AGBU Hye Geen is rewriting maternal health in Armenia

Local News Pasadena
Aug 11, 2026

Armenian women building a health safety net, one village at a time

 

 

1 min read

AGBU Hye Geen committee members on Dec. 10, 2025. Photo: AGBU

A pregnant woman in a small town outside Yerevan, Armenia, weeks from her due date, has no one to ask the questions every expecting mom has. No prenatal class down the street or support group, just whatever information she can piece together on her own.

That’s the gap AGBU Hye Geen has spent the last three decades closing.

Hye Geen is the women’s initiative of AGBU — the Armenian General Benevolent Union, founded in 1906 in Cairo, Egypt, and today the largest Armenian nonprofit in the world, headquartered in New York. In 1994, Sona Yacoubian started Hye Geen with a simple but ambitious goal: honor Armenian women’s achievements and strengthen their role in family and society through research, education, and advocacy.

What began as one pregnancy center has grown into nine, spread across cities and regions where—as committee volunteer Vania Vartzbedian-Gordian puts it—women “outside the capital, Yerevan, lack adequate care.” Every dollar raised through Hye Geen’s events goes straight to keeping those nine centers running.

Here in the U.S., the organization hosts lectures and conferences that bring the Armenian-American community together—part luncheon, part idea exchange, always aimed at the issues shaping community life. College students from across Los Angeles pitch in too, keeping the next generation engaged in the work.

The upcoming health forum posits that “hormones, metabolism, weight, and muscle health are closely connected, especially as women age,” says longtime Hye Geen volunteer and health advocate Elizabeth Kabanyan.

“This event brings together experts in menopause care, nutrition, exercise science, and weight management to share practical information people can use to make informed decisions about their health.”

The expert lineup includes Dr. Hanriet Minasian, a board-certified internal medicine physician and founder of Healthy Silhouette, who blends physician-guided weight management with a whole-person approach to wellness; Ara Keshishian, an adjunct professor of Kinesiology and PhD candidate researching strength training for menopausal women; and Dr. Zarmine Naccashian, a nurse practitioner with 30+ years in diabetes and community health and an associate professor at Cal State Northridge.

The Hye Geen magazine archives the organization’s programs and gives writers a place to share their work, and their YouTube channel, Hye Geen TV, keeps the community informed year-round.

DEETS

  • AGBU Hye Geen ‘Thrive in Wellness’
  • Saturday, August 22, 2026, 10:30 am
    Vatche & Tamar Manoukian Center, 2495 E. Mountain St., Pasadena, CA 91104
  • $60 luncheon
    [email protected]
    626-794-7942

Belly Bella becomes Armenia’s first GRASP-assessed fruit producer, strengthen

East Fruit
Aug 11, 2026

An Armenian flat peach producer has integrated GLOBALG.A.P., GRASP, FSA and Chain of Custody into a single system for managing production, labour practices and product traceability.

Belly Bella Fruit Company, a producer and exporter of flat peaches, flat nectarines and plums, has become the first and, to date, the only agricultural company in Armenia to successfully complete the GLOBALG.A.P. Risk Assessment on Social Practice (GRASP). The new status complements the producer’s existing GLOBALG.A.P., FSA and Chain of Custody credentials, creating an integrated framework for demonstrating production safety, sustainability, responsible labour practices and product traceability. For Armenia’s fruit and vegetable sector, this represents a shift from exporting fruit simply as a commodity towards participating in the managed procurement chains of international retailers, EastFruit reports.

In 2026, the competitiveness of a fresh fruit supplier is determined by much more than price, product appearance and the ability to deliver the required volumes. For major buyers, issues that only a few years ago were largely associated with corporate social responsibility are becoming increasingly important: exactly where the fruit was grown, who worked in its production, how working conditions were managed, whether certified products can be kept separate from non-certified products, how quickly a supplier can identify and isolate a shipment in the event of a claim, and what evidence supports its sustainability statements.

Belly Bella Fruit Company, an Armenian producer of flat peaches, flat nectarines and plums, is systematically building the systems required to access demanding international sales channels.

A new procurement architecture: fruit must be not only high-quality, but also manageable

In the European fresh produce business, a low purchase price has long ceased to be a competitive advantage in itself. Cheap fruit that is inconsistent in size and maturity, fails to withstand logistics, generates high levels of waste, or lacks reliable documentation on its origin can ultimately cost a retailer more than a shipment that was initially more expensive.

“A professional buyer looks at much more than the price per kilogram. They are interested in the consistency of specifications, predictability of volumes and supply schedules, uniformity of consignments, compliance with food safety requirements, pesticide residue management, the speed of cooling, sorting and packing, the ability to trace products throughout the supply chain, the supplier’s readiness to manage complaints and recalls, as well as social and environmental risks at production level,” says David Saakyan, owner of Belly Bella Fruit Company.

The requirements of different retail chains, including Lidl, Kaufland, Carrefour, REWE and others, are not identical. There is no universal set of certifications that automatically provides access to every European supermarket chain. However, the direction in which procurement systems are developing is clear: suppliers must be able to provide documentary evidence of how they manage risks both at production level and throughout the supply chain.

REWE Group, for example, explicitly recognises that the risks of violations of labour and social standards are particularly high at the agricultural production stage. The company uses risk analysis, certification, supplier development programmes and supply-chain monitoring. Kaufland also identifies transparency, decent working conditions, human rights and responsible production standards among the requirements applied across its global value chain.

Certification is therefore becoming part of the commercial infrastructure of a fruit and vegetable supplier. This is particularly important for stone fruit. Flat peaches and nectarines are sensitive to harvest timing, mechanical damage, temperature management and the number of handling operations. Even a high-quality crop can rapidly lose its commercial value if there is no integrated operating system connecting the orchard, sorting, cooling, packing and dispatch processes.

From product inspection to verification of the entire production system

According to the company’s founder, the foundation of Belly Bella Fruit Company’s certification strategy is its intensive flat peach orchard, certified under GLOBALG.A.P. The certification currently covers more than 200 hectares, specifically the company’s flat peach orchards. Belly Bella’s total production area amounts to 600 hectares. In the future, the company plans to extend the standardisation process across its orchards, including the planned certification of flat nectarines and plums.

GLOBALG.A.P. provides the basic level of control at primary production level, covering agricultural operations, food safety, crop protection products, hygiene, documentation and key production risks.

After harvesting, the fruit moves through sorting, packing and consolidation for commercial operations. At each of these stages, potential risks may arise, including the mixing of consignments, incorrect labelling or loss of the link between finished packs and the certified production area.

These risks are addressed through the GLOBALG.A.P. Chain of Custody standard.

Chain of Custody protects the identity and traceability of certified products. Its requirements include the segregation of certified and non-certified product flows, records of product movement, controls over incoming and outgoing volumes, recall procedures and verification of transaction histories. According to GLOBALG.A.P., the standard is designed to prevent substitution, mixing and incorrect identification of products throughout the supply chain.

For Belly Bella Fruit Company, having its own sorting and packing infrastructure located close to the orchards has strategic importance.First, the company reduces the number of intermediate operations between harvesting and preparing the fruit for dispatch. Second, the producer retains direct control over sorting by size, visual characteristics and quality. Third, integrated management of both the orchard and packing facility simplifies the formation of consignments and helps preserve their identity. Fourth, it reduces dependence on external operators that could otherwise become weak links in terms of hygiene, documentation, temperature management or traceability. For buyers and importers, this means a shorter and more controllable chain of responsibility. Belly Bella Fruit Company’s system is built around several complementary tools.

GLOBALG.A.P.: managing primary production

GLOBALG.A.P. certification confirms that controlled production and food-safety procedures have been implemented at orchard level.

It provides a starting point for working with organised international retail, but does not, on its own, answer every question a buyer may have.

GRASP: social practices at farm level

GRASP is not a standalone product certification, but an add-on to GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance.The assessment covers worker health, safety and well-being, mechanisms for employee representation and grievances, access to information on labour rights, protection of children and young workers, and key indicators related to compliance with labour and social standards.The commercial value of GRASP lies in demonstrating that a supplier already has a formalised and independently assessed system for managing social issues. For buyers, this provides a structured basis for their own risk assessment.

FSA: managing farm sustainability as a structured process

The Farm Sustainability Assessment (FSA), developed by SAI Platform, is used by food-sector companies to assess, improve and verify the sustainability of agricultural production at farm level.

FSA standardises the assessment of fruit production and enables sustainability to be treated as a set of measurable and manageable practices and indicators.

The tool is used in more than 60 countries and covers a broad range of agricultural crops. For international buyers, FSA provides a common language between suppliers, processors, brands and retailers. It helps avoid situations in which every participant in the supply chain applies a different definition of sustainable agriculture.

Chain of Custody: proving the origin of a consignment

Chain of Custody links certified production to a specific commercial consignment.

Without this link, claims regarding a farm’s compliance with a standard can lose commercial value once the product leaves the orchard.Chain of Custody makes it possible to maintain an auditable chain of evidence through packing, handling and trading operations.

Together they form a practical system for managing four groups of risks: the safety and responsibility of primary production, environmental and operational sustainability, labour and social practices, and product identity and traceability.

Why social audits are becoming a commercial asset

In agriculture, social risks are often concentrated during periods of seasonal work.

Within a short period of time, farms may need to recruit significant numbers of workers, organise working-time records, provide training and occupational health and safety measures, ensure access to sanitary facilities, manage remuneration and maintain effective communication with employees.

For a buyer, a lack of transparency in this part of the supply chain represents not only an ethical issue but also a direct commercial risk.

European corporate sustainability regulation underwent substantial revision and simplification in 2026. Following changes introduced during the year, implementation of the EU-wide Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive was postponed: EU Member States are expected to transpose the revised rules by July 2028, with the main application of the requirements scheduled from July 2029.

Nevertheless, the overall direction of regulation remains unchanged: large companies are expected to develop a more systematic approach to human rights and environmental impacts across their chains of activities.

In addition to EU-wide legislation, procurement practices are already being shaped by national requirements, corporate supplier codes, internal ESG policies, investor requirements and the risk-management procedures of retail groups themselves.

GRASP should therefore be viewed as evidence that a supplier is preparing for a market in which social compliance documentation is gradually becoming part of standard supplier qualification and approval procedures.

Armenia is not yet perceived by most European buyers as a traditional large-scale supplier of flat peaches and nectarines. Standards cannot replace a competitive product, but they can make competitiveness demonstrable. Belly Bella Fruit Company is establishing a practical precedent: an Armenian horticultural company can proactively adapt its processes to international procurement systems. This approach changes the country’s export model. Instead of competing primarily through seasonal pricing and proximity to individual markets, a producer can begin competing on the quality of its supply-chain management. Social sustainability is becoming a condition of supply. “We are building an integrated system, from orchard management to sorting, packing and the traceability of every consignment. Armenian producers can compete internationally not only through the quality of their fruit, but also through the quality of their processes. The next stage for Belly Bella is to extend this system across the entire production area and further strengthen the predictability required for long-term supply programmes,” emphasises David Saakyan.

In 2026, access to international retail begins long before the first commercial offer is submitted. It begins in the orchard — with documentation, process discipline, worker protection, quality management and the ability to prove the origin of every box of fruit. The example of Belly Bella Fruit Company demonstrates that, for Armenia’s fruit and vegetable industry, the transition towards this model has already begun.

EastFruit

World’s tallest statue of Jesus planned in Armenia

Christian Today
Aug 11, 2026

A business tycoon with political ambitions is planning to build the world’s tallest statue of Jesus Christ in his home country of Armenia.

Gagik Tsarukyan told the Guardian newspaper in the UK that “Christianity will become Armenia’s new brand” and that the statue would become known as “Armenia’s calling card”.

Standing 101 metres (331ft) tall, the monument will be erected on the summit of Mount Hatis, which rises 2,500 metres (8,200ft) above sea level. The mountain is about 25km east of Yerevan, and the statue is expected to be visible from much of the Armenian capital.

Tsarukyan received less than 4% of the vote in the country’s recent parliamentary election. A controversial figure, the former athlete built a business empire spanning gambling, alcohol and mining in the decades following the collapse of the Soviet Union, according to the Guardian.

Tsarukyan believes the statue, which has been under construction on and off since 2022 and has yet to be transported up the mountain, will dwarf Brazil’s Christ the Redeemer, which stands 38 metres (125ft) tall, including its pedestal.

“We are the oldest Christian nation in the world,” Tsarukyan told the Guardian. “It only makes sense we should have the biggest Jesus statue in the world.”

Tsarukyan is also constructing a gigantic Noah’s Ark and has described both projects as “sacred”.

“These projects are sacred,” he told the newspaper. “This is how I will inscribe my name in history, for the world to see during my lifetime and long after.”

© Christian Daily International

Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Plan Stalls One Year After Washington Breakthrough

Oil Price
Aug 11, 2026

  • The United States, Armenia, and Azerbaijan continue to promote TRIPP as a major transport and trade link through southern Armenia.
  • Despite progress on TRIPP, Armenia and Azerbaijan have still not formally signed the peace agreement they initialed in Washington in August 2025.
  • Iran remains wary of the U.S.-backed corridor near its border, while Armenia argues that TRIPP could ultimately expand Iranian access to regional and Black Sea trade routes.

One year after the signing of a provisional peace deal in Washington, DC, American, Armenian, and Azerbaijani officials continue to exude optimism about the potential for stability and prosperity in the South Caucasus. But movement toward implementing the joint declaration has been halting. 

On August 8, the one-year anniversary of the declaration’s signing by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement reaffirming Washington’s commitment to realizing the deal’s potential.

“This declaration ended decades of conflict in the South Caucasus and launched the trailblazing Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity –TRIPP,” Rubio stated. “Over the past twelve months, the United States has worked side-by-side with Armenia and Azerbaijan to turn that promise into progress.”

Rubio touted several TRIPP-related accomplishments, including the start of surveying work for a railway that would traverse Armenian territory to facilitate freight traffic from Azerbaijan to Turkey and beyond, as well as the establishment of a Trans-Caspian Enterprise Fund with initial capitalization of $201 million.

“This progress reflects a simple truth: peace and prosperity reinforce one another,” Rubio stated. “TRIPP is more than an infrastructure project – it is a vital link in the Trans-Caspian Trade Route, a driver of commercial opportunities for the United States and others, and a model for how economic cooperation can cement peace following the resolution of long-standing disputes.” 

Aliyev, in an August 8 letter addressed to Trump, lauded TRIPP’s “tremendous potential,” while noting that bilateral US-Azerbaijani relations “have now reached their highest point in the 34-year history of our diplomatic relations.”

Trump held upbeat phone conversations with both Pashinyan and Aliyev, reiterating a desire for TRIPP’s construction to start in the “near future.” Pashinyan, in a statement, said TRIPP has the potential to “help Armenia and Azerbaijan begin to perceive each other not as an obstacle, but … as neighbors.”

There is no disputing that enthusiasm for the deal remains strong. All sides want it to happen. Even so, many key operational details concerning TRIPP remain to be worked out, including the US role in ensuring the route’s security, as well as potential customs procedures for Azerbaijani individuals and goods using the planned road and railway. And despite the Enterprise Fund’s existence, questions linger about TRIPP’s price tag and financing for construction. Armenian officials this year have sought to attract additional investors in the project, but have yet to receive any firm commitments. 

A wild card concerning TRIPP’s future is the ongoing war between the United States and Iran. That conflict has drained the US of financial resources and distracted the Trump Administration. Iranian leaders, meanwhile, are steadfastly opposed to TRIPP, worried that it will impede Tehran’s own ability to trade. Whether Iran has the geopolitical muscle to disrupt TRIPP’s development, however, is an open question. The envisioned TRIPP corridor would sit not far north from the Armenian-Iranian border.

Armenian and Iranian officials met recently in Tehran to discuss trade and transport. According to Iranian sources, the two sides developed a memorandum of understanding to make border-crossing procedures more efficient and open “parallel” trade corridors in the region. A report published July 31 by the Tehran Times quoted Armenian Deputy Infrastructure Minister Kristine Galachyan as saying “the development of transit infrastructure is on the right track.” 

Meanwhile, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan met with an Iranian Foreign Ministry delegation in Yerevan on July 31 to review issues of bilateral concern. An official Armenian readout of the discussion stuck to generalities and did not contain any specific references to TRIPP. It also provided no indication that the views of the two countries are aligned, stating simply that “the importance of the opportunities created by the implementation of new connectivity projects was underscored.”

Beyond TRIPP, the provisional peace framework between Armenia and Azerbaijan has yet to be finalized and there is no indication that a signing ceremony will be held anytime soon. Azerbaijan has set a precondition for sealing a peace pact: Armenia must amend its constitution to unequivocally recognize Baku’s sovereignty over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, which Azerbaijani forces regained control of in 2023.

Pashinyan’s administration has hinted that it is amenable to such a change, but it is uncertain whether it has sufficient political capital to secure parliamentary and public approval for an amendment. Pashinyan secured a convincing victory in June’s parliamentary election, receiving a general endorsement of his reform agenda. But his Civil Contract party failed to obtain a two-thirds majority of parliamentary seats that would ensure adoption of an amendment. 

In addition, Pashinyan has announced plans to hold a national referendum on a draft of a new constitution, which would presumably contain provisions to facilitate the finalization of a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. But to date, no proposed amendments have been circulated for public discussion, and there is no timeframe for the holding of a referendum.

By Eurasianet

Armenia, Nagoya and the Long History of Who Owns Nature

EVN Report
Aug 11, 2026

Listen to the AI generated audio article. 

00:00

/

Armenia ratified the Nagoya Protocol this spring, and later this year it will host the seventeenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17). Together, these developments place the country in an unusual position: newly bound by an international instrument governing access to countries’ genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from their use, while simultaneously hosting negotiations over its future. 

At its heart is a deceptively simple question: who owns nature, and who should benefit when it becomes valuable?

To understand why that question matters, we need to go back much further than 2010.

The movement of plants across the world is one of the oldest instruments of imperial power, and for most of its history, it operated without anything resembling law.

Consider quinine. 

For two centuries, the bark of the cinchona tree, native to the eastern slopes of the Andes, was the only effective treatment for malaria, and the states of South America controlled the trade. In the middle of the 19th century, British and Dutch expeditions took cinchona seeds and seedlings out of Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, in several cases in defiance of local export prohibitions, and established plantations in India and Java. Within a few decades, the Andean monopoly was gone, and the Dutch colonial plantations on Java supplied the overwhelming majority of the world’s quinine. The drug that made European occupation of tropical Africa and Asia medically survivable was built on genetic material taken from countries that received nothing for it.

Or consider rubber. 

In 1876, Henry Wickham removed tens of thousands of Hevea brasiliensis seeds from the Amazon basin and delivered them to Kew Gardens in London, from where the surviving seedlings were sent to Ceylon and Malaya. Within 30 years, the Brazilian rubber economy had collapsed, and Southeast Asian plantations dominated global supply. The city of Manaus, which had built an opera house on rubber money, went quiet.

The botanical gardens of the imperial capitals functioned as processing centers in a global system for the acquisition, acclimatization and redistribution of biological wealth. Coffee, tea, indigo, cotton, sugar, cacao, oil palm: the agricultural map of the modern world is substantially the product of germplasm moved from the places that held it to the places that could profit from it. The legal position throughout was straightforward. Biological material was res nullius, a thing belonging to nobody, free to whoever collected it. Sovereignty over territory did not extend to sovereignty over the genetic contents of that territory.

That default survived into the era of pharmaceutical bioprospecting, when a compound isolated from a plant known to a community in Madagascar or Cameroon could become the basis of a patented drug generating hundreds of millions in revenue, none of it flowing back. The term coined for this in the 1990s was biopiracy, and while the word is polemical, the pattern it described was real and documented across dozens of cases.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, was the moment this default was formally reversed. Its most consequential provision established States’ sovereign rights over their own biological resources, converting genetic material from a global commons available to whoever reached it first into something over which a state could exercise legal authority. The Convention set out three objectives: conservation, sustainable use, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. The third was where the history lived, and it took another 18 years to build the machinery to give it effect. That machinery is the Nagoya Protocol, adopted at COP10,  held in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010, and in force since 2014.

The Machinery, Briefly

Genetic resources, in the language of the Convention, are the genetic material of plants, animals, microorganisms, and other biological matter that has actual or potential value. Genetic material refers to the DNA and the sequences encoded within it that carry the instructions for the traits and properties of living organisms. The value of a genetic resource typically lies in a specific sequence or combination of sequences: a gene coding for resistance to a particular disease, a sequence producing a compound with pharmaceutical activity, a genetic variant conferring drought tolerance in a wild relative of a domesticated crop.

The Protocol establishes a framework known as access and benefit-sharing (ABS), and it works on two principles. The first is prior informed consent (PIC): anyone seeking to access genetic resources within a state’s jurisdiction must obtain that state’s permission before doing so. The second is mutually agreed terms (MAT): the conditions of access, including the sharing of benefits arising from any subsequent use, must be negotiated with the country of origin. Where indigenous or local communities hold traditional knowledge about the properties of the material, their consent is required too, and benefits must reach them.

Geography Matters

None of this means the same thing everywhere, and pretending otherwise produces bad policy. For a megadiverse state, Nagoya carries tangible economic stakes. Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, India, Kenya, and a handful of others hold a disproportionate share of the planet’s biological variety. For them, the ABS regime is a legal shield over a national endowment of enormous potential value. These states negotiated hard for the Protocol and have built substantial domestic architecture around it. For instance, Brazil’s system is elaborate, and its administration of access permits has become a serious regulatory function of the state.

For the advanced user States, the calculation inverts. Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and the European Union collectively host much of the world’s pharmaceutical, agricultural biotech, and cosmetics research. For them, the Protocol is a compliance burden imposed on their industries and universities. The EU’s regulation on user compliance is the most developed in the world, but the engagement is largely defensive. The United States never ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity at all, and sits outside the entire structure, which tells you something about how the interests distribute.

And then there is the large middle, where Armenia sits.

Armenia is not megadiverse in the technical sense. It is also, however, biologically remarkable for its size: a country of under 30,000 square kilometres containing a substantial proportion of the flora of the entire Caucasus, with high endemism driven by extreme variation in altitude and climate across very short distances. It is one of the principal centers of origin for wild relatives of domesticated wheat, barley, and fruit crops, which is not a minor detail. As agricultural systems come under climate stress, the genetic diversity held in wild crop relatives becomes strategically valuable in a way that is difficult to overstate. Armenia is also not a major user State. Its pharmaceutical and biotech sectors are modest, and its scientific institutions are capable but under-resourced.

So what is Nagoya for in a country like Armenia?

Its value is real but conditional, and it is easy to misidentify. The countries that expected the Protocol to generate significant income streams have mostly been disappointed; benefit-sharing revenues globally have been modest and slow. The value lies elsewhere. Armenia now has legal standing to know what leaves the country, to set conditions on it, and to insist on scientific participation in work conducted on its own biological material. That is a smaller claim than the rhetoric around ABS often suggests. It is also worth having.

Suppose a research team abroad becomes interested in an Armenian plant that local communities have long used medicinally and suspects it holds a compound with therapeutic value. Under Nagoya, the team cannot simply come and collect. It must approach Armenia’s designated authority, say what it intends to do (take samples, sequence genes, develop a product), and negotiate before anything moves. Armenia sets the terms. Those terms might restrict what the material can be used for, require joint work with Armenian institutions, mandate data sharing, and specify what the country receives if something valuable emerges: royalties and milestone payments, or training, equipment, technology transfer, and funding for conservation. No agreement, no access.

The permit that results is logged on the Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearing-House, a public platform run by the Convention’s Secretariat, and becomes an internationally recognized certificate of compliance (IRCC). The certificate travels with the material. A company holding Armenian genetic material under a valid permit can prove it; one that cannot, cannot. User States are obliged to run checkpoints and due diligence that trace what sits in their jurisdiction back to a valid certificate. What Armenia authorizes at home, other states are required to verify abroad.

Nothing of this kind existed before.

The conditional part is that none of this is self-executing. A ratified protocol without a designated authority, implementing legislation, a functioning permit procedure, and the administrative capacity to evaluate applications is, operationally, a document. There are States party to Nagoya that have had it in force for years and remain unable to process an access request. Ratification places a country in the system; it does not place the system in the country.

The International Law Standard

It is worth saying something about the character of the ambition here, because the Protocol is frequently criticized on grounds that misunderstand what instruments of this kind are designed to achieve. Nagoya will not stop every unrecorded sample from leaving Armenia in a researcher’s pocket. It will not deliver a windfall. It will not undo the historical asymmetry it was built in response to, and the states that carried that history hardest have not been made whole by it. Judged against the standard of solving the problem, it fails.

That standard is the wrong one, and not only for this instrument. International environmental law does not restore what has been lost; it manages the rate and terms of ongoing loss. Across nearly every branch of international law, the ambition is the same, and it is modest: to take a domain operating on power and default, and bring it inside a structure where conduct becomes visible, contestable, and subject to a rule that someone can be asked to answer to.

That is what the ABS regime does. Before 1992, the removal of biological material from a country was, legally, nothing, an act without a category. After Nagoya, it is an act that either has a certificate or does not; the uncontrolled has been made legible. Whether it is then controlled depends on states, and states are uneven, and enforcement is patchy, and the powerful comply selectively. All true. The alternative is not a better regime. The alternative is the world of 1876, in which a man walks out of the Amazon with 70,000 seeds and no one has committed any offense at all.

For Armenia, this is the frame that makes ratification intelligible. Not as a promise of income, but as the acquisition of standing in a domain where the country previously had none.

Hosting the Room

Which brings us to COP17, and the fact of Yerevan as its venue. Hosting a Conference of the Parties confer a specific and temporary kind of influence. The host presides, shapes the informal architecture of the negotiation, and inherits the diplomatic association with whatever the conference produces. The conferences are named after their venues in the institutional memory of the regime. This is why an instrument negotiated in Japan is called the Nagoya Protocol, and why the current global targets carry the names Kunming and Montreal. Whatever COP17 concludes, will carry Yerevan’s name.

The central item on the table in Yerevan is digital sequence information (DSI): the fact that a genetic sequence can now be read, digitized, uploaded, and used anywhere in the world without the physical sample ever crossing a border. This is an existential problem for a Protocol built entirely around the movement of material things. The parties have been constructing a multilateral fund to capture benefits from DSI use, with the outlines agreed under the Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and at COP16 in Cali. COP17 will be where its operationalization is fought over. For provider states, the DSI question will determine whether the benefit-sharing pillar of the Convention means anything at all in the coming decades, because the bilateral permit model on which the Protocol is built is being quietly bypassed by the technology.

There is a version of hosting that is ceremonial: a well-run conference, good photographs, a communiqué. There is another version in which the host arrives having done the domestic work, with a functioning national system, a clear position on the DSI negotiation, and something to say about what the instrument looks like from the position of a small state with significant biodiversity and limited capacity.

The domestic work has a specific content. Article 13 of the Protocol obliges Armenia to name a national focal point and to designate a competent national authority with the power to grant access, so that a researcher seeking Armenian genetic material knows who can say yes and on what terms. Article 6 obliges a legal framework through which prior informed consent is sought and mutually agreed terms are negotiated, since consent without a procedure is a courtesy rather than a requirement. Article 6(3)(e) obliges the issuance of a permit at the time of access, notified to the ABS Clearing-House, which under Article 17(2) becomes an internationally recognized certificate of compliance: the instrument by which a private arrangement becomes a traceable one. And Articles 15 and 17 oblige the compliance measures and the checkpoints that monitor utilization downstream, without which the rest is paperwork that travels well and binds nobody. These are institutions, and institutions take time to staff and stand up.

Armenia ratified the Protocol in the spring. The conference takes place later this year. The distance between those two events  is where the answer lies. There is something fitting in a small country hosting this debate. The states that wrote the rules of the old system were never the ones that lived under them. Yerevan will not settle the question of who owns nature. But for a few days, it will be the room where a country rich in biological resources but with limited leverage gets to speak first and be heard. That is not nothing. In this discipline, it is often most of what there is.



Azerbaijan, Armenia and U.S. reaffirm commitment to implement peace agreements

KazInform
Aug 11, 2026

Azerbaijan, Armenia and U.S. reaffirm commitment to implement peace agreements

17:50, 11 August 2026

Azerbaijan, Armenia and the United States have issued a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to implementing the peace agreements reached between Baku and Yerevan, Qazinform News Agency correspondent reports.

photo: QAZINFORM

The statement was issued to mark the first anniversary of the White House peace summit attended by U.S. President Donald Trump, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

The document notes that over the past year, the three sides have taken a number of steps to implement the Joint Peace Declaration. Stability has been maintained along the Azerbaijan-Armenia border, while normalization efforts, border delimitation and confidence-building measures have continued.

A key area highlighted in the statement is the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). According to the statement, the project has entered the implementation stage. Engineering and surveying work has begun in Armenia, while the United States and Armenia have agreed to establish a company to develop the route. Azerbaijan, meanwhile, has nearly completed construction of road and railway infrastructure on its territory to connect with the TRIPP network.

The statement also highlighted U.S. support for the Trans-Caspian trade route. The United States has provided 201 million US dollars to the Trans-Caspian Enterprise Fund to attract private investment for the development of the Middle Corridor in the South Caucasus and Central Asia.

The three countries also noted progress in economic ties between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Azerbaijan lifted transit restrictions on Armenia, after which around 60,000 tons of cargo were transported through Azerbaijani territory to and from Armenia over the past year. Azerbaijan also supplied Armenia with 20,000 tons of petroleum products.

Telecommunications operators from the two countries have signed an agreement on internet connectivity aimed at strengthening the resilience of regional telecommunications infrastructure.

The United States, Azerbaijan and Armenia reaffirmed their support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both countries within their internationally recognized borders and their commitment to the full implementation of the Joint Declaration signed on August 8.

The statement also said that Armenia and Azerbaijan have joined the Board of Peace at the invitation of the United States.

To note, on August 8, 2025, following a trilateral meeting in Washington, the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the United States adopted a Joint Declaration on the peaceful settlement of relations between Baku and Yerevan.

https://qazinform.com/news/azerbaijan-armenia-and-us-reaffirm-commitment-to-implement-peace-agreements-3fb94a/amp 

168: Yerevan is trying to inspire Tehran with the security of the “Trump Corridor”.

August 11, 2026

The day before, Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev had a telephone conversation at the initiative of Yerevan, during which they “exchanged thoughts on the first anniversary of the peace summit held in Washington on August 8, 2025 with the support of Donald Trump, during which peace was established between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the text of the peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia was initialed,” the Armenian government said in a statement.

Talking to local and foreign journalists in Yerevan the other day, Mr. Prime Minister spoke in his special emotional-long-winded style. was telling about the common good that should be achieved in the event of the implementation of the not unknown project “Trump Corridor for Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP). According to Pashinyan, the old-“new” authorities of Armenia “have an open and transparent position regarding the implementation of TRIPP”, ready to “answer all questions related to possible concerns”, because, allegedly, Yerevan “cannot afford ambitious statements and intentions related to intervening in conflicts between major powers”.

The opening of the “Zangezur Corridor” is already an imminent prospect, in an interview with CNN TÜRK announced Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan Hikmet Hajiyev. “…it’s not such a distant prospect. Intensive diplomatic and physical efforts continue.” “The Armenian side has promised to actively start construction works by the end of the year… they already started primary blasting (in different sectors) last year.” tells communications expert Rauf Aghamirzaev.

TRIPP is a major economic and infrastructural project designed to benefit the region, Armenia and Iran, which allows no more, no less, “to open railway communication from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea through the territories of Azerbaijan, Iran, Armenia and Georgia,” said Pashinyan, seeing America (justified or not is a separate question) as a certain factor balancing the influence of the Turkish neighbors. Allegedly, “it is one of those projects that refutes the statements that its implementation excludes any country in the region.

Read also

  • For what exceptional achievements do they distribute 35 million dollars to the officials?
  • The court is before the Catholicos. His Holiness acted correctly. Pashinyan put his decision to go to the EU on Lukashenko. Hakob Badalyan
  • Why is Pashinyan shooting Armenia in the foot, dragging it to the abyss?

On the contrary, it is a project that includes everyone.” Here, the head of the government is literally hiding in Syunik’s supposed corridor the real goal, the purpose of which, in addition to connecting the main territory of Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan and Turkey, is hidden in ensuring the reliable control of American and transnational corporations over the transit arteries of South Transcaucasia (and, accordingly, the northern borders of Iran).

Earlier we wrote About the establishment of an interesting structure called TRIPP Enterprise Fund, renamed Trans-Caspian Enterprise Fund, led by international venture investor Konstantin Sokolov, the owner of a number of assets in Armenia, including VIVA Armenia and the Teghut copper-molybdenum mine, who is actively interested in Armenia’s railway infrastructure.

It should be noted that Sokolov, born in Leningrad, is closely connected with the Jewish environment, as well as Arieh Lightstone, the senior adviser of the special envoy Steve Wittkoff, one of the architects of the TRIPP project, according to the University Yeshiva rabbi, who at the beginning of August has met with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, his deputy Mher Grigoryan and Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan.

Working at the US Embassy in Jerusalem, Lightstone promoted economic settlement within the framework of the Abrahamic Accords. Apparently, now this experience is planned to be applied in the South Caucasus as well, as evidenced by Lightstone’s recent statement. “A little creative approach, and we will create one of the main trade routes in the world and overcome the impasse in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

Official relations according toA year ago, the corridor passing through the Syunik Marz of Armenia, presented in Washington, will function with great pomp within the framework of national jurisdiction, without violating the country’s sovereignty in matters of state border management, border control and customs administration, etc. However, in reality, to put it mildly, it will not be so, if only because the USA receives exclusive rights to develop the corridor for a period of up to 99 years inclusive.

The development of the “Trump Corridor”, the launch of which (under the name “Zanguzur Corridor”) has been announced by the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev at the end of 2028, is the creation of new transit arteries under the auspices of the United States, including the modernization of existing arteries and the rehabilitation of those that have not been in operation since the beginning of the 1990s.

The company TRIPP Development, founded by Washington and Yerevan, will receive land use and construction rights in the relevant zones in the territory of the Republic of Armenia, at the government meeting on July 16. informed Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan. The initial period of these rights will be 49 years.

During that time, 74% of the company’s shares will belong to the United States, and 26% to Armenia. After the end of the specified period, the parties can extend the partnership for another 50 years by mutual agreement, and in case of extension, Armenia’s share in the TRIPP Development Company will be 49% (by the way, the “happy” time still has to live before that).

Tripp Development Company will be able to create special purpose companies for the implementation of separate projects and involve subcontractors, Mirzoyan continued, adding that two more documents remain to be amended for the official start of the project: the shareholder agreement and the company’s charter.

The RA government approved the bill on ratifying the framework agreement on strategic partnership with the United States within the framework of the Trump Road to International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) project, signed by the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his short visit to Yerevan on May 26.

Together with the Charter of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between Armenia and the United States and the Framework Memorandum on “Supply Assurance in the Extraction and Processing of Critical Minerals and Rare Earths,” this document sets the framework for the dominant participation of American corporations in trans-Caucasian transit routes.

The main obstacle to the implementation of TRIPP can be the “destabilization of the situation in the region”, complains the head of the Armenian government, preferring to remain silent about its real culprits, while speaking about the expediency of implementing the project “as soon as possible”.

Equally important is the position of neighboring Iran, where Nikol Pashinyan is apparently preparing to leave for a visit, the specific dates of which “have not yet been decided”.

It should be noted that recently the Armenian-Iranian contacts, which are already quite lively, have acquired additional dynamics. Thus, on July 21-23, the analytical center “APRI Armenia” in Yerevan together with the Iranian Embassy in the southern city of Kapan spent closed expert seminar on “Iranian-Armenian strategic partnership in the South Caucasus in the light of geopolitical and geoeconomic transformations”.

According to official information, issues of bilateral relations were discussed, including economy, energy, transport communications, information interaction, as well as the activity of regional and extra-regional actors in the South Caucasus. Iranian Ambassador to Yerevan Khalil Shirgholami and Syunik Marz Governor Robert Ghukasyan noted the need to adapt the special relations between Iran and Armenia to dynamically changing realities for the further development of strategic partnership.

Within the framework of his visit to Syunik, the head of the Iranian diplomatic mission visited the “Noravan” substation of the power transmission line being built from Iran’s Norduz to Yerevan.

On June 27, the Armenian government and Iranian contractors awarded the construction of a 7.2 km long tunnel within the framework of the Agarak-Kajaran road as part of the “North-South” road in Syunik region. the start which is being built with a loan from the Eurasian Fund for Stabilization and Development. In addition, according to Mehr agency, during the meeting between Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad and RA Minister of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure Davit Khudatyan in Tehran, the Iranian side proposed a new trade scheme for increasing natural gas supplies to Armenia.

According to some observers in Baku, all this indicates Tehran’s desire to maintain an active influence on the processes in the South Caucasus, including the prospects of launching the “Zangezur Corridor”.

Indeed, Iranians have no illusions about the intentions of the opponents who do not hide their aggressive intentions during the armed confrontation in the Middle East that has been going on for almost half a year. Thus, before his trip to Syunik, commenting on the TRIPP project during the press conference on July 8 of this year, Shirgholamin announced, that “…Armenia should develop a mechanism that will allow realizing the potential of unblocking regional communications, but at the same time taking into account the possible risks and threats for Iran in case of the American presence”.

By the way, as early as the end of December 2025, the leader’s then advisor Ali Akbar Velayat had refused that project, because it “could lead to the presence of NATO in the area adjacent to the north of Iran, creating serious risks for the security of northern Iran and southern Russia”.

Submitted in August 2025 Trump’s plan “It is being promoted with enthusiasm through the entry of American companies into the Armenian market.” Which is not surprising, since the US has a history of entering sensitive regions through projects that the Americans present as economic initiatives. But such involvement has gradually expanded into military and power dimensions.”

It is appropriate to remember the separation of the state of Panama from Colombia in the early 1900s through the transatlantic Panama Canal, which belonged to the United States until the end of the 1970s. Another, less well-known example is the United States’ occupation of the central-Caribbean islands of Swan (Honduras), Mais (Nicaragua), and Roncador (Colombia) in the spirit of the “Monroe Doctrine” up to and including the early 1970s in connection with the idea of ​​building a “Nicaragua” canal to replace the Panama Canal in the early 1920s.

It emerged in the first half of the 1950s Through central Cuba the American canal project, for which the United States achieved an extraterritorial economic-de facto administrative presence on the Caribbean island of Pinos adjacent to Cuba and on the Cuban islands of Jardines de la Reina, located adjacent to the US military base at Guantanamo Bay (such presence was revoked by Havana in 1959). Of course, all these examples refer to the Western Hemisphere, which the White House owners have been trying to protect from European and other competitors with more or less success.

Obviously, the “Monroe Doctrine” does not even work there, and even more so, it looks illusory thousands of kilometers away, in the mountains of the Caucasus, where self-confident American “business people” will have to somehow take into account the interests and real intentions of Iran, Russia and Turkey.

DMITRI NEFYODOV

fondsk.ru

Translation by Zhanna Avetisyan




“The meeting will be organized by the competent departments, cooperatively

August 11, 2026

Veronika Zonabend, the wife of the former Minister of State of Artsakh, Ruben Vardanyan, issued a statement in which she proposed a meeting with Nikol Pashinyan, but the government transferred it to the Foreign Ministry.

“The Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia announced in his address on August 8 that “we are all very moved and worried by the imprisonment of our compatriots in Azerbaijan”. I fully share this assessment and was happy to read those words.

I also positively evaluate the information published in the media, according to which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia was appointed as the department responsible for organizing the meeting with me.

At the same time, I consider it necessary to clarify that as of today, I have not yet been contacted, and the contact information of the responsible official has not been forwarded to me.

Read also

  • The next grant of the Armenian Ministry of Education and Culture for the implementation of the Hay Fest international regional market
  • Syunik is of special importance for the Islamic Republic of Iran from a cultural point of view. Mohammad Asadi Mohaved
  • Now what are they preparing the people for?

I expect to receive the contact information of the responsible official and I hope for a substantive meeting to discuss further steps in the organization of the women’s humanitarian visit to Baku, as well as other issues related to Armenian citizens detained in Azerbaijan.” had noted Veronika Zonabend.

168.am From Ani Badalyan, spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked who from the MFA should receive Veronika Zonabendi, and when is it planned to meet with her?

“The offer of the meeting was forwarded on August 10. The meeting will be organized by competent departments in cooperation,” Ani Badalyan briefly mentioned.

Let’s remind that on July 31, Veronika Zonabend, the wife of Ruben Vardanyan, who was illegally detained in Baku, again letters sent Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and Human Rights Commissioner of Azerbaijan Sabina Aliyeva to organize the visit of humanitarian delegation of international women to Baku.

It is likely that in the context of de-blockade, only TRIPP will be opened and bring new RA

August 11, 2026

“One year after the Washington Summit. “What do we have today and what do we expect?” Sergey Melkonyan, researcher of “APRI Armenia” Research Institute, international scientist, candidate of historical sciences, noted that if only the TRIPP project is implemented and a complete lifting of the blockade does not take place in the South Caucasus, then Armenia’s profit will be approximately 23 million dollars per year.

“This is not a big number. If a general lifting of the embargo takes place in the South Caucasus, that number will increase to approximately $388 million annually. And, for example, in the case of TRIPP, Azerbaijan will receive about 230 million dollars per year, and in the case of general lifting of the embargo, 329 million dollars.

In other words, if in our case the difference is 16 times, then here it is about 1.4 times,” he elaborated, adding that only TRIPP is not enough for the South Caucasus, and Armenia needs access to the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf, in this case it is necessary to open other communications, particularly the railway, which is not yet on the agenda.

“If all the parties are interested in peace and lifting the blockade, why did we focus only on TRIPP? There are other ways in the region,” said Sergey Melkonyan, emphasizing that it is likely that only TRIPP will be implemented in the context of lifting the blockade, which will lead to the blockade of RA.

Read also

  • If TRIPP paves the way for de-blocking, will there be additional north-south routes?
  • We call this region the “vicious” region. Experts on TRIPP and Azerbaijan’s ambitions
  • In Iran, they are either neutral or negative on the TRIPP issue. Concerns still remain

Details in the video




“How can you be so irresponsible to the problems of your own citizens?

August 11, 2026

Eduard Sharmazanov writes: “On the one hand, they announce their desire to solve the problems with the Russian Federation and EAEU, and on the other hand, they have phone conversations with the officials of Kiev one after the other.

What is the point of having telephone conversations with Ukrainian officials without giving each other a turn, even now?

The person holding the post of NA Speaker has a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, and now the person holding the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs is having a phone conversation with his counterpart in Kiev.

And what, what kind of turning point did they talk about?

I think nothing. they just reduced the chances of a positive solution to the economic, export and agricultural issues with the EAEU and the Russian Federation to almost zero.

How can you be so irresponsible towards the problems of your own citizens?

If you want to solve the problems of our exporters and farmers in EAEU countries, why do you make the situation worse by having public phone conversations with official representatives of Kyiv?

Now you will say that it is the sovereign right of RA.

Of course, but what benefit does the RA economy and the citizen have from this?

It is necessary to act for the sake of RA, not against Russia.”