Environmentalists and human rights defenders continue to fight against the amendments already made in Mining code. The President recently signed it based on the conclusion of the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure that the draft law does not have articles and clauses that contradict the Constitution. However, environmentalists and civil society representatives are of the opposite opinion: the amendments are not only problematic, but also contrary to the Constitution.
Environmentalists are dissatisfied with the president's move: by signing the project proposing amendments to Mining code, the president gave a green light to the soil managers, instead inhibiting the possibility of using democratic tools and mechanisms. According to Oleg Dulgarian, President of "Center for Community Mobilization and Support" NGO, the law contains a number of unconstitutional clauses. He regrets that the president ignored the proposal of more than a dozen NGOs and individuals regarding the discussions.
According to environmentalist Levon Galstyan, such changes are the result of pressures or conflict of interests. He shares the opinion that recently the state-poverty sector discussions have become meaningless in terms of content. As a document, the law is very vulnerable only in terms of retroactive provisions.
According to environmentalist Levon Galstyan, such amendments are the result of pressures or conflict of interests. He shares the opinion that recently the state-poverty sector discussions have become meaningless in terms of content. As a document, the law is very vulnerable only in terms of retroactive provisions.
Mining Code has been supplemented with a new Article 55, which provides for the extension of the soil management right on the basis of force majeure. Actions of civil disobedience are also considered an insurmountable force. If, for example, due to force majeure, i.e., an insurmountable force, the company could not work, and this happened in the last 4 years, the permit period is extended exactly that much without additional examination. The law contradicts not only the Constitution and local legislation, but also the Aarhus and Conventions on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, said environmentalist Inga Zarafyan in her conversation with "Radiolur".
"In our opinion, the entire legislation amendments completely incomprehensible for investors who are not real developers. The real operators have been operating their mine for a long time and the state gets a very small profit of 4% of GDP. If he gives the green light to such obscure investors, it is not clear why the government gives it by completely destroying both public opinion and the opinion of the local population. Both the right to property, and the right to free speech, and the right to protest are constitutional rights, it is completely unconstitutional and dangerous."
Journalist and environmentalist Tehmine Yenoqyan, who has been covering the environmental sector and especially the problems of Amulsar for years, believes that state-NGO sector discussions have become formal. The state does not consider the opinion of the political society in the development of important policies for the country.
Inga Zarafyan: "We will apply to the World Bank and demand that it either withdraw the funding or declare a position on all of this."
Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath, strategic area leader at CEE Bankwatch Network, expressed her concerns with the adopted law on 28 June at the presentation of the report entitled "Amulsar: Human Rights Violations and Environmental Negligence in the Search for Gold".
By joining a number of conventions, Armenia has committed itself to respect the rights of its citizens, while recent changes in the mining industry threaten democracy and constitutional rights in Armenia.
July 18, 2022 at 14:40