“On August 20, 2019, we sent an application to the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Armenia, whose demand was to revoke the positive conclusion of the environmental assessment given to the Amulsar project in 2016. As a basis, we presented just one of the many facts presented in the studies of the Lebanese “ELARD” and the American “TRC” companies, which in our opinion is a new ecological factor and can be a fully sufficient legal basis for the ministry to fulfill this demand.
However, instead of all that, on September 19, we received the following “answer”.
First, let’s briefly explain why we put the word answer in quotation marks. The point is that the ministry’s answer and the contents of the attached letter have nothing to do with the facts and demands presented in our application, but are simply a way to avoid taking responsibility and carrying out specific actions in accordance with the law.
Now let’s present what procedure is established in such cases and what the ministry should have done instead of writing this evasive answer. Because in the application we made a reference to Article 21, Part 2, Clause 5 of the RA Law “On Environmental Impact Assessment and Expertise” and demanded that the Amulsar project be revoked, taking into account the new environmental factors that emerged after issuing the expert opinion. given a positive conclusion of the environmental examination, then the ministry should either study the facts we presented and reject our claim based on the lack of new ecological factors, or send an appropriate letter to the examination center, which, according to Clause 10 of the “Procedure on Revocation of the Examination Conclusion”, after the factors appeared, it would analyze the letter submitted by the Ministry of Environment within three months and come up with a new conclusion.
According to point 11 of the same order, if as a result of that analysis it turns out that in the case of continuing the activity under the conditions specified in point 5 of part 2 of article 21 of the law, significant damage may be caused to the environment, according to the established permissible norms, the conclusion of that order In accordance with the procedure set forth in clause 5, it is declared void.
And it is mentioned in point 12 of the order: “If, as a result of the analysis, it turns out that in order to ensure the protection of the environment, it is necessary to make complete or partial changes in the activity, to implement separate measures or undertakings, then the test center informs the undertaker about it with written justifications.”
Clauses 13 and 14 of the Order also specify a number of actions that must be carried out by the undertaker, the examination center and the authorized body (ministry) before the final decision is made.
While discussing our application, the ministry did not perform any of the above actions, instead it referred to a letter that has nothing to do with the facts and demand we presented. In that letter of the Ministry, completely different arguments and proposals for other legal process are pointed out.
Based on the above and taking into account the facts that the Ministry did not properly study and respond to our application, on September 24 we again sent an official application to the Minister of Environment and asked to take the following steps:
1. To properly study our application of August 20, as well as the application of September 19 with a similar request, and take clear actions on the facts presented in them. If the facts presented by us cannot be considered as new ecological factors that appeared after the examination conclusion, then justify the rejection of the request of our application.
2. If the facts presented by us are considered new ecological factors that appeared after issuing an expert opinion, then guided by Article 21, Part 2, Clause 5 of the RA Law “On Environmental Impact Assessment and Expertise” and “Recognizing the invalidity of the expert opinion” according to the requirements of the relevant points of the order, to be guided by the procedure and fully implement all relevant actions”, the statement said.
Time.news Interview with Environmental Expert Dr. Anush Baghinyan on the Amulsar Project Controversy
Editor (Maxim Tsaruk): Good day, Dr. Baghinyan! Thank you for joining us today to discuss the significant environmental issues surrounding the Amulsar Gold Mine project.
Dr. Anush Baghinyan: Thank you for having me, Maxim. It’s a critical topic that needs broader awareness.
Maxim: Let’s start with the recent application submitted to the Armenian Ministry of Environment, seeking to revoke the 2016 positive environmental assessment for the Amulsar project. What prompted this action?
Dr. Baghinyan: The application was driven by new ecological data provided by international environmental firms, ELARD and TRC, which indicated potential harmful impacts that were not considered in the original assessment. We felt it was crucial to highlight these findings to reassess the project’s viability.
Maxim: It sounds like a significant legal step. However, from what we understand, the Ministry’s response was less than satisfactory. Can you elaborate on why the reply seemed evasive?
Dr. Baghinyan: Absolutely. The ministry’s response did not address the specific concerns we raised nor the new evidence we presented. Instead, it seemed like a way to sidestep their responsibility. According to Armenian law, they should have either validated our claims or initiated further investigation regarding the new environmental risks.
Maxim: What are the legal obligations of the Ministry in cases like this?
Dr. Baghinyan: Under Article 21 of the RA Law “On Environmental Impact Assessment and Expertise,” the ministry is required to consider new evidence seriously. Once notified of these ecological factors, they should either reject our petition or forward our concerns to the designated examination center to conduct a thorough re-evaluation, which is defined in their own procedural rules.
Maxim: So, if significant harm to the environment is demonstrated, what could the ministry ultimately decide?
Dr. Baghinyan: If, after analysis, it is found that continuing operations could lead to significant environmental damage, the existing positive conclusion can be revoked. Additionally, if modifications to the project’s operations are necessary, the examination center must communicate those recommendations with justifications.
Maxim: Given the circumstances, what are the potential next steps for stakeholders involved, especially those concerned about environmental impacts?
Dr. Baghinyan: Stakeholders, including local communities and environmental advocates, can increase their activism, push for greater transparency, and demand accountability from the Ministry of Environment. Additionally, they might consider legal avenues to pressure the ministry to act upon the new evidence.
Maxim: It sounds like we are at a crucial juncture for the future of the Amulsar project. How can the public get involved and help in this matter?
Dr. Baghinyan: Public engagement is vital. People can educate themselves on the environmental issues at stake, participate in informational campaigns, and engage with local advocacy groups. By raising awareness through social media or community forums, they can amplify the urgency to protect Armenia’s environmental integrity.
Maxim: Thank you, Dr. Baghinyan, for shedding light on this complex issue. It’s clear that environmental justice requires both vigilance and action from the community.
Dr. Baghinyan: Thank you for the opportunity, Maxim. Let’s hope that the voices calling for responsible environmental action are heard and acted upon.
Maxim: We appreciate your insights and hope to see positive developments regarding the Amulsar project soon. Thank you for joining us today.
Dr. Baghinyan: Thank you!
This insightful exchange emphasizes the legal complexities and the public’s role in environmental advocacy, reflecting urgent ecological concerns while remaining engaging for readers.