Tweet
REVOLUTION STARTS FROM ECOLOGY
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview26852.html
Published: 11:38:39 - 14/07/2012
Interview with Inga Zarafyan, Chairwoman of Ecolur NGO, candidate of
biological sciences
Mrs Zarafyan, you have been raising ecological issues for many years.
Can we say the Green movement has come out of its civil functions,
like in 1988? What are the possible developments?
In 1988 as well we were members of the movement, then we were
scientific workers. There is a principled difference between the
two movements. The '88 movement was fighting for the closure of the
nuclear power plant and Nairit chemical plant and it was led mainly
by scientific workers who understood the essence of the issue. But
then, the scientific community was very active, now I can see no such
activeness since some of them left Armenia, others are passive. In
1988, they believed we could win. That movement coincided with
the Karabakh movement and there was the enthusiasm which wanted to
reform the world. Then various events happened so I don't think the
green movement grew political. We are in the same situation when we
need changes.
Now the active movements start in the field of ecology since there are
many environmental issues, an intensively destroyed environment. In
'80ies the environment was not destroyed so quickly and now everyone
sees it so the movements have many more followers.
Isn't there a relevant change of consciousness relating to the issue?
Merely, the situation has changed. Then, the situation forced us
participate and believe that we needed to live in a reformed world,
but now, there are few people who believe in this. Now, many think that
they should change the situation only for themselves and few want to
change the world. They have access to a huge field of information on
the events in the world, so they understand it is very difficult to
change. Many of them want a small shelter for them, but they don't
understand that they can't have it if everything is destroyed in
the world. Neither the people not the authorities understand this
important element. But it is important to encourage these movements
because without them there would be no possibility to develop.
Though you say those who want to change the world are few, many
changes have been recorded recently: the Mashtots Park and Trchkan
victories for example.
When I say they are few I mean the civil movements which want to do
that. They say the number of such initiatives has grown, I think they
are just formed more like a movement. I can say that the quality of
the movements has significantly grown. There are about 20 "green"
movements on Facebook.
In order to ensure activeness, we just need to forget ourselves and
fight in the sun and rain, this is the main function of the movements,
since when it is different when you declare something and when accept
deprivations for it. We see willingness to sacrifices.
We have governmental decisions of 2010-2012 period and we can see
many lands categories changed into mining and energy areas.
Can't the society influence on the decisions of the government?
The society's influence is evident on Shikahogh, Sevan, Trchkan,
Jrvezh, Khosrov reserve, Mashtots Park and other cases. When people
feel they need to unite for a concrete issue, they do it. The Mashtots
park issue was not ecological, but purely political. I think the
activists don't want to deal with the political forces. It is a
difficult question whether they will become political forces or not
because additional conditions are necessary for it that I don't see.
When the conditions are formed, when leaders appear and provide an
ideology it may unite many as a political force. Taking the example
of Harsnakar we that it is necessary to unite the civil initiatives.
What conditions do you mean?
The point is that the ideology of the greens does not unite all the
movements here. Other elements that would unite everyone are necessary
to form a political force. A new platform is required otherwise we
are losing a great potential. It is not only the mass to carry out
the revolution, the mass needs strong leaders. It is necessary to
prove to the authorities that they are not invincible but vulnerable.
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview26852.html
Published: 11:38:39 - 14/07/2012
Interview with Inga Zarafyan, Chairwoman of Ecolur NGO, candidate of
biological sciences
Mrs Zarafyan, you have been raising ecological issues for many years.
Can we say the Green movement has come out of its civil functions,
like in 1988? What are the possible developments?
In 1988 as well we were members of the movement, then we were
scientific workers. There is a principled difference between the
two movements. The '88 movement was fighting for the closure of the
nuclear power plant and Nairit chemical plant and it was led mainly
by scientific workers who understood the essence of the issue. But
then, the scientific community was very active, now I can see no such
activeness since some of them left Armenia, others are passive. In
1988, they believed we could win. That movement coincided with
the Karabakh movement and there was the enthusiasm which wanted to
reform the world. Then various events happened so I don't think the
green movement grew political. We are in the same situation when we
need changes.
Now the active movements start in the field of ecology since there are
many environmental issues, an intensively destroyed environment. In
'80ies the environment was not destroyed so quickly and now everyone
sees it so the movements have many more followers.
Isn't there a relevant change of consciousness relating to the issue?
Merely, the situation has changed. Then, the situation forced us
participate and believe that we needed to live in a reformed world,
but now, there are few people who believe in this. Now, many think that
they should change the situation only for themselves and few want to
change the world. They have access to a huge field of information on
the events in the world, so they understand it is very difficult to
change. Many of them want a small shelter for them, but they don't
understand that they can't have it if everything is destroyed in
the world. Neither the people not the authorities understand this
important element. But it is important to encourage these movements
because without them there would be no possibility to develop.
Though you say those who want to change the world are few, many
changes have been recorded recently: the Mashtots Park and Trchkan
victories for example.
When I say they are few I mean the civil movements which want to do
that. They say the number of such initiatives has grown, I think they
are just formed more like a movement. I can say that the quality of
the movements has significantly grown. There are about 20 "green"
movements on Facebook.
In order to ensure activeness, we just need to forget ourselves and
fight in the sun and rain, this is the main function of the movements,
since when it is different when you declare something and when accept
deprivations for it. We see willingness to sacrifices.
We have governmental decisions of 2010-2012 period and we can see
many lands categories changed into mining and energy areas.
Can't the society influence on the decisions of the government?
The society's influence is evident on Shikahogh, Sevan, Trchkan,
Jrvezh, Khosrov reserve, Mashtots Park and other cases. When people
feel they need to unite for a concrete issue, they do it. The Mashtots
park issue was not ecological, but purely political. I think the
activists don't want to deal with the political forces. It is a
difficult question whether they will become political forces or not
because additional conditions are necessary for it that I don't see.
When the conditions are formed, when leaders appear and provide an
ideology it may unite many as a political force. Taking the example
of Harsnakar we that it is necessary to unite the civil initiatives.
What conditions do you mean?
The point is that the ideology of the greens does not unite all the
movements here. Other elements that would unite everyone are necessary
to form a political force. A new platform is required otherwise we
are losing a great potential. It is not only the mass to carry out
the revolution, the mass needs strong leaders. It is necessary to
prove to the authorities that they are not invincible but vulnerable.