Environmental News

Twenty Years From Now, Will We Have Armenia, or a Moonscape?
* Current environmental policies are transforming Armenia--and not for the better

By Armen Hakobyan

Armenian Reporter
June 23, 2007

DILIJAN, Armenia--There are still some forests left here in Dilijan, a locale in the northeast of Armenia that foreign travelers in the past once called “a little Switzerland.” However, when you enter the woods today, you realize how stark the overall change has been. One sees only stumps for hundreds of meters, outlined by a sparse growth of trees left to conceal the mass felling of recent times from the eyes of onlookers.

The uncontrolled logging that started here in the 1990s devastated this land. People devoured the forest for the sake of warming themselves, for the sake of their daily bread. Today they cut trees—illegally—to build hardwood floors and furniture or for export. Now, the once-green woodland of Dilijan is a wasteland of dried-up gorges, hills, and frequent landslides. The locals say that a tormented Nature has taken its revenge. Everything is exposed: the rains and thawed mountain water wash away the bare soil; there are no trees to absorb the excess moisture, and the result is landslides—all the time, one after another.
What will it be like here 20 years from now? A lifeless desert? This question is now a pressing concern for all of Armenia. World Environment Day on June 5 gave experts and ecological NGOs another occasion to discuss the serious situation of Armenia’s environment and ecology.

The annual event organized by the United Nations office in Armenia began with a discussion of more universal problems, such as global warming; but attention gradually shifted to more topical matters for Armenia. As the saying goes, “The tongue ever turns to the ailing tooth”—and in Armenia today there are many ecological ailments requiring attention, from the problems of Lake Sevan to the felling of woods, from industrial emissions to impermissible excesses of dust and harmful substances in the air.

So many problems, for such a small country.

Not just disastrous, but mortal

In an interview with the Armenian Reporter, the president of the Greens Union of Armenia, Hakob Sanasaryan, described the ecological situation in Armenia as “not just disastrous, but mortal.” What makes him think so?

“What will happen in conditions of such active, high-speed mining operations?” Sanasaryan refers to the policy of allowing 100 percent of Armenia’s woodlands to be accessible to mining—and not only in Teghut, which is the best-known case of woodland degradation. More than 27 licenses for the exploitation of gold mines have been granted in Armenia in the last two and a half years.

“It’s possible that in 50 to 60 years, Armenia will have been transformed into a land of pit-faces. That is to say, Armenia will cease to exist as a traditional, agricultural country. On the other hand, under such conditions it would be impossible for people to live, simply in terms of physical health and economy. Thus, the existing mining policy is enough to have a mortal effect,” said the Greens Union president.

Among the country’s most important ecological tasks, Mr. Sanasaryan lists dealing with both the mineral industry and water resource management. “In 2002, a new water code was adopted, which alienated people from the water.

“And if we are talking about the water sector, we have to mention the problem of Lake Sevan, because the government of Armenia has not raised the level of Sevan, despite the urgings of the World Bank and other forces. When they say that our oligarchs, who have built houses at the lakeside, will hinder the process of raising the level of Sevan, it becomes a question of secondary importance.”

Positive trends

The officials responsible for this sector, such as Deputy Minister of Ecology Simon Papyan, do not share the harsh judgment of Mr. Sanasaryan and other NGO representatives; indeed, they point to certain positive trends.

“We can meet on this World Environment Day full of optimistic expectations, because we have serious achievements in our main priorities, and those positive trends have stabilized within the last five years,” said Mr. Papyan. “Among these trends, as you all know, is the raising of Lake Sevan’s level within the last five years by almost two meters—to be precise, 1.93 meters—and this year the trend is continuing. Also continuing is large-scale reforestation—in five years around 10,000 hectares of forest have been regenerated—as well as a reduction in logging due to the complex measures we have taken.”

On the other hand, it’s worth mentioning that a number of scientists expressed alarm recently that Lake Sevan is now under serious threat of becoming waterlogged—a result of the lakeshore, covered by trees and plants, being left under the quickly rising water; the putrefaction of vegetation stimulates the waterlogging process.

Mr. Papyan, however, remains optimistic about this issue as well. And the ground for his optimism, according to him, lies in the assurance of the same scientists that Lake Sevan has a potential of self-cleaning, and will be able to regenerate the largest natural basin of sweet water in the region.

As for the submerging lakeside land, the deputy minister said that around 200 hectares of land has been already cleared of trees and bushes, and the surrounding area is going to be cleared in the present year.

These works are undertaken at the expense of the state budget.

Angry questions from an indignant public

The situation is well illustrated in a documentary film, Poisoning for Profit, which depicts the grievous consequences of mine exploitation in Armenia. The film was produced by Vem art studio, directed by Manuk Herganyan, and written by Inga Zarafyan; assistance with the project came from several environmental concerns, including the Armenia Tree Project, the Armenian Forests NGO, the Armenian office of the World Wildlife Fund, and the Greens Union.

A screening of the film at the June 5 gathering inspired intense discussion among the participants.

Certainly, it offers a lot to discuss. Perhaps the most memorable episode depicts the consequences of the ore mining and processing activity of Kapan. The film shows that the Kapan enterprise does not have its own refineries, while the waste-storage facilities of Getanush assigned for this purposes have been closed since Soviet times.

Meanwhile, the villagers in the surrounding area are unable to reap any benefit from their agricultural products, because these are considered contaminated—a serious possibility given the circumstances. Worse, the locals themselves are prone to come down with serious illnesses.

On the site of the old facility the owners of the mining enterprise are planning to construct a hydraulic structure, the interception wall of which is to be 50 meters high—which means that the walnut orchards of Getanush would be cut down as well. And due to emissions from the temporary waste storage facility, the neighboring village of Siunik is suffering, and the pollutants often flow into the river of Voghj.

For the latter effects, the company has paid around 10 million drams (under $3,000) in fines, and around a million drams as compensation to the villagers. But these are meant to punish the company rather than address the real problem. Those amounts certainly cannot be considered a restitution of the actual damage to the environment and individual health.
By the time the film ended, the deputy minister of ecology had already left, and so the volley of angry questions from an indignant public was fielded by another official from the same ministry, Hrant Avetisian. But as one of the participants pointed out, Mr. Avetisian merely served the purpose of a scapegoat. It was clear that he was not the one responsible for the unfavorable situation.

Prior to the Q-and-A session, however, the Armenian Reporter had asked Mr. Papyan whether he believed that the damage caused to the environment could be considered compensated by the payment of one-time fines; after all, the pollutants and their consequences will be tangible for a long time.

“We have a problem here, that’s true,” the official agreed. “That’s the reason we work out these projects, pass them to the state experts, and impose those severe restrictions: we want the exploiters to develop a culture where they will not violate these restrictions. If you cause damage to nature, it obviously cannot be recovered in one or two years. That’s why we have a serious problem here, and the Ministry of Ecology is working in this direction.”

How long they will continue to work in this direction remains unclear, however. The fact remains that according to data provided by Hrant Avetisyan, Armenia has 630 deposits, 21 of which are of mineral water, 40 of sweet water; more than 530 nonmetallic deposits (of 54 named minerals) and 24 ore deposits; and more than 3,000 examined fields. Nowadays, the presence of 14 ore and 228 nonmetallic deposits makes a region ripe for exploitation.
Certainly, it’s a positive sign that the soil of resource-poor Armenia contains such treasures. The problem is that these resources are currently extracted using methods that can only be called “torment” of the surrounding environment. Consider that the forest of Taghut in Lori is under the threat of disappearance today, because unscrupulous businesspeople decided to exploit the poly-metallic deposits located under the layer of forest. The practice itself is a current matter of discussion and debate; but it’s all come too late for Teghut’s forest, which to all appearances is condemned to extermination.

Requiem for a small country’s forests

The first Minister of Ecology of the independent Armenia, Karine Danielyan, who is currently president of the Association for Sustainable Human Development, notes that “if you have a country as small as Armenia, you have to choose which field of the economy to develop. There is no other way.” She believes that the country’s leadership on the one hand makes declarations about the development of IT technologies, tourism, and ecotourism, and organic agriculture, and on the other hand allows intensive exploitation of the earth’s interior.

According to Ms. Danielyan, such an approach is unsuitable for a small territory. “Europe already has developed mining technologies that cause minimal damage to the environment. Either they have to bring in this new technology and stop destroying the bowels of the earth with the old ones; or if today we can only work by accepting some amount of damage, then we have to preserve our resources until such technology will be available.”

“But the present path will only lead to a moonscape and emigration,” she adds. “I think this is the main problem. And we have to raise this issue.”

Click the link below to view the original article: http://216.211.204.120/article.php?id=14900&issuedate=2007-06-23

< BACK TO ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS HOME PAGE