A Collaborative Programme for Knowledge Systems in Support of Rural Livelihoods

Project Preparation Phase, September - December 2003

Visit to Armenia 16th – 24th November 2003

Stephen Rudgard – FAO S. Janakiram – World Bank

Dylan Winder – DFID Michal Demes – FAO

John Young - ODI

i

Acronyms and Abbreviations AAA Armenia Academy of Agriculture AKIS Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems ASC Agricultural Support Centres ASRC Agricultural Support Republican Centre ASMC Agricultural Support Marz Centre Cadastre The government agency responsible for land allocation CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research DFID UK Department for International Development EC European Commission EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FIVIMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Mapping System GTZ German Technical Agency ICD Information and Communication for Development ICT Information Communication Technologies IT Information Technology Marz District MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoTT Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications MoES Ministry of Education and Science MoH Ministry of Health NGO Non Government Agency NSS National Statistics Service ODI Overseas Development Institute PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers RI Research Institutes SDC Swiss Development Commission SoE State Owned Enterprise UNDP United Nations Development Programme USDA United States Department of Agriculture VERCON Virtual Extension and Research Communication Network WB World Bank WTO World Trade Organisation

ii

Index Acronyms and Abbreviations....................................................................................... i Index ...........................................................................................................................ii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

The Study ..............................................................................................................................1 This Report............................................................................................................................1

2. The principles of livelihood approaches and good ICDs......................................... 1 The livelihoods approach......................................................................................................1 The principles of good ICD ...................................................................................................2

3. A map of the ICD Context in Armenia .................................................................... 2 The existing ICD infrastructure .............................................................................................2 Institutions and Information Needs .......................................................................................3 Policies, Plans and Cultural Factors.....................................................................................4 Knowledge Processes ..........................................................................................................5

Agricultural and other research and learning processes.................................................5 Cultural, political, economic, environmental and external factors........................................6

4. Strengths and Weaknesses ................................................................................... 6 Strengths ...............................................................................................................................6 Weaknesses..........................................................................................................................7

5. Possible project activities ....................................................................................... 8 6. Armenia’s contribution to the overall programme ................................................... 9 Appendix 1 – An ICD Map for Armenia .................................................................... 10 Appendix 2 – Itinerary .............................................................................................. 12 Appendix 3 – Contacts ............................................................................................. 13 Appendix 4 - Documents Collected .......................................................................... 15 Appendix 5 - Document Summaries......................................................................... 17 Appendix 6 - Terms of Reference ............................................................................ 20

1

1. Introduction The Study Provision of Information and knowledge services are recognized as essential components of the development process to empower poor communities, enhance skills, inform development agencies and policy makers, and for linking and informing decision-making processes at every level. Recent advances in information and communication technologies have created new opportunities to accelerate this process. However, information and communication systems are rarely well integrated into development strategies and programs. The study will address these issues at two levels – one, the policy environment and two at the operational level but will be limited to those policies and operations which are directly targeted at the rural poor and will explore the role of institutions in the implementation of ICD policy and support to poor rural communities.

The study will be carried out in two phases, the first phase focusing on the development of a common framework and approaches for the design and implementation of information and communication activities for improving rural livelihoods, and exploring possibilities for investments to complement on-going initiatives and to collaborate with proposed operations by bilateral and multilateral development organizations. This will include literature reviews, field visits to Vietnam and Armenia, in-country studies in Mali and Ecuador, and discussions with a wide range of staff in all three agencies. This Report This report provides the results of the field visit to Armenia. Section 1 provides a Map of the ICD context in Armenia developed during the visit using a simple framework. Section 2 provides an analysis of some strengths and weaknesses of ICD in Armenia. Section 3 outlines some possible project activities which could improve the policy context and practical implementation of ICD in Armenia, contributing to poverty reduction. Section 4 describes the potential benefits of these to the joint programme as a whole. Appendix 1 provides a more detailed version of the ICD context in Armenia, based on the framework. An itinerary of the visit is attached as Appendix 2, a list of contacts in Appendix 3. Appendix 4 provides a list of the documents collected and consulted during the visit, with some brief summaries of some of them in Appendix 5. The terms of Reference for the visit are provided in Appendix 6. 2. The principles of livelihood approaches and good ICDs The previous DFID/FAO/ODI collaboration included a literature review, and field visits to Ghana, Uganda and India. The work identified how the livelihoods approach could usefully be applied to ICD projects in rural areas, and some principles to ensure that information and communication systems in rural areas improved the livelihoods of poor people. These are summarised below. The livelihoods approach

Livelihoods approaches have been extensively researched and developed over the last decade. An initial emphasis on a complex model has given way to a simpler set of principles. A livelihoods approach to rural information and communication systems would work with poor people in rural areas to identify their information and communication needs, and with the various institutions they interact with to develop information and communication systems to meet those needs. The systems would be demand driven, developed and implemented in participation with all stakeholders, with feedback loops to monitor progress and make changes as necessary, and would seek to build on existing strengths rather than introducing external solutions to overcome constraints. A livelihood approach would also develop or support appropriate policies, institutions

2

and processes to promote the new systems, would foster linkages between community and policy-level processes and would focus on delivering outcomes rather than outputs. The principles of good ICD The literature review and field trips indicated that for rural information and communication systems to effectively support rural livelihoods they should: � share costs appropriately, between government for public goods information services and

social protection, and users for private goods, and work in partnership with the private sector to ensure effective coverage in remote rural areas,

� ensure equitable access to all, especially women, the poor, the disabled, people living in remote areas and otherwise disadvantaged communities,

� contain a high proportion of local or appropriately localized content, both to maximize local usefulness and uptake, and to enrich local, national and international knowledge,

� build on existing systems, including information content (indigenous knowledge, local sources and databases etc), information technology (TV, radio, telephone, internet etc), processes (existing surveys, research and extension etc), and policy environment.

� build capacity at the local level to generate content and use new technologies, among intermediaries and knowledge brokers, practitioners and policy makers,

� use realistic technologies, which can used easily, managed and maintained, integrate existing and new technologies and are affordable,

� build knowledge partnerships between knowledge users, producers and intermediaries at and across all levels to convert information into useful knowledge.

3. A map of the ICD Context in Armenia The team interviewed a wide range of people at National, Provincial, Regional and Village level (see appendix 3) and a wide range of documents (see Appendix 4) to “map” the ICD context in Armenia. The map provides information on the different dimensions of ICDs in rural areas including i) the physical ICD infrastructure ii) institutions and their information needs; iii) policies and plans; iv) research, extension and other knowledge processes and v) Cultural, Political, Economic, Environmental and External Factors at International, National, Sub-National and household level. A summary table of this map is provided in Appendix 1. Brief descriptions of each of these dimensions are presented below. Armenia is a country in transition from centralised planning to market economy, and suffered an almost catastrophic economic and infrastructural collapse following a rather reluctant independence in 1993. Early independence was marred by conflict in Nagorno Karabach followed by the massacre of 6 leading politicians in parliament in 1996. Since then the country has seen greater political stability than its neighbours, but conflicts in neighbouring countries has obstructed exports and discouraged commercial investment. Political stability and substantial investment by the International Financial Institutions, Multilateral and Bilateral Donors and Non-Governmental Agencies has stimulated significant economic growth over the last few years, and provides some cause for optimism, though over 50% of the population still live in poverty in decaying housing with very poor services. The existing ICD infrastructure The electricity supply in Armenia has improved dramatically recently, especially in towns, though the supply in some villages is still unreliable. There is a relatively good road network throughout much of the country, although roads to some remote mountain villages are poor. Most farmers have very limited access to markets, tending to barter surpluses locally, or through middlemen. The postal service is extremely slow and unreliable, especially to remote villages.

3

Telecommunications in Armenia is dominated by a single company, Armentel (90% owned by OTE, Greece) which was granted a 15 year monopoly 2012 (although this is being reconsidered by the government, and may be rescinded as early as December 2003). Armentel controls all fixed and mobile networks, and the county’s single gateway to the internet backbone, through Georgia. Although contracted to deliver digital lines to all 800 villages by 2005 (?) it has so far only managed to connect the major towns and regional centres and 3% of villages. The remainder are served by decaying, copper / mechanical systems which frequently don’t work. The mobile network only works in the major towns, only has 40,000 users and is prohibitively expensive. There are several Internet Service Providers. The largest, @rminco, has roughly 60% of the market. Dial-up internet access is available in the major towns, wherever there are digital lines, though even this is slow and unreliable, but major users including donors, agencies and larger companies have permanent connections through tied-lines. @rminco can provide access in other areas through Wireless Local Loop, radio and WiFi connections, though this is expensive (c$10-20,000 to install and $1,000 per month to run). Some government departments have relatively good internet connectivity, others, including the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), have poor connections, even in Yerevan. Few government departments have good connections outside the capital. There are National TV and Radio stations which broadcast to most of the country, although reception is impossible in some remote mountain villages. There are many local private TV & Radio stations, though most are small and have limited coverage. Wire-radio still exists and operates in some remote areas. There are many national and regional newspapers, though with low circulation. Few newspapers reach villages, especially in remote regions. Most families, even poor families in remote villages own a TV and radio. Institutions and Information Needs Yerevan is full of Multilateral, Bilateral and Non Governmental Donors and Development Organisations each with their own information and communication needs and activities. Armenia has weak links to International Information and Communication Institutions such as the CGIAR Institutes, and since relatively few people speak English, can make little use of the information they provide. There are stronger links and information exchange with Russian and other Newly Independent State institutions. There are very many National Institutions with an interest and role in information and communication issues including the recently formed ICT Development Council (set up by the Ministry of Trade and Economic Development) and the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications (MoTT), although both focus on communication technology rather than information content and use. A Telecommunications Agency has been established recently to oversee further liberalisation of the telecommunications sector. The MoA, Armenia Academy of Agriculture (AAA) under the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES), and the semi-privatised Agricultural Support Republican Centre (ASRC), play a major role in information and communications in rural areas, for the agricultural sector. The Agricultural Research Sector is weak, and links between it and the extension services virtually non-existent. The MoES, Ministry of Health (MoH) and other Sectoral Ministries also need and supply information, although the MoH seems to be the only one to reach effectively down to village level. The National Statistics Service (NSS) received donor support recently to strengthen capacity for the last census, and provides a wide range of credible, though under-utilised information for government departments.

4

The main institutions involved in information and communication content and delivery at regional level and to the rural areas are the national and local TV & Radio Stations and newspapers, the Agricultural Support Marz Centres (ASMC), and Administrative and specialist staff based at the Governor’s Offices, and donor-funded projects. There are few farmers’ associations because cooperatives are taxed, and people fear anything that looks like a return to soviet-style institutions. Mayors and Village Heads have virtually no resources, even to maintain their offices. In reality little external information reaches people in rural areas other than through face-to-face and telephone (if it works) word-of-mouth, second-hand newspapers, TV & Radio Stations and donor-funded community-based organisations (e.g. Oxfam Health Committees). Some donor-funded information and communications projects, for example Project Harmony’s village computer centres, provide models of new approaches that could be scaled up, though may be difficult to sustain. Policies, Plans and Cultural Factors New international policies and processes will demand new approaches to and systems for information and communication, for example the processes of European Union (EU) Accession and World Trade Organisation (WTO) Membership. The implementation of the new Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), will demand greater, visible, participation by civil society, and improved reporting of progress against indicators and milestones (which are still being developed). Rescinding the ArmenTel monopoly in December 2003 (if it happens) could have a very dramatic impact on the availability and cost of telecommunications in Armenia, and the planned southern link to the Trans-Asia-Europe backbone will speed up internet access. The ICT Master Strategy has been replaced by a more realistic ICT Strategic Plan which will include improving ITC infrastructure and use within government as well as promoting the ICT industry more generally. The PRSP has just been forwarded to the WB for approval, and Departments are working on Sectoral Implementation Plans. The 2002 Strategy for Sustainable Agricultural Production is being reappraised in the light of this, and there are proposals to reorganise Agricultural Research and Extension and improve the linkages between them by creating new combined research/extension structures at regional level. There remain differences of opinion between the major donors in the agriculture sector, including the World Bank and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) which may undermine this. A few government departments and processes, e.g. the National Cadastre, have well developed digital information systems and are connected to, and share information with regional offices via the internet. Most have internet connections and the Ministry of Telecom and Transport has a programme to upgrade ICT in all government departments. The Ministry of Agriculture is one of the last to be improved because it has moved buildings twice recently. There are many donor proposals and plans for digital information systems within government departments and e-governance initiatives (e.g. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) / Swiss Development Commission (SDC)), but little coordination between them. Regions develop 3-year development plans, and report progress against these annually, but in reality development programmes are largely driven from the centre, often driven more by donor agendas than national plans. Donors meet regularly to share information, but there is little coordination between them. While some (e.g. the Netherlands and European Commission (EC)) provide budget support, others focus on specific projects. Many hope that the PRSP implementation plans will provide a mechanism for greater national ownership

5

of development plans and greater coherence and efficiency of donor support, and a proposal for an integrated state information system to support it. Some donors (e.g. Department for International Development (DFID) and German Technical Agency (GTZ)) have programmes to strengthen regional planning processes, and recognise that improved information and communication systems will be a key element. Knowledge Processes Agricultural and other research and learning processes There are many donor-driven evaluations and studies about all aspects of Armenian Development, but most are formulated to inform the donors rather then Armenia. There are five Agricultural Research Centres in Armenia which undertake research sponsored by donors and have some collaborative projects with Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Institutes, although there is an acute shortage of resources, and no clearly articulated national research programme. Research Centres have poor IT infrastructure and connectivity, but do use the internet to obtain information, and publish locally and in Russian-language journals. The AAA focuses on teaching rather than research, though staff do undertake small on-farm research projects funded by the USDA Competitive Grant Scheme. Although each project includes seminars and publications, and some of the results are published in locally there is no systematic programme to harvest the results for extension through the Extension Centre within the AAA or the Agricultural Support Centres. The National PRSP process included substantial participation by civil society, largely orchestrated by Non Government Organisations (NGOs), though it is not clear how this participation will continue through the implementation phase. Some NGOs (e.g. Oxfam) are establishing Citizen’s Advice Centres at regional level to lobby for and provide a mechanism for continued civil society engagement. Armenians are well-educated, and the country has retained its impressive Soviet-era intellectual reputation, but many educated Armenians leave the country for work overseas, and there is a critical lack especially of well-trained IT professionals. @rminco runs the only Microsoft-accredited IT training centre in Yerevan. There are few mechanisms for learning about the reality of life in the rural areas. Of the few extension services that do reach rural areas, most focus on delivering extension messages to farmers, rather than learning from them. The USDA runs some Farmer Field Schools, although again, these are generally regarded as mechanisms to impart knowledge and skills, not to learn from farmers. Some NGOs are developing rights-based activities in the health and agriculture sectors in rural areas, focusing on empowering communities to demand the services they are theoretically entitled to (e.g. the Basic Needs Package) and/or deliver their own services. Agricultural and other knowledge sharing processes There are many sources of information about Armenia on the internet on Armenian Government, UN, Multilateral, Bilateral and Non-Governmental Sites. The Armenia Country Gateway of the WB Development Gateway (http://www.gateway.am/index.jsp), and Agroweb Armenia (http://www.agrowebcaucasus.org/awa/ministry.html) provide links to many of these. Most though are in English, and although there is some information available in Russian, there is very little in Armenian. There are fora at national level for NGOs, and Multilateral and Bilateral Donors to share information about their programmes, and much talk among government and the donor community about the need for better coordination. UNDP has a number of information and

6

communication projects aiming to contribute to this, and many hope that the implementation of the PRSP will help the government to provide better guidance to donors. Among government departments, the health department has the most effective infrastructure for distributing information in rural areas through regional and village-level polyclinics and health centres, which until recently have continued to achieve virtually 100% vaccination coverage for children. Agricultural information and extension is delivered through the Agricultural Support Centres (ASCs), and USDA Farmer Field Schools and other channels, though the division of responsibility for agricultural extension between the AAA (under the Ministry of Education) and the ASCs (under the Ministry of Agriculture) has created confusion, duplication and poor coordination. Regional government also organises training courses and seminars for farmers. Donor-funded projects also deliver agricultural information and extension in the regions where they are active. There is little coordination between these services, and some donors (including DFID and GTZ) have projects at regional level to help regional government develop more coherent plans, and improve coordination at regional level. Most households own TVs and radios, and although they carry little agricultural information at the moment (national TV has just one 20 minute slot on agriculture each week) some of the ASCs have been collaborating with local TV, radio and newspapers to increase the volume and relevance of agricultural and rural development-relevant information. Cultural, political, economic, environmental and external factors Armenians are highly educated, industrious, have a strong cultural identity and the land offers scope for a wide variety of agricultural production (albeit with difficulty). But Armenia shares many of the problems of other post-soviet countries in transition, including lack of investment, infrastructural decay and post-soviet attitudes, where bureaucrats are used to issuing orders, and communities wait to be told what to do, and to receive state benefits. In addition to which Armenia has poor access to international markets (all exports must transit through neighbouring countries, many of which are politically unstable) natural disasters (the 1998 earthquake, and recent frost damage), conflict (Nagorno-Karabakh), and brain-drain (over 50% of Armenians live outside the country). Strong donor investment and political stability over the last few years has stimulated the economy and paved the way for further growth, but has led to a fragmented donor-driven development programme. The lack of access to markets in rural areas, highly seasonal nature of agricultural production has forced farmers towards a barter economy and subsistence agriculture from it is difficult to escape. 4. Strengths and Weaknesses The map helped to identify a number of strengths and weaknesses of ICDs in rural areas in Armenia, which are summarised below: Strengths

� The population has a high literacy rate in all areas as a result of good secondary level education stemming from the former Soviet system.

� Armenia was a highly industrialized nation in the Soviet period, with strong mechanical and IT sectors. Therefore, specialized skills are available, although ICT skills are dated

7

� Armenia is currently going through the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process and the PRSP was being put to the World Bank board at the time of the mission. There is some donor co-ordination around the PRSP and this should set clearer high-level priorities for Government.

� The need for better Information and communication is widely recognized by all stakeholders at all levels and there is an enthusiasm for ICD.

� Liberalization of telecoms regulation is imminent and will lead to more competition, greater investment in infrastructure and lower prices for users.

� Basic Infrastructure (Roads, Irrigation, power supply) is relatively good, with wide penetration to rural areas except the most remote and mountainous areas.

� There is good donor engagement with substantial resources flowing into Armenia. � TV, radio is widely available at National and regional levels. � Remittances provide additional income, with a higher number of Armenians working outside

the country than within (3 million resident in Armenia, approx 4 million Diaspora). � Potential for cash crops and agricultural exports exists, with access to international markets

developing (EU accession will make a big difference here) and products such as wine being produced widely.

Weaknesses

� Lack of Donor co-ordination/ harmonization has lead to confusion over service delivery at local levels, duplication of activities and sectoral silos at ministry level.

� Donor dependency has created a donor driven agenda and removed power and public accountability from Government systems.

� There is almost a complete absence of feedback and bottom-up information flows from rural areas.

� There is a lack of horizontal information flows at all levels. � There is a lack of awareness of market economy � There are very low incentives in public sector, particularly due to low salaries. This has led to

low moral and poor productivity amongst Ministry staff. � The legacy of centralized planning system has left a cultural expectation of planning from

above and low incentives to participate in policy processes and demand high quality services. � Duplication in extension system has been caused through donor funding schemes and lack of

Ministry level resources. This has been hampered by the lack of Government owned, robust and prioritized policies in the rural and agricultural sectors

� There is limited reach of the Government extension system to rural areas due to resource and logistical constraints.

� No formal information systems for policy making exist in Agricultural sector, again due to limited resources, but also the legacy of centralized planning and the lack of coordination between Ministries and sectors.

� There are weak institutional structures below regional level. � Diaspora has led to a brain drain from Armenia of those qualified and motivated enough to

seek employment elsewhere. � There is poor penetration of digital ICTs and telecoms into rural areas, and where telecoms

exist, they are old, decayed and have been used for alternate purposes. � Language barriers exist. The Armenian script has not yet been digitally coded effectively for

low quality printing purposes characters are too similar to be defined. Most web content is English, which is not widely used in Armenia (second language is Russian).

� The agricultural research system is weak , disjointed and dominated by donors, and links with the extension system are very limited

8

� There is no electronic information network within the Ministry of Agriculture and know knowledge management strategy. The Ministry also lacks staff with information/IT skills.

5. Possible project activities The strengths and weaknesses of the ICD context in Armenia described in Sections 3 and 4 provide a rich environment to develop and test new livelihoods-oriented approaches to information and communication in rural areas based on the principles of good ICD described in Section 2. Although much more work will be necessary to identify specific partners and detailed proposals for practical pilot projects there are a number of opportunities which would be worth exploring in more detail. These could include: � Working with the MoA to:

1) develop a strategic approach to policies and practical actions for communications in the rural areas;

2) help the MoA to integrate these approaches within future Donor strategies and programmes including the WB Country Assistance Strategy, European Community Food security Project (Second Tranche), DFID Regional Development Programme, and United States Agriculture Department Marketing Assistance Project.

� Establishing a core group of senior professionals working in the agricultural development sphere to share ideas about how better information and communications in rural areas can contribute to rural development and poverty reduction, and develop a cadre of experts who can help to put it into practice.

� Working with the MoA and AAA to develop a coherent digital information system to capture the outputs of agricultural research in Armenia, and make it easily accessible to policy makers, practitioners and researchers.

� Working with the Republican and Marz-level Agricultural Support Centres to develop nationals and local information content to inform farmers directly and through extension systems. This would include collaborating with and strengthening links between the ASCs and National and Regional radio, TV and newspapers to increase the quality and volume of relevant and useful information available to people living in rural areas.

� Working with the Ministry of Agriculture to develop an integrated digital decision support system to provide instant access to relevant information for policy development and strategic decisions. This would include information about production systems, production statistics, donor projects and their impact, research, internal and external markets, rural investments and relevant information about other Ministries engagement in rural areas.

� Working with @rminco, national and regional ARCs, and AgroPress to develop and pilot innovative approaches to increasing information content, availability and feedback at Marz and village level. This might include: o private radio-based internet connections between national, regional and village centres, o integrated multi-media content (web, sound, video, print), o traditional agricultural extension through visits, seminars, workshops and exhibitions etc o broadcasting through mass media (radio, TV, newspapers) o feedback to government through integrated village-box, post, e-mail, and internet.

� Helping donors to integrate ICD within the new rural development programmes (e.g. WB Rural Development Programme, DFID Regional Development Project, and EC Food Security Project).

� Collaborating with NGOs to integrate ICD into their community-based activities and improve linkages with government and other programmes (e.g. Oxfam).

9

6. Armenia’s contribution to the overall programme Working in Armenia would provide benefits to the programme itself, and to Armenia. These are outlined below. For Armenia: � Improved national information and communication policies and processes. � Improved capacity for the MoA to use ICD for planning, policy-making and programme

implementation. � Improved coordination of donor-funded information and communication activities in rural

areas. � Improved human capacity in information and communication policies and practices especially

for rural areas. � Improved information availability in rural areas through government, non-government, private

sector and mass media channels. � Improved linkages between research and extension. More relevant research undertaken

(due to better feedback), and improved impact (through better communication of results to policy makers, practitioners and rural communities).

For the Programme: � The opportunity to explore how improved ICD can contribute to rural development and

poverty reduction in a unique transitional environment. � The opportunity to work with highly educated and motivated rural development professionals,

who are keen to explore new approaches to information and communication in an environment where resources for traditional face-to-face methods are highly constrained.

� Good timing: o A new agriculture strategy is being prepared to contribute to the PRSP o Incipient reorganization of research and extension organizations and relations. o Many donors are working on new strategies and projects.

� Enthusiastic collaborators: o The Minister of Agriculture is keen to establish a team within the MoA to collaborate with

the programme. o WB, DFID and EC staff invited the programme to engage in their current strategy and

programme development processes.

10

Appendix 1 – An ICD Map for Armenia Knowledge Processes Physical ICD

infrastructure Institutions involved in information activities

Policies & Plans Research / Learning Extension / Sharing

Cult., Political, Econ. Env. & Ext. Factors

International � Single link to internet backbone through Georgia

� Armentel owned by OTE, Greece

� CGIAR Institutes? � Donors � Bilateral & Multilateral

and Non Governmental Development Organizations

� Donor Fiscal Policy & Mechanisms (PRSPs).

� EU Accession � WTO Membership

� Donor Evaluations

� International Research

� Diaspora

� UN System � International

Conferences � Academia � Diaspora

� Transition � Conflict

National � ArmenTel monopoly of fixed-line phones and internet backbone

� Internet filter � Decaying, copper /

mechanical telephone in most, but not all villages

� Digital in most towns, but only 3% of villages by 2002.

� Mobile network (40,000+ users)

� Internet Access only in major towns – 3 big ISPs + 14 smaller ones

� @rminco establishing private internet connectivity with WLL, WiFi etc

� ICT Development Council and Secretariat.

� Telecommunications Agency

� Ministry of Transport and Communication.

� The Ministry of Trade and Economic Development

� The Ministry of Agriculture

� Armenian Development Agency (ADA)

� Armenia Academy of Agriculture (AAA)

� Ministry of Education and Science

� Bilaterals Multilaterals � International and

National NGO Offices � Research Institutes � Nat Statistics Service � Universities � TV & Radio Stations � ASRC � Ministry of Territorial

Administration � National Unions and

Associations.

� ArmenTel monopoly ending Dec 2003

� PRSP and associated sector plans

� 2002 Strategy for Sustainable Agricultural Production being reappraised

� ICT Master Strategy being replaced by Strategic Plan

� World Bank Agricultural Reform Support Project (ARSP).

� Proposed Integrated State Information System.

� University Research Agendas

� Food Security Programme (EC)

� USDA Market Improvement Project

� Other donor programmes and projects

� E-governance initiatives

� Agricultural & Other Research

� National PRSP processes

� Competitive Grant Schemes

� Organisations’ evaluation of projects

� Individual pilot ICT projects e.g. CIDA

� @rminco Microsoft course

� Global Development Gateway

� Agroweb Armenia � NGO Coordination � Donor Meetings

Coordination Meetings

� Agricultural and other Extension/Service Delivery

� UNDP Agribusiness Directory

� Transition � Conflict � Hangover from

centralised planning � High Literacy � Natural disasters

(e.g. earthquakes, Frost, Drought)

� Gender Issues � Topography

11

Knowledge Processes Physical ICD infrastructure

Institutions involved in information activities

Policies & Plans Research / Learning Extension / Sharing

Cult., Political, Econ. Env. & Ext. Factors

Region (marz)

� Mobile network and ISPs only in major towns

� Provincial TV & Radio broadcasts at provincial and Regional-level Ditto

� Limited Internet access

� Good electricity supply

� Governors Office � Regional Administration � Regional Administrative

sectoral experts � TV & Radio Stations � Agricultural Support

Centres (ASC). � Farmers organisations � Donor-funded projects � Civil society foundations

(e.g. Oxfam health)

� 3 year Regional Development Plans

� E-governance system connecting the regional and national levels (UNDP/SDC)

� UNDP support to the improvement of sustainable agriculture production in Lori and Tavush Regions.

� DFID support to Community Dev plans in ? regions

� ARSP Agrobusiness development centres

� Regional PRSP processes

� Agricultural research

� Donor-funded participatory projects

� Extension Services

� Donor-driven projects

� Gender Issues

Town/Village � Poor roads � Limited access to

markets � Reliable Electricity

supply � Telephones in most

villages, but old technology and unreliable

� Poor postal service

� Municipal Leaders � Village Heads, but has

no budget � Few cooperatives

(because are taxed) � Other community-based

organisations (e.g. Oxfam Health Committees)

� Some donor funded projects (patchy coverage)

� Project Harmony

� None

� Farmer Field Schools

� Farmer training � Rights-based

activities/advocacy � Focus Group

discussion/PPAs � Small-scale

applied research projects

� Limited opportunities to share channels with other sectors

� Leaflets, Newsletters,

� Radio, TV � Markets

� Barter economy � Gender Issues

Household � Very poor electricity and other services.

� TV & Radio � Few newspapers � Very limited access to

markets

NA NA Ditto Ditto � Gender issues � Minimal Access to

cash

12

Appendix 2 – Itinerary Monday 17th November - Yerevan � Deputy Minister of Agriculture and staff at the Ministry of Agriculture, Yerevan � Director and staff at the Agricultural Support Republican Centre, Yerevan � Staff at the World Bank Country Office � Team discussion at hotel Tuesday 18th November � Head of Extension and other staff at the Armenian Agricultural Academy � Meeting at ARMINCO � Meeting with USAID (Stephen, Dylan, Ram) � Meeting with UNDP (Michal, John) � Meeting with Kotayk Regional Agricultural Support Centre, Abovyan � Visit to “Lanj” local TV Company, Kotayk � Meeting with local authorities of village of Kotayk Wednesday 19th November � Workshop – Congress Hotel � Meeting at European Commission (Stephen, Dylan, Ram, Michal) � Follow-up meeting with UNDP (Stephen, Dylan, Ram, Michal) � Meeting with USDA (Armenia Hotel) (Stephen, Ram) Thursday 20th November – Field Trip to Echmiatsin � Sasunti David Ltd, Fish Farm � Meeting with Oxfam � Meeting with Ministry of Telecom and Transport (Stephen, Ram, Michal) � Meeting with DFID (Dylan & John) Friday 21st November � Meeting with WB & DFID (Ram, Dylan) � Research centre for Land, Agricultural Chemistry and Soils Improvement (Stephen, Michal) � Union for Consumers Rights Protection (Stephan, Michal) � Vayots Dzor Regional Agricultural Support Centre � Local Radio Station � Local Newspaper Staff Saturday 22nd November � Team Meeting � Minister of Agriculture � Team Meeting Sunday 23rd November � Team Meeting

Monday 24th November � Departure

13

Appendix 3 – Contacts The study team met and interviewed a wide range of contacts: National Level Government of Armenia Ministry of Agriculture � Samvel Avetisyan, The First Deputy Minister, Ministry of Agriculture samavets@yahoo.com � Mr. Voskanyan, Director, Agricultural Support Republican Centre, faoshot@arminco.com � Mr. Petrosyan, Head of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture Agricultural Academy of Armenia � Levon Gyulkhasyan, Head of the Extension Department, Armenian Agricultural Academy,

Yerevan, levon@usda.am � Arman Dhanyan, Livestock Specialist, Extension Department, Armenian Agricultural

Academy, Yerevan � Mauri Manucharyan, Viticulture Specialist, Extension Department, Armenian Agricultural

Academy, Yerevan � Silva Mamikonyan, Extension Specialist, Extension Department, Armenian Agricultural

Academy, Yerevan � Nune Sarukhanyan, Extension Specialist / Agronomist, Extension Department, Armenian

Agricultural Academy, Yerevan � Ciayanc Murtchyan, USDA Marketing Assistance project, Extension Department, Armenian

Agricultural Academy, Yerevan Ministry of Transport and Communication � Marutyan Valter, Staff Manager, Ministry of Transport and Communication, Yerevan,

staff@coming.am � Gagik Grigoryan, Head of Foreign Relations Department, Ministry of Transport and

Communication, Yerevan, grig@traceca.am � Ashot Sargasyan, Deputy Head of Information Department, Chief of ISIS Division, Acting

Head of RA Telecommunications Agency, Ministry of Transport and Communication, Yerevan, asargsyan@mtc.am

� Tigran Khachatryan, Deputy Head of Informatization Department, Chief of High-tech Division, Ministry of Transport and Communication, Yerevan, it@mtc.am

� Ms Nelly Tarkhanyan, Deputy Head of Communication Department, Chief of Telecommunication Division, Ministry of Transport and Communication, Yerevan, it@mtc.am

� Arsen Khachatryan, Chief Expert of ISIS Division, Ministry of Transport and Communication, Yerevan, khachatryan@magic.am

Multilateral Agencies World Bank � Gevorg Sargsyan, Infrastructure Operations Officer, World Bank, Yerevan, Armenia

gsargsyan@worldbank.org � Gayane Minasyan, Agriculture and Environment Operations Officer, World Bank, Yerevan,

Armenia gminyasan@worldbank.org UNDP � Avetik Nersisyan, Agricultural and Rural Development Coordination Unit team Leader, UNDP

Armenia, agrounit@xter.net or avetn@yahoo.com � Anahit Simonayan, Agricultural and Rural Development Coordination Unit team Leader,

Portfolio Manager, UNDP Armenia, simonian@undp.am

14

European Union � Jean-Francois Moret, programmes Coordinator, European Union, Yerevan moret@eudel.am � Adriana Longoni, Head of Operational Section, European Union, Yerevan

adriana.longoni@eudel.am � David Avakian, Task Manager, European Union, Yerevan avakian@eudel.am Bilateral Agencies US Department of Agriculture � Dr Dora Rumsey, Extension Adviser, USDA Marketing Assistance Project, Yerevan,

drumsey@usda.am � Charles ??? (Chief of Party) USDA Marketing Assistance Project, Yerevan, � Allan Mustard, USDA, Moscow (Visiting Yerevan) USAID � Rene Esler, Social Sector Specialist, USAID, Yerevan, mesler@usaid.gov � Diane Cullinane, Civil Society Specialist, Democracy and Social Reform Office, USAID,

Yerevan, dcullinane@usaid.gov � Diana Avetyan, programme Management Specialist, USAID, Yerevan, davetyan@usaid.gov � Regan Whitworth, Project Development officer, USAID, Yerevan, rwhitworth@usaid.gov DFID � Ara Hovsepyan, Programme Manager, DFID Armenia, a-hovsepyan@dfid.gov.uk International NGOs � Margarita Hakobyan, Country Programme Manager, Oxfam (GB), Yerevan,

mhakobyan@oxfam.org.uk National NGOs � Armen Khojoyan, President, Agropress, Yerevan, Armenia, agrpress@arminco.com � Abgar Yeghoyan, President, union for the protection of consumers rights, upcr@web.am

abgar@freenet.am Private Sector � Gregory Saghyan, @rminco Global Telecommunications, Yerevan Gregory@arminco.com Regional Level � Hambartsoum Andreasyan, Director of Agricultural Support Centre, Kotayk Marz,

kotaykgamk@lifetime.am � Director of Agricultural Support Centre, Vyots Dzor Marz � Adamyan Samvel – Secretary to the Governor � Gagik Ghazarhyan, Yeghednazor Regional Cadastre Office � Editor of “Aspect” newspaper in Vayots Dzar � Ms. Svetlana Dovlatyan, Director of Information Center, Editor of “Vardadzor” Newspaper and

Director of Eghegu Radio Village Level � Khoren, Governor of Kotayk Village � Artur Hakobyan, Sasunti David Fish Farm Ltd � Asatryan Hrayn, Internet Computer Site Monitor, Aghavnadror Village

15

Appendix 4 - Documents Collected

@rminco (2003?) Leaflet – Microsoft Certified Technical Education Centre Course Schedule AAA (2003) leaflet – Extension Youth Programmes – The Power of Youth is changing the world.

Extension Department, Armenian agricultural Academy AAA (2003) Leaflet – Armenian Agricultural Academy Extension Department ASRC (2003) – Agroscience Journal 2003 (in Armenian) ASRC (2003) – Agricultural Newspaper (in Armenian) Bezerman & Lerman (2003), Rural Livelihoods in Armenia. Centre for Agricultural Economic

Research, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Working Paper No 4.03 (lerman-armenia.pdf) DFID (2000) Central Asia and the South Caucasus: Strategy Paper. (Summary) DFID (2003) Brochure - Assistance of the Department of International Development to the

Republic of Armenia DFID (2003), Armenia Public Sector Reform Project [APSRP], Terms of Reference, DFID,

Yerevan (APSREPToR.doc) DFID (2003), Armenia Regional Development Project (ARDEP), DFID, Yerevan. (Summary) EU (2001) Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006. National Indicative Programme 2002-2003.

(Summary) GOA (2001) ICT Master Strategy for Republic of Armenia. Government of the Republic of

Armenia. (Summary) GOA (2001) Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Government of the Republic of Armenia.

(Summary)

GOA (2002) PRSP Preparation Status Report September 2 2002 (prsp status02.pdf) GOA (2002) A Strategy for Sustainable Agricultural Development. Ministry of Agriculture.

Government of the Republic of Armenia/FAO. (Summary) GOA (2003) Sustainable Economic Development Policy for Armenia: the Concept paper.

Ministry of Trade and Economic Development/UNDP. (Summary) GOA (2003?) Agriculture of Armenia, Present and Perspectives. Gyulkhasyan (2003), Armenian Extension: Moving towards Participation, presentation for

FAO/DFID/ODI/WB Meeting November 19, 2003 (Presentation) JSA (2002) PRSP Preparation Status Report. Republic of Armenia. Joint Staff Assessment of

IMF and World Bank; 2nd September 2002. (Summary) Khojoyan (2003), Speech about Agropress for the Mission Workshop ODI (2002) DFID’s engagement with National PRSP Processes. Synthesis Note 2. (Summary) Oxfam (GB) (2003), Armenia Country Contextual Analysis 2003 (Detailed) Oxfam (GB) (2002), Microfinance in Armenia, Oxfam, Yerevan Sloggett (2002), Evaluation report on the Revolving Drug schemes originated by Oxfam UK in

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. SETA (2000) Republic of Armenia ICT Assessment. USAID. (Summary) UNDP (2002) Brochure – UNDP 2002-2005 Partnership Programme UNDP (2003) Progress Report: Agricultural and Rural Development Coordination Unit, Project

ARM/02/010 Support to Strengthening Coordination Capacities of the Ministry of Agriculture. UNDP (2003?) Leaflet – UNDP Armenia, A World of Development Experience UNECE (2002) Towards a knowledge-based economy: Armenia. Country Readiness

Assessment Report. United Nations, New York and Geneva. (Summary) USAID (2003?), Project: Development and Implementation of Integrated state Information

System (ISIS) of the Republic of Armenia.

16

17

Appendix 5 - Document Summaries DFID (2000) Central Asia and the South Caucasus: Strategy Paper. Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) are prepared for all countries where DFID provides development assistance programmes, and are normally produced every three years. CSPs set out how DFID aims to contribute to achieving the international development targets in the country in question. Progress will be assessed against the strategic objectives set out in Section E of the paper. In preparing CSPs, we consult closely with governments, business, civil society, and others within both the partner country and the UK. In the case of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, we have produced a single strategy paper covering all UK bilateral assistance to the region. (Full Document: DFIDcaucasus_csp.pdf) DFID (2003), Armenia Regional Development Project (ARDEP), DFID, Yerevan. The purpose of the Armenia Regional Development Project (ARDEP) is "Tavush and Gegharkunik Regional Administrations demonstrate increased capacity to develop and implement pro-poor programmes and to influence national policy". ARDEP is closely linked to the DFID Public Sector Reform Project (ASREP) in Armenia. The two projects share the goal "National, regional and local administrations throughout Armenia implement pro-poor policies”. Project outputs at regional level will be: � Enhanced capacity of regional and local government in Tavush and Ghegharkunik to promote

pro-poor economic growth and to deliver basic public services � On the basis of the PRSP, sustainable Regional Development Programmes (RDPs) are

developed by the two Regional Administrations, with active public participation � Implementation of the RDPs has led to increased and sustainable economic and social

activity � Implementation of RDPs has reduced poverty in the two regions. and at national level will be: � Tavush and Gegharkunik Regional Administrations have used experience of programme

implementation in their regions to feed into the PRSP and to influence national policy. � National Government has developed and sourced financing for, pro-poor regional

development policies and programmes throughout Armenia based on lessons learned from delivery of the regional development programmes.

(Full Document ARDEP-tor.doc) EU (2001) Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006. National Indicative Programme 2002-2003. The Armenia Country Strategy Paper (CSP) was adopted by the Commission on 27 December 2001, and provides the strategic framework within which EC assistance will be provided for the period 2002-2006. The CSP follows the guidelines set out in the Framework for Country Strategy Papers, and takes its basis from the Regulation for the provision of assistance to the partner countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Council Regulation EC, Euratom N° 99/2000 of 29 December 1999). The CSP constitutes the Indicative Programme as described in article 3.2 and 3.3 of the Regulation and revises and updates (as foreseen in article 3.6 of the Regulation) the Indicative Programme for 2002-2003 adopted in 2000. The CSP sets out EC cooperation objectives, policy response and priority fields of cooperation based on a thorough assessment of the policy agenda and political and socio-economic situation of Armenia. The National Indicative Programme (NIP, Chapter 6 of the CSP) sets out the response in more detail, highlighting objectives, expected results and conditionality for Tacis in the priority areas of cooperation for the period 2002-2003. (Full Document: EU csp.pdf)

18

GOA (2001) ICT Master Strategy for Republic of Armenia. Government of Armenia. The vision of this Master Strategy is the creation of an industry that promotes the wide use and application of information technology by Armenian citizens, businesses, and government to improve the quality of life and advance every facet of the Armenian society including homes, businesses, schools, and the community. In developing this strategy, recommendations are based on five underlying necessities: 1) the core capabilities derived from this strategy will reside in Armenia; 2) the primary outcome will be growth and wealth creation; 3) quality of life and social factors will be a national priority; 4) the goals and objectives of this plan must be challenging but attainable, consistent with the environment in Armenia; 5) the strategy must achieve cross-sector collaboration. Specifically, how effectively Armenian businesses, academic, and government sectors collaborate and cooperate will, in large part, determine Armenia’s ability to create high value jobs and to accelerate economic growth while improving the quality of life. (Full Document: ICT-Master-Strategy-USAID-engl.pdf) GOA (2001) Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Government of Armenia. Since independence from the U.S.S.R. in 1991, Armenia has faced several economic and political challenges. As a result of these challenges, output plummeted by some 54 percent over 1991-93 and inflation increased to over 1,200 percent during 1992, and further to over 10,000 percent in 1993. This resulted in a dramatic decline in per capita GDP. Starting in mid-1994, the Government implemented tight fiscal and monetary policies accompanied by broadly based structural reforms that were supported by concessional IMF and World Bank credits. Those policies have resulted in significantly lower inflation, and annual real GDP growth averaged 5.4 percent during the 1994-2000 period. Nonetheless, the original collapse in output was so large that the current output is still less than 70 percent of its pre-transition level. The government has recently developed a strategy to reduce poverty, which together with the policy of stimulating economic growth should alleviate major social and economic problems of Armenia. The current Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Program, therefore, aims at developing a national strategy of poverty reduction in Armenia. (Full Document: armeniaiprsp.pdf) GOA (2002) A Strategy for Sustainable Agricultural Development. Ministry of Agriculture. Government of the Republic of Armenia/FAO. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia, with the support of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, has conducted this comprehensive study, which comprises a description of the current situation in the agriculture sector and the strategy for sustainable agricultural development. This document was developed by taking into consideration the economic policy adopted by the Government of Armenia, the international experiences and the necessity to mobilize effectively the agricultural potential. The overarching objectives of the strategy are to achieve real growth of farmer incomes and to reduce poverty. The strategy also reflects the important objective of the country to be fully integrated in the world economy, as exemplified by the imminent accession of the country to the World Trade Organization. (Full Document: AgriculturalStrategy_ENG.pdf) GOA (2003) Sustainable Economic Development Policy for Armenia: the Concept paper. Ministry of Trade and Economic Development/UNDP. This concept paper sets out a methodological framework and the main principles of a long-term economic development strategy to be elaborated for the “Sustainable Economic Development Policy for Armenia” Project. The first chapter is dedicated to the main qualitative and quantitative goals of the program, which will characterize the levels of economic development. The second chapter presents a brief analysis of the main factors of economic downturns and upturns during 1990-2002, with special attention to those factors behind of economic recovery since 1994. The latest global economic trends are analyzed in the chapter three, so as to envision the likely structural changes in the global economy in the visible future. The following two chapters look at the main development potentials and

19

weaknesses of Armenian economy and attempt to elaborate some basic principals for a long-term development strategy of the Armenian Economy. In the next two chapters the strong and weak aspects of the Armenian economy are analyzed and an attempt is made to bring forward some basic principles for elaboration of the proposed program. The closing chapter suggests the structure for elaborating a long-term economic development strategy of Armenia. (Full Document: sedp-undp.pdf) JSA (2002) PRSP Preparation Status Report. Republic of Armenia. Joint Staff Assessment of IMF and World Bank; 2nd September 2002. The report describes the main priorities of the poverty reduction strategy in Armenia and mechanisms and timetable for the development of the full-fledged PRSP. The preparation of the full document has taken longer than was originally envisaged. This is mainly due to the technical assistance requirements for creating an interrelated system of well-specified and prioritized public actions aimed at reducing poverty and ensuring participation of all the stakeholders, both from civil society and donor organizations. The full participation of all stake holders is viewed as a prerequisite for the success of the PRSP. ODI (2002) DFID’s engagement with National PRSP Processes. Synthesis Note 2. This is a synthesis of 20 country office responses to a questionnaire on DFID’s engagement with PRSPs, distributed in September 2001. The topics covered by the questionnaire were: policy shifts, changing areas of involvement, aid modalities, donor coordination, IFI behaviour, and the future of national PRSP processes. (Full Document: synthesis2.doc) SETA (2000) Republic of Armenia ICT Assessment. USAID. This Assessment has been undertaken at the request of the USAID/Armenia Mission in an effort to examine potential opportunities for USAID engagement in the Information Communications and Technologies (ICTs) arena. Over the past several years USAID/Armenia has been quite active in supporting strategic ICT-related projects that have been considered quite successful (e.g. automation within the Central Bank of Armenia, Customs Wide Area Network, etc.). The ICT Assessment has been built around four areas: 1) Pipes—an examination of the current state of telecommunications within Armenia, 2) Public Sector—an examination of the Republic of Armenia’s position and status with respect to ICTs, with specific focus on Policy, 3) Private Sector—an examination of the current the state of the private sector with regards to use and leveraging of ICTs, with focus on opportunities, and 4) People—with a focus on identifying opportunities for leveraging ICTs within the current development portfolio of the USAID/Armenia Mission. (Full Document: armeniaictpub.pdf) UNECE (2002) Towards a knowledge-based economy: Armenia. Country Readiness Assessment Report. United Nations, New York and Geneva. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has launched an initiative of monitoring and analyzing the development of the knowledge-based economy in all the European countries in transition and emerging market economies. The major goal of this initiative is to stimulate the exchange of national experiences, to identify best practices and to promote region-wide and global-wide cooperation of the UNECE member States, which would accelerate the development of a knowledge-based economy in the countries in transition and emerging market economies. It envisages the preparation of country assessment reports on the biennium basis by national experts, nominated by the Governments, the creation of a High-Level Task Force on the Knowledge-Based Economy, which will consider the reports and provide policy advice and recommendations to the participating countries, and the development of progress measurements and indicators, policy guidelines and tools to assist countries in overcoming obstacles to the development of a knowledge-based economy. (Full Document: unecearmenia.pdf)

20

Appendix 6 - Terms of Reference I. Mission objective The main objective of this joint WB/DFID/FAO mission is to reflect the field conditions – focusing on policy and operational constraints of Armenia - in the design of the information and communication for rural livelihoods framework being jointly developed by the three development organizations. Armenia is one of the five countries chosen to provide practical underpinnings for the ICD framework, being a representative transition country and which has made progress from a centrally planned system to a market oriented economy. (the other countries are Vietnam, Ghana, India and Uganda).. II. Tasks to be carried out FAO will take the lead responsibility of organizing, coordinating and implementing the country visit to Armenia, and carrying out field visits in and around Yerevan in cooperation with DFID and FAO. The main tasks to be carried out by this joint WB/DFID/FAO mission are as follows: (i) Carry out policy and operational discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture and other appropriate Ministries, research institutions; NGO’s; local government, civil society, rural communities, mass media organisations, rural communities and farmers with a view to reflect field conditions and help towards the establishment of generic elements of practice and scalability for ICD related activities. These discussions should take into account the following questions relevant to the concerned institution: � What are the characteristics of Armenian rural livelihood information and knowledge systems,

information needs/demands of poor communities and multi-sector content? � What processes can be empowered by ICD (e.g. democratization from below)? � What are the institutional and economic constraints to improving information exchange in rural

areas (partnerships)? � Are opportunities best addressed by public sector, private sector, civil society? � What generic policy can improve rural and community-based networks (PRSPs)? � How can impact of improved information and communication systems be measured, and

review any studies carried out? � What are the new emerging ICTs which offer promise to improve the lives of the poor which

are being piloted in Armenia? (ii) Identify: (a) policy constraints, information access by the rural poor,(b) role of public and private sector, NGO’s, donor community, universities, citizens, press, etc.; (c) local content development from various sources and which meets the needs of the rural poor and (d) dissemination mechanisms - ranging from the traditional to the modern, viz, print, radio, television, internet and other forms of communication, such as posters, fairs and exhibitions, traditional communications channels, etc (iii) Discuss areas of possible cooperation and linkages with ongoing projects financed by World Bank, DFID and other donors.

(iv) Identify potential ICD related activities and in-country partners for possible involvement in the longer term program during the second phase of the ICD collaborative program between WB, DFID and FAO. (v) Discuss the mission findings with the in-country representatives of the World Bank, DFID and FAO and seek guidance for follow up actions and for launching the second phase of the ICD program.

21

III. Mission composition and timing The mission will be led by Stephen Rudgard (Chief, Waicent Outreach, FAO), and consist of Mr. S. Janakiram (study coordinator, WB); Mr. Dylan Winder, Communications Manager, Policy Division, Rural Livelihoods, DFID; Michal Demes (WAICENT Information Officer, Budapest); and Mr. John Young, Research Fellow, Research and Policy in Development, Overseas Development Institute. The mission will visit Armenia from about 16th to 24th November and carry out field visits in and around Yerevan. IV. Expected Outputs The mission will prepare a Vietnam country visit report as part of the first phase of the ICD scoping study. The report should reflect the findings of the mission and distributed for comments and discussion to the concerned units and groups in the WB, DFID and FAO; following which a final country report would be issued for wider dissemination by end December 2003.