Innovative Capacity and Participatory Policymaking in Armenia

Governments worldwide are increasingly acknowledging the advantages of incorporating citizen perspectives into policymaking and service design and delivery (OECD, 2020[1]). Although approaches vary by country, many have introduced participatory processes and initiatives to collect insights from citizens and stakeholders throughout the policy cycle, to understand better and address the needs and concerns of different groups within society, to decide on priorities jointly, and to gather new ideas and innovative solutions, leading to more creative, responsive, and effective decision-making that leads to better outcomes. Granting citizens and stakeholders equal and fair opportunities to be consulted and engaged is mutually beneficial for governments and citizens (OECD, 2023[2]), fosters dialogue and builds trust. The 2024 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions found that many people see governments as unresponsive to public feedback on policies and do not always feel that decision-making considers or reflects their opinions (OECD, 2024[3]). In fact, only over one-third (37%) think that if over half of the people expressed a view against a national policy, it would be changed (OECD, 2024[3]). In this context, public officials can do more to leverage the knowledge and expertise of the public for more informed, effective, inclusive, and sustainable public decision-making while empowering citizens to influence the policies and services that affect their lives.

Armenia has undergone significant reforms over recent years as part of its democratic transition, with many milestones following the Velvet Revolution in 2018. These include improvements in the electoral framework, reforms to enhance the transparency and accountability of political parties, introducing additional checks and balances to ensure the independence of the judicial and legislative branches, and taking measures to promote judges’ autonomy (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 2021[4]). In 2023, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Democracy Index ranked Armenia at 85 out of 167 places, with a score of 5.42 in 2023 compared to 4.67 in 2018 (Economist Intellignence Unit, 2023[5]). Freedom House currently categorises Armenia as “partly free” but underlines that the country has made strides in addressing “long-standing problems”, including opaque policymaking (Freedom House, 2024[6]).

At the same time, Armenia increasingly recognises that the principles of open government – transparency, accountability, and participation – are fundamental for good governance, policy quality and government delivery. Armenia joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in 2011 and is implementing its fifth National Action Plan (2022-2024), which has ten commitments (Open Government Partnership, n.d.[7]). The commitments cover initiatives in access to information, public communication, participatory budgeting, and public procurement, among others.

Civil society in Armenia has significantly developed over the past decades. While the sector was underground and informal during the period of the Soviet Union, in the 1990s, human rights and peacebuilding organisations began operating in the country (Asian Development Bank, 2021[8]). Civil society began to professionalise with the international community’s support from the end of the century onwards (Asian Development Bank, 2021[8]). Civil society organisations (CSOs) have supported and contributed to reform processes over the past decade (European Democracy Hub, 2024[9]).

Today, Armenia has a significant opportunity to build on this progress, especially through the implementation of its 2023-2025 Public Administration Reforms strategy and broader national development agenda, including the 2050 Transformation Strategy, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the expanded partnership with the European Union (Government of Armenia, 2022[10]). The Public Administration Reforms strategy (Government of Armenia, 2022[10]) highlights the importance of creating an enabling environment for more participatory public decision-making, including all stakeholders in both the development and implementation phases of policies and services (see goal 5). To this end, the strategy calls for a review of existing frameworks, platforms and tools for citizen and stakeholder participation, which presents a prime occasion for the government to rethink how public officials can more effectively and more frequently involve stakeholders to improve the citizen-government relationship. Here, the Chief of Staff of the Prime Ministry is responsible for the component of the strategy on participatory policymaking and strategic communication.

The OECD defines citizen and stakeholder participation as “all the ways in which individuals and organisations can be involved in the policy cycle and in service design and delivery” (OECD, 2022[11]). Today, citizens are well-informed and advocate for more involvement in developing the policies and services that directly impact their lives. Consequently, governments are establishing avenues to leverage their insights and expertise. As noted by the OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes (OECD, 2022[11]), “the global landscape for citizen and stakeholder participation is evolving constantly, becoming richer with new and innovative ways to involve citizens and stakeholders in public decisions”. At the same time, both of these groups require different approaches, as individual citizens may require methods that provide them with more time, information, resources, and incentives to engage, while stakeholders (any interested and/or affected party, such as institutions and organisations) may have a lower participation threshold, dedicated resources, and clear interests and reasons to participate (e.g. advocacy) (OECD, 2022[11]).

Civil society organisations (CSOs) are often keenly interested in participating in meaningful and impactful participatory processes to share their insights and expertise.1 CSOs play a crucial role in articulating and amplifying the voices of social groups that are often excluded from public decision-making, ensuring more diverse and representative feedback for public officials. Furthermore, CSOs can act as vigilant watchdogs, monitoring the processes and outcomes of policymaking and service design and delivery to uphold transparency, accountability, and integrity. As such, their involvement is instrumental in bridging the gap between citizens and policymakers and fostering more robust and effective frameworks for public participation.

Figure 4.1 shows that over 66% of public servants in Armenia report that their organisation effectively collaborates with stakeholders outside the public sector (e.g. academia, industry, civil society organisations, media).

An enabling environment for CSOs is fundamental to promoting their ability to participate in policy and decision-making freely and autonomously (OECD, 2022[13]). By fostering the necessary conditions for their activities and providing concrete opportunities for collaboration, governments can better align laws, policies, and services to citizens’ needs (OECD, 2022[13]).

CSOs in Armenia have a long history of contributing to education, health, social assistance, humanitarian causes, and political reforms in the country (Counterpart International, n.d.[14]). The past decade has seen an emerging culture of collaboration and cooperation between the government and civil society (Counterpart International, n.d.[15]). At the same time, as in many OECD Members, CSOs in Armenia face challenges in their work, including in access to funding and in fulfilling their obligations on reporting obligations. Moreover, some CSOs still lack capacity and professionalisation, which can hinder their ability to work effectively as partners with the government. Figure 4.2 highlights that a lack of financial resources represents the most significant barrier for respondents to the OECD Armenia CSO Survey, followed by insufficient human resources and a lack of guidance from the government on national priorities.

Legal provisions governing CSO registration significantly impact on the enabling environment for CSOs. Based on international guidance, CSOs should be allowed to exist as unregistered bodies or organisations that are registered and/or have legal personality. CSOs in Armenia do not generally face significant barriers to registering as an organisation. In good practice, there is no requirement to register to operate, contrary to 44% of OECD Members that have a legal requirement for CSOs and associations to register to undertake their activities (OECD, 2022[13]). However, as noted in the 2023 CSO Meter, some aspects of the laws on registration and taxation are less favourable for CSOs compared to business entities. CSOs cannot yet register online due to unresolved technical issues (Transparency International, 2023[17]). Furthermore, in 2023, many regional offices of the State Register were closed, which meant that travelling to central regional cities or to the capital of Yerevan was necessary to register a public organisation or foundation (Transparency International, 2023[17]). The government could seek to address challenges posed to CSOs by the inability to register online while providing channels for CSOs outside of Yerevan to register without needing to travel.

A favourable financial environment for CSOs is a crucial pillar of enabling civil society and civic participation. Countries can create this by facilitating predictable, sustainable, transparent, and fair access to funding (OECD, 2022[13]). This can include government funding through specific projects or programmes, funding from foreign and international donors, contributions from private sources such as foundations, and fundraising.

In Armenia, government funding is channelled to CSOs via several ministries, but it most often focuses on CSOs who work as service providers rather than those focused on advocacy or watchdog activities (Transparency International, 2023[17]). As there are no legal restrictions on receiving donations, grants, or in-kind support from international sources, CSOs can also apply for and receive foreign funding (Transparency International, 2023[17]). They can also engage in fundraising campaigns and charge for goods and services (United States Agency for International Development, 2023[18]).

As seen in Figure 4.3, most respondents to the survey did not receive government funding. However, some did receive short-, medium-, and long-term funding as well as grants from line ministries.

The extent to which CSOs rely on support from other sources than the government is shown in Figure 4.4. It is most common for CSOs to receive funding from international or supranational organisations (e.g. EU-funded or UN-funded programmes), closely followed by philanthropic foundations, followed by private individuals and other forms of fundraising.

Transparency International highlights that certain requirements can pose limitations for CSOs in practice (Transparency International, 2023[17]). For example, applications for grants provided to CSOs by public bodies must be submitted via the Electronic Public Procurement System (www.armeps.am), which many CSOs find burdensome and jargon heavy (Transparency International, 2023[17]). Projects funded by grants are currently interpreted as ‘delivery of services’ and subject to charging VAT in cases where annual turnover exceeds the threshold set by law (Transparency International, 2023[17]). Lastly, access to funding is also affected by a requirement stipulating that CSOs must provide an audit report for over 25 000 EUR provided by the public budget, either through grants or procurement contracts. Undertaking such an audit is often costly and only occasionally covered by grant projects, with many CSOs not having the necessary financial resources (Transparency International, 2023[17]).

To improve access to funding for CSOs, Armenia could encourage access to different sources of funding besides existing government sources, such as private and international sources. Specific tax regimes for CSOs, such as tax exemptions on donations or reduced tax rates for non-profit activities, can stimulate public and private contributions to CSOs. Tax exemptions are a common practice in OECD countries, with differing approaches regarding the types of organisations that qualify, the taxes concerned, and the extent of the tax reduction. States typically give CSOs a full or partial exemption from corporate income taxes, value-added tax (VAT) preferences and/or tax reductions on donations to CSOs by private individuals or legal persons.

Several countries, including Slovenia and Lithuania, have introduced initiatives to improve the enabling environment for CSOs and prioritise access to funding (Box 4.1).

Both government and civil society interviewees during the OECD fact-finding mission noted an issue of capacity for CSOs. CSOs could benefit from further professionalisation, meaning they must build the necessary capabilities and capacities to competently fulfil their role. This could involve, for example, enhancing CSO’s ability to submit their suggested amendments to draft laws using clear, concise, and appropriate language. Capacity-building can foster strong leadership, acquire qualified staff, secure consistent funding sources, demonstrate transparency and accountability, and prioritise organisational management (e.g., improving reporting and auditing procedures). In some areas, public officials can support CSOs without compromising their independence by offering training, such as on effective applications for public funding, to increase CSOs' chances of success. Despite challenges in professionalisation noted by civil society, it is crucial not to exclude CSOs from participatory processes. Informal or grassroots organisations often possess deep community insights and valuable expertise to compensate for organisational shortcomings.

CSOs play a crucial role in promoting citizen participation by serving as active participants in policymaking by bringing expertise and insights while also being partners in fostering inclusive civic engagement by facilitating dialogue between citizens and the government. By bridging the gap between citizens and the government, CSOs can help cultivate a culture of participation, moving beyond mere legal compliance to a more engaged and empowered society. This dual role of CSOs as actors, as well as promoters of accessibility and inclusion, sets the stage for a model of public participation that involves both citizens and stakeholders.

In this sense, Armenia could support CSOs in professionalising their functions, collaborate with CSOs, and identify useful forms of capacity-building, e.g., workshops on applying for and reporting on funding. Box 4.2 gives an overview of initiatives introduced in France.

Many governments have begun to develop overarching policy frameworks to articulate their vision for improving the operating environment for CSOs and outlining ways to promote citizen and stakeholder participation. Over half of respondents (52%) to the 2020 Survey on Open Government have a policy or strategy to improve or promote an enabling environment for CSOs (OECD, 2022[13]).2 Some common objectives of such strategies include strengthening the state-CSO relationship, supporting volunteering, developing strong and independent CSOs, fostering inclusion and social cohesion, creating an effective state policy on civil society, improving the welfare of citizens, and promoting public discussion and debate.

While some countries elaborate their vision for civil society in a standalone document, others have a dedicated component integrated into other policy agendas, for example, as part of a broader open government strategy or Public Administration Reform strategies. Open government strategies also cover topics such as transparency and access to information, citizen and stakeholder participation, and moving towards an open state (OECD, 2023[2]). Box 4.3 showcases one example from Romania: developing an open government strategy with a dedicated component on engaging CSOs in public decision-making.

The government could consider if a standalone or integrated document on improving the enabling environment for CSOs would benefit the Armenian context. Developing an open government strategy with a dedicated component in this area could also achieve this objective. Such a document must be designed in collaboration with stakeholders.

Beyond support to strengthen CSOs – which is essential to enable them to contribute more effectively to policymaking and service design and delivery - enhancing participatory processes for individual citizens and stakeholders more broadly requires exploring ways to engage a diverse range of voices, facilitate dialogue, and incorporate feedback so that individuals and communities feel empowered to influence public decision-making.

In Armenia, as in many OECD Members, public officials have noted that “a general sense of disengagement or apathy among citizens can contribute to the lack of participation in public discussions, as people may feel that their opinions will not be heard or considered”.3 The 2024 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions found that, on average, across countries, only 39% of people trust their government, and only about 30% think their political system lets them have a say (OECD, 2024[3]). These concerns reflect a need for governments to transform, beginning with the public administration reform process, that embraces the role of citizens and stakeholders as partners and encourages working together to achieve common objectives. Armenia now has a unique opportunity, through its national reform agenda, to build upon existing good practices and move forward with a renewed vision for a public administration underpinned by the participation of citizens and stakeholders.

Citizen and stakeholder participation have both intrinsic and instrumental benefits, meaning that it improves the process of public decision-making by drawing on collective intelligence and leads to better overall outcomes with higher quality laws, policies, and services. According to government interviewees during the OECD fact-finding mission, Armenia benefits from a high-level commitment to citizen and stakeholder participation across several public bodies, including line ministries which often have specific champions who advocate for it. Respondents to the OECD Armenia’s Innovative Capacity Survey4 noted that they were primarily motivated to involve citizens and stakeholders to fulfil legal obligations, achieve institutional objectives, and to attain greater efficiency (Figure 4.5).

Fulfilling legal obligations should be regarded and prioritised as a necessary first step towards building a culture of participation. However, it is important that public officials embrace public participation, understand its benefits for their work, and recognise its intrinsic value beyond mere compliance with regulations. Beyond guaranteeing the proper use of the tools provided by the legal, policy and institutional frameworks, there is a need to highlight the benefits of citizen and stakeholder participation to public officials, given its ability to enrich, inform, and support their work. In this sense, citizen and stakeholder participation should be viewed not only as a means to an end, but as an essential process in and of itself. Embracing this mindset is crucial to incentivise public officials to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. While there is support for this agenda in Armenia, a cultural shift is needed across all levels of government to convince public officials of the advantages of involving citizens and stakeholders in public decision-making.

CSOs interviewed during the fact-finding mission observed varying levels of understanding of participation processes across the public administration. Some public bodies saw participatory processes as a tick-the-box exercise, while others made significant efforts to involve citizens and stakeholders. However, all agreed that a lack of skills among public officials, as well as a lack of concrete avenues for more innovative forms of public participation, presented a challenge. Similarly, respondents to the OECD Armenia CSO Survey corroborate these findings, naming insufficient skills among public officials and inadequate coordination mechanisms as the most significant barriers (Figure 4.6).

Last, survey respondents also highlighted an absence of a vision and a lack of leadership as areas for improvement, which may indicate a need for the government to communicate further and promote its overall vision for participation, as well as existing plans, strategies, and programmes in this area, to public officials and stakeholders alike.

Approximately 45% of public servants surveyed reported having high or very high skills regarding participatory research, while almost 63% reported having high or very high skills, with vis-à-vis conducting stakeholder consultations (Figure 4.7).

Legal and policy frameworks to promote citizen and stakeholder participation are crucial to ensure that public bodies know their responsibilities and obligations in this area. As in Armenia, 84.8% of OECD Member and non-Member countries have adopted citizen and stakeholder participation legislation in public decision-making (Figure 4.8).

In Armenia, the legal framework provides for a variety of institutional mechanisms aimed at involving citizens and stakeholders in the public decision-making process. These include the electronic platform for access to information (e-request) and for public consultations (e-draft), as well as public hearings, civic councils, and other consultative bodies.

The Armenian Constitution defines several civil and political rights related to public participation, including the right to receive information, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, the right to form a party and join a party, the right to participate in a referendum, and to present a petition. However, the Constitution lacks a general provision about participatory policymaking (Government of Armenia, 1995, with amendments through 2015[27]). The 2015 amendments to the Constitution offered new opportunities for civil initiatives, namely the ability to:

• Propose a draft law to the National Assembly, if at least 50 000 citizens with electoral rights provide their signatures.

• Propose constitutional amendments, if at least 150 000 citizens with electoral rights provide their signatures.

In case the National Assembly rejects a project proposed by the citizens, a referendum must be initiated with at least 350,000 citizens with electoral rights providing their signatures (Government of Armenia, 1995, with amendments through 2015[27]). In 2023, the civil legislative initiative was used successfully for the first time and collected 58,000 signatures (Transparency International, 2023[17]). It proposed amendments to certain articles of the Criminal Code (Transparency International, 2023[17]).

Legislation on access to information is crucial for public participation because it empowers individuals with the knowledge necessary to engage meaningfully in public policy and decision-making processes. When citizens have the right to access governmental information, they can make informed decisions, hold authorities accountable, and contribute constructively to policy discussions, based on accurate data. The right to access to information is guaranteed by the Armenian constitution (Articles 27 and 27.1) (Government of Armenia, 1995, with amendments up to 2015[28]) and operationalised by the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Freedom of Information, which sets out the obligations and procedures for the proactive and reactive disclosure of information (Government of Armenia, 2003[29]). However, contrary to most OECD Members, the law only provides for a judicial appeal, without any internal or external appeals process available. In the long-term, Armenia could review certain aspects of the law and consider whether introducing an internal and external appeal would improve implementation, oversight, and enforcement.

The law on normative legal acts mandates that draft legislation must undergo public consultation. The only exception is for drafts that concern the ratification of international treaties (Government of Armenia, 2018[30]). Other normative legal drafts may be subject to public discussion at the discretion of the public body responsible for their development. As defined by the law, public discussion involves informing citizens about draft legal acts, receiving comments and suggestions, and summarising the feedback. The law specifies that the first step is to publish the draft normative legal act and the rationale for its adoption. The outcomes of the public consultation and any revised drafts based on these discussions must also be made available. Any draft submitted to the government without undergoing public consultation can be returned to the responsible public body (Government of Armenia, 2018[30]).

While legal frameworks for consultations provide the opportunity for feedback and expertise to enhance the quality of new laws, it is important to stress that consultation on laws is a highly specialised process that typically engages only interested stakeholders and expert communities rather than the broader population.

While public bodies are required to hold public consultations on draft laws (primarily through the e-draft platform), they can circumvent this obligation if the draft legislation is initiated by the National Assembly. To address this issue, Armenia could ensure that legislation initiated by the parliament is also subject to these obligations.

The government decree regulates the implementation of the provisions of the Law on normative legal acts related to public discussion. This procedure defines the methods and means of holding public consultations (Government of Armenia, 2018[31]). For example, public hearings should be held with experts and other stakeholders interested in the given field. They can be both in-person and online. When organising a public hearing, the relevant public body announces the public hearing, including the place, time, dates, topic of discussion, and the deadline to apply to participate in the public discussion if necessary. According to the procedure, the public body should produce a written record of the discussions and the recommendations made by the participants (Government of Armenia, 2018[31]). Participants can also submit recommendations in writing. The summary is published on the official website of the public body organising the public consultation and on the main e-draft platform for all legislative acts. The summary should also outline whether suggestions were accepted with appropriate justification (Government of Armenia, 2018[31]).

The Law on the rules of procedure of the National Assembly stipulates that members of parliament are obligated to examine proposals received from citizens and respond to them (Government of Armenia, 2002, with amendments through 2016[32]). In addition, the regulations of the National Assembly stipulate that the Speaker of the National Assembly can convene parliamentary hearings and form deliberative bodies (Government of Armenia, 2002, with amendments through 2016[32]). The decision of a permanent or temporary committee can also call public hearings. The hearing is publicised on the official website of the National Assembly and shared with the media at least three working days before the date of the hearing. The publication of the results of the hearing is not mandatory. According to the rules of procedure, the written speeches, proposals, and other materials submitted on the topic of the hearings, as well as the summary of the results of the hearings, may be published at the recommendation of the committee or faction with the consent of the President of the National Assembly (Government of Armenia, 2002, with amendments through 2016[32]).

According to the Constitution, everyone has the right to submit a petition individually or with others to national and local-level public bodies and receive a response within a reasonable period. Based on this article, the Law on Petitions was adopted to define the rights of an individual submitting a petition, the procedure for registering and publishing a petition, and the legal grounds for rejecting a petition (Government of Armenia, 2017, with amendments through 2021[33]). According to the law, printed and electronic channels can be used to submit petitions. If there are no reasons for its rejection, the responsible public body publishes it on the appropriate electronic platform. Others can join the manifesto within thirty days after its publication (Government of Armenia, 2017, with amendments through 2021[33]). The public body or official who received the petition is obliged to respond to the petition within one month after the end of the signature period (Government of Armenia, 2017, with amendments through 2021[33]). In 2020, the government created a unified electronic platform for the submission of petitions through e-petition.am. A petition with at least fifty thousand signatures can propose a draft law to the National Assembly (Transparency International, 2023[17])

The Law on local self-government includes several provisions on citizen and stakeholder participation at the local level (Government of Armenia, 2002[34]). According to the law, one of the main principles is the participation of the public in local self-government, which is defined as “a process carried out in the community through which residents, without discrimination, are informed about the activities of local self-government bodies and can directly or indirectly influence local self-government bodies on decisions” (Government of Armenia, 2002[34]). The law envisages opportunities for citizens to participate in council meetings, develop different plans and programmes and voice their priorities on the formulation of the budget (Government of Armenia, 2002[34]). The law also allows citizens to include a discussion issue in the agenda of community council sessions if a petition with a certain number of signatures supports this.

While Armenia has legal and regulatory frameworks for participatory processes, significant gaps still need to be addressed. Specific aspects of participation in policymaking remain unregulated, including clear legislative mandates ensuring citizens have a say in various policy sectors. Most OECD countries make involvement of citizens and/or stakeholders in specific sectors of policy-making such as the environment, education, land use, infrastructure, and others mandatory. In the Czech Republic, for example, Law No. 100/2001 on Environmental Impact Assessment and on Amendments to Certain Related Acts, foresees participation in environmental policymaking (OECD, 2023[35]). In France, citizen participation in policymaking related to the environment is even enshrined in the constitution through Article 7 of the Charter for the Environment (Government of France, 2005[36]). The government could consider updating relevant legislation (e.g. the Law on Normative Legal Acts, the Government decree on the procedure for organising and conducting public consultations etc.) to address current gaps, for example, to include commitments to citizen and stakeholder participation in the early stages of policymaking, and stipulate clear timeframes for public consultation to allow for meaningful exchange on laws, policies and strategies and programmes.

According to respondents to the OECD Armenia’s Innovative Capacity Survey, the most significant challenge around citizen and stakeholder participation is that the legal framework needs to be updated, followed by a lack of technical skills, human and financial resources, and training and guidance for public officials (Figure 4.9). In this regard, the government could undertake a more substantial role in regularly monitoring the implementation of existing laws and issuing annual reports on their progress year-on-year. It could also be responsible for pursuing disciplinary action against public bodies that do not sufficiently adhere to the law.

Beyond consultations on laws that primarily involve specialised stakeholders, leaving the broader population underrepresented, it is essential to introduce accessible methods to involve the public in law and policymaking to accurately reflect society's needs. This could include leveraging digital platforms to crowdsource ideas and feedback from various citizens and holding town hall meetings and public forums to facilitate direct dialogue.

As a complement to establishing a solid legal basis and policies for participation, it is also crucial that countries institutionalise participatory mechanisms and processes by embedding them within their institutional architecture and governance frameworks. For example, by establishing a dedicated office with a clear mandate to foster participation, governments can steer, coordinate and support participatory initiatives across the entire public sector. This can help to harmonise practices, provide standardised technical support to public officials, and ultimately strengthen relationships between government, citizens, and civil society, in addition to monitoring and evaluating different initiatives to ensure continuous cross-government learning and improvement. To guarantee effective implementation of the relevant legal and policy frameworks, these centralised units can be supported by focal points within line ministries and at the local level. It is also key that public officials have the necessary budget, training, technical knowledge, guidance, time and political backing to deliver participation mechanisms effectively (OECD, forthcoming[37]).

Access to information (ATI) is crucial for public participation, as it empowers individuals to engage meaningfully in policy and decision-making and allows citizens to make informed decisions, hold authorities accountable, and contribute constructively to policy discussions. To safeguard this right, an oversight body with a clearly defined mandate, sustained resources, and an adequate level of independence and capacity for enforcement is essential. Such a body monitors compliance, addresses grievances, and facilitates the timely release of information. By holding public institutions accountable and ensuring that information requests are handled properly, an ATI oversight body can reassure citizens that their right to information is protected and that they can rely on obtaining the data needed to participate meaningfully in decision-making. Most countries have a dedicated ATI oversight body, such as an information commission/agency/body or ombudsman with a specific mandate for ATI, an ombudsman with a broader mandate, or a central government authority (OECD, 2022[13]).

In Armenia, access to information remains a challenge for stakeholders and citizens. Civil society interviewees noted that there are frequent delays in responding to requests which do not respect the timelines indicated by law. There are also instances of administrative silence on requests, wherein public officials do not respond, alongside outright refusals. In addition, the quality of responses is not always satisfactory or difficult for citizens to understand. Reporters without Borders corroborates such concerns, noting that “access to state-held information is limited by the government” (Reporters without Borders, 2023[38]). There are risks of further deterioration, given further restrictions introduced by 2023 amendments to the Law on State Secrecy and the Law on Freedom of Information (Transparency International, 2023[17]).

Within this context, it is essential that the government assume its role as a provider of accurate, timely, and complete information. In this regard, Armenia could consider empowering an existing institution with the responsibility to monitor, oversee, and enforce the law on access to information or, in the long term, establish an independent oversight body with this mandate.

The Public Council (not to be confused with civic councils) was established in accordance with Article 161 of the Constitution of Armenia as a permanent consultative body (Government of Armenia, 1995, with amendments up to 2015[28]). Although the body has not been active in years, the Government initiated legislative amendments in 2023 to assign new functions to this body (Transparency International, 2023[17]). The body was initially intended to represent the voices and perspectives of diverse groups of society in the process of policymaking and service delivery and design, and to promote dialogue and cooperation between these, the government and CSOs (Government of Armenia, 1995, with amendments up to 2015[28]). The mandate of the Council is wide-ranging and ambitious in scope; however, according to interviewees, it primarily did not achieve its intended objectives. Interviewees noted that it was also often seen by CSOs as an institution that symbolised participation rather than truly fostering it. In this regard, there is an opportunity to learn from past practices and initiatives that may have contributed to a deterioration of trust between citizens, CSOs, and public officials and to ensure that similar initiatives in the future do not encounter the same negative perceptions. For citizen councils or advisory boards to be effective, they need to have a clear mandate and adhere to principles of inclusiveness, transparency, and independence to serve their purpose effectively. They should also ensure diverse representation, operate openly with transparent processes, and remain unbiased. Moreover, responsiveness to public input, expertise in relevant areas, and meaningful engagement with the community are crucial. Additionally, they must be accountable for their actions and ensure accessibility to all stakeholders, including marginalised groups.

Some OECD Members, such as Finland, have established an advisory board for civil society that functions as a generic platform for formal and informal dialogue and exchange between CSOs and the government without explicit links to specific policy areas or certain strategies or goals. Box 4.4 offers an example of an advisory group composed of CSOs that broadly represent the sector’s interests and are called upon to engage in any decision-making relating to civil society. Armenia could consider empowering or reinvigorating an existing body, such as the Public Council, with an advisory board mandate or establishing a new body which would fulfil this role.

Consultative bodies attached to public bodies are a favourable platform for dialogue. They can play a major role both in the early stages of policy proposals and in fostering participation in the implementation and monitoring stages.

Many OECD Members have a range of consultative bodies in place. There are at least 9 consultative bodies in the Czech Republic, involving, depending on the specific body, CSOs, NGOs, representatives from ethnic minorities, Academia, Trade Unions, the Commissioner for Human Rights, several ministries and the prime minister’s office (OECD, 2023[35]). This guarantees a pluralism of voices and can lead to more well-rounded policy outcomes shaped by and benefitting all citizens. Several of these bodies have a specific focus on groups at risk of exclusion, for example, the Council on Women’s Affairs, the National Minorities Affairs Council, and the National Commission for Persons with Disabilities (Transparency International, 2022[42]). The Office of the Ombudsman has also introduced several subject-specific consultative bodies, for example, on the prevention of torture (Transparency International, 2022[42]). In Brazil, national conferences take place to gather and engage with stakeholders on specific policy questions. They take place at the municipal, state and federal levels and are organised periodically. Crucially, national conferences and councils (see Box ‎4.4) are highly institutionalised through legislation or a decree and have a binding character. Some key legislation includes Law 8142 of 1990, which established national conferences in public health, and Law 12852 of 2013, which established youth conferences to co-produce guidelines for developing youth policy in the country (OECD, 2022[41]).

Armenia has established a wide range of consultative bodies and working groups operating in sectoral policy areas. Public bodies in Armenia can also introduce ad hoc working groups on specific subjects. Such groups are often established to discuss draft legislation or the development of strategies or programmes. Box 4.5 showcases some good practices in Armenia in this regard.

Several other initiatives have been praised by CSOs and provide a strong foundation upon which the public administration could build further. The Open Government Partnership (OGP) Multistakeholder Forum in Armenia is an example of a successful participatory mechanism. The MSF brings public officials and CSOs together to shape the country’s action plan. This includes commitments on open government more broadly, but also strategic communication, transparency for public officials, electronic procurement and participatory budgeting (Open Government Partnership, n.d.[43]; Open Government Partnership, 2019[44]) and involves them from the beginning to the end of the decision-making process (Open Government Partnership, n.d.[43]; Open Government Partnership, 2019[44]).

It is important that consultative bodies are not only created formally, on paper but are considered by public officials and CSOs alike as a real opportunity to involve stakeholders in developing and implementing sectoral or territorial policies. The government should enforce these requirements to ensure that such bodies remain active and that their decisions are executed, thereby promoting accountability. If these measures are not implemented effectively, CSOs may gradually withdraw from these platforms, weakening the overall impact of collective advocacy efforts. To improve transparency, the government could also map existing consultative bodies so CSOs are fully aware of existing structures for their participation which could enable actors who are not official members also to submit their ideas and suggestions.

Countries can further support the institutionalisation of citizen and stakeholder participation by creating an office with a clear mandate to steer and coordinate the agenda across the whole government.

Armenia is planning to establish a dedicated unit for citizen and stakeholder participation in the Prime Ministry Office.5 The tasks of the unit would include, among others, the following:

• Review existing participatory government models, methodologies, and technologies employed by other countries and map existing practices in Armenia.

• Develop minimum standards for participation across the public administration and oversee public consultations with CSOs and their involvement in policymaking.

• Prepare and deliver guidelines and training programmes for public officials on government-civil society cooperation.

• Design a framework that outlines the roles, responsibilities, and behavioural requirements for public officials and CSOs involved in participatory processes.

• Develop and implement user-friendly digital platforms, mobile applications, and online portals to facilitate citizen and stakeholder participation.

• Establish ways to monitor and evaluate implementation and measure the impact of the participatory processes, including through gathering feedback from citizens and CSOs.

• Identify a symbolic physical space for discussions and exchange.

• Promote a cultural shift in attitudes among government officials, fostering a culture of openness, responsiveness, and citizen-centred decision-making.6

Armenia can learn from the experiences of OECD Members and non-Members to inform its agenda and ensure its success (Box 4.6). In addition, the OECD Citizen Participation Guidelines could inspire Armenia to develop minimum standards for participation across the public administration and oversee public consultations with CSOs and their involvement in policymaking (OECD, 2022[11]). The Guidelines can also inspire good practices in other countries to ensure that Armenia’s practices align with the highest standards in this field (OECD, 2022[11]).

More and more countries are considering creating a centre of expertise or coordinating body on citizen and stakeholder participation to guide and harmonise practices across the public administration.7 Moreover, similar arrangements have been established at the regional and local levels in some countries, which can inspire practices at the national level (Box 4.7).

Committing to the institutionalisation of the public body responsible for overseeing public participation in public policies and services ensures its stability and protects it from political cycles. Nesta (the UK innovation agency for social good) highlights the value in adopting a “machinery” for citizen and stakeholder participation in government (Nesta, 2023[45]), proposing “a centralised centre of excellence for citizen participation” that would build, maintain and improve platforms and develop innovative digital tools and offline approaches for public participation. It would also collaborate with public bodies to help plan and deliver participatory processes and initiatives (Nesta, 2023[45]).

Armenia could enhance its participation framework for citizens and stakeholders by adopting a multi-faceted approach. One model to consider is Finland's centralised body for citizen engagement, which coordinates and streamlines participation efforts across various government departments, ensuring a cohesive and organised approach to involving the public. Complementing this, Armenia could incorporate elements from Brazil's model, emphasising participation mechanisms at various levels of government and across different sectors, fostering a more localised and context-specific approach to civic engagement. Additionally, Armenia could adopt a system like France's Economic, Social, and Environmental Council (CESE). The CESE serves as a legislative body that facilitates broad-based consultation and dialogue and provides a formalised platform for diverse stakeholder input on policy matters. By combining these approaches, Armenia can create a robust and adaptable framework for citizen participation that enhances democratic engagement and reflects the needs of society.

Regarding the Unit Armenia intends to establish at the centre of government, this body would ideally be placed within the Prime Minister’s Office for maximum visibility and to signal high-level commitment. It is crucial that the dedicated unit or coordinating body takes a leading role in raising awareness of the importance of participation for existing and incoming public officials. The unit could work alongside other CoG partners, such as DEP to ensure participatory approaches are consistently leveraged in strategic planning. Furthermore, it should design guidelines and toolkits to support public officials in fulfilling their participation obligations and guarantee that all public bodies meet the minimum standard. Providing regular training, capacity-building, and guidance to public bodies on a formal and ad hoc basis is also fundamental. The Unit could consider introducing a course on citizen and stakeholder participation as a mandatory requirement for all newly hired public officials to introduce them to the concept and their responsibilities. Finally, creating spaces for exchange and learning between public officials is essential.

Moreover, according to the Survey on innovative capacity in Armenia, many respondents currently have a dedicated unit or responsible official in their public body who oversees the participation portfolio (see Figure 4.10).

To complement the work of the dedicated unit in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Armenia could consider establishing or leveraging the existing units or dedicated officials as focal points of citizen and stakeholder participation in every ministry and public body. These focal points could then form part of a network frequently convened by the dedicated unit to report on participatory processes, discuss challenges and share experiences. While it is most crucial that responsible focal points in each public body understand why and how to implement participatory processes, all public officials should have a broad understanding of the value of engaging citizens and stakeholders in their work. A wider community of practice could also be considered, which would include both these public officials and civil society organisations (see the section on establishing an Advisory Board). It could also benefit from the expertise of other organisations, such as the SDG Lab.

In Armenia, ministries involve CSOs – and, to a lesser extent, citizens – in various ways, ranging from those who meet the legal requirements (e.g. e-request platform, e-draft platform, civic council) to those who exceed expectations. According to survey respondents, the most commonly used participatory processes include in-person mechanisms (e.g. discussion groups), permanent mechanisms (e.g. consultative bodies, civic councils), and online platforms (Figure 4.11)

Regarding these participatory processes, survey respondents most often involved citizens and stakeholders in public decision-making regarding strategic documents that guide the public body, legislation relevant to the public body, and regulation relevant to the public body (Figure 4.12).

Similarly, civil society respondents outlined that they most often participate in focus groups, workshops, and roundtable discussions, followed by public consultations on legislation, policies, and services, and then through government committees and councils (Figure 4.13).

Several public bodies have taken additional steps to enhance citizen and stakeholder participation and can serve as inspiration:

• As outlined in Box ‎4.5, the working groups and thematic groups related to the Anti-Corruption Strategy were praised by civil society interviewees, noting that the Ministry of Justice held several discussions and roundtables. The overall strategy included numerous recommendations suggested by CSOs. However, it was noted that international support played an essential role in contributing to the quality of the process. Many of the discussions were organised with support from and within the framework of donor-funded projects and facilitated by local or international organisations. This demonstrates that positive outcomes are possible when public bodies are given concrete guidance and the necessary human and financial resources to undertake such processes. Another good practice to highlight within the Ministry of Justice is the assistance offered by the Centre for Legislative Development and Legal Research to other public bodies (Ministry of Justice, n.d.[46]). The Centre often provides ad hoc guidance and support to other public bodies in the organisation of their participatory processes.

• The Ministry of Education and Culture often invites thematic discussions and proposals from stakeholders and aims to ensure that groups at risk of exclusion are adequately consulted. Many CSOs representing vulnerable groups reported providing feedback and input on legal and policy documents relevant to the ministry, which were reflected in the final versions. One CSO working for people with disabilities noted that its research informed the Ministry’s policies regarding education on sign language interpretation.

• The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs regularly asks for stakeholders’ input throughout the decision-making process. For example, the Ministry widely disseminated the first draft of the Law on Volunteering for discussion. Many CSOs expressed concerns about potential restrictions that could arise from the text, and there were several rounds of feedback, with stakeholders noting that the versions improved with each stage.

• The Ministry of Finance also has a flagship programme wherein civil society organisations can directly monitor public procurement projects. This process is regulated by Government decree and as a result of e-procurement reforms additional mechanisms for public monitoring and auditing were introduced. The programme allows CSOs to have an active role in overseeing the implementation of projects and their results. CSOs then report back to the Ministry on the quality and raise any concerns. The Ministry views this initiative as a way to empower CSOs to perform their watchdog function, in a way that also supports the government in achieving its aims.

While the above examples showcase that some public bodies in Armenia can be considered as good practices, the government currently lacks a uniform approach to citizen and stakeholder participation across ministries and good practices are ad-hoc and scattered across public bodies. Developing a set of comprehensive guidelines for public bodies could address this inconsistency by outlining their obligations and opportunities for enhanced engagement, such as town hall meetings, public consultations, focus groups, hackathons, and deliberative processes. Moreover, establishing an informal network or community of practice for public officials would enable sharing good practices and lessons learned, fostering mutual support and overcoming common challenges. Drawing on OECD standards and guidelines and studies undertaken by other international organisations (e.g. the Council of Europe) can further inspire Armenia to institutionalise and standardise citizen participation practices across all public bodies.

Although many public bodies make significant efforts to take a participatory approach to policymaking and service design and delivery, they themselves suffer from constraints such as a lack of human and financial resources, leading to short deadlines for public officials and CSOs alike to discuss, deliberate, and reach conclusions that work for all stakeholders. One government interviewee noted that they are often in “crisis management mode” with little time to organise or design a process in a way that allows everyone to engage meaningfully. Public consultations can be time-consuming and public officials can be under pressure to deliver a law or regulation, creating challenges for them to engage consistently. Many government interviewees expressed an interest in finding ways to inform the public better and more effectively collect, analyse, and respond to proposals despite these limitations. In this regard, the government could shore up support for citizen and stakeholder participation by allocating financial resources and introducing a dedicated budget line for participation in each public body.

The Armenian constitution and other legal frameworks establish principles and general guidelines to frame the understanding of citizen and stakeholder participation in the Armenian context. However, there is no common definition among public bodies in Armenia. Civil society interviewees emphasised that there is no unified perspective on what constitutes “meaningful participation” or “success cooperation”, which serves as a barrier to progress. In this regard, the government could strive to reach a common definition and understanding of citizen and stakeholder participation, allowing public bodies to work towards this shared vision. A common understanding would also allow all policymakers to work towards the same goal, facilitate robust analyses of strategies to achieve citizen and stakeholder participation and support international comparisons of measures to improve participation. Ideally, the government would open such a discussion to inputs from civil society organisations and other stakeholders to ensure alignment with how non-governmental actors view participation.

In addition to the Public Council - a permanent consultative body created to provide a platform for perspectives of diverse groups of society in the process of policymaking - the so-called civic councils are adjunct to public bodies. Set up starting in 2016, they are mandated to meet at least every quarter. In practice, from January to August 2023, meetings of civic councils had been convened in only three out of twelve ministries, with only one meeting taking place in two of them (Transparency International, 2023[17]). The legal framework does not foresee any consequences or sanctions for non-adherence to the provisions of the law. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not currently have an operational civic council. If the councils do meet, public bodies often fail to publish complete information about their activities and outcomes. Furthermore, there are no feedback loops that would allow members of the civic councils to understand if and how their inputs were considered.

Lastly, these spaces are not always accessible to all CSOs. Civil society interviewees noted that the selection criteria are not always clear-cut in practice and that almost all CSOs will have an opportunity to join a council at some point, should they so wish. However, there are major challenges limiting CSOs that operate outside of Yerevan. All meetings are held in government buildings in the capital and there are currently no means to join online (Transparency International, 2023[17]). In addition, funding is not provided to support in-person participation, which may cause difficulties for small or medium-sized CSOs with few financial resources.

To strengthen civic councils, the government could consider hosting a brainstorming session with all existing members of such civic councils at the national level as well as relevant public officials to discuss current barriers and areas of opportunities to improve the functioning and overall impact of these bodies; enforcing existing requirements on the frequency of meetings and encourage members to meet on an informal and ad hoc basis where desired and to propose questions for discussion; designing an agenda for each meeting with the input of council members tasking the dedicated unit in the PMO to have a supervisory role over the functioning of the civic councils; holding an annual meeting with all members of the councils to share good practices, highlight achievements, and discussing challenges encountered during their term to ensure continued learning. In addition, the government could enhance transparency by publishing meeting minutes and outcomes on the websites of the public bodies and encouraging each public body to create a webpage on their respective websites with information on the council, its composition, the selection criteria, the terms, the roles and responsibilities, and recent meetings held.

The government of Armenia could also consider expanding participation in civic councils beyond stakeholders to include individual citizens. To ensure that participants are not limited to the “usual suspects” and include more women, ethnic minorities, and individuals from rural areas, a system of sortition could be used (OECD, 2022[41]). Sortition, or civic lottery, refers to recruitment processes that involve random sampling from which representative selection is made to ensure that the group broadly matches the community's demographic profile (OECD, 2022[11]).

As in many countries, citizens and stakeholders are increasingly seeking opportunities to be involved in all stages of the policymaking cycle. During interviews, civil society signalled their interest in involvement in the early policymaking phases, for example, in agenda- and priority-setting and other initial discussions that would enable more collaboration and co-creation rather than commenting on drafts where there is little room for adjustments. At the moment, CSOs are not particularly satisfied with the government’s performance in actively collaborating with stakeholders in policymaking and service design and delivery (Figure 4.14).

Currently, CSOs are most often engaged in supporting the government in developing policies and services or towards the end of the process, for example, through public consultation on draft legislation. As shown in Figure 4.15, survey respondents noted that they are often involved in drafting or designing solutions (e.g. policies, services, regulations, legislation, strategic plans), followed by supporting the implementation of projects, initiatives or programmes.

Involving citizens and CSOs later in the process, instead of at an early stage, where they can have a more influential role, is by no means a specificity in Armenia. Indeed only a few OECD Members have introduced early-stage citizen and stakeholder consultations, while most consult only when a draft has already been created (OECD, 2021[47]).

In general, some CSOs perceive participatory processes as being mostly formal and to suffer from time constraints, meaning that it is not always possible to have an in-depth discussion and make any significant changes to the course of action. Moving forward, creating more genuine spaces where CSOs can actively shape policies is essential, ensuring that their contributions lead to meaningful impact. In this vein, public bodies could identify ways to involve CSOs and citizens in the early stages of developing policies or services and capitalise on their knowledge and expertise. Involving CSOs in agenda-setting and priority-setting would empower them to act as partners for the responsible public body and foster more productive and fruitful dialogue, exchange, and collaboration throughout the process.

There is also a perception among CSOs that public officials tend to involve them primarily when CSOs can provide valuable resources and intellectual services. While these collaborations can be beneficial, there is a desire for more consistent, inclusive and genuinely collaborative processes. Some interviewees expressed that the selection of stakeholders for feedback could be more open and comprehensive, ensuring that a broader range of organisations can participate and contribute meaningfully. To the greatest extent possible, public officials should foster an “open call” approach when organising participatory processes and/or allow CSOs to suggest which other organisations could be invited. This is the approach that will be introduced by the Armenian government for thematic multistakeholder groups. Social and gender mainstreaming in all strategic documents will also be introduced, for all strategic documents, making inclusive consultations mandatory.

Accessibility and inclusion are critical components of successful citizen and stakeholder participation. Ensuring that all citizens, especially those from groups that are underrepresented or at risk of exclusion (e.g., minorities, people with disabilities, women, migrants, etc.), can engage in participatory processes empowers diverse voices and promotes fairness and equity. Inclusive participation also leads to more comprehensive and responsive policies that reflect a wide range of perspectives and experiences. This approach strengthens social cohesion, builds trust in public institutions, and drives innovation by bringing together varied ideas and solutions (OHCHR, 2018[48]).

It is important to leverage public participation in a way that promotes inclusion, empowerment, and equity in how policies are developed and how services are planned, designed, delivered and evaluated, with an emphasis on using digital tools and platforms. For example, in Portugal, the government has made efforts to engage a wide range of stakeholders with measures targeting specific groups, such as migrants and Roma in both the elaboration of sectoral policy documents and in their implementation (OECD, 2023[49]). These policy plans include a variety of initiatives targeting public services in education, housing, and health (OECD, 2023[49]).

To foster inclusive participation, it is important to broaden the engagement with stakeholders are invited to participatory processes. While public officials in Armenia often invite CSOs directly relevant to the topic under consideration, as highlighted by interviewees, there is a need to recognise the value of including civil society actors that advocate e.g. for youth, women, the environment, individuals with disabilities, into all policies where their perspectives are equally relevant. This approach helps mainstream human rights, environmental and gender considerations across all policy sectors.

Moreover, there is potential for greater engagement with a wider array of organisations, moving beyond the "usual suspects" of well-established and long-standing organisations. It is equally important to involve smaller, more informal or grassroots-driven organisations and those operating in rural areas. Public officials should reach people in diverse locations. For example, when developing a national policy or strategy, public officials can offer digital platforms for participation while also travelling to cities and remote areas to gather a broader range of perspectives. The OECD Guidelines on Citizen Participation Processes outline other ways to support those interested in participating who may not have the means, for example, by covering costs for their transport to government premises (OECD, 2022[11]). This broader inclusivity can enrich the participatory process, bringing in varied insights and fostering a more comprehensive and representative dialogue. Expanding outreach efforts could include tapping into broader networks and alliances that include newer, smaller, or grassroots organisations; engaging with community centres, local networks, and informal groups; utilising online platforms and digital tools; partnering with local community-based organisations and local leaders who have a deep understanding of the needs and concerns of their communities, as well as conducting visits to rural or underserved areas to engage with organisations and groups operating in those regions directly.

To foster inclusiveness and mitigate low participation turnout, governments can also consider remunerating participants for their involvement in more time-consuming processes (OECD, 2023[2]). This approach acknowledges the valuable time and effort contributed by citizens and CSOs, making participation more accessible to those who might otherwise be unable to afford the opportunity. By offering compensation, the government can enhance the inclusivity and diversity of participatory processes, ensuring that a broader range of voices and perspectives are heard in the decision-making process.

In addition, partnering with CSOs offers a promising avenue to enhance diversity and inclusion in participatory processes. CSOs possess deep insights and connections within various communities, making them invaluable partners for reaching and engaging with diverse groups. By collaborating with CSOs focusing on migrants, refugees, youth, rural populations, and other underrepresented communities, governments can leverage these organisations' expertise and networks to ensure more inclusive participation in policymaking and service delivery. Such partnerships amplify marginalised groups’ voices and foster trust and cooperation between the government and civil society, ultimately contributing to a more equitable and responsive governance framework.

Moreover, some countries have adopted specific strategies and policies to encourage the participation of underrepresented groups in decision-making and reduce any barriers they may face (Figure 4.16).

Participatory initiatives should be designed to allow for maximum participation. To the extent possible, the government could seek to make both online and in-person participation possible. Testing digital platforms on a broad group of individuals to identify accessibility barriers and considering difficulties for those living in urban versus rural areas to take part are essential. Additionally, incorporating hybrid models and partnering with local organisations can enhance outreach and engagement, ensuring that diverse voices are included.

Providing feedback is essential for maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of participatory processes. It builds trust, encourages continued engagement, improves the quality of input, strengthens accountability, fosters inclusivity, and facilitates better decision-making. Therefore, it is important that governments ensure that they can integrate feedback received from citizens and stakeholders into the decision-making process. After a participatory process, the inputs received should be given careful and respectful consideration and used as stipulated in the beginning – with clear justifications if any inputs or recommendations are not used or implemented. Public authorities should get back to participants and the broader public with the acknowledgement of the received inputs and recommendations and communicate to participants about the status of their inputs and the ultimate outcome of their participation (OECD, 2022[11]). If some of the proposals are not considered, public authorities should be transparent about its reasons. This demonstrates respect for participants and reduces ambiguity and potential misunderstandings. In the absence of closing the feedback loop, public authorities risk discouraging people from participating another time and potentially diminishing the benefits of participation. Armenia could benefit from developing a concrete methodology for gathering and responding to inputs to ensure a systematic and harmonised approach with a template for managing and responding to different kinds of stakeholders and their inputs.

Digital platforms are online tools, such as websites, social media networks, and mobile applications, that facilitate communication and interaction among users and enable individuals to share information and collaborate. They provide accessible means for people to engage in policymaking, monitor government actions, and offer feedback. These platforms can enhance inclusivity and transparency, allowing diverse citizens to participate in governance processes and contribute to public decision-making in real time.

Presently, the platform for petitions (e-petition.am) in Armenia is facing some challenges in fulfilling its functions. Currently, users cannot register to the platform due to mobile ID or e-ID issues, and the e-signature feature is unavailable. While the technical side of the e-petition platform could not be assessed in the framework of this assessment, it is important that the government addresses these technical difficulties. Once resolved, a broader discussion can be initiated on updating the platform to ensure it is user-friendly and effective. It could allow the government to consider creating more convenient, accessible and intuitive options for collecting e-signatures for constitutionally envisaged citizen legislative initiatives.

As aforementioned, in 2023, a civil legislative initiative was launched for the first time and delivered to the National Assembly. The paper-based petition focused on proposing amendments to certain articles of the Criminal Code (Transparency International, 2023[17]).

Box 4.8 illustrates additional examples of how petitions function in Switzerland and Finland. Armenia could take inspiration from how their platforms and processes work while continuing to raise awareness of citizens’ right to launch such an initiative, for example, through a public campaign.

Creating channels for both in-person and digital forms of citizen and stakeholder participation is essential as they foster inclusivity and accessibility, allowing a diverse range of citizens to actively engage in policymaking and service design in the ways that best suit them. These platforms can provide citizens with access to information, the ability to monitor government actions, and a streamlined, cost-effective means of offering feedback. Moreover, the information and data generated by these platforms can support evidence-based policymaking, ensuring that decisions align with citizens’ demands. While digital platforms can be an effective and relevant way to engage citizens and stakeholders, it is essential to recognise that these mechanisms can exclude certain groups. Dedicated efforts are necessary to balance these efforts to ensure that smaller CSOs and remote communities are equally included to achieve more inclusive participation. In 2020, 27 out of 32 OECD countries (85%) had government-wide participation portals used by all ministries at the central/federal level to publish consultation and engagement opportunities (OECD, 2023[2]). Brazil and Barcelona provide good examples in this regard (Box 4.9).

Armenia has several platforms to inform or engage citizens and stakeholders in some ways (e.g. e-request.am, e-draft.am, e-petition.am). The e-draft platform was created in 2017 so that public bodies could share draft legislation with the public. The Ministry of Justice is the state authority which has published most drafts (763), followed by the Ministry of Education (741) and the Ministry of Economy (608). The platform currently counts 150 156 registered users (as of July 2024) and has received over 400 000 visits in the past month (Government of Armenia, n.d.[55]). Users are invited to read the text, suggest changes to the language, and vote for or against the draft. OECD interviews noted that CSOs feel the e-draft platform broadly fulfils its function. They also highlighted recent promising updates; for example, users can now add specific comments per article of the law, whereas previously, they needed to add generic comments to the overall text. A challenge identified by CSOs is that while the platform is regarded as a valuable source of information, there are concerns that sometimes legislation appears to have progressed through public consultation with minimal review or commentary, raising concerns about the depth and effectiveness of the engagement process, undermining the potential for meaningful input and thorough scrutiny, highlighting the need for more substantive and rigorous consultation practices.

Some of the following challenges around how authorities use the e-draft platform were identified during the mission and research for this project:

• Sufficient time should be allotted on the platform for more complex legislation. While fifteen days is the minimum period that public bodies can set, this timeframe does not typically allow for thorough examination of draft laws, comparison with laws of other countries and international standards, discussions within networks, and formulation of well-considered amendments. Additionally, the scheduling of consultation periods frequently overlooks seasonal factors, such as vacation periods or religious holidays, which can impact the ability of stakeholders to provide meaningful observations and recommendations. While big differences exist between countries, most countries in the European Union allow for at least 3 weeks of consultation as a minimum, for primary laws. In Sweden, 12 weeks are required. Other countries, such as Germany and Denmark, do not have a fixed minimum for consultations. However, they must offer adequate time for stakeholders to examine, discuss and formulate amendments to the draft laws. In Germany, the proposed, but not mandated, timeline is to leave at least 4 weeks for consultations (OECD, 2022[56]).

• Opportunities for involvement before or after the public consultation phase should be given. Another challenge observed is the limited opportunity for participation before or after the public consultation phase. It is important that draft legislation is not presented primarily for informational purposes and that there should be genuine room for substantial feedback or making significant changes based on the consultation input.

• After the public consultation phase, the process should remain transparent and there should be opportunities to see revised versions. The platform and process do not allow users to see revised versions of the draft that highlight the inputs that were reflected and those that were not. If substantial changes occur between the initially posted draft laws and the final adopted versions, it is crucial for authorities to provide clear explanations for these modifications. This transparency helps to clarify the rationale behind the changes and ensures that stakeholders understand how their input and other considerations influenced the final outcome.

• Justifications should be adequate. Responses from public officials should provide detailed feedback so that it is clear why a suggestion was accepted or rejected or how it will be reflected in the final version of the test.

• The platform should be accessible and inclusive. The platform is not currently usable for people with certain disabilities (e.g. people with visual impairments) as it does not have the necessary accessibility features (e.g. alternative text for images, keyboard input, audio transcripts). At the same time, while the existing platforms serve their functions, the government could commit to upgrading and improving how they function.

The Prime Ministry in Armenia already plans to measure the "quantity and quality” of engagement on the e-draft platform in the coming months.8 To address the existing challenges around how the government uses the e-draft platform in the short to medium term, the government could foster greater transparency throughout the process of adopting draft legislation. This could include providing more detailed feedback and posting revised legal texts online so stakeholders can follow the changes closely. The revised versions could highlight the edits to the legislation and the rationale behind accepting or rejecting suggestions. It could also involve collecting and publishing data on the inputs received and whether they were reflected. This could extend to consultations held on and outside of the e-draft platform. The responsible public body could also conduct hearings and discussion groups throughout the process and allow stakeholders to explain their proposals while enabling public officials to explain why a suggestion may or may not be appropriate.

Similarly, it could be helpful for the responsible public body to appoint a public official as a contact point for the draft should stakeholders wish to understand any aspect of the text or ask any follow-up questions. Lastly, it is important to commit to improving the inclusivity of the platform with dedicated measures that improve access for groups at risk of exclusion. To assist public bodies in this regard, they could host a focus group with a variety of users (e.g. people with disabilities, people with low digital skills, and people with low literacy) to better comprehend the challenges that they may face in using the platform and work together to identify solutions.

As mentioned above, many countries are beginning to centralise their efforts on citizen and stakeholder participation and increase the interoperability of these processes by creating one portal for all participatory processes across the public administration. In the longer term, Armenia could also consider taking inspiration from countries such as Brazil, which have established a dedicated and holistic platform or portal for this purpose, which outlines all opportunities to participate across the government. Such a platform could also contain information about consultative bodies and civic councils, with links to redirect to their webpages.

Involving citizens and stakeholders in budgetary processes enables them to support public officials in determining the needs of the people and communities they serve. Embracing public participation in the budgetary cycle, as well as initiatives such as participatory budgeting (PB), can help governments better respond to their citizens’ demands, facilitate a more effective and efficient use of public resources, and demonstrate transparency and accountability.

To differentiate between concepts and practices, public participation in the budgetary cycle refers to meaningful opportunities for the public to engage in the national budget process. Governments often tap into stakeholders, such as CSOs, the private sector, media, trade unions, and individual citizens, as knowledge sources and partners in incorporating the views of diverse social demographics – including those most at risk of exclusion (International Monetary Fund, 2022[57]). Public participation can take place at various stages of the budgetary process, take different forms, and involve a range of public bodies and interested stakeholders. In this sense, it can range from one-off consultations to participation opportunities in all budget cycle stages (Transparency International, 2022[58]). Overall, it contributes to achieving sound fiscal outcomes, fosters meaningful engagement with stakeholders, and demonstrates the government’s commitment to the public interest.

PB is a process by which a segment of a budge t is allocated to citizens to determine how it should be spent. Originating in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 1989 (OECD, 2022[41]), PB has expanded globally with both OECD Members and non-Members adopting such processes at local, regional and national levels. PB most often occurs at the local level due to its proximity to citizens. This level of government also lends itself to PB as its outcomes are directly visible to the citizens. A common approach to introducing PB is for governments to identify particular areas of service delivery that could be delegated to PB, such as education, infrastructure or community services (OECD, 2022[41]). Citizens are invited to propose projects, which are subsequently put to a vote. The proposals that receive the most votes are implemented by the national or local government. By involving citizens in identifying priorities and distributing resources accordingly, PB fosters a sense of ownership among those involved, as they actively contribute to shaping their communities (see Table 4.1).

In Armenia, there has been a considerable increase in interest in both participation in the budget process and PB, especially at the local level for the latter. However, as this is a relatively recent endeavour in Armenia, recent efforts have not yet been reflected in international rankings in this area. In 2023, Armenia scored 11/100 in the participatory pillar of the most recent Open Budget Survey, which measures public participation in the state budget. This score is lower than the average across OECD members (24/100), the European Union’s Eastern Partnership countries average (22/100) and the global average (15/100) (International Budget Partnership, 2023[59]). In 2021, Armenia’s score was 6/100 overall, demonstrating that while progress has been made, there are still areas for improvement. PB in particular is also a commitment in the Open Government Partnership 2022-2024 Action Plan for Armenia. Commitment 5 mandates that mechanisms are created for a portion of community budgets to be dedicated to projects initiated and selected by citizens (Open Government Partnership, 2023[60]).

As mentioned in the section on legal frameworks, Ministries are required to hold one-off consultations and report back to the Ministry of Finance as the coordinating body, per Decision N-35 A, 2021 of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia. However, in 2022, only 8 out of 46 relevant bodies have submitted reports to the Ministry of Finance. Furthermore, only two ministries conducted consultations and provided comprehensive accounts of the processes to the Ministry of Finance (Open Government Partnership, 2022[61]). The government could ensure that public bodies undertake the necessary stakeholder consultations for budgetary processes. Continuous communication and guidance from the MoF to other line ministries throughout the fiscal year to receive updates on the process could further improve compliance. This would need to be reflected in the MoF budget to support capacity building and acquire the necessary human resources to carry out this task.

Some countries, such as Egypt, have established dedicated units for this (see Box 4.10).

While one-off consultations represent a positive initial step, they do not alone constitute a comprehensive framework for participation in the budget cycle. The absence of a specific framework means that implementing one-off consultations depends on the willingness of public bodies to engage without established mechanisms for oversight or enforcement.

According to the OECD Armenia’s Innovative Capacity Survey, involving citizens and stakeholders in distributing financial resources was the least common type of participation. Less than 10% of respondents reported involvement, compared to almost 40% who participated in shaping strategic documents guiding institutional actions.

However, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs represents a good practice as it has extended efforts to actively engage stakeholders throughout the budget cycle with the support of USAID. Stakeholders are involved from the initial conception phases, in January and February, where high-level priorities for the annual budget are set, through the budget request stage in April and May. The engagement continues in the third stage, preceding ministerial budget discussions in the National Assembly and during the assembly’s deliberations. This type of sustained engagement of stakeholders across multiple stages could serve as a model for other line ministries in the country. To this end, the MoF could offer training on the process, as well as on the language and terminology used in budget proposals. Materials shared with shareholders for budget consultations should be in simplified language to the extent possible.

PB is gaining substantial momentum in Armenia. In 2023, 4 communities participated in a PB pilot (3 of which were stipulated in the OGP action plan, and 1 participating voluntarily) organised by the Ministry of Territorial Administration and the German Agency for International Co-operation (GIZ supported by SDC and BMZ),9 which originally only monitored the process to ensure that the commitments were implemented, but later also offered funding to bring some of the projects voted by citizens to life (German Agency for International Co-operation, 2024[63]). In 2023, the Armenian government announced 1.2M euros in subsidies to co-finance projects at the local level in the four communities which participated in the training pilot (Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Armenia, 2024[64]).

Funding is currently sourced exclusively by the Armenian central and local government, yet GIZ has introduced a new PB piloting opportunity for Armenian communities. Around 20 communities participated in this second round, likely motivated by the prospect of co-financing by the Armenian central government in the future, similar to the original four communities. CSOs are also engaged in this process as local governments and citizens intermediaries. According to interviews with government officials, civil society, and international organisations working in this field, their contributions are recognised as valuable, due to their capacity to mobilise people and increase uptake.

One of the key challenges identified during interviews with international organisations working in this field was the low citizen uptake in the pilot communities when PB was introduced. Local governments struggled to gather proposals from citizens, and there were few votes for projects to be selected. A significant factor contributing to this was the original lack of funding from the central government that would follow for participating communities. This could have played a negative role in the uptake from communities overall, which did not see the value of participating without an allocated additional budget, and citizens within participant communities who were not incentivised to participate by their local government.

The increase in participation by local governments from four to approximately 20 demonstrates the impact of central funding in integrating PB as part of local budgets. OECD interviews further revealed that the effect is two-fold; not only are more communities adopting PB initiatives, but citizen engagement within those communities also sees a notable increase when central government project co-financing is involved. This can be partly attributed to local governments becoming more proactive in promoting PB and engaging citizens when central funding is involved, as well as citizens recognising the potential benefits of PB for their communities. Continued central funding for PB could increase the uptake of voluntary PB in several communities (as it has already successfully done) and make the idea of introducing mandatory PB at the local level more feasible in the long term.

Effective communication strategies to inform citizens about opportunities to participate in PB are essential for a high uptake. PB processes in the four communities where PB has taken place have been covered by the Public Television Company, Public Radio, and the local television channel of Armavir, Arma TV (Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Armenia, 2024[64]). Furthermore, according to OECD interviews, a Facebook webpage was also created, where local administration uploaded any actions taken towards this goal, from holding a local council meeting to inform citizens, to discussions amongst the latter.

To highlight the benefits of PB and encourage uptake, the government should implement a targeted communication strategy that includes detailed case studies, success stories, and clear, accessible information about the impact of PB. This strategy should be aimed at immediate participants and the broader public through various channels, such as social media campaigns, community events, and informative publications. It is crucial that citizens’ proposals, voting process and final decisions are publicly disclosed in a transparent and accessible manner, ideally through a dedicated government website (OECD, 2022[65]). Clear framing of the selection criteria regarding the goals and feasibility of the proposed projects should be established and communicated upfront. Transparency regarding the reasons for rejecting submitted proposals or failing to materialise voted-upon projects is also key. Such measures enhance the credibility of PB processes and can increase acceptance in communities that might initially be more sceptical about utilising PB.

In the vast majority of OECD Members, PB takes place at the local level as citizens can directly see the impact of the initiatives in their communities. Nevertheless, some exceptions, such as Portugal, have made pioneering efforts to undertake PB at the national level. This is an innovative approach that few countries have engaged in (primarily Portugal, but there have also been applications in Brazil and South Korea (OECD, 2022[66]). Armenia could consider such an initiative in the long term, given their high level of commitment to more citizen and stakeholder participation in budgetary processes. National-level public budgeting can set the tone for local public budgeting initiatives and scale up the scope and impact of participatory decision-making processes within a country, as it allows for decisions on larger-scale projects and policies that can impact the entire country.

Involving individual citizens in participatory processes is crucial, particularly for value-based issues involving trade-offs and long-term effects (OECD, 2020[1]). Involving citizens in public decision-making can deliver better policies and strengthen democracy. In addition, low trust in government is a crucial concern for most OECD Members, and citizens increasingly find governments unresponsive to public input (OECD, 2024[3]). Citizen participation can increase trust in government by legitimising government decisions (OECD, 2021[47]).

In Armenia, while traditional methods like public consultations and surveys are commonly employed to engage CSOs in the policymaking process, the adoption of more impactful and innovative mechanisms for citizen involvement remains relatively rare, with a notable gap in the participation of individual citizens in processes such as participatory budgeting (PB), hackathons, and citizen assemblies. While CSOs play a crucial role in representing broader societal interests, the absence of dedicated mechanisms for direct citizen engagement limits the potential for comprehensive public input. Channels that empower individual citizens to contribute their perspectives and feedback would further enrich the policymaking process, ensuring that it reflects the diverse needs and voices of the entire population. These mechanisms offer more profound, transformative ways to engage citizens, allowing for more direct and meaningful participation in decision-making processes. To enhance democratic engagement and policy effectiveness, there is a valuable opportunity to move beyond conventional consultations and embrace these advanced participatory tools. By integrating such practices, authorities can foster a more inclusive and interactive environment, empowering citizens to play a more substantial role in shaping public policies and ensuring their voices are heard and acted upon.

As the OECD Citizen Participation Guidelines outline, individual citizens and stakeholders do not require the same conditions to participate. Thus, they will not produce the same knowledge and proposals, allowing for more diverse feedback (OECD, 2022[67]).

For example, public consultations can involve both citizens and/or stakeholders. Public authorities can send targeted invitations when involving stakeholders (such as NGOs). Still, when public consultations are open to the broader public, organisers need to prepare a robust communication strategy to ensure high participation levels and reach a diverse range of participants. Councils (such as the Public Council of Armenia) could expand to include individual citizens.

Unlocking the full potential of citizen participation requires a clear definition of the question that citizens are required to respond to, a timely response to recommendations from the responsible public authority, easy access to all information about the participatory process, access to expertise and a wide range of opinions on the topic at hand and adequate time for participants to learn and deliberate. Inclusiveness is also crucial and can be achieved by randomly sampling citizens who are a microcosm of the general public, providing remuneration, covering expenses, and offering childcare or eldercare.

Deliberative processes can significantly enrich existing participation processes in Armenia. The government can foster deeper inclusion and citizen involvement by moving beyond petition processes and consultations through structured opportunities for citizens to engage in thoughtful discussion. This approach empowers citizens by giving them a more active role in shaping policy decisions. Moreover, deliberative processes can bridge the gap between community groups, promoting greater understanding and collaboration. Involving citizens in this way ensures that the reflect more reflective of the diverse needs and aspirations of the entire population, thereby strengthening democratic governance.

As noted in the 2020 OECD report “Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave”, the use of representative deliberative processes has been growing among public bodies from all levels of governments since the 1980s (OECD, 2020[1]), with common examples including citizens’ assemblies, juries, and panels. A representative deliberative process is a process wherein a broadly representative body of people weighs evidence, deliberates to find common ground, and develops detailed recommendations on policy issues for public authorities (OECD, 2020[1]).

Assembling ordinary citizens from all parts of society to deliberate on complex policy dilemmas and develop collective proposals has become an increasingly attractive way for governments to push through difficult reforms while being assured that they have the support of the public (OECD, 2020[1]). In these processes, randomly selected citizens, making up a microcosm of a community, spend significant time learning and collaborating to develop informed collective recommendations for public officials. A representative deliberative process is most suited to addressing values-based dilemmas, complex problems requiring trade-offs, and long-term questions beyond electoral cycles. In this sense, while such processes are costly regarding time and resources, they can create significant value for those making decisions while empowering citizens and redefining their relationship to their government (OECD, 2020[1]).

In the last few years, Armenia has set up some first experiments on deliberation and participative processes, which constitute a good starting point for strengthening and connecting to decision and policymaking. The first Convention of the Future Armenian, a private initiative, was held in 2023, based on the citizens’ assembly model. Its aim was to overcome internal polarisation and allow consolidating citizens’ participation, gathering 200 participants from Armenia and the wider Diaspora selected through a transparent and inclusive drawing process. The three-day event focused on three main themes: historic responsibility, demographic challenges, and Armenia-diaspora relations. During the Convention, selected participants received reports, scenarios and suggestions from expert committees in the initial preparatory stage. All applicants had the opportunity to participate in the ongoing discussions on the online platform. The adopted recommendations as a comprehensive package of actions belong to state bodies, structures and organisations, and business circles in Armenia and the wider Diaspora for implementation through joint efforts and collaboration (Convention of the Future Armenian, 2023[68]).

Box 4.11 offers examples from France and Ireland on the direct involvement of citizens in political decisions and government strategies.

In Armenia, the government could introduce more deliberative mechanisms in pilot policy areas, e.g., education, climate, or health. In these mechanisms, the government would assemble citizens from all parts of society to deliberate on complex questions, reach consensus, and develop collective recommendations for decision-makers to consider.

[8] Asian Development Bank (2021), Civil Society Brief, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/749366/civil-society-brief-armenia.pdf.

[52] Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (2021), E-democracia, https://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/participe/portal-e-democracia-sera-reestruturado.

[69] Citizens’ Convention for the Climate (n.d.), Citizens’ Convention for the Climate, https://www.conventioncitoyennepourleclimat.fr/.

[54] City Hall of Barcelona (n.d.), Decidim Barcelona, https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/digital/en/technology-accessible-everyone/accessible-and-participatory/accessible-and-participatory-5.

[68] Convention of the Future Armenian (2023), Convention of the Future Armenian, https://futurearmenian.com/convention/about/.

[14] Counterpart International (n.d.), Civil Society in Action, https://www.counterpart.org/project/civil-society-in-action-armenia/.

[15] Counterpart International (n.d.), Counterpart Convenes OGP Community Dialogue in Armenia, https://www.counterpart.org/counterpart-convenes-ogp-community-dialogue-in-armenia/.

[73] Economic, Social and Environmental Council (2023), Final report of the Citizens’ Convention for the End of Life, https://www.lecese.fr/sites/default/files/documents/CCFV/Conventioncitoyenne_findevie_Rapportfinal.pdf.

[71] Economic, Social and Environmental Council (n.d.), , https://www.lecese.fr/convention-citoyenne-sur-la-fin-de-vie.

[5] Economist Intellignence Unit (2023), Democracy Index, https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/.

[9] European Democracy Hub (2024), Armenia’s Fragile Democratisation: A New Role for the EU?, https://europeandemocracyhub.epd.eu/armenias-fragile-democratisation-a-new-role-for-the-eu/.

[22] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2022), Legal environment and space of civic society organisations in supporting fundamental rights and the rule of law. Lithuania, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/lt_franet_civic_space_2021-22_en.pdf.

[40] Finnish Ministry of Justice (n.d.), Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy (KANE), https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/advisory-board-on-civil-society-policy.

[6] Freedom House (2024), Armenia, https://freedomhouse.org/country/armenia/freedom-world/2024.

[63] German Agency for International Co-operation (2024), Supporting the self-governance and economic development of Armenian municipalities, https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/142476.html.

[10] Government of Armenia (2022), Public Administration Reforms Strategy.

[31] Government of Armenia (2018), Government decree on the procedure for organising and conducting public consultations, https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?DocID=126002.

[30] Government of Armenia (2018), Law of the Republic of Armenia on Regulatory Legal Acts, https://www.translation-centre.am/pdf/Trans_ru/HH_Orenq/2018_HO-180-N_en.pdf.

[29] Government of Armenia (2003), Law on Freedom of Information, https://www.arlis.am/documentview.aspx?docID=1372.

[34] Government of Armenia (2002), Law on local self-government, http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=1305&lang=eng.

[27] Government of Armenia (1995, with amendments through 2015), Constitution of Armenia, https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?DocID=143723.

[28] Government of Armenia (1995, with amendments up to 2015), Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, https://www.president.am/en/constitution-2015.

[33] Government of Armenia (2017, with amendments through 2021), Law on petitions, https://cis-legislation.com/document.fwx?rgn=113828.

[32] Government of Armenia (2002, with amendments through 2016), Law on the rules of procedure of the national assembly, http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=38&lang=eng.

[55] Government of Armenia (n.d.), UNIFIED WEBSITE FOR PUBLICATION OF LEGAL ACTS’ DRAFTS - Statistics, https://www.e-draft.am/en/statistics.

[36] Government of France (2005), Charter for the Environment, https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/charter_environnement.pdf.

[23] Government of France (n.d.), Accélérateur d’initiatives citoyennes, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/associer-les-citoyens/accelerateur-dinitiatives-citoyennes.

[70] Government of France (n.d.), Follow-up to the Citizens’ Climate Convention, https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/suivi-convention-citoyenne-climat/?debut_article=30#affiner.

[72] Government of France (n.d.), Une convention citoyenne sur la fin de vie, https://www.info.gouv.fr/actualite/une-convention-citoyenne-sur-la-fin-de-vie.

[75] Government of Ireland (2024), Ireland’s 4th National Biodiversity Action Plan, https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/files/4th_National_Biodiversity_Action_Plan.pdf.

[76] Government of Ireland (2024), Summary of Public Consultation Process for Ireland’s 4th National Biodiversity Action Plan.

[50] Government of Switzerland (n.d.), Easy answers about life in Switzerland, https://www.ch.ch/en/political-system/political-rights/petitions/.

[24] Interministerial Digital Department of France (DINUM) (n.d.), Accélérateur d’Initiatives Citoyennes. Saison 2, https://www.numerique.gouv.fr/actualites/accelerateur-initiatives-citoyennes-lancement-2e-saison/.

[59] International Budget Partnership (2023), Open Budget Survey 2023-Rankings, https://internationalbudget.org/open-budget-survey/rankings.

[57] International Monetary Fund (2022), Public Participation in the Budget Process: A New Approach, https://blog-pfm.imf.org/en/pfmblog/2022/08/public-participation-in-the-budget-process-a-new-approach-posted-by-marianne-fab.

[64] Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Armenia (2024), Participatory Budgeting, https://minfin.am/en/page/en_participatory_1.

[46] Ministry of Justice (n.d.), Centre for Legislative Development and Legal Research, https://moj.am/structures/view/structure/37.

[51] Ministry of Justice of Finland (n.d.), Citizen’s Initiative Website, https://kansalaisaloite.fi/fi.

[74] National Assembly of France (2024), Bill 2462 on support for the sick and the end of life, https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/textes/l16b2462_projet-loi.

[45] Nesta (2023), Creating a Citizen Participation Service and other ideas: reimagining government for better climate policy, https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Creating_a_Citizen_Participation_Service_and_other_ideas_Policy_Briefing.pdf.

[16] OECD (2024), OECD Armenia CSO Survey.

[3] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-survey-on-drivers-of-trust-in-public-institutions-2024-results_9a20554b-en.html.

[12] OECD (2024), Survey on innovative capacity in Armenia.

[49] OECD (2023), Civic Space Review of Portugal: Towards People-Centred, Rights-Based Public Services, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/civic-space-review-of-portugal_8241c5e3-en.html.

[26] OECD (2023), Civic Space Review of Romania, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/publications/civic-space-review-of-romania-f11191be-en.htm.

[35] OECD (2023), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Czech Republic: Towards a More Modern and Effective Public Administration, https://doi.org/10.1787/41fd9e5c-en.

[2] OECD (2023), Open Government for Stronger Democracies: A Global Assessment, https://www.oecd.org/publications/open-government-for-stronger-democracies-5478db5b-en.htm.

[25] OECD (2023), Open Government Review of Romania, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/governance/open-government/open-government-review-of-romania-ff20b2d4-en.htm.

[56] OECD (2022), Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2022, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e4b095d-en.

[66] OECD (2022), Dispelling myths about participatory budgeting across levels of governmet, https://www.oecd.org/tax/federalism/participatory-budgeting-note.pdf.

[67] OECD (2022), OECD Citizen Participation Guidelines, https://www.oecd.org/governance/innovative-citizen-participation/ (accessed on 8 July 2022).

[11] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.

[65] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.

[41] OECD (2022), Open Government Review of Brazil : Towards an Integrated Open Government Agenda, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f9009d4-en.

[53] OECD (2022), Open Government Review of Brazil. Towards an Integrated Open Government Agenda, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/open-government-review-of-brazil_3f9009d4-en/full-report.html.

[13] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/the-protection-and-promotion-of-civic-space-d234e975-en.htm.

[39] OECD (2021), Civic Space Scan of Finland, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/fr/gov/gouvernement-ouvert/civic-space-scan-of-finland-f9e971bd-en.htm.

[47] OECD (2021), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.

[1] OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions-339306da-en.htm.

[37] OECD (forthcoming), Guide for Policy Makers on protecting and promoting civic space, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/practical-guide-for-policymakers-on-protecting-and-promoting-civic-space_6c908b48-en.html.

[62] OECD (Upcoming), Promoting transparency and participation through access to information and public communication in Egypt.

[48] OHCHR (2018), Guidelines for States on the effective implementation of the right to participate in public affairs, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/PublicAffairs/GuidelinesRightParticipatePublicAffairs_web.pdf.

[60] Open Government Partnership (2023), Armenia Action Plan Review 2022-2024, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/armenia-action-plan-review-2022-2024/.

[61] Open Government Partnership (2022), ACTION PLAN OF OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA FOR 2022-2024, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Armenia_Action-Plan_2022-2024_Dec_Amended_EN.pdf.

[44] Open Government Partnership (2019), Designing and Managing and OGP Multistakeholder Forum, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Multistakeholder-Forum-Handbook.pdf.

[7] Open Government Partnership (n.d.), Armenia, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/armenia/.

[43] Open Government Partnership (n.d.), Armenia, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/armenia/.

[20] Paris City Hall (n.d.), Les Maisons de la vie associative et citoyenne (MVAC), https://www.paris.fr/pages/les-maisons-de-la-vie-associative-et-citoyenne-5388.

[4] Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (2021), The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia, https://assembly.coe.int/LifeRay/MON/Pdf/TextesProvisoires/2021/20211217-ArmeniaInstitutions-EN.pdf.

[38] Reporters without Borders (2023), Armenia, https://rsf.org/en/country/armenia.

[21] Republic of Lithuania (2020), .

[19] Republic of Slovenia (n.d.), Non-governmental organisations, https://www.gov.si/en/topics/non-governmental-organisations/#:~:text=The%20Non%2DGovernmental%20Organisations%20Act,association%20in%20the%20public%20interest.

[17] Transparency International (2023), CSO Meter: A compass to conducive environment and CSO empowerment, https://csometer.info/sites/default/files/2024-01/Armenia%202023%20CSO%20Meter%20Country%20Report%20ENG__0.pdf.

[42] Transparency International (2022), Mapping of public participation platforms and possibilities in Armenia, https://transparency.am/en/publication/261.

[58] Transparency International (2022), Participatory Budgeting, Public Participation in the Budget, https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/kproducts/Participatory-Budgeting-Primer-Final.pdf.

[18] United States Agency for International Development (2023), 2022 Society Organisation Sustainability Index: Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia, https://www.fhi360.org/wp-content/uploads/drupal/documents/csosi-europe-eurasia-2022-report.pdf.