Linking Rule of Law and Environmental Policy Reform in Armenia and Georgia

  • Allison Morrill Chatrchyan
  • Amanda E. Wooden
Part of the Euro-Asian Studies book series (EAS)

Abstract

The environment has historically been an important cultural issue in the three countries of the South Caucasus. The land and its resources have played a critical role in defining these nations’ identities, in relation to one another and in light of constant invasion and colonialization at this continental crossroads of major powers. During the Gorbachev era of the late 1980s, the environment was a prominent issue in the unfolding politics of the Soviet Union’s breakdown, emerging nationalist expressions and eventual moves towards independence. In 1988, the Greens Union of Armenia was instrumental in organizing protests against continued operation of the Medzamor nuclear power plant and a demonstration of 150 000 people against operation of the polluting Nairit chemical plant, forcing the closure of both in 1989 and 1990 respectively.1 In Georgia, the environmental movement coalesced around a weapons-grade nuclear power plant in Mtskheta, just thirty miles outside of the capital, Tbilisi. This movement was effective in forcing the closure of the plant, and from these actions, the Georgian Green Party was formed. With independence from Moscow in 1991, and the move towards capitalist democracies, came the hope of an improved environment in the South Caucasus. Unfortunately, for the most part, the environment in these countries has not improved, and in some cases, has become further degraded.

Keywords

Economic Crisis Europe Petroleum Turkey Posit 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    See, for example, G. Hardin, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science (December 1968), p. 1243; R. A. Payne, ‘Freedom and the Environment’, Journal of Democracy, 6 (3) (1995), p. 41;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Feshbach and A. Friendly, Ecocide in the USSR (New York: Basic Books, 1992);Google Scholar
  3. and D. J. Peterson, Troubled Lands: the Legacy of Soviet Environmental Destruction (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  4. See A. Chatrchyan, ‘Democratic Transition, Stagnation and its Environmental Consequences: Protection of Lake Sevan and Forestry Resources in Post-Soviet Armenia’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, 2003) for a full literature review.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    See T. Carothers, ‘The End of the Transition Paradigm’, Journal of Democracy, 13 (1) (January 2002), p. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. or United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 2002: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World (New York: UNDP, 2002).Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    See W. M. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft, eds, Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996);Google Scholar
  8. and M. Jänicke and H. Weidner, eds, National Environmental Politics: a Comparative Study of Capacity Building (Berlin: Springer, 1997).Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    See W. Ascher, Why Governments Waste Natural Resources: Policy Failures in Developing Countries (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  10. Also, R. O. Keohane and M. A. Levy, eds, Institutions for Environmental Aid (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    See J. J. Linz and A. Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), p. 7 for definitions of the rule of law, bureaucratic state structures, civil society, political society and economic society.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    See A. Wooden, ‘Silent Chernobyls: Ecological Degradation, Macroeconomic Policies, and Political Institutions’ (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate University, 2002); A. Wooden, ‘Environmental Policy and the Sequence of Political and Economic Reform in Central Asia’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East (Durham: Duke University Press, forthcoming 2005). Political constraints are highlighted by the work of Douglas C. North and Witold J. Henisz regarding measures of accountability and controls of rent-seeking, which Ascher, supra note 5, argues are important in the development of effective natural resource policies in developing countries.Google Scholar
  13. See D. C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. W. J. Henisz, ‘The Institutional Environment for Economic Growth’, Economics and Politics, 12 (1) (2000), p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 13.
    See Chatrchyan, supra note 2, for discussion of positive and negative environmental policies in Soviet Armenia. For a discussion of nature protection in the Soviet Union, see D. Weiner, A Little Corner of Freedom: Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999)Google Scholar
  16. and D. Weiner, Models of Nature: Ecology, Conservation and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  17. 13.
    See Chatrchyan, supra note 2, for discussion of positive and negative environmental policies in Soviet Armenia. For a discussion of nature protection in the Soviet Union, see D. Weiner, A Little Corner of Freedom: Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999)Google Scholar
  18. and D. Weiner, Models of Nature: Ecology, Conservation and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  19. 16.
    See S. Levitsky and L. A. Way, ‘The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’, Journal of Democracy, 12 (2) (2002) and S. Holmes, ‘Potemkin Democracy’, in T. K. Rabb and E. N. Suleiman, eds, The Making and Unmaking of Democracy: Lessons from History and World Politics (New York: Routledge, 2003).Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    C. H. Fairbanks, ‘Georgia’s Rose Revolution’, Journal of Democracy, 15 (2) (2004), p. 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 18.
    Freedom House, Nations in Transit 2004: Democratization in East Central Europe and Eurasia (Washington, DC: Freedom House, 2004). Available at http://www.freedomhouse.org. While the changes in the fairness and transparency of elections and other improvements that have been noted by scholars and observers of Georgia are not yet reflected in this year’s scoring assessment, the assumption that consolidation is occurring is discussed in the 2004 report. ‘Georgia’s performance since the “Rose Revolution” of last November suggests more promise in this regard’, when compared to the concern about the democratic trajectory of Armenia (from the Executive Summary).Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    G. Sartori, Comparative Constitutional Engineering: an Inquiry into Structure, Incentives and Outcomes, 2nd edn (New York: New York University Press, 1997), p. 121. Sartori notes that the ‘extreme’ form of semi-presidentialism adopted by Russia (and similarly Armenia) is ill-conceived because too much power is vested in the President, while the parliamentary checks on the President are weakened.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 25.
    Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)/ODIHR, Georgia Extraordinary Presidential Election (4 January 2004); OSCE/ODIHR, Election Observation Mission Final Report;Google Scholar
  24. OSCE/ODIHR, Partial Repeat Parliament Election (28 March 2004); and OSCE/ODIHR, Election Observation Mission Report, Part 2.Google Scholar
  25. 31.
    S. F. Jones, ‘Democracy from Below: Interest Groups in Georgian Society’, Slavic Review, 59 (1) (2000), p. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 34.
    Georgia ranked 124th and Armenia ranked 78th of 133 countries surveyed in 2003 by Transparency International on the level of corruption in the country. See Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2003 (25 July 2004), available at http://www.transparency.org.Google Scholar
  27. 36.
    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Environmental Performance Review of Armenia (Geneva: UNECE, 2000), p. 94. Available at http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/armenia.Google Scholar
  28. 38.
    Republic of Armenia, First National Communication under the UNFCCC (Yerevan, Armenia: MNP and UNDP, 1998), p. 38.Google Scholar
  29. 39.
    Republic of Armenia, Forests and their Significance for Mountainous Armenia (Yerevan, Armenia: MNP, Hayantar Forestry Service, financed by the Royal Netherlands Embassy through the KNIP Fund, 2001), p. 91;Google Scholar
  30. and Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), Caucasus Elaboration of a Vision of an Eco-Regional Conservation Plan (Yerevan, Armenia: KFW (with AHT, TAESCO, CUNA and WWF), 2003), pp. 2, 89.Google Scholar
  31. 40.
    The Soviet Armenian government planted many new reserves, shelterbelts and greenbelts of trees throughout the country. See P. R. Pryde, Environmental Management in the Soviet Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 123; and interview with Ter-Ghazaryan, Forest Research and Experimental Centre, 2 November 2001.Google Scholar
  32. 46.
    The World Bank, Towards Integrated Water Resources Management: Technical Paper (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001), p. 18.Google Scholar
  33. 48.
    Environmental Public Advocacy Centre (EPAC), Manual on Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making (Yerevan, Armenia: EPAC, 1999), p. 7.Google Scholar
  34. 68.
    See J. I. Dawson, Eco-Nationalism: Anti-Nuclear Activism and National Identity in Russia, Lithuania, and Ukraine (Durham: Duke University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  35. 73.
    World Learning, Armenia NGO Sector Assessment (Yerevan: World Learning, 2001); and interview with Sarkissian, Chairman of EcoTeam NGO, 20 July 1999.Google Scholar
  36. 77.
    Tapan EcoClub has received international support and carried on the strong Soviet Armenian tradition of organizing subotniks or clean-up days, and tree-plantings, organizing a ‘March for Parks’ in 1997, 1998 and 1999 in connection with Earth Day. Armenian Assembly of America (AAA), NGO Training and Resource Center (NGOC), NGOC Newsletter 9 (Yerevan, Armenia: NGOC, 1997), p. 3; and Caucasus Environmental News Electronic Bulletin (CENN), Caucasus Environmental News Electronic Bulletin. Available at http://www.cenn.org.Google Scholar
  37. 81.
    See A. Gegeshidze et al., Georgia National Assessment Report for Sustainable Development to 2008 (2002), p. 28 (this is the national preparatory report for the Johannesburg Summit);Google Scholar
  38. Georgian Ministry of the Environment, State of the Environment Report (1996), available at http://enrin.grida.no/htmls/georgia/soegeor/hp_soege.htm;Google Scholar
  39. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Georgia Study (2003), p. 91; Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Association ‘Green Alternative’, Decade of Independence: Effects of Economic Liberalization in Georgia Country Report (April 2004), pp. 35, 36, note 74;Google Scholar
  40. World Bank, Natural Resource Management Strategy: Eastern Europe and Central Asia, World Bank Technical Paper No. 495 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2000), Annex I, p. 90.Google Scholar
  41. 82.
    United Nations Development Programme, UNDP National Human Development Report Georgia 1996 (Tbilisi: UNDP, 1996).Google Scholar
  42. 83.
    High import taxes and no export taxes have greatly contributed to this imbalance. CENN Seminar held in Bakuriani, Georgia, Communities and Sustainable Forestry Management: Establishment of Independent Forestry Monitoring Network (2003).Google Scholar
  43. 87.
    The World Bank, Georgia Forests Development Project (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002).Google Scholar
  44. 89.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Irrigation in the Countries of the Former Soviet Union in Figures (Rome: FAO, 1997), p. 103 and US Department of Energy, EIA Country Analysis Briefs, Caucasus Region — October 2003. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caucasus.html.Google Scholar
  45. 92.
    Republic of Georgia, Constitution of Georgia (1995).Google Scholar
  46. 93.
    See C. P. M Waters, ‘Who Should Regulate the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline?’, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 16 (2004), p. 403.Google Scholar
  47. 119.
    J. Aves, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Georgian Nationalist Movement, 1987–91’, in G. A. Hosking, J. Aves and P. J. S. Duncan, The Road to Post-Communism: Independent Political Movements in the Soviet Union 1985–1991 (London: Pinter Publishers, 1992), p. 164.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Allison Morrill Chatrchyan and Amanda E. Wooden 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison Morrill Chatrchyan
  • Amanda E. Wooden

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations