The sports and concert complex hosts the so-called Green Zone at COP17. Anyone can take part in discussions here, including civil society representatives, scientists and environmental activists. The venue also hosts debates, exhibitions and cultural events.

The 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17) has opened in Yerevan. Delegations from around the world, including scientists, representatives of international organisations, civil society, the private sector and the media, will take part in events in the capital of Armenia until 30 October.

Since 19 October, the conference has hosted extensive discussions and negotiations with international partners on biodiversity conservation.

The government says around 15,000 international visitors have arrived in the country for COP17.

Organising an international conference of this scale requires not only thorough preparation and the delivery of the planned program, but also coordination of security, transport and services for participants.

For a small country, accommodating thousands of visitors in comfortable conditions was, of course, a particular challenge. The Ministry of Environment told JAMnews that it had offered visitors a range of accommodation options, including hotels and other types of lodging in Yerevan and nearby settlements.

A guesthouse whose first guests were European experts

This year, Sofia Gabrielyan converted her parents’ house in Nork-Marash, an upscale administrative district of Yerevan, into a five-bedroom guesthouse. Its first guests were two groups of experts from European countries who had come to attend COP17.

“They booked our guesthouse back in August, while renovations were still in full swing. I was confident we would finish everything on time and welcome COP17 guests. First, we registered on the system, and our guesthouse passed the required checks. Soon afterwards, conference participants chose it as their accommodation,” Sofia says.

Sofia Gabrielyan’s guesthouse

She considers it symbolic and significant that her guesthouse opened during the conference and welcomed European experts as its first guests. She believes she has done everything possible to convey the spirit of Armenian culture and create the right atmosphere.

“I hope to continue welcoming international visitors in the future. I bought some beautiful carpets with traditional patterns, hand-embroidered curtains and tablecloths. I carefully planned the breakfast menu. I decided to serve linden honey and local fruit, and selected herbs from the mountains for tea.”

In the evenings, she plans to play works by renowned Armenian composers, including Khachaturian, Babajanian, Forsh and Akhverdyan, for guests in a specially equipped small gazebo. She has also prepared a short guide in English suggesting things to do in Yerevan and the surrounding area in the evenings and at weekends.

“We exchanged emails with our guests. On one of their days off, we offered to take them on a tour in a seven-seater car. We thought we could show them the pagan temple at Garni and the medieval Geghard monastery complex. They were delighted. They probably weren’t expecting such an offer. We want to show them not only our country, but also how hospitable Armenia and its people are,” the guesthouse owner says.

As for prices, she offered her first guests a 30% discount.

Yerevan’s major hotels are also hosting conference delegates

Best Western Plus Congress Hotel confirmed that it has been hosting COP17 participants since 14 October, with bookings opening three months earlier. Most guests come from Europe and the Middle East.

“We have welcomed high-ranking guests from participating countries. Some have come for a few days, while others will stay for two weeks. We are delighted to host conference guests, just as we traditionally welcome all our visitors.

“Most of the bookings for this period come from COP17 participants. We are also hosting a group of media representatives. They know the conference venues and entertainment programs very well. They probably researched the available information thoroughly before their visit.

“We met guests at the airport and prepared Armenian wine and sweets for them in their rooms. However, we serve a classic breakfast menu,” the hotel said.

How COP17 delegates found accommodation

A dedicated team worked to ensure that COP17 participants found suitable accommodation.

The organisers reserved hotel rooms at agreed rates for large delegations. They specifically designed this group booking option for delegations of 25 or more participants. Other delegates chose and booked their own accommodation through online platforms for hotels and guesthouses.

Although Yerevan hosts the main conference events, the organisers also considered hotels and guesthouses in other regions as alternative options.

However, the full picture of how the organisers distributed guests across different accommodation options will only emerge from official figures after the conference ends.

COP17 has undoubtedly marked an important moment for Armenia’s engagement with the international environmental agenda. At the same time, the conference has put the country’s infrastructure, tourism industry and service sector to the test.

Discussion in the Green Zone

Welcoming thousands of international visitors requires coordinated work across multiple organisations. It also gives Armenia an opportunity to strengthen its reputation as a country capable of hosting major international events.

“Based on the first few days of COP17 and our experience hosting the European Political Community summit, which took place in Yerevan this May, we can say that Armenia is positioning itself as a country capable of hosting high-level international events to a high standard,” Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said.

Another session of the conference in the Blue Zone at the Meridian Expo Centre

All delegates have found accommodation and are satisfied with it

Ani Hakobyan, spokesperson for the environment minister, told JAMnews:

“All COP17 participants have accommodation. Guests are staying in hotels, guesthouses and flats available for short-term rent. We also offered delegations accommodation options in settlements near Yerevan.”

According to Hakobyan, the ministry has received no statements, letters or complaints from participants who were unable to find accommodation. She noted that such problems sometimes arise at COP conferences, but no incidents of this kind have occurred in this case.

The accommodation team listed available options on official online platforms. Alternatives included hotels, guesthouses and rental properties not only near Yerevan but also in Gyumri, Vanadzor, Dilijan, Tsaghkadzor and Jermuk. There is no precise information yet on whether conference participants took up these offers.

Hakobyan also said that international visitors are covering their own accommodation costs.

What a Headline Reveals

“Named One by One: Four Turkish Women Targeted by Armenians.”

This was the headline Odatv chose for its report published on October 22, 2026. From the very first line, the roles of aggressor and victim had already been assigned: “Armenians” on one side, “Turkish women” on the other. Yet the story concerned criticism by Armenian journalist Harut Sassounian of political assessments published by four researchers at the Ankara-based Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM).

Aygün Attar, Tuğçe Tecimer, Selenay Erva Yalçın, and Hazel Çağan Elbir had published articles at different times examining Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s regional normalization policies and his political disagreements with certain sections of the Armenian diaspora. In an article published in The Armenian Weekly on October 20, Harut Sassounian quoted from these texts and challenged the assessments presented by AVİM. He argued that the favorable reception of Pashinyan’s policies in these Turkish publications could reinforce suspicions that those policies served the interests of Turkey and Azerbaijan.

The subject of Sassounian’s criticism was not the four researchers’ identity as women, but the political positions they expressed in their published work. His article contains no language disparaging their womanhood, targeting them on the basis of gender, or criticizing them because they are women. Nevertheless, Odatv presents a political disagreement as an incident in which women have been targeted.

The most significant manipulation in Odatv’s headline is the substitution of the subject of the criticism. Although the article itself identifies Harut Sassounian and discusses the writings he criticized, the headline replaces him with “Armenians.” This is neither an accidental nor an innocent choice of words, but a deliberate editorial decision. Highlighting ethnic identities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals in news coverage is a well-established means of activating prejudice, fueling social polarization, and turning particular groups into targets. Here, Odatv attributes an individual journalist’s political criticism to an entire people while pushing the four researchers’ professional identities into the background and emphasizing their nationality and gender instead. In doing so, it transforms a political disagreement into an aggressor-victim confrontation constructed along ethnic lines.

The Sexism of Defending Women

Defending women against sexist attacks is not the same as portraying them as people who need protection from political criticism. The former upholds women’s right to participate freely and equally in public life; the latter can reproduce a paternalistic approach that undermines their intellectual autonomy. The problem with Odatv’s reporting is not that it identifies the four researchers as women, but that it uses their gender to turn political criticism into a narrative of victimhood.

The four researchers are women working in their respective fields, publishing political assessments, and participating in public debate. They possess the knowledge and intellectual resources to substantiate their positions, assess the criticism directed at them, and respond when necessary. Defining them through a victimhood identity detached from their ideas pushes their competence and their standing in public debate into the background.

Women’s presence in public life becomes meaningful not merely through visibility, but through recognition of women as individuals who take responsibility for their ideas and actions. Subjecting a woman’s political views to criticism does not diminish her public standing. On the contrary, recognizing women as equal participants in political debate requires evaluating their ideas according to the same critical standards applied to everyone else.

Distinguishing sexist attacks against women from criticism of political positions is also essential to feminist struggle. Opposing the humiliation, intimidation, or silencing of women because of their gender does not mean that their ideas must be exempt from criticism. On the contrary, defining every political criticism as an attack on women obscures the specific nature of gender-based violence while undermining women’s equal standing in public debate.

Women and Nationalism: The Ethnic Identity of Victimhood

Presenting a journalist’s political views as the collective position of an entire people is more than an unjust generalization; it also erases the intellectual and political differences within societies. There may be Turks who agree with Harut Sassounian’s assessments, just as there may be Armenians who oppose them. No people consists of a single political position, a unified will, or an unchanging worldview. Yet framing political disagreements in terms of ethnic identity makes people with different views appear to belong to two homogeneous communities positioned against one another.

Why, then, “Turkish women” rather than “Turkish researchers”?

In nationalist narratives, women are positioned not merely as members of the nation, but also as symbolic figures representing its honor, cultural continuity, and values deemed worthy of protection. As Nira Yuval-Davis explores in her book Gender & Nation, women’s roles in the construction of national identity extend beyond social life; the boundaries of the nation and the terms of belonging are also symbolically defined through women. Consequently, an alleged attack on women can be transformed within nationalist discourse into a threat against the nation as a whole.

Odatv’s emphasis on “four Turkish women” turns political criticism into an appeal for national solidarity. Rather than examining whether the researchers’ arguments are valid or flawed, it creates opposing camps around the ethnic identity of the person criticizing them.

This kind of reporting invites readers to take sides according to national identity rather than evaluate political arguments. Readers who are expected to identify with the four researchers because they are “Turkish” may redirect their reaction from the journalist who made the criticism toward an entire people. An intellectual disagreement thus becomes material for social tension constructed around ethnic belonging.

An explicit call for hatred is not necessary to make an entire people a target. Attributing one individual’s words to an entire ethnic community is a form of discourse that assigns collective blame and reinforces prejudice. Given the history of hostility, discrimination, and hate speech directed against Armenians in Turkey, a headline such as “Turkish Women Targeted by Armenians” is not merely a problematic journalistic choice. It is an intervention that reproduces existing prejudices.

In this reporting, the narrative of victimhood constructed in the name of women and the collective targeting of Armenians reinforce one another. Women’s identity becomes a means of mobilizing nationalist solidarity, while Armenian identity is used to construct a threat against which that solidarity can be directed. The claim to be protecting women thus serves the creation of an ethnic antagonism rather than the defense of women’s rights.

What Odatv has done goes beyond reporting on political criticism. Instead of engaging with Sassounian’s arguments, it uses the headline “Four Turkish Women Targeted by Armenians” to steer readers toward taking sides along ethnic lines. Journalism has a responsibility to make disagreements visible and create space for critical debate, not to recast those disagreements in ways that foster hostility between communities. Odatv’s editorial choice demonstrates how the appearance of defending women can be used to target an entire people.