EcoLur
The tense discussions around Amulsar open pit mining project and the construction of a heap leach facility are going on. The next discussion was held on 6 May at Aarhus Center Yerevan, where the representatives of government, public sector, environmentalists, experts, lawyers, journalists took part, as well as Lydian International Company Senior Vice President Didier Fohlen and other representatives of the company.
During the discussions environmental lawyers Arthur Grigoryan and Nazeli Vardanyan presented the legal violations of Amulsar project. PhD in Geological Sciences, Associate Professor at YSU Geography and Geology Faculty Harutyun Movsisyan spoke about production wastes, substances, which will be accumulated at the area of heap leach facility (see....). “EcoLur” Informational NGO President Inga Zarafyan presented the analysis of the requirements put forward in the positive opinion of the Nature Protection Ministry on its environmental expertise of Amulsar EIA.
Condition 1: Article 8 of RA Law “On Lake Sevan” says that the direct impact zone of Lake Sevan basin is an object of special regulation, i.e. any urban development is guided by the requirements of the governmental resolution no. N792-N “On Approving the Urban Development Procedure of Specially Regulated Objects” and resolution “On Approving the Master Plan of Lake Sevan Drainage Basin Area” N1787 N dated on 11.12.2003.)
Condition 2: To ensure the enforcement of the requirements of the governmental resolution N 746-N dated on 18.07.2013 concerning the protection of environment in the area of 22 kilometer-long tunnel joining the Spandaryan – Kechout reservoirs.
It means that the Nature Protection Ministry acknowledges in the frames of the posed requirements that Amulsar project is implemented in the area of immediate impact of Lake Sevan basin protected by RA Law “On Lake Sevan”. Articles 8 and 10 of this law ban any activities in the immediate impact zone, which may cause damage to Lake Sevan ecosystem.
At the same time, the EIA of Amulsar project denies having any impact on the drainage basin of Lake Sevan, “Spandaryan reservoir joins Kechout reservoir through a canal. Nevertheless, this canal has never been used…what about the heap leach pad and barren rock storage facility, they are out of the immediate impact zone of Sevan drainage basin”. It turns out that the Ministry obliges the company to comply with the conditions that the company denies from the beginning.
And it’s not the only contradiction. By recognizing Sevan as an immediate impact zone, the Nature Protection Ministry didn’t specify the status of 41 littoral communities, thus contradicting itself. Environmental Lawyer Arthur Grigoryan’s analysis on the violations in legalization process of Amulsar project says (http://aarhus.am/?page_id=8871):
Article 4 of Law on EIA says that an affected community is the population of that community (communities), which is recognized a project affected community not for the implementation of the project in its administrative area, but for the factual exposure of the community population to the impact of the project. That is, if it’s proved that Amulsar project can impact Lake Sevan ecosystem or can lead to the shift in the living environment of Jermuk town, the communities adjacent to the lake and Jermuk population shall be involved as project affected communities”.
When the residents of the littoral communities of Lake Sevan learnt about the opinion of the Nature Protection Ministry on the EIA of Amulsar project, they lodged a complaint to the Ombudsman Office of the EBRD and CAO IFC demanding to hold public discussions for all 41 littoral communities of Lake Sevan based on the first two conditions. So far this problem hasn’t advanced in any way. If this demand is ignored, during the project implementation the communities may accuse both the government and the company of violating expertise process and demand proper compensations or resettlement. These investment risks haven’t been assessed.
Condition 3. To implement the plan on protection and transfer of red-listed Potentilla Porphyrantha according to the governmental resolution N781-N dated on 31.07.2014 having prior consent of the Nature Protection Ministry.
On 31 July 2014 the executive adopted resolution N 781-N, which contradicts to the Armenian legislation. Resolution “On Preservation of Flora in the Republic of Armenia and Setting Procedure for Their Use for the Purpose of Reproduction in Natural Conditions” allows the business entity to change the location of red-listed plant species, if these plant species can’t be preserved in the area of the business activities. The resolution bases on Article 5 of RA Law “On Flora”, which contradicts to Article 17 of the same law and Article 26 of RA Code on Subsoil.
The Ministry’s recommendation on the relocation of species will cost it a pretty penny, as a new special habitat should be found, studied and, most importantly, proved that red-listed species won’t only get accustomed, but also turn into natural habitat. On one hand, this is an awkward and costly task. On the other hand, non-performance of this condition may lead to imposing fines. Calculations on financial burden for investors haven’t been carried out and risks haven’t been considered in this direction.
Condition 5. Before the launch of the activities, regulate the issues connected with the private and public land areas, which are included in the project area
Only the construction of a heap leach facility includes 145 ha of agricultural land areas and orchards owned by 280 households. The EIA says that the owners will get compensation.
It’s the most painful issue for the locals, as the compensations promised by the company comprise huge funds reaching up to dozen thousand dollars. The company doesn’t mention it in its statements on investment incomes, as well as keeps silence that the company is running negotiations with the farmers on the initial payment of compensation in the amount of 10%, while the remaining 90% will be paid later.
First of all, it makes residents doubtful that money will be factually paid off. There are doubts that the compensation will be distributed proportionally and fairly. Thus, a clash happened between the village head and several residents during the public hearings on Amulsar project in Gndevaz village on 25 August 2014, as the residents accused the village head of corruption.
In April 2015 several Gndevaz villagers issued a claim against the government on non-substantiated positive opinion on Amulsar, where Lydian company is the third party.
Second, the condition posed by the company imposes all liability for solving the problem with compensations on the company unlike other soil managers. In such cases, the government uses “eminent public domain” formulation and changes the status of land areas from “agricultural land areas” to “land area of industrial significance”. Nevertheless, in this particular case either such a decision won’t be made or it will be extremely vulnerable and may cause allegations in corruption risks.
In general, it’s rather difficult to assess investment risks under such conditions, as the company may be involved in long court litigations with the residents with rather costly outcome for the investors.
The company held several public discussion stating that it complies with international standards. On the very first day the public discussions in Gndevaz were accompanies with a scandal with the intervention of the police.
In Yerevan public representatives were not allowed to enter the hall, where another public discussion of Amulsar project was held.
No public hearings were held in Jermuk Town, which is an immediate impact zone. It’s a violation of the rights of public and local population. Amulsar is a project with high risks and the whole population is entitled to discuss it.
“In my opinion, Amulsar project must be issued a negative opinion when so many contradictions and conditions put forward exist,” Inga Zarafyan said.
Armen Stepanyan, Environmental and Social Manager at “Geoteam” CJSC, “We have an appendix to the EIA for Potentilla porphyrantha plant, but you say it doesn’t lay down any sum of money, which evidently doesn’t comply with reality. I don’t want to offend and to say it’s not true. It’s misinformation, as the sum of money is laid down.”
Inga Zarafyan: I will acknowledge your remark provided that you mention the place designed for the transfer of the plant.
Armen Stepanyan: Have you read the governmental resolution? We can relocate the plant only to three types of habitat: an individual section of the same area or a botanical garden or a specially protected area of nature. In this particular case, we consider the version of Sevan botanical garden, as the initial studies show that relocation program really works there, and if you are aware of the program, it lays down a special area on the top of Amulsar.
Inga Zarafyan: You want to say your program specifically lays down Sevan botanical garden?
Armen Stepanyan: At this moment Sevan is discussed, where is a statutory area, where conservation works are carried out and the designed sum is 404.000 pounds, around 700,000 USD and mentions 1500 plant species. Moreover, currently this plant species can be bought on the internet at US $ 8-10 a plant. We are doing it. One of Lydian International Directors bought this plant and planted it in his yard in Colorado. This is the reality.
Note by EcoLur: The sum of money mentioned by “Geoteam” CJSC representative in regard with the relocation of red-listed Potentilla porphyrantha plant, as a matter of fact, is designed only for 3-4-year-long studies, where most expenses are presented as company expenses. What about the program on plant relocation, i.e. fulfillment of the condition put forward by the Nature Protection Ministry, it doesn’t and can’t exist upon the completion of the studies. Meanwhile, the company still needs to get the approval of the Nature Protection Ministry resulting from Condition 3.
Inga Zarafyan: The governmental resolution is illegal. Botanical garden is an artificially established area. You said you can transfer natural habitat into an artificially established area?
Armen Stepanyan: We don’t relocate the area, we relocate the plant growing there. Amulsar wasn’t laid down as a natural reserve in the Red Book from the beginning. If you read well so-called “illegal governmental resolution”, it says that it permits relocating from the areas not registered in the Red Book of Armenia. Amulsar hasn’t ever been laid down in the Red Book of Armenia, as a habitat for Potentilla porphyrantha or other plants or natural habitat of animals. Nothing like that existed from the very beginning.
Inga Zarafyan: Probable the governmental decision was adopted under your dication.
Armen Stepanyan: It’s your own conclusion.
Inga Zarafyan: We discussed four conditions and could see very serious contradictions. One of them refers to Lake Sevan, second – compensations, third - public participation, fourth - Potentilla porphyrantha... Specialists, who issued a positive opinion, are paid by the company and are stakeholders. Nevertheless, independent experts issued negative opinions many times…
Lydian International Company Senior Vice President Didier Fohlen speaking to Inga Zarafyan:
I’m not an oligarch in Armenia, I’m an ordinary citizen of France, and if you accuse me of corrupting people, probably I and my senior will go to jail. You are an NGO, you are paid, I’m paid, don’t make such accusations. What about public hearings, I would like a comment, sorry we don’t have the same opinion on the consultations in villages, because your conception is to stop the consultation so you can only voice your view. My conception is that I give open floor to everyone and that everyone can speak. In the context of Amulsar, I would like to bring three examples: In September in Gndevaz you tried to stop the public consultation. On that day you did everything to stop everything. Second, at the second public hearings in Gorayk according to EIA la you didn’t go. How can you complain, if you don’t have the possibility to express your opinions. In October you again tried to stop the public hearings in Yerevan, and it was the reason that the hotel owner asked the police to make sure that you don’t enter the hotel. You even promised me face to face that you will come to the meeting, and you didn’t come. If we do public consultation, we do public consultation, we don’t try to influence anybody, we listen to everyone and then we make our own decision. I would also like to say that you presented wrong number on the land acquisition. Our total project is 5 million and you forgot to mention that our plan on land acquisition is a public document, so we have absolutely no secret. Three weeks ago we published a 100-page document on the land acquisition, so please, read it, and then we can have a discussion. You also mentioned we are offering people cadastre value, which is wrong, how you can say we are paying 200 million according to you and then say we paid cadaster value. Basically again, please, read the document and we are delighted if you can send comments on the document. We are always committed to discuss publicly the environmental and social impact assessment, which are required by the international documents. In near future we are going to disclose this document both in Armenian and English. Then I hope that we can have a meaningful discussion on impact assessment together with experts. I don’t think that any company like us spent US $ 5 million on trying to look at environmental and social issues of Amulsar. The amount of money we have spent and the number of the studies we have done, the fact we are willing to have second opinion on the mineral water in Jermuk. If you want to have the monitoring of the impact, let’s do it, as I already said 18 months ago. You file complaints, we are ready to have a discussion on the complaints. Recently there is an example when you didn’t comply with what was written for the complainant. In one complaint that was filed, which says the project needs to include the residents of Gegharkounik region, which you claim it’s a national requirement in Armenia, it’s interesting to note that the body which was in charge of looking into this complaint, declined it outlining it’s technically impossible for this company, these communities are going to be affected. Now looking into your eyes you know well that this complaint has been declined by both the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Finance Corporation. My suggestion is if you want additional technical discussion, let’s have it, but Inga, when we invite you, please come to the meeting or the discussion and don’t try to stop them,’ Didier Folen said.
As Mr. Folen left the room without waiting for the reply to the allegations addressed to Inga Zarafyan, EcoLur has to submit reply comments in writing.
Many times “Geoteam” CJSC (Lydian’s subsidiary) is trying to present to the wide public opposition against Amulsar project at the level of one organization – EcoLur.
In our opinion, this very fact explains Mr. Fohlen’s allegation addressed to EcoLur President Inga Zarafyan, particularly that she aborted three public discussions. Reminder: in Gndevaz Village, the residents protesting in the course of the public hearings on 25 August 2014 left the hall and accused the village head and the company that the company had brought its own audience into Gndevaz, thus there was no space left in the hall for those who opposed to the project. The conflict took place between the village head’s supporters and protesters.
What about the second hearings, EcoLur sent its opinion about the project in compliance with RA Law “On Environmental Impact Assessment” into the “Environmental Expertise” SNCO, thus limiting its participation in the second specialized hearings in Gorayk Village. In our opinion, it’s hard to call abortion of hearings.
What about the third hearings, EcoLur refused to take part in the third discussions held by REC Caucasus in Yerevan together with other NGOs and public movements, who officially expressed their opinion that these discussions are PR campaign of Amulsar project judging by the agenda of the discussions. (PEF Calling to Turn Down Invitations to Discuss Amulsar Project, Jermuk Development Center Refused from Participation in the Discussion on Amulsar Project Proposed by REC Caucasus, Protest Demonstration - No To New Mining in Armenia, Protestors and Jounralists Are Not Allowed To Attend Discussions on Amulsar Project, Statement of the civil initiative S.O.S. Amulsar)
The agenda included the presentations of the companies, but there were no opportunities for the presentations of the NGOs with the exception of general questions and answers. The discussions were closed for the public representatives, which was not warned by the organizers. Selection criteria were not clear, as there were no public announcements in this regard. There were no warnings, that photo and video shooting were not allowed at the discussions.
We think that the company definitely has a right to closed discussion, but in that case they shouldn’t be named public discussions.
What about the complaints filed to IFC and EBRD Ombudsman Offices, we claim that EBRD Ombudsman Office declined the complaint illegitimately thus demonstrating a worrying discrepancy with its own mission, rules and complainants. But the IFC Ombudsman acknowledged that the complaint should be investigated and now it’s in investigation process.
And finally about the corruption. Corruption is inherent to governance structures of Armenia. It’s a fact which is approved by both the Armenian Government and international financial institution, which are shareholders of Lydian. In this case, the company could have perceived the statement on corruption risks related with the condition put forward on compensating to Gndevaz villager, as an issue needing in-detailed investigation and measures to prevent these risks, and not to state that our analysis may lead to imprisonment. If it was a joke, in our opinion, corruption risks are not a subject for humor, but an ulcer destroying our country.
May 11, 2015 at 14:33