Category: 2020
Armenian president to attend Fifth World Holocaust Forum
Why Armenian repatriates in no hurry to return to their homeland
Recently, there's been much talk about repatriation in Armenia. Usually repatriation is more profitable than ordinary migration, since repatriates are close-minded people with common historical archetypes of thinking. But in Armenia, the implementation of the idea may encounter significant difficulties. According to head of the Department of Armenian communities of Europe at the High Commissioner's Office Karen Avanesyan, on July 1, a pilot project will be launched to "reverse brain drain" and use the diaspora's potential in managing Armenia. The program is scheduled for a year, during which the authorities plan to test projects that in the future should become the basis for the repatriation of compatriots, many of whom left Armenia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
When developing national programs to return compatriots, the Armenian authorities are faced with a multi-level problem of creating the conditions for their adaptation. It is about access to citizenship, access to land and employment.
These problems have never been resolved systematically in Armenia, especially at the regional level, therefore, the similar programs for the return of compatriots proposed earlier did not actually work.
There is no scheme to come to the republic and immediately obtain Armenian citizenship. It seems that a country with the outflow of the population turning into a global problem should have implemented such a scheme a long time ago, but the Armenian bureaucracy has created an infinite number of constantly changing documents.
Housing and land issues are associated with moral and ethical problems. No one will give the returnee family the best land or the best apartment. They have to be content with what housing and land resources they are given.
The allocation of land issue can be resolved much faster if the repatriate expresses a desire to settle in the occupied territories in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, this program is not in demand, since few people are ready to move to territories with the high threat of escalation of the military conflict, and the problem of employment is even more acute than in Armenia.
Issues related to the education system are also difficult. It is symbolic that the proposed program aims to "reverse brain drain", since the republic's political elite admits that many talented people left the republic over the past quarter century – people could not realize their potential within Armenia. The level of higher education in Armenia is low, the programs are weak, students are poorly motivated and focused on study and work abroad.
The leadership of the republic makes efforts to support the development of interstate programs and bilateral agreements with more than 30 countries, including to implement scholarship programs. There are such programs with Russia, the Czech Republic, Iran, Slovenia, China, the U.S., France, Belgium and other countries. But the question before repatriates is why come back and look for a future in a country whose educational system is inferior to foreign peers, and students who have studied for one or two years will look for the opportunity to study at more prestigious universities abroad.
As for entrepreneurs, they are also very skeptical of repatriation, since there is still a high degree of clan ownership and corruption in a semi-blockade country. Doing business means being under high control at all stages of the production, transportation and sale of goods and services. Most of the areas are monopolized, and those starting a business are forced to compete with large companies. Due to the economic and transport blockade, shipment costs are very high. Opening a business in Armenia requires a trusted team, since it is problematic to find experienced and competent specialists there – most qualified personnel leave for other countries. Due to the difficult economic situation in the country, the crime rate is still high, and those starting a business are forced to pay attention to the problem of their own security.
Finally, the unstable political situation in the region and the high risk of escalation due to the unresolved conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh adversely affect Armenian repatriation as a whole. The largest outflow of the population was recorded in the first years of independence, during the years of fierce armed confrontation and the first years after the signing of the truce. According to the official data of the National Statistical Service, 586,800 people left Armenia back then. Fears for their future and the future of their children still force the Armenian population to live in constant readiness to migrate. In such conditions, the idea of repatriation seems unattractive.
During the April 2016 escalation, the unresolved conflict drew attention to itself again, as a result of which Armenia learned once again that loud words of politicians and diplomats do not guarantee peace.
Armenian farmers protest new slaughterhouse regulations
Этот пост доступен на языках: Русский
Livestock farmers and meat vendors have begun protesting the enforcement of rules obligating all meat sellers and livestock producers to slaughter their meat only in approved slaughterhouses.
Protests in the capital Yerevan culminated on 20 January when a large group of protesters picketing in front of the Government building during a scheduled session of Government blocked off one of the streets leading to the city’s central Republic Square.
The protests came after on 15 January, the Government’s Food Safety Inspectorate (FSI) launched inspections of all meat selling stores and supermarkets across Yerevan. The rules around slaughtering animals were introduced by the government in July 2018 but were not immediately enforced.
Speaking to 1TV in a live video from one of the inspections, Artur Shatvoryan, advisor to the head of the FSI, explained that the decision was never properly implemented due to a lack of designated slaughterhouses.
‘Six months ago, our agency made it clear that starting from January 2020, inspections would take place and the decision would come into full force.’
‘Special working groups have been created to help establish more slaughterhouses, train personnel, etc.’, he added.
The rules mean that all meat vendors and supermarkets must purchase meat with an accompanying document asserting that the meat was butchered in a licensed slaughterhouse.
The document includes a barcode with information including the owner of the animal, where the meat came from, which slaughterhouse it was slaughtered in, the day it was slaughtered, and expiration dates. Consumers can scan the barcode before purchasing to see where the meat comes from.
Shatvoryan said that his agency had conducted meetings with provincial governors and community leaders in order for them to communicate the process to farmers and butchers in their communities.
On 16 January, the FSI signed contracts with almost 30 slaughterhouses establishing the maximum price for the slaughter of animals. The maximum price for the slaughter of large animals was set at ֏10,000 ($21), small cows at ֏ 3,500 ($7.30) and pigs at ֏ 5,000 ($10).
The contracts also state that transportation for livestock to slaughterhouses will be free for farmers if they are no further than 30 kilometres from the slaughterhouse and are transporting more than three animals. If not, they will be charged ֏3,000 ($6.30) per animal.
Many livestock farmers and butchers have remained unhappy with the decision. During the protest on 20 January, protesters told reporters that transporting animals was a difficult task.
‘I can barely take my cow out to slaughter in my own yard, how am I supposed to get them on a vehicle and move them?’ one asked.
Others said they were not against transporting their livestock but that there were currently not enough slaughterhouses.
‘How is a poor villager supposed to drive 90 kilometres with two pigs to reach [the nearest] slaughterhouse?’ one asked. ‘Where’s your conscience?’
In an interview with Azatutyun on 18 January, Shatvoryan said that the majority of the protestors weren’t actually farmers but meat suppliers, who slaughtered animals to sell the meat to vendors and butchers.
‘Our inspectors know these middlemen’, said Shatvoryan. ‘They are working for meat vendors who with the [new documents] won’t be able to sell meat from sick or dead livestock. They will also be forced to pay taxes, thus, losing their former profit.’
In an interview with state-run news agency Armenpress, Anush Harutyunyan, head of the Information and Public Relations Department at the FSI, said that strict inspections were already taking place and many large supermarkets and restaurants had already switched to using meat from the official slaughterhouses.
Following the 2o January protest in Yerevan, a number of demonstrators continued their protests the following day in their hometowns, closing major streets.
Several small protests were held on 21 January in Tavush, Armavir, and Ararat provinces. During a protest near the village of Mkhchyan, the Governor of Ararat, Garik Sargsyan, met with protest leaders.
In a post on Facebook, Sargsyan said that the government was prepared to listen to its citizens but insisted that ‘closing streets is not a reasonable way to solve issues’.
During the meeting, Sargsyan told protestors that there would be compromises and that parliament had assured him that there will be meaningful solutions to this issue.
On 20 January, the Office of the Human Rights Defender announced that they were looking into complaints against the decision, specifically the financial toll for farmers of transporting livestock to slaughterhouses.
The government has staunchly defended the changes and has also questioned where opposition to the decision was coming from.
In an interview with OC Media, Deputy Minister of Agriculture Tigran Gabrielyan claimed that 70% of the protestors were middlemen who work for market meat vendors. He said the remaining protestors were farmers who were being misled by these middlemen.
‘Previously, these middlemen would go and slaughter the animals in courtyards, weigh the meat, and charge the farmer, most of the time lying about the weight and charging extra’, Gabrielyan said.
‘They would also take the byproducts of the slaughter that cost a lot of money in the market and were, thus, harming the economy.’
Gabrielyan also said the government was establishing mobile slaughterhouses that would be run by existing and future slaughterhouses to alleviate the transportation costs in villages far from any slaughterhouse.
‘We have also proposed slaughterhouses establish certain days within the week where they will accept livestock for slaughter so that farmers know when to organise the transportation of their animals’, explained Gabrielyan.
‘We are also going to provide ֏3 million-֏15 million ($3,500-$30,000) loans with a five per cent interest rate for establishing new [static] slaughterhouses’, he said.
Gabrielyan also said the changes would provide a boost to the economy. ‘Byproducts are worth a lot. Many are used in sausage and deli meat making’, he stated. ‘This can help local sausage and deli meat producers obtain sanitary affordable ingredients, as well as boost export of byproducts.’
The FSI has also remained adamant in their decision. On 21 January they posted photos of unhygienically stored meat claiming that it will do everything in its power to prevent the conditions shown in the pictures.
The FSI said they had received many inquiries and applications about establishing new slaughterhouses around the country.
In a separate lengthy post, the FSI’s Anush Harutyunyan insisted the problem was being addressed.
‘As of 21 January, there are already 38 working slaughterhouses. Six days ago on 15 January, there were only 22’, she wrote. ‘Tomorrow there will be more. Twenty more slaughterhouses are under construction and 27 are in the pre-design stage.’
‘Yesterday, we talked to a representative of the Yezidi community. We were able to convince him and now he’s thinking about creating a slaughterhouse in his own community.’
She went on to say that in two months time there would be no village further than 30 kilometres from a slaughterhouse, meaning all livestock would be transported for free.
‘With the rise in the number of slaughterhouses, the price will fall: it’s the law of markets’, Harutyunyan stated.
Absence of Armenia-Turkey relations challenge for Armenia’s security: Armenia’s FM
Absence of Armenia-Turkey relations is a challenge for Armenia’s security, Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Zohrab Mnatsakanyan said today at the Government-NA Q&A.
“We view this as one of the prior challenges. Turkey’s factor is more than visible in our foreign policy. We need a more thorough calculation,” the minister said.
Armenia wants net metering for small scale solar
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is helping the Armenian government create a regulatory framework for small scale PV power generation.
The development lender wants consultants to advise the government as it formulates a medium to long-term vision for small scale solar through a distributed generation support mechanism which includes net metering or net billing.
The consultants appointed will have to design a system which provides quality assurance for solar arrays and solar water heaters while introducing incentives for such installations on households and commercial and industrial premises.
Incentives
Until now, Yerevan has incentivized only large scale solar plants and 1 MW solar parks.
The country’s only 50 MW solar tender was won by UAE-based Abdul Latif Jameel Energy in 2018, via its Spanish unit Fotowatio Renewable Ventures.
In August, the EBRD sought consultants to draw up feasibility studies for five solar projects in Armenia with generation capacities ranging from 5 MW to 19.4 MW.
The 50 MW Masrik 1 solar park and the five planned facilities are part of a $58 million, six-year, 110 MW large scale solar plan the government announced in May 2017.
Bright Armenia faction: Ruling faction afraid of exploring risks at Yerevan Municipality
Is Armenia becoming a police state? Police receive right to eavesdrop
Previously, only the National Security Service had the right to wiretap
The Armenian parliament adopted a Law on Wiretapping on January 21. Now, not only the National Security Service will be able to eavesdrop on conversations of citizens, but the police will be able to as well.
• Georgian parliament gives final approval to “wire-tapping” law
• Audio recording between heads of Armenian National Security Service and Special Investigation Service causes scandal in Armenia
Moreover, MPs adopting the law did not take heed the pleas of the government. The day before the vote, Deputy Minister of Justice Srbuy Galyan, on behalf of the government, called on the parliament to vote against the wiretap bill, which, incidentally, was developed by members of the ruling My Step party. The deputy minister called on MPs not to pass the bill given that the adoption of the law involves large additional costs for the purchase of technical equipment for the police.
In addition, the government had an idea to grant the right to wiretap conversations to a private company, assuring parliament the activities of this organization would be under strict control. However, the parliament preferred to give this right to the police.