WPA midterm – Acopian Center for the Environment

Home
>
Solid Waste
>
WPA midterm

Mid-Term Evaluation of

Waste Policy Armenia Program

December 2024

Contents

Abbreviations 3

Executive Summary 4

Project Background 9

The Purpose Scope, and Approach of the Mid-Term Evaluation 9

Mid-term Evaluation Design and Methodology 11

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 17

Relevance and Appropriateness 17

Effectiveness and Impact (Scale and Resilience) 20

Efficiency 47

Potential Sustainability 50

Cross-Cutting 56

Lessons Learned 57

Abbreviations
AUA
American University of Armenia
EPR
Extended Producer Responsibility
FGD
Focus group discussion
IRB
Institutional Review Board
KII
Key informant interview
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MoE
Ministry of Environment
MSD
Market Systems Development
MTAI
Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructures
PRO
Producer Responsibility Organization
RA
Republic of Armenia
SIDA
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
ToR
Terms of Reference
WPA
Waste Policy Armenia
WSS
Waste Source Separation
Executive Summary
Waste Policy Armenia 4-year Program aims to improve Armenia’s waste management sector capacity to implement more environmentally sound waste management policies. Financial support to the Program is provided by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and is implemented by AUA Acopian Center for the Environment.

The purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to evaluate the progress made towards Program outcomes in the reporting period and to inform decisions on adjustments and improvements to Program implementation.

The evaluation framework combines OECD/DAC criteria with a market systems evaluation approach to provide a comprehensive and context-specific assessment. The evaluation criteria are Relevance and Appropriateness, Effectiveness and Impact (Scale and Resilience), Potential Sustainability, Cross-cutting Issues, Lessons Learned and Recommendations.

The mid-term evaluation was conducted by employing a mixed methods approach with the application of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The primary data was collected using the methods of survey (nationwide survey/sample size 623, stakeholder survey/sample size 46), key informant interviews (12 KII with program experts, stakeholders, donor representatives), and focus group discussion (one FGD with the program team). Secondary data was collected through document review.

Summary of Key Findings

RAG (Red-Amber-Green) approach was used to visualize the evaluation findings and assess the status of program performance and progress.

These areas are off-track and unlikely to meet objectives without significant intervention.

Progress is being made, but there are challenges that may impact outcomes unless addressed.

Signifies areas that are on track, with objectives likely to be achieved as planned and no major issues reported.
The table below presents the summarized RAG rating for the WPA Program per evaluation criteria.

Evaluation Criteria
Color coding
Evaluation’s Assessment of the Criteria
Relevance and Appropriateness

The program interventions are highly relevant to the country context and strategic plans of the GoA in the field.
Effectiveness and Impact (Scale and Resilience)

Despite challenges and delays, the program has effectively engaged in addressing key issues within the waste management system and is likely to achieve most of the planned outcomes.
Efficiency

The program’s implementation efficiency has room for improvement through enhanced planning, better resource utilization, and further streamlining of its M&E system.
Potential Sustainability

Sustainability of program outcomes requires further attention due to heavy reliance on the program team, limited ministry capacity and ownership for EPR implementation, financial and operational capacity constraints of businesses, and limited public preparedness.
Cross-Cutting

The program demonstrates strong integration of cross-cutting issues through comprehensive gender mainstreaming, human rights approaches, and environmental considerations.

Relevance and Appropriateness

The Waste Policy Armenia (WPA) program demonstrates strong overall relevance to Armenia’s context and development needs through its interconnected components addressing critical environmental management gaps. The program’s key components demonstrate strategic alignment with Armenia’s key policy frameworks such as the Government of Armenia’s 2021-2026 Program for improving waste management system, complies with Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) requirements, and enhances country’s Waste Management System Strategy. A notable 86% of program stakeholders rated the activities of the program as relevant to their needs in the waste management sector.

The assessment of the program’s design and implementation against market systems approach principles revealed strong incorporation of systemic approach and sustainability elements, with partial implementation of adaptability and facilitation principles.

Overall, based on findings, the program interventions are highly relevant to the country context and strategic plans of the GoA in the field.

Recommendation

To further strengthen the relevance of the program with MSD approach enhance the ‘facilitation’ aspect of the program shifting the focus from direct implementation to support and coordination. Provide technical support while intentionally creating space for state institutions to take the lead in legislative development processes, rather than remaining in a passive, reviewer-only role.
Effectiveness and Impact (Scale and Resilience)

The evaluation indicates that despite challenges and delays, the program has effectively addressed key issues in Armenia’s waste management system and is on track to achieve most of its planned outcomes.

Survey results reveal promising trends, with 79% of businesses planning to expand their waste management operations and 86% expressing confidence in future sector investments under favorable conditions. Progress varies across outcomes: the development of EPR legislation has resulted in comprehensive drafts aligning with EU directives and domestic needs, but formal adoption has been delayed until late 2025, posing risks to achieving program targets within the original timeline. Stakeholder engagement has achieved mixed results, with 54% reporting contributions to the EPR system, falling short of the 70% target. While large international companies demonstrate strong engagement, SMEs show limited participation.

The waste source separation model (Guideline) has secured verbal approval from MTAI, with 80% of stakeholders contributing to its development, surpassing the 70% target. However, its official adoption by MTAI remains pending, which impacts the related indicator of integrating waste infrastructure investment plans into infrastructure programs in municipalities. The operational implementation of the waste source separation model in Sevan has been delayed, as well, due to procurement issues.

Capacity-building initiatives have shown early success, particularly in strengthening stakeholder collaboration. The establishment of the Recyclers’ Union, although not initially planned, is a noteworthy achievement, addressing sector needs effectively. Currently, 14% of stakeholders (municipality representatives) apply at least three sustainable waste management practices, while 60% of the population is aware of such practices, though only 29% actively implement them.

The program is demonstrating significant potential to impact Armenia’s waste management sector through its key outcomes. Early indications of impact include businesses adapting practices in anticipation of EPR legislation and growing interest in recycling infrastructure development. The Sevan source separation model offers a scalable solution for cleaner recycling supply chains, with potential for nationwide replication. Capacity-building efforts have strengthened coordination among stakeholders, laying the groundwork for systemic change.

Nevertheless, challenges remain. These include limited private sector engagement, financial sustainability of waste source separation model, and barriers for smaller market players to meet new standards. Vulnerable populations face mixed impacts: while the formalization of waste management offers safer employment opportunities, economic strain from EPR fees poses risks. Realizing the program’s long-term impacts will depend on sustained institutional support, effective implementation of EPR legislation, and equitable access to benefits across all stakeholders.

Finally, while the program’s risk management framework reflects good understanding of the context and actionable steps to risk reduction and mitigation, the evaluation identified gaps, such as the absence of a critical assumption regarding EPR legislation’s non-approval.

Recommendations

Strengthen communication with the MTAI and actively advocate for the adoption of the model within 2025 since it has received a positive evaluation by the Ministry already in 2023. To the extent possible, consider incorporating capacity-building initiatives for municipalities to support the implementation of the Model during the remaining months of the Program or as part of a potential extension, if applicable.
Ensure that the final evaluation measures the business investment related indicators among non-targeted (control) businesses as well. Set targets in relation to this comparison (for example partner businesses’ investment capacity is at least 20% higher compared to the control group).
If the EPR legislation is not enacted by October 2025, it is recommended that the program propose a meaningful extension, as the entire EPR system development component will be significantly impacted.
Enhance approaches of stakeholder engagement and participation in policy development.
Strengthen the role of the newly established Recyclers’ Union in coordinating private sector involvement and advocacy.
Focus on sustainable waste management practices and implementation, with efforts to increase the percentage of the population adopting these practices.
Strengthen media engagement to raise public attention and understanding of waste management reforms.
Include “non-adoption of EPR legislation” in the risk matrix and develop alternative strategy for outcome one.

Efficiency

The evaluation of the program’s efficiency highlights a mix of achievements and challenges in achieving results economically and on time. Regular performance monitoring revealed strong initial progress, with activity and output achievement rates reaching 90% and 88% during the first monitoring period (September 2022–February 2024). However, performance declined in the second period (March–August 2024), with rates dropping to 58% and 62%. External delays, such as government operations, and internal challenges, including extended procurement timelines and low participation in capacity-building activities, contributed to this decline.

Resource management showed sound financial practices, including successful external audits, but highlighted underutilized resources in private sector engagement and high administrative staff turnover. Leveraging international expertise for EPR and waste source separation model development proved efficient, but gaps in expertise for systemic change monitoring and private sector engagement persist.

Institutional constraints within the American University of Armenia impacted operational agility, adding administrative layers that slowed decision-making and resource allocation. Despite these challenges, the program also provided valuable capacity-building opportunities for the team and the whole university.

Adaptive management capabilities were evident in adjustments to procurement processes and the program’s flexibility to emerging needs, such as facilitating the creation of the Recyclers’ Union and conducting a biogas feasibility study. However, the complexity of the monitoring and evaluation framework, with many output indicators, hindered efficiency by making progress tracking and adaptation more challenging.

Overall, the program’s adaptability and strategic adjustments contributed positively to its efficiency, but the program’s implementation efficiency has room for improvement through enhanced planning, better resource utilization, and further streamlining of its monitoring and evaluation system.

Recommendations

Revise the implementation schedule to account for current delays.
Review and optimize staffing structure, particularly for private sector engagement.
Increase strategic use of external expertise for specialized technical tasks.
Establish regular documentation practices for capturing informal outcomes and lessons learned.

Potential Sustainability

The program demonstrates a strong foundation for sustainability through comprehensive policy frameworks and institutional strengthening, with 79% of stakeholders expressing confidence in result continuation post-program completion.

The program’s sustainability builds on the EPR system, which provides built-in economic incentives and consistent funding streams, and the establishment of the Recyclers’ Union for industry-led sustainability. Market systems show encouraging signs of sustainability through changing business behaviors, with large companies proactively adapting their operations and new business opportunities emerging in waste collection and processing.

In Sevan, the pilot project’s sustainability is reinforced through integration with existing municipal structures, dedicated waste collection protocols, and community engagement strategies. The program will establish mechanisms for operational continuity through formal agreements, dedicated staffing requirements, and transparent communication protocols.

Stakeholder engagement has been instrumental in advancing the program’s objectives and ensuring sustainability. The active involvement of large businesses and municipal officials has led to successful public-private collaborations, exemplified by the establishment of a pilot PRO. However, limited engagement with small and medium enterprises highlights the need for targeted outreach and capacity-building efforts for strengthened sustainability.

Other challenges include financial sustainability concerns for scaling waste separation initiatives if investment plans are missing, potential difficulties for smaller operators in meeting EPR requirements, and limited institutional capacity within government bodies, particularly the Ministry of Environment. The heavy reliance on the program team for coordination roles that should ideally be government-led presents an additional sustainability risk.

Recommendations

Strengthen state ownership and capacity. Create specialized position(s) within the Ministry of Environment to maintain program continuity and ensure EPR implementation and build the capacity.
Involve private organizations to support program activities and foster greater public confidence.
Develop targeted strategies for enhanced engagement of the private sector and their orientation/preparation for successful implementation of the EPR system.
Facilitate stronger public-private partnerships for improved waste management.
Conduct “Who does, who pays” analysis and adjust the program implementation plan accordingly (for a systematic assessment of which market actors will take responsibility for different aspects of the waste management system after the program ends, how the financial flows will work to sustain these activities without program support, and what incentives and capacities different market players need to maintain improved waste management practices).

Cross-cutting

The program demonstrates strong integration of cross-cutting issues through comprehensive gender mainstreaming, human rights approaches, and environmental considerations. Key achievements include the development of Gender-Sensitive and Inclusive Communications Guidelines and consistent involvement of gender experts in reviewing program outputs and initiatives. The program employs tailored capacity-building approaches for different stakeholder groups, ensuring human rights and inclusivity principles resonate with specific contexts. Environmental considerations extend beyond waste management to broader concerns, exemplified by the Sevan pilot project’s strategic approach to water resource protection and environmental awareness.

Overall, while the program has successfully established gender and human rights as priorities in the waste management sector, sustained stakeholder engagement and technical support will be crucial for maintaining gender-sensitive and inclusive practices in waste management operations over time.

Recommendation

Continue expanding tailored training programs for different stakeholder groups, with specific modules on implementing gender-sensitive and inclusive waste management practices.

Lessons Learned

The program’s implementation yields valuable insights across multiple dimensions, highlighting critical success factors and areas for improvement in waste management initiatives.

At the strategic level, strong institutional ownership and leadership continuity proved crucial, with frequent ministerial changes significantly impacting program momentum. The experience demonstrated that technical-level engagement alone is insufficient for driving systemic change, and clear procedures for government collaboration are essential for program success.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration emerged as a key success factor, particularly evident in the creation of the Recyclers’ Union and the first pilot PRO. Working through business associations proved more effective than engaging individual businesses, though private sector engagement remained a challenge. The program’s success in facilitating cooperation between business, scientific, and government sectors demonstrated the value of coordinated action.

Capacity building efforts revealed that embedding ministry staff within technical teams could be more effective than relying solely on international expertise. Community engagement was most successful when combining practical demonstrations with education, supported by appropriate infrastructure and guidance.

Implementation challenges highlighted the need for early identification of internal capacity needs, improved documentation protocols, and streamlined procurement processes.

Project Background
Waste Policy Armenia 4-year Program aims to improve Armenia’s waste management sector capacity to implement more environmentally sound waste management policies through three components:

Component 2. Support the RA Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructures (MTAI) in developing the source separation national model and introducing it as a system in Sevan Town and other pilot municipalities.

Component 3. Building sector capacities to implement Component 1 and Component 2, as well as to scale up the achieved results.

Financial support to the Program is provided by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and is implemented by AUA Acopian Center for the Environment in accordance with the terms outlined in the Grant Agreement between Sida and AUA.

The Purpose Scope, and Approach of the Mid-Term Evaluation
The purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to evaluate the progress made towards Program outcomes in the reporting period and to inform decisions on adjustments and improvements to Program implementation.

The mid-term evaluation focused on the Program’s performance from its start in August 2022 to December 2024. The mid-term evaluation targeted the Program’s on-going and completed activities, implementation and results, as well as identified areas of success and challenges to provide recommendations for possible Program improvements.

In alignment with the evaluation Terms of Reference (ToR), which mandated compliance with OECD/DAC’s Quality Standards for Development Evaluation and recognizing the program’s emphasis on Market Systems Development (MSD), a tailored evaluation methodology was designed. This approach integrates OECD/DAC criteria with a market systems evaluation framework to ensure a comprehensive and context-appropriate assessment.

The MSD evaluation approach aims to capture not only immediate changes but also potential systemic changes and their subsequent impacts. This approach identifies three key elements of systemic change:

Scale: Systemic changes that influence and benefit a large number of people beyond those directly involved in the original intervention.
Sustainability: Systemic changes that continue to have impacts beyond the program’s conclusion, without requiring further intervention.
Resilience: The ability of market players to adapt, ensuring continued benefits for disadvantaged populations even as market and external environments evolve.
These elements were integrated into the OECD/DAC criteria. Specifically, scale and resilience were incorporated into the impact criteria, while sustainability aligned with the existing OECD/DAC framework. Consequently, the mid-term evaluation employs the following measurement criteria (objectives):

Relevance and Appropriateness: Evaluating the program design’s relevance and appropriateness.
Effectiveness and Impact (Scale and Resilience): Assessing progress towards the program’s overall objective and outcomes, including initial systemic changes.
Potential Sustainability: Exploring and learning about the potential for sustaining positive outcomes (systemic changes) beyond the program’s duration without further intervention.
Cross-cutting Issues: Assessing progress on issues such as gender mainstreaming, human rights approaches, and environmental impact.
Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Discussing insights gained and identifying avenues for improving program implementation.
The intended users of the mid-term evaluation and the nationwide survey are the Program management, team, internal and external stakeholders as well as interested parties.

The evaluation objectives, key questions and respective data collection methods applied are presented in the table below.

Table 1. Evaluation objectives, key questions and methods

Evaluation objectives
Key Questions to Be Answered
Methods
Relevance and appropriateness

To evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of Program design
How relevant were the Program interventions with regards to the needs of the beneficiaries, communities and the country?
How relevant were the Program interventions with regards to the priorities and strategic plans of the GoA in the field?
How relevant were the Program theory, design and interventions for contributing to the overall objective and best practices?
FGD with staff
KIIs with stakeholders
Effectiveness and Impact (Scale and Resilience)

To assess the progress made towards achieving the Program overall objective and outcomes and to assess the impact of the Program.
Was the Program effective in achieving desired/planned results?
How effective has the Program been in responding to the needs of the country, targeted municipalities and what results were achieved?
What was the initial impact of the Program in the targeted communities and in the country related to EPR implementation and waste source separation?
What are some of the existing challenges, lessons learned for Program effectiveness? How did the Program overcome them?
How did the assumptions affect the Program? How effective was risk management?
FGD with staff
KII with stakeholders
Phone Survey among stakeholders

Efficiency

To assess the extent to which the intervention delivered results in an economic and timely way.

To what extent has the Program achieved its results in an economic and timely way?
Were the resources effectively utilized?
Were the resources (human, financial, time etc.) sufficient to implement planned activities/interventions and reach the targets?
Has the Program been cost-effective or would other approaches have led to the achieving of the same results at more reasonable costs?
To what extent did the Program’s monitoring and evaluation mechanisms contribute to project efficiency and effectiveness?
FGD with staff
KII with stakeholders
Sustainability

To explore and learn about the potential sustainability of positive outcomes achieved by the Program.
What are the main methodologies and approaches adopted by the program for sustaining the results beyond the program and donor funding, are they well considered in design and implementation?
To what extent are the positive outcomes of the Program likely to be potentially sustained after the completion of Program?
How did the stakeholders’ involvement in the Program contribute to the achievement of Program objectives and its sustainability?
To what extent have the capacities been strengthened or planned to be strengthened at the organizational, stakeholder levels to sustain Program results?
What could be done differently to enhance the sustainability of Program results?
What are the main challenges to Program sustainability?
FGD with staff
KIIs with stakeholders
Cross-cutting issues
To what extent have cross-cutting issues, such as gender mainstreaming and human rights approaches, environmental impact, been integrated into various aspects of the Program design and implementation?
To assess the progress made towards cross-cutting issues.
FGD with staff
KIIs with stakeholders
Lessons Recommendations
What are the main lessons learned during the project implementation?
What are the key recommendations for Program future improvements based on the lessons learned?
FGD with staff
KIIs with stakeholders

Mid-term Evaluation Design and Methodology
For this mid-term evaluation, a theory-based design was adopted, enabling a comprehensive assessment of both the program’s direct effects and its contribution to broader systemic changes and further impacts stemming from these systemic alterations.

Contribution analysis was selected as the primary analytical method for this mid-term evaluation. This robust approach acknowledges that changes in a market system typically result from multiple concurrent factors. It involves a systematic review of evidence to determine the extent to which the intervention (or the program in its entirety) has influenced observed outcomes.

The mid-term evaluation was conducted by employing a mixed methods approach with the application of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Primary and secondary data was collected in the scope of this evaluation to capture information around the Evaluation Objectives and Key Questions. The primary data was collected using the methods of survey, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussion (FGD). Secondary data was collected through document review.

Document review

Secondary data collection was conducted through desk research. The evaluation team conducted a comprehensive review of various documents, including project documents, progress and monitoring reports, and the baseline report, along with any accompanying appendices.

The following indicators were reported based on the document review, as well as on qualitative data.

0a: Waste infrastructure investment plans integrated by MTAI in the infrastructure programs in other provinces.
0b: The waste source separation Model is adopted by MTAI as part of national policy.
0c: Number of settlements with waste sorting at source (separate waste collection coverage in the country)
1a: Number of EPR legislation amendments informed by the Program
(Disaggregated by types of legislative documents).
1c% of producers who use the waste data reporting and management system.
2a: The Model for Waste source separation is adopted by the responsible authorities as a basis for policy and investment planning.
3a: % of surveyed stakeholders that apply at least 3 out of 8 principles and tools of sustainable waste management practices. (This indicator was reported based on the Training Needs Assessment conducted by the program team)
3c: Number of Producers registered with the PRO
Quantitative data collection

The qualitative data was collected through surveys with the adult population of the Republic of Armenia and program stakeholders.

Nationwide survey: The nationwide representative survey was conducted among RA population to establish a baseline understanding of the level of awareness and engagement among the general public regarding sustainable waste management. The following indicator was measured through the nationwide survey.

Level of public awareness on benefits of environmentally and socially sound waste management practices, e.g. EPR (disaggregated by sex, location, other parameters such as age).
Sampling: According to the RA voter’s database, updated during the last Snap Parliamentary elections on June 20, 2021, the total 18+ population of RA holding voting rights is 2,256,538. Therefore, the initial sample size was 616 households with the application of a 95% confidence level, ±5% margin of error, and a 1.5 Design Effect. The final sample was 623.

Considering the low response rates and survey fatigue among the population it was decided to use a new approach of data collection. This approach combined SMS messaging and phone interviews. Initially, 20,000 SMS messages containing the research purpose and link to the survey was sent through paid services to a demographically representative sample, based on population proportions for gender, age group, region (marz and Yerevan), and settlement type (rural, urban). However, since the required sample size was not achieved through SMS responses, the method of phone surveys was also used to conduct interviews to reach the planned sample size. For these phone interviews, Prisma utilized Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) methodology with IdSurvey software.

Characteristics of the Surveyed Population

The surveyed population consists of 36% males and 64% females. Regarding age groups, 37% are aged 18–35 years, 33% are 36–45 years, 14% are 46–55 years, and 16% are 56 years or older. Geographically, 34% of respondents reside in Yerevan, 27% in other urban areas, and 38% in rural settlements.

In terms of education, the largest share of the surveyed population (45%) has higher education, followed by 30% with school education and 22% with vocational education. Regarding employment status, 46% are employed in the private and public sectors, 19% are self-employed, and 13% are homemakers. As for income levels, the majority (55%) fall into the middle-income category, followed by 20% in the low-income group and 18% in the high-income category (Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of Surveyed population, N=623

Number
Percent
Gender
Female
401
64%
Male
222
36%
Age group
18-35
230
37%
36-45
208
33%
46-55
88
14%
56+
97
16%
Settlement Type
Yerevan
213
34%
Urban
171
27%
Rural
239
38%
Education
Higher
283
45%
School Education
185
30%
Vocational
135
22%
Postgraduate
16
3%
Employment status
Employed in private sector
158
25%
Employed in public sector
129
21%
Self-employed
117
19%
Housewife/men
82
13%
Unemployed
39
6%
Retired
36
6%
Student
25
4%
Maternity/paternity leave
26
4%
Income Status
Middle Income
343
55%
Low Income
127
20%
High Income
112
18%
Survey among program stakeholders: A survey was conducted among stakeholders involved in the program to assess their contributions to the EPR system and model development.

The survey was administered both online and by phone.

The following indicators were measured through stakeholder survey:

1b: % of surveyed stakeholders reporting their contribution to EPR system development.
2b: % of surveyed stakeholders reporting their contribution to Model development.
0d: Number of targeted businesses having intention to expand investment in the WM sector.
0e: % change in confidence related to investment in the waste sector among targeted businesses.
Given that the total number of stakeholders was 96, the Prisma team attempted to survey the entire group. Stakeholders were contacted either by phone or email. In total, 46 stakeholders participated in the survey, while the remainder could not be reached due to incorrect contact information, unavailability, or refusal to answer the questions.

Characteristics of Surveyed Stakeholders

Of the surveyed stakeholders, 52% were male, and 48% were female. The majority (72%) operated in Yerevan, with 59% holding senior executive positions. Additionally, 41% represented the private sector, while 35% were from the public sector (Table 3).

Table 3. Main characteristics of the surveyed stakeholders, N=46

Frequency
Percent

%
Sex

Male
24
52%
Female
22
48%
Place of activity

Yerevan
33
72%
Ararat
3
7%
Gegharkunik
3
7%
Kotayk
3
7%
Armavir
1
2%
Lori
1
2%
Shirak
1
2%
Vayots Dzor
1
2%
Position

Senior Executive
27
59%
Middle level manager
9
20%
Civil Servant
5
11%
Expert
3
7%
Personnel
2
4%
Primary area of work

Private sector (for-profit businesses, corporations)
19
41%
Public sector (government, public administration, public services)
16
35%
Non-governmental organization (NGO) or non-profit sector
8
17%
International organization
2
4%
Self-employed or freelance
1
2%
Organization sector

Waste management
12
26%
Environmental protection
8
17%
Manufacturing/Industry
7
15%
Local self-governance / Municipality / Government
5
11%
Business Consulting
4
9%
Other
4
9%
Education/Science
2
4%
Investments
2
4%
Food production
2
4%

Qualitative data collection

The qualitative data collection for this evaluation was conducted through KIIs and FGD. One FGD was conducted with the program staff and 12 KIIs with stakeholders and counterparts of the program. These included representatives from the Ministry of Environment, program experts, recyclers and waste management organizations, the business community, and NGOs.

Quality control

The evaluation followed the OECD/DAC’s Quality Standards for Development Evaluation․ Quality assurance in accordance with DAC’s quality standards included the following measures:

Prior to the field phase, the research team conducted interviewers’ training on survey samples, questionnaires and assessment details. In addition, both quantitative and qualitative tools were pilot tested prior to the application.
For the quantitative data collection Prisma applied a 3-level quality control mechanism, to ensure reliability and credibility of the collected data:
Data Manager performed a system-based assessment of the filled questionnaires to identify potential methodological shortcomings․
All the secondary data and sources to be used for this evaluation were thoroughly assessed for quality and reliability before the desk review.
For the qualitative data, all the interviews were audio-recorded based on the obtained consent and then transcribed as verbatim as possible.

Ethical Principles

To ensure that ethical principles are considered, the following steps were completed:

AUA maintains an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Prior to initiating data collection processes, necessary approvals from the IRB were obtained to ensure compliance with ethical standards.
Informed consent: Informed consent was developed for all respondents; participants were aware of the voluntary nature of their participation. The decision whether to participate, including unwillingness to participate was respected. Participants were appropriately informed that consent is negotiable and that they can withdraw at any point without any negative consequences.
Privacy and Confidentiality: During data collection, analysis and report development the privacy and confidentiality of participants was assured, all identifiable data was de-identified at the individual level and findings were summarized to an appropriate level of aggregation.

Data Analysis and Report Writing

Data cleaning: Prior to data analysis, data cleaning procedures were applied (e.g. cleaning skip patterns, validating numeric fields, etc.). Besides, coding of open-ended questions and “other” option was assured.

Data analysis: For quantitative surveys data analysis was constructed around the project indicators. To calculate outcome level indicators, descriptive (frequency distributions, cross tabulations, central tendency measures, etc.) and inferential statistical methods were used, especially in regard to confounding factors (sex, age, education, region, economic and employment status).

The qualitative data analysis was conducted through a robust iterative process, involving identification of key thought units associated with each outcome. These thought units were then systematically organized under key themes corresponding to each outcome, allowing for the identification of prominent patterns and insights. Evidence for conclusions was built via triangulation analysis of emergent themes. Triangulation analysis means that themes or patterns were examined to determine if they are coming from multiple stakeholder levels and multiple stakeholder categories. Observations or comments that only come from a single source or a single category of stakeholder were given less weight during the building of the analysis.

Additionally, primary and secondary data was triangulated and compared where possible and appropriate.

Result Presentation

RAG (Red-Amber-Green) approach was used to assess the status of program performance and progress.

These areas are off-track and unlikely to meet objectives without significant intervention.

Progress is being made, but there are challenges that may impact outcomes unless addressed.

Signifies areas that are on track, with objectives likely to be achieved as planned and no major issues reported.
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
Relevance and Appropriateness
How relevant were the Program interventions with regards to the needs of the beneficiaries, communities and the country?

How relevant were the Program interventions with regards to the priorities and strategic plans of the GoA in the field?

According to the mid-term evaluation findings, the Waste Policy Armenia (WPA) program demonstrates strong relevance to Armenia’s context and development needs through its three interconnected components:

Component 1. Support the RA Ministry of Environment (MoE) in developing and adopting Extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation for several specific waste streams in line with EU Waste legislation and best practices.
Component 2. Support the RA Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructures (MTAI) in developing the source separation national model and introducing it as a system in Sevan Town and other pilot municipalities.
Component 3. Building sector capacities to implement Component 1 and Component 2, as well as to scale up the achieved results.
The program represents the first systematic implementation of comprehensive waste management in the country, addressing critical environmental management gaps including increasing landfill pressures, limited recycling infrastructure, and the need to align with EU environmental standards. These challenges have previously remained largely at the discussion level without concrete action.

At the program’s inception phase, a thorough initial market analysis provided insights into waste streams and management patterns, enabling the design and development of the program that aligns with country’s needs.

“That study was very interesting because it showed the market structure for each component. It allowed us to see from waste generation to management – what actors are there, what stages they go through, what opportunities and problems, gaps exist.” KII with program expert

The program’s key components – supporting the MoE in developing EPR legislation and the MTAI in creating a national source separation guidance – demonstrate strategic alignment with Armenia’s key policy frameworks. This legislative development directly supports and aligns with the Government of Armenia’s 2021-2026 Program for improving waste management system, complies with Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) requirements. Additionally, the source separation national model aligns with the MTAI’s Waste Management System Strategy.

“We should start from the fact that in our country, waste management in the way implemented by the program has absolutely not been done before… In this sense, the program aligns with the country’s priorities.” KII with program expert

“In the world, waste sorting is not financially profitable if there is no legislation for it, because it is very difficult. It’s not like you simply took it away and got a big income. Tax and legislative support is needed.” KII with program stakeholder

The design process carefully considered potential legal conflicts and aimed to harmonize new regulations with existing frameworks. According to many informants, the component’s relevance was also evident in the interest shown by various stakeholders representing both private and public sectors. For instance, large international businesses in Armenia, such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Pernod Ricard, have shown strong engagement due to alignment with their corporate responsibility goals.

Building upon the legislative framework development, the program’s second component focuses on practical implementation through developing a National technical guidance for waste source separation that will be applied in a pilot municipality, Sevan, with a vision to replicate the pilot outcomes in other municipalities as well. Several informants noted that the pilot builds upon previous local experiences, including the Urban Foundation’s plastic separation project in Tsaghkunk village near Sevan city, while demonstrating strong attention to local infrastructure realities and varying housing types. This component also shows complementarity with existing initiatives, particularly the EU-funded waste management program in Kotayk and Gegharkunik regions.

“I think that it was taken into account to the extent that we had separate discussions with both the municipality itself and the head of the communal department, we also took separate tours, and we tried to prepare a design that would be adapted and most convenient for the residents of Sevan.” FGD with program team

“During this time, a mini waste management program was also implemented in the Tsaghkunk settlement, which is part of the Sevan community. This meant that the mini model of the program that was to be implemented in the city of Sevan was implemented and crowned with success.” KII with program stakeholder

To support the successful implementation of both the EPR legislation and waste separation initiatives, the third component centers on capacity building, demonstrating strong relevance through its comprehensive approach to stakeholder engagement and skills development. Strong participation from stakeholders from both public and private sectors, and educational institutions validates the relevance of the capacity building approach. Additionally, the systematic integration of gender and human rights considerations through annual action plans and targeted expertise has proven particularly relevant as noted by various informants.

“Everyone needs awareness and capacity building: from our team to state and local government bodies, NGOs, producers, importers, that is, the business community. Considering this, and also that EPR is new and has never been talked about before, the very first intention was to raise awareness about it.” FGD with program team

“We have always tried to implement the capacity building based on the needs of each person. In general, there was almost no one who had conceptual knowledge about the connection between waste management and gender and human rights. There is interest in this area, especially in the regions.” KII with program expert

Overall, the majority of the program stakeholders participated in the survey assessed the relevance of the events and activities organized by the program as relevant (50% as strongly relevant, 36% as somewhat relevant) to their main needs in the waste management sector.

Figure 2. How would you assess the relevance of the events organized by the program to the main needs of stakeholders in the waste management sector?

How relevant were the Program theory, design and interventions for contributing to the overall objective and best practices?

The program aims to improve Armenia’s waste management sector capacity to implement more environmentally sound policies, with an underlying assumption of achieving systemic changes in the waste management sector. Overall, the program outcomes fully support the achievement of the program objective. As the program’s objective assumes a systemic change in the waste management sector, the evaluation looked at how much the program design and implementation reflect the market system development approach.

The evaluation assessed the program design against market systems development approach , which typically aims to reduce poverty by stimulating market growth to provide employment and income, or to allow men and women living in poverty to access new or improved goods and services. Analysis of incorporation of core market systems principles reveals overall strong reflection of those principles in the program’s design (Table 4):

The first principle, systemic approach, is included in both program design and implementation as mentioned above.
Regarding the second principle – inclusivity – the program places a strong emphasis on mainstreaming gender and human rights in its activities and ensuring equal participation across its components. During its inception phase, the program also conducted a market systems analysis, which examined multidimensional poverty in Armenia and how the program could address it through its components in the long term. The qualitative data also suggest that program implementers and stakeholders are mindful of this principle and recognize how the program’s changes may impact vulnerable populations, considering both positive and negative aspects.
The findings also show that in some respects the program takes more of an implementer role rather than that of facilitator, which is one of the main principles of the market systems approach. For example, while the program is facilitating the creation of the Recyclers’ Union and the first PRO, in other areas such as legislation writing, the program is the direct implementer with the main beneficiary (MoE) playing a smaller role in the process. Sustainability is strongly included in the program’s design and implementation, while adaptability is partially evident, demonstrated through initiatives like the creation of the Recyclers’ Union and the feasibility study of biogas production, which were not initially planned. However, the program’s complex monitoring and evaluation plan with the time bound indicators somewhat limits flexibility. These aspects are further addressed in the following sections of the evaluation report.
Table 4. Market systems approach and core principles

MS approach principles
Inclusion in the program’s design and implementation
Systemic Approach
Included in the design and implementation
Inclusivity
Included in the design and implementation
Facilitation
Partially included in the design and implementation
Sustainability
Included in the design and implementation
Adaptability
Partially evident

Overall, based on findings, the program interventions are highly relevant to the country context and strategic plans of the GoA in the field. This comprehensive approach to waste management reform, while ambitious, responds well to the complex nature of the challenges it aims to address. The program’s theory and design reflect a strong system change approach with partial incorporation of market system approach core principles.

Recommendation

Effectiveness and Impact (Scale and Resilience)
This section analyzes the effectiveness of the program, examining both realized and anticipated results, while also considering the program’s potential impact, scale and resilience.

Overall, according to the survey results, stakeholders overwhelmingly assessed program events and activities as effective, with 95% reporting positive outcomes (52% ‘strongly effective’ and 43% ‘somewhat effective’).

Figure 3. How would you assess the overall effectiveness of the events organized by the program? N=46

Was the Program effective in achieving desired/planned results?

The WPA program, now in its third year of implementation and at its midpoint, demonstrates varying levels of effectiveness regarding achieving desired/planned results. While significant progress has been made in several areas, some planned activities have not yet commenced. Nevertheless, the mid-term evaluation suggests that the program has a high likelihood of achieving desired/planned results, under few conditions highlighted below.

Program Objective: Improved sector capacity to implement sustainable waste management policies

Overall objective indicators
Mid-term evaluation results
End of Program Target
Likelihood of Achievement
Waste infrastructure investment plans integrated by MTAI in the infrastructure programs in other provinces
N/A (to be reported post-program)
at least 1 investment plan (per component) by 2026

The waste source separation Model is adopted by MTAI as part of national policy
N/A (to be reported post-program)
Model Adoption by MTAI as part of national policy by the end of 2026

Number of settlements with raised capacity for waste sorting at source (separate waste collection coverage in the country)
N/A (to be reported post-program)
At least 3 by 2026

Number of targeted businesses having intention to expand investment in the WM sector
11 (79%)

% change in confidence related to investment in the waste sector among targeted businesses
86%

Waste infrastructure investment plans integrated by MTAI in the infrastructure programs in other provinces

The waste source separation Model is adopted by MTAI as part of national policy

For the first indicator (integration of waste infrastructure investment plans by MTAI into infrastructure programs in other provinces), the likelihood of meeting the target of at least one investment plan by 2026 appears promising, in case the waste source separation Model will be officially adopted by MTAI by the end of 2025. Once there is a Ministerial decree or approved policy, its implementation by the municipalities will only be matter of capacity and time.

However, concerns arise regarding the achievement of the second indicator (adoption of the Waste Source Separation Model by MTAI as part of national policy). While the MTAI provided verbal approval of the model in 2023, it has not yet adopted it through an official decree, which raises doubts about its progress. The program staff identifies that the additional risks are connected with the implementation phase. Specifically, municipalities may face significant capacity constraints that could limit their ability to effectively incorporate the guidelines into their development plans.

“The risk there is not in not being accepted, but in not being implemented. Acceptance is easy. I must say that the EPR package also includes a proposal to amend the law on waste, in the part that municipalities must have a sorting system in their communities. Either they implement it themselves, or delegate someone, or cooperate with the PRO system. This will in some way force them to create and develop their capacity, and the guide will therefore be very important for the introduction of the sorting system.” FGD with program team

Recommendation:

Number of settlements with raised capacity for waste sorting at source (separate waste collection coverage in the country)

The evaluation concluded that it is highly likely that at least three settlements will have enhanced capacity for waste sorting at the source by the end of 2026.

Number of targeted businesses having intention to expand investment in the WM sector

According to the evaluation survey results, the majority (79%) of surveyed businesses (11 out of 14) indicated plans to expand their investments in the waste management sector (Figure 4). Among these businesses, equipment procurement emerged as the most common expansion plan, cited by nine businesses. Seven businesses planned to diversify their waste management services, while six businesses intended to increase their workforce (Figure 5). On average, each business reported 2.6 planned expansion activities.

Regarding workforce expansion specifically, the plans varied in scale: four businesses intended to hire 1-5 additional staff members, two businesses planned for 6-10 new hires, and three businesses reported ambitious plans to add more than 20 new staff members.

Figure 4․ In the next 12 months, does your business plan to expand its operations in the waste management sector? %, N=14

Figure 5․ Which of the following expansion activities do you intend to pursue? %, N=11
Businesses identified several key barriers that could impede their planned expansion in the waste management sector. The most frequently cited challenges were lack of financing, market uncertainty, and legislative or regulatory barriers (Figure 6), with businesses reporting an average of 2.1 constraining factors each.

When asked about preconditions for business expansion in the waste management sector, surveyed businesses highlighted four critical factors. Public awareness about waste management importance and availability of waste sorting infrastructure were deemed most essential, each cited by 11 businesses. These were followed by the need for new regulations and policies (9 businesses) and access to funding or investment (8 businesses). Several respondents suggested that the program could support these preconditions through assistance with financing and strengthening law enforcement mechanisms (Figure 7).

Figure 6. What factors, if any, might prevent or delay your planned expansion in the waste management sector? %, N=14

Figure 7. In your opinion, what are the important preconditions for expanding a business in the waste management sector? %, N=14

Indicator 0f: % change in confidence related to investment in the waste sector among targeted businesses

For the mid-term evaulation the percentage of businesses confident related to investment in the waste sector among targeted businesses is reported.

Survey results indicate high potential for investment in the waste management sector, with 86% of surveyed businesses (12 out of 14) expressing confidence in future investments if necessary conditions are met (Figure 8). Specifically, 50% reported being ‘very confident’ and 36% ‘somewhat confident’ about their investment plans.

However, businesses perceive investments in the waste management sector as high-risk compared to other sectors, with 9 out of 14 businesses rating the risk level as high (Figure 9). The factors that could mitigate these investment risks align with the previously identified prerequisites for sector expansion: improved public awareness, adequate waste sorting infrastructure, supportive regulations and policies, and access to funding.

Figure 8. If the necessary conditions are met, how confident are you that your organization will invest in the waste management sector? %, N=14

Figure 9. How would you assess the investment risk in the waste management sector compared to other sectors? %, N=14

The findings indicate that, at this stage, the number of businesses intending to expand in the waste management sector and their confidence in investing in this area are quite high. Based on this, the following recommendation was made.

Recommendation

Ensure that the final evaluation measures the business investment related indicators among non-targeted (control) businesses as well. Set target in relation to this comparison (for example partner businesses’ investment capacity is at least 20% higher compared to the control group).

Outcome 1: EPR System Developed

Outcome 1 indicators
Mid-term evaluation results
End of Program Target
Likelihood of Achievement
Number of EPR legislation amendments informed by the Program (Disaggregated by types of legislative documents)
0
at least 5 by 2026

% of surveyed stakeholders reporting their contribution to EPR system development
54%
at least 70%

% of producers who use the waste data reporting and management system.

50%

Number of EPR legislation amendments informed by the Program

Legislative Progress and Process

The program has demonstrated significant progress in EPR legislation development, producing four comprehensive drafts that successfully integrate multiple regulatory frameworks. These drafts effectively combine EU directives, Eurasian Union experience, and domestic legal requirements, showcasing strong technical competence in legislative development.

The development process has been notably iterative, with multiple revisions incorporating stakeholder feedback to ensure the legislation’s practicality and applicability to the Armenian context. International expert involvement has significantly enriched this process, bringing valuable best practices and experienced perspectives to the drafting work.

However, the timeline for legislation adoption has faced significant delays. While initially planned for earlier implementation, the Ministry of Environment has postponed adoption to mid-2025, with ministry representatives suggesting autumn 2025 as a more likely timeline. This delay stems primarily from the need for a more comprehensive review and requirements around the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). Recent changes in Armenian legislation mandate that RIA for policy reforms must be conducted by the competent authority rather than external parties such as the program. As a result, the WPA program’s role has shifted from implementing the RIA to supporting the Ministry of Environment in conducting it. In July 2024, the program team prepared a draft RIA application for the Ministry to submit to the relevant state committee.

“I think that late 2025 is a more realistic date to speak about the legislation adoption. It should pass RIA assessment, and other amendments in other relevant laws should be done. So this will take time.” KII with state representative

Alongside legislative drafting, the program has conducted substantial economic analysis to support policy development. This includes cost-benefit analysis for three selected waste streams, providing an analytical framework and preliminary assessment of EPR implementation’s social desirability in Armenia, detailed economic analyses producing estimates of EPR fees for producers and importers, development of concrete financial projections to help secure business buy-in and establish realistic fee structures that can sustainably fund the EPR system.

Overall, despite these preparatory achievements, as of the evaluation period, no EPR legislation amendments informed by the Program have been enacted (outcome indicator 1a). This delay in formal legislative changes affects the program’s ability to achieve its intended outcomes within the original timeframe.

Recommendation

Although the indicator is currently assessed as achievable, the likelihood of enacting the EPR legislation by the end of the program will decrease significantly if it is not approved by October 2025. This is primarily due to the upcoming parliamentary elections in 2026, which could delay legislative processes leading to a high risk for achievement of the EPR system development component. Therefore, if the legislation is not approved by the specified timeline (fall, 2025), it is recommended that the program considers planning for a possible meaningful extension. The program has made commendable progress in drafting a need-driven and evidence-based legislative package, and it would be regrettable not to see these efforts brought to their logical conclusion.

% of surveyed stakeholders reporting their contribution to EPR system development

Among the surveyed stakeholders, 54% (20 out of 37) reported contributing to the development of the EPR system, while the rest indicated that their organization did not contribute or were uncertain (Figure 10). However, this fell short of the target of at least 70%.

Regarding the impact of their involvement, 65% of stakeholders believed their input was incorporated into the EPR system development, though to varying degrees. However, over one-third of respondents were unable to assess whether their suggestions were considered, suggesting potential gaps in feedback mechanisms or communication channels (Figure 11).

Figure 10. In what ways have you contributed to the development of the EPR system? N=37

Figure 11. In your opinion, to what extent have your suggestions and observations been taken into account in the development process of the EPR system? N=20

In terms of participation barriers, findings reveal that the majority of stakeholders (12) reported no obstacles in contributing to EPR system development. Among those who did encounter barriers, the most significant challenge was difficulty in reaching consensus among stakeholders, cited by nine respondents. Other less frequently mentioned barriers included insufficient time, lack of technical knowledge, complexity of the subject matter, and inadequate communication channels (Figure 12). Satisfaction levels with the program’s engagement process are generally positive, with 75% of stakeholders expressing satisfaction with the opportunities provided to contribute to EPR system development and associated feedback mechanisms (60% somewhat satisfied and 15% strongly satisfied) (Figure 13).

Figure 12. What barriers, if any, have you experienced in contributing to the EPR system development? N=20

Figure 13. How satisfied are you with the opportunities provided by the program to contribute to the development of the EPR system and the feedback mechanisms? N=20

Recommendation

Enhance approaches of stakeholder engagement and participation in policy development.

% of producers who use the waste data reporting and management system

The likelihood of achieving the target of 50% for this indicator is assessed as medium, as it depends on the timely adoption of the EPR legislation. Delays in adopting the legislation would also delay activities related to the waste data reporting and management system, reducing the chances of reaching 50% of producers using the system by the program’s end.

Overall, while the Program has made substantial progress in developing comprehensive EPR legislation drafts and conducting thorough economic analyses, challenges remain in the legislative adoption process. The delay in EPR legislation enactment to late 2025 presents a critical timeline challenge. Additionally, stakeholder engagement shows mixed results, with 54% reporting contribution to EPR system development (below the 70% target), though satisfaction levels among participating stakeholders remain generally positive at 75%. These findings suggest that while the technical groundwork has been laid, additional effort is needed to broaden stakeholder participation and manage legislative adoption timelines effectively.

Outcome 2: National technical guidance (hereafter Model) for Waste source separation applied in the pilot municipality

The second component of the program focuses on supporting the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure (MTAI) in two key areas: developing a national model for waste source separation and implementing this model as a system in Sevan and other pilot municipalities. The mid-term evaluation assessed progress through two key indicators, which are presented below.

Outcome 2 indicators
Mid-term evaluation results
End of Program Target
Likelihood of Achievement
The Model for Waste source separation is adopted by the responsible authorities as a basis for policy and investment planning
MTAI has communicated its approval of the document
The developed Model adopted by the responsible authorities by the end of 2023

% of surveyed stakeholders reporting their contribution to Model development
80%
70%

The Model for Waste source separation is adopted by the responsible authorities as a basis for policy and investment planning

The program has taken a multi-stakeholder approach to developing the national technical guidance model. This has involved initiating comprehensive discussions with key stakeholders including the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure (MTAI), Sevan Municipality, the EU delegation in Armenia, and operators of the EU-funded Kotayk-Gegharkunik Solid Waste Management project and other stakeholders.

Overall, while the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure (MTAI) has given verbal approval to the Model, achieving the indicator, it has not yet been officially adopted as part of policy and investment planning (objective indicator 2). The verbal approval is a step forward, but formal adoption is still pending.

Sevan Pilot Implementation Progress

Building upon the stakeholder engagement, the program proceeded with developing an Operational Plan for Source Separation of Waste in Sevan town. The program successfully completed key preparatory elements, including a comprehensive baseline survey, extensive stakeholder consultations, and development of waste management guidelines. The implementation approach demonstrated careful attention to local context, adapting strategies for different housing types and existing infrastructure.

However, operational effectiveness has been significantly hindered by equipment procurement challenges. The program encountered unrealistic pricing in initial procurement attempts, forcing cancellation and relaunch of the procurement process. As a result, implementation has faced delays and challenges in sequencing program components. Municipal officials emphasize that concrete results cannot be fully evaluated until waste bins arrive and actual separation begins.

% of surveyed stakeholders reporting their contribution to Model development

Stakeholder engagement in Model development showed strong participation, with 80% of relevant stakeholders (4 out of 5) reporting contributions to the National Guideline for Waste Source Separation. Although this exceeds the target of 70%, the achievement should be interpreted with caution given the limited number of stakeholders at this stage of component implementation.

Their involvement took various forms, with all contributing stakeholders participating in consultation meetings or workshops. Three stakeholders were involved in the drafting process, while two assisted in pilot testing. Individual stakeholders also contributed through written feedback, technical expertise, and sharing of best practices.

The quality of engagement appears high, with all contributing stakeholders reporting that their input was incorporated into the National Guideline ‘to a great extent.’ Similarly, all expressed satisfaction with the opportunities provided for contribution. However, stakeholders identified two main challenges in the process: difficulty in reaching consensus among participants and time constraints.

Outcome 3: Capacities built for achieving Outcome 1 and Outcome 2, as well as for scaling up the achieved results

The third component of the program focuses on building capacity across Armenia’s waste management sector to support the implementation of EPR legislation (Component 1) and waste source separation (Component 2), while facilitating the scale-up of achieved results. This comprehensive capacity building effort operates at multiple levels: strengthening strategic waste management planning capabilities at the local level, enabling stakeholders to support sector-wide behavior change, and promoting the adoption of sustainable waste management practices.

The table below presents indicators assessed through the mid-term evaluation.

Outcome 3 Indicators
Mid-term evaluation results
End of Program Target
Likelihood of Achievement
% of surveyed stakeholders that apply at least 3 out of 8 principles and tools of sustainable waste management practices
14%
30%

Level of public awareness on benefits of environmentally and socially sound waste management practices
60%
20% increase by 2026

Percentage of people who practice environmentally friendly waste management
29%

Number of Producers registered with the PRO

at least 20 by 2026

% of surveyed stakeholders that apply at least 3 out of 8 principles and tools of sustainable waste management practices

Survey results show that 14% (8 out of 58) of stakeholders apply at least 3 out of 8 sustainable waste management practices. This figure serves as a baseline for the program and the likelihood of achieving this target as high. The mid-term evaluation is based on a pre-test assessment conducted among municipality employees from various communities, who were trained on sustainable waste management practices by the program. Furthermore, if the waste source separation guideline is adopted by the MTAI and waste infrastructure investment plans are integrated into infrastructure programs in the marzes, it is highly likely that the target of 30% adoption of 3 out of 8 principles and tools will be over-achieved.

The analysis of specific principles reveals varying levels of awareness and implementation. The Polluter Pays Principle shows the highest familiarity rate among stakeholders, though this awareness has not translated into widespread application. Performance-Based Contracts emerge as the most actively used principle, with 27% of respondents implementing it. However, significant knowledge gaps exist, particularly regarding Green Procurement and the Waste Management Hierarchy, where over 60% of respondents report unfamiliarity. Across all principles, the majority of stakeholders either lack familiarity or are aware of the principles but do not apply them, indicating a clear need for both awareness building and practical implementation support (Table 5).

Table 5. Frequencies of responses for each principle’s familiarity and use, N=58

Principles
I am not familiar with it
I am familiar with it, but I don’t apply it
I am familiar with it and apply it
Measures to Reduce the Quantity of Waste Sent to Landfills
43%
39%
18%
Participatory Budgeting in Waste Management
62%
27%
10%
Polluter Pays Principle (EU)
46%
44%
10%
Waste Management Hierarchy (EU)
64%
28%
8%
Extended Producer Responsibility (EU)
62%
30%
8%
Green Procurement in the Waste Sector
69%
25%
6%
Application of Performance-Based Contracts
55%
18%
27%
Waste Generation Reduction Measures
44%
35%
21%

Under this component, the establishment of the Recyclers’ Union stands out as a significant achievement, emerging as not planned but valuable outcome of the program’s responsiveness to sector needs. Though in its early stages, the Union has already begun creating value through systematic mapping of services and development of membership benefits.

“The union will provide an opportunity to act together, have one common voice, solve problems together, lead the development of recycling organizations in Armenia as well.” KII with program stakeholder

The program has effectively enhanced cooperation between recycling sector stakeholders, leading to improved business practices such as forwarding recyclable materials between companies. This cooperation has increased transparency in waste management operations and laid the groundwork for formal sector growth in previously informal recycling activities. The program has also successfully enhanced media engagement and capacities of covering sustainable waste management issues by providing understanding of waste management practices.

“As for the media, I can say that they are contacting us more, having more access to sustainable waste management stories. There is more interest from the media now.” FGD with program team

Recommendation

Strengthen the role of the newly established Recyclers’ Union in coordinating private sector involvement and advocacy.

Level of public awareness on benefits of environmentally and socially sound waste management practices, e.g. EPR

According to the quantitative data, the overall awareness level of the benefits of environmentally and socially sound waste management practices is 60% (N=623).

Given that the program has planned a nationwide communication campaign on sustainable waste management, it is likely that the awareness level among the population could increase by 20% by the end of the program. However, while awareness is relatively high, the adoption of environmentally friendly waste management practices remains low. The evaluation found that only 29% of respondents engage in practices such as waste sorting, reusing items, or composting organic waste.

This observation was also supported by the international expert engaged in the program, who noted that, unlike early European experiences, Armenians generally understand the importance of recycling, thanks to school education and exposure to international practices. The key challenge, however, lies not in explaining the importance of waste management but in providing infrastructure and practical knowledge on how to implement these practices.

Recommendation

Therefore, the evaluation recommends focusing on sustainable waste management practices and implementation, with efforts to increase the percentage of the population adopting these practices.

Overall, the analysis of awareness levels reveals significant demographic variations based on settlement type, education, and income. Urban-rural differences were notable, with 73% awareness in Yerevan compared to 56% in other urban areas and 51% in rural areas (Chi-square test, p=0.003). Education level also showed strong correlation with awareness: 71% among those with higher education, compared to 56% with vocational education and 45% with school-level education (Chi-square test, p=0.032). Income levels similarly influenced awareness, with high-income respondents showing the highest awareness (71%), followed by middle-income (59%) and low-income respondents (49%) (Chi-square test, p<0.001) (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Awareness Indicator Disaggregated by settlement type, education level and income status, N=623

The vast majority of respondents recognize the importance of environmentally and socially responsible waste management, with 97% rating it as important (79% ‘very important’ and 18% ‘somewhat important’). Only 1% viewed it as ‘somewhat unimportant’.

Figure 15. In your opinion, how important is it to manage waste in ways that protect the environment and support social wellbeing? N=623

Survey respondents identified multiple environmental and social benefits of proper waste management. Among environmental benefits, reduced air and water pollution emerged as the most recognized advantage (58%), closely followed by reduced landfill waste (55%) and conservation of natural resources (50%) (Figure 16).

The social benefits most frequently cited were improved public health (64%) and reduced exposure to harmful materials such as chemicals and hazardous waste (59%). Respondents also recognized economic and equity implications, with 43% noting job creation opportunities for waste workers and 33% highlighting the importance of equal access to waste management services across communities (Figure 17).

Figure 16. In your opinion, what are the main environmental benefits of sound waste management? N=623

Figure 17. In your opinion, what are the main social benefits of proper waste management? N=623

Knowledge and Attitudes about Organic and Hazardous Waste

The knowledge and attitudes about organic and hazardous waste treatment were also assessed through the survey.

Regarding attitudes toward organic waste treatment, the vast majority considered it important, with 47% of the surveyed population considering it very important and 41% finding it somewhat important (Figure 18).

Respondents identified several benefits of separate organic waste treatment over landfill disposal: 25% valued organic fertilizer production through composting, 24% cited reduced odor around municipal bins, and 23% emphasized decreased landfill waste (Figure 19).

Figure 18. In your opinion, how important is organic waste treatment? N=623

Figure 19. In your opinion, what is the main benefit of treating organic waste separately rather than sending it to landfill? N=623

Recognition of hazardous waste varied among respondents. Pesticides were most widely recognized as hazardous (87%), followed by mining and medical waste (73% each). Batteries were identified by 68% of respondents, while paint (59%) and electronic devices (58%) were recognized by more than half (Figure 20). Regarding the impact of hazardous waste management, the vast majority expressed concern: 69% considered the impacts very serious, 27% somewhat serious, and only 2% viewed them as somewhat unserious (Figure 21).

Figure 20. Can you identify what constitutes hazardous waste? N=623

Figure 21. How serious do you think the impacts of hazardous waste mismanagement are? N=623

Waste Management Practices and Habits

Survey participants were asked about the availability of waste collection services in their area. An overwhelming majority (98%) confirmed such services were available in their area (Figure 22). For the small number who responded ‘no’ or ‘don’t know,’ a follow-up question addressed their waste disposal methods. Among these respondents, 75% (9 people) reported using a private dump site adjacent to their house (Figure 23).

Figure 22. Do you have waste collection in your area? N=623

Figure 23. If not, how do you dispose of waste? N=13

Regarding waste disposal distances, the majority of respondents (63%) travel less than 50 meters. The remaining respondents reported varying distances: 18% travel 50 to 100 meters, 12% cover 100 to 200 meters, and 6% travel more than 200 meters (Figure 24).

Figure 24. How far do you or your family go to dispose of waste? N=623

The figure below illustrates that 73% of the surveyed population lack access to garbage bins or collection services for sorted waste in their area, while 25% have access, and 2% are unsure (Figure 25). Analysis of access to waste sorting facilities revealed significant geographic disparities. Respondents in urban areas (both Yerevan and other cities) reported higher access to garbage bins and collection services for sorted waste compared to those in rural areas (Chi-Square test, p<0.001) (Figure 26).

Figure 25. Do you have access to garbage bins or collection services for sorted waste in your area? N=623

Figure 26. Access to garbage bins or collection services for sorted waste, disaggregated by settlement type

Percentage of people who practice environmentally friendly waste management

As noted earlier, the analysis revealed that less than a third of respondents (29%, N=623) engage in environmentally friendly waste management practices, while the majority (71%) do not follow such practices. No statistically significant differences across demographic characteristics, including gender and age were identified.

Regarding waste sorting practices, 38% of respondents reported separating recyclables from general waste, while the majority (62%) did not practice sorting (Figure 27).

Among those who sort waste, plastic was the most commonly separated material, with 79% of respondents sorting it. Other sorted materials included paper/cardboard (57%), glass (47%), organic waste (39%), metal (23%), and textiles (2%) (Figure 28).

Figure 27. Do you sort waste at the source (e.g., separating recyclables from general waste)? N=623

Figure 28. If yes, what types of materials do you currently sort? N=238

The analysis of waste sorting patterns revealed significant demographic and geographic differences. Gender analysis showed that women were more likely to sort waste than men (42% vs. 32%, p = 0.017). Geographic differences were also significant, with the highest sorting rates in Yerevan (45%), followed by other urban areas (39%) and rural areas (32%) (Chi-Square test, p=0.008) (Figure 29).

Figure 29. Gender and settlement type differences in waste sorting practices

Among respondents who sort waste, half (50%) reported doing so consistently (100% of the time). The remaining respondents showed varying frequencies: 27% sort waste most of the time (70-80%), 13% sometimes (30-40%), and 8% rarely (10% or less) (Figure 30).

Figure 30. If yes, how often do you sort waste into different categories? N=238

Among respondents who do not sort waste, the primary barrier was lack of infrastructure: 80% cited insufficient access to sorting bins or collection services. Secondary barriers included limited home storage space (15%) and skepticism about actual recycling implementation (11%) (Figure 31).

Figure 31. Main reasons for not sorting, N=385

When asked about potential travel distances for sorted waste disposal, non-sorting respondents indicated varying preferences: 41% would travel less than 50 meters, 28% would go 50-100 meters, 19% would cover 100-200 meters, and 7% would be willing to travel more than 200 meters (Figure 32).

Figure 32. How far will you be ready to go to dispose of your sorted waste? N= 385

Regarding reuse habits, 55% of respondents regularly reuse items such as plastic bags and containers, while 42% do not (Figure 33). The analysis of reuse habits revealed significant demographic differences across both location and education. Geographically, Yerevan residents showed the highest reuse rates (64%), followed by other urban areas (56%) and rural communities (51%) (Chi-Square test, p=0.026). Educational attainment also influenced reuse behavior, with higher education graduates showing the highest rates (64%), followed by those with vocational education (57%) and school-level education (45%) (Chi-Square test, p<0.001).

Shopping bag habits varied among respondents: 35% use them always or most of the time, 23% use them sometimes, while 33% rarely or never use them (Figure 34).

Figure 33. Do you have a habit of reusing certain items (plastic bags, containers, etc.)? N=623

Figure 34. When shopping, do you use your own reusable bags? N=623

The analysis of reusable shopping bag usage also revealed significant differences across gender, location, and education. Women are more inclined to reuse shopping bags than men: 40% of women consistently use reusable bags and 25% use them sometimes, while only 25% of men use them consistently and 18% sometimes. Non-usage was notably higher among men (58%) compared to women (34%) (Chi-Square test, p<0.001).

Geographic patterns showed highest adoption in Yerevan (46% consistent use, 23% occasional use), followed by other urban areas (35% consistent use, 25% occasional use). Rural areas showed the lowest adoption, with only 25% using reusable bags consistently, 20% occasionally, and 55% never using them (Chi-Square test, p < 0.001).

Those with higher education showed the highest adoption rates (38% consistent use, 24% occasional use), followed by those with vocational education (33% consistent use, 27% occasional use). Respondents with school-level education showed the lowest rates (31% consistent use, 17% occasional use) (Chi-Square test, p = 0.028) (Figure 35).

Figure 35. Usage of own reusable bags disaggregated by gender, settlement type, and education level

Regarding a potential ban on single-use plastic bags in Armenia, respondents showed mixed support: 61% expressed support (32% strongly supportive, 29% somewhat supportive), while 34% opposed the policy (17% somewhat opposed, 17% strongly opposed) (Figure 36).

Figure 36. How supportive would you be of a policy to ban single-use plastic bags in Armenia? N=623

Regarding composting practices for organic waste (food scraps and yard waste), 33% of respondents compost always or most of the time, while the largest group (42%) never practice composting (Figure 37).

The analysis of organic waste conversion revealed significant geographic differences: rural residents showed the highest composting rates (51%), notably higher than those in other urban areas (30%) and Yerevan (15%) (Chi-Square test, p<0.001).

Figure 37. Do you convert organic waste (e.g., food scraps, yard waste) into compost instead of sending it and throwing it away? N=623

Regarding services that collect batteries or electronic waste, 63% of respondents reported that they are unaware of such services for proper disposal or recycling, while 22% are aware of such services (Figure 38). Among those aware of these services, usage varied considerably: 37% had never used them, 30% had used them 2-3 times, 13% once, 11% 4-5 times, and 10% more than 5 times (Figure 39).

Figure 38. Are you aware of any services in your area that collect batteries or electronic waste for proper disposal or recycling? N=623

Figure 39. If yes, how often have you used such services to dispose of batteries or electronic waste? N=135

According to the qualitative data, public awareness differs across various groups, with some citizens demonstrating highly conscious behavior – sometimes to the point of excessive diligence, such as washing plastic items before disposal – while others show minimal engagement with proper waste management practices.

The program’s baseline research in Sevan revealed generally positive attitudes toward waste separation, with municipal officials reporting ‘promising’ and ‘impressive’ results regarding public readiness to participate in sustainable waste management. This receptiveness was partly attributed to previous initiatives, such as a plastic separation project implemented in the municipality, which created residual awareness and habits among residents.

“The first component was informational, for data collection. We conducted a phone survey, checked what opinion they have about the waste program being implemented in the community, about waste collection, whether they are ready or not to do sorting and so on. They gave quite promising results.” KII with municipality representative

The program implemented a comprehensive strategy for public awareness, with a particularly strong focus on educational institutions in Sevan. By engaging kindergartens, schools, and extracurricular facilities, the program created an effective two-way educational impact: students and teachers not only learned about waste sorting but also became agents of change, influencing their families’ behavior and broader community practices. The program enhanced theoretical learning with practical experience through initiatives such as weekend clean-up events in city parks, where children gained hands-on experience in waste separation and understanding environmental impacts.

The awareness strategy extended beyond educational institutions through multiple channels, including collaboration with journalists, interactive local TV programs, social media engagement, billboard advertising, and partnerships with local NGOs.

“In the last month, we had 2 awareness-raising activities from the program. The expert came here, first we did a clean-up, the city park was selected, students from various extracurricular institutions and schools were explained beforehand what waste is, how dangerous they are for the environment, what waste sorting is, what needs to be done.” KII with municipality representative

“In the future, we will have social videos that will constantly remind people, not only about the program, but about having a healthy, safe environment in general.” KII with municipality representative

However, municipal officials in Sevan anticipate a challenging 1-2-month transition period when implementing actual separation systems, highlighting the difficulty of translating knowledge into consistent behavior. According to them, infrastructure design plays a crucial role in promoting behavior change. The program’s approach of providing individual bins to private houses seems more effective than communal containers, as people tend to feel greater ownership and responsibility for personal bins. However, this approach presents a particular challenge in apartment buildings, where shared responsibility for communal containers often leads to reduced individual accountability.

“The city consists of both private houses and apartment buildings. Residents living in private houses will have their own waste bin, which is more beneficial because in case of their own property they won’t burn it, won’t break it, will wash it and will treat it with more care.” KII with municipality representative

Evaluation participants strongly emphasize the need to strengthen public awareness and education strategies. A comprehensive environmental education system should be implemented from pre-school through higher education, including the development of specific guidelines and teacher training programs. The program should deploy systematic social advertising and communication strategies before infrastructure implementation, ensuring communities are prepared for new waste management practices. Practical demonstrations and direct exposure opportunities, including student visits to waste management facilities, should be incorporated to provide hands-on learning experiences. The approach should be differentiated, with targeted awareness campaigns developed for different demographic groups. Successful pilot projects should be utilized as educational tools, and schools should be engaged as primary channels for change, enabling children to become agents of transformation within their families.

“Time is needed for people, these are new topics for people, for Armenia especially… We don’t have kindergarten or school programs about waste, usually no one even talks about it, because we don’t even have information about basic separated waste, these special bins are just starting to appear here.” KII with program stakeholder

Looking forward, the program acknowledges that changing deeply ingrained habits and cultural practices requires a long-term, multi-faceted approach. Success depends on maintaining consistent engagement across multiple channels and generations, with continued emphasis on practical demonstrations, school-based education, and local community involvement to foster sustainable changes in waste management practices.

Recommendation

Strengthen media engagement to raise public attention and understanding of waste management reforms.
Set at least 30% increase as target for the indicator demonstrating the practice.

How effective has the Program been in responding to the needs of the country, targeted municipalities and what results were achieved?

The program has demonstrated mixed effectiveness in responding to country and municipal needs, with notable achievements. At the national level, the program has effectively responded to Armenia’s need for comprehensive waste management reform through development of EPR legislation, though the adoption timeline has been extended to 2025. The quality of legislative development has been strong, successfully incorporating EU directives, Eurasian Union experience, and domestic requirements, while maintaining extensive stakeholder consultation.

In targeted municipalities, particularly Sevan, the program has shown careful attention to local context in developing the waste separation model. The implementation approach builds thoughtfully upon previous experiences and adapts to different housing types and infrastructure conditions. However, operational effectiveness has been significantly affected by procurement delays, particularly in equipment delivery, which has impacted the ability to demonstrate concrete results.

Overall, key achievements include:

Development of four comprehensive EPR legislation drafts
Establishment of the Recyclers’ Union, which has evolved from initial skepticism to active industry engagement
Strong engagement from large businesses, particularly international companies
High levels of stakeholder satisfaction with capacity building initiatives
Effective integration of gender and human rights considerations

What was the initial impact of the Program in the targeted communities and in the country related to EPR implementation and waste source separation?

The program is at its midpoint, with the EPR legislation yet to be adopted and the Sevan pilot not yet launched. As a result, it is too early to observe tangible impacts at the national level or within the targeted community. Consequently, the status of impact has not been visually highlighted in any color. However, evaluation participants highlighted the program’s potential to deliver significant impacts if implemented as planned.

Outcome 1 Impacts

According to evaluation participants, early signs suggest that the development of EPR legislation is beginning to influence market systems. Businesses are becoming increasingly aware of their future responsibilities, with some already adapting practices in anticipation of the legislation. Discussions on collective EPR scheme arrangements have emerged, alongside growing interest in recycling infrastructure development among market players.

While these developments are promising, limited private sector engagement remains a critical challenge for catalyzing systemic market changes. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that delays in engaging the private sector could compromise the program’s ability to achieve meaningful and sustainable market outcomes within its timeline.

“There is a limited private sector engagement despite it being budgeted for.” KII with donor representative

Looking ahead, the EPR legislation has significant potential to transform Armenia’s waste management sector. Expected outcomes include the establishment of formal financing mechanisms for waste management, the creation of new market opportunities in recycling, improved waste stream monitoring, and enhanced coordination between producers, recyclers, and operators.

However, several factors could affect the realization of these potential impacts. There are concerns about market concentration under a centralized EPR system and smaller operators’ ability to adapt to new standards. The potential resistance from businesses to EPR fees presents another challenge to successful implementation. While the full impact of the EPR legislation is expected to materialize after the program period, particularly in areas like job creation, environmental improvements, and sector formalization, its success will largely depend on effective implementation and enforcement mechanisms that are still in progress.

“The only thing that is at risk is perhaps the fate of small organizations, which on the one hand may have problems complying with higher standards if they do not adapt to the new situation, but there is also the risk that the PRO, being the main centralized actor and secondary waste management entity, will go, for example, through open bidding, which will seek out recyclers and give all the waste it collects and manages to one recycler, which may create problems for other recyclers.” FGD with program team

“There are businesses who may not be inclined and might try to somehow hinder the law’s adoption. Working with large organizations is important because their voice is also more audible to international organizations.” KII with program expert

Outcome 2 Impacts

The source separation model in Sevan demonstrates considerable potential for immediate and scalable impacts. This model is designed to create reliable supply chains of clean, separated materials for recyclers, stimulating broader market development in the recycling sector. Additionally, it is expected to support job creation in formal waste management and improve environmental conditions, potentially enhancing tourism in the region.

The model’s scaling potential is strengthened by several key design features. The program team has developed standardized yet flexible approaches that can be adapted to different community contexts, both urban and rural settings. This adaptability provides valuable evidence for future expansion across other communities. However, its implementation and broader adoption may face challenges. Many communities lack the resources to independently implement the model, and stronger policy frameworks will be needed to support widespread adoption.

Despite these obstacles, the model holds significant promise for nationwide replication, which could improve waste management practices, support the growth of the recycling industry, and generate economic benefits through more efficient operations and environmental improvements.

“If the program is successful, it will produce a relatively large quantity of clean, separated material, plastic, paper, cardboard, metals, glass, in a systemic way, and very important. Systemic means it would be collected every day, every week, every month. So, this provides a consistent supply of materials. And I think that, especially if it is replicated across lots of other towns, will completely change the Recycling Market in Armenia.” KII with program expert

Outcome 3 Impacts

The program’s capacity-building initiatives have laid the foundation for systemic changes in Armenia’s waste management sector. Early indications of potential impact include improved coordination and strengthened business relationships among recycling sector players, enhanced information sharing among stakeholders, and greater municipal initiative in waste separation activities.

Looking forward, the component shows significant potential for expansion and deeper impact. The Recyclers’ Union is positioned to play an increasingly important role in sector coordination. Training and awareness programs can be extended to new municipalities. The foundation laid for media engagement provides opportunities for strengthening public discourse on waste management. Enhanced municipal capacities could support more effective local implementation.

However, realizing this potential for lasting change will require sustained attention to two critical factors: the development of sustainable financing mechanisms and continued institutional support for capacity building initiatives.

“Now various stakeholders are so informed and already talking about such issues during these ongoing legislative discussions that it was surprising even for us that they understand so well in that regard and have advanced in their understanding of the topic.” KII with program expert

Program Impact on Vulnerable Populations

The program’s impact on vulnerable populations presents a complex picture of potential opportunities alongside significant challenges. The evaluation highlights important considerations regarding employment, economic effects, and public health impacts, shedding light on the multifaceted implications of formalizing waste management processes.

One key issue is the current involvement of vulnerable groups, including women and children, in informal waste management, often under hazardous conditions. According to evaluation participants, while the formalization of waste management through the EPR system may initially disrupt informal income sources, it aims to create more stable, safer, and decent employment opportunities within the formal sector. However, this transition presents a mixed employment outlook. While new positions in collection, sorting, and processing operations promise higher-quality jobs with improved working conditions, they also require new skill sets, such as operating automated collection vehicles and using advanced technologies. This shift could create barriers for less skilled workers, limiting their access to these opportunities.

“I would say more decent jobs. In other words, in the case of the Sevan pilot, we will definitely do something to create a completely different public perception of the work of that garbage truck driver and that crew in general.” FGD with program team

“There is informal waste processing going on, in which vulnerable populations are involved, including women, children, minors. The situation is quite severe.” KII with program expert

Beyond employment, several key informants raised concerns about the program’s broader economic implications for vulnerable populations, particularly through potential price increases associated with the implementation of EPR fees. These economic effects could disproportionately impact low-income groups.

On the other hand, the program’s potential social benefits should not be overlooked. Municipal officials have noted that income generated from waste management activities could be channeled into social programs to support vulnerable groups.

“Perhaps the social aspect will not be unambiguous in the sense that there will be price increases on some products, because the EPR payment will be generated by the producer itself.” FGD with program team

Furthermore, formalizing waste management processes aims to tackle significant public health concerns, particularly for vulnerable populations living near waste disposal sites. The transition to formal practices is expected to create safer environments and generate long-term public health improvements.

“Naturally, first of all, it will positively affect everyone’s health, especially children, if we have cleaner environment.” KII with program stakeholder

In conclusion, while the development of a more formalized waste management sector holds promise for creating economic opportunities and addressing public health challenges, careful attention will be required to ensure these benefits are equitably accessible to vulnerable groups and that the transition process does not create additional vulnerabilities.

Resilience of Market Players

The evaluation sheds light on the resilience of market players to systemic changes, revealing differing levels of adaptive capacity across various market actors and institutional structures.

According to qualitative data, market players are expected to exhibit varying capacities to adapt to market changes. Larger recyclers, for example, have expressed their willingness and ability to increase capacity and make investments if waste volumes grow through the EPR system, demonstrating potential for system adaptability. However, smaller operators face significant challenges in adapting to new standards and centralized EPR system requirements, which raises concerns about their long-term viability within the formalized waste management system. Stakeholders have highlighted the risks of market consolidation and its potential adverse effects on these operators. The transition to formal operations, alongside the need to meet new quality standards, presents substantial adaptation hurdles that may disproportionately impact smaller market players.

“In Armenia, we don’t lack recyclers, we lack raw materials. The companies that are now engaged in recycling plastic or other waste, I think they are ready to strengthen their capabilities if raw materials are available.” KII with program stakeholder

To address these dynamics, the program maintains active monitoring of market conditions, enabling it to track changes such as new entrants and exits in the sector. This ongoing monitoring is important for ensuring the program remains responsive to evolving market trends and challenges.

“We have our own team. We have a person who has been working in the sorting and processing sector for 6-7 years and is constantly in touch with the processors. In other words, we learn about new players. We also learn about those who are leaving and closing.” FGD with program team

The establishment of the Recyclers’ Union represents a significant step toward strengthening industry coordination capacity and building system resilience. This platform is designed to support market players in navigating future changes, advocating for their interests, and fostering collaboration. The union will strengthen the waste management sector’s ability to adapt and respond to emerging challenges.

In conclusion, the long-term resilience of the waste management system will depend on successfully balancing the interactions between formal and informal sectors, providing support for smaller operators to meet new requirements, and fostering strong market linkages.

How did the assumptions affect the Program? How effective was risk management?

The evaluation examined the program’s assumptions and risk management practices, revealing a solid framework for regular risk assessments and actionable mitigation measures. The suggested measures generally reflect good understanding of the context and actionable steps to risk reduction and mitigation.

However, gaps in the risk matrix were identified. It does not include the ‘killing assumption’ for the project that EPR legislation will not be approved. Given that much of the program’s success depends on this legislation, assessing its likelihood and impact is important. Additionally, some mitigation measures were found to be reactive rather than proactive. For instance, measures addressing risks like insufficient commitment from municipal or ministry staff rely on assumptions of their collaboration, which lack a clear strategy to ensure engagement.

Overall, while the program demonstrates a commendable approach to risk management, addressing identified gaps – such as including the critical assumption about EPR legislation and adopting more proactive mitigation strategies – will strengthen its overall resilience and adaptability to potential challenges.

Recommendation

Include “non-adoption of EPR legislation” in the risk matrix and develop alternative strategy for outcome one.

Overall, the evaluation shows that despite challenges and delays, the program has effectively engaged in addressing key issues within the waste management system and is likely to achieve most of planned outcomes.

Recommendation

Change the year targets of respective indicators considering the current delays in program implementation and recommendations of this evaluation.

Efficiency
To what extent has the Program achieved its results in an economic and timely way?

The evaluation of the WPA program’s efficiency reveals both achievements and challenges across multiple dimensions.

Performance Monitoring

The program maintained regular monitoring practices with monthly activity updates, demonstrating strong initial performance followed by a decline in the second monitoring period. During the first period (September 2022 to February 2024), the program achieved high performance rates with 88% for output indicators and 90% for activity achievement. However, the second period (March to August 2024) showed a significant decrease, with rates dropping to 62% and 58% respectively.

According to the program monitoring report, several external and internal factors contributed to this decline in performance. External challenges primarily stemmed from delays in government operations that impacted project output delivery. Internal factors included low participation in capacity-building activities, pending staff recruitment for vocational training in Sevan, extended procurement timelines affecting the national communication campaign, delays due to dependence on EPR law finalization.

In response to these challenges, some activities have been strategically rescheduled for Year 3 to better align with parallel program events and enhance overall efficiency.

“We have certain underperformance, approximately 80% of which has direct connection with the government delays.” FGD with program team

The evaluation also identified the need to strengthen evidence collection and documentation protocols for certain indicators, with timeline revisions required to better reflect project developments.

“Our timeline unfortunately doesn’t realistically reflect neither the project developments, nor the speed of our work. Based on the last monitoring results, timeline changes should take place.” FGD with program team

Were the resources effectively utilized?

Were the resources (human, financial, time etc.) sufficient to implement planned activities/interventions and reach the targets?

Resource Management

Resource efficiency analysis revealed mixed results. While overall financial management proved sound, with successful external audits for two consecutive years, the program showed underutilization of budgeted resources for private sector engagement, despite allocated funds for international and local staff support. According to program staff, this issue will be addressed in the upcoming cycle through the utilization of challenge funds.

Human resource management presented mixed results across different aspects of program implementation. While administrative positions experienced notable turnover, the program demonstrated strength in utilizing international expertise for EPR and WSS model implementation, effectively leveraging external experience to provide operational guidance and avoid potential implementation challenges.

Overall, according to the program team and other informants, several staffing challenges emerged during implementation:

High turnover in administrative positions
Tendency to handle tasks internally rather than outsourcing, even when external expertise might have been more cost-effective
Need for dedicated staff to coordinate Component 3 (capacity building)
Gaps in expertise for private sector engagement and systemic change monitoring
“At the moment, we are faced with the issue of strengthening internal capabilities: both financial and administrative, and all of us. We are learning in parallel, but I see an internal problem of developing capabilities.” FGD with program team

“International consultants’ involvement in the program allowed to exchange experience, hear their approaches and discussing their options. It was very useful.” KII with program stakeholder

Overall, stakeholder satisfaction with the program’s event organization was notably high, with 97% expressing positive feedback. Specifically, 57% reported being ‘strongly satisfied’ and 40% ‘somewhat satisfied’ with various organizational aspects, including communication, venue selection, event duration, and professionalism of hosting.

Figure 40. How satisfied are you with the organizational aspects of the program’s events (communication, venue selection, event duration, professionalism of hosting, etc.)? n=46

Institutional Context

According to the program team, operational efficiency has been also influenced by the program’s institutional setting within the American University of Armenia. While this arrangement provides institutional stability and credibility, operating as part of a larger academic institution rather than an independent implementing organization creates distinct challenges. The institutional framework introduces additional administrative layers and bureaucratic procedures that affect operational agility, impacting decision-making speed, resource allocation, staff management, and financial operations.

On the other hand, as the first program of its scale, it has provided valuable new experiences, such as international procurement, and has strengthened the capacity of the program team and AUA.

“We are not a separate NGO, we are not a unit. We are a small part of a larger system, and we depend on the system for many issues, and the system is often a cumbersome and bureaucratic system, whose operations increase while the resources remain the same. We are the ones who bear the consequences of this, that is, the program.” FGD with program team

Has the Program been cost-effective or would other approaches have led to the achieving of the same results at more reasonable costs?

The program has considered cost-effectiveness, and no alternative approaches have been identified that would have delivered the same results at a more reasonable cost.

To what extent did the Program’s monitoring and evaluation mechanisms contribute to project efficiency and effectiveness?

Project Agility

The evaluation also showed that the program has demonstrated flexibility and adaptability in responding to emerging needs, as evidenced by the facilitation of creation of the Recyclers’ Union, and the biogas feasibility study that emerged from market systems analysis. The program has also demonstrated flexibility in adjusting its approach based on stakeholder feedback, such as modifying the role in Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) that was initially planned to be done by the program but has changed due to Government decision and this responsibility now falls on Government. The adaptability and flexibility further strengthened the efficiency of the program. The program demonstrated adaptive management capabilities in procurement processes as well. This was evidenced by the decision to cancel and relaunch the procurement of bins and trucks for Component 2 when initial local offers were unrealistically high.

“We have added a biogas component. We have done Market Systems Analysis for 3 types of waste: dry recyclable waste, car batteries and manure. We were not very focused on manure, but in the process, we realized that it could become a very important component, and we asked for and received additional funds. Now we are doing a pre-feasibility study for biogas as part of a new work package.” FGD with program staff

On the other hand, as noted by evaluation participants, the program’s complex M&E plan, with its numerous overlapping output indicators, hinders efficiency. This complexity makes it more difficult to track indicators and update progress. Furthermore, the large number of indicators limits the program’s flexibility, making it challenging to adapt to changes as needed.

“We have too many indicators because we had several consultants who advised us indicators and now we have what we have as our results framework.” FGD with program staff

“In several cases we haven’t had clear evidence for our indicators. That’s due to our monitoring framework and internal protocol procedures, that we haven’t followed from the start to do post-tests for workshops for example.” FGD with program staff

Overall, while the program maintains satisfactory overall performance, these identified improvements could significantly enhance its efficiency. The current efficiency constraints stem primarily from a combination of external factors and internal management approaches rather than fundamental program design issues. The program’s implementation efficiency has room for improvement through enhanced planning, better resource utilization, and further streamlining of its monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system.

Recommendations

Revise the implementation schedule to account for current delays.

Review and optimize staffing structure, particularly for private sector engagement.

Establish regular documentation practices for capturing informal outcomes and lessons learned.

Consider utilizing the Indicator Tracking Table (refer to Annex 1) with a categorization of indicator importance to streamline and optimize M&E practices.

Potential Sustainability
What are the main methodologies and approaches adopted by the program for sustaining the results beyond the program and donor funding, are they well considered in design and implementation?

The evaluation shows that the program has methodologies and approaches in place for sustaining the results beyond the program and donor funding.

The program focuses on developing sustainable systems through two key approaches: establishing comprehensive policy frameworks (such as EPR legislation and waste separation guidelines) and strengthening institutions (like the Recyclers’ Union and municipal waste management capabilities).

The EPR system’s design supports sustainability through its built-in economic incentives, with PROs serving as a cornerstone for providing consistent funding streams for waste management. This addresses one of the most fundamental challenges in the current system – the lack of sustainable financing.

“Since PRO will have money, which municipalities and waste management operators don’t have, additional economic, financial incentive will serve for the system to work normally.” KII with program expert

The development of standards and advocacy mechanisms through the Recyclers’ Union will help ensure industry-led sustainability. Besides working to integrate sustainability considerations directly into legal frameworks and operational guidelines, the program has also built multiple stakeholder relationships to ensure continued commitment beyond the program period.

To ensure operational sustainability in Sevan, the program will implement several specific measures. A memorandum of understanding will be signed establishing that the provided waste collection vehicle must be used exclusively for sorted waste collection, and the municipality must allocate resources for vehicle maintenance and operations. The program team also emphasizes public engagement as a key sustainability strategy, aiming to build community demand for the waste management system beyond municipal administration. To ensure transparency and maintain community support, the municipality is required to regularly communicate with residents about system performance, including sharing cost-revenue reports. Additionally, to mitigate risks associated with personnel changes, the program will require a dedicated staff for system coordination, helping ensure continuity of operations regardless of individual staff turnover.

“First, we will stipulate in the memorandum that the vehicle cannot be used for any other purpose, only for collecting sorted waste. Second, the municipality must allocate some funds for the maintenance and operation of the vehicle. Third, we must ensure that the financial model is such that the cost of collection, the cost of the vehicle, depreciation costs, for example, are considered. The same applies to waste containers. In addition, we see a very large role in Public Engagement itself.” FGD with program team

To what extent are the positive outcomes of the Program likely to be potentially sustained after the completion of the Program?

The majority of surveyed stakeholders expressed confidence in the sustainability of program results, with 79% believing that positive outcomes will continue through public and private sector engagement after program completion (31% ‘completely likely,’ 48% ‘somewhat likely) (Figure 41).

Figure 41. In your opinion, how likely is it that the positive results achieved by the program will continue after its completion, with the involvement of the relevant public or private bodies? N=46

Market system sustainability shows encouraging signs through changing business behaviors. Large companies are demonstrating readiness for the transition and proactively adapting their operations in preparation for the new system, while new business opportunities emerge in waste collection and processing.

According to program staff, market players increasingly view waste as a valuable resource, evidenced by recycling companies independently coordinating material transfers between themselves without program intervention.

“The change in behavior is mainly felt in the field of collaborations. Now there are three recyclers who have started forwarding recycling materials to each other.” FGD with program team

“There is interest from big business, especially from organizations that will be the main driving force of EPR, because their investments will form the income of the organization that should ensure waste management. That is, they will have direct participation.” KII with program stakeholder

The Recyclers’ Union has a potential to last beyond the program. Initially met with skepticism, the Union has gained active industry participation, reflecting strong sector ownership. Operating independently, it will focus on coordinating the sector, advocating for recycling businesses, and developing standards for using secondary raw materials.

“Their essential role is advocacy, and in particular, advocacy for creating incentives in the recycling sector. There is Article 23 in the Law on Waste, according to which recycling, landfilling, etc. companies can take advantage of the privileges provided for by the legislation. But there is no mechanism to take advantage of these privileges. No recycler has taken advantage of any privileges to date. It would be a systemic change if at least that article started to be applied and work in some way. The other thing that I think will be very important is the introduction of standards for the use of secondary raw materials as a systemic step.” FGD with program team

The Sevan pilot project also shows promise for sustainability by integrating into existing municipal structures rather than creating temporary parallel systems. The local communal service organization is well-equipped to continue operations. A key decision supporting lasting behavior change was providing individual bins to private households instead of relying solely on communal containers, encouraging ownership and responsibility among residents.

“Now for Sevan, this is a very big capacity building. It is an infrastructure that will be managed, at the expense of which the capacities will increase. When he starts collecting with the entire enlarged community, maybe he will need two or three cars and will need to outsource. Definitely, as a result of the experiment, he will be able to do all this better.” FGD with program team

“They will continue this because it comes from their interest. Going to PRO, as a PRO I will be able to contract with Sevan municipality, say you collect this waste, I will buy this waste from you. Here there is an economic interest issue, which will lead to sustainability.” KII with program expert

Cultural and behavioral sustainability also shows promising signs, particularly in the pilot community, as highlighted by stakeholders involved in the second component. The program appears successful in establishing new waste management norms, also by targeting children, thus, creating a foundation for long-term generational change.

Overall, evidence of sustainable behavior change is emerging at multiple levels: municipalities are independently initiating waste separation activities, media interest in sustainable waste management has increased, and recycling businesses demonstrate greater willingness to collaborate and invest.

“One of the peculiarities of this program is that it’s a matter of culture. We are now trying to form a culture, if we manage to do that, to form that habit, later we will only need to maintain it, which is much easier than forming it.” KII with program stakeholder

How did the stakeholders’ involvement in the Program contribute to the achievement of Program objectives and its sustainability?

Stakeholder engagement has been a critical factor in the program’s ability to achieve its objectives and ensure sustainability. Through a combination of public-private collaboration, capacity building, and partnerships with government bodies, the program has effectively involved a wide range of stakeholders. However, challenges remain, particularly in achieving balanced engagement across different stakeholder groups.

“If we don’t achieve these more profound shifts in behaviors among players and in depth of understanding and incentives, like really leveraging incentives for private and public players, there won’t be any sustainability in anything we can do.” KII with program donor representative

According to qualitative insights, the program’s stakeholder engagement efforts reveal a significant contrast between large and small businesses. Large international companies, such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Pernod Ricard, and unions such as AmCham, have shown exemplary engagement through proactive initiatives. A notable achievement has been the establishment of a pilot Producer Responsibility Organization through program facilitation, which helped forge connections between these companies and Hrazdan municipality officials. This initiative exemplifies successful public-private collaboration at the municipal level, with participating companies planning to implement the pilot before the legislation’s enactment.

In contrast, engagement with small and medium enterprises (SMEs) has been notably limited as noted by multiple informants. The limited participation of SMEs can be attributed to interrelated challenges, including resource constraints that hinder their ability to participate in consultations, capacity limitations in understanding and preparing for EPR requirements, and concerns over regulatory burdens and associated costs.

“But under component three we have to work with the business community in general towards more sustainable practices, which we have not yet started and there is a concern that we may be delaying.” FGD with program staff

Furthermore, collaboration with the Ministry of Environment presents a mix of successes and challenges. While the ministry has demonstrated consistent engagement through regular attendance at meetings and an open dialogue, its substantive input has been constrained by staff capacity limitations and technical knowledge gaps. Furthermore, the frequent staff turnover at the deputy minister level has disrupted the consistency of ministry engagement, posing challenges to institutional ownership and legislative momentum.

“Considering the complex bureaucratic processes of the state system, I think we haven’t had a bad cooperation. We managed to have some understanding with them, but I think it would be better if they had that ownership, and we didn’t constantly push for discussions and meetings.” FGD with program team

“The effectiveness has two components. First is dialogue with people. In this regard, they are willing, they come to meetings, discussions. Second is substantive participation in program development. Here I think we have a lack of effectiveness. The ministry has not had significant, substantive input at any stage.” KII with program expert

Additionally, stakeholder survey results reveal room for improvement in stakeholder participation, with only 54% of stakeholders contributing to EPR system development, indicating a clear need for intensified engagement efforts, particularly with private sector representatives. While the Model development shows higher participation at 80%, the overall mixed participation levels suggest that additional targeted strategies are needed to broaden and deepen stakeholder involvement across all program components to strengthen sustainability of the program outcomes.

To tackle stakeholder engagement challenges in the development of the EPR system, both surveyed stakeholders and key informants have proposed recommendations including establishing dedicated platforms for private sector representatives to voice concerns and collaborate on solutions, implementing structured feedback processes to gather and synthesize input, and enhancing communication mechanisms.

Additionally, stakeholders have emphasized the importance of improved information management and practical demonstrations. Recommendations include intensifying information dissemination efforts, strengthening communication with government decision-making bodies, and creating an integrated information system with accessible, cross-referenced data for all stakeholders. These efforts could help bridge the information gaps and foster greater collaboration among diverse stakeholder groups.

To what extent have the capacities been strengthened or planned to be strengthened at the organizational, stakeholder levels to sustain Program results?

The program’s efforts to strengthen capacities at both organizational and stakeholder levels have been pivotal for ensuring the sustainability of its results. Capacity development has focused on fostering local ownership, enhancing technical expertise, and building institutional structures to support waste management reforms. This section explores the key achievements in capacity strengthening, as well as the challenges that remain to be addressed for sustaining program outcomes in the long term.

Capacity-building initiatives have significantly enhanced stakeholder engagement. A wide range of groups, including CSOs, media representatives, academia, students, businesses, and local government officials, have actively participated in these efforts. Stakeholder interviews highlight strong levels of interest and sustained involvement. The relevance of the content and the effectiveness of the delivery methods are evident in the substantive discussions and ongoing participation of key stakeholders.

One of the most successful capacity-building efforts has been knowledge transfer through international expertise. For instance, the study tour to Sweden provided stakeholders with practical insights into advanced waste management systems. Stakeholders emphasized the value of direct observation over theoretical learning. This experience enabled participants to conceptualize future possibilities for Armenia’s waste management and understand concrete implementation steps.

“Besides, my colleague and I were in Sweden, saw the progress, the toolkit they use. True, they started this process long ago, and now they present it to us ready-made models, but it was very impactful.” KII with program stakeholder

At the organizational and stakeholder levels, the program has achieved several notable capacity-building milestones. A key achievement is the establishment of the Recyclers’ Union as an independent industry body. Additionally, the program has successfully developed comprehensive legislative frameworks and supporting documents, enabling stakeholders to align with national and international waste management standards. Integration of program activities into existing municipal structures, rather than establishing temporary parallel systems, has further strengthened local capacity. By embedding waste management practices within municipal operations, the program has ensured that its initiatives are not only sustainable but also scalable.

Despite these successes, challenges remain that could hinder the long-term sustainability of results. Limited capacity within the Ministry of Environment to independently maintain and advance the system post-program is a significant concern, particularly given gaps in technical expertise. Recognizing this limitation, the ministry staff has requested enhanced legal expertise from the program team to strengthen the quality of their contributions. Similarly, municipal administrative capacities need to be strengthened as waste management systems grow more complex. Smaller operators also require targeted support to adapt to new regulatory requirements, such as those under EPR legislation.

While the program has laid strong foundations for capacity development, sustained efforts will be necessary to address these challenges and ensure the durability of its results.

What could be done differently to enhance the sustainability of Program results?

The evaluation findings highlight several key areas that could strengthen the sustainability of the program’s results.

At the institutional level, stakeholders emphasized the need for stronger state ownership of the program through its institutionalization within existing government structures or through new dedicated entities. Specific suggestions included creating a specialized department or inspectorates within the Ministry of Environment to maintain program continuity. Given the partial public trust in state institutions, stakeholders also recommended involving private organizations to support program activities and foster greater public confidence.

Sustained partnerships with public and private stakeholders, combined with continued public awareness efforts, were identified as crucial for maintaining engagement and accountability.

On the operational level, stakeholders highlighted the importance of continuous monitoring and evaluation of program impact, coupled with ongoing training and capacity building for key personnel. This approach would help maintain high implementation standards while ensuring adaptability over time. The implementation of pilot projects and development of clear, actionable tools were also recommended to help refine the framework and ensure practical applicability of results after the program’s conclusion.

What are the main challenges to Program sustainability?

Despite the program’s achievements, several challenges to sustainability persist.

Financial sustainability remains a significant concern, particularly for scaling waste separation initiatives to other communities in the absence of investment plans within infrastructure programs. The evaluation highlights the need to establish sustainable market connections between recyclers and those generating recyclable materials. While the recycling sector has sufficient processing capacity, the cost-efficiency of collection and separation remains problematic without supporting policy frameworks. The lack of mandatory waste separation requirements and clear economic incentives will further complicate the sustainability of the system, particularly when considering its replication in other communities.

“Fortunately, in case of our community, the Swedish government will support, which is big support from financial perspective. For other communities, I think if the RA government implements the systemic program in all communities, it should be implemented through subventions. And if it’s not implemented globally but locally, then each city should try to make investment within the limits of its budget.” KII with municipality representative

Additionally, smaller recycling operators and businesses may encounter financial and operational challenges in meeting the requirements of EPR legislation, potentially impacting the stability of the market system.

Institutional challenges are also evident. The program currently shows heavy reliance on the program team for coordination and implementation roles that should ideally be led by government stakeholders, with program staff serving as facilitators. For example, despite the Ministry of Environment’s willingness to engage with the program, their capacity to independently maintain and develop the system post-program remains questionable. The program has provided a comprehensive package of legislation and supporting documents, but high staff turnover and limited technical knowledge within the ministry raise concerns about long-term institutional ownership.

“Three deputies have changed in the MoE since the beginning of the program, and in the context of that communication, we have not had deputy-level communication, nor ownership. The ownership has dropped to the departmental level, which is weaker ownership.” FGD with program team

The limited public preparedness for adopting sustainable waste management practices poses a challenge to the program’s long-term sustainability.

“There is a saying in waste management that the most complicated machine to deal with in the waste management system is the ordinary citizen… the trucks and the bins and the separation centers are an engineering job, and that is relatively simple, often expensive, but it’s simple, but actually trying to change citizens behavior, people’s opinions, maintaining their trust, is challenging.” KII with program expert

Overall, the evaluation indicates that the sustainability of program outcomes requires further attention due to heavy reliance on the program team, limited ministry capacity and ownership to ensure the EPR implementation, limited financial and operational capacity of businesses to comply with the EPR legislation requirements, and limited public preparedness.

Recommendations

Strengthen state ownership and capacity. Create specialized position(s) within the Ministry of Environment to maintain program continuity and ensure EPR implementation and build the capacity.

Enlarge involvement of private organizations to support program activities and foster greater public confidence.

Develop targeted strategies for enhanced engagement of private sector and their orientation/preparation for successful implementation of the EPR system.

Facilitate stronger public-private partnerships for improved waste management.

Conduct ‘Who does, who pays’ analysis and adjust the program implementation plan accordingly (for a systematic assessment of which market actors will take responsibility for different aspects of the waste management system after the program ends, how the financial flows will work to sustain these activities without program support, and what incentives and capacities different market players need to maintain improved waste management practices).

Cross-Cutting
To what extent have cross-cutting issues, such as gender mainstreaming and human rights approaches, environmental impact, been integrated into various aspects of the Program design and implementation?

The evaluation reveals the program’s comprehensive attention to cross-cutting issues, particularly in mainstreaming gender and human rights considerations throughout its activities. This systematic integration is evidenced through both program design and implementation approaches.

The program has established robust mechanisms for gender and human rights integration. At the strategic level, annual action plans and an overarching strategy guide show these issues are addressed within each program component. A significant achievement has been the development of Gender-Sensitive and Inclusive Communications Guidelines, ensuring all public communication materials are inclusive, accessible, and sensitive to gender and human rights considerations.

The program has demonstrated particular effectiveness in bringing gender and rights issues to the forefront in the waste management sector, where they were previously overlooked. Gender experts have been closely involved in reviewing all program outputs and technical documents, ensuring consistent integration of these perspectives. According to stakeholder feedback, this approach has gained high levels of interest and substantive engagement, especially at the community level.

“When developing products and outputs, the expert reviews them to ensure human rights and gender approaches are reflected in both content and technical documents.” KII with program expert

In terms of specific measures to ensure equal participation and benefits for both men and women in waste management initiatives, the program has made efforts to apply principles of inclusivity and broad stakeholder representation in all its activities. This attention to inclusive participation is described as a ‘red thread’ running through the program’s work.

“For example, when organizing capacity building events, the expert carefully considers the interests, inclusiveness, and diversity of participants.” KII with program expert

The program has also tailored its capacity building efforts to different stakeholder groups to maximize relevance and impact. For instance, trainings with businesses focused on waste management and human rights in a business context, while sessions with local governments emphasized human rights approaches and principles of inclusion to ensure accessibility of waste infrastructure at the local level. This targeted approach helped ensure the program’s human rights efforts resonate with each group’s specific needs and contexts. Considerations for vulnerable and marginalized groups have also been integrated through the program’s emphasis on inclusivity and accessibility.

“The expert finds the capacity building trainings have been highly relevant and well-tailored to the needs of each stakeholder group.” KII with program expert

According to the gender expert, despite the challenges in assessing long-term sustainable changes within a short timeframe, the program has successfully established human rights and gender considerations as priority issues in the waste management sector. By consistently emphasizing the importance of these approaches and facilitating consensus among diverse stakeholders, the program is contributing to a shift in mindsets and institutional practices.

Environmental considerations have also been systematically integrated into program design and implementation, extending beyond immediate waste management goals to address broader concerns including air quality improvement, resource conservation, and circular economy principles. This is particularly evident in the Sevan pilot, where the program demonstrated strategic environmental thinking by addressing organic waste contamination in Armenia’s largest freshwater source. The pilot’s focus on protecting water resources while promoting environmental awareness and behavior change exemplifies the program’s comprehensive approach to environmental protection.

Overall, the evaluation suggests that sustaining and deepening these achievements will require continued engagement with stakeholders through targeted technical support as they implement these approaches in practice.

Recommendation

Continue expanding tailored training programs for different stakeholder groups, with specific modules on implementing gender-sensitive and inclusive waste management practices.

Lessons Learned
The evaluation reveals numerous valuable lessons learned through program implementation, offering significant insights for both current operations and future similar initiatives. These lessons span multiple dimensions of program implementation, from strategic planning to operational execution.

Strategic and Institutional Lessons

Leadership and institutional ownership proved critical to program success. The experience shows that frequent changes in ministry leadership, particularly at the deputy minister level, significantly impacted program momentum and ownership. The program learned that technical-level engagement alone may be insufficient for driving systemic change, highlighting the importance of securing strong institutional ownership at higher levels.

Developing a clear, shared understanding of systemic change objectives and pathways among all stakeholders emerged as crucial for effective implementation and coordination. Better alignment is needed between donor expectations and program design regarding the market systems approach, along with a balance between immediate program objectives and longer-term systemic change goals.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) proved to be a complex and sensitive topic, requiring precise communication strategies. Managing risks and preventing deviations in discussions on EPR is essential for stakeholder alignment.

Establishing clear procedures for collaboration with government entities is essential. The lack of in-depth discussions on major objectives, outcomes, and outputs limited government involvement. Facilitating dialogue and engaging government stakeholders more actively in the process would enhance program alignment and support.

Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration

Multi-stakeholder collaboration proved to be a key success factor. The program’s effectiveness in bringing together business, scientific, and government sectors demonstrated the power of coordinated action. The creation of the Recyclers’ Union, though not initially planned, exemplifies how such collaboration can create unexpected positive outcomes. The experience showed that working through business associations was more effective than engaging individual businesses, while early and continuous engagement with recycling businesses helped build trust and ownership.

Limited engagement from the private sector emerged as a challenge. Expanding these partnerships is crucial for fostering a robust and inclusive waste management system.

Cooperation of AUA and other stakeholders enabled constructive exchanges and knowledge-sharing. The integration of expertise and lessons learned from other regions provided valuable insights for program improvement. The collaboration with Sevan municipality proved successful, with the municipality now viewing AUA as a key partner.

Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer

Building sustainable local capacity, particularly within government institutions, proved more complex than initially anticipated. While international experts provided valuable technical input, the program learned that embedding ministry staff within technical teams could be a more effective capacity-building approach.

Community Engagement and Behavior Change

Awareness-raising efforts proved most effective when combining practical demonstration with education, supported by appropriate infrastructure and clear guidance.

Implementation and Monitoring

Internal capacity needs should be identified and addressed early in implementation, and more effective use of outsourcing could improve efficiency and reduce internal resource strain. Better documentation protocols are needed from the start to capture evidence of program activities and results, while having too many indicators can create implementation challenges.

Procurement Challenges

Procurement processes posed significant challenges during program implementation. Streamlining and avoiding such obstacles in future initiatives will be critical for maintaining efficiency.

Equipping SIDA with Replicable Knowledge

The program successfully equipped the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) with replicable knowledge, which can be applied to similar initiatives in other regions.

“AUA had no experience in international procurement. This was also a capacity building experience for them and for all of us. But it was also a problem for us, that is, we had internal planning, but then problems arose that we had not thought about well in advance, we did not see as risks, for example, there may be few applicants or similar problems may arise. During the next procurement, they will definitely know what kind of planning should be done.” FGD with program team

“Most of our functions that should be done by the Ministry of Environment remain on the project. There are functions that the Ministry should already be doing at this stage – organizing discussions, gathering everyone around the round table, publicizing, disseminating information about the upcoming EPR institution.” FGD with program team

“For example, ministry staff could have been permanently attached to the law development team, who could learn together with all of us. That’s not fundamentally difficult. I don’t know about time and compensation, but I think something could have been thought of.” KII with program expert

“Success is that they manage to unite field players and sector supervisors. As a result of unity it’s possible to develop the sector as a faster working body.” KII with program stakeholder

Overall, the WPA Program demonstrated significant learning opportunities across strategic, operational, and collaborative dimensions. While multi-stakeholder collaboration emerged as critical success factors, challenges in institutional ownership, leadership continuity, private sector engagement, and procurement processes provided valuable insights for improvement. The program’s two-year period has generated important knowledge that can inform future waste management initiatives, both in Armenia and other regions.