Category: News

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
June 9, 2004, Wednesday
NATO CHALLENGES RUSSIA’S INFLUENCE IN THE CIS
SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, June 8, 2004, p. 5
by Yuri Simonjan, Tatiana Ivzhenko
In Warsaw and Brussels yesterday, NATO structures held important
talks with representatives of the defense ministries of Ukraine and
Georgia. These two countries are expected to receive invitations
to the NATO Istanbul summit by the end of this month, and they will
attend the summit with the status of NATO’s special partners. NATO
has been making active advances to the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan
since late May. It is reasonable to assume that NATO is interested in
consolidating some key GUUAM members around the idea of integration
into Western structures.
As Russia becomes more active in establishing and consolidating
economic blocs in the CIS, NATO’s operations in this area are
growing more intensive as well. The West must fear that Moscow’s
initiatives and efforts might lead to the rise of a new and fairly
powerful international alliance, with relations between its members
not restricted to economic contacts alone. This could even deprive the
West of its ability to influence key areas of post-Soviet territory.
That is why NATO countries, those which criticized their CIS partners
only recently, are now changing their tune and promoting closer
relations with the CIS. Off the record, some NATO representatives
speak of the possibility of granting Ukraine and Georgia permission
to join NATO as soon as 2007 – even though it’s obvious that neither
country is ready for it in economic, political, or military terms.
Douglas Bereteur, president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
spoke of NATO membership prospects for Ukraine during a recent visit
to Kiev. But NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a
correspondent of Day that although NATO’s doors are open to Ukraine,
it’s too early as yet to talk of any exact dates. Commenting on
speculations by some Ukrainian analysts about the negative impact
of Russia on NATO-Ukraine relations, Scheffer said: “Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov said recently that any decision Ukraine makes
will be its own sovereign decision. I don’t think Ukraine’s intentions
can have any effect on relations between NATO and Russia.”
Judging by certain statements of NATO officials, the Alliance is more
concerned about Ukraine’s present undemocratic system and problems with
its military reforms. But despite all its misgivings, NATO has signed
a mutual understanding memorandum with Kiev. Under this agreement, NATO
will use Ukrainian AN-124 Ruslan transport planes in its operations.
Expanding Ukraine’s participation in joint operations with NATO
was also discussed at a conference organized by NATO and the Polish
Institute of Foreign Affairs. Ukrainian analysts, however, attach
considerably more importance to NATO’s consent to arrange a meeting of
the NATO-Ukraine commission in Istanbul on June 28 and 29. A previous
meeting of this commission was to take place in Prague in autumn 2002,
but it was cancelled because of the scandal over alleged unlawful
deliveries of Kolchuga Chain Mail systems to Iraq. NATO didn’t even
invite President Leonid Kuchma to the meeting last year. Ukraine was
represented by its foreign minister there.
These days, NATO considers it necessary to reestablish relations with
the Ukrainian leader, who keeps saying that Ukraine is not going to
knock at the doors of Western structures if those doors are closed to
it – instead, it will turn to more loyal foreign partners. Ukrainian
Foreign Minister Konstantin Grischenko said the other day that Kiev
has not yet made up its mind concerning the format of participation
in the Ukraine-NATO meeting in Istanbul. This might mean that NATO
will find it necessary to exert more effort (and perhaps even made
some concessions) to change the pro-Russian direction of Ukrainian
foreign policy.
In its relations with pro-Western Georgia, NATO doesn’t have the sort
of problems it has with Ukraine. A team of experts from the Defense
Ministry of Georgia has been in Brussels since June 1, working with
their NATO counterparts on a draft development program for the Georgain
miliary. This plan may be signed today. Tbilisi is represented at
the talks by Defense Minister Gela Bezhuashvili. Bezhuashvili is
currently in Brussels, but his time has run out. Fulfilling the plans
will probably be the prerogative of Georgy Baramidze, Bezhuashvili’s
successor, who will soon be endorsed by the parliament of Georgia.
Bezhuashvili told journalists that he was going to Brussels with a
detailed plan specifying all Georgia’s commitments to NATO, the dates
of their implementation, and a program for developing and restructuring
the Armed Forces. The Georgian military’s troop strength will be cut
from 14,000 to 10,000, and a transition to contract service will
be made eventually. In line with NATO standards, 85% of employees
at the central staff of the Defense Ministry will be civilians. The
functions of the Defense Ministry and General Staff will be divided.
All the same, Georgia will have to solve a lot of problems if it’s
really aiming for full membership of NATO. Withdrawal of Russian
military bases from its territory appears to be the most difficult
of these. Moscow still insists on 11 years it claims to require for
the withdrawal, but Tbilisi insistes that three years will suffice.
Georgian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nato Chikovani told us: “Russia
hasn’t even appointed a head of the expert team, despite our requests.”
Georgian experts hope that some way of dealing with the problem will
be found during the talks in Brussels, even though Scheffer never
misses a chance to emphasize that NATO has no intention of spoiling
its relations with Russia. “I take care of these relations and value
them,” he said the other day.
Azerbaijan is also active on its path to NATO. Azerbaijani officers
have attended the NATO Peacekeeping Operations courses. The exercise
took place in Oberammergau, a town in Georgia, within the framework
of NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program. The Best Effort exercise
will be organized in Azerbaijan this summer under NATO’s aegis.
Still, Azerbaijan is several steps behind Ukraine and Georgia on
its path to NATO, and membership is out of the question for the
time being. Judging by the West’s efforts, however, the situation
may change soon. A special agreement on closer contacts between NATO
and the government of Azerbaijan will be signed during the Istanbul
summit. Observers in Azerbaijan are apprehensive that this may have
a negative impact on Azerbaijan’s relations with Moscow. They point
out that the declaration signed by the governments of Russia and
Azerbaijan during President Ilham Aliyev’s recent visit to Moscow
states that cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan must not
be directed against any other country. If things sour, however,
official Baku could use its most convincing argument in the dialogue
with Moscow. Azerbaijan itself is annoyed by the presence of Russian
military bases in Armenia, just like Moscow may be frustrated by the
activization of Baku’s relations with NATO.

ANSA
ANSA English Media Service
June 8, 2004
ART: CRYING ARMENIAN STONES IN VENICE
VENICE
(ANSA) – VENICE, June 8 – A documentary exhibition offering a journey
among the crying stones of Armenia, as poet Osip Mandelstam (1891-1938)
put it, will be held in the UNESCO Zorzi Palace in Venice between
June 8 and July 2, 2004.
The event was organised by the Centre for Documentary Research of
Armenian Culture CSDCA, the Unesco Venice-based Regional Bureau for
Science in Europe ROSTE and the Department for Eurasian Studies at
the Ca Foscari University.
The suggestive images shown in the exhibition illustrate in detail
a number of projects aimed at preserving and restoring Armenian
cultural heritage which have been already completed or are underway
in the country.
“The Armenian heritage is not only architectural, it is representative
of the Armenian culture in the broad sense of the term,” said Francis
Childe, Chief of the Asia/Pacific and Europe Section of UNESCO’s
Cultural Heritage Division.
The restoration works were carried out by Italian experts using
ancient techniques which also helped revive the local crafts sector.
The exhibition is divided into six sections which reconstruct the
historic and geographic context of the Armenian culture, show some of
the most famous examples of Armenian architecture, focus on important
construction techniques and preservation problems and deal with the
country’s efforts to document and preserve its cultural heritage and
also to encourage the development of local communities.
The last section is dedicated to the Armenian community in Venice,
present from 1715 onwards. Contacts between Venetians and Armenians
date back to the establishment of Venice. (ANSA). (BZ/krc)

CENN — JUNE 9, 2004 DAILY DIGEST
Table of Contents:
1. Technip Expects to Get Contract for Shah Deniz Platform
2. Japan to Invest in Yerevan Power Plant
3. Yerevan Adamant In Delaying Metsamor Closure
4. Armenia Undecided on Closure of Nuclear Plant – Minister
5. With A Visit To Armenia’s Largest Dump, UNDP and The Ministry Of
Nature Protection Launch Environment Week
6. NGO Letter Protests Against Weakening of WB Standards fyi
7. EIA Report of the Project on “Processing of the Sand Deposit in
Khashuri Region” by “Progress-2″ Ltd
8. EIA Report of the Project on ” Project on Capture and Bottling of the
mineral spring in Tbilisi ” by “Progress-2” Ltd
9. The Internet Conference
1. TECHNIP EXPECTS TO GET CONTRACT FOR SHAH DENIZ PLATFORM
Source: Interfax, June 8, 2004
France’s Technip-Coflexip expects to win a contract to build a second
production platform under Stage-2 of the Shah Deniz gas field project,
stated company manager for the project Sterling Marshal.
“We hope to get the contract for the construction of the second
platform, but that all depends on the speed and quality of work on the
first platform. So far the work is on schedule. We expect the first
shipment of blocks for the platform in September from Singapore. All
construction work will be completed in January 2006,” he said.
Technip-Coflexip has signed two contracts worth $300 million under
Stage-1 of the Shah Deniz project. Once contract includes the design of
a TPG-500 offshore platform to be installed at the field, supply of
materials and equipment, the transport and set up of the platform at
sea, and the other is for the assembly of the platforms at a
construction site in Baku.
Keppel Fells is building the platform in Singapore. The platform will be
delivered in sections to Baku for assembly by Technip.
The contract to develop Shah Deniz field was signed in Baku in June 1996
and ratified by parliament in October of that year. BP is the operator
with a 25.5% share in the project, Statoil holds 25.5%, the State Oil
Company of the Azerbaijani Republic (SOCAR) has a 10% share, LukAgip has
a 10% share, NICO holds 10%, TotalFinaElf holds 10%, and Turkey’s TPAO
holds 9%.
The field holds an estimated 625 billion cubic meters of gas and 101
million tonnes of condensate.
Stage-1 includes the production of 178 billion cubic meters of gas and
34 million tonnes of condensate. Production in later stages is planned
at about 16 billion cubic meters of gas a year.
2. JAPAN TO INVEST IN YEREVAN POWER PLANT
Source: Interfax, June 8, 2004
The Japanese government plans to invest $4.5 million in the construction
of a thermal power plant in Yerevan with a capacity of 1.5 megawatts
based on a waste incineration plant, Armenian Natural Resource Minister
Vardan Aivazyan told journalists on Monday.
He said that the ministry has approved the construction of the plant and
thermal power plant at the Nurabshen dump, which covers an area of over
60 hectares. Talks are currently underway between a potential
subcontractor for the project – Japan’s Shimizu – and the Yerevan
Mayor’s Office.
Aivazyan said that the project would involve the use of up to 800 – 900
cubic meters of rubbish per day to produce methane to be used in
electricity production.
The minister said that recently Armenia set an output tariff for
electricity produced from burning biogas of $0.08 per 1 kWh. The
investor is happy with this tariff.
He said that the talks should be completed by September 10, after which
construction should begin.
Diana Arutyunyan, the national coordinator of the project, told Interfax
that the Japanese state company New Energy and Industrial Technology
Organization plans to finance the project.
She said that Shimizu has already completed the first stage of work on
an audit and preparation of a feasibility study. She also said that the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is interested in this
project.
Electricity production in Armenia fell 0.29% to 5.5 billion kWh in 2003.
3. YEREVAN ADAMANT IN DELAYING METSAMOR CLOSURE
Source: Radio Free Europe, June 8, 2004
The Armenian government remains determined not to close the Metsamor
nuclear power plant in the near future and reaffirmed this position
during talks with senior officials from the European Union last week,
Industry Minister Karen Chshmaritian said on Tuesday.
Chshmaritian headed a delegation of government officials who represented
Yerevan at a regular meeting of an Armenia-EU “cooperation committee”
which took place in Brussels on Friday. The issue of Metsamor’s future
was high on its agenda. “The European side wants Armenia to set a date
[for Metsamor’s closure],” Chshmaritian told a news conference.
“However, Armenia can not set a date without having financing resources
[to replace the facility] and clarifying the entire procedure for the
closure.”
The EU has long been arguing that the plant is located in a seismically
active area and that its Soviet-built nuclear reactor does not meet
modern safety standards. The bloc’s executive European Commission has
offered to grant Armenia 100 million euros ($123 million) in return for
the decommissioning of the plant which generates about 40 percent of the
country’s electricity.
Chshmaritian reiterated Yerevan’s rejection of the offer, saying that as
much as $1 billion is needed for safely shutting down Metsamor safely
and putting in place an alternative source of inexpensive energy. “The
Energy Ministry presented its calculations [to the EU], according to
which the total cost of the work would be worth that much,” he said. He
added the Armenia-EU body decided to set up a working group that will
look into the issue in detail and present its findings by the end of
this year.
The government wants to keep Metsamor operational for at least another
decade despite its past promise to the EU to decommission the plant in
2004. The European Commission now seems to be stepping up pressure on
Yerevan to do that as soon as possible in line with its policy of
phasing out all Soviet-designed reactors remaining in Eastern Europe.
Still, an EU spokeswoman in Brussels told RFE/RL last week that the bloc
will continue to finance further measures to improve Metsamor’s
operational safety “up to its closure.”
4. ARMENIA UNDECIDED ON CLOSURE OF NUCLEAR PLANT – MINISTER
Source: Mediamax News Agency, June 8, 2004
Armenia will not name the precise date for the closure of the Armenian
Nuclear Power Station until all technical and financial issues are
clarified, Armenian Minister of Trade and Economic Development Karen
Chshmarityan said in Yerevan today.
He said this issue was discussed during the fifth session of the
Armenia-EU cooperation committee in Brussels on 4 June. The minister
stressed that representatives of the European Union expressed their
readiness again to allocate 100m euros to Armenia if a decision is made
to close down the Nuclear Power Station.
Karen Chshmarityan stated that the closure of the Nuclear Power Station
is a complicated process linked to technical difficulties. The minister
pointed out that according to preliminary estimations, 1bn dollars will
be required for providing Armenia with alternative sources of energy.
5. WITH A VISIT TO ARMENIA’S LARGEST DUMP, UNDP AND THE MINISTRY OF
NATURE PROTECTION LAUNCH ENVIRONMENT WEEK
United Nations Development Programme Country Office in Armenia
14, Karl Liebknecht Street, Yerevan 375010, Armenia
Contact: Aramazd Ghalamkaryan
Tel: (374 1) 56 60 73
Fax: (374 1) 54 38 11
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
UNDP COUNTRY OFFICE IN ARMENIA
June 7, 2004
Yerevan, Armenia
Today, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Ministry
of Nature Protection officially marked World Environment Day by
organizing a media event in the country’s largest waste disposal site in
Nubarashen, near Yerevan. In close cooperation with UN Agencies and
local and international organizations, UNDP and the Ministry of Nature
Protection jointly initiated Environment Week, an advocacy campaign
aimed at raising public awareness on environmental issues. Mr. Vardan
Ayvazyan, Minister of Nature Protection, Ms. Lise Grande, UN Resident
Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative, representatives of the
Government, civil society and the mass media participated in the event.
Nubarashen waste disposal site receives almost all the solid waste
produced in Yerevan city and suburbs. As much as 340 tones per day, or
102,000 tones per year, is deposited in the site. Most of the waste in
Nubarashen is domestically produced by the approximately 1,280,000 who
live in these areas. Industrial waste accounts for only a small
proportion. Large quantities of landfill gas, mainly methane gas, are
produced by the waste and discharged into the atmosphere without being
fully utilized.
According to Ms. Grande: “It is very fortunate that Armenia has achieved
high rates of economic growth in the last decade. At this stage in the
country’s transition, is it critically important to focus on the
environmental aspects of economic growth. The sustainable management of
natural resources and a clean environment are key to the country’s
medium and long-term development. If the environment is destroyed or
damaged, the country will suffer. UNDP is currently one of the major
donors in the area of nature protection and we are confident that our
partnership with Government authorities and the civil society will help
to ensure a healthy environment for a healthy people.”
Background: Armenia has acceded to a number of international treaties
and conventions focused on the environment. UNDP’s National Capacities
Self-Assessment (NCSA) project aims to support the Government in
identifying gaps in meeting the requirements of these global
conventions. The goal of Environment Week, a joint advocacy initiative
of UNDP Armenia and the Ministry of Nature Protection, is to: promote
environmental activities at the community level; raise public awareness
of ongoing initiatives in the area of nature protection; highlight
existing environmental issues; and initiate a public debate on the
linkages between human development and nature protection. Environment
Week also aims to bring together major actors in nature protection and
help find solutions to very urgent and important environmental problems
facing the country and the whole Transcaucasian region.
UNDP is the UN’s global development network. It advocates for change and
connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people
build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with
them on their own solutions to global and national development
challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of
UNDP and our wide range of partners.
Aramazd Ghalamkaryan
Information and Resource Mobilisation Associate/
Support to UN Resident Coordinator
UNDP/UN Armenia
14 Karl Liebknecht St., Yerevan, 375010, Armenia
Tel: +3741 56 60 73 + 121
Mob: +3749 43 63 12
Fax: +3741 54 38 11
URLs: ;
6. NGO LETTER PROTESTS AGAINST WEAKENING OF WB STANDARDS FYI
The following letter was sent to the World Bank’s Board of Directors
today. It protests against the weakening of social and environmental
standards through the Bank’s proposed middle-income country strategy,
and requests that a Mexican pilot project for the new strategy not be
approved as long as there is no agreement about the overall strategy.
The letter was endorsed by 186 NGOs from 60 countries at short notice. A
clear majority of the signatories is from borrowing countries.
Peter Bosshard, IRN
International NGO letter to the World Bank Board of Directors:
International Rivers Network (USA)
Centro de Investigaciones EconÑmicas yPolÌticas de AcciÑn (Mexico)
Manthan Adhyayan Kendra (India)
CEE Bankwatch Network (Georgia)
Kalpavriksh (India)
African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (Nigeria)
June 7, 2004
International civil society letter regarding the World Bank’s safeguard
policies
International Standards for International Projects
Dear Executive Director,
Civil society groups in the South and North are concerned about proposed
measures that would weaken the social and environmental standards
applied in World Bank projects. The following letter expresses concerns
of 186 organizations from 60 countries. A clear majority of the
signatories are NGOs from borrowing countries.
Our letter responds to the Bank’s proposed new middle-income country
strategy (MIC strategy), and the pilot project in Mexico that has been
submitted to the Board. The MIC strategy proposes that future World Bank
projects in many countries rely on national social and environmental
standards rather than the Bank’s own safeguard policies. The strategy
also proposes that in such projects, the role of the Inspection Panel
will be linked to national standards rather than the Bank’s safeguard
policies. The World Bank argues that these measures would “remove
obstacles to timely quality lending”. (For a detailed critique of the
proposed MIC strategy, see International Rivers Network, The World
Bank’s Safeguard Policies Under Pressure, May 2004, available at:
<;; Civil society groups express the following concerns regarding the proposed changes: § Compliance with national and World Bank standards: It is self-evident that all World Bank projects should comply with the national standards of borrowing countries. We support a strengthening of national social and environmental standards and capacities. But being an international institution with a development mandate, the World Bank must also comply with its own safeguard policies. Ultimately, we believe that all policies of the World Bank, other international financial institutions and governments should reflect the international environmental and human rights standards that governments - i.e., the members of the World Bank - have established through the framework of the United Nations. § Confusion about applicable standards: The World Bank expects national standards to be 'equivalent' to its own safeguard policies. It is not at all clear what this means in practice. The Bank is currently preparing the Decentralized Infrastructure Reform and Development Project (DIRD project) in the state of Guanajuato/Mexico as a first pilot project for the reliance on national standards. The project would bring about a significant weakening of applicable standards. Its components may cause involuntary resettlement. Yet neither Mexico nor the state of Guanajuato have resettlement laws. The World Bank and the borrower have instead prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) that is supposed to reflect the 'spirit of Bank safeguard policies'. What can affected communities do if the DIRD project violates the World Bank's Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12), but not Mexican laws and the ESMF? § Access to information: Several safeguard policies require the World Bank to provide civil society with timely access to important project documents. Examples are Environmental Assessments under OP 4.01, and instruments such as the Resettlement Plans under OP 4.12. It is unclear where civil society could get access to such documents when future projects rely on national standards rather than the Bank's safeguard policies. § Role of the Inspection Panel: In most countries, governments can be legally and politically held accountable for the projects that they implement through the judicial system and through elections. The only mechanism through which affected people can hold the World Bank accountable is the Inspection Panel. The Panel was created to investigate the role of the World Bank, and not governments, in projects that harm local communities. It is questionable whether national governments would indeed allow their actions to be investigated by an international body such as the Inspection Panel. The role of the Panel would be significantly weakened in the proposed Mexico pilot project. For the Panel to remain effective, it must continue to hold the World Bank accountable, and its point of reference must continue to be the World Bank's safeguard policies, not national standards and procedures. § Need for strengthening social and environmental standards: The experience of affected communities, World Bank evaluations and Inspection Panel investigations all document that the World Bank's safeguard policies must be strengthened and more strictly supervised and complied with. This has been confirmed by the report of the Extractive Industries Review. It will also be important to strengthen the role of the Inspection Panel in the follow-up to its investigations. We welcome the recommendations of the EIR, and the measures that private banks and export credit agencies have recently taken to strengthen their own standards. Many of these standards are still inadequate, and are often not implemented in practice. The process of strengthening the social and environmental standards of financial institutions must therefore continue. It is worrying that the World Bank management intends to undermine this trend by shying away from complying with international standards in Bank projects. § Administrative burden: The administrative inconsistencies of the procedures of international financial institutions create an unnecessary cost and burden for borrowing governments. The MIC strategy does not resolve this problem. It proposes that national standards be analyzed and certified regarding their equivalence with World Bank standards. Subjecting national standards to international certification could create additional costs and delays. In the case of the Mexico pilot project, the borrower for example had to prepare, and will need to comply with, a new Environmental and Social Management Framework, in addition to national laws and state regulations. While we support an administrative harmonization of lending procedures, we are opposed to any 'harmonization' process that will weaken social and environmental standards but will not create any real administrative benefits for borrowers. In conclusion, we support a strengthening of national social and environmental standards and capacities, but will oppose any measures that will weaken the World Bank's safeguard policies, and the accountability of the Bank regarding compliance with these policies. We strongly recommend that the Board of Directors postpone a discussion of the Mexico pilot project until it has had the opportunity to discuss a revised version of the MIC strategy. The existing safeguard policies have been adopted based on extensive consultation with international civil society. Any proposed changes that affect these policies should therefore be made public for meaningful discussions by civil society before they are presented to the Board of Directors. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Yours sincerely, Peter Bosshard, International Rivers Network, USA Gustavo Castro Soto, Centro de Investigaciones EconÑmicas y PolÌticas de AcciÑn Comunitaria (CIEPAC), Mexico Shripad Dharmadhikary, Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, India Manana Kochladze, CEE Bankwatch Network, Georgia Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh, India David Ugulor, African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (ANEEJ), Nigeria cc. James D. Wolfensohn, President, The World Bank This letter has been endorsed by the following groups and individuals: Endorsements from national and international NGOs: Jorge Carpio, Foro de Participacion Ciudadana (FOCO), Argentina Elba Stancich, Taller Ecologista, Argentina Kate Walsh, AidWatch, Australia Paul Bourke, Australia Tibet Council, Australia Cam Walker, Friends of the Earth Australia Elfriede Schachner, AGEZ - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, Austria Hildegard Wipfel, Koordinierungsstelle der Oesterreichischen Bischofskonferenz fuer internationale Entwicklung und Mission (KOO), Austria Zakir Kibria, BanglaPraxis, Bangladesh Arup Rahee, LOKOJ, Bangladesh Saskia Ozinga, FERN, Belgium Elisangela Paim, Amigos da Terra, Friends of the Earth Brazil Marcus Faro de Castro, Rede Brasil sobre Instituicoes Financeiras Multilaterais, Brazil Alcides Faria, Rios Vivos Coalition, Brazil Petko Kovatchec, Center for Environmental Information and Education (CEIE), Bulgaria Anelia Stefanova, Za Zemiata, Bulgaria Akong Charles Ndika, Global Village Cameroon Graham Saul, Friends of the Earth Canada Ian Baird, Global Association for People and Environment, Canada Michael Bassett, Halifax Initiative, Canada Juan Pablo Orrego, Alianza AysÈn Reserva de Vida, Chile Jenia Jofre, CODEFF (Comite Nacional pro Defensa de la Folra y Fauna), Chile Peter Hartmann, Comite Ciudadano por la Defensa de Aisen Reserva de Vida,Chile Cristian Opaso, Grupo de Accion por el Biobio (GABB), Chile Yu Xiaogang, Green Watershed, China Margarita FlÑrez, Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales (ILSA), Colombia Maria Cristina Umbarila, Fundacion Nueva Republica, Colombia Betsy Mayelis Romaßa BlandÑn, Red Nacional de Mujeres Afrocolombianas KambirÌ, olombia MarÌa Elena Unigarro Coral, Taller Abierto Cali, Colombia Manuel LÑpez & Isaac Rojas, COECOCEIBA - Amigos de la Tierra Costa Rica Klara Sutlovicova, Center for Transport and Energy, Czech Republic Pavel Pribyl, Hnuti Duha, Czech Republic Carlos Zorrilla, DECOIN, Ecuador Ricardo Navarro, CESTA - Friends of the Earth El Salvador Peep Mardiste, Friends of the Earth Estonia Tove Selin, Finnish ECA Reform Campaign, Finland SÈbastien Fourmy, Agir ici, France SÈbastien Godinot, Les Amis de la Terre, Friends of the Earth France Sharon Courtoux, Survie, France Annie Girard, RÈseau Foi & Justice Afrique-Europe, France Sophiko Akhobadze, Black Sea EcoAcademy, Georgia Nino Gujaraidze, Green Alternative, Georgia Keti Dgebuadze, International Information Center of Social Reforms, Georgia Kakha Nadiradze, World Youth Bank Network Georgia Dorothy-Grace Guerrero, Asienhaus, Germany Martin Gueck, KAIROS Europa, Germany Tsewang Norbu, Tibet Initiative Deutschland, Germany Knud Voecking, Urgewald, Germany Carole Werner, World Economy, Ecology and Development (WEED), Germany Richard Koranteng Twum Barimah, Volta Basin Development Foundation, Ghana uefa fifa Arni Finsson, Iceland Nature Conservation Association, Iceland Birsingh Sinku, B.I.R.S.A. Human Rights & Training Center, India Justin Imam, B.I.R.S.A. Mines Monitoring Center, India Bina Stanis, Chotanagpur Adivasi Sewa Samiti, India Roy Laifungbam, CORE (Centre for Organisation Research & Education), India Ramamurthi Sreedhar, Environics Trust, India Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group, India Bulu Imam, INTACH, India Alok Agarwal, Jan Sangharsh Morcha, India Sushil Barla, Jharkhand Mines Area Coordination Committee (JMACC), India Smitu Kothari, Lokayan, India Ravi Rebbapragada & Xavier Dias, mines,minerals & PEOPLE, India Medha Patkar & Chittaroopa Palit, Narmada Bachao Andolan, India Ajita Susan George, Oman Mahila Samiti, India Sanjai Bhatt, Pairvi, India A. Latha, River Research Centre, Chalakudy River Protection Council, India Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, India Malavika Vartak, South Asia Regional Programme, Habitat International Coalition, India Shanti Sawaiyan, Women & Mining Network, India Anggara, Bandung Legal Aid Institute, Indonesia Binny Buchori, International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID), Indonesia Gita Meidita, NADI - Natural Resource And Development Initiatives, Indonesia Laura Radiconcini, Amici della Terra, Friends of the Earth Italy Jaroslava Colajacomo, Reform the World Bank Campaign, Italy Yoshihito Miyakoshi, A SEED Japan Ikuko Matsumoto, Friends of the Earth Japan Yuki Tanabe, JACSES, Japan Satoru Matsumoto, Mekong Watch, Japan Kalia Moldogazieva, Tree of Life, Kyrgyz Republic Alda Ozola, Friends of the Earth Latvia Saulius Piksrys, Community Atgaja, Lithuania Ana Golovic, Ecosens, Macedonia Wong Meng Chuo, IDEAL (Institute for Development of Alternative Living), Malaysia Julian Manduca, Moviment ghall-Ambjent, Friends of the Earth Malta Arturo Morales Tirado, Sociedad Audubon de MÈxico, Guanajuato, MÈxico Jose Manuel Arias Rodriguez, AsociaciÑn Ecologica Santo TomÀs A.C., Mexico Susana Cruickshank, Equipo Pueblo, Mexico Rodolfo Chavez Galindo, Frente por los Derechos Economicos Socio-Ambientales yCulturales de los Pueblos, Mexico Fernando Melo, Trasparencia Sociedad Civil, Mexico Anabela Lemos, JustiÃa Ambiental, MoÃambique Daniel Ribeiro, Livaningo, MoÃambique Bertchen Kohrs, Earthlife Namibia Prabin Man Singh, Arun Concerned Group, Nepal Bed Prakash Bhattarai, Kali Gandaki A Affected Concerned Committee, Nepal Arun Kumar Shrestha, National Concerns Society, Nepal Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists (NEFEJ), Nepal Arjun Dhakal, Nepal Network for Sustaininable Development (NNSD), Nepal Roy Laifungbam, South Asian Solidarity for Rivers and Peoples (SARP), Nepal Gopal Siwakoti 'Chintan', Water and Energy Users' Federation-Nepal (WAFED), Nepal Filka Sekulova, A SEED Europe, Netherlands Johan Frijns, BankTrack, Netherlands Henneke Brink, Both Ends, Netherlands Ricardo Navarro & Janneke Bruil, Friends of the Earth International, Netherlands Donald Pols, Friends of the Earth Netherlands Gordon Abiama, Africa Centre for Geoclassical Economics, Nigeria George-Hill Anthony, Commonwealth of Niger Delta Youths, Nigeria Uche Igwe, Community Level Environmental Action Network (CLEAN Nigeria), Nigeria Aliyu Noma Usman, Dam Communities Coalition, Nigeria Bassey Ekpenyong, Initiative Development Network (IDN), Nigeria, Akpan Anthony Johnson, Pan African Vision for the Environment (PAVE), Nigeria Chibuzo Ekwekwuo, Public & Private Rights Watch, Nigeria Mimidoo Achakpa, womens right to education programme education programme, Nigeria Tonje Folkestad, FIVAS (Association for International Water and Forest Studies), Norway Muhammad Nauman, Creed Alliance, Pakistan Sarah Siddiqi, Karachi Administration Women Welfare Society (KAWWS), Pakistan Damien Ase, Center for Environmental Law and Community Rights/Friends of the Earth Papua New Guinea Jorge Urusoff, Coordinadora de Barrios Afectados por la Entidad Binacional YacyretÀ, Paraguay ElÌas DÌaz Peßa, Sobrevivencia, Friends of the Earth Paraguay Carlos Abanto, Asociacion Civil Labor - Amigos de la Tierra Peru Nilton Deza, Ecovida, Peru Joan Carling, Cordillera Peoples Alliance, Philippines Lidy B. Nacpil, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Clemente Bautista, Kalikasan-People's Network for the Environment,Philippines Leonor Briones, Social Watch Philippines Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation, Philippines/United Kingdom Andrzej Gula, Institute for Environmental Tax Reform, Poland Robert Cyglicki, Polish Green Net, Poland Piotr Dynowski, Polish-Tibetan Friendship Association, Poland Renato Roldao, EURONATURA - Centre for Environmental Law and Sustainable Development, Portugal Aboubacry Mbodj, Co-ordination for Senegal River Basin (CODESEN), Senegal Demba Moussa Dembele, Forum for African Alternatives, Senegal Rencontre Africaine pour la DÈfense des Droits de l'Homme (RADDHO), Senegal Peter Mihok, Center for Environmental Public Advocacy (CEPA), Slovak Republic Liane Greeff, Environmental Monitoring Group, South Africa Philip Owen, Geasphere, South Africa Gillian Addison, groundwork, South Africa Rosa Sala, Intermon Oxfam, Spain Hemantha Withanage, Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka Sri Lankan Working Group on Trade and IFIs, Sri Lanka Penny Davies, Diakonia, Sweden GÆran Ek, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Sweden Christine Eberlein, Berne Declaration, Switzerland Sonja Ribi, Pro Natura - Friends of the Earth Switzerland Peter Niggli, Swiss Coalition of Development Organizations, Switzerland Caroline Morel, Swissaid, Switzerland Benedict Chacha Peter, Foundation HELP, Tanzania Prasittiporn Kan-onsri (Noi), Community University, Assembly of the Poor, Thailand Chana Maung & Carol Ransley, EarthRights International (Southeast Asia), Thailand Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the Global South, Thailand/India Chainarong Sretthachau, Southeast Asia Rivers, Thailand Sena Adessou, Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement, Togo Frank Muramuzi, National Association of Professional Environmentalists, Uganda O.C Afunaduula, Save Bujagali Crusade, Uganda Francis Kidega, Uganda Youth Network, Uganda Hannah Ellis, Friends of the Earth England, Wales & Northern Ireland Najib Afsar, Anti Mangla Dam Extension Action Committee, United Kingdom/Jammu Kashmir Jeff Powell, Bretton Woods Project, United Kingdom Nicholas Hildyard, Corner House, United Kingdom Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme, United Kingdom Geoff Nettleton, Indigenous Peoples Links, United Kingdom Richard Harkinson, Minewatch, United Kingdom Clare Joy, World Development Movement, United Kingdom Rick Rowden, ActionAid USA Bruce Jenkins, Bank Information Center, USA Beverly Bell, Center for Economic Justice, USA Nancy Alexander, Citizens' Network on Essential Services, USA Stephen Hellinger, The Development GAP, USA Payal Sampat, Earthworks/Mineral Policy Center, USA Bruce Rich, Environmental Defense, USA Jon Sohn, Friends of the Earth USA Paula Palmer, Global Response, USA Douglas Norlen, Pacific Environment, USA Wenonah Hauter, Public Citizen, USA Michael Brune, Rainforest Action Network, USA Douglas Hellinger, Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network (SAPRIN), USA Lhadon Thetong, Students for a Free Tibet, USA Daphne Wysham, Sustainable Energy & Economy Network, USA Robert Jacobs, Tibet Committee of Fairbanks, USA Tashi Tsering, Tibet Justice Center, USA Sonam Wangdu, U.S. Tibet Committee, USA Mark Dubois, WorldWise, USA Individual endorsements: Jeannie Martin, University of Western Sydney, Australia Geraldo Browne Ribeiro Filho, Brazil Prof. Jan Andersson, WestfÄlische Wilhelms-UniversitÄt MÝnster, Germany Susan George, Author and Associate Director, Transnational Institute, France Heidi Hawkins, University of Cape Town, South Africa John Riggs, South Africa Prof. Angana Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies, USA Prof. Jonathan Fox, University of California, USA Arif Gamal, USA/Sudan Rafael Friedmann, USA 7. EIA REPORT OF THE PROJECT ON "PROCESSING OF THE SAND DEPOSIT IN KHASHURI REGION" BY "PROGRESS-2" LTD Source: "Sakartvelos Respublica" ("Republic of Georgia"), June 3, 2004 In accordance with the Georgian legislation, "Progress-2" Ltd. submitted EIA report to the Ministry of Environment of Georgia to obtain an environmental permit for the activity of second category – Processing of the Sand Deposit in Khashuri Region. EIA report is available at the press-center of the Ministry of Environment (68, Kostava str., VI floor) and at the Department of Environmental Permits and State Ecological Expertise (87, Paliashvili Str., Tel: 25 02 19). Interested stakeholders can analyze the document and present their comments and considerations until July 27, 2004. Public hearing will be held on July 27, 2004 at 12:00, at the conference hall of the Ministry of Environment. 8. EIA REPORT OF THE PROJECT ON " PROJECT ON CAPTURE AND BOTTLING OF THE MINERAL SPRING IN TBILISI " BY "PROGRESS-2" LTD Source: "Sakartvelos Respublica" ("Republic of Georgia"), June 3, 2004 In accordance with the Georgian legislation, entrepreneur Bagrat Mezurnishvili – Black Georgia submitted EIA report to the Ministry of Environment of Georgia to obtain an environmental permit for the activity of second category – Project on Capture and Bottling of the Mineral Spring in Tbilisi. EIA report is available at the press-center of the Ministry of Environment (68, Kostava str., VI floor) and at the Department of Environmental Permits and State Ecological Expertise (87, Paliashvili Str., Tel: 25 02 19). Interested stakeholders can analyze the document and present their comments and considerations until July 27, 2004. Public hearing will be held on July 27, 2004 at 12:00, at the conference hall of the Ministry of Environment. 9. THE INTERNET CONFERENCE Dear colleague, As you might know the development of the "Georgian Business Code of Conduct" within the Business Ethics Program is coming to an end. On June 7 2004, under the same program we started up the web conference on the topic: "Georgian Business Code of Conduct Implementation" on The Internet Conference will discuss the issues of the implementation of Georgian Business Code of Conduct in Georgia. The program of seminars will be announced for the businesses. Those organizations and/or individuals who have websites can provide information support of the web conference. More detailed information you can find here: ;act=ST&f=7&t=56. Please note, we have now 32 supporters. So you and your colleagues can visit the website, register and take part in the discussions. With respect, Tariel Zivzivadze Business Ethics Program Director - AmCham Georgia Tel: +995 77 73 79 64; Mail: [email protected]; Web: -- ******************************************* CENN INFO Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN) Tel: ++995 32 92 39 46 Fax: ++995 32 92 39 47 E-mail: [email protected] URL:

Armenia cannot rival Azerbaijan in economy – Azeri leader
MPA news agency
9 Jun 04
Baku, 9 June: “The world considers Armenia to be an aggressor. Having
such a title in the 21st century does not do anyone credit,”
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said during his meeting on
8 June with refugees and displaced people in Mingacevir western
Azerbaijan. Armenia is unable to rival Azerbaijan in the economic or
other spheres, he said.
“The resolution of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict is possible only
within the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. If the
peace negotiations fail, Baku will resort to other means to liberate
its lands,” Aliyev said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri expert urges policy of tiring Armenia out in “information war”
MPA news agency
9 Jun 04
Baku, 9 June: “Azerbaijan has to unleash an information war against
Armenia and stop the talks with Yerevan,” the head of the Centre for
Political Innovations and Technologies, Mubariz Ahmadoglu, has told
MPA news agency in an interview. In his view, Armenia’s penetration
of Azerbaijan’s airwaves is a deliberate step and Azerbaijan must
take appropriate measures. It is necessary to install more powerful
transmitters in border districts and to try to destroy Armenia’s
airwaves.
The political expert thinks that as an economically strong country,
Azerbaijan should apply a policy of tiring them out, which was used
by the West to destroy the Soviet Union’s economy through the arms
race. Due to its economic weakness, Armenia will not be able to stand
the information war for long. As a result, Baku will not only score a
victory on the information front, but will also gain a psychological
advantage and force Yerevan to negotiate.

AZERBAIJAN SENDS PROTEST TO FRANCE OVER KARABAKH LEADER’S VISIT
ANS TV, Baku
9 Jun 04
(Presenter) Azerbaijan has sent a protest note to France. The reason
for this step by the Baku government is a visit to France by the leader
of the Armenian community of Nagornyy Karabakh, Arkadiy Gukasyan, to
attend cultural events to mark the 10th anniversary of the cease-fire
in the first Karabakh war.
(Reporter) The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry has sent a protest note to
the French Foreign Ministry. The head of the ministry’s press service,
Matin Mirza, said that the reason for this step was a visit to France
by the leader of the Armenian community of Nagornyy Karabakh, Arkadiy
Gukasyan. Matin Mirza also said that Gukasyan’s French tour could
not be regarded as an official visit.
(Matin Mirza) Gukasyan was invited to France by the Armenian
Association of France. As was the case earlier, the Foreign Ministry
has investigated so-called visits more than once. As a result, it
transpired that in general, no representative of the separatist regime
has ever paid an official visit abroad, and those were private visits.
(Reporter) Matin Mirza believes that Gukasyan has gone to France
to raise money. His visit cannot be explained otherwise. He himself
admitted at a meeting with (OSCE envoy for Karabakh Goran) Lennmarker
that no country was rendering financial assistance to the unrecognized
regime of Nagornyy Karabakh. It seems that the goal of Gukasyan’s
visit to France is to get financial assistance for the separatist
regime, end quote.
Matin Mirza also commented on the forthcoming municipal elections
of Nagornyy Karabakh’s Armenian community on our occupied lands on
8 August. He said that as a result of persistent interventions and
contacts established by the Foreign Ministry, no elections held
by Nagornyy Karabakh separatists so far have been internationally
recognized. Matin Mirza is still optimistic.
(Matin Mirza) In this connection, the Foreign Ministry and our
diplomatic channels have already contacted international organizations
and held consultations with them. We are confident that as was the case
in previous years, this time again both international organizations
and world countries will condemn any elections held in the self-styled
Nagornyy Karabakh republic.
(Reporter) The Foreign Ministry spokesman said that no official foreign
observers would monitor the forthcoming municipal elections in Nagornyy
Karabakh, which is Azerbaijani territory. Those who will monitor the
so-called elections are Armenians who once moved abroad, end quote.

ARMENIAN KURDS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST TURKEY IF OCALAN TRIAL IS “UNFAIR”
Noyan Tapan news agency
9 Jun 04
Yerevan, 9 June: Hundreds of thousands of Kurds will organize mass
actions in various European countries, particularly in France, on 9
June to protect their leader Abdullah Ocalan (leader of the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party – PKK) , the head of the Caucasus representative
office of the Assembly of the People of Kurdistan (former KADEK –
the Congress for Freedom and Democracy in Kurdistan – successor to
the PKK), Geydar Ali, has told a news conference in Yerevan.
He said that in doing so, the Kurds hoped to draw the world community’s
attention to Ocalan’s trial to be held on that day in the European
Court on Human Rights and to achieve a fair verdict.
According to Geydar Ali, if the trial is unfair, the Kurdish-Turkish
clashes will continue, especially as the second congress of the
Assembly of the People of Kurdistan held in northern Iraq on 13-26
May made a decision to suspend the unilateral truce.
Geydar Ali said that the unilateral truce and peace policy declared
by the Kurdish people failed to persuade Turkey and involve this
country in talks: “Turkey does not understand the language of consent
and democracy, that is why the second congress decided to respond to
Turkish attacks with serious counter-attacks”.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Nuclear Power: Europe’s new concern about Metsamor
Armenianow.com
10 June 2004
Special from Caucasus Media Institute
The European Union will allocate 100 million Euro to Armenia for
interrupting the exploitation of the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant
and searching for new energy sources. However, the grant was frozen
and will not be allotted unless the Armenian government announces
the precise term for closing the plant.
Metsamor Power Plant from the South-East..
Resistance to the Europeans’ demand was decisive: Armenian experts and
the representatives of state structures express radically different
opinions. The Armenian government declares that some 800 million Euro
is necessary to close Metsamor and for other relevant arrangements,
as well as for developing alternative energy systems.
The first block of the Armenian power plant was launched December 22,
1976; the second started January 5, 1980. It was built by a project of
first generation plants. Under ecological pressure that strengthened
in 1988, the two blocks of the plant were stopped the following
winter. The 1988 strong earthquake of Spitak that killed tens of
thousands turned out a decisive factor. In 1988-1992 the republic
literally plunged into darkness, and, by the government’s decision,
the plant restarted in 1995. The power project envisages 30 years of
exploitation. Then why is Europe in a hurry? What’s the ground for
the unrest?
“We think that no nuclear power plant must be in a seismic zone as
it is dangerous for the region as a whole. There are also technical
reasons because that plant is an old generation construction and
does not comply with contemporary standards,” says Alexis Loeber, EU
Armenia Office director. According to European experts, the Armenian
plant is one of such dangerous constructions throughout the world.
The probability of repeating earthquakes in the same territory is
a truth seismology recognizes. The settlement and the temple of
Garni situated not far from the power plant are historically known
to have suffered from a mighty earthquake that ruined them. “Those
seismic risks that are considered today in Armenia are not that
dangerous. But geological events are a complicated processes. There
can be an earthquake that occurs once 20-30 years; it is impossible
to guarantee anything,” acknowledges Alvaro Antonian, head of the
Armenian national service of seismic protection.
According to Areg Galstian, Armenian deputy minister of energy,
the reactor of the Metsamor plant is the modernized and stable
version of the Russian, Bulgarian and Slovakian reactors of the same
generation. The security systems were strengthened before the restart,
taking account Armenia’s peculiarities.
Charles Dunlop, an expert from the American University of Armenia,
says that the second reason for closing the Metsamor plant is that the
reactor is not in line with contemporary standards although American
and European donor organizations have allotted around $50 million to
solve that problem. The reactor of the Armenian power plant has no
concrete protecting layer, which would keep the stream of exhaustion
from polluting the atmosphere. But, Konstantin Pyuskulian, deputy
director of the plant’s security department, says that today it is
both financially and technically impossible to construct a concrete
protecting layer for the Armenian plant.
Alvaro Antonyan Head of National Seismic Center.. There’s also
another perplexing circumstance: the nuclear fuel is imported to
Armenia from Russia via air. In terms of the economic blockade, this
is the only way of transporting the product. “It is the same as a
flying potential nuclear bomb. This is a way practiced nowhere else
all over the world. The fuel is generally transported either via sea
or by railway,” says Alexis Loeber. “Even if the airplane crashes,
there will be less damage than the air pollution in case of using
a bomb with depleted uranium,” confidently says, Armen Saghatelian,
director of the Center for Ecological Studies.
The Metsamor plant currently generates 1/3 of the energy consumed
in Armenia.
“The closing of the plant for Armenia will signify a return to the
darkness of 1988-1992,” says Galstian and, at the same time, adds
that if the plant gets closed, Armenia will have to depend on the
only gas pipeline, the technical state of which is not very good.
The construction of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline may be a good
incentive for developing thermal power plants. But this, too,
according to the Armenian official, is not a complete alternative to
the nuclear power plant. “We never say ‘no’, we say ‘yes’, we will
shut down the Metsamor plant but we must have alternative sources and
capacities.” According to him, if everything takes its normal course,
the Metsamor plant will close in 2016.
And if the dialogue between the European Union and Armenia on the issue
of closing the plant does eventually take place then the closing will
be no earlier than 5 years following the decision made. About this
much time is necessary to create capacities partially alternative to
the Metsamor plant.

At Risk in Metsamor?: Living in the shadow of reactors
Armenianow.com
10 June 2004
Special from Caucasus Media Institute
Parallel to the construction of the nuclear power plant in the
1970-80s, the town of Metsamor was established some three to four
kilometers from the plant. People from almost all the regions of
Armenia fled to the town to settle down here. They built families,
had children and worked at the power plant.
Sanosyan Artavazd 90 years old (in center), resident of Metsamor..
But after the plant closed in 1989, the people of Metsamor lost their
jobs and didn’t start working again until late 1995, when construction
of the plant restarted.
Today only 20% of the population of Metsamor works at the plant. Many
people in the town are pleased that the plant that is their only hope
does function, while others are unhappy with that very fact.
“It poisons us. And if we get an instrument measuring the dose and
install somewhere in the town, we’ll see that we are living in poison,
but who cares, we have to,” says Rafik Mkhitaryan, a 70-year-old
resident of Metsamor.
“We, Armenians, to put it relatively, are among the smart nations of
the region,” says Artavazd Sanosyan, a man in his 90s, whose two sons,
a daughter and two grandchildren work at the power plant.
“If they tell me that the nuclear power plant is safe and secure,
I trust them,” he says. “If the plant shuts down, this town will
exist no more. This is the only working place that feeds us.”
Karapet Manukyan, 74, has been working at the plant for almost two
decades and has never felt any change in his health condition. Nor
has he ever had a medical examination to learn whether the work at
plant has affected his health.
“The plant functions fine, it is protected, and we haven’t felt that
it may damage our health,” says Manukyan.
Rafik Mkhitaryan has been working as a brigade leader of the group
digging pits for the two reactors of the plant since February 4, 1970.
Rafik Mkhitaryan 76 years old (third from the left). “When the plant
was ready for exploitation, the minister of electric networks of the
USSR, Grigoriants, said that the term is 28 years, and there ‘s no
right to exploit it even a day past the deadline,” says Mkhitaryan. He
assures that now the scientists check up the plant once a year and
extend the term by two-three years, which is not right.
“We are very much afraid but there are people that prolong the life of
the plant to amass wealth. The structure at present is decayed. They
are also afraid to go on building it but, nevertheless, they do for
filling their pockets. Though I am not smart enough for it but I find
that if the deadline has expired, then it’s necessary to stop it so
that our nation doesn’t get into big trouble,” he says.
The mother of two children, Gohar Bezprozvanikh also fears for herself
and her kids and does not think the plant is secure.
“Earthquakes take place and that is already dangerous. On the
other hand, we have no other source for work or energy, so it is as
impossible to close
it,” says Gohar.
Some in the town say the plant causes certain illness and birth
defects.
They suggest that, in exchange for the risk, residents of Metsamor
should get their power for free.
“This will compensate the risk of living here,” Mkhitaryan said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Alternatives: Is Armenia’s energy future blowing in the wind?
ArmeniaNow.com
10 June 2004
Special from Caucasus Media Institute
If Armenia’s nuclear power plant at Metsamor should shut down, the
Solaren company is ready to let the wind take over.
“According to the map of wind energy industry of Armenia, today
there is a great wind energy potential in the republic,” says head
of Solaren’s wind energy programs Artur Lalayan.
Reserves surveys show a potential of 400-450 megawatts of wind
energy in Armenia, about one-third of the total energy produced by
the nuclear power station.
For the present moment there are no wind power stations in Armenia,
however, two projects will be implemented within next three years.
According to Lalayan, in the end of 2005 the first two-megawatt wind
power station with capacity of annual 5 million kilowatt-hour capacity
will start functioning in the Pushkin mountain pass. It is constructed
with money from an Iranian-funded grant. Another wind power station
will be ready in three years. This 20-megawatt station is constructed
on the Sotki mountain pass (Vardenis) and will be annually producing
60 million kilowatts per hour.
Solaren believes Armenian winds are sufficient for developing wind
energy industry; only the seasonal nature of getting energy is one
of the program’s negative sides. Winds are stronger in Syunik and
Zangezor, Northern Regions of Sevan Lake, at the foot of Mt. Aragats,
and Karakhach.
Gas resources offer another energy alternative.
The governments of Armenia and Iran have recently signed Iran-Armenia
gas-transmission pipeline construction agreement. Fuel will be supplied
to a thermal power plant (under construction) with a capacity of 250
megawatts through that pipeline. In addition, programs of the European
Union foresee running small hydroelectric power stations of Armenia,
with a total capacity of 140 megawatts.
Small hydroelectric power stations are another source of alternative
electric energy. There are several dozens of them in Armenia. They
are mainly privatized. According to calculations, one kilowatt of
hydroelectric energy will cost seven cents. The potential of small
hydroelectric power stations is valued at approximately 300 megawatts
and production is equal to one billion kilowatts per hour of energy.
Today solar energy is also included in the energy budget of Armenia.
Executive director of Solaren, Victor Afyan says: “If we place solar
water heaters on the territory of 16 square kilometers then we will
satisfy demand for the energy of the whole county.”
The first solar water heaters have already been created here. They
correspond to all international standards and have necessary
documentation. The device costs about $300 and costs $400-600 to
install. But after installation, energy is self-created.
Solaren also tries to get energy from household gas. According to
Afyan, they installed a device with carrying capacity of 25 cubic
meters in Agrospasarkum livestock farm. By means of burning liquid
dung that device produces 20-30 cubic meters of gas. Dung is fermented
and as a result it produces gas. In its turn it burns out producing
electric energy. After burning, the waste is sold to villagers as
fertilizer material.
“If household gas devices are installed in such organizations
functioning in Armenia then it will become possible to get 900
megawatts of energy per hour,” explains Afyan.
According to the director, they are also working on introducing
legislative reforms which will lead to development of restorative
energy.
Solaren is sure it is not possible to shut down the nuclear power
station without having alternative energy sources. It is necessary to
have serious financial assets both for deactivation and detoxification
as well as for conducting construction works of devices producing
alternative energy sources. And even if there are such assets it can
take tens of years for getting and gaining energy using alternative
methods.