What then should be the process, if a business or the government wants to establish a factory, operation or structure on land that will incur environmental changes?  Fortunately, Armenia has a series of laws in place that outline these procedures.  This is the good news.  The public has the ability to track the required steps and raise awareness if there are indiscretions.  The bad news is that the government has not shown much concern for the awareness-raising of opposition groups, particularly as concerns the mining issue.  In fact, it may be safe to say, that when it comes to mining in general, there is a blatant disregard for all things procedural, lawful and truthful.

For the proper procedure, I went to two sources.  The first was Sona Ayvazyan of Transparency International (TI). Ms. Avazyan outlines three basic stages of the Environmental Impact Expertise (Assessment) in Armenia.  I also looked at the Republic of Armenia’s Law on Environmental Impact Assessments, 1995.  From this law I will examine articles 3, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 17 to try and make sense of the procedure.  I took these excerpts from Policy Forum Armenia’s Second Annual Report from 2011.  I understand that the reading is dry, so I included the excerpted Articles at the bottom of this blog entry for the hardcore legal eagles amongst you.

According to Ms. Avazyan there are three stages involved in an Environmental Impact Assessment.  In Armenia, the word “assessment” is not used; rather “expertise” is the preferred word.  Expertise is a holdover term from the Soviet era and is, for our purposes here, roughly equivalent to the Western use of “assessment”.

Stage 1

This requires the developer to notify the Ministry of Nature Protection (MNP), also known as the “authority”, that they intend to construct some sort of facility.  The authority then:

• Notifies the public
• Provides terms of reference for the project.  The “terms of reference” are essentially the scope of the assessment process that the developer must adhere to.
• With the very recent change in the EIA law in Armenia, there are now three categories of project scope:
  • A: large scale projects (such as Teghut)
  • B: midsize projects
  • C: small scale projects that often will not require a comprehensive EIA

Stage 2

This stage requires the developer to complete an EIA, based on the terms of reference (scope of assessment) provided by the authority (MNP).  A complete and comprehensive EIA is required here.

For Stages 1 & 2, both the authority and the developer should rely on Articles 3 & 5 (among others) of the Republic of Armenia’s Law on Environmental Impact Assessments, 1995.  As previously mentioned I have provided excerpts of these at the end of this entry.  In short:

• Article 3 states that an environmental impact assessment must be done and the public must be involved in every phase of the process.
• Article 5 directs what is to be covered in the environmental impact assessment.

Stage 3

This stage requires the developer to bring the report to the authority in order for an “expert conclusion” to be completed.  These stipulations are covered in Article 9 of the RA Law on EIA and must be presented by the authority within 70 days of completion.  Upon the completion of this task the following procedures must then be followed:

• Public hearings must be held within 30 days of completion of the experts’ conclusions.  The public must be given 7 days notice of the hearing.  Both requirements are listed in RA Law on EIA, Article 10.
• Per Article 11 of the RA Law on EIA, after the public hearings, within 20 days, the authorized body (MNP) makes a final decision on the assessment’s conclusion, based on:
  • Expert conclusions
  • Public hearings and discussions

The authorized body, the MNP is responsible for the validity of all information and processes as stipulated by Article 17 of the RA Law on EIA.
The “grey area” alluded to in the beginning of this post exists throughout the three stages.  For example, an “industry” scientist can claim the EIA was comprehensive and thorough in direct contradiction to an “activist” scientist.  The authority (MNP) can claim that fair and open public hearings were held while the opposition can claim that information produced was misleading or missing altogether.  Inasmuch as the grey area exists, the authority can claim that it technically did not violate the laws of the land.  The same holds true of the developer.

Then there is the whole issue of enforcing the actions and mitigations recommended in an EIA.  In the case of the EIAs conducted by both Lernametalurgiai Institut (LMI) and Environmental Resources Management (ERM), for Teghut, there is real concern that these will once again fall into the Grey Area.  Vallex can claim that they are following the recommendations, and the activists can claim they are not.  There does not exist in Armenia a legitimate, independent and transparent body that regulates enforcement procedures.   What options, then, are left for the activists?  Failing to prove outright fraud on the part of the authority and developer leads them to rely on the “spirit of the law” argument.  Transparency International believes there are clear violations of the Aarhus Convention in the Teghut case (these were outlined in my previous blog entry, Teghut IV: The Gate). The problem is that Aarhus has no teeth, no enforcement mechanisms, which the Armenian government and mining industry understand.  So, activists are left to take their chances in state courts and in the court of public opinion.  So far, neither has produced results.

Back to my recent conversation with a Diasporan friend. That friend came to the conclusion that the only way to ensure protection of the environment, in the long run, is to create policy change at the highest levels of government.  This would include revamping the EIA procedures and methodologies and including legitimate enforcement measures to ensure recommended actions and mitigations be carried out.  This would all have to be approved by a parliament that recently passed legislation, which actually weakens EIA laws in Armenia (the legislation was rejected by President Sargsyan).  It is an understatement to say that proponents of new EIA laws and policy have their work cut out for them.

Next week’s entry will be the last of this series and will wrap up some final thoughts and observations on the Teghut saga.

EXCERPT FROM THE RA LAW ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS, 1995

The following are excerpts of selected articles of the law taken from Policy Forum Armenia’s 2010 State of Armenia’s Environment Report. For the full text of each article and the entire law, please click this link.

Article 3 – The objectives of environmental impact assessment are as follows:

• Inspection of the degree of the possible ecological effect of intended activities, concepts and the possibility of their alternatives; the integrity of consequence analysis and accuracy; the adequacy of measures for monitoring, prevention, elimination or minimization of consequences during operation and implementation processes as well as in emergency situations
• To provide efficient and reasonable use of natural resources
• To prohibit any intended activity which can have an irreversible hazardous effect on the environment, unless otherwise stipulated in the Armenian legislation
• To provide participation and involvement of public in all phases of assessment

Article 5 –Scope of Assessment

Assessment must at least cover forecasting, description and appraisal of possible direct and indirect impacts of intended activity related to:

weather conditions, flora and fauna, individual elements of eco-systems, their inter-relations and stability, specially protected natural areas, landscapes, geomorphologic structures, air, surface and ground waters, underground, and soils.

Article 9 – Expert conclusions on document assessment

Within 70 days after the receipt of documents, the authorized body provides the preparation of the expert conclusion by authorized persons.

The following is subject to assessment during the adoption of an expert conclusion:

• The validity of the documents
• The opinions of the general public, affected community and interested state bodies
• The whole complex of all positive and negative impacts of the intended activity on the environment, as well as their inter-relations
• The applied assessment methods and the completeness of data

Article 10 – Procedure for public hearings concerning expert conclusions on the documents

• After receipt of the expert opinions element, public hearings must be held within 30 days
• There must be a 7 day notice of the hearings

Article 11 — Procedure of expert conclusion on the intended activities documents

After the public hearings, within 20 days, the authorized body (MNP) makes a decision on the issuance of assessment conclusion based on the expert conclusion, public discussions and the minutes of the public hearings results.

Article 17 – The responsibilities of the authorized body

The authorized body when performing environmental impact assessment is responsible for:

• the validity of the conclusion;
• the observation of principles, procedures, norms and deadlines;
• providing necessary documents and materials;
• providing necessary working conditions;
• publicity.

According to Arpine Galfyan of the Institute for the Defense of Human Rights (IDHR), the following laws have been violated.

• RA Land Code
• RA Water Code
• RA Mineral Code
• RA Law on Environmental Impact Expertise
• RA Law on Allocation of Mineral Resources for Exploration and Exploitation (RA Law on Concession)
• RA Law on Flora
• RA Law on Fauna

Examining just two, the RA Law’s on Flora and Fauna clearly illuminates the bases of outrage on the part of advocates for Teghut Forest.  Article 17 of the RA Law on Flora states, “Any activity that results in decrease of the quantity and harm to the growing areas of the plant species registered in the Red Book of the Republic of Armenia is prohibited.”  Article 18 of the RA Law on Fauna states, “Any activity that will result in decrease of the quantity of animal species registered in the Red Book of the Republic of Armenia or will spoil their habitat is prohibited.”  Specific provisions of these laws are outlined by the group Policy Forum Armenia  (pages 39 – 46).  As stated in the previous blog entry, the Red Book of Armenia, a listing of all endangered plant and animal species, includes 6 endangered plant and 29 endangered animals species found in Teghut.

The Republic of Armenia is also in violation of a number of international environmental conventions which include:

• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
• UN Convention on Biodiversity
• UN Convention on Combating Desertification
• UNESCO World Heritage Convention
• European Landscape Convention
• UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention)
• UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)

The Republic of Armenia has signed each and every one of these conventions and, as such, has agreed to abide by their guidelines and precepts.

I am not a lawyer and so will not pretend to have read all of these and dissected the specific violated statutes of each.  I do want, however, to look very closely at two related laws, the RA Law on Environmental Impact Expertise and the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, known simply as (thankfully) the Aarhus Convention, or even better Aarhus.

Aarhus was signed by Armenia in 1998 and ratified in 2001.  It is a simple convention that is built on three “pillars”.  These pillars are:

1. Access to Information

Any environmental information must be made available, to any member of the public, when so requested. Public officials must also provide and disseminate, in a transparent manner any new information to the public in a timely fashion.  There are very few instances where a government can refuse to give out information, and Teghut does not fall under this category.

2. Public Participation

Citizens must be informed, in a timely manner, regarding relevant projects having the potential to alter the environment and have the right to participate in the decision making and legislative process.

3. Access to Justice

Citizens have the right to justice in the form of judicial recourse should a company or government entity violate environmental laws and the principles of Aarhus.

Which actions, then, has the government of the Republic of Armenia and Vallex Group taken that constitute violations of the Aarhus Convention?  For this answer I turned to Sona Avazyan of Transparency International.  She informed me that the violations are:

1. Vallex was given the license to operate Teghut in 2001 but this decision was not made public until 2006.
2. After the original conclusions of the EIA in 2006, substantial changes have been made to the original exploitation plans.  These new plans have not undergone an additional environmental assessment or been open to public input and participation.
3. The environmental impact assessment report prepared by the mining company covered only the first 8 years of the project – without consideration of consequences within 50 years of project lifetime and beyond, account of emergency situations and risks in a transboundary context;
4. The decision-making processes related to Teghut mining did not fully satisfy the requirement of effective and timely public notification and participation in accordance with Armenia’s obligations under UNECE Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;
5. The environmental assessment that was done is fraught with inaccurate data and specious conclusions.  TI contracted with an independent economist, Etita Vardgesyan, a lecturer at the Armenian State University of Economics to “crunch” the numbers of the EIA conducted by the Lernametalurgiai Institute cjsc (LMI).  In spite of not having access to all of the original baseline data, the economist easily found numerous errors in the report, ranging from small to egregious.  Even more troubling is the fact that several of the errors result from simple and basic mathematical miscalculations.   An example is:

Coefficient reflecting the amount of air polluting dust, indicated to be 0.1 in the text, is actually used as 0.001 in the formula, which practically makes the total amount of dust and consequently the economic damage 100 times lower.

A complete reading of the report reveals error upon error in the assessment and thus its conclusions must also be called into question.

Most recently a new EIA was commissioned by Vallex and was conducted by Environmental Resources Management.   This EIA was, as we were told, designed to “fill the gaps” in the LMI assessment but has not been released to the public and its findings and recommendations remain unknown.  Its existence begs several questions.  Why was the public not involved in the conduct of this assessment?  Why have the findings not been released to the public?  Did the ERM assessment use the baseline data from LMI’s assessment?

Finally, let us then examine the recent proclamation made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).  In a January 25, 2012 declaration (#503), PACE declared that:

The Armenian Government, violating its international obligations, such as Article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Aarhus Convention, as well as Armenian legislation, by considering the agricultural lands of community and private ownership as being under the public supreme interest, against the will of their owners and the general public, forcefully takes those lands from their owners, changes their purpose and turns thousands of hectares over to mining, including the Teghut mine.

According to a decision of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ACCC/C/2009/43), the decisions of the Government of Armenia regarding the exploitation of the mine in Teghut and its adjacent territory does not comply with the Aarhus Convention.

We strongly condemn the continuing violations of the international obligations of the Armenian government and we demand that all decisions regarding the Teghut mining exploitation be considered invalid.

This declaration was signed by 44 member nations of the assembly, including Zaruhi Postanjyan, the Armenian representative and member of the Armenian Parliament.

Clearly, there is cause for concern for anyone concerned with the rule of law and due process.

I never got the name of the mine representative who received the list of violations from Mariam.  He accepted them, had an animated discussion with some of the activists and then retreated behind the gates of the mine.  The Gate, steel and imposing, seemed a perfect representation of the mighty Vallex Group.  The Gate physically closed off all access to Teghut forest.  This forest that had belonged to all Armenians for decades was suddenly, and on the basis of specious scientific claims, literally given to a mining company for private profit.  Figuratively, the Gate represents for me all that is wrong with Armenian politics and, as a result, Teghut, which has been in existence for centuries, is in danger of being wiped off the face of the Earth within the space of a few years.

My next entry, Teghut V – The Grey Area will examine the process of gaining environmental “expertise” approval in Armenia.

According to the World Bank, Armenia is in danger of losing all of its forests in the next 20-30 years.  Turning over 1000+ hectares of public land to a mineral company and allowing them to create an open pit mine smack in the middle of one of the few remaining forests, begs many questions.  The one addressed in this entry is, “What specifically are the dangers posed to the environment?” I’ll leave you to add to the list of questions that need to be asked, and answered.

Open pit mine in Nevada provided courtesy of the United States

Geological Survey (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3023/)

Let us review the land in question. As described in the abstract, Armenia: Anthropogenic Environmental Disaster in the Making:

The allocated land for the mining operation is 1,491 hectares (ha)–82% (or 1,232 ha) of which is covered with forests. The project plans clear-cutting 357 ha of the forest. As a result of resource extraction, one of the forested mountains will be replaced by a 600 meter deep pit. Dumping tails will be disposed in the gorge of Duqanadzor River. Exploitation of the mine will produce about 500 million tones (sic) of tailings and 600 million tones (sic) of various other wastes.

From this statement alone it is easy to discern grave environmental concerns in Teghut’s immediate future. The elements comprising these concerns include water and soil pollution, deforestation, species loss and other unforeseen consequences.  I will examine each.

• The Teghut mine poses a clear threat to the area’s water supply.  Mines in Armenia are notorious for dumping their tailings (waste products left over after the extraction of valuable materials) in shoddily constructed reservoirs or directly into rivers and streams.  Protestations by Vallex to the contrary, a tailings dump in Teghut would seriously endanger plants, animals and humans.  In 2001, Vallex commissioned Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. to conduct an environmental safety and economic feasibility review of the proposed site at Teghut.  One of their conclusions was “Given the mountainous terrain around the deposit, and the location in an area prone to severe earthquakes (emphasis added), there is a considerable technical, and therefore, financial challenge to deposit 500 million tones of tailings and 600 million tones of various waste categories in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner.”.  Tailings containing lead, arsenic, zinc, sulfurous compounds and much more would turn the Shnogh and the Debed River, into which it flows, into toxic zones, unfit for drinking, irrigation or plant and animal life.

• The mine also poses an obvious danger to the Teghut forest.  1232 hectares, out of the forest’s 1491, were allocated by the government, to Vallex, for the mine.  Of these 1232 hectares, 357 will be clear cut to place the open pit mine.  Today in Armenia, less than 7% of the country is covered with forest, down from the 20% coverage that existed in the early 1990’s.  Armenia’s loss of forests is shocking, unprecedented and presages an incalculable environmental disaster.  In addition, the mining operations, which have permission to operate on 1232 hectares, pose a serious risk of increasing soil erosion, damaging the water table and causing habitat extinction.

• Species loss is the inevitable result of water pollution and habitat destruction.  As one of Teghut’s last remaining ancient forests, it is the home to a wide variety of plant and animal species.  According to the abstract, there are 200 species of plants, 55 species of mammals, 86 species of birds, 10 species of vermigrades and 4 species of amphibians.  The Red Book of Armenia, a listing of all endangered plant and animal species, includes 6 endangered plant and 29 endangered animals species found in Teghut.

• According to Eleonora Gabrielyan, president of the Armenian Botanical Society and doctor of biological sciences, Teghut is home to Armenian Red Book species such as the walnut, Trautvetter’s maple, and the Caucasian Persimmon, of the ebony family. The last has been officially considered very rare and on the verge of extinction as recently as 1989-1990. Gabrielyan also said that one can also find Atryushenko’s snowdrop (Galantus artjushenko).

• The Teghut forest is also home to animal species listed in the Red Book. “The rock eagle and snake eagle can be found here and both are listed as endangered species in the Armenian and International Red Books. There are also certain small bird species which are listed in the Armenian Red Book,” said Martin Adamyan, doctor of biological sciences and director of the Biological Museum at the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Biology.

The Teghut region is beautiful and its forest nurtures a host of irreplaceable treasures.  These hidden treasures were not visible to us on this day, but we knew they were there.  Re-crossing the denuded hillside, I thought once again of these threatened treasures.  Anger for the disregard shown for the long term health and viability of this land is impossible to properly express in a blog such as this and to express this anger risks inviting accusations of being over emotional and sensationalistic.  Fair enough.   Let us then just stick to the facts presented above and ask for an accounting of these facts by the Ministry of Nature Protection and the Government of the Republic of Armenia.  My next entry, Teghut IV – The Gate, will do this as we begin to discuss the specific laws opponents identify that are being violated in Teghut.

Oligarchs

Oligarch is a term freely bantered about in Armenia.  These wealthy elites dominate all aspects of Armenian society, from business to government.  The Oligarchs control the legislative process through their proxy political parties, the Republican Party and Prosperous Armenia.  To call the parties proxies is probably erroneous as there is virtually no distinction between members of parliament and wealthy businessmen.  In fact, the Oligarchs, the wealthy elite businessmen and the legislative assemblymen are generally one and the same.  These parties maintain a tight grip on the parliament through a variety of means, from outright intimidation to the more subtle buying-off of the opposition.  Both the president, Serzh Sargsyan and the prime minister, Tigran Sargsyan (no relation) are members of the majority Republican Party.  Personal business interests of the wealthy Armenian businessmen/members of parliament become manifest, regardless of what laws exist that were clearly crafted to prevent just such activities.

Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Armenia

I could spend hours discussing each of the ministers but for brevity’s sake I will limit this entry to one, the Minister of Nature Protection, Aram Harutyunyan.  As the name indicates, Mr. Harutyunyan is bound to “protect” nature, for all Armenians.  The Ministry of Nature Protection is charged by the Armenian Constitution to protect the resources of the nation for all the people.  The Ministry is also charged with ensuring that environmental impact assessments are properly conducted and the strictures of the laws of the Republic of Armenia regarding environmental “expertise” are properly enforced.  Concurrently the Ministry is charged with upholding the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and its three pillars of access to justice (these will be discussed in the subsequent blog entry).  The ministry website posted the following message (excerpted here) from Mr. Harutyunyan:

Though by the legislation of the RA the environmental activities are under the responsibility of our Ministry, it is impossible to regulate such vital issues without an active participation and assistance of the society.

The main aim of this website is to provide information about the actions and measures that the Ministry of Nature Protection is taking for the regulation of environmental policy and wildlife management problems. Providing the availability of information and to involve the public in the decision-making process in the field of environment is another role of this website.

I look forward to active assistance of the wide sections of the population that are anxious about environmental issues either through website or direct dialogues in order to regulate these vital nature protection problems jointly.

I invite the reader to remember this sentiment about public participation when we visit the Aarhus Convention in an upcoming blog entry.

Vallex Group

Vallex is a shadowy entity, as are almost all mining operations in Armenia.  Its existence isn’t shadowy; rather, its ownership and shareholders, are.  Vallex Group is the mine operator in Teghut through its subsidiary company, the Armenian Copper Program (ACP).  Ownership of Vallex is not fully known.  What is known is that Valeri Mejlumyan, a Russian citizen by way of Armenia, has 19% ownership in Vallex.  The company is registered in Liechtenstein and thus the remaining owners are unknown.  There are also persistent rumors in Armenia that a stake of unknown percentage is owned by current RA President Serzh Sargsyan.  There is no way, currently, to confirm or refute this rumor as registration in Liechtenstein allows the company to keep company directors and stakeholders unknown to the public.

In regards to the Teghut mine, Vallex, initially, went through the requirements for licensing proscribed by law, making sure they crossed their “t’s” and dotted their “i’s”.  Sona Ayvazyan, from Transparency International believes, however, that Vallex ownership and their government allies never expected anyone, or any group, to seriously contest the environmental impact assessement (EIA) or to put up any kind of resistance.  (In an interesting aside, according to Sona, Vallex is actually the best mining company in regards to following the laws regarding public hearings and the legal processes required of law.)  The EIA was completed by Lernametalurgiai Institute cjsc (LMI), which holds a de facto monopoly on all mining assessments conducted in Armenia.   Most telling, however, is that LMI is a fully owned subsidiary of Vallex Group and the Armenian Copper Program.  Vallex’s own company conducts its environmental impact assessments, which is a clear conflict of interest.

Courts and Legal System

The Armenian courts have continuously upheld Vallex’s right to exploit the Teghut forest for copper and molybdenum by rejecting suits filed by various NGOs.  Three organizations, Transparency International (TI), the Helsinki Citizens Assembly Office in Vanadzor and Ecodar filed suit in the Administrative Court of the RA.  The suit was rejected twice after which TI and Ecodar filed suit with the Court of Cassation. Ultimately the Court denied the rights of NGOs to pursue “public rights” and thus rejected the suit.  This occurred despite the fact that an earlier ruling found that NGOs were able to pursue public rights.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) – Aarhus Centers

According to their website, OSCE is the organization that “contributes to the development of democratic institutions in the country, strengthening civil society, promoting OSCE standards and principles”.  They are also the sponsoring organization of the Aarhus Centers that are located throughout Armenia.   The Aarhus centers are charged with the responsibility to see that activities, which will impact the environment in some fashion, are conducted in a transparent manner with the participation of the public (more on this in a later blog).   The stipulations and requirements of the Aarhus Convention are at the very core of the activists’ resistance to the Teghut mine, and many other ventures.

Transparency International (TI)

TI is a global organization dedicated to fighting against corruption in government and ensuring that legislation, policy making and any other government actions are conducted in an open fashion.  TI-Armenia’s Environmental Division is headed by Sona Ayvazyan whom I interviewed for this and other blog entries.  Ms. Ayvazyan and TI have been at the forefront of the legal battles against Teghut for years and continue to pursue justice in the European courts as well as the higher Armenian courts.

Save Teghut Coalition

Save Teghut is a coalition of Armenian NGOs, mostly environmental in nature, that seek to halt the construction of the mine.  Among the groups involved is the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights (IDHR) headed by Arpine Galfyan.  Material from Arpine’s abstract on Teghut is scattered throughout my blog entries.  The aforementioned Mariam Sukudhyan is also one of these activists.  The Save Teghut activists have been recently energized as a result of their victory at the Trchkan Falls where they prevented a hydro-electric plant from being constructed at the top of Armenia’s tallest waterfall.  They have since moved their focus to Teghut and organized, and staged, the demonstration described in these blog entries.

NGOs

There are other NGOs that have taken an interest in Teghut as well, AEN among them.  AEN is interested in educating the Diaspora about all environmental matters in Armenia.  Teghut represents an interesting case as it involves endangered species, deforestation, water pollution, and trans-boundary issues with Georgia and Azerbaijan.   Speaking strictly for myself, I hope that some of Armenia’s larger and more influential NGOs are working behind the scenes to bring environmental protection to Teghut.

The Diaspora 

Where does the Diaspora stand on this issue?  This is unknown to me. Let AEN know where you stand.  Send us a response and let us know.

I learned quite a bit about the activists on our long bus trip.  These young people were unfailingly polite, open, patient with my terrible Armenian and a lot of fun.  I was, however, reminded of the seriousness of our activities when we picked up a police escort just outside of Alaverdi.  The police escorted all three buses through the Debed River Valley and up the road to Teghut.   Once there, we were met by approximately two dozen additional law enforcement officials who were ordered to keep the peace between the activists and the mine workers.  Looking that day upon the good people, on both sides of the issue, with the police arrayed between us, I feared there would never be a resolution with Vallex and the government officials.  I hope my mind changes.

One thing that has become clear to me is that there is no middle ground in this conflict.  There is no group, organization, or individual who acts as a mediator between those that want the mine in Teghut and those that do not.

My next entry, Teghut – Part 3, will examine the specific dangers faced by the Teghut ecosystem.

This topic is too large for a single entry so I decided to split it into six parts.  This entry will describe the history of the mine at Teghut so that the reader can understand what has the activists so up-in-arms.  The second entry will describe the main players involved in the conflict. The third entry will detail the specific environmental threats facing Teghut.  The fourth entry will cover, specifically, those laws that the activists believe are being violated.  The fifth entry will detail the process that should be followed, according to the constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the Aarhus Convention. The sixth entry will cover the sticky issues of the goals of the activists and the economic challenges facing the affected villages of Teghut and Shnogh.   The issue of employment presents, perhaps, the greatest challenge to the environmental movement and to the country as a whole.  How can Armenia modernize and prosper in a fashion that is environmentally sound and socially constructive?  This is the challenge.

Teghut is located in Lori marz, about 30 miles northwest of Alaverdi, in northern Armenia.  Teghut is the name of the local village, after which the mine is named, and is located up-river from its neighboring village, Shnogh.    Shnogh is also the name of the river that meanders up the gorge toward the town of Teghut.  A tributary, the Duqanadzor enters the Shnogh from another gorge in the location of the mine itself.  The Shnogh provides the residents with drinking and irrigation water.  Together the population of the villages is approximately 3600 people and traditionally the villagers have been farmers and cultivators of forest products.  The Teghut forest is adjacent to these villages and represents one of Armenia’s few remaining preserved forest areas.  It is in this forest that the Vallex Group’s subsidiary, the Armenian Copper Program, has begun the process of establishing a mine to extract copper and molybdenum.  The story, however, begins in 2001.

In the interest of full disclosure, much of the information for these entries is distilled from the Teghut Defense Group’s abstract Armenia: Anthropogenic Environmental Disaster in the Making, authored by Arpine Galfyan of the Institute for Defense of Human Rights, Policy Forum Armenia’s 2^nd Annual Report on the State of Armenia’s Environment, compiled articles from Armenia Tree Project, and an interview with Sona Avazyan of Transparency International.

Licensing for the mine was granted in 2001 to the Armenian Copper Program, a subsidiary of the mining corporation, Vallex Group (I will have more on Vallex in the next blog entry).   According to Armenian law, any company wishing to erect structures or alter the natural landscape must first conduct an environmental impact assessment, or EIA.  I will delve into the particulars of EIAs in the fifth blog of the series. An EIA essentially requires the developer to determine the possible environmental impacts of construction and to provide solutions and cost analyses for mitigating these impacts.  The developer is also required to forecast long term damages to flora, fauna, water sources and so on.   Vallex had an EIA conducted in 2004 and the findings were deemed “positive” in 2006.

The positive conclusion of 2006 is disputed by a wide variety of NGOs, scientists and other activists and is the primary focus of this six-part blog.  Wide ranging opposition sprung up as a result of the government findings.   For its part, Vallex followed the rules outlined in the laws, holding public hearings and conducting its environmental studies.  The issue here is with how the studies were conducted and the conclusions reached.  Opponents are quick to point out the numerous erroneous conclusions and shoddy scientific methods employed in conducting the EIA.  Most telling, to this writer, is that the EIA was conducted by Lernametalurgiai Institute cjsc (LMI).  LMI is a subsidiary of Vallex Group and essentially holds a de facto monopoly on conducting EIA’s for the mining industry in Armenia.

Opposition began in earnest shortly after the 2006 EIA was made public.  Protestations went unheeded and unanswered, thus the opposition pursued justice through the courts.  To date, the court proceedings have yielded unsatisfactory results for the opposition.  The opposition itself has undergone changes.  Many of the original opponents have since “moved on” to other issues and have been replaced by the next generation of young activists.  It is this group that I found myself with, on the Field, and it is this group that is currently attempting to organize itself, find its voice, focus and leaders.

Back on the Field, nothing serious occurred this day.  The two sides stared at each other for a time and then each went about their business.  The protest was simple, non-violent and meant to show the developers that Teghut was not going to be mined without a fight.  In Braveheart, the hopelessly outmanned, out-trained, out-armed Scots were going up against a seemingly invincible opponent.  Through guile and guts, the Scots emerged victorious.  Would it were it that simple in the case of Teghut.  The underdog activists and villagers of Teghut and Shnogh are in need of help, particularly from the Diaspora, in order to stand a chance on this uneven field of battle.

I invite you to research this further on your own.  I have, as yet, not provided much in the way of research that shows the full extent of Vallex’s and government officials’ attempts to subvert the laws of the Republic of Armenia in their attempt to mine in Teghut.  My next blog will examine the main players in this drama more closely.

The day began peacefully enough.  Three hundred activists gathered outside city hall to request that the mayor, Taron Margaryan, meet the activists to discuss events surrounding the park.  At issue were the kiosks (mobile home size shops) that were being erected in Mashtot’s Park.  These kiosks, formerly located on Abovyan Street, received licenses from the mayor for “temporary” placement in Mashtot’s Park.  Members of several local NGO’s objected to this decision on the following grounds:

• The law requires public hearings when construction of this nature is to be conducted.  No public hearings were held.
• The law requires an environmental impact assessment (EIA) be conducted.  An environmental assessment makes note of the natural elements that will be disrupted or permanently altered.  The assessment then recommends mitigations to be carried out by the construction company to minimize the damage.  In some cases the predicted damages are too severe and no building would be permitted.  In the case of Mashtot’s Park no EIA was conducted.
• The law requires that buildings not be erected within 5 meters of any trees.  These kiosks are built surrounding the trees and are as close as one meter.  The mayor claims these structures are “temporary” thus the law does not apply.  The activists disagree and point to the cement foundations and electrical connections as proof of their “permanence”.

Prior to the demonstration at city hall, there were actions being held on a daily basis at the park.  Activists had previously “occupied” one of the kiosks, preventing any construction from taking place.  Activists also prevented cement trucks from entering the site by placing themselves in the road and blocking the passage.  Police were called in and they removed the protestors from the kiosk and erected metal barriers around the construction site and established a continuous presence on the site.  It was this last event that precipitated the demonstration at city hall.

Essentially the mayor refused to meet with the activists who then quickly decided to march back to the park.  Once there, events escalated rapidly.  The activists ignored the barriers and the police and stormed the kiosks.  They removed the metal barriers to the sites as well as the blue tarps paralleling the sidewalk.  The construction workers vacated the area, gathering their tools and equipment as they went.  Approximately 100 police officers were next called to the scene and we were warned of impending arrest should we remain in the occupied zone.  We stayed, they left.

Since this event several things have happened.  We left the site when night fell, at which time the police re-established the cordon and the construction workers labored through the night.  The following day a hunger strike was declared by one of the activists, additional activists arrived on the scene as the media took an even greater interest in the stand-off.  As of today, February 23^rd, the city has called a one week halt to further construction in order to hold discussions regarding how to proceed on this issue.

What then is the big picture in regards to Mashtot’s Park?  As mentioned above this is very much an issue about the “rule of law”.  Laws here are routinely ignored, manipulated and bent to benefit those in power.  The corruption is so commonplace that, until recently, citizens simply accepted it as a way of life.  With the advent of social media and an increasing connection with the West, Armenian activists are no longer willing to accept the cronyism that infects their government and public institutions.  Events such as Trchkan and Mashtot’s Park are examples of this.  This new generation endeavors to create a genuine democratic society.

I also believe that Mashtot’s Park is merely the crucible for what is to come.  I am speaking of Teghut.  The activists at Mashtot’s Park are the activists involved in the Save Teghut movement.  I am going to post a 6 part blog on Teghut in the following weeks.  Teghut is, in my mind, a game changing event.  Teghut is a large mine in Northern Armenia that is being developed and which is being opposed by the Mashtot’s activists. I am going to make the case that the problems in Mashtot’s Park are similar in nature to those of Teghut.  Further I am going to make the case that the government of Armenia, specifically President Serzh Sargsyan, must call for an independent and transparent environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the mining operation in Teghut.  As you will learn, one has already been conducted by a company called Lernametalurgiai Institute cjsc, or LMI.  However, LMI is a fully owned subsidiary of Vallex Group, the corporation that owns and operates the mine at Teghut.  The activists want an EIA conducted by a company with no ties to Vallex Group. You will further learn that the mine at Teghut threatens permanent and irreparable damage to the Armenian environment, including species extinction.

Mashtot’s Park is already a victory for justice and the rule of law.  Young people have sparked a renewed interest in social consciousness and have provided the first real glimmers of hope in decades.  Please follow these unfolding events.  Please read the forthcoming series on Teghut.  If the government can be convinced to call for a new EIA this will help usher in the type of governance Armenians have been thirsting for.

The challenge is to create a solution to the increasing problem of waste disposal that is both affordable and sustainable.  Rural villages have very little money and traditional, “Western” approaches are prohibitively expensive.  AEN believes it has a solution.   We call it an integrated waste management program, or IWMP for short.  The solution is unique because it is designed specifically for implementation in rural areas where resources and money are in short supply.  This solution requires a comprehensive approach that includes the traditional change management mechanisms as well as the approach of a non-traditional use of “appropriate technology”.

“Change management” refers to a comprehensive village(s) wide education program that teaches villagers about the dangers presented by haphazard discarding of wastes, how to recycle wastes and how to compost organic wastes for re-use.  The education program is designed include government employees, local NGOs, and village adults.  In addition, there is a “teacher of teachers” (ToT) element that ensures this education is disseminated in the local schools as well.

“Appropriate technology” is the use of existing resources, both natural and human, in the creation of viable solutions to local problems.  In the case of waste management, an appropriate technology landfill would be a low-tech version of a sanitary landfill without all the Western “bells and whistles” and inflated costs therein associated.  The landfill would still be sanitary and able to contain toxic leachates and safely disburse build-ups of methane gas.  It is our belief that, using appropriate technology, regional sanitary landfills can be constructed for a fraction of the cost of the landfills constructed in Europe and the United States.  We currently have an American architecture firm taking on the unique challenge of designing the landfill to our specifications.  In the case of a rural village, an appropriate technology sanitary landfill is the only feasible solution that remains after recycling and re-use has removed the majority of the waste stream.

We would, in partnership with the Urban Foundation for Sustainable Development (UFSD) and Green Lane NGO, like to pilot our IWMP in the village of Akhurian.  Akhurian is located adjacent to Gyumri and has a population of approximately 10,000.  Our IWMP however, is not limited to just Akhurian.  There are at least 8 villages surrounding Akhurian that we will include in the project.  The idea is to build “regional” fills in order to achieve economies of scale and reduce costs.

The Akhurian project is important not just for Akhurian but for Armenia as well.  The project is designed to be replicable, thus it will serve as a replicable model for other rural villages that endeavor to solve their waste problems.  AEN envisions that villages, in close proximity to one another, combine resources to create regional landfills.  Regional landfills negate the necessity to construct 400 separate fills. In the case of Akhurian, there are eight additional villages involved in this venture with an additional five on the horizon.  In the case of Armenia, using this approach, perhaps 50 -60 regional appropriate technology sanitary landfills would suffice.

The importance of this project cannot be overstated.   The time has come for Armenia to address this issue.  AEN believes that villages are ready to address the growing problem that is waste management and we have a potential solution.   This project is unique in Armenia and the Caucasus.  We believe that with vision and determination Armenia can take the lead in sanitary waste management practices and serve as a model for other developing nations.

Our project is partially funded but we are seeking additional funding in order ensure that it is implemented properly.    We would also welcome any suggestions in regard to any phase of the project as well as identifying potential engineering firms willing to take on this unique challenge.  This is an opportunity to create positive change in Armenia and we welcome your assistance.

The first morning in Yerevan, I went with my father to visit my grandparents who also live in the city. The moment I stepped out onto the street, I realized how much I had missed this place. It was Saturday, so the Bazaar which functions only on weekends was up and running in the street. Colorful hats and ornamental rugs contrasted the white snow and fog of the morning beautifully. All throughout the market, Armenian music sounded from various vendor’s stalls, and people bustled about with the intention of staying warm. Four subway stops and a short uphill climb later, we were walking through the back alleys of Yerevan. As we neared my grandparents’ building, I marveled at the beautiful scenery that surrounded me. The ground was lightly covered in soft, white snow which crunched underneath my boots. On both sides of the street, five-story tufa buildings stood somberly, a disarray of balconies climbing up their sides. Everything looked worn and aged, yet the winter scene was beautiful and inviting.

When I stepped into my grandparent’s tiny fourth floor apartment, a sense of familiarity rushed over me as it always does. There, across from the front door, stood a dresser in the same place it always stands. The living room walls were still covered with the same beige, faded wallpaper, and in a corner stood a large china cabinet filled with crystal vases and porcelain tea cups: the very ones I used to play with as a child. My grandparents’ apartment looked the same, smelled the same, felt the same, and was in every way warm and comforting. In honor of our arrival, my grandmother had prepared a small feast, and so we  sat down at the old kitchen table, ready to eat.

While I sat there in my grandmother’s blue-tiled kitchen, I ran through memories of eating breakfast with my cousins, playing poker with buttons while we ate. Filled with bittersweet nostalgia, I scanned the walls in order to soak in every detail, especially those which never change. Before anything else, I noticed that the doors of the white kitchen cupboards were awfully crooked. For some reason, these misaligned pieces of wood made me incredibly happy. You see, in Armenia one can always rely on things being broken or badly put together. I know that does not sound very nice, but let me explain the beauty of it. This country is full of superficial imperfections: the amount of trash exceeds the capacity of trash cans; abandoned construction sites and depleted buildings are everywhere; drivers simply do not believe in traffic lights; and everything is always dusty. Many scorn these details, but I love them. Funnily enough, I enjoy being here in the rubble, the disorganization,  the dirty and busy streets. I feel alive when I am here, and much closer to reality than I do when I am in California. To my eyes, imperfections are what make Armenia special. I find it refreshing that there is a place in this world where perfection is not sought after, or really even thought of. After all, life is never ideal, and this country gladly acknowledges that fact.

I am not saying that Armenia should not strive to improve its traffic laws and waste programs, of course it should. However, I find it remarkable, that even though Armenia has numerous economic and political struggles, there is something like a deep joy in the spirit of the country. Yes, the people complain about absolutely everything, but at the same time they are joyous, always celebrating something or another, and are generally proud to be Armenian. The culture here values family, and life itself, more than anything materialistic. That is why these people are able to function, with relative happiness, in a country that is broken and corrupt. Perhaps you will not agree, but I find that to be quite beautiful.

This is Shamshadin and this is just one of the reasons why we at AEN, and other dedicated NGO’s, struggle on.  Merry “American” Christmas.

These were all taken in or around the village of Chinchin.

The pictures were taken at a little church called Mayrivank, just outside of Berd.  The church itself was rehabilitated by our friends Matt and Annie Ash.   The donkey was politely asking me to stop stepping on his dinner.

And these pictures were taken on the road from Berd to Tchambarak.

Nubarashen is located about 12 kilometers outside of Yerevan and is home to the overwhelming majority of the city’s trash.  This trash includes the typical solid waste such as plastic bottles, bags, glass, paper and so on.  It has been estimated that 4-5 tons of trash are deposited there every day.  It also includes chemicals, solvents, offal, medical wastes, construction wastes, pesticides and much more.  It does not take much analysis to figure out that the mixture of all these elements, with water, produces an incredibly toxic soup.  Most landfills in the United States, for example, require a separate facility for chemicals and pesticides, another one for solid waste, another one for medical wastes and so on.  Nubarashen just piles these various types of waste together.

Back to the toxic soup.  Nubarashen does not have a protective barrier or bladder to keep leachates from seeping into the soil and eventually into the water table.   Modern urban landfills have some type of barrier(s) to protect against this occurrence.  Again, Nubarashen has none.  What is more frustrating is that seemingly, government officials are aware of the situation, aware of the dangers and still choose not to act on it.  Perhaps if they lived in Nubarashen municipality the situation would be rectified.  There are still rumors floating around Yerevan that a Japanese company had been contracted to clean and retrofit the landfill.  It turned out that the Japanese company was only interested in harvesting the methane from the landfill which, to the best of our knowledge, they have ceased doing.  To date, no cleanup or retrofit has been attempted.   And, only very recently has there been interest in studying the issue of pesticides that are dumped there.

In addition to the leaking toxins, there are many additional issues.  The methane build-up in the non-tapped areas poses a threat of spontaneous combustion.  The landfill continually smolders sending toxic fumes into the air.  The trash is not “compacted”, rather it is simply dumped, often down ravines where it is left untended.  The landfill heavy equipment is often in disrepair and/or broken down.  It staggers the imagination that a landfill such as this could exist in a country such as Armenia.  The fault is quite simply a lack of governance.  Enough experts have reported and testified concerning the appalling conditions found there.   Even as a newcomer to Armenia I am aware of Nubarashen.  As such, I cannot be convinced that government officials are unaware of the dangers of inaction.  Here is where the energy and outrage of Diasporans and environmental activists worldwide would be most effective.  Drop the government a line at:

http://gov.am/en/structure/5/

Direct your letter to First Deputy Minister Simon Papyan.    Some of us are hearing that this may be a man genuinely interested in helping protect Armenia’s natural resources and protecting the public health.  Urge immediate action in the cleanup of Nubarashen.