Tweet
COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO LAKE SEVAN - AMULSAR MINE PROJECT AFFECTED
17:27 March 26, 2015
Arthur Grigoryan - Activist of "Teghout Support" civic initiative, Lawyer
CHAPTER TWO
Let's discuss another key legal issue, which refers to determining
Amulsar mining impact zone: eventually, which communities are exposed
to the negative impact of the project and which are legal obligations
of the state and mining company towards community residents?
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.
In case of Amulsar project, negative impact can be demonstrated both
with the shift in the living conditions (in the form of deterioration
of the quality of atmospheric air, soil, water, lighting, noise and
other components), harming business activities (Jermuk resort fame,
tourism, negative impact on land areas irrigation with rivers under
exposure both in qualitative and quantitative manner), deterioration
of social condition (human health, resort, negative conditions
for housing), and more global demonstrations with the exposure on
Lake Sevan (increase in water radiation background, destruction of
Vorotan-Arpa tunnel, risk of seismic hazards).
The fact that open pit mining will be implemented in the drainage
basin of Lake Sevan is already an undeniable legal ground to consider
the possible impact on Lake Sevan substantiated and to recognize at
least the communities adjacent to Lake Sevan as project affected
communities. We should understand that even possible impact on
Vorotan-Arpa Tunnel or, for example, taking water from Arpa River
for development purposes is already impact on Lake Sevan. The mining
company tried to avoid the issue of impact on Lake Sevan in its EIA,
which is not a solution to the problem, but makes the lawfulness
and professional substantiation of the state body having issue
environmental expertise opinion to the EIA of the company more
vulnerable.
Because of the geographical location of Amulsar, the negative impact
of the mine will spread over a larger area. It's the Nature Protection
Ministry, which decides whether the communities are project affected
or not.
Still in 2012 Jermuk resident Victoria Grigoryan applied to Nature
Protection Ministry asking to recognize the community as a project
affected one and to make community residents participants in the public
hearings in Amulsar project. Sevan Town resident Anna Shahnazaryan also
posed the same demand to the minister, but they were both rejected.
In December 2014 the representatives of 18 NGOs representing
communities in Lake Sevan basin filed an application to the
financial institutions having shares in Amulsar project (World Bank
- International Finance Corporation (IFC) and European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)) requesting them to demand from
the mining company to withdraw its project and to make 40 littoral
communities in Lake Sevan participants in the process. The letter
has been formulated in a proper manner making references to the IFC
Performance Standards the company must comply with.
The same standards say the project can't be implemented, if it
contradicts to the domestic legislation. In my next article I will
speak about contradictions to legislation.
Part one
http://ecolur.org/en/news/amulsar/lydian-seeking-to-attract-investments-into-amulsar-project-bearing-high-investment-risks/7125/
http://ecolur.org/en/news/mining/communities-adjacent-to-lake-sevan-amulsar-mine-project-affected/7162/
From: A. Papazian
17:27 March 26, 2015
Arthur Grigoryan - Activist of "Teghout Support" civic initiative, Lawyer
CHAPTER TWO
Let's discuss another key legal issue, which refers to determining
Amulsar mining impact zone: eventually, which communities are exposed
to the negative impact of the project and which are legal obligations
of the state and mining company towards community residents?
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.
In case of Amulsar project, negative impact can be demonstrated both
with the shift in the living conditions (in the form of deterioration
of the quality of atmospheric air, soil, water, lighting, noise and
other components), harming business activities (Jermuk resort fame,
tourism, negative impact on land areas irrigation with rivers under
exposure both in qualitative and quantitative manner), deterioration
of social condition (human health, resort, negative conditions
for housing), and more global demonstrations with the exposure on
Lake Sevan (increase in water radiation background, destruction of
Vorotan-Arpa tunnel, risk of seismic hazards).
The fact that open pit mining will be implemented in the drainage
basin of Lake Sevan is already an undeniable legal ground to consider
the possible impact on Lake Sevan substantiated and to recognize at
least the communities adjacent to Lake Sevan as project affected
communities. We should understand that even possible impact on
Vorotan-Arpa Tunnel or, for example, taking water from Arpa River
for development purposes is already impact on Lake Sevan. The mining
company tried to avoid the issue of impact on Lake Sevan in its EIA,
which is not a solution to the problem, but makes the lawfulness
and professional substantiation of the state body having issue
environmental expertise opinion to the EIA of the company more
vulnerable.
Because of the geographical location of Amulsar, the negative impact
of the mine will spread over a larger area. It's the Nature Protection
Ministry, which decides whether the communities are project affected
or not.
Still in 2012 Jermuk resident Victoria Grigoryan applied to Nature
Protection Ministry asking to recognize the community as a project
affected one and to make community residents participants in the public
hearings in Amulsar project. Sevan Town resident Anna Shahnazaryan also
posed the same demand to the minister, but they were both rejected.
In December 2014 the representatives of 18 NGOs representing
communities in Lake Sevan basin filed an application to the
financial institutions having shares in Amulsar project (World Bank
- International Finance Corporation (IFC) and European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)) requesting them to demand from
the mining company to withdraw its project and to make 40 littoral
communities in Lake Sevan participants in the process. The letter
has been formulated in a proper manner making references to the IFC
Performance Standards the company must comply with.
The same standards say the project can't be implemented, if it
contradicts to the domestic legislation. In my next article I will
speak about contradictions to legislation.
Part one
http://ecolur.org/en/news/amulsar/lydian-seeking-to-attract-investments-into-amulsar-project-bearing-high-investment-risks/7125/
http://ecolur.org/en/news/mining/communities-adjacent-to-lake-sevan-amulsar-mine-project-affected/7162/
From: A. Papazian