Most biodiversity conservation activities in Armenia are managed by the government. In-situ conservation of biodiversity occurs both in protected areas and in the wider landscape, mainly on lands under State ownership. The Law on Privatisation makes biodiversity conservation on private lands the responsibility of the owner, however economic factors and lack of information mean that the level of protection for biodiversity on private land is poor.

Protected areas

The existing system for protected areas in Armenia was established in 1958, and the network currently covers around 311,000ha, or 10% of the total area of the country. At least 60% of the species of fauna and flora found in Armenia are represented within the protected areas system. Four types of protected areas are recognised under existing laws: state reserves, state conservation areas, national parks and natural monuments.

· State Reserves have a protection status equivalent to IUCN category 1a protected areas (i.e. strict nature reserves, with activities limited to conservation and scientific research). Five State Reserves have been established in Armenia, covering a total of 68,000ha.
· State Conservation Areas were established in Armenia between 1950 and 1970. Of 22 State Conservation Areas, 15 are managed by the Ministry for Nature Protection, six are controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture, and one by the Institute of Physics.
· A National Park was established in 1978 at Lake Sevan. Sevan National Park covers 150,000ha, including the lake surface (125,200ha) and 24,800ha of surrounding land. The national park is managed by the Ministry for Nature Protection.
· Natural Monuments are selected according to international criteria, and include both living and geological sites of academic, historic or cultural importance. However, the natural monuments of Armenia have not been officially surveyed and registered, so their precise number is unknown.
Despite the size and history of the protected areas network, there are a number of problems with the design and management of protected areas which reduces their effectiveness for biodiversity conservation.

· Many important and characteristic ecosystems are not represented within the protected areas network.
· The borders of the protected areas have not been designed appropriately to take into account factors such as topography, altitudinal variation, and distribution patterns.
· The protection status of State Reserves and Conservation Areas is not generally enforced, and human activities such as farming and recreation occur in Reserves.
· Protected areas lack effective administration and conservation management regimes, and have insufficient staff and resources.
· The legal framework for protected areas management is poor or totally lacking, and regulations or limits on use of natural resources do not exist.
· Natural monuments have not yet been officially registered and an inventory of sites has not been completed.

Conservation outside protected areas

Prior to the collapse of the former Soviet Union a number of laws regulated biodiversity conservation outside protected areas, including human activities around rivers, water catchments and resorts, use of pastures, and collection of species. However, many of these regulations are now out of date, and do not take account of the new economic situation. Three regulations are implemented by the Ministry of Nature Protection: (1) licensing of hunting and fisheries; (2) licensing for the collection and storage of wild medicinal plants; and (3) ecological assessment of any new business activity.

By law, hunting and fisheries can only be conducted under licence and with a special contract. Each season a range of expert bodies are consulted for guidance on populations, hunting methods and likely impacts. On the basis of this information the Ministry of Nature Protection issues the appropriate number and size of permits for hunting or fisheries. Similar assessments are made of populations of wild medicinal plants before permits are issued.

Ex-situ conservation

Live collections of plants and animals are supported by the Institute of Botany (of the National Academy of Sciences), Yerevan Zoological Garden, and a number of recently developed private zoos and collections. An extensive plant collection has been established at the Institute of Botany for over 60 years, and now includes about 1,650 species of plants from 75 families. These are maintained in botanic gardens in Yerevan, Vanadzor and Sevan, and in a number of dendroparks. Although no captive breeding facilities are currently operating, the collection of animals at Yerevan Zoo includes 164 species (14 fish, 9 amphibians, 40 reptiles, 57 birds and 47 mammals) among which are a number of endemic and threatened species from Armenia. A collection of micro-organisms has been established at the National Bacteriological Research Centre, and currently maintains some 6,000 species of bacteria and fungi.

In general the conditions of ex-situ collections are relatively poor, and these have been undermined by the economic crisis and energy shortages. Museum research collections have been similarly affected. Furthermore, ex-situ institutions have developed in isolation without co-ordination between the existing collections.

Educational programmes and ecological awareness

A range of educational and training programmes in Armenia include issues relating to biodiversity conservation. In secondary schools, pupils learn about biodiversity from the 4th grade through courses on natural sciences and zoology. In most schools, field trips are also organised to botanic gardens and zoos. Biodiversity conservation is also covered in a number of advanced courses run by higher education institutions, including both State and private universities. A variety of courses relate to biological and social aspects of conservation, along with environmental protection, ecological policy development and environmental economics.

Public awareness of biodiversity is relatively low in Armenia. Little information on this issue is broadcast on State radio or television, although articles about the environment appear regularly in the press. The only television programme about nature is broadcast twice a month, but generally presents foreign documentary films, rather than describing the problems facing biodiversity and its protection in Armenia. A popular science magazine (Armenian Nature) which discussed many issues relating to biodiversity conservation was produced until 1995, but then folded due to financial difficulties. The Ministry of Nature Protection has published a newsletter (Nature) since 1998, which includes many articles on environmental protection. However the print run and distribution of this publication is very limited.
International recognition of the importance of public awareness has resulted in the development of the UN Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Armenia signed to this convention at Aarhus in 1998, and once the government ratifies the document the dissemination of environmental information and mechanisms for public participation will be clarified.

International biodiversity conservation projects

Various projects, funded through international sources, have been undertaken in Armenia, and underline the global significance of biodiversity conservation. Such projects include:

· A review of Forest Sector Development, financed by FAO (1993-1995).
· The Country Study on Climate Change, financed by GEF (1997-1999).
· A Forest Resources Assessment, funded by the Swedish International Development Agency (1998).
· The Lake Sevan Action Plan, funded by the World Bank.
· The National Environmental Action Plan includes a review of issues relating to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and a number of priority areas for action were identified. The data and priorities identified by the NEAP have been incorporated wherever possible into the BSAP to ensure the plans are compatible and mutually reinforcing.

A number of programmes in support of biodiversity conservation do exist in Armenia, but these need to be improved and strengthened within the framework of an integrated State policy on this issue. This review has some key issues which need to be addressed to improve biodiversity conservation programmes in Armenia:

· Limitations in the efficiency of the management of protected areas.
· Problems in the positioning and boundaries of existing protected areas.
· Non-representation of key landscape types within the protected area network.
· Lack of specific action plans for the conservation and regeneration of important endangered species.
· Ineffective legislation to support biodiversity conservation.
· Lack of resources for ex-situ facilities and genetic collections.
· Poor levels of public awareness about biodiversity issues.
· Low external investment in biodiversity conservation.