An Interview with Lise Grande (continued)

OK: Do you think that Armenians understand what corruption is?

LG: Let me say something about corruption from the broader experience that UNDP has. You have corruption in some countries, such as Angola, where I was based before and where people within government structures were able to steal or sell state assets. They took the revenue from oil and didn't channel it in any way into the government structure. They just stole it.

Then you have corruption where in order to receive a service that should be provided to you at cost or free, you have to give something else in return. Now, how you fight those two forms of corruption are, to be honest, very different. They really are. If you're going to fight the wholesale theft of state assets what you have to do is find those people and put them in jail.

Stopping every technician and nurse in a hospital that takes a little dram on the side because they're not getting large enough salaries to support their families is a different matter. What you need to do here is raise salaries. However, what a number of commentators have said about the anti-corruption strategy is that because the anatomy of corruption in the country hasn't really been properly analyzed, the strategy for dealing with corruption is not particularly targeted.

The opinion of the UN on this matter is that further study is needed so that we know exactly what are we talking about and what is the most intelligent and effective way of tackling corruption. You don't attack corruption across the board in the same way. It depends on how it operates, how it functions and what you do about it.

OK: Yet, when most people talk about corruption here, they usually only talk about high level government corruption and sometimes I don't think that there is a fully-formed concept of what corruption is on other levels. Although Transparency International has produced a number of corruption awareness films, there's not really been much engagement that I've seen which can initiate open discussion in society.

LG: It's a very important point that you've raised and it's extremely well taken. I don't think that there is a sophisticated public dialogue, you're right, and I also agree with your observation that there appears to be a feeling of impunity from senior officials and leading members of the business community who manage to get away with all sorts of things.

OK: There's an opinion among many that the priority of the anti-corruption strategy is to go after the soft-targets rather than the more difficult ones that require real political will.

LG: Again, I think that this is an important observation but I would like to make the following comment. I know that in the government's reflection on corruption, part of why there has been such a focus on the social sector is that this form of corruption has the greatest impact on the most vulnerable members of society. UNDP appreciates and shares that opinion. If you're from a very poor household and trying to get your kids educated or access to decent healthcare and you're shoveling out little bits of money here, there and everywhere when you really shouldn't have to, then that's going to impact your household economy in a disproportionate way.

Now, that does not mean that the other forms of corruption, which you correctly point out exist, don't need to be addressed. In terms of corruption and how it fits into the transition process, I also don't want to under-estimate how difficult it is to actually be in this situation. To go from one form of economy and political system and simultaneously change the rules of the game economically and in terms of public administration is a hell of a complicated process.

You have to understand that during this transition, until the rules of the game are in place, understood and enforced, you're going to have all kinds of manipulations and opportunist behavior until new systems are entrenched, embedded and practiced. What is quite clear in the case of Armenia is that you're not there yet. You do not have these systems and therefore, along the way you're going to get all kinds of permutations, diversions and inappropriate actions.

OK: There is also the need for individuals and communities to be empowered rather than rely on international organizations such as the United Nations. Society also needs to participate and demand change. What is the UN doing to promote this?

LG: You've touched again upon another absolutely critical point. If civil society and the general population isn't prepared or hasn't the opportunity to demand that certain rights be respected, practices instituted or even to engage the government in discussion on where the country should be going then I think that there's very little hope that Armenia is going to get things right. Is the government aware of that? Yes, I think it is and I want to refer to the process of drafting the PRSP which was a decisive turning point for the government in so far that they did set up a coherent structure for soliciting input from civil society.

That input had an impact on the way the PRSP was constructed although perhaps the final version of PRSP after it had been re-drafted didn't meet the full expectations of civil society. However, there has been a structured and serious experience of input going into the government's key strategy and its experience was positive, appreciated and there is a commitment to repeat it. The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) is a similar process where civil society had a structured input into Armenia 's proposal.

However, what came out at the end might not fully reflect everything that had been put in and the risk is that if civil society does not have confidence that its involvement is not really affecting what the government ends up with then sooner or later they will become cynical and withdraw. There has to be confidence that when engagement occurs it is in good faith and that it has impact. I think that we're at a point where confidence is now increasing and input from civil society is significant and certainly not dismissed.

OK: It's interesting that you mentioned the MCA. Do you feel that this is competition to the MDGs or can they co-exist together?

LG: The view of the United Nations is that the richest countries in the world should be giving at least 0.7 per cent of their GDP to developing countries to achieve the MDGs. We applaud steps taken by member states to achieve that. However, the US has not yet met this target but as a way of channeling money to countries that meet certain American criteria, the MCA is to be welcomed.

OK: Let's get back to the MDGs. The environment is considered a very important area of concern and we know that there are very obvious links between poverty, corruption and the environment. There are also related issues such as empowering communities in order to protect the environment but what are the main concerns of the UN in this area?

LG: This is an area where out of all the international organizations in Armenia , the UN has a leading role. We have put a lot of effort, emphasis and resources into encouraging sound management practices in this area although we realize that the environment is going to be exploited for economic reasons. That said, one of the things we would like to see is the development of a sustainable environmental policy not just in the short or mid term but in fact, for the long term.

We keep on encouraging the government to come up with that strategy but we don't have it yet. They know it's important and have recently taken the decision to set up a council on sustainable development and we have high expectations that the council will actually get a strategy out. I think that in a very small country like Armenia you need the right balance between using resources for growth while at the same time protecting them for the future.

You don't have a lot of resources in Armenia so if you're going to make an error of judgment, do so on the side of protecting of as much as what you've got. You don't want to over exploit your resources because you really don't have enough of them.

OK: The MDGs should be met by 2015 but let's take deforestation. Current projections indicate that by 2025 there might not be any forests left at all in Armenia . Can anything be done to stop what is, in my opinion, a potential environmental catastrophe?

LG: Sure. Ban logging.

OK: It's as simple as that?

LG: That would certainly help. If you're serious about stopping deforestation, that's the most effective way to do it. That's probably not a realistic option here but could logging be better controlled? Absolutely.

This is an area that Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) is involved in. They have a very good and extremely active office in Armenia and are working with the Ministry of Nature Protection as well as NGOs in order to develop and introduce an intelligent forestry policy. Again, I think that everybody knows that there will be some economic activity in this sector but there is certainly the need for better regulation, enforcement and control.

OK: Armenia must have some international obligations with regards to the environment but nobody seems to be raising this issue. Armenia also has an obligation to the Council of Europe to make sure its laws work but that isn't generally the case.

LG: This goes back to the point about constructive engagement and is part of the UN's ongoing daily dialogue with the government about its obligations under international law. However, while these obligations are on states, in order to fulfill them you've also got to work with the private sector and civil society. My sense is that there are international obligations that the government takes quite seriously. For example, obligations under the World Trade Organization are met by the government but there are other international treaties where the enforcement mechanisms, which are one of the Achilles heels of international law, are weak or non-existent.

Therefore, it will take longer to meet those obligations although I do believe that the government tries to do so. Nevertheless, timing has a lot to do with whether those obligations are enforceable. The government moves very quickly, for example, with regards to its obligations to the World Trade Organization because the consequences of not doing so are very serious.

The UN understands that we are talking about a country that is taking on a dual reform process in terms of the economy, where it is introducing a whole new set of rules, and the public sector. You can't do everything all at once and we accept and appreciate that the government is acting in good faith and trying to meet its obligations. Now, how and when it meets them is a matter of constant prioritization. My opinion is that the government is intelligently prioritizing those obligations that can be enforced.

That does not mean, however, and I don't want to be misunderstood here, that the government does not intend to meet its other obligations because I believe that it does. Whether they can do that all at once is another matter.

OK: You recently made headlines by warning of a possible catastrophe in Armenia with regards to HIV – AIDS. Although the prevalence of HIV is considered to be quite low, I suppose the concern is that the increase in the number of infections is quite high?

LG: What we were concerned about is that there is a large percentage of your population living and working in countries such as Russia which has one of the highest rates of infection in the world. Therefore, this is a factor that could be introduced into Armenia with catastrophic consequences. The other country that the UN is monitoring very closely is Tajikistan where the situation is similar with many people working in Russia in situations where they are exposed to the risk of HIV–AIDS.

UNAIDS has done a really tremendous job and through their work we remain aware that Armenia is really in a precarious situation and that's why the UN has decided to say wake up and wake up now. The experience with Africa shows that countries with high migration rates are more exposed than other countries. It's also about changing social practices which is a hell of a difficult thing.

Let's be very open on this issue because otherwise we're not going to get anywhere. Sexual practices have to change and what I mean by that is that condoms have to be used. Until that happens, you are not going to be able to stop the spread of HIV –AIDS. It's an accepted social practice not to use a condom and that's what the UN is trying to change although it goes right to the heart of the male sense of virility. Until you can turn that around you're really in a dangerous situation.

Although the prevalence level is quite low this also means that there is the perception that the problem only affects a few people from a few social groups such as same sex partners and sex workers. However, statistics show that the highest rate of infection in Armenia can be found amongst heterosexuals and intravenous drug users. What the UN wants to do, in a sense, is to scare people because they should be and if you look at the way gender relations develop in this country, it's got to be men that wear the condoms.

They are widely available, quite easy to use and the responsibility has got to be on men. A woman is usually not in a position to insist that a condom be used.

OK: What about gender issues? Do you think that the time is right to tackle this very sensitive issue in a male-dominated society?

LG: No, we think that the time is necessary. We're not making any more progress on this issue than we were five years ago but one of the points that is quite noticeable about the collapse of the Soviet Union is that you had the “evacuation” of women from the public sphere. This is not so true in international organizations, the media and NGOs, however, and while women could not hold their former positions in government they certainly found a home in these institutions. In a sense, we've become a bastion for highly qualified women who are unable to secure positions elsewhere.

Patriarchy is a pretty slippery thing although I wouldn't call myself a feminist. All of the countries of the South Caucasus have patriarchal structures which pre-existed communism when many male-centric practices were reversed in the public sphere although I don't think that you can claim this to be the case in the family. Regardless, when communism collapsed and these countries moved into the period of transition, patriarchal practices in the public sphere began to reassert themselves.

OK: Is there anything you'd like to add about the MDGs?

LG: No, not really. However, there is something I'd like to say in terms of poverty and the social question. That is, I think that the development of a class society in Armenia – this gap between rich and poor – has important implications for you as a nation. Armenians have always shared their national achievements and historically, suffered collectively. However, if you no longer have a social compact that links Armenians together then I think you will become quite vulnerable.

My sense is that this is a precarious time and I think that the main challenge is to find a way to maintain your collective identity – to have a social compact between the rich and poor that aims to achieve a basic standard of living for everyone and a relatively equal form of distribution of resources and wealth so that you don't effectively split into two countries. Armenia is too small to have one country for the rich and another for the poor. You need one unified country and this is particularly essential given Armenia 's history as well as its position in the world.

Usually, the middle class acts as a buffer between the rich and poor and what is precarious about the situation in Armenia is that you haven't got one yet. There's no question that there's the beginning of one but it's not strong or large enough to act as a buffer between the classes. That's why you have got to have an explicit social compact in the short and medium term until this middle class can develop and act as a modulating force on the other two extremes. You don't have that now.

OK: One of the biggest obstacles here, however, is the lack of democracy in Armenia . It is difficult for people cannot change the government through elections and as a result, there is no pressure on officials to be accountable. Many issues such as poverty reduction and anti-corruption initiatives are probably linked to this.

LG: In this area we have a couple of primary focuses. One is what we refer to as a participatory process that encourages the involvement of civil society in the political life of the country and we are also concerned with developing oversight mechanisms or what you call accountability. How do you make sure public institutions are accountable? If you look at our strategic plan for the next five years we have a whole series of activities that are aimed in this direction.

OK: As your tenure in ends, how do you look back at your time in Armenia ?

LG: It's been a tremendous privilege and really an honor when you're welcomed as a guest in someone else's country. It's a deeply humbling experience and I'm grateful for that. I knew almost nothing about the country when I came and as I learned more I became moved by your history and deeply committed to your country getting things right. I think that Armenia is quite special and very unique although as an international civil servant you're not really meant to say that. However, I actually think it is.

Having the opportunity to be part of it has been tremendous. I have been particularly moved by my visits to impoverished villages and especially graced by the hospitality I encountered.

---

Onnik Krikorian is a freelance journalist and photographer from the United Kingdom living and working in the Republic of Armenia . Although the interviewer works occasionally for UNICEF, this interview was held in his capacity as an independent journalist.

Information on the Millennium Development Goals can be found online at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

Page 2 of 2