs of the family. The second reason is the profitability of agriculture, although this factor was pointed out by a much smaller number of respondents.

At that, in case of animal husbandry the profitability factor is comparatively more influential than in case of land cultivation (see Chart 3.7).

LAND CULTIVATION

The overwhelming majority of the respondents (96.9%) cultivate their plots. It was interesting to find out the reasons behind the remaining 3.1% not cultivating the land. 43.5% of the respondents think this is connected to the high costs of plant-growing, including the unavailability of seeds and agricultural machinery. For some respondents the absence of irrigation water (7.1%) and unproductive land (7.1%) is another obstacle for not cultivating the land. Old age and non-profitability of the business were each mentioned once as other major reasons.

Now, let us take a look at major subtypes of land cultivation and their profitability.

Potato production

Potatoes are produced by nearly every respondent who owns a plot (96.4%). According to the results of the survey, the average potato harvest in the studied

communities is 5.2 tons per hectare. At the same time, we should note that most respondents get up to 4 tons of potatoes from 1 hectare plot (see Table 3.3).

30

Table 3.3 The level of potato harvest

Harvest level (ton/hectare) Frequency Percent Up to 1 265 34.3% 1 – 4 194 25.1% 4– 10 171 22.2% Over 10 142 18.4% Total 772 100.0%

It is interesting that the level of potato harvest is higher in Chambarak than in Vardenis region. The average tonnage of harvest is 3.9 and 6.9 tons per hectare in Vardenis and Chambarak regions respectively.

It was also interesting to find out the level of potato harvest in each community separately. The results show that in Vardenis region communities with higher than average harvest level are Vardenis city, Tsapatagh, Pambak, Geghamasar, Kut and Shatjrek villages and in Chambarak region this level can be seen in Chambarak city, Aghberk, Shorzha, Artanish and Jil villages (see Table 3.4).

Table 3.4 The level of potato harvest in studied communities

Communities Mean Minimum Maximum Vardenis region Vardenis 9.3 1.0 46.7 Tsapatagh 7.7 0.5 34.5 Pambak 5.5 0.8 28.6 Areguni 3.8 0.6 40.0 Daranak 7.4 0.6 37.5 Geghamasar 1.3 0.5 8.0 Avazan 3.0 0.7 20.0 Pokr Masrik 0.7 0.2 2.4 Mets Masrik 0.8 0.3 6.4 Arpunk 3.2 0.8 13.3 Kakhakn 1.2 0.6 7.5 Kutakan 2.6 0.9 20.0 Tretuk 3.1 1.0 20.0 Sotk 4.4 1.0 28.6 Kut 10.5 1.3 33.3 Azat 4.7 0.9 18.2 Shatjrek 7.8 1.1 40.0 Vanevan 3.0 0.8 14.5 Torfavan 5.7 0.7 25.0 Norakert 0.6 0.4 4.0 Norabak 3.0 0.9 20.0

31

51.2% 48.8%

22.4% 77.6%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Vardenis

Chambarak

Chart 3.8 Do you produce grain-crops?

Yes

No

Communities Mean Minimum Maximum Chambarak region Chambarak 10.1 1.2 31.3 Dzoravank 2.9 0.8 10.0 Drakhtik 6.6 1.1 50.0 Martuni 5.3 0.7 27.8 Getik 3.9 0.6 16.0 Ttujur 4.3 0.9 12.0 Vahan 6.6 1.3 16.7 Aghberk 12.0 1.4 50.0 Shorzha 7.4 1.0 50.0 Artanish 7.6 1.0 20.0 Jil 8.7 1.3 35.7

Obviously, even the highest level of potato harvest (12 tons per hectare) is quite low if we take into account the fact that the high quality seeds should provide on average 40 tons of potato harvest.

The overwhelming majority of respondents (90.4%) use the whole harvest for the family’s food provision. The rest of the respondents get an average income of 83.534 AMD from one ton.

Crops

In contrast with potato-growing, only 39.8% of the respondents grow crops (mainly wheat and barley). At that, over fifty percent of the respondents in Vardenis region grow crops, while in Chambarak region this number amounts to only 22.4%.

The crops are mainly grown in Geghamasar, Pokr Masrik, Mets Masrik, Arpunk, Kakhakn, Vanevan, Norakert and Norabak villages of Vardenis region.

32

61.6% 38.4%

71.8% 28.2%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Vardenis

Chambarak

Chart 3.9 Do you own large stock?

Yes

No

The overwhelming majority of those who grow crops get a total of up to 1 tons of harvest.

Table 3.5 The level of crops harvest

The level of harvest (tons) Frequency Percent Up to 0.5 168 46.7% 0.6 - 1 116 32.2% 1.1 – 3 61 16.9% 3.1 and more 15 4.2% Total 360 100.0%

As with potato production, the majority of respondents (80.7%) use their crop harvest to take care of their family needs. Those respondents who sell crops receive on average 90.550 AMD per 1 ton.

Other vegetables and greens

74.4% of the respondents grow other types of vegetables and greens. At the same time, nearly every respondent (99.0%) grows vegetables for household consumption, not for sale. Moreover, none of the respondents harvests more than 1 ton of vegetables in total.

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

Large stock

The majority of the respondents own large stock. Moreover, it is only in Vardenis and Chambarak cities that less than 50% of the residents own large stock. From this perspective Mets Masrik, Kakhakn and Norabak villages of Vardenis region and Martuni, Getik and Ttujur villages of Chambarak region are the most developed communi-ties. 9 out of 10 respondents here own large stock. Generally, however, the percentage of the respondents who own large stock is higher in Chambarak than in Vardenis region.

The average head count of large stock owned by the respondents is 2 (2.34). At that, in Vardenis region the average number is 2 (2.15), while in Chambarak - 3 (2.78) heads of large stock per household. Norabak, Kut villages of Vardenis region and Getik village of

33

Chambarak region have the largest amount of large stock (here the respondents’ families own on average 5 heads of large stock). This, of course, is not sufficient for the development of a large farm economy, yet we could be sure that these villages are at least supplied with meat and dairy products. We should also note that in some communities, particularly in Kut, Norabak, Drakhtik and Getik the head count of large stock owned by the respondents have exceeded 15, which gives opportunity to get tangible income from animal husbandry.

The respondents who own large stock get a total average annual income of 116.500 AMD from this branch of animal husbandry, each head of cattle contributing with mean of 42.000 AMD. This means that those who own more than 15 heads can get over 630.000 AMD annually, which is a considerable amount for rural residents.

Small stock

Nearly 50% of the respondents own small stock. Here also rural communities have advantages over urban communities. Only 15% of the respondents in Chambarak city and no one in Vardenis city owns small stock.

It is also important to note that only three out of each ten households in Pokr Masrik, Mets Masrik and Tretuk villages of Vardenis region breed small stock, whereas in almost all communities of Chambarak region majority of respondents had small stock. Small stock breeding is quite popular in Vahan village of Chambarak region as well as Areguni, Arpunk and Norabak villages of Vardenis region, where 80% of the respondents own small stock.

The average head count of small stock in the studied communities is 7. At the same time, both in Vardenis and Chambarak regions the mode of the head count is 5 and only 5.0% of the respondents have 20 and more heads.

The average annual income from small stock is 53.050 AMD and the mean income from one animal - 6.500 AMD. However, we have to mention that the latter ranges from 3.000 to 18.000 AMD.

THE PROFITABILITY OF AGRICULTURE

Before discussing the profitability of the main agriculture branches, let us take a look at the sources of incomes of the population in general.

According to the respondents, their main sources of income are a) agriculture (plant-growing and animal husbandry), b) salary, c) pensions and various types of subsidies. Other sources of income include assistance from relatives living abroad, own business (trade or small-scale production) as well as leased properties (plot or house).

Chart 3.10 on next page shows that most of the respondents do not consider agriculture as a source of income, despite of the fact that most of them come from rural settlements.

34

44.1%55.9%

9.5%

90.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Vardenis Chambarak

Chart 3.11 Land cultivation and animal husbandry as sources of income

Land cultivation

Animal husbandry

Chart 3.10 Sources of household income

34.9%

55.0%

23.6%

59.8%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Wages Pension Relieves Agriculture

An interesting yet quite reasonable picture was revealed when we compared the sources of income of the residents of Vardenis and Chambarak regions. Although in both

communities ag-riculture was considered as a source of in-come by nearly identical percen-tage of respon-dents (about 60), the proportions of animal hus-bandry and plant growing are quite different in the two regions.

THE PROFITABILITY OF PLANT-GROWING

81.8% of the respondents claim they do not get any income from plant-growing.3 The rest of the respondents get an average annual income of 125.300 AMD. At the same time, the interval between the lowest and the highest values is very large (1800 AMD - 1.150.000AMD), which is a proof of the existing social inequality in the communities.

3 We think it important to note that such outcome of the survey is conditioned by the fact, that the respondents equate the term “income” with direct monetary inflows not taking into account that consumption by the family of its own agricultural production is also “income”. Based on this fact, in this chapter we also use the term “income” strictly in its narrow sense, that is, financial inflows from the sale of agricultural production.

35

Chart 3.12 Reasons for low income from land cultivation

Other13.4%

Lack of quality seeds20.1%

Lack of irrigation system13.3%

Lack of insecticides10.1%

Lack of fertilizers26.2%

Lack of machinery and fuel

6.9%

Lack of disaster preparedness

10.0%

It is interesting to note, that residents of Vardenis region on average get higher incomes from plant-growing than those of Chambarak region: the villagers in Vardenis region on average receive 136.500 AMD annually from plant-growing, while the residents of Chambarak region get only 66.150 AMD. One could perhaps expect such results, since plant-growing is less developed in Chambarak than in Vardenis region.

The residents of Kakhakn, Kutakan, Azat, Shatjrek, Norakert and Norabak villages in Vardenis region receive relatively high income from plant-growing. The average annual income in these villages is over 180.000 AMD.

We should note that all of the abovementioned villages were classified as communities with a higher than average development indicator. This correlation is not accidental: the income from agriculture mostly depends on other development criteria, particularly on infrastructure and agricultural resources.

The overwhelming majority of the respondents (93.5%) believe that they are making less from land cultivation than is possible. According to the villagers there are multiple reasons for this, including the shortage of fertilizers, quality of seeds, insecticides, agricultural machinery, the absence of irrigation systems and lack of disaster pre-paredness. Some other reasons are the absence of a market for selling the produc-tion, land infertility, lack of financial means, etc. However, as shown, according to the respondents the main reason for not getting any or enough income from plant growing is the lack of fertilizers and high quality seeds.

THE PROFITABILITY OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

As opposed to land cultivation, only a small percentage of respondents (1.9%) do not receive any income from animal husbandry. The majority of the respondents (69.4%) receive annual income of more than 50.000 AMD. Moreover, the mean annual income in this industry is 133.500 AMD. This, of course, is not a high number in an absolute sense; however, it is higher than the average income received from plant-growing. At the same time, the average income received from animal husbandry is higher in Chambarak than in Vardenis region. In Chambarak region the mean income equals to 141.000 AMD and in Vardenis region - to 128.000 AMD. In terms of average income levels Kut and Norabak villages of Vardenis region and Martuni and Getik villages of Chambarak region rank number 1, where the respondents’ mean income is over 250.000 AMD.

36

According to the respondents the conditions for getting higher income from animal husbandry are cheap fodder (46.1%), increasing the number of heads (39.0%), availability of veterinary services (10.2%) and wider opportunities for sale of agricultural production (4.7%).

CHAPTER 4. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

NATURAL AND MAN-MADE DISASTERS

Before addressing the extent to which people can prepare for disasters, let us look at those types of disasters that worry the residents of the studied communities. For these purpose the respondents were offered a list of natural and man-made disasters and asked to rate the extent to which they are concerned about each of these.

Table 4.1 summarizes the abovementioned results.

Table 4.1. To what extent are you worried about the following types of disasters?

Disasters Very worried Somewhat worried

Not worried at all

Hail 77.7% 12.0% 10.3% Frost 71.4% 15.3% 13.3% Drought 62.7% 17.5% 19.8% Tornado 58.2% 20.5% 21.4% Water pollution 34.0% 12.8% 53.2% Earthquake 10.9% 13.6% 75.6% Deforestation 10.1% 6.8% 83.1% Landslides 6.7% 3.3% 90.0% Air pollution 6.1% 3.3% 90.6% Swampiness 5.9% 3.7% 90.4% Fire 5.2% 7.9% 86.9%

As shown above, the respondents in general are not concerned about man-made disasters. Moreover, they are not even concerned about those natural disasters that do not have an immediate impact on agricultural activates (fire, swampiness) or those disasters that the respondents consider unlikely to happen (earthquake, landslide). In contrast, the respondents are very concerned about hail, frost, drought and tornados.

It is interesting to note, that older respondents are more worried with the above than the younger ones. Another important observation is that women generally are less worried over disasters than men are. The most probable explanation for these results is the fact that the father of the household usually takes the responsibility for family welfare and security.

37

Chart 4.1 Awareness about disasters

87.3%

10.1%2.6%

We are warned in advance and informed about flow

We are not warned but are informed about the flow

We are not informed at all

It was also interesting to find out which communities were most concerned about each of the natural disasters. The survey showed that tornados worry the residents of Azat, Drakhtik and Ttujur villages, hail worries the residents of Daranak, Pambak and Mets Masrik communities, drought worried the residents of Avazan, Arpunk and Norakert villages and frost worried the residents of Getik and Kutakan villages.

THE LEVEL OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

First and foremost, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of the respondents claim they are not warned about the possible disas-ters and are not aware of the ways to fight them.

Moreover, if 15.3% of the respondents in Vardenis region consider themselves more or less informed, then in Chambarak region this percentage is as low as 8.7%.

The overwhelming majority of these respondents (90.7%) get information about disasters from television and only a small percentage get it from other sources, particularly from village administrations (5.7%) or functioning political parties (3.6%).

Let us now take a look at possible ways to fight the disasters as suggested by the respondents. As it was mentioned, these disasters are tornados, hail, drought and frost.

The vast majority of the respondents (97.6%) are not able to prepare for the destructive consequences of tornadoes. For the remaining percentage, the only way is improvement of their house roofs. The reason for this picture is that the residential houses are mostly in alarming state and therefore require renovation. Obviously, this is financially not possible for the most of the residents. According to the respondents, aside from renovating residential houses it is necessary to plant trees in and around the community to lower the damages caused by tornadoes. The respondents cannot also avoid the consequences of hails, drought and frost. While for fighting against hail they propose scattering the hail clouds, no option is seen to preparing for frosts.

As far as the drought is concerned, the respondents think it will stop being an issue of concern if irrigation water supply stabilizes.

38

Chart 5.1 Functions of communal authorities

Positive34.4%

None51.7%

Don't know11.1%

Negative2.8%

CHAPTER 5. LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND MASS MEDIA

COMMUNAL AUTHORITIES

This section discusses the roles of the local government in the studied communities, as well as the respondents’ awareness and expectations from the village or city administrations.

Nearly every respondent knows his village/city mayor. Only 1.2% had difficulties naming their village mayor (some of these respondents were from Geghamasar, Drakhtik, Vahan and Jil villages).

Regarding the role of communal authorities, most of the respondents mentioned the following activities undertaken by their village or city administration:

� Distributing humanitarian aid or subsidies (33.4%) � Solving the problems with potable water supply (22.3%) � Developing agriculture, including supplying the villagers with fuel, seeds,

fertilizers and creating units for storing agricultural production (18.8%) � Leadership – resolving conflicts and integration of the community Some other functions that the respondents have mentioned were administrative

responsibilities (9.3%) such as stamping documents, giving out official statements, etc., design of community development programs, supporting cultural and education institutions (6.6%) and road-construction (6.4%).

It should be stressed that 11.1% of the respondents had difficulties naming any functions currently fulfilled by their communal authorities; 51.8% stated that their village or city administration does nothing for their community and 2.8% thinks that village administration even plays a negative role (promotes social inequality and conflicts, or hinders business development).

Based on these results, we can judge of the respondents’ attitudes toward communal authorities. The attitudes of those respondents, who attached positive functions to the local government, were grouped under “positive attitude”; those respondents who had difficulty describing the roles of the authorities were considered to have “neutral attitude”; lastly, opinions of those respondents who either pointed out negative functions or stressed that local government does not carry any functions were grouped under

39

category “negative attitudes”. Based on this classification, let us present the general attitudes of the communities toward their village or city administration.

Table 5.1 Attitudes towards communal authorities

Community4 Positive attitude Neutral attitude Negative attitude Vardenis region 33.9% 14.3% 51.8% Tsapatagh 73.9% 4.3% 21.7% Vanevan 60.0% 12.0% 28.0% Shatjrek 60.0% 8.6% 31.4% Arpunk 58.6% 24.1% 17.2% Avazan 50.0% 15.0% 35.0% Kutakan 48.0% 20.0% 32.0% Daranak 44.4% 16.7% 38.9% Torfavan 40.0% 10.0% 50.0% Pokr Masrik 34.3% 5.7% 60.0% Sotk 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Areguni 32.0% 4.0% 64.0% Kut 30.8% 0.0% 69.2% Vardenis 28.3% 25.0% 46.7% Chambarak 24.2% 3.0% 72.7% Mets Masrik 23.3% 6.7% 70.0% Tretuk 20.0% 10.0% 70.0% Azat 15.8% 10.5% 73.7% Geghamasar 15.0% 35.0% 50.0% Kakhakn 12.1% 18.2% 69.7% Norakert 4.0% 4.0% 92.0% Norabak 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Chambarak region 39.2% 6.1% 54.7% Shorzha 63.6% 12.1% 24.2% Aghberk 50.0% 4.5% 45.5% Dzoravank 45.0% 0.0% 55.0% Jil 44.1% 8.8% 47.1% Artanish 41.2% 11.8% 47.1% Drakhtik 40.0% 14.0% 46.0% Chambarak 38.3% 3.3% 58.3% Martuni 27.3% 0.0% 72.7% Vahan 23.1% 5.1% 71.8% Getik 22.6% 0.0% 77.4% Ttujur 13.5% 2.7% 83.8%

4 The communities are sorted in descending order of the positive attitudes toward community government.

40

The above-mentioned table allows us to draw several interesting and important conclusions. First of all, more than half of the respondents assessed the work of communal authorities as inefficient. This issue is especially underlined in Chambarak region, where the respondents in 10 out of 11 studied communities are dissatisfied with their local government.

As the table shows, the reputation of village administrations of Tsapatagh, Vanevan, Shatjrek and Arpunk villages of Vardenis region are comparatively high. In Chambarak region, only the administration of Shorzha village is acknowledged by majority of respondents. Village administrations of Tsapatagh and Arpunk villages were assessed highly for taking care of the potable water supply, in Vanevan for supporting community development programs and in Shatjrek and Shorzha for fair distribution of subsidies or in-kind assistance among the villagers. Among all communities of the region, the villagers of Norabak, Norakert, Kakhakn, Geghamasar and Azat villages of Vardenis are most dissatisfied with their communal authorities.

We should also note that there is a negative correlation between the attitudes towards the communal authorities and the community development indicators. Those communities that have higher than average development indicators are more critical of their local government than those that have lower than average indicators. This fact perhaps is connected to the hierarchy of human needs: communities with developed infrastructures and rich resources have higher expectations from their government. However, the latter has a capacity to satisfy only the basic needs of the population, such as potable water supply and distribution of small financial assistance.

The respondents’ expectations from their communal authorities are shown in table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2 The respondents’ expectations from communal authorities

Expectation Frequency Percent Development of cultural and educational spheres 180 17.7% Potable water supply 167 16.4% Development of other infrastructures 166 16.3% Financial or in-kind assistance to villagers 165 16.2% Road-construction 142 14.0% Leadership (integration, conflict resolution) 136 13.4% Development of agriculture 111 10.9% Irrigation water supply 59 5.8% It is difficult to answer 187 18.4% Total 13135 129.2%

5 Multiple responses to the question were accepted

41

We should mention that the expectations of respondents from Vardenis and Chambarak regions differ from each other, demonstrating the primary needs of the communities. While residents of Vardenis region expect their village or city administration to solve problems with potable water supply, the residents of Chambarak region, where the water problem is more or less solved, expect cultural or educational development.

MARZ AUTHORITIES

If, as we previously mentioned, the vast majority of the respondents know their village mayor, then only 35.1% could remember the name of the head of the marz administration (marzpet).

The level of awareness is much lower in Chambarak than in Vardenis region. Oonly 15.0% of the respondents from Vardenis city had difficulties naming the marzpet of Gegharkunik, while only the same 15.0% of the respondents from Chambarak city could give the right answer. At the same time nobody in Dzoravank, Aghberk and Shorzha villages of Chambarak region knew their marzpet.

It is interesting to note, that the level of awareness is also connected with variables such as age and gender. While only 1 out of 6 female respondents aged younger than 30 or older than 61 knew the name of their marzpet, majority of male respondents aged between 31-60 years (51.8%) gave a right answer. Nevertheless, this situation is perhaps conditioned not by gender or age inequity, but rather by the fact that younger and older generations, and females in particular, are much less interested in issues of state governance than middle aged males.

Although at the first glance it might seem that knowing the name of the marzpet is not that important, yet it speaks and shows of the importance of marzpet’s role in the

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Chart 5.2 Who is the marzpet of Gegharkunik?

Correct answer 47.2% 16.0%

Wrong answer 1.0% 0.5%

No answer 51.8% 83.5%

Vardenis Chambarak

42

Chart 5.1 Functions of marz authorities

Positive5.4%

None76.6%

Don’t know18.0%

eyes of local population.

Only 5.4% of the respondents mentioned that the marz administration does some work in their communities. According to the respondents, this role is mostly limited to the supervision of the village administration. In contrast, all other respondents either had difficulties remembering any activity performed by the administration or said that the marz administration had never done anything for their communities.

The expectations of the respondents from the marz administration are similar to those they have from the communal authorities. The only difference here is the respondents’ wish for provision of a more active support to the community government.

At the same time, if the vast majority of the respondents clearly mentioned their expectations from community government, then the picture is quite different with marz government: most of the respondents had difficulties formulating any expectations.

Table 5.2 The expectations of the respondents from community government

Expectations Frequency Percent Supporting the village mayor 140 13.8% Development of infrastructures 120 11.8% Road-construction 94 9.3% Leadership (integration, conflict resolution) 92 9.1% Development of cultural and educational spheres 90 8.9% Development of agriculture 59 5.8% It is difficult to answer 421 41.4% Total 1016 100.0%

All above-mentioned outcomes speak to the lack of awareness of the respondents

about the marz administration as a result low involvement level of the marz administration in community life.

43

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

Chart 5.4 Accessibility of Mass Media

Accessible 88.5% 18.0% 33.4%

Not accessible 11.5% 82.0% 66.6%

TV Radio Print press

MASS MEDIA

Out of three major types of mass media (television, radio and print media6) only television is availa-ble to the majority of the respondents.

Interestingly the radio and print media are available to a higher percen-tage of people living in Chamba-rak region than to those in Vardenis region. 40.2% of the respondents in Chambarak region are able to get print media and 30.2% have radios. In Vardenis region these media types are available to 29.1% and 16.2% of the respondents respectively.

Most of the respondents using radio are able to tune to “Armenian Public Radio”, “Stereo Studio” and “Liberty” stations. The availability of the TV channels, newspapers and magazines for the population of the studied communities is presented in Table 5.3 below.

Table 5.3. Available TV channels and Print Media

Community TV channels Print Media Chambarak H1, h2, ORT, RTR Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Iravunk,

Hay Zinvor, Yeter Dzoravank H1, ORT, RTR Chorrord Ishkhanutyun, Geghama

Ashkhar, Krtutyun, Yeter Drakhtik H1, h2, ORT, RTR Azg, Hajots Ashkhar, Yeter Martuni H1, ORT, RTR Aravot, Yeter Getik H1, ORT, RTR Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Aravot,

Azg, Hayots Ashkhar, Yeter Ttujur H1, h2, ORT, RTR Aravot, Azg, Hayots Ashkhar,

Chorrord Ishkhanutyun, Yeter Vahan H1, h2, ORT, RTR Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Aravot,

Geghama Ashkhar, Hay Zinvor, Yeter Aghberk H1, h2, ALM, ORT, RTR Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Yeter Shorzha H1, h2, ALM, ORT, RTR Yeter

6 Internet is not discussed, because the connectivity in the studied regions is extremely low

44

Community TV channels Print Media Artanish H1, ORT, RTR Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Azg, Yeter,

Krtutyun, Hayots Ashkhar, Golos Armenii

Jil H1, h2, ALM, ORT, RTR Aravot, Geghama Ashkhar, Krtutyun, Yeter, Football

Vardenis H1, h2, ALM, Armenia, Gavar, ORT, RTR

Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Azg, Aravot, Iravunq, Yeter

Tsapatagh H1, h2, ALM, ORT, RTR Yeter Pambak H1, h2, ALM, ORT, RTR Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Aravot,

Yeter, Football Areguni H1, h2, ALM, ORT, RTR Yeter Daranak H1, h2, Zangak, ORT, RTR Argumenti i fakti Geghamasar H1, h2, ALM, Zangak,

ORT, RTR Yeter

Avazan H1, h2, ORT, RTR Yeter Pokr Masrik H1, h2, ALM, ORT, RTR Azg Mets Masrik H1, h2, ALM, Armenia,

ORT, RTR Aravot, Hay Zinvor, Yeter

Arpunk H1, h2, ALM, Armenia, Zangak, ORT, RTR

Aravot, Azg, Hayots Ashkhar, Haykakan Zhamanak, Geghama Ashkhar, Krtutyun

Kakhakn H1, h2, Zangak, ORT, RTR Argumenti i fakti, Yeter Kutakan H1, h2, Zangak, ORT, RTR Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Azg, Yeter,

Krtutyun Tretuk H1, h2, Zangak, RTR Krtutyun, Yeter Sotk H1, h2, ALM, Armenia,

Zangak, Gavar, ORT, RTR

Golos Armenii, Aravot, Hayots Ashkhar, Hay Zinvor, Avangard, Yeter

Kut H1, h2, ORT, RTR Geghama Ashkhar, Yeter Azat H1, h2, RTR Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, Heghama

Ashkhar, Krtutyun, Yeter Shatjrek H1, h2, ALM, Armenia,

ORT, RTR Aravot, Krtutyun, Yeter

Vanevan H1, h2, ALM, Armenia, Gavar, ORT, RTR

Hayots Ashkhar, Krtutyun, Yeter

Torfavan H1, h2, ALM, Armenia, RTR

Azg, Hayots Ashkhar, Yeter

Norakert H1, h2, ALM, Armenia, ORT, RTR

Aravot, Azg, Hayots Ashkhar, Chorrord Ishkhanutyun, Yeter, Megapolis

Norabak H1, h2, ALM, ORT, RTR Aravot, Hayots Ashkhar, Yeter

45

We should note that the table includes all media mentioned by the respondents even if those were mentioned only once.

The most circulated newspaper among the residents is “Yeter” (62.0%). The rest of the newspapers are read by not more than 10% of the respondents. This is because the print media is not sold in rural areas; some newspapers (mostly “Yeter”) are just given instead of small change during pension or wage distribution.

The most frequently watched TV channels are “H1,” “h2” and “RTR”.

Since the access to mass media was very limited, it was interesting to find out the level of awareness of the respondents about the events taking place in the Republic and the marz.

From this perspective, it is remarkable that most of the respondents are better informed about the events taking place in the Republic than in their own marz.

90.1%

63.8%59.0%

47.2%

21.8%15.5% 11.5%

6.4%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Chart 5.5 TV channels watched by the population

H1

h2RTRORTALM

ArmeniaZangakGavar

11.7%

71.9%

16.4%2.3%

24.1%

73.6%

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

Chart 5.6 Are you aware of the events taking place in the RA and in your marz?

Completely aware 11.7% 2.3%

Somewhat aware 71.9% 24.1%

Not aware at all 16.4% 73.6%

RA Gegharkunik marz

46

Chart 5.7 Awareness of urban and rural population

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural

RAM

arz

Not aware at all 5.8% 17.9% 55.0% 76.1%

Somewhat aware 70.0% 72.1% 38.3% 22.1%

Completely aware 24.2% 10.0% 6.7% 1.7%

Urban Rural Urban Rural

RA Marz

The reasons for this situation become clear when we compare the sources of available information about the Republic and marz. While almost all respondents (97.5%) get their information about the Republic from mass media, only 57.0% gets information about Gegharkunik marz from the same source. For the remaining respondents, the only source of information is word of mouth.

This situation is more likely to be influenced by the fact that most respondents use national media sources, which do not devote much attention to the situation in single regions of the country.

Although the awareness level among the studied population is generally very low, we consider it important to note that it is determined by a number of factors. For example, respondents with higher levels of education are better aware of the situation in the Republic and the marz. The biggest difference, however, is noticed between the levels of aware-ness of rural and urban population.

It is also important to note that local popula-tion is better in-formed about the news than the refugees. This is perhaps caused by lower living standards of refugees, but also speaks to their lack of interest in the affairs of the country in general.

CHAPTER 6. PROBLEMS AND NEEDS

PROBLEMS AND NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES

According to the respondents, the most important problem of their communities is unemployment. Other problems mentioned by the respondents are the lack of high quality seeds, chemicals and fertilizers, agricultural machinery, as well as no access to potable water and other infrastructures (see Chart 6.1 on next page).

47

Chart 6.1 Most important problems

Lack of potable water

14.6%

Lack of quality seeds20.2%

Lack of machinery

8.4%

Unemploy-ment48.2%

Other8.6%

The unemployment problem is of special importance in urban communities. Over 90% of the respondents in Vardenis and Chambarak cities consider unemployment as the most important problem. These re-sults were predictable, since, in contrast with rural communities, the urban communities have limited possibilities for agri-cultural activities and therefore need other sources of income.

In order to gain a better understanding of the community problems, we shall look at one or two most frequently mentioned problems in each community.

Table 6.1 Problems of the communities

Community The most important problems Percent Vardenis Unemployment 91.7 Tsapatagh Unavailability of agricultural machinery 31.8

Unemployment 18.2 Pambak Unemployment 42.4

Drinking water 18.2 Areguni Unemployment 41.7

Drinking water 8.3 Daranak Drinking water 27.8

Telephone line 16.7 Geghamasar Unemployment 25.0

Unavailability of quality seeds 17.5 Avazan Unemployment 25.0

Telephone line 15.0 Pokr Masrik Drinking water 48.6

Irrigation water 22.9 Mets Masrik Unemployment 36.7

Drinking water 26.7 Arpunk Unavailability of agricultural machinery 17.2

Unavailability of quality seeds 15.7 Kakhakn Telephone line 50.0

Unemployment 21.9 Kutakan Unemployment 29.2

Unavailability of quality seeds 16.6

48

Community The most important problems Percent Tretuk Unemployment 70.0

Drinking water 20.0 Sotk Drinking water 40.2

Unemployment 30.8 Kut Unemployment 38.5

Telephone line 30.8 Azat Unavailability of quality seeds 21.1

Drinking water 15.8 Shatjrek Unemployment 60.0

Unavailability of agricultural machinery 11.4 Vanevan Drinking water 96.0 Torfavan Drinking water 16.7

Unavailability of quality seeds 13.3 Norakert Drinking water 36.0

Irrigation water 20.0 Norabak Drinking water 31.3

Unavailability of agricultural machinery 12.6 Chambarak Unemployment 91.6 Dzoravank Unemployment 45.0

Unavailability of quality seeds 20.0 Drakhtik Unemployment 42.0

Drinking water 12.0 Martuni Unemployment 33.3

Unavailability of quality seeds 30.3 Getik Unemployment 38.7

Unavailability of agricultural machinery 35.5 Ttujur Unemployment 54.1

Unavailability of quality seeds 18.9 Vahan Unemployment 51.3

Unavailability of agricultural machinery 17.9 Aghberk Unemployment 45.5

Drinking water 18.2 Shorzha Unemployment 30.3

Irrigation water 15.2 Artanish Unemployment 47.1

Drinking water 23.5 Jil Unemployment 44.1

Unavailability of quality seeds 11.8

49

Results of the PRA and observations of the research team provided substantial grounds for considering migration as another serious problem in the studied communities. According to the interviewers, sampling steps were often not kept, since most of the houses were not inhabited. The villagers claimed that many families had left the villages and permanently relocated in foreign countries (mainly to Russia and other CIS countries).

The fact that mass migration was not mentioned as a problem by the participants of the opinion poll is due to the belief that migration in itself is not a problem, but rather a consequence of low living standards, poor economy and limited opportunities for income generation.

It is important to note, that migration is still an issue. One out of five families that were participating in the study had at least one family member abroad. Moreover, according to the respondents these members are not planning to come back to their homeland within the next two years. Family members of other 55 respondents are planning to leave the country either to work, to study or live abroad.

58.9% of the respondents claim that migration of their relatives has negative effect on their families, since, on one hand, the family is broken apart and, on the other hand, the hopes of earning riches abroad have not been fulfilled.

According to the respondents, creating work places will not only prevent migration but also stimulate immigration. The respondents think that the rate of migration can be reduced if the villagers are given loans with acceptable conditions and are supplied with high quality agricultural materials.

It was interesting to find out the respondents’ opinion on possible ways to solve the other problems of their communities. For these purpose the respondents were asked to select areas they believe to be important for sustainable development of the communities and then point out the types of support they expect from organizations engaged in community development. According to the respondents, the priority areas for development are agriculture and industry, which they think can help fight problems of unemployment and poverty. The respondents also think it is important to improve the general communal facilities, develop communications, and support health care and education (see Chart 6.3 on next page).

Chart 6.2 Reasons for migration

Residence18.9%

Study7.5%

Work73.6%

50

Let us turn to specific assistance that the respondents expect in terms of each of the mentioned areas.

In the sphere of INDUSTRY, the respondents mentioned reopening of previously exploited production outlets, establishing new companies and building up their technical capacity.

Majority of the respondents think that availability of high quality seeds and fertilizers, access to agricultural machinery and construction of a sustainable irrigation system are the most important preconditions for development of PLANT-GROWING.

In terms of development of ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, the villagers mostly expect creation of large farms and establishment of collection centers hat would help them dispose of their meat and diary products.

Another important precondition for development of agriculture and production is access to loans at low interest rates.

In terms of improving the COMMUNAL FACILITIES, the respondents draw attention to the potable water supply and natural gas provision, while the most urgent steps to be taken in the sphere of telecommunications are road-construction and provision of the communities with telephone lines.

In the sphere of EDUCATION the major needs of the communities are the reopening of kindergartens, supplying schools with necessary equipment and educational materials, as well as renovating schools that are in emergency condition.

In the sphere of HEALTHCARE, the communities need assistance in repairing of the first aid posts, as well as training of professional medical staff.

NEEDS AND PROBLEMS OF SELECTED SOCIAL GROUPS

After examining the general needs and problems of the communities, we think it important to discuss the needs and problems of certain social groups.

43.0%

17.7%22.6%

17.3%11.2%

8.5% 8.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

Chart 6.3 Sectors that need assistance

Industry

Land cultivationAnimal husbandry

Communal facilities

CommunicationsEducation

Healthcare

51

PROBLEMS OF THE REFUGEES

As it was mentioned in Chapter 1, 43.6% of the participants of our survey were refugees. It is interesting to examine the status-specific problems of this group.

We found out that the major problem the refugees faced was the fact that having lost all their property they had to start everything from scratch in their new places of residence. In addition to severe material conditions, the refugees are also facing psychological difficulties, including various forms of discrimination and difficulty in adjusting to the new conditions (as we mentioned earlier, most of the refugees came from urban settlements of Azerbaijan and therefore lack experience in agricultural production). Some refugees also face certain formal barriers such as absence of passports and residence permits, due to which they cannot buy or even rent a land plot. Nevertheless it should be noted that the majority of the refugees have not had any problems connected with their residential status.

While the majority of the refugee respondents think that they are in the same social conditions as the local population, 35.2% of the respondents think their condition is

much worse. Comparison of

the needs of refugees and local population speaks for the fact that refugees have lower living stan-dards: while the ma-jority of local popu-lation stated the need of employment and agricultural re-sources, the refugees have basic needs of food, healthcare and housing.

Chart 6.4 Problems connected with refugee status

None49.3%

Psychological problems

9.7%

Bureaucratic obstacles

7.4%

We started everything from zero

33.6%

Chart 6.5 Needs of local and refugee population

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Agricultural resources 28.7% 18.6%

Job 52.4% 40.0%

Basic needs 18.9% 41.4%

Locals Refugees

52

NEEDS AND PROBLEMS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN

The needs of women in the studied communities do not differ from those of men. This can be explained by the fact that in rural communities women and men have the same roles, problems and needs connected with the survival of the family. On one hand, this could be a good indicator of gender equality. However, this is an obvious case of double standard in these communities. Women are expected to share in all the work responsibilities, but when it comes to participating socially in the activities outside their home, problems arise - there is an expectation to stay focused on the home and to take care of the family.

The livelihood of the respondents is well reflected in the major needs of their children. According to the parents the primary needs of their underage children are clothing and food.

Table 6.2 Primary needs of the children

Needs Frequency Percent Clothing 228 34.1% Food 152 22.8% Art and sports clubs 144 21.6% Leisure-time organization 132 19.8% Kindergarten 121 18.1% Quality secondary education 118 17.7% Textbooks and stationery 67 10.0% Total 9627 144.0%

NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY POPULATION

Elderly people have quite different needs than other age groups. Their main concerns are high food prices and low pensions. Several objective factors can explain this situation. First of all, 18.1% of the respondents aged 61 and above are single pensioners and another 35.7% are couples on pension. Obviously, these families cannot engage in extensive agricultural activities. The majority of elderly people are able to cultivate only the homestead land to secure themselves with food. According to the respondents, their pensions suffice only for paying the utility bills.

NEEDS OF THE YOUTH

Young people in the studied communities have other needs. As in other rural communities of Armenia, the biggest problem of the youth is the lack of employment opportunities. According to the results of the survey, this age group is the one that is most concerned about the unemployment issue (see Chart 6.6 on next page).

7 Multiple responses were accepted. 668 respondents (65.7%) had underage children.

53

Not finding any area of interest in their villages, young people leave their communities to try to get higher education and find a job in Yerevan. However, because of financial constraints, most of the young people are not able to fulfill this dream. This is why a substantial number of young people choose the path of labor migration, claiming they would never leave their village if they had a job or any other occupation.

CASE STUDIES

As mentioned in the introduction, after describing the general situation of the 32 sampled communities, the research team conducted an in-depth qualitative study of 10 selected communities: Vardenis, Arpunk, Geghamasar, Mets Masrik, Kutakan, Tretuk and Torfavan (Vardenis region), Martuni, Getik and Ttujur (Chambarak region). The selection of the communities was done by the following 2 factors: a) a substantial percentage of the villagers considered the lack of quality seeds as a major barrier for the development of plant-growing, b) subsequently “Shen” NGO supported some of the farmers of these communities with elite seeds of potato, barley and maize and it was interesting to assess the first effects of this program.

At the same time, in-depth analysis allowed us to better picture the strengths, weaknesses and development opportunities of these communities. Even though the initial reason for doing the case studies was to see the effects of Shen’s pilot activity in these communities, we also concentrated on the overall situation in each of the studied communities. This analysis can help us assessing the problems and needs of other similar communities in the region.

10.7%

35.5%

37.8%

47.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

61 and above

41-60

31-40

under 30

Chart 6.6 Prioritizing unemployment as important issue by different age groups of respondents

54

VARDENIS

General information8 Arable land 1837 hectares Current population 14.880 people Out of which: females 52.0% males 48.0% Refugees 183 families Pensioners 2.300 people Out of which: handicapped 600 people School aged children 4.400 people

As it was already mentioned, the most serious problem in Vardenis city is unemployment. According to the data given by municipality only 3000 out of 8000 able-bodied residents work in budgetary organizations: this causes low living standards and continuous migration of the population9.

Aside from unemployment, the participants of focus group drew attention to general communal facilities: lack of internal network of potable water, minimal hygienic standards of the canal, and emergency conditions of residential houses. Another very important issue is the condition of the roads.

The major types of agriculture production in Vardenis are wheat, barley and potato. The residents also engage in cattle-breeding. At the same time the scarcity of agricultural resources and especially of arable land prevents the population of Vardenis from extensive agricultural activities.

One of the most important issues in the sphere of agriculture is lack of the villagers’ access to high quality seeds. However, it is important to note together with financial barriers (high price of the quality seeds) there is also lack of agricultural knowledge. According to the participants of focus group, the majority of the villagers are unable to assess the quality of the seeds they buy. Moreover, previously there was a laboratory in Vardenis city that examined the soil and the crops and provided advisory services to the villagers. “Today the harvest is declining, because the plant-growers do not understand where to cultivate each type of crop and what kind of seeds to use”, one of the focus group members pointed out.

The harvest is also declining because the land is not being fertilized. Despite the fact that the government supplies fertilizers with subsidized prices, nevertheless the villagers are not able to purchase them. On the other hand, the fertilizers are low in quality, since the nitrogen level is much lower than the mandatory 46%.

8 The data in “General Information” section was taken from the community administration. This data can deviate from official data, which is due to the claim of the local government that they update the information more frequently. 9 According to the municipality, 3000-4000 residents of Vardenis city permanently reside abroad.

55

Besides the absence of quality agricultural supplies and appropriate knowledge, the residents in Vardenis are also worried about the small consumer market for their products. “We gather potatoes and put them in storage. There are no buyers and no good storehouses so the potatoes spoil and we sell it at the minimum price. We can’t even cover our costs.”

According to the mayor of Vardenis, lack of disaster preparedness and especially the inability to fight against various vermin is another major issue. In this case, only an organized fight can be productive. However, since necessary toxic chemicals are only available to a small percent of population, the fight becomes fruitless because new waves of viruses spread quickly.

We think it important to discuss some of the comments that focus group participants made regarding community development. “Today the community needs craftsmen, but nobody is willing to do the job because by donating clothing and food they [organizations providing humanitarian aid] have spoiled the people. They should give the aid for work so that people learn to rely on themselves.” Another participant noted that the activities of organizations engaged in community development are not coordinated. “They don’t even share information: in some villages 10 different development programs are running simultaneously, while in other villages no programs are implemented at all”.

ARPUNK

General information Arable land 900 hectares Number of households 100 Out of which: young families 65 Refugees 84 families

Whilst the results of the opinion poll showed that the most important issue in the community is unemployment, the participants of the focus group and the village mayor of Arpunk have different perspective. According to them, the community has much more important issues and the living standards of the population are not to be determined solely by lack of employment opportunities.

Perhaps the most stressing problem is the unsatisfactory condition of the infrastructure. For example, the outer network of the drinking water channel is decomposed. Thus the dirty water and manure get mixed with the drinking water. Moreover, as there is no irrigation water, the villagers are not even able to irrigate the small plots of homestead land.

According to the focus group participants, the village has the necessary drinking and irrigation water resources. In spite of these, the community is not able to use them due to absence of resources to build new water canals and renovating the existing ones.

In agriculture, the residents of Arpunk village are concerned with lack of access to quality seeds. The difference between actual ranks of the soil and those declared by the State Cadastre is another problem. The village administrator noted that due to this discrepancy, IV or V ranks of non-irrigated lands are classified as I-II rank of irrigated

56

lands. This is why the villagers do not get as much harvest in order to justify the high land taxes.

There is also an issue of selling agricultural production at disadvantageous prices. This is connected with the distance between the village and the regional center (Vardenis) or other urban settlements as well as with lack of outlets in the village for collecting the produce.

It is interesting that social inequality was an even stronger point of concern than all of the abovementioned problems. The village has 900 ha of arable lands that could provide 100 households of the community with stable income. However, according to the focus group participants most of the land belongs to few people and the majority of the villagers get only 1-1.5 hectares of land. The distribution of aid is also unfair: “this is a bordering village; the villagers are like soldiers on a duty. There is a boy who kept the border for 6 years. Today he is one of the neediest people in the village, but the government does not even think of helping him; he doesn’t even get flour.”

GEGHAMASAR

General information Total population 1.122 people Out of which: females 60.0% males 40.0% The number of households 380 Out of which: refugees 353 families Pensioners 214 person Underage children 280 person

As the mass survey showed, the village mayor of Geghamasar and the participants of the focus groups think that the most important issue facing the community is unemployment. According to the data provided by the village mayor only 8% of the population has permanent jobs.

The unemployment worries villagers since the income from agriculture is not enough to satisfy basic needs.

There are many reasons for this situation but the major reason is that the costs of agricultural production are higher than the return. To get quality harvest one needs to have high quality seeds and fertilizers which are financially not viable. The fuel prices are higher than in the market.

Animal husbandry is also expensive since the fodder is expensive and the consumption of the animal products is unprofitable. “The produce of villagers does not have value. 1 liter of best milk is bought at a price of 50 AMD, whereas 0.5 liter of Jermuk, that is not even real Jermuk, costs 150 AMD.”

According to the majority of focus group participants, number one factor for agricultural development is provision of low interest rate loans to the villagers.

57

Gasification, as well as availability of telephone and drinking water is in the list of primary needs of the community. It was mentioned, that there is no drinking water in the lower districts of Geghamasar while it is possible to bring the water down from the upper districts given the necessary financial resources.

The representatives of Geghamasar note several advantages that the village has, particularly the location of the village, flat arable lands as well as convenient meadows for sheep keeping.

METS MASRIK

General information Arable land 2.600 ha Number of households 950 Total population 3.040 people Out of which: refugees 1.100 people Pensioners 423 people Underage children 880 people

According to the village mayor of Mets Masrik, the main advantages of the village are vast areas high quality flat arable land as well as the fact that Mets Masrik is considered to be grain-cropping land. Aside from grain-crops Mets Masrik also grows potato and cabbage and breeds large and small stock. The village climate also allows growing tobacco.

Regarding the community problems, the participants of focus group mentioned bad roads in first place. Occasional rains and winds turn the intra and inter community soil-roads impassable and filling the holes with stones is not a long-term, efficient solution. Other problems in the community are the emergency condition of the internal network of potable water, absence of irrigation system, the poor condition of secondary school and kindergarten.

In agriculture the representatives of Mets Masrik prioritize the import of quality seeds, fertilizers and contemporary technology. Today, the villagers work with old machinery that requires lots of work and provides low productivity. From this perspective, the villagers suggest that the government gives new machinery in return for their harvest.

The fertilizers are so expensive that the majority of the villagers do not use them at all. One of the focus group participants commented: “they told us to use manure instead of fertilizers. To fertilize 1 ha of land you’ll need 40 tons of manure. How many years should I wait so that I have that much manure? Even in that case, how am I going to heat my house?” According to the focus group participants, in order to develop the agriculture and the community living standards it is necessary to provide the villagers with long-term low interest rate loans. “Armenia has a one- year loan system, but the agriculture is a field where you can do nothing in one year. One year loans do not help but rather harm the villagers.”

58

The condition of the villagers can also be improved if a small production company, such as carpet manufacturing were to be established. Since the sheep breeding is developed in the village, the raw material won’t be a problem. Besides, household-based production could be developed. “Let the government contract 20-30 people and let these people weave socks for the army. The market price is 1000 AMD; they could buy from us for 300 AMD.”

KUTAKAN

General information Arable land 1270 ha Meadow 115 ha Total population 305 people Out of which: underage children 85 people over 60 years old 14 people Number of households 76 Out of which: refugees 37 families

Compared with other studied communities Kutakan is perhaps in the best condition. According to the village mayor and focus group participants the village has huge water recourses, opportunities for sheep breeding and grain-crop production. If quality seeds are available, potato growing can be profitable.

With only 76 households the village has 1270 ha of arable land and 115 ha of meadow. The village is supplied with agricultural machinery that completely satisfies the needs of the villagers.

The village is only 17 kilometers away from Azerbaijan and is half populated with refugees, but according to the villagers Kutakan differs from other villages in the region with the people’s pro-activity and ability to solve the village problems on their own. “If in the winter the roads are closed in other villages, our village roads are never closed. They can close, but in 2 days we’ll open them with our efforts and keep the connection with region.”

In contrast with other communities, Kutakan has mostly young and middle age population. During 2000-2004, 24 children were born in the village and the younger generation does not leave the village.

With all listed advantages, the village has several serious problems. For example in this strategically important borderline village there is no telephone line. At the same time, the works on underground cable assembly were finished back in 2000 and all they need now is telephone station and internal network.

According to the focus group participants, it is also important to rebuild the secondary school. One building given to school is half-ruined because of bombing and the other building has only 5 classrooms, thus the classes are held in two shifts. Moreover, the school has not been renovated for the past 15 years; there is no electricity and no water.

59

It is important to note, that the focus group participants claim the villagers do not expect aid from supporting organization, but serious community development programs. “We do not need aid; we can take care for ourselves. We just need some serious investments and our investment will be our workforce and machinery.”

TORFAVAN

General information Total population 527 people Out of which: females 60.2% males 39.8% Number of households 95 Out of which: refugees 80.0% Underage children 171 people Pensioners 114 people

If Kutakan village is in the best condition out of all studied communities, then we can say that Torfavan is in worst condition. There are several objective explanations to this, one of them being that the village does not have arable lands. The village major said that “during privatization the village did not receive any hectare of plot, any head of animals or any unit of machinery.” Recently, the government decided to allocate Torfavan some hectares of arable land from the neighboring Lusakunk village, but the population of the latter not agreeing with the decision, continues to exploit the land.”10

Not having possibility of earning living in the village, the young people have left Torfavan to temporarily work abroad. The residents also get desperate and migrate because the subsystems and public buildings are in hopeless condition. According to the focus group participants 70% of the villagers do not have drinking water; the village does not have natural gas and there is no telephone connection. At the same time the major gas pipes pass right by Torfavan and the village only needs to create internal network and get permission to use these pipelines.

The representatives of Torfavan do not see any ways out of the current situation. According to them Torfavan was and will be left out of the attention of the government and community development organizations, which is largely due to small population of the village. The focus group participants also agree that in a few years the village will be completely unpopulated because there is no hopeful future for them. “Tell me, what’s the villager without plot? What development are we talking about if the villager does not have a small plot to saw or to graze animals and be able to provide his family with food?”

10 For these purpose, the active residents had left the village to demonstrate against the government the day we held the focus group

60

TRETUK

General information Arable land 910 ha Total population 300 person Out of which: 18-60 years old 70.0% Number of households 67 Out of which: refugees 94.0%

Tretuk village (named Inakdagh and later Yenikend) was previously populated with Azerbaijani. Today the village is almost completely inhabited with refugees from Kirovabad, Baku, Dashkend, Khanlar, Getashen and Shahumyan.

Grain-crop production and small and large stock animal breeding is widespread in Tretuk. Based on the past experience, tobacco and potato can be grown in the village. In any case, today, according to the village mayor, these plants and vegetables are quite difficult to grow because the plot that belongs to the community is not being irrigated.

“Today due to not watering, we get 1 ton of grain-crop out of 1 hectare while if we had water we could get three times the harvest. Previously, we had 425 hectares of grain-crops, 30 hectares of tobacco and 22 hectares of potato plots – all irrigated. Now we have only 6 hectares of irrigated potato plot”. Moreover, the focus group participants think that the problem is not the water per se, but bad condition of irrigation system due to which 80% of the resources disappear.

Anyway, according to the respondents, number one obstacle for the plant-growing development is the lack of quality seeds. The harvest level sharply drops when the villagers use bad seeds. “We sow 1 hectare of potato and get 2-3 tons of harvest, while we could get 40-50 tons if we had quality seeds.” It is important to note, that the judgments of the respondents about the quality of seeds are not based on theory but on their own experience. “Professor Avagyan gave us 10 kg quality seeds of potato; I planted and got 150 kg harvest. I had never seen such a thing,” said one of the focus group participants.

The villagers see some development perspectives for the future. There is a positive development in education field. With the help of the Social Investments Fund, the village school was renovated. The kindergarten still functions.

Villagers claim, that if the irrigation water problem is solved and the villagers are given an opportunity to get high quality seeds, then the plant-growing will develop as well, which will improve the living standards of the population.

61

TTUJUR

General information Total population 1072 people Out of which: females 48.5% males 51.5% Number of households 286

The villagers in Ttujur are mostly concerned with low living standards, which is due to unemployment and low profitability of agriculture. According to the village mayor as well as focus group representatives there are about 260 people with higher education, there is a potential for animal husbandry and plant-growing development. The respondents claim that this potential is not used for several reasons.

First of all the irrigation system is worn out and the natural disasters, particularly hail, cause low harvest and poor quality of production. “Often the villager buys potato himself, since the harvest is poor”. In addition, most of the plot in the village is not cultivated due to the lack of agricultural machinery.

The problem in animal husbandry is different. The villagers of Ttujur as well as all other residents of the studied communities are concerned with consumer demand for their products and the lack of profit. According to the respondents an important factor is the isolation from the marz center and the absence of transportation. Aside from finding solutions to agricultural issues, the community residents also think that internal and external systems of drinking water need to be fixed. The kindergarten that was damaged during the war needs to be renovated, as well.

GETIK

General information Total population 375 people Out of which: females 58.0% males 42.0% Number of households 60 Out of which: married couples on pension 25 families

Both the village mayor and focus group participants mentioned that the biggest problem in the village is that the aged people comprise the majority of the village’s population. Due to bad social conditions, 20% of the youth in the community has left the country. The facts that in 2004 there were no children born in the village and that there are only 2 kids in the first grade of the school, speak of bad living standards of the population. The worst thing, perhaps, is that the villagers do not see any future for their village and even the village mayor is not going to let his children stay in the village.

According to the focus group participants, the only advantage of Getik village is the diligence of the villagers. It is due to their efforts that out of the entire region only in

62

Getik the internal sewerage was built and still functions. In any case, the sewerage is the only infrastructure that is in fair condition.

Another big problem is the condition of the roads due to which “it takes 1 hour to get to our border from Yerevan and 1.5 hours from the border to our village.” The drinking water as well as irrigation water systems are in alarming condition and need to be renovated immediately. As the village mayor said, a project totaling to 52.000 USD was presented to the Social Investments Fund to have the drinking water system renovated. Unfortunately the project still remains untouched, since the community is not even able to make the required 10% investment. To develop potato and wheat growing that are quite popular in the community, the villagers need quality seeds and agricultural machinery although the focus group participants cannot imagine who could help them with these issues. The villagers are discouraged due to the consequences of natural disasters: “we plant potatoes and get half ton of harvest. On one hand we get bad quality seeds, on the other hand the hail damages the harvest.”

MARTUNI

General information Total population 800 people Out of which: underage children 170 people youth (18-30 years old) 200 people Pensioners 180 people

Martuni village has lots of meadows and therefore the main occupation of the villagers is animal husbandry. According to the village mayor lots of farms established back in Soviet Union are still functioning. Moreover, many entrepreneurs have increased the head count of animals. Additionally, collection points are being created for cheese and milk production. According to an entrepreneur whose business deals with collecting and processing the organizations supporting agriculture should help similar organizations to better organize their business and support in marketing of the products.

Although the villagers are not focused on plant-growing, according to focus group participants it is possible to develop it (particularly potato and grain-crop production) given quality seeds and machinery. To get the latter, it is necessary to have low rate long-term loans. Not having enough finances for purchasing agricultural machinery or leasing it, the villagers do not cultivate the land, and the soil quality slowly degrades. It is very important to have supervision over seed quality: “people buy seeds, believing that they are of good quality, but who has checked it? We need laboratory examinations.”

Martuni villagers also think it’s important to have a flour mill, which can be built with mutual investments of donor organizations and the community. According to the villagers, in case of appropriate financial investments, the activists of the village – entrepreneurs and professionals – can contribute to solving the problems of the community.

63

CONCLUSIONS

This study allowed drawing several important conclusions:

� The low living standards of the population of the studied regions are conditioned by a number of factors, including loss-making agriculture production. This itself is caused by lack of access to high quality seeds, insecticides and fertilizers, by unavailability or disrepair of infrastructure and agricultural machinery, by difficulty to enter the market, as well as by lack of agricultural knowledge.

� Given that potatoes are the basic food for the overwhelming majority of the families, the most important factor here is the quality of seeds. The study has shown that those villagers who used high quality potato seeds provided by Shen NGO, given other equal conditions, got almost 10 times more harvest than their neighbors.

� Another obstacle limiting effective agricultural production is the lack of disaster preparedness. This is primarily the result of a lack of awareness of the possible mechanisms to fight the damaging consequences of the disasters. The population of the region is concerned that the damages caused by the disasters are not compensated in any way.

� The population is currently facing the problem of food provision and of basic survival. The participants of the survey claimed that agricultural production does not allow the majority of the villagers to even ensure the basic needs of their families. Given this situation, making high quality seeds available for the villagers can be regarded as priority measure to improve the livelihood of the population.

� Given the limited income earning options through agriculture, the population considers unemployment to be the most important problem in their communities. This issue needs to be particularly addressed in urban settlements of the marz, where the population has very limited opportunity to engage in agriculture.

� Establishment of entities for processing of agriculture products in regional centers can be an effective method of fighting unemployment and promoting agriculture. This, on one hand, will give chance to the urban population to have a stable job, and, on the other hand, will facilitate the sales of agricultural production of the nearby villages.

64

� An additional option for creating workplaces is establishment of small manufacture of carpet-making, textile production and etc. either in urban or rural areas of the region.

� Another important prerequisite for development of agriculture is the provision of the villagers with acceptable agricultural loans. The respondents believe that short-term loans are not useful in agriculture; on the contrary, they further complicate the situation for the villagers. In contrast, long-term loans can significantly contribute to effective and profitable agricultural production. However, we consider it necessary to make an important reservation to these expectations. The average annual household income of the population is approximately 500 USD. Given this result it seems unreasonable to provide the villagers with loans of bigger amount, since they will simply be unable to manage and return the investment. On the other hand, the fact that the majority of respondents face problems with ensuring the basic needs of their families raises concerns about the proper utilization of the loans, as well.

� We consider it necessary to note, that although refugee-populated communities are in a worse social and economic situation, the results of the study show that some of these communities, such as Kutakan or Arpunk have high development indicators, and hence have good development potential.

� The attitude of population towards local government is an issue of concern. The negative attitude is conditioned by the government’s passive role and inability to address the needs of the population. The respondents are particularly dissatisfied with the indifference of the government towards the bordering regions that are of strategic importance to the country. According to the participants of the survey, the government does not undertake any steps to tie the villagers with the land and to decrease the migration rate.

� On the other hand, the results of the study speak about the lack of the knowledge among population regarding the roles and responsibilities of the local government. Moreover, people are unaware of their own rights and therefore cannot formulate any justified expectations or demands from the local self-governing bodies.

� The healthcare sphere also needs assistance. The major issue of concern in these terms is the lack of professional medical staff in rural areas. Due to this, the population is forced to solve the health problems either in regional centers, which the majority cannot afford financially, or turn to self-treatment, which is unacceptable in the case of serious diseases.

65

� The population of the studied communities is also concerned about the lack of cooperation between organizations engaged in community development and lack of sustainable community development projects. Due to these, in some communities of the region several programs are being implemented at a time, while other communities remain untouched. Besides, the programs often stay unfinished or fail to address the primary needs of the population.

� The active population of the communities thinks that popular programs of humanitarian aid provision makes the situation even worse, because they resulted in dependence on such aid and an unwillingness to put efforts in improving their own livelihood. At the same time, the respondents have stressed that the population is ready to contribute to implementation of any effective and well-thought community development program. The population is also ready to return the financial investments by either their harvest or labor.