The PRSP process in Armenia is believed to be the most serious cooperation endeavor undertaken among the authorities, civil society and international organizations. In general, it is welcoming that as a result of the work carried out for the last one-two years the final version of the draft PRSP has been ultimately summarized and finally presented. As a plan it has been amended and improved compared to the previous version. At the same time it is worth mentioning that the final version reflects the considerable impact of international donor-organizations. Notwithstanding the fact that the approaches declared by international organizations aimed to support the elaboration and approval of so called "own plans of the countries", many countries (sometimes it was undesirable for the governments) could hardly avoid the influence and bidding from donors.

The "Provision of Economic Growth and its Orientation to Poverty Reduction" Section of the PRSP of Armenia, particularly its subsection "The Macro-Economic Framework" is built based1 on of SAC and PRGF projects implemented in cooperation with the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), and it presumes the above stated "consistent and comprehensive implementation of policies and arrangements"2. While considering the principles of international organizations towards supporting the PRSPs, the opposite should have been kept in mind: the PRSP should have incorporated independent economic policy, based on which the projects implemented in Armenia through the support given by the IMF and WB could have been clarified. This means that the PRSP should serve as a basis for reviewing and clarifying the SAC and PRGF projects3, especially given the fact that the Government of the Republic of Armenia has just started with the elaboration of the PRSP, and the fact that the projects of international organizations were not based on the poverty reduction strategy of Armenian Government. Both PRGF and PRSC project by the WB, per se, should be directed to support the implementation of the PRPS.

In this sense we believe that the aforementioned approach to the PRSP should be thoroughly substantiated. Moreover, we suggest to work out domestic (local) independent macro-economic projects, which being coordinated with the WB and IMF, would serve also as a basis for reviewing the projects jointly implemented by these organizations, securing the principle of "country-owned strategy" and independence of economic policy.

As outcomes of the Project, research paper “Growth with Equity” is released, as well as economic policy development and decision making models and forecasting models are built.

The priorities of economic policies, more specifically the review of such priorities in the final version of the PRSP, also deserve special attention. So, this document states, "From the viewpoint of poverty reduction the exclusive priority is given to the provision of stable high-rate economic growth"4. On the other hand, the document repeatedly comes to mention the extremely high inequality level and "rather dangerous condition for the stability of the society"5. It is known that now the real GDP per capita in Armenia comes practically to the level of 1990, meanwhile the income poverty exceeds twice as much the 1990 indicator6. It's clear that such high indicator of absolutely high poverty level under the conditions of the same amount of income per capita is stipulated by high level of inequality. According to the PRSP the high level of inequality in Armenia is stipulated by curtailment of incomes received from hired employment and social transfers5. At the same time, it was mentioned that the incomes gained from property and entrepreneurial activity, as well as informal transfers are distributed more in irregular way and their specific weight results in inequality growth7.

Thus, the reason for poverty is inequality, which is stipulated by low level of social transfers, low employment indicators, low work remuneration level, great disparity of distribution of profit, incomes gained from property, as well as unequal distribution of shadow, informal payments. This conclusion presumes that the PRSP should address the aforementioned problems, and along with stable economic growth as a policy priority it should provide for the reduction of unequal distribution of incomes.

Let us single out some current determinants of the economy of Armenia, which are as follows: a) small market and scanty economic resources; b) marginal level of financial, and especially of capital market development; c) pricing problems in labor market and inadequate supply of labor force; d) high corruption level; e) clannish nature of economic management; f) lack of any experience and traditions of business management in the conditions of market economy; g) inadequate accessibility to external market due to the difficulties with foreign economic relations with neighboring countries etc. As it is stated in the PRSP, the economic growth in Armenia is of a "insular nature and is concentrated in a number of developing clusters"8. The above long-standing problems allow concluding that the economic growth in the PRSP as a policy "absolute" priority definition can be not only insufficient for poverty reduction, but can in long-term perspective give rise to constructive and continuous poverty in Armenia9. It means that the disparity of economic resources in the future will stipulate inessential growth of those who establish and take use of economic growth, creating long-term and chronic poverty endangered and out-of-market clusters.

Thus, believing that the role of economic growth in poverty reduction is indisputable, we, nevertheless suggest as a priority of economic policy to highlight and emphasize the priorities in inequality reduction and poverty-oriented growth. We consider that inequality reduction, which will especially provide for the expansion of economic resources (potentials) through settlement of structural problems and human development, should be highlighted to reduce poverty in Armenia. In this sense, it would be desirable to revert to the priorities of economic policies set forth in the previous version of the PRSP.

Until recently, the opinion that economic growth is able to overcome poverty was dominant and was expressed in the policies of a number of transition countries, especially in the policy programs recommended by international financial organizations. However, a number of studies have proven that growth does not always facilitate poverty reduction. Years of economic growth in Armenia come to support this alternative view, as the distribution of income became worse in the period of growth.

"Economic Development and Research Center" NGO
"Civil Society Partnership Network" member

Some Observations and Suggestions
Over the redacted PRSP version (May 2003)

Having discussed the redacted version of the PRSP, the "Fund Against Violation of Law" NGO, which during 2002-2003 supported the expert group taking up the organizational works over the participation process in the PRSP elaboration, presents to the attention of PRSP Elaboration & Coordination Working Group its observations and suggestions.

Observations
1. The presented version does not correspond to the general standards of program approach in the following points:
a. Operational options are lacking;
b. The most probable impediments and risks have not been addressed and calculated;
c. Poverty causing reasons and deep-laid factors of this phenomenon have not been revealed;
d. The position of the PRSP in other projects of the country has not been yet clarified;
e. The PRSP has not been presented as a single integral regulation object;
f. No systemic approach has been applied to the project at all its stages;
g. It is not clear how the PRSP as a regulating object is going to provide for human, material, financial and other resources;
h. The database, analysis and conclusions are defective and contain numerous errors and mistakes.

2. The costs of all target indicators are compared with 2001, which meanwhile according to the Millennium Development goals should be compared with the 1990 indicators. The appropriate income poverty indicators are given in the said version as follows:

a. Average salary is USD 149 (without PPP);
b. Minimum consumer basket equivalent to minimum salary is USD 87 (without PPP), which constitute itself a poverty line;
c. USD 42 (without PPP) is extreme poverty (or scarcity of food products) line (is calculated based on the part spent to food products);
d. Poverty level is 20%;
e. Gini coefficient is 0.27.

Thus, daily income of USD 4 per capita should be considered as poverty line in Armenia. The number of population, the income of which is below this amount, will constitute approximately 10% by 2015.

3. The words "priority of economic growth" in the proposed version of the PRSP are repeated by authors as a novelty or as magic words, meanwhile such priority is a required, but not sufficient condition for direct poverty reduction. The authors strive to "prove" the opposite and skip everything on their way. Tables 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.6 and analysis "arising" from them (para. 44-52) can serve as a good example of it. This built-on-self-willed-basis "analysis", the confusion with relative (and disputable) indicators on the not-poor and poor, differentiation of unified research indicators, comparison of overestimated and non-overestimated indicators and made-at-discretion analysis are vivid evidence for that the authors exceeded their authority, otherwise it is nearly impossible to understand "the apparition" of paragraph 52. Let us remind that the idea mentioned in paragraph 30, states that studies have been conducted with the same methodology, and do not conform to the reality at all, which is proved by the WB Armenian Poverty Update as of 27.09.2002.

4. In subsection 1.2.4 written in the spirit of the past times the authors try to convince that the "climate" in Armenia is not so bad. For example, according to paragraph 77, the tendency in stabile lifetime (approximately 72-74 of age) is considered to be as a positive factor. Meanwhile the comprehensive analysis of this fact could reveal evident negative tendencies, such as "feminization" of Armenia along with population ageing. The ratio of males and females (1:3. 1:4) migrated from the country and of females' long-lived activity having a traditional nature for Armenia come to prove it. More than 500% decline for natural population growth in 1989-2001 and mortality rate growth by 150% that time remained disregarded by the authors (see Table 1.2.15).

5. The picture with the issue of education set forth in paragraph 78 is still described as positive, while the World Bank's considers the decline in education/ literacy level in Armenia Armenian Poverty Update 2000 is an issue of grave concern.

6. The PRSP has still remained, as embodiment of existence rather than development-oriented political will. As such it can be considered as an attachment of mid-term expenditures program with all shortcomings mentioned above.

7. In the whole, such approach to the philosophical statement that a person residing in Armenia can normally keep his/her existence using only 2100 kcal of equivalent food daily, keeping in mind that a human being is not only a direct representative of animal world, but is also a "social" creature, is quite unacceptable.

8. We continue to insist that the general income (consumer and income) indicator of extreme poverty shall necessarily contain the following:

a. The real cost of food basket for 2400 kcal equivalent food (for the whole term of the Project);
b. The cost of the part for non-foodstuff basket, which should constitute at least 52% (as in 1990), given the climatic conditions of Armenia,;
c. Correspondence to spiritual-cultural and ethnographic description, geopolitical and historical situation, the historically formed current worldviews of population, as well as adequacy of issues pertaining to refugees and local migrants.

This approach goes in full accord with the UNDP human development concept.
We suggest:

1. To provide this material to the economic department researchers of the one of the competent higher educational establishments of the country for export evaluation;
2. The authors of the project to revise and redact the Project in such way that is could cover the needs of target groups, come to resolve regional problems and target policies of the country;
3. Beginning from 2004 undertakes all possible measures to revise the PRSP based on the minimum food basket equivalent to 2400 kcal.

Summarizing the above, we would like to note that the poverty issue has become the actual also at political level. The latest presidential and parliamentary elections are evidence of increased interrelation of all three branches of powers with economic monopolies. It is not a secret that the similar formation procedures for the parliament and the government (in this case it pertains also to the courts) means conquest of power by large-scale capitals.

The existing situation given the lack of real trade unions, underdevelopment of labour market in the country, lack of mechanisms for legal assistance, work organization cooperative, etc, as well as insignificant influence of public sector in economic sphere, has created such a condition which is an evidence of state monopolistic regulation of the country market with its well-known and projected consequences.

The system of democratic institutions serves to be as a counterbalance for such situation in other developing countries. It is too early to speak of any such democratic administration and efficiently operating democratic institutions in Armenia, which are believed to contribute to the reduction of the social tension and provision of balanced competitive interests among public groups.

The international and national practice unambiguously proves that efficient institutions are normally noticed to do the utmost harm to the most indigent and vulnerable groups. It is therefore that the society insisted and still keeps insisting that the primary issues within the framework of the 2003-2005 PRSP should contain such points as improvement of efficient management, democratisation of governance institutes and active support given to public institutes and their social partnership establishment in the name of civil compact.

Nowadays, one cannot but agree, "It is not poverty that makes countries poor, but their bad rulers".

"Fund Against Violations of Law" NGO
Member of Civil Society Partnership Network

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the Priorities and Poverty Definition given in the PRSP

Establishment of the priorities in poverty reduction policy is of a primary importance as it conditions policy purposefulness during the whole period of its implementation. This issue became more important in case if it is taken into account the fact that the PRSP is a long-term program of strategic character and its successful fulfillment can alleviate poverty phenomenon in Armenia.
The primary goals of poverty reduction are as follows:
· Poverty preclusion procedure among the disadvantaged strata of society
· Abolishment of reproduction character of poverty as a phenomenon

Along with solving these problems, the policy should aim at reducing the number of the poor not only from the viewpoint of satisfying their main food and consumer needs but saving them from the danger of getting into poverty. Only in case if an individual is endowed with ability of his/her property, social status stable and broad reproduction, it is possible to say that he/she is not poor any more and that poverty alleviation by them is not a temporary but long lasting phenomenon.

While speaking about poverty reduction, it is of a paramount importance to clarify the context of policy implementation in the poverty reduction policy of strategic significance. From this viewpoint it is important to make clear the question whether the poverty reduction in regard to consumer abilities is of a top priority and we have to achieve this goal by any means or poverty reduction policy should proceed from the main democratic principles and should be pursued in the context of democracy.

If we take into account the fact that Armenia, even though formally, is declared by its Constitution as a democratic country, the poverty reduction should be implemented only in a democratic way, which means that the way of poverty alleviation should not be the gift of big businessmen (oligarchs) to the poor. Poverty reduction should be realized by the means of creating equal possibilities for all the strata of population to carry out economic activities.

Economic growth formation is the priority of the PRSP last version, which indirectly tries to show that it will bring to poverty reduction. If we take into account the fact that in Armenia, under current circumstances the main actor of economic growth is the oligarchic big business, it can be said that the main priority stated in the PRSP and the policy proceeding from it, is not so much the poverty reduction policy as the policy of economic growth formation through oligarchic big business which will indirectly reflect on alleviation of the social conditions of the poor.

Obviously, economic growth is an important condition for alleviating the poverty and generally for the development of the country. This is rather simple and understandable thesis. But it cannot be the only priority of the poverty reduction policy due to that simple reason that poverty in Armenia has not only economic but also social and political reasons.

And in the field of social reasons is hidden such a factor of poverty reduction currently formed in Armenia as unequal conditions of human abilities and capabilities formation, development and realization are.

The main guarantee of poverty reduction for the people is
1. the availability of equal conditions for their human capital (it is not essential whether it is expressed in financial form or in the form of professional skills) formation and dynamic development.
2. the availability of equal conditions for putting their human capital into circulation and introducing their human capital as an investment.

If the second condition is absent, the human capital, whether it is money or capability, starts devaluating and losing its economic actuality. In this case human capital starts not dynamically reproducing but becomes quantitatively and qualitatively obsolescent. Thus, the condition of realizing dynamic reproduction of human capital of any individual (capability or in the form money) is the possibility of putting this capital into circulation. If this possibility is absent or restricted in any social environment, the people appear in regressive reproduction or poverty procedure.

Poverty phenomenon in Armenia is mainly conditioned by the absence of possibilities or their restrictions, which is often substantiated not so much by objective difficulties as by predominance of non-democratic, clannish-oligarchic interests in the system of governance. And just these circles representing big business and governing bodies protecting the interests of these circles create unequal conditions among the broad masses of population for carrying out activities and putting their human capital into circulation.

Thus, the poverty formation is not only and not mainly caused by low economic growth, which is not as it is starting from 1996, but due to the reason that an individual appeared in unequal conditions as compared with oligarchic circles and their possibilities. In fact, only the big oligarchic business in Armenia has favorable possibilities for carrying out economic activities.

Poverty reduction is possible if in regard to this problem approaches and priorities proceeding from democratic principle are formed in the country.

Poverty reduction policy in democratic way is compatible with the UN principle of "poverty and inequality reduction". It is not mere chance that poverty as a problem is connected with the problem of inequality, as inequality of possibilities and the practice of making decisions in non-participation method will not allow building poverty reduction policy based on democratic principles since formation of economic growth through oligarchic big business and poverty reduction in this way will keep the poor strata always dependant on the main actors of poverty reduction promoting the authoritarian economic- political system, concealed under democratic formats, to take roots.

In order PRSP to be a program and policy based on democratic principles, the PRSP economic priorities should be added by
· priority of creating equality of possibilities
· priority of creating participation governance system, enlarging in governance sphere the participation in decision making procedures relating mainly to redistribution and redistribution procedures.

The presented priorities, unlike the last version of PRSP worked out by three experts (published on May 2003), are partially expressed in the previous version of PRSP written by participation method (published on October 2002).
Deriving from the thesis that the poverty reduction can be finally achieved if the emphasis is placed on formation of human capital, its progressive reproduction and formation of equal possibilities for putting human capital into economic circulation field, it is suggested a principally new definition of poverty as follows:
Poverty is the inability of human being to realize broad reproduction of its abilities, property and social status.
In this respect the ability of satisfying needs is considered not only exclusively from the consumer viewpoint but also from the viewpoint of realizing broad/increasing reproduction.

Institute of Democracy and Human Rights
Member of Civil Society Partnership Network

Recommendations on introducing changes/amendments to "Healthcare" and "Education" subsections in the part of "Investments in Human Capital" of "Human Development of Poverty Reduction Strategy" Section incorporated in the 3rd chapter of the RA PRSP final draft

Healthcare

The incomplete reflection of healthcare issues in the PRSP, which is intended to become a strategic plan for resolving the major problems the Armenian population by the RA government and the main donors, is believed to not only to upset promoting poverty reduction, but also increase the number of poor people. The sphere of healthcare must incorporate new approaches to the provision of healthcare services and clarification of the defined principles.

OXFAM Great Britain Organization in Armenia has been operating since 1994 implementing a wide range of humanitarian and community development projects particularly in the sphere of healthcare. "Community Primary Healthcare Project" (hereinafter referred to as "the Project") was founded in 1995 by OXFAM, as a revolving drug fund program is being studied and processed up to now. Presently the Project is being implemented by "Support to Communities" and "Next Generation" local non-governmental charity organizations in approximately 100 rural communities in the RA regions of Vayots Dzor, Syunik, Tavush and Armavir.

The Project is being implemented in remote, isolated, poor and refugee-inhabited rural communities, where public healthcare and immediate /emergency/ medical assistance services are unaffordable and almost inaccessible. The Project was founded in cooperation with regional authorities as a result of the meetings and sessions organized between the communities and themselves.

OXFAM (GB) Armenian Branch office together with its partner non-governmental charity organizations urges to redact the provision defined in paragraph 226 of "Healthcare" subsection within the PRSP final draft framework, which is stating that "the authorities shall attach special importance to accessibility issue of primary healthcare in rural populated areas from the viewpoint of poverty reduction and inequality abatement" and emphasizes on taking care of healthcare issues of the remote mountainous and poor communities and study most thoroughly the experience gained by our partner organizations during the years of active involvement in introducing community healthcare sustainable projects.

We wish to advise that at the moment a project is being successfully implemented in the most remote and poorest communities by the engagement of 40% of population from about 100 rural communities of the aforementioned regions, and the involvement is intended to make a monetary contribution to healthcare foundations in the regions of Vayots Dzor and Syunik. Besides, the community chooses the poorest families amounting to 10% of the number of participants that have equal rights to make use of the services provided by the Project without making a contribution to the foundation.

In the aforementioned communities the government doesn't have to address health posts and water supply capital investments issues, but there are issues related to allotment of small means and, why not, those related to joint implementation of the Project.

As a result of 2001-2002 project research, it turned out that the collected sums were sufficient to ensure continuously about 80% of primary medical assistance drug demand of the project beneficiaries of the given region. In this case the government's role is given the utmost importance, as it could combine the means intended for the given communities within the state benefit package with the community contributions using it more efficiently and rationally to arrange healthcare service for indirect beneficiaries of the Project.

OXFAM and its local partner-organizations implementing projects do not anyhow intend to assume or replace the government's role and responsibilities in the communities concerned, but promote accessibility of primary healthcare in the most remote and poorest communities, community healthcare and sanitation improvement and development, support poverty reduction and elimination of inequality in the country, mobilizing the communities to independently take care of certain healthcare issues and show solidarity in making decisions particularly in relation to healthcare issues of the poorest in the community.

Thus, our challenge is to include the idea of community-based co-financed healthcare in the PRSP and, for the government agencies concerned, to copy and expand our activities and business behavior, i.e. to the extent which regards transparency, willingness for accountability; expanding this project for community participation in other regions of the republic as an applicable model for healthcare.

"Bridge of Hope" non-governmental organization

"Bridge of Hope" non-governmental organization expresses its concern on the fact at the proposal made by the organization to the PRSP working staff on the 'inclusive' education has not been included into the final draft of PRSP. The organization has been assured by the staff that the proposal received approval and should be included in the arrangements. However it is not reflected in the final version of the document. Moreover, the education strategy accepted in documents do not promote for education accessibility for all the children (including disabled children) as underlined in provision (i) of Annex 3.2.2. It would supposedly be ensured if the submitted proposal was incorporated in the document.

The 'inclusive' education gives an opportunity to involve all the community children into public education irrespective of a child's physical and mental capacities. The most significant principle of this method (educational policy) is the development of curricula and plans for an individual child based on specific schooling needs of a particular child. This is an education for all community members. Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that in the RA Law " On the 2001-2005 State Program for Educational Development" attached significant importance to the issues related to the accessibility and quality of education, and in case of sufficient financing, the scheduled implementation of the aforementioned issues shall have a direct and favorable impact on poverty reduction in the republic.

"Kamk & Korov" (Will and Strength) non-governmental organization

According to the official data, there are about 3500 hearing impaired people in Armenia. There are only two special schools in Armenia for hearing impaired children, boarding schools in Yerevan for children who can hear with difficulty and for those who are deaf. The approximate number of the pupils is 400, which makes up a very small part of the children with hearing problems in the RA.

There are no special schools for children with hearing problems in the regions. The majority of them don't go to school at all.

Only a few public schools in Yerevan are attended by a very small number of children with hearing problems, who can hardly speak. However, they experience big difficulties with studying at public schools. In Yerevan boarding-schools for the hearing impaired and deaf children, hearing impaired children get an incomplete education and leave school only half literate. In these schools the classes are conducted according to the curriculum approved for the normal public schools, and this is the reason why the children perceive them with such difficulty.

Those among the deaf who somehow managed to acquire some knowledge, do not have an opportunity to get a specialized education in the higher educational establishments and colleges in Armenia as such higher educational establishments lack any appropriate conditions (classes held by deaf-and-dumb-translation) adequate for young people with impaired hearing. Proceeding from the fact, that accessibility of social services provided by government for target groups in the field of education are among the top priorities of the PRSP and according to statement defined in provision 236 (ii) that "It should be emphasized that during the term of the project some measures shall be undertaken by the authorities, which will promote increasing the degree of involvement both at high schools and in the sphere of professional education and would pay particular attention to the equality issues" and "Ensuring quality education and increasing its accessibility in medium and long-term perspective is one of the most significant factors for economic growth, poverty and inequality reduction. The further development of the sphere is viewed as a top priority for economic progress" then, taking into account the above, "Kamk & Korov (Will and Strength)" proposes to redact it focusing on education accessibility and attainability problems for children with impaired hearing the following:

Creating and developing an educational center for children with impaired hearing in the regions;
Arranging appropriate conditions at regional public schools aimed to organize proper schooling for such children, e.g.:
1.involving specialists, deaf-and-dumb-educators and deaf-and-dumb-translators in public school classes;
2.free hearing appliance adjustment for hearing impaired children;
Reviewing educational programs for children with impaired hearing to ensure their quality education.

Civil Society Partnership Network member organizations:

OXFAM (GB) Armenian Branch - international non-governmental charitable organization
"Kamk & Korov" (Will and Strength) non-governmental organization
"Bridge of Hope" non-governmental organization
"Support to Communities" non-governmental organization.

‘Health for All’ Campaign in Armenia

Oxfam has launched a new campaign to tackle the current crisis in healthcare in Armenia.

The new campaign, called Health For All, aims to highlight the desperate lack of basic healthcare facilities for poor people across the country.

Oxfam’s teams have been working in rural parts of Armenia since 1995 and through our partner organisation Support to Communities, we are already bringing basic healthcare to people in 77 villages.

Now we are calling on the Government of Armenia to incorporate into the national health strategy the scaling up of community-based schemes using the model piloted by Oxfam.

Under our scheme households pay a monthly subscription rate of $1 – a rate that is affordable to most households. The revenues get collected on a quarterly basis to be used later to cover the recurrent costs.

The health scheme then provides members with comprehensive primary healthcare, including the free provision of essential drugs.

A community nurse runs the small clinic, or healthpost, which provides a focal point for the village. The nurse also responds to emergency call-outs during evenings and weekends.

Primary healthcare in Armenia is still free but in many situations people are forced to pay for it if they want to receive fast, effective treatment and the necessary medication.

Around 51 per cent of the Armenian population lve in poverty, with 16 per cent in extreme poverty, many surviving on less than $1 a day - yet a first consultation with a doctor can cost up to $10.

Oxfam says standards of health are fast deteriorating as people choose not to seek medical care because they simply cannot afford it.

Oxfam currently works in the remote, refugee-occupied communities in Vayotcs Dzor and Suynik. It has been set up on a village-by-village basis after meetings with local representatives and villagers themselves.

Up to 40 per cent of the population of the villages have already signed-up to the scheme already and participation rate continues to grow.

Oxfam’s Country Programme manager for Armenia Margarita Hakobyan says: “Healthcare is a fundamental human right yet so many people in Armenia do not have access to affordable basic primary healthcare.

“Now is the time for change. We want the government to use our project as a model for what Armenia’s healthcare system, especially in rural areas, could look like in the future.

“We believe that if this scheme was introduced across the country we would see vast improvements in access to basic healthcare for poor people in both rural and urban areas which would alleviate the suffering caused by lack of medical help.”

The campaign is already starting to gather momentum – and we want you to support us.

An on and off-line petition calling on people to show their support for the campaign is due to be launched in the coming weeks and further events will take place to highlight the campaign.

Watch this space for regular campaign updates…