“De-risking and Scaling-Up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

R E P O R T on the Survey among residents of multi- apartment buildings in Yerevan

Astghik Mirzakhanyan National Expert on Social Vulnerability Assessment

YEREVAN 2018 Contract: LTA-2018-005

Survey was conducted among the residents of 4 multi-apartment buildings (MABs) in Yerevan with the special focus on the impact of socio-economic status of household on its behavior related to the apartment heating and its readiness to cooperate with “De-risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” Project, which will serve as a basis for accomplishing/adjusting the criteria for vulnerability assessment of households.

The report was conducted in the framework of “De-risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” Project, financed by the Green Climate Fund and being implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) under coordination of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Armenia.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the UNDP.

The following report is the property of UNDP. Prior to applying, duplicating, transmitting and/or otherwise using the data, contained in the report, reference to the source is required and receiving UNDP official written consent is a must.

© UNDP Armenia, 2018

2

Table of Content

Introduction ...... 4 1. Survey Methodology: basic principles and steps...... 4 2. Outcomes, conclusions and suggestions ...... 7 3. Conclusions ...... 11 ANNEX 1.Number of beneficiary families residing in 24 multi-apartment buildings short-listed and presented by Yerevan Municipality ...... 13 ANNEX 2. Social vulnerability characteristics of the residents of 10 potential buildings selected for household survey ...... 16 ANNEX 3. Q U E S T I O N N A I R E (for conducting survey with the purpose to adjust the social vulnerability criteria of household) ...... 17 ANNEX 4. SUMMARY of results of the surveys carried out among families residing in three multi-apartment buildings of Yerevan ...... 18 with the purpose to adjust social vulnerability assessment criteria ...... 18 ANNEX 5. The distribution of families registered in FBS, including the recipients of the both family and social allowances, by the administrative districts of Yerevan, as of 01.07.2018 ..... 20 ANNEX 6.SUMMARY of results of the survey of families residing in Yerevan Nor Nork administrative district, 3rd building at the 2nd lane of Gyulikevkhyan with the purpose to adjust social vulnerability assessment criteria ...... 22

3 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

Introduction

Based on the study of social vulnerability of population, the National Expert on Social Vulnerability Assessment proposed a system of main and additional criteria, as well as key indicators for the assessment of social vulnerability of family, which are described in the “Social Vulnerability Assessment of Population: Main Approaches, Criteria and System of Indicators” Report1.

Particularly, as the main criteria for social vulnerability of the family are recommended the registration in the Family Benefit System (1st degree of vulnerability) and having within the family any member/members belonging to a socially vulnerable group (2nd degree of vulnerability).

To justify the practical applicability of the aforementioned criteria, a pilot survey among at least 10 families should be carried out in accordance with the point 5 of the National Expert’s Terms of Reference.

The pilot survey revealed the following two most applicable in practice criteria for assessment of social vulnerability of family, which are, at the same time, a well-known and widely spread among the country population:

❖ Families receiving family benefits; and

❖ Families having persons with disabilities, including the person disabled since childhood or a disabled child.

Concerning the other proposed criteria for assessment of vulnerability of families, it’s worthy to mention that some additional - both official and non-official - sources of information (except of family itself) should be used to better justify the social status of the family, such as administrative databases of the various governmental bodies or peculiar information find out through inspectors of the condominiums and neighbors2.

The methodology of pilot survey, basic outcomes, conclusions and recommendations are provided below.

1. Survey Methodology: basic principles and steps After having joint discussions with the program management and experts, as well as with Yerevan Municipality (hereinafter YM) and relevant specialists of the RA Ministry of Labor and

1 http://nature-ic.am/hy/publication/Social-Vulnerability-Assessment-of-Population/10558 2 It should be noted that some of the families, considering themselves as a low-income, have applied for a benefit, has been denied and, finally, is not aware whether they are registered in the family benefits system or not, moreover, they are fully unaware of their family insecurity unit. Both neighbors and condominium inspectors had great reservations about the vulnerability of some social groups, such as single pensioners (or only pensioners) and single-mothers. According to their observations, in some cases, the children are helping their pensioner parents, and the single mothers have «hidden» husbands. There will be some difficulties in dealing with the vulnerability of the "law-salary employed" and "unemployed" vulnerable groups, as the widespread phenomenon in the country are hidden employment, “black salary” and officially unregistered unemployment and so on.

4 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

Social Affairs (hereinafter MLSA), several key principles have been identified for organizing survey, which are the following:

- Select the multi-apartment buildings for the family surveys from the list provided by the YM, taking into consideration that the implementation of UNDP and EU technical projects3 at the same buildings will lead to the synergy of results.

- Exclude the administrative districts of Kentron and Arabkir of Yerevan from the list of buildings selected for surveys, since, according to the data provided by MLSA the number of families registered in the Family Benefits System (hereinafter FBS) and residing in multi-apartment buildings of the mentioned districts is relatively small4, hence the social impact of the Program could be lower.

- Select from the list of buildings the ones inhabited by a maximum number of vulnerable families – both FBS beneficiaries and families with disabled member/members.

- Give preference to the buildings that are multistoried (more than 5 floors) and more inhabited, i.e. have less so-called “closed doors” in order to increase the effectiveness in organizing the survey.

- Also, include the building geographical location as a criterion of building selection, namely, the location in the north (relatively cold temperature), in the south (relatively warm temperature) and the middle sided (the mean temperature) districts of the capital city, as well as on the main street that further might indirectly serving as an "billboard" of the Program.

- Taking into consideration the statistical fact, that the representation of vulnerable families in the selected buildings will be very disproportionate, as well as considering the cases of non-responses (rejections to be interviewed), select 10 potential multi- apartment buildings for the survey to organize it in a stepwise manner.

- After completing the first stage survey, submit the summarized results to the Program Management Team (hereinafter PMT) to clarify the purpose and format of the second stage survey.

The surveys were organized in sequence and/or in combination of the following steps:

3 The Yerevan Municipality with the EU technical assistance is implementing “EU4 Yerevan Solar Community” Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Arev" Program) aimed at the provision of electricity savings due to the use of solar energy and effective methods of lighting in multistoried buildings of the capital, consequently in the list provided by YM there are only multistoried, i.e. having 6 and more floors, buildings,

4 According to the MLSA database, among the residents of multi-apartment buildings of Yerevan as of 01.07.2018, in total, 4907 families registered in the FBS receive family allowance, of which only 177 (3.6%) residing in Arabkir administrative district and 200 (4.1%) in Kentron. It’s important to note that the presented information includes the residents of all multi-apartment buildings, which include not only multistoried ones, but also buildings with up to 5 floors (see Annex 5).

5 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

Step 1 - The YM has provided the Program with the list of 24 buildings out of the ones selected for "Arev" Program implementation, which can be considered as joint beneficiaries of both programs. The information includes the address of the building, including the administrative district, the number of entrances and apartments, including the number of "closed doors", as well as certain details about the contact person of the building’s condominium.

Step 2 - The list of buildings provided by the YM has been sent to the MLSA, which, in accordance with the addresses of buildings, has filled in the number of families registered in the FBS, separating the recipients of family benefits and social allowances (Annex 1).

Step 3 – Taking into consideration the above-mentioned principles, from the filled in list of MLSA, in the result of joint discussions with the PMT and experts, 10 potential buildings (Annex 1, highlighted rows) have been selected for organizing surveys in a stepwise manner.

Step 4 –The list of 10 potential buildings has been submitted to the Social Security State Service (SSSS) of the MLSA with the purpose to fill in the number of pensioners residing in each building, including the recipients of disability pensions5, based on the data of the unified informational system of the registration of pensioners (e-pension).

Step 5 – The comparative analysis of the two lists in the viewpoint of the number of FBS beneficiaries, on the one hand, and the number of persons with disability, on the other hand, resulted in the selection of 3 buildings from Shengavit, Davtashen and Avan administrative districts (Annex 2) for the conduction of first stage of survey with the following justification:

➢ All three buildings are not only multi-apartment but also multistoried with two and more entrances that correspond to the requirements of “Arev” program implemented by the YM6. ➢ Building at Shengavit Yeghishe Tadevosyan, 6 address has the higher number of the both groups of socially vulnerable residents – the family allowance beneficiaries (11 families are registered in FBS, of which 6 are family allowance beneficiaries and 4 - social allowance beneficiaries) and the vulnerable population (24 persons with disability, of which one is a disabled child). ➢ Davtashen 3rd block, 25 building has the largest number of apartments (76) and is at the second place with the number of families registered in FBS (5 families), and at the same time among its residents are also 7 persons with disabilities, including a disabled child. The building was selected based on another important principle as well: it is located in the main Tigran Petrosyan Street of the district (its second address is T. Petrosyan, 25). ➢ The 8th building of Daniel Varuzhan block of Avan administrative district is located in the North of the capital (relatively cold winter), and among its residents there are 7 persons with disabilities and one family registered in FBS. While selecting this building, the following circumstance was also taken into account: it is neighboring the 6th building of the same block which was retrofitted under a pilot program in 2014, and the residents were well aware of its energy efficiency positive results.

5 According to the opinion of the MLSA specialists, the “Pyunik” database on disability cannot serve as a reliable source to get information about the existing number of disabled persons, since it is mostly filled in by the purpose of monitoring the processes of social and medical expertise of disabled persons (or those who applied for disability group), hence e-pension database was used for getting the data on persons receiving disability pensions, which is much reliable and permanently updated. 6 There are certain differences in the addresses of the buildings presented in Annexes 1 and 2, since, in accordance with new requirements of “Arev” Program Management Board, the YM was forced to replace multistoried buildings with one entrance by two and more entrance buildings.

6 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

Step 6 – To conduct a rapid survey among the residents of the abovementioned selected buildings a time-saving questionnaire was prepared (Annex 3) with the special focus on the impact of the socio-economic status of the family on its behavior of the apartment heating and its readiness to participate in the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program (EER), which will serve as a basis for accomplishing/adjusting the recommended criteria for vulnerability assessment of families.

Step 7 – The first stage of survey implemented in October 2018, the completed questionnaires were summarized, analyzed (Annex 4) and discussed with the PMT.

Step 8 – Based on the results, lessons learned and recommendations of the first stage, it was decided to implement only one survey in Stage 2, choosing the building located at the address of Gyulikevkhyan 2nd lane, building 3, Nor Nork administrative district (northern part of the capital city) that is multi-apartment (36 apartments), but has one entrance (there is no apartment in the so called “medium side” of the building7), is located on the main street8 (“billboard effect”) and listed by YM for renovation of the elevator in 2019 (possibility to cooperate).

Step 9 – The second stage of survey conducted on 14 November 2018, the results were summarized (Annex 6) and comparative analysis of data of the surveys both stages was reported to the PMT.

Step 10 – The analysis of the surveys’ outcomes, basic conclusions and suggestions made by the National Expert were presented in this Report on the Survey among residents of multi- apartment buildings in Yerevan.

2. Outcomes, conclusions and suggestions

A. With regard to Stage 1 survey

The summary and analysis of the data received in the result of the survey undertaken in three buildings selected for the first stage (Annex 4) shows that:

1. At the time of the survey, nobody lived in 21 out of, in total, 168 apartments (“closed doors”, 12.5%), 24 apartments were rented (14.3%), 35 resident families were not at home (20.8%) and 20 families refused to participate in the survey or did not open the door (11.9%), that is:

68 families or 40.5% of the total number of resident families were surveyed in the first stage of the survey

7 The concept of the “medium side” of building was used by the residents themselves, trying to explain an advantageous position of their apartments from the heat “exchange” and “heat loss reduction” viewpoints, because the “medium side” apartments are located between neighbors’ ones, and so have little surface of external walls, since the walls are mainly adjacent to neighbors’ apartments. 8 Despite the address, the building looks with its front to Nor Nork leading Gai Avenue.

7 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

2. In our classification9, 7 (10.3%) of the surveyed families, belonged to the 1st degree of vulnerability (they are registered in FBS), and 15 of families (22.1%) – to the 2nd degree of vulnerability (they have the disabled members of 1st, 2nd and 3rd group of disability), moreover, disabled persons of 3rd group prevailed in this cluster (10 among 15 or 66.7%).

22 families or 32.4% of the total number of surveyed families are vulnerable, of which 7 families or 10.1% belonged to the 1st degree of vulnerability

3. Major part of the surveyed families - 60.3 % - evaluates its economic status as having average income, 36.8%- as having lower than average income, and only 2 (2.9%)- having higher than average income.

25 of the families or 36.8% consider itself as having lower than average income

4. According to our classification, 71.4% of the families having 1st degree of vulnerability and 53.3% having 2nd degree of vulnerability considered itself as a low- income family.

The incomes of the families are comparable to the social vulnerability degree

5. However, according to our classification 13 or 29.5% of non-vulnerable families either considered itself having low income, which are mainly the families comprised of lonely or only pensioners, the one who lost breadwinner, multi-member, with low income employed or with not having permanent job member (members), that is

Gross income of the family is an important criterion for vulnerability assessment

6. 64 out of 68 visited apartments (94.1%), that is the prevailing majority are heated with gas during winter months; moreover at 76.6% of gas heated apartments a BAXI type heating system is installed, 8 apartments or 12.5% has central heating system10 and 7 or 10.9% - TURBO type gas heater, so

94.1% of the apartments are heated with gas, of which 89.1% with a heating system

7. Only 9 of the surveyed families (13.2%) in the previous winter did not heat or partially heated the apartment (one room or one or two hours during the day) because of the lack of money, and 21 (32.8%) families mark that partially heats, because the apartment is located at the “medium side” of the building and generally is warm, it means:

9 Key and additional criteria for family vulnerability assessment by vulnerability degree are presented in the appropriate Table of the Chapter 4 of the “Social Vulnerability Assessment of Population: Main Approaches, Criteria and System of Indicators” Report. http://nature-ic.am/hy/publication/Social-Vulnerability-Assessment-of-Population/10558

10 The term of heating system is used for those cases when the heating boiler was installed in the apartment (local, in every apartment, or centralized, for the whole building) with corresponding batteries.

8 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

In terms of heating the behavior of the family mostly depends on the position of the apartment

8. Concerning the heating costs, the linkage with the vulnerability degree of the family is underscored, especially if comparing the average monthly expenditures of non-vulnerable and 2nd degree vulnerable families during the winter months. Thus, if the average monthly expenditure of 1st degree vulnerable households (according to the average of the surveyed 3 buildings) amounted to 16700 drams, the ones with 2nd degree vulnerability fluctuated in the range from 11,400 to 21,750 drams, and non-vulnerable families - from 14,900 to 21,200 AMD.

The impact of the family vulnerability on the amount of heating costs is weak

9. The results gained about the families with the 2nd degree vulnerability having members with the 3rd group of disability are peculiar, that is 5 (50%) of 10 such families estimated their family as having average income, they completely heated the apartment in winter months with BAXI system and spent on heating on average 22800 AMD per month, that is,

In terms of apartment heating, the behavior of the family having 3rd group disabled is closer to the behavior of non-vulnerable, than vulnerable families

10. Half of the surveyed families (50%) is ready to participate in the Program with a lump sum, investing from 5000 to 100000 drams, 10 families (14.7%) more needs to be acquainted with the Program details, after which will decide the size of the amount, 10 families (14.7%) are very interested, but cannot make investment due to lack of money, and 13 families (19.1%) are not interested at all, because the middle-side located apartments (comparatively warm), and one family is against (1.5%).

64.7% of the families can be beneficiary of the Program through investing certain amount

11. Among the surveyed family clusters, 57.1% of families having 1st degree of vulnerability, 53.3% of families having 2nd degree of vulnerability and 65.2% of non-vulnerable families accordingly is ready to participate with some amount in the Program, so,

The willingness to participate in the program with a certain amount of money weakly linked with the degree of vulnerability of the family.

12. The highest readiness to participate in the program (68.8% of all respondents) reported the residents of Avan building, because of the relatively severe winter in this area; moreover, gas heating systems (including centralized) are installed in all apartments, but the apartment is no way heated up due to heat loss, or, otherwise, the heating costs should be

9 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project added11. Concerning the residents of Davtashen and Shengavit buildings, the readiness respectively expressed by 66.7% and 59.1% of surveyed residents

The willingness of the family to participate in the program with a certain amount of money is conditioned with the geographical location (North-South) of building.

13. Based on the two key conclusions outlined in paragraphs 7 and 12 of the results of the first stage survey, as well as based on the distribution of the families receiving family allowances by multistoried buildings in Yerevan administrative districts (Annex 5) 12, it is proposed to implement the second stage of the survey in a one entrance building in Nor Nork to somewhat neutralize the factor of the middle-sided location of the apartment while selecting social vulnerability assessment criteria.

B. With regard to Stage 2 survey

The summary (Annex 6) and analysis of the survey in the 3rd building at the 2nd lane of Gyulikevkhyan Nor Nork selected for the second stage shows, that:

14. Among all 16 families participated in the survey 7 were vulnerable (43.8%), of which only one was of 1st degree of vulnerability and 6 families of 2nd degree of vulnerability, moreover the latter included two families with a person disabled since childhood13 and a disabled child.

15. 85.7% of all vulnerable families evaluated their economic status as family having lower than average income, including the both families having a person disabled since childhood and a disabled child.

Families with a person disabled since childhood and a disabled child are more vulnerable than the other families of 2nd degree of vulnerability.

16. The major part of the surveyed families 62.5% considers itself having low income, including 44.4% of non-vulnerable families, hence 56.3% of all surveyed mentioned, that in winter months does not heat or heats partially the apartment because of lack of money.

17. Since all apartments of the building have relatively large external walls, at the same time, more than half of the apartments have 3, 4 and one apartment – 5 rooms, then even if all the apartment is heated, it is impossible to provide proper temperature, which directly impact on the behavior of the residents for participation in the Program, that is

11 The 8th building of Daniel Varoujan block of Avan administrative district has been constructed with a special design: here all the apartments have 3 rooms, the total living space is about 100 square meters, each apartment has two large balconies and, in case of heating for the entire apartment, the family's monthly expenditure amounts from 70 to 100 thousand drams. 12 According to the data provided by the MLSA, in terms of the number of the beneficiary families residing in multi-apartment buildings in Yerevan, Nor Nork takes the second place (848) after Malatia-Sebastia administrative district (1008). 13 In order to distinguish the adult person with aquired disability, the disabled child is registered as disabled since childhood person after 18 years old. 10 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

All surveyed (100%) families irrespective their vulnerability degree are interested in implementation of thermal insulation of the building

18. 7 of the surveyed families or 43.8% notes that taking into consideration the difficult financial situation, they probably will not have financial participation (mainly vulnerable families and those having low income), 5 more families (31.3%) are ready to invest money after getting acquainted with the details of the Program, especially its effectiveness outcome indicators, so

In case of the given building, the question of financial participation in the Program and determining the amount depends on the socio-economic status of the family and the level of their awareness.

3. Conclusions

The study conducted to assess the social vulnerability of families living in multi- apartment multistoried buildings of Yerevan allows making a number of important conclusions.

First, according to the official data provided by the MLSA, the distribution of families registered in the FBS by multi-apartment buildings is very disproportionate and is characterized by the low level of the "density" of 1st degree vulnerable families in one separate building. This is evidenced by the following statistics:

➢ As of 01.07.2018 out of in total 124084 families registered in FBS (including 100288 beneficiaries of family allowance) only 20187 or 16.4% live in Yerevan (including 15829 beneficiaries of family allowance, or 15.8%) ➢ The number of families registered in FBS and residing in multi-apartment buildings of the capital is 12469, which amounts to 10.04% of all families registered in FBS, and 10095 families receive benefits (including social allowance) or 10.07% of the total number of families - beneficiaries of family or social allowances of the country. ➢ 4 buildings (16.7%) out of 24 buildings preliminary selected by YM in accordance with “Arev” Program requirements have no any resident registered in FBS, and in 15 (62.5%) of them there are no any resident receiving family allowance (see Annex 1). Moreover, the families with 1st degree of vulnerability did not participate in the survey (or were absent) in 2 out of 3 buildings selected for the Stage 1. ➢ As of 01.01.2018 the number of the disabled persons registered in the MLSA unified electronic pension (e-pension) system is 193432 or 6.5% of the total country population, of which 82728 are disabled of 1st and 2nd group or 2.8% of the population. ➢ In 3 of 10 potential buildings selected for the survey there were not any resident family having person with disability (see Annex 2).

Conclusion 1 11 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

The disproportionate distribution of socially vulnerable families across the country, their relatively low share in Yerevan multi-apartment multistoried buildings have already predetermined the low probability of their residence in a single building, especially if the selection of the building is based on the Program's technical requirements as well as the residents' willingness to participate in the Program.

As a result of the survey of all 4 buildings residents, 29.5% of the non-vulnerable families considered themselves low-income and, vice-versa, 31.8% of vulnerable families were assessed their family income as an average, which means that:

Conclusion 2

Social vulnerability status of the family is a necessary but not a sufficient criterion for decision- making on financial assistance of families under the Program, so either the subsidy tactic tools should incorporate other family-income-based criteria or it is necessary to revise the overall family subsidizing strategy.

Most of the surveyed households, 64.7%, regardless of their vulnerability status, are ready to participate in the Program by investing a certain amount of lump sum, and their rows will grow even more if a comprehensive Action Plan of Public Awareness Campaign is designed and implemented in the due timeframe, which means that:

Conclusion 3

The success and effectiveness of the Program implementation largely depend on the active participation of the building residents, which can only be achieved through the development and application of fair mechanisms for family incentives and financial support, among which social vulnerability criteria should be viewed as one of the mechanisms, but not the only one.

The survey highlighted the role of the building condominium and especially the condominium inspector of the given building from the viewpoint of organizing polls, not obstructing the polls and eliminating impartial response to the questions, expressing readiness to participate in the Program and, which is also very important, providing some additional information on the socio-economic status of the building residents, hence:

Conclusion 4

The key point in selecting a beneficiary building for the Program implementation is the trust of the building's residents to their condominium, as well as the condominium building inspector's active and good relationship with the residents, and especially important is the participation of the condominium in the overall process of assessing the socio-economic vulnerability of the residents that should be considered as a " union of the whole building’s resident families".

12 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

ANNEX 1.

Number of beneficiary families residing in 24 multi-apartment buildings short-listed and presented by Yerevan Municipality (Highlighted buildings were selected as 10 potential buildings of the Program in accordance with the methodological principles of survey)

Number of families registered in the Family Benefit Number of System (FBS) of the MLSA, as of 01.08.2018 Administrative Address of Number Number of NN “Closed district the building of floors apartments Doors”* Recipients of the Recipients of the Registered Family Benefits** Social Benefits***

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Nazarbekyan 1 9 1 54 1 0 0 district, 17b.

Nazarbekyan 2 AJAPNYAK 9 2 36 1 1 0 district, 18b.

Nazarbekyan 3 9 1 36 2 2 0 district, 19b.

Acharyan str., 4 9 7 36 0 0 0 36b.

Kuchak district, 5 AVAN 9 5 36 1 0 1 15b.

D. Varuzhan 6 9 2 36 1 0 0 district, 8b.

7 ARABKIR A.Avetisyan 70 16 12 128 4 0 0

13 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

8 Gyulbenkyan 1 9 4 36 1 0 1

Davtashen 2nd 9 district, 32b. - T. 9 1 36 3 3 0 Petrosyan 61b.

Davtashen 3rd 10 district, 25b. - T. 9 7 72 5 0 2 DAVTASHEN Petrosyan 36b.

Davtashen 4th 11 district, 12b. - T. 9 3 54 4 0 2 Petrosyan 44b.

Khaghagh Don 12 9 2 36 1 0 1 10b. EREBUNI Khaghagh Don 13 9 2 36 1 0 1 12b.

14 Saryan 38 16 5 61 5 1 3

KENTRON

15 Demirchyan 17a 16 5 59 2 1 1

16 Sheram 77 14 2 52 2 0 0 MALATIA - SEBASTIA 17 Oganov 6 9 7 63 4 3 1

18 NOR NORK H.Avetisyan 41 9 no 45 0 0 0

14 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

19 Davit Bek 29 2 36 1 1 0

20 Davit Bek 28 9 2 45 1 0 1

Yegh. 10 8 60 11 6 4 21 Tadevosyan 6

Inner Shengavit SHENGAVIT 9 0 36 0 0 0 22 11str. 39/2b.

23 Chekhov 35 9 2 36 2 1 1

KANAKER - Azatutyun 12/3 9 4 36 0 0 0 24 ZEYTUN

Notes:

* The term “Closed Doors” is used by condominiums for the cases when nobody lives in the apartment.

** According to the RA legislation, only the families having a child (the children) can be eligible for “Family Allowance”.

*** The main recipients of “Social Allowances” are the law-income families without children, mostly the lonely pensioners or those who are eligible for social pensions (in 2015, as a result of the nation-wide pension reforms, the term “Social Pension” was just renamed into the term “Social Allowance”).

15 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

ANNEX 2.

Social vulnerability characteristics of the residents of 10 potential buildings selected for household survey (Highlighted are those 3 buildings, which were selected for the survey’s Stage1)

Number of families registered in the Family Number of the persons with disability registered in Benefit System (FBS) of the MLSA, as of the unified information e-pension system of the Number Administrative Number 01.08.2018 MLSA, as of 01.10.2018 Address of of NN District of of apart- the building “Closed Yerevan City ments doors” Recipients of Recipients of Persons Of which Two-sided One-sided Registered the Family the Social with disabled parentless parentless Benefits Benefits disability children children children

1 2 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Nazarbekyan 1 AJAPNYAK 1 36 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 district 19b. D.Varuzhan 2 2 36 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 district., 8b. AVAN Acharyan str. 3 36b. 7 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Davtashen 3rd 4 DAVTASHEN 7 72 5 0 2 7 1 0 0 district 25b. Khaghagh Don 5 EREBUNI 9 36 1 0 1 12 0 0 0 10 b. MALATIA- 6 Oganov 6 7 63 4 3 1 16 0 0 0 SEBASTIA

7 H. Avetisyan 41 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOR-NORK 8 Davit Bek 29 2 36 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Yegh. 9 SHENGAVIT 8 60 11 6 4 24 1 0 2 Tadevosyan 6 KANAKER- 10 Dro 8/1 5 54 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 ZEYTUN

16 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

ANNEX 3

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

(for conducting survey with the purpose to adjust the social vulnerability criteria of household)

Number of Number of Heating household’ Number HH Heating costs per Readiness to Number of s (HH) Economic Social status of members Type of month in participate in Other notes Apartment members, status of HH of HH children with Apartment heating the Program including disability season women 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

….

N

Notes about :

1st clause: all members who actually live at that apartment (total number, T) by mentioning the number of female (F) ones – T/F. 2nd clause: the HH head self-evaluates its family’s gross income as an average –A, lower than average –L and higher than average - H. 3rd clause: the HH social status determined as registered in FBS – R, not registered in FBS -0, and is the beneficiary of family or social allowance –B. 4th clause: the number of persons under 18 years old. 5th clause: “D1”, “D2”, “D3” and “DC” notifications are used for HH members with appropriately 1st, 2nd, 3rd group of disability and disabled children. 6th clause: for the apartment heating sources the following notifications are used: G –natural gas, EL - electricity, “Other” and “0” – no heating. 7th clause: the monthly average expenditure through heating season in AMD is declared by the head of HH. 8th clause: if the HH ready to invest in the Program, the lump sum amount in AMD is mentioned; if ready to participate but cannot invest – 1, if there is no interest to participate – 0. Other notes: here some additional information is noted such as the surface (sq. m) of apartment, number of rooms, including the heated ones, type of the heating system (BAXI type of local system, TURBO type of heater, central heating system and other) and any expressions of HH members that are considered as important in the Program implementation context.

17 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

ANNEX 4

SUMMARY

of results of the surveys carried out among families residing in three multi-apartment buildings of Yerevan

with the purpose to adjust social vulnerability assessment criteria (Summary Table of the Stage 1 of the survey)

Administrati NN Address, Number of Surveyed Of which, Families with lower The apartment is heated Ready to participate ve district of number of “Closed families by the degree than average income2 with gas system, in the Program with Yerevan city floors and doors” of by vulnerability degree, % / average monthly certain amount apartments /rented vulnerability, number/% expenditure on heating % (…/...) apartment number /% per room, dram d. all the percentages were calculated over the given group, meaning a which a. the b. the percent part of non-vulnerable families considers itself having income lower than average absence of was calculated c. the percent (column.7), same related to families with 1st (column.8) and 2nd (column.9) family or over the total was calculated degree of vulnerability. non-opened number of over the number doors was apartments in of all surveyed e. those cases when the apartment is heated with gas, but using a non-compliant also the building families heating system or gas heater (by using, for example, gas oven) aren’t included considered (column 10,11,12) as “Closed door” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 total % 1st * 2nd ** Non- 1st 2nd Non- 1st 2nd Non- 1st 2n vulner vulne vulne d able rable rable

100/ 100/ 60 16 /4 16 44.4 0 5/31.2 6/54.5 0 2/40.0 0 81.9% 0 16.300 21.750 % 1.1. At the time of the survey 9 families were not at home and 6 families didn’t open the door. According to the information provided by the neighbors, 4 apartments are rented; nobody lives in 1 apartment (closed door). 1.2. Among the surveyed residents, no one was of 1st degree of vulnerability that is registered or is beneficiary of FBS. Daniel Varuzhan AVAN 1 block, build. 8 1.3. In the number of 2nd degree vulnerable families only the families that have members of 1st, 2nd and 3rd group of disability and disabled 9 floors / 36 apt. children, but at the same time aren’t registered or aren’t recipients of FBS, were taken into account. 1.4. 9 of the surveyed families (56.3%) estimated themselves as having average income, 7 of them (43.7%) – as having lower than average and none of them – as having higher than average income. 1.5. In all visited apartments (100%), a gas heating system is installed, moreover, in 8 of them (50%) - the BAXI type and more 8 of them (50%) -

18 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

are connected to the central heating system installed for the whole building. At the same time, in the previous heating season 6 apartments were heated partially and more 2 of them were not heated at all their apartments because of lack of money. 1.6. Among the respondents 10 families (62.5%) will participate in the Program with lump sum 5 to 50 thousand drams, one family will decide the size of amount after getting acquainted with the Program and 4 of them are interested but cannot invest. One family was against such type of building retrofits, thins that the external walls will not be “breathable”. 100/ … 100/ 57 35 / 7 30 41.7 0 7/23.3 4/17.3 … 4/57.1 14.900 11.400 73.9% … .1 % 2.1 At the time of the survey 14 families were not at home and 11 families did not open the door. By the information of the condominium building inspector 7 apartments are rented, and nobody lives in 10 apartments, i.e. “closed door”. 2.2 Among the surveyed residents, no one was of 1st degree of vulnerability that is registered or is beneficiary of FBS. 2.3 In the number of 2nd degree vulnerable families only the families that have members of 1st, 2nd and 3rd group of disability and disabled children, but at the same time aren’t registered or aren’t recipients of FBS, were taken into account. DAVTASHE 3rd block, build. 25 2 N 7 floors / 72 apt. 2.4 21 of the surveyed families (70%) evaluates themselves as having average income, 8 of them - lower than average (26.7%) and only one of them - having higher than average income (3.3%). 2.5 At the apartments of all surveyed families (100%) BAXI gas heating system is installed. One apartment were not heated last season because of family has no enough money. 2.6 Among the all surveyed families 15 of them (50%) will participate in the Program with lump sum 10 up to 100 thousands drams, 5 of them will decide the size of amount after getting acquainted with the Program, 6 of them are interested but cannot invest, and 3 of them are not interested at all. 58.3/ 42.9/ 33.3/ 33 21.200 16.700 20.000 25 /13 22 36.7 7/30.4 3/13.0 3/25.0 5/71.4 2/66.7 66.7% 57.1% .3 % 3.1 At the time of the survey 12 families were not at home and 3 families did not open the door. By the information of the community inspector of the building 13 apartments are rented, and nobody lives in 10 apartments, i.e. “closed door”. 3.2 In the number of respondents 7 families had 1st degree of vulnerability, 6 of which received family benefit, and 1 was registered in FBS. Yeghishe 3.3 In the number of 2nd degree vulnerable families only the families that have members of 1st, 2nd and 3rd group of disability and disabled Tadevosyan, SHENGAVIT 3 build.6 children, but at the same time aren’t registered or aren’t recipients of FBS, were taken into account. 10 floors/ 60 apt. 3.4 11 of the surveyed families (50%) estimated themselves as having average income, 10 of them (45.5%) – as having lower than average of only one – as having higher than average (4.5%) income. 3.5 Most of the surveyed families (18 or 81.8%) heat the apartment with gas, 11 of which - with BAXI type of heating system, and 7 - with TURBO heater. Among the surveyed, there was no non-heated apartment. 3.6 9 families out of the all surveyed (41%) will participate in the Program with lump sum 10 up to 80 thousand drams, more 4 families need to be convinced, and 9 families are not interested. Those are mainly the residents of “middle-sided” apartments.

19 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

ANNEX 5

The distribution of families registered in FBS, including the recipients of the both family and social allowances, by the administrative districts of Yerevan, as of 01.07.2018 (the data provided only for the residents of multi-apartment buildings)

The number of families resided in the multi-apartment buildings and:

Administrative Registered in the FBS Of which, received districts Family allowance Social allowance total % total % total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AJAPNYAK 1477 11.8 636 12.9 590 11.4 AVAN 592 4.7 247 5.0 257 5.0 ARABKIR 1279 10.4 177 3.6 696 13.4 DAVTASHEN 507 4.1 236 4.8 134 2.6 EREBUNI 1026 8.2 467 9.5 394 7.6 KENTRON 996 7.9 200 4.1 656 12.6 MALATIA – 1835 14.7 1008 20.5 510 9.8 SEBASTIA NOR NORK 1903 15.3 848 17.3 757 14.6 NORK - MARASH 0 0 0 0 0 0 NUBARASHEN 184 1.5 96 2.0 45 0.9 SHENGAVIT 1792 14.4 675 13.8 763 14.7 KANAKER - 878 7.0 317 6.5 386 7.4 ZEYTUN

12469 4907 5188 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0

100.0 39.4% 41.6%

20 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

Notes:

1. According to the official meteorological data, the winter in Yerevan is relatively cold in Avan, Nor Nork and Davtashen administrative districts (north and high land area of the capital city; in the Table those districts are highlighted by blue color), and is relatively warm in Erebuni, Shengavit and Nubarashen districts (south and law land area of the city, highlighted in orange color). 2. According to the Poverty Map of Yerevan Communities produced by the World Bank experts14 Nubarashen district has the highest level of poor population, and the level of the poverty headcount in Marash district is near the country average; but the afore-presented data, at the first glance, show just the opposite picture: the representation of families – residents of two mentioned districts – in the FBS is absolutely the lowest ones, which is explained by a very few number of multi- apartment buildings in those two districts.

14 https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7637

21 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

ANNEX 6

SUMMARY of results of the survey of families residing in Yerevan Nor Nork administrative district, 3rd building at the 2nd lane of Gyulikevkhyan with the purpose to adjust social vulnerability assessment criteria (Summary Table of the Stage 2 of survey)

Administrative Address, number Number of Surveyed Of which, Families with lower than The apartment is heated Ready to participate district of of floors and “Closed families by the degree average income2 with gas system, in the Program with Yerevan city apartments doors” of vulnerability, by vulnerability degree, % / average monthly certain amount (…/...) /rented number /% number/% expenditure on heating per % apartment room, dram d. all the percentages were calculated over the given group, meaning a which part of non- a. the b. the percent c. the percent was vulnerable families considers itself having income lower than average (column.7), same absence of was calculated calculated over related to families with 1st (column.8) and 2nd (column.9) degree of vulnerability. family or non- over the total the number of all opened doors number of surveyed families e. those cases when the apartment is heated with gas, but using a non-compliant heating was also apartments in system or gas heater (by using, for example, gas oven) aren’t included (column 10,11,12) considered as the building “Closed door” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 total % 1st * 2nd ** Non- 1st 2nd Non- 1st 2nd Non- 1st 2nd vulnera vulner vulner ble able able 66.7/ 100/ 57.1/ 12/8 16 44.4 1/6.3 6/37.5 4/44.4 1/100.0 5/83.3 77.8% 0 33.3% 16.750 10.000 13.200 1.1 At the time of the survey 6 families were not at home and 2 families didn’t open the door. According to the information provided by the building condominium inspector, 8 apartments are rented; nobody lives in 4 apartments (closed door). 1.2 Among the surveyed residents, 1 family was of 1st degree of vulnerability that is registered in the FBS and received family allowance. 1.3 In the number of 2nd degree vulnerable families only the families that have members of 1st, 2nd and 3rd group of disability and disabled Gyulikevkhyan, children, but at the same time aren’t registered or aren’t recipients of FBS, were taken into account. NOR NORK 2nd lane, build. 3 9 floors / 36 ap. 1.4 5 of the surveyed families (31.3%) estimated themselves as having average income, 10 of them (62.5%) – as having lower than average and only one family (6.3%)՝ – as having higher than average income. 1.5 In 11 of the visited apartments (68.8%), a BAXI type of heating system is installed, moreover, in 1 of them (6.8%) – TURBO type heater and more 4 of them (25%) - are heated by electricity or by gas oven. At the same time, in the previous heating season 7 apartments were heated partially and more 2 of them were not heated at all because of lack of money. 1.6 Among the respondents 4 families (25%) will participate in the Program with lump sum 10 to 20 thousand drams, 5 families will decide the size of amount after getting acquainted with the Program and 7 of them are interested but cannot invest.

22 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7637

23 “De-Risking and Scaling-up Investment in Energy Efficient Building Retrofits” UNDP-GCF Project