By Aurelio Padovezi (E Co.) and Sona Akopian (EPIU), Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Armenia
On the morning of 7 April, Yerevan marked the Day of Motherhood and Beauty. Across the city, the manner in which Armenia commemorates the Day of Motherhood and Beauty moves with intense symbolism, extending beyond mere floral tributes and gestures. It manifests as a deeper cultural acknowledgment of stewardship, continuity, and care – principles that, while seldom articulated in such terms, reside at the centre of effective environmental governance.
A few streets away from the celebrations, a different kind of work was taking place. In a workshop room, policymakers, technical experts, and institutional actors sat down to work through the future of Armenia’s landscapes through the lens of governance: mandates, coordination mechanisms, financing structures, and data systems. Restoration, in practice, is not only an environmental challenge. It is an institutional one.
That singular task shapes the core of our work under the RESILAND: Armenia Resilient Landscape Project, a GEF and SIDA-funded project, where E Co. supported, in partnership with GreenVance. The RESILAND (GEF ID: 11046) project focuses on restoring and managing landscapes sustainably while improving livelihoods. It aims to expand protected and well-managed natural areas, strengthen environmental institutions, and support local communities to engage in sustainable economic activities that align with landscape restoration.
Strong frameworks, uneven delivery
Through the RESILAND project, we have focused on unpacking this institutional dimension. Three analytical components guided this process: an institutional capacity assessment, a gender action plan, and a policy gap analysis. Each provided a different entry point into the same systemic question: to what extent is Armenia’s governance architecture equipped to deliver on its restoration ambitions?
The situation is quite nuanced: while Armenia possesses a robust legal and policy structure that largely mirrors its international obligations. Strategic direction is not the issue. Indeed, the nation has clearly defined its objectives concerning biodiversity protection, climate resilience, and the restoration of forest landscapes.
However, in our analysis of more than 40 policy and regulatory instruments and mapping of 23 governance organisations, we identified over two dozen critical gaps, overlaps, and contradictions. Implementation is constrained by structural and operational misalignments. Institutional mandates are distributed across multiple entities, often without sufficiently defined coordination mechanisms. Data systems remain fragmented, limiting their use in policy and decision-making. Financial flows are still largely dependent on external programmes, raising questions about long-term sustainability. And, critically, some policy commitments are not matched by corresponding budgetary allocations or institutional capacities .
The policy gap analysis adds another layer to this diagnosis. It identifies not only missing instruments, but also partial frameworks where policies exist without enforceable mechanisms, or where legal provisions are not supported by operational tools. As a result, creates a familiar governance challenge: a system that is normatively strong, but functionally uneven.
From evidence to sequencing reform
The workshop was designed to move past the diagnostic phase. Rather than re-examining existing data, the objective was to translate findings into a practical roadmap for capacity building and institutional reform, accounting for both systemic hurdles and opportunities. This resulted in a sequencing logic that is both systemic in scope and pragmatic in application.
In the short term, the focus is on improving functionality within existing structures, strengthening coordination, addressing immediate capacity gaps, and enhancing data management practices. These are interventions that can generate early results and build institutional momentum.
In the medium term, attention shifts to more structural adjustments, including the development of integrated monitoring systems and more predictable financing mechanisms. Over the longer term, the ambition is to consolidate a governance system where mandates, resources, and institutional capacities are aligned, enabling the sustained implementation of restoration policies.
This is not a linear process, nor a purely technical one. It requires political ownership, institutional adaptation, and continuous learning. Our role at E Co. has been to support this transition, structuring the evidence, facilitating dialogue, and helping translate complex diagnostics into actionable policy pathways.
Gender as a governance variable
On a day dedicated to motherhood, the gender dimension of this work becomes even more salient. The Gender Action Plan (GAP) developed under RESILAND reinforces a point that is often acknowledged but insufficiently operationalised: gender is not only a social consideration, but a governance variable.
Women make up only 10% of the workforce in Hayantar’s regional forest enterprises. Only 15% of registered landowners in Armenia are women, a figure that has not meaningfully shifted despite formal legal reforms. Structural barriers persist, including limited access to land ownership, financial instruments, and formal decision-making spaces.
At the same time, women are doing some of the most intensive work connected to forests and natural resources. They are responsible for the bulk of non-timber forest product collection; such as berries, herbs, mushrooms and wild fruits, activities that are critical to household food security and supplemental income in rural communities, but that remain informal, unprotected, and invisible in policy terms.
Responding to these disparities is not only about equity; it also affects how effective restoration interventions are. Gender in the roadmap goes beyond participation targets. The GAP provides a practical framework for change – institutionalising gender focal points, integrating sex-disaggregated data into monitoring systems, and redesigning leasing and benefit-sharing so women can participate meaningfully, not just in name.
COP17: Armenia on the global stage
Hosting COP17 this October will place Armenia’s environmental governance under global scrutiny. Centered on the slogan ‘Taking action for nature,’ the conference will mark the first global review of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
The success and credibility of the commitments presented on this global stage depend heavily on the functional strength of the systems supporting them. Our current efforts are directed specifically toward ensuring these systems are operational and effective.
The work being advanced through the RESILAND project, particularly the roadmap established in this workshop, serves as a direct contribution to this national agenda. It provides a structured pathway for aligning policy, institutions, and resources in a way that supports delivery.
Beyond symbolism
As the Day of Motherhood and Beauty wrapped up across Yerevan, the symbolism is hard to ignore. Care, in its most meaningful sense, is not only expressed through gestures, but through structures, the systems that sustain and enable life over time. In environmental governance, that care takes the form of institutions that function, policies that are implemented, and resources that are aligned with priorities. The work we pushed forward is part of that effort. It is incremental, technical, and often invisible. But it is precisely this kind of work that determines whether restoration remains an aspiration or becomes a sustained reality.
Shnorhavor Mayrutyan ton!