Category: News

Yerevan, 28 October 2026 – The Republic of Armenia, in its capacity as Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 Presidency, in partnership with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), launched a new initiative to accelerate global efforts to conserve and restore mountains and their related freshwater ecosystems that supply clean water, food and stable climates to over a billion people around the world. 

Mountains generate most of the planet’s freshwater, yet they remain among the least protected and least funded ecosystems on Earth, a gap that leaves both mountain communities and everyone living downstream increasingly exposed to water shortages, landslides, and the collapse of the natural systems they depend on.

Launched during the high-level segment of the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP17), as one of the four flagship initiatives of the COP17 Armenian Presidency, the “Yerevan Platform on Mountains and Related Freshwater Ecosystems” is designed to address this gap.

In collaboration with partners such as the Mountain Partnership, the Platform will bring together mountain countries and the downstream nations that rely on their water in a recurring dialogue to identify where support, funding and expertise are most needed. It will also serve as a mechanism to provide practical, targeted support where it is needed most, from safeguarding water supplies and restoring degraded habitats to supporting the communities who look after these landscapes.

Mountains support the livelihoods of around 1.2 billion people worldwide, including indigenous peoples and local communities. 25 of the world’s 36 biodiversity hotspots include critical mountain ecosystems that contain 85% of the world’s species of amphibians, birds, and mammals; yet only 19% of mountain areas are protected. Together with their related freshwater ecosystems, mountains constitute strategic natural infrastructures, serving as water towers and providing 55-60% of global annual freshwater flows. They provide numerous ecosystem services, including regulation of downstream water supply, reducing drought risk, supporting a variety of livelihoods, and holding cultural and ecological values that are extremely difficult or impossible to replace once lost.

“This flagship is personal for me and for every Armenian in this room. Our villages, our monasteries, our pastures and our history were built on slopes” said Hambardzoum Matevosyan, COP17 President-designate, Minister of Environment of the Republic of Armenia. “Healthy mountain ecosystems are essential for biodiversity, water security, agriculture and people’s livelihoods. Protecting mountains and their related freshwater ecosystems is therefore a shared priority that calls for stronger cooperation among countries and across sectors. Success means ensuring mountains and freshwater appear not as a footnote, but as a priority, in national plans, in climate strategies and in national budgets.”

“Mountains are at the very crossroads of the three Rio Conventions: biodiversity, climate change and desertification. Yet too often, mountains have been treated as a footnote in global environmental agreements,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP. “The reality is what happens in mountains does not stay in the mountains. Mountains help regulate water availability, underpin food security, and sustain the livelihoods of more than a billion people living downstream. The Yerevan Platform will give mountain and downstream countries a seat at the table to ensure we protect these vital ecosystems by strengthening early-warning systems and preparedness in exposed communities. UNEP is proud to support Armenia’s leadership in this effort.”

“Mountain regions are a critical part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, reflected in Targets 2 and 3 which call for the protection, restoration and management of at least 30% of terrestrial ecosystems. Mountains, which host 25 of the world’s 36 biodiversity hotspots as well as rare species, constitute areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. They are vital for the communities who live among them, and countless others living downstream and nearby” said Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity. “As we reach the halfway point for the 2030 deadline to reach the Global Biodiversity Framework targets, the CBD is pleased to support the launch of the Yerevan Platform on Mountains and their Freshwater Ecosystems, offering a space for strengthened international cooperation and renewed momentum in support of mountain biodiversity.”

First-ever CBD COP dedicated Mountain Day

The launch followed a thematic Mountain Ecosystems Day at CBD COP17, convened by UNEP and the Mountain Partnership Secretariat and other partners, in collaboration with the COP17 Presidency, and the Government of Armenia. Participants from governments, UN agencies, research institutions, indigenous peoples’ organizations, pastoralist networks, youth movements and the finance community collectively took stock of the state of the world’s mountains and what it will take to protect them.

Across four sessions, participants reviewed the latest science on mountain biodiversity, explored how public, private and non-profit funders can invest in mountain ecosystems, heard directly from indigenous peoples, local communities, pastoralists and youth about their role in caring for mountain landscapes, and examined how regional initiatives, from the Alps and Carpathians to the Hindu Kush Himalaya, the Andes and the Caucasus, can be built on to protect mountains worldwide.

“Livestock mobility is how pastoralist communities adapt to climate variability. Mobility sustains our livelihoods and keeps rangelands in ecological balance. In extreme droughts, mountains give our herds pasture and water when the lowlands have none. Restrictions on movement and on access to ancestral land are dismantling these systems” said Basele Stephen Galgesa, Executive Director, Pastoralist Goals Foundation of Kenya. “We hope the Yerevan Platform will promote change to connect mountain and pastoralist communities, put indigenous knowledge at the centre of biodiversity and climate policy, and recognize our land rights and our right to move. In the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists, we remind the world that we are rights-holders and stewards of ecosystems, and our knowledge and practice build the resilience of mountain and rangeland ecosystems.”

The road ahead

Developing and launching this Platform is an important milestone ahead of the Bishkek +25 Second Global Mountain Summit which will convene world leaders from mountain regions, in October 2027. This Summit in Bishkek will be a timely opportunity, since the first Global Mountain Summit in 2002, to take stock about the major achievements towards protecting and restoring mountain ecosystems for critical biodiversity and community livelihoods, whilst identifying ongoing gaps in implementation.

Over the coming years, the Platform will be strengthened through regular high-level dialogues to be held alongside major biodiversity meetings to drive greater action for mountain biodiversity. Where resources allow, partners will also provide technical support in response to what countries ask for, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, so that help is matched to the real needs of different mountain regions. Progress will be reviewed, and an update will be presented at the next UN Biodiversity Conference (CBD COP18).

NOTES TO EDITORS

About the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

UNEP is the leading global voice on the environment. It provides leadership and encourages partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.

UNEP’s work on mountains includes flagship projects such as Vanishing Treasures, Adaptation At Altitude, The Central Asian Mammals and Climate Adaptation (CAMCA) project, Mountains ADAPT, and the UN Decade Multi-Country Mountain Flagship, working across East Africa, Central Asia, the South Caucasus, the Andes, and the Hindu-Kush Himalayas. UNEP is also a founding member of the Mountain Partnership.

About the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Opened for signature in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and entering into force in December 1993, the CBD is an international treaty for the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources

About the Yerevan Platform on Mountain and Related Freshwater Ecosystems 

The Yerevan Platform on Mountains and Related Freshwater Ecosystems is designed to facilitate the exchange of experiences on policy implementation, capacity-building and innovative approaches to support conservation, restoration and sustainable development in mountain and related freshwater landscapes. The Platform aims to assist Parties in achieving their national biodiversity targets, as well as advancing the implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) under the UNFCCC. The Platform can also help identify practical entry points for strengthening national policies, improving access to technical support, enabling transfer of tested innovative practices, and connecting countries with relevant partners, financial instruments and implementation pathways. The initiative will build on existing relevant global and regional frameworks, conventions, mechanisms, processes and initiatives to protect and restore mountains and related ecosystems. Other key partners include inter alia CBD, FAO/Mountain Partnership, UNDP, IUCN, Carpathian Convention, Alpine Convention, CONDESAN/Andean Initiative, Convention on Wetlands, ICIMOD, Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) and Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA). 

For more information, please contact:
News and Media Unit, UN Environment Programme

In recent weeks, Agos published an important three-part series by Zakarya Mildanoğlu on Kurdish-Armenian relations in the context of the early twentieth century with direct references to written sources of the period. We learn from Mildanoğlu that more installments are forthcoming. Although this is a very important subject, it has remained in the shadow of debates over genocide, particularly in popular discourse, where it has largely been discussed on the basis of the agency of Kurds in the Armenian Genocide. Yet Armenian-Kurdish relations are a multifaceted subject that cannot be confined to the genocide and that, naturally, stretches back much further in time.

Fortunately, we are in a better position in academic domain than we are in popular discourse. Although there is still a long way to go and many questions that need to be explored, there are academic studies, or at least works that follow a certain methodology and discipline, that can help us in exploring and establishing the outlines of the subject. (I have also tried to make a contribution to the literature by an article, namely “White Man’s Burden” or Victim’s Hope(lessness): Armeno-Kurdish Relations and Mutual Perceptions before the Genocide, in the edited volume titled “Kurds and Yezidis in the Middle East: Shifting Identities, Borders, and the Experiences of Minority Communities”.) What we need is the infusion of academic knowledge to the masses and get more widespread. In this article, as a contribution toward that goal, I will try to outline some of the key aspects of this history. My comments apply generally to the post-Tanzimat period, meaning from mid-19th century to the end of the Ottoman Empire.

The first thing that needs to be underscored is this: Kurdish-Armenian relations are a phenomenon too complex, fluid, multi-actor, and variable across time and space to fit into a simple “friend-foe” dichotomy. Undoubtedly, this history is not a bed of roses; it involves conflict, massacres, and blood, but alongside these, it also contains solidarity, protection and mutual patronage, joint production, and cultural exchange.

Secondly, these relations do not actually fit into the categories of “Kurd” or “Armenian” either; they cannot be discussed or explained solely through these two categories, which are thought to be national. One must also consider the internal divisions, conflicts, and groupings within both societies. For example, tribal divisions among Kurds, the contradictions between the agha-bey (landlord/chief) class and Kurdish peasants or laborers; or when we look at the Armenian side, the oligarchic class known as the amira in the earlier 19th century, Armenian political parties from the second half of the 1880s onward, and the conflicts of the Armenian Church both with certain segments of society and within itself are elements that must be taken into consideration when discussing Armenian-Kurdish relations.

In this respect, different groups, classes, and social strata within Armenian and Kurdish communities established relationships with one another independently of the rest of their respective communities, without necessarily implicating or binding them. Consequently, Indeed, it was not unusual in this history for some Armenians to ally with some Kurds against other Armenians, or for some Kurds to join forces with some Armenians against other Kurds. To be more specific and refer to actual events, this is a history in which a cleric within the Armenian Church might collaborate with local Kurdish authorities to eliminate a rival within the church hierarchy, or Kurdish peasants suffering under the oppression of a Kurdish agha might seek support and solidarity from an Armenian political party.

This situation also serves as a reminder of how we should -or rather should not- approach this subject today. For instance, there is no historical, political, or moral basis for a Kurdish laborer today to embrace and defend the actions of a Kurdish agha from more than a century ago simply on the grounds of Kurdish identity. Nor is there any such basis for an ordinary Armenian today to adopt and defend, on the grounds of Armenian identity, the actions of the Armenian Church as an institution or of any Armenian political party from more than a century ago. What should determine our attitudes and guide our judgements about historical events and figures today is not our Armenian or Kurdish identity, but the contemporary values that prioritize human rights, dignity, freedom, and justice, even if those very priorities and values are now both domestically and internationally under threat.

I cannot even go beyond methodology and start talking about the content. Let’s continue handling this subject.

Armenia does not plan to resume its participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), despite statements by its leadership about the possible expulsion of the country. Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ararat Mirzoyan stated this during a joint press conference with Slovenia’s Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon on October 28, UNN reports, citing Armenpress.

The issue of Armenia’s further membership may be considered as early as November 11 at the CSTO summit in moscow. For now, Yerevan formally remains a member of the military-political organization led by russia.

Details

According to Mirzoyan, Armenia has not participated in the CSTO’s activities for a long time and is not considering the possibility of resuming cooperation with the organization. At the same time, Yerevan’s position remains unchanged regardless of statements by the organization’s leadership or its member states.

We stopped participating in the work of this structure a long time ago and froze our membership. If other members of the organization or its secretariat make any statements, they are futile. We will not change our position and see no possibility of returning to the CSTO

– Mirzoyan said.

The head of Armenia’s foreign policy agency effectively confirmed that Yerevan does not intend to return to full participation in the military-political alliance led by russia.

CSTO discusses expelling Armenia

Mirzoyan’s statement came amid a discussion about the country’s further membership in the organization. In particular, on October 28, former CSTO Secretary General Nikolay Bordyuzha stated that Armenia should be expelled from the organization, as it had effectively ceased cooperation but continued to enjoy the status of a member state. In his view, this situation creates contradictions in the organization’s work, since its decisions are adopted on the basis of consensus, which requires taking the positions of member states into account.

Bordyuzha noted that Yerevan should make the decision to leave the alliance independently. If the Armenian authorities do not intend to do so, the issue of expulsion should be considered by the other CSTO members.

Earlier, on October 23, the organization’s incumbent Secretary General Taalatbek Masadykov said that the issue of Armenia’s membership could be submitted to a meeting of the Collective Security Council scheduled for November 11 in moscow. According to him, the Armenian side continues to receive the organization’s documents, but systematically refuses to participate in discussions and decision-making. At the same time, Armenia’s representative attends the CSTO Permanent Council’s weekly meetings.

Masadykov also emphasized that Yerevan does not participate in military exercises or the organization’s main events. At the same time, he clarified that for the issue of Armenia’s membership to be officially considered, the relevant proposal must be submitted by the chairing state or another CSTO member.

Why Armenia froze its CSTO membership

Relations between Yerevan and the organization began to deteriorate after the conflict with Azerbaijan escalated.

The Armenian authorities repeatedly accused the CSTO of failing to fulfill its obligations to ensure the republic’s security. Yerevan was particularly dissatisfied with the organization’s response to the border clashes with Azerbaijan in 2021–2022. Armenia insisted that the hostilities had taken place, in particular, on its internationally recognized territory, and therefore expected its allies to take specific measures within the framework of collective security mechanisms.

In February 2024, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced that the country was freezing its participation in the CSTO. He explained this by saying that, in the view of the Armenian leadership, the organization had failed to fulfill its security obligations. In May of the same year, Yerevan officially refused to participate in financing the CSTO’s activities. Since then, Armenia has effectively distanced itself from the organization’s work, but has not initiated a formal withdrawal procedure.

In August 2026, Pashinyan stated that over the next five years the country did not plan to resume active involvement in the CSTO. Moreover, he said he would welcome a decision to expel Armenia, as this would relieve Yerevan of the need to resolve the issue of withdrawal independently.

Armenia has left the CSTO and does not plan to return – Pashinyan04.12.24, 17:20 • 21746 views

Could Armenia be expelled from the CSTO?

The possibility of expelling a state is provided for by the charter of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In particular, Article 20 of the document allows the Collective Security Council to suspend a state’s participation in the work of the organization’s bodies if it fails to fulfill its established obligations. If the violations continue, the Council may decide to expel the respective state.

At the same time, Article 25 of the charter provides for restrictions on participants that fail to fulfill their obligations to repay debts to the organization’s budget for two years. In particular, this involves depriving them of the right to vote and suspending their right to nominate their citizens for quota positions in the CSTO until the debt is fully repaid. Such restrictions are introduced by a decision of the Collective Security Council.

Separately, Article 19 provides for the possibility of voluntarily withdrawing from the organization. To do so, the state must settle its obligations and officially notify the CSTO of its intention to leave at least six months before the relevant date.

However, in practice, Armenia’s future status will depend either on its own decision to withdraw or on decisions by other member states within the procedures provided for by the charter.

What happens next

The nearest important date for future relations between Armenia and the CSTO will be November 11, when a meeting of the Collective Security Council is scheduled to take place in moscow. The meeting may raise the issue of applying the restrictions provided for by the charter to Yerevan or expelling the country from the organization.

Yerevan’s refusal to return to the organization comes amid the country’s gradual review of its security policy and the development of cooperation with European partners, particularly France, as well as with the United States.

We remind you

Back in June 2023, the then-incumbent Secretary of Armenia’s Security Council, Armen Grigoryan, stated that membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) brought nothing to Armenia.