Chapter 4: Fieldwork in Armenia
4.5. Case Number Four: Amulsar Gold Mining Project in Vayots Dzor
4.5.2. General questions that are considered to be common for all 15
All 15 respondents of this survey were asked similar questions in their questionnaires, so the feedbacks are analyzed based on the responses of all the participants.
On the question whether the public hearings are being held adequately in Armenia in frames of the EIA process the answers were gathered from the participants. The frequency analysis of their replies were negative as Fig 12 and Fig.13. Fig 12 show the environmental activists’ feedback. All five activist respondents consider that the public hearings are being held inadequately. Fig. 13 shows the answer received from the NGO members and lawyers. Five of ten respondents from the second group520 answered the same way as activists, four of them considered the question irrelevant to their experience and only one answered ‘yes’. In these particular tables it is necessary to pay attention to the numbers 5 and 10 leaving the missing number calculated by the system aside.521
Whether public hearing procedures in environmental decision-making process in Armenia are being held appropriately? Fig.12S
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 5 13.2 100.0 100.0
Missing System 33 86.8
Total 38 100.0
520 Lawyers and NGO members, Fig.12S and 13S.
521 n518.
160
Whether the public participation arrangements for EIA process in Armenia are adequate? Fig.13S
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
yes 1 2.6 10.0 10.0
no 5 13.2 50.0 60.0
not applicable 4 10.5 40.0 100.0
Total 10 26.3 100.0
Missing System 28 73.7
Total 38 100.0
The respondents were asked to leave comments in case if they replied ‘NO’
to this question.
Lawyer number one comments: ‘The provided information is incomplete.
Public hearings have mainly technical feature in Armenia.’ Lawyer number two comments: ‘First of all there is a need to elaborate regulations on public hearings and how to involve the public including appropriate well qualified specialists, experts, scientists, etc.’ Lawyer number three comments : ‘There is a need to create effective legal mechanisms for public participation, also provide fair judicial procedures’.522
Environmental activists left their comments as well. Activist number one writes: ‘1. If there is no active public participation, the hearings are very formal. 2.There is a requirement of three public hearings per project by the EIA RA Law, only two hearings are being held most of the time or none of them is done at all’. Activist number two comments ‘There is not established regulation on public hearings, opinions are being ignored’.
522 All these replies are written in Armenian on the questionnaires’ and were translated into English by me for the purpose to elaborate them in this chapter.
161
Activist number three writes: ‘The information on public hearings is not being announced in a reasonable time. The expressed opinions are neglected and not registered in protocols’. Activist number four: ‘The decision-making body hears opinions and then makes the decision based on his or her own presumptions or based on the amount of corrupted money’. Activist number five: ‘The held public hearings are very formal.
Those are like performances. The public hearing organizing group is not interested in listening to opinions and comments.’
The next common question for the groups referred to their participation in public hearings. Fig. 14S presents the answers of 5 participant activists on the question whether they participated in public hearings. All of them answered ‘yes’ to the question. The same question was answered by the NGO members and lawyers as well. The Fig 15S shows the result of their answers.
Have you ever participated in public hearings of environmental Impact assessment? Fig.14S
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid yes 5 13.2 100.0 100.0
Missing System 33 86.8
Total 38 100.0
Have you ever participated in public hearings on EIA process?
Fig.15S
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
yes 4 10.5 40.0 40.0
no 6 15.8 60.0 100.0
Total 10 86.2 100.0
Missing System 28 13.2
162
Total 38 100.0
Not all lawyers have the experience as the result shows. The answers are coded 1=yes, and 2=no. Fig 15S shows 4 results ‘yes’ and 6 results ‘no.’
Among these four people there were both lawyers and NGO members.
Those lawyers who have experience in public participation left their comments on the questionnaire. Lawyer number two writes the following comment on the questionnaire: ‘I have participated in many hearings. Most of them have just been very formal. The last hearing I was present at was heading on new EIA Law project which became a spectacular show by Minister’s initiative. Even some specialists were not allowed to participate in this hearing.’
The following question is about the impact of participation during public hearings: if their opinion and voice was heard?523 Fig. 16 presents the results. Five members of the environmental activists’ group consider that their participation has no impact in the environmental decision-making process.524The activist number one left the comment on this matter: ‘The public hearings carry imitative features mainly. In case if there are no other participants besides the affected community members the hearings are not being held at all. But if there are opposing people their written or oral objections, opinions are not being considered. Even if the whole community is against the project and presents its justifications on objections by the help of PAEF525 there is no guarantee that the project will not be approved or the project will get the negative feedback.’ The activist number three wrote ‘Our opinions were never considered’. The activist number four comments: ‘[Opinion] Never was considered, was
523 Fig.15S.
524 Fig.16S.
525 Pan-Armenian Environmental Front(n466).
163
ignored and falsified. The evidence is Marts village.’ The activist number five writes: ‘The Opinions are being heard but the decisions are being made based on the interests of oligarchs.’
Do you consider that your participation makes an impact on environmental decision-making? Fig.16S
Frequenc y
Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid no 5 13.2 100.0 100.0
Missing System 33 86.8
Total 38 100.0
The lawyers have different approaches to this question. Fig. 17S shows the results obtained based on the answers of NGO members and lawyers. In addition, some of them left their comments on this question. Lawyer number one who participated in public hearings left the comment: ‘Adequate economic assessment on cost and benefit should be conducted. Often the information does not fit the real matters of the project’. Lawyer number two writes: ‘First of all there is a need to elaborate regulations on public hearings and how to involve the public including appropriate well-qualified specialists, experts, scientists, etc.’ Lawyer number four who is a government official writes a comment as well ‘There happened cases when the suggestions of the public representatives were considered useful for the legal drafting and the ideas were used accordingly’. Although this respondent has not ever participated in hearing he is engaged in drafting of laws at the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia.
Do you think your voice was heard? Fig.17S
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
yes 1 2.6 10.0 10.0
no 3 7.9 30.0 40.0
164
not applicable 6 15.8 60.0 100.0
Total 10 26.3 100.0
Missing System 28 73.7
Total 38 100.0
The specific questions addressed to 15 participants is discussed below. The lawyers and NGO members got the same questionnaires while questions addressed to the environmental activists were different. The first part of the subtitle presents specific questions for lawyers and NGO members, the second refers to the specific questions of environmental activists.