A number of protests have taken place in Romania over a planned mining project at Rosia Montana in the north of the country. Simona Manea argues that the EU should take a more active role in the debate, particularly given its attempts to lead efforts to implement the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and to shape the UN debate on the post-MDGs Agenda. She notes that the project would pose significant concerns for the environment, and that the EU could help strengthen opposition within Romania by choosing to act on existing environmental legislation.
The EU’s low-profile position on the controversial gold mining project in Romania’s Rosia Montana is at odds with its proclaimed leadership in shaping the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Agenda. The EU’s lack of a firm position in this case calls into question its commitment to sustainable development and environmental legislation.
For the past eight weeks, tens of thousands of Romanians have taken to the streets in cities across Romania and Europe in the country’s largest demonstrations for two decades. The protests are fast becoming Europe’s largest environmental movement, in opposition to the proposed gold mining project in Rosia Montana, a small village in northern Romania. Using cyanide-based technologies, the Canadian firm Gabriel Resources Ltd wants to extract from the site, the largest of its kind in Europe, around 300 tonnes of gold and 1,600 tonnes of silver. The company promises around 800 jobs over the seventeen year exploration, with a higher employment number in the initial years. The value of the gold to be extracted stands at over 20 billion USD.
The cash-strapped Romanian state, which has a 25 per cent stake in the project and would levy a 6 per cent royalty on the gold extracted, has given the project its approval and tabled a draft law in Parliament in late August. If passed, the law would give the go-ahead for the exploration by allowing Gabriel Resources to expropriate land on the site of the proposed mine from the remaining land owners who oppose the project. Voting has been postponed until a special Parliamentary Commission, set up as a response to the unprecedented public mobilisation, evaluates the project.
The EU has been conspicuously silent on the issue. Only when prompted about the European Commission’s position on the project, the Commissioner for Environment, Mr Janez Potocnik, stated on September 9 that the responsibility for applying EU legislation rests with the Romanian government. This is not surprising as EU institutions have been divided on the use of cyanide-mining technologies. On May 5 2010, the European Parliament voted in favour of a Resolution that urged the Commission to take the legislative steps implied by existing EU legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive, to ban cyanide mining technologies. The Commission has so far insisted that Member States have the freedom to take up the implementation of the Resolution. According to the Commission, the EU Mining Waste Directive contains strict provisions that would reduce the risks to the environment and public health (see European Parliament Questions).
The Commission’s stance on Rosia Montana and on the broader issue of cyanide mining technologies represents an unfortunate position given the desire of the EU to set the tone of the debate on the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals Agenda. In the opening speech of a Commission-organised event in July framed around the UN published Report on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Development Commissioner, Mr. Andris Piebalgs, who is also one of the signatories of the Report, highlighted sustainable development as the driving philosophy behind economic activities. Mr Potočnik seemed to agree. He also asserted the need for a comprehensive approach that linked the proposed 12 universal goals into a more coherent framework. This is the policy line also supported by the EU Council’s Conclusions on the Overarching Post 2015 Agenda, of June 25 2013.
The EU’s proclaimed intention to place environmental sustainability at the core of its post-2015 MDGs Strategy, and to achieve ‘policy coherence’ for development in the EU and abroad, must be buttressed by action. Rosia Montana should serve as the EU’s test case. The EU could start by using all institutional means to put pressure on the Romanian government to rethink its position vis-à-vis the project. The Water Framework Directive and Hazardous Waste Directive are appropriate tools in this context. The Romanian Academy and the Romanian Institute of Geology have already indicated that the geological set up of Corna Valley, with its numerous water springs, rock fissures and high rock permeability, means that the cyanide-contaminated water will leak into the region’s waterbed.
The Commission should therefore consider extending the precautionary principle, which underpins European climate and environmental policy, to the use of cyanide mining technologies in the EU. Similarly to radioactive water, the cyanide-contaminated water used in extracting the metals must be contained and cannot be released into the ground. In Rosia Montana, the exploration will use around 12,000 tones of cyanide annually compared to, for example, 1,000 tones Europe wide, totalling a staggering 204 million tones throughout the lifetime of the mine. The contaminated water must be placed in a 400m deep and 8km wide pond, which is meant to last forever.
As history shows, the impact on the environment, public health and on the long-term sustainability of communities can be dire when unpredictable weather patterns, failing maintenance standards and human error meet. The spill of cyanide-contaminated water at another Romanian mine in Baia Mare in 2000, which involved ‘only’ 100 tones of cyanide tainted water, has been deemed Europe’s worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl. This should convince EU decision-makers that some economic activities carry too high an economic, environmental and social cost.
In choosing to act on its environmental legislation, the Commission would give an impetus to sustainable economic activities in the region, which UNESCO advisory body ICOMOS considers worthy of being counted as a world heritage site due to its unique pre-Roman, Roman and Medieval mining galleries. Not least, the Commission would also lend legitimacy to Romanian state institutions, which delivered legal judgments and feasibility studies against the project in spite of corporate and government pressure to the contrary. In short, Rosia Montana would be an opportunity to link in a coherent strategy, as the EU intends for its post-2015 MDGs Agenda, sustainable development, good governance and the promotion of effective state institutions.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/18CdwyO
_________________________________
Simona Manea
Simona Manea previously taught at the LSE, University College London, the University of Westminster, University of Birmingham and ESCP Europe. She also worked in 2011 as part of a EU traineeship programme at the EU Delegation to India and Bhutan on the political aspects of the EU-India Strategic Partnership.
This is an extremely one-sided and factually incorrect article. As Ms Manea well knows, the Rosia Montana mine will meet or exceed all required EU regulations. The mining operations will also clean the extremely toxic zones that currently pollute the Rosia Montana environment, left behind over the course of the region’s more than 2,000 years of mining history. Overall, the gold mine’s environmental rehabilitation efforts before, during, and after the mining will lead to increased biodiversity in the local area. I found some useful facts here:
http://www.rosiamontananews.com/explainer/how-will-the-mine-impact-the-environment
What are the incorrect points on this article, dear Manuela? And how can a project that does not respect the laws in Romania to be able to respect the “EU regulations”? This mining company supported the corruption in Romania for over 16 years. Otherwise I can’t explain how a document like the one that was made public in the last days between this company you praise and the Minister of Culture was possible…a document declared by the current Director of the National Institute of the Patrimony as being “abusive and signed illegally.” Isn’t this a good enough proof of the “benefits” of such company and such project to area and to Romania? A good project does not need bribing in order to start. Please, inform yourself better. You are a Romanian and you should know the truth for yourself and for your children, for the future of your country!
The website you provide is irrelevant as it is made by Gold Corporation, the mining company operating in Rosia Montana. Of course they are providing censored information and exaggerate about their extraordinary activity. That website is one of RMGC’s usual propaganda channels. Many of the arguments they offer there have already been proved as incorrect and misinforming by Romania’s scientific body.
What kind of fairytale are you living in ?
2000 years of pollution ? Cyanide mining has been around for less than 200 years, and this chemical breaks down in about 150 years.
Increased biodiversity ? Cyanide evaporates at 26.5 degrees Celsius, meaning that for an extended area around the lake everything will die.
You should be ashamed of yourself. As you well know
Rosia Montana Gold Corporation has not polluted the environment at Rosia Montana, but will clean the historical pollution. The Clean-up cost is estimated at approx. €300 million – according to evidence to the parliamentary commission. RMGC has already established a detailed plan for the collection and treatment of acidic waters flowing from the abandoned mining galleries. Further measures will be taken to clean the surrounding environment so that the water flowing into these runlets may support the aquatic flora and fauna. As a result of the implementation of the Rosia Montana Project, not even one drop of contaminated water will leave the project site without prior treatment.
How can you justify the cleaning of some limited historical pollution by polluting 100 times more?! For extracting the minerals 4 mountains will be exploded and the biggest cyanide lake in Europe will be constructed. This is what you understand by “cleaning” the environment?! Moreover, the mining company has lied about the geology of the site for the cyanide lake, they have changed the maps to cover any cracks in the soil. But those cracks are still there and for sure they will let the cyanide pass to the groundwater.
The Rosia Montana mining project is not economically and environmentally sustainable. The mining company has invested millions of euro for political lobby and aggressive publicity in favour of the mining project. The whole project is based on fraud and corruption. People in Romania need SUSTAINABLE development. Please explain to me how is this mining project sustainable when in 16 years will leave behind only massive destruction. After the exploitation is over that whole area will be completely contaminated with dangerous substances and thus it will be completely useless. There is going to be NOTHING left. People around it will have even more problems compared to now.
Why is that no insurance company has accepted to cover the back of RMGC for the mining project? If the project is so sound as they say and everything is done in complete safety, why did the insurance companies refuse to make some profits out of it? The answer is that the risks are too big and even Allianz International doesn’t want to cover such risks.
The was an interesting article on this issue a few days ago from a prominent MEP. http://www.struanstevenson.com/media/article/how_major_extraction_mining_projects_can_help_europe_meet_its_2020_biodiver/ making the point that there need b no trade of between environmental sustainability and economic growth. He said “There have been many protests about potential pollution, environmental damage and biodiversity loss, but the company – Roşia Montană Gold Corporation (RMGC), keen to allay fears, has gone to great lengths and considerable expense to produce an eco-friendly project that ticks all of the biodiversity boxes.”
There is no biodiversity in exploding 4 mountains and creating the biggest cyanide lake in Europe. There is no biodiversity in the forceful relocation of people and the destruction of an extremely cultural site. The RMGC project is the biggest case of fraud and corruption in Romania in the last 20 years. There are countless cases of information manipulation and lies that prove at what lengths has RMGC gone to make this project. For example, they have bought their way with illegal “sponsorship contracts” for politicians and administrative institutions that impose clauses equivalent to black-mailing.
@Lupescu, Pearce, Tzara: Thank you for your replies. I will comment shortly on the points raised regarding my bias and the environmental feasibility of the project.
The article is extremely well researched. European Union should get more involved in a case like this, where not only the environment is at risk, but also a world cultural heritage, the democracy of a state, the right of law. The mining company + Romanian Government = high corruption, zero social justice, zero environmental responsibility. This is why Romanians are out in the streets for 8 weeks. They had enough corporate irresponsibility and corrupted Governments. PS In the last period, all the advertising of the mining company was banned from all the Romanian channels, the director of the Geological Institute of Romania declared that the maps of the mining area were abusively modified by the mining company, the Minister of Culture was obligated to show the public a contract with the mining company where they would agree to receive 7 million dollars if they allow the company to declassify the cultural heritage in the area in order to mine. The dirty deals come up!
*70 million dollars, with the condition to give the mining company the final permits in order to start the mining project. http://casajurnalistului.ro/protocolul-de-70-milioane-de-dolari-dintre-rmgc-si-ministerul-culturii/
Pearce, Lupescu and Tzara seem to directly and indirectly suggest to main issues: the article contains factual inaccuracies; secondly, the argument is skewed against the mining-project, which is claimed to have beneficial consequences upon the area, including biodiversity. The latter claim is linked to the assurances by RMGC , the subsidiary of Gabriel Resources, that it will respect EU standards. None of the comments point exactly where the inaccuracies lie nor do they invalidate the points raised in the article.
The EU Commission: safer not clean mining
The blog intends to point to the EU’s and particularly, the Commission’s inconsistencies of action in pursuing sustainable development within the EU. Both Commissioners – for Development and Environment have publicly stated their support, as evidenced in the links above, for an inclusive framework for development that takes into account the impact on the environment. Furthermore, the EU Council of Ministers has endorsed this policy line on June 2013.
The Commission resists thus far an EU-wide ban on cyanide technologies on grounds that it is an evil one must live with for lack of clean alternatives and thus what the Commission can provide is legislation for safer (not clean!) mining. See Mr Potočnik’s answer in front of the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2010-3589&language=EN.
The EU Parliament: overwhelmingly vs. cyanide-based mining technologies
In spite of the permissive EU legislation on cyanide-based technologies, Germany, the Czech Republic and Hungary have already banned their usage. The Resolution adopted by the European Parliament in 2010 was voted with a crushing majority of 488 votes and only 48 against! This means, I could technically post 488 links to MEPs comments about the environmental impact of these technologies on human health and biodiversity. For those with some time on their hands, here is the link to the justification for voting of all of them: Explanations of votes to be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20100505&secondRef=ITEM-014&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2010-0238#3-346. Thus, with all due respect to Mr Steveanson, his opinion is not mainstream within the European Parliament. Most MEPs understand and are convinced by the arguments vs. cyanide-based technologies.
The history of cyanide-spills around the globe and the increasing unpredictable weather conditions due to climate change are powerful arguments against open-air ponds filled with cyanide-contaminated water in densely populated areas (as most Europe is). That is why it makes sense to extend the precautionary principle, which is at the heart of EU environmental and climate legislation, to gold mining. A coherent framework for sustainable development should factor in better the short-term profits with the long term costs to tax payers and communities from the existence and maintenance of such ponds.
Placing RMGC’s reassurances in context: safety issues based on historical experiences and climate predictions.
It makes even more sense in Romania’s case as the country has one of the highest seismic risk in Europe. While the seismic activity is mostly located in the Eastern part of the country, experts cannot predict the impact the 20 tones of explosive used during the mining period will have upon the soil and the seismic activity of the country (http://www.vice.com/ro/read/europarlamentarul-renate-weber-legea-rosiei-montane-un-mamut-neconstitutional) In addition, rain patterns have often taken communities and the Romanian authorities by surprise. Rain was a contributing factor in the environmental disaster in Baia Mare, which affected both Romania and Hungary.
Following the spill, the Hungarian Ministry for the Environment stated that: “Besides the ecological damage, the cyanide pollution in the river Tisza meant also significant threat to the human health, because in the upper part of the Tisza the cyanide concentration was 100 times more than the limit value for drinking water.” Extensive damage to the river ecosystem and its fauna were also caused. Wildlife was also affected. See for example, The Baia Mare Gold Mine Cyanide Spill: Causes, Impacts and Liability here: http://reliefweb.int/report/hungary/baia-mare-gold-mine-cyanide-spill-causes-impacts-and-liability
Anyone interested in understanding the human health impact and the consequences on biodiversity of cyanide-contaminated water, should just do a search of such incidents.
Treated yet poisonous water: evidence from similar explorations by Newmont Mining, a stakeholder in Gabriel Resources; challenges to RMGC’s geological mapping.
This brings me to the next issue, which, I hope has already become self-evident. Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (RMGC) promises treated water, yes, they do! But not poison-free water! And Romania will get 204 million tones of that, which RMGC and you claim will never, never leak into the ground.
A documentary realized in Peru at the Yanacocha Gold Mine, where Newmont Mining, a company which owns 20 percent of Gabriel Resources Limited, the parent company of RMGC, is a chilling preview of the environmental impact of gold-mining even without a spill.
See Open Pit here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7GzwjwEsQE
The controversy surrounding the accuracy of RMGC geological mapping coupled with the opinions expressed by independent Romanian and foreign experts regarding these issues should at least concern the Romanian government and the EU authorities in charge of overseeing the implementation of EU environmental legislation.
Costs and benefits to the taxpayer.
On the claim that it will cost 150 million euros for RMGC to clean historical pollution: If I may point the reader to a report published by RMGC itself in 2006, in which the clean up costs for historical pollution have been estimated at 23 million euros (http://mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/rosia_montana/dvd-rosia-montana_ro_eng/Proiectul Rosia Montana/1 – Raport EIM/05 Analiza alternativelor -Capitolul 5/Alternativa zero.pdf ). The figure of 150 million seems to have been used by some of the politicians but they are contradicted by the RMGC in-house report. You can also find here: http://m.hotnews.ro/stire/15566145 the breakdown of the cleaning costs based on this report.
Each mining project should have financial guarantees for environmental liabilities as per European Environmental Liability Directive. We can safely assume a cap will be probably imposed on RMGC’s liabilities in this project, which will be negotiated with the Romanian state. The well-documented inability of the Romanian state to negotiate in the public interest aside, a few hundred million euros may sound like a lot of money to be offered by RMGC to people who live sometimes on a less than a hundred euros a month. However, if one takes into consideration the decades of maintenance of such an impressively large site (which will be visible from space!), the potential environmental and social costs in case of spills, it is no wonder that many Romanians find it difficult to make sense of the economic logic behind the Romanian government’s calculations. If the geologists’ warnings are to be taken seriously, leakages of the contaminated water into the waterbed could only be stopped with extremely expensive interventions, similar to the ice-wall proposed at Fukushima, which must be sustained for generations. See http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/03/costly_ice_wall_deployed_to_stop_radioactive_water_leaking_from_fukushima_reactors.html
Pearce, Lupescu and Tzara seem to directly and indirectly suggest two main issues…
I would like to add and highlight some important aspects that place this issue in a new light. As an individual, I value honesty, integrity and truth, and I place an equal emphasis on how much we – as concerned individuals and communities – could trust those who want to sell us this project.
The Romanian politicians and the members of government who promote it, can not be trusted. Hence, the next question is: can we trust the RMGC and hope that an ecological disaster will not happen?
We’ve read in this well researched article, and also elsewhere, that this company does not have the experience or the track record to inspire trust about the developing and the post-operation risks of this gigantic project. However, one could always say that this does not mean that RMGC could not hire specialists and, hopefully, do a good work. Precisely because of this, I need to mention the following:
This “project” started, continued and expanded, through illegalities, intimidation of the local population, trafic of influence, etc. The last couple of weeks brought to light a series of aspects that enraged people in Romania. A penal investigation should have started a decade ago, but the file was blocked by dirty political interventions and acts susceptible of high level and endemic corruption. The military prosecutor who investigated the first years of this project gave an interview which can be read (in Romanian language) here, http://www.cotidianul.ro/exista-un-dosar-rosia-montana-el-trebuie-redeschis-de-dna-223595/, while on this second article you can actually read and download as PDF (Romanian language) his very note with a summary of the file as per 2003: http://www.realitatea.net/rosia-montana_1289924.html. This is an important document.
Many other facts and documents have come to light, which now place the RMGC and many of the past and current politicians and government members in the proper light. I will add only one more crucial aspect: “Stefan Marincea, General Manager of the Geological Institute, accuses the company RMGC (Rosia Montana Gold Corporation) of falsifying the geological maps to hide the terrestrial fissures from the Corna valley watershed. He pointed out that for a similar action, a company lost its licence in Canada.” Please read the translated article here: http://saverosiamontana.net/2013/10/director-of-geological-institute-accuses-rmgc-of-falsifying-the-geological-maps/. Readers can find more on this from the declaration of the Geological Institute of Romania, http://www.geology.ro/2013/10/institutul-geologic-al-romaniei-isi-reafirma-punctul-de-vedere-exprimat-in-fata-comisiei-speciale-pentru-avizarea-proiectului-de-lege-privind-rosia-montana/ and also in these two articles: http://www.ziare.com/rosia-montana/proiect/stefan-marincea-la-rosia-montana-sunt-13-14-falii-sub-viitorul-iaz-de-decantare-interviu-1263370, and http://www.cotidianul.ro/exista-toate-premisele-producerii-unui-dezastru-la-rosia-montana-224312/.
To conclude, RMGC has lost ALL its credibility. You can not forge maps, play with lives, and let happen or perhaps even provoke an ecological disaster. What they wanted to do is not mining; this is plundering, plundering done throgh dirty politics and acts of corruption and fraud that the media now finally writes about, and which need to be properly investigated by the special anti-corruption agency.
Romanians want RMGC and this whole “project” to be the subject of a thorough criminal investigation by the anti-corruption prosecutors. The question is not how good or bad the RMGC “mining” project is. The question is how many of those involved will be investigated, and how soon will they be convicted. In my view and according to what I see happening, this is the coming, next phase, of this “project”.