Earlier this month, a Romanian Parliamentary Commission rejected the controversial Rosia Montana law, intended to allow the largest gold-mining project in Europe. Simona Manea argues that the issue represents an important opportunity to push for sustainable development policies in Romania. She also notes that the protest movement that has emerged in response to the mining project has the potential to reform the Romanian political class by placing pressure on state institutions and promoting democratic participation.
On November 12, the special Parliamentary Commission set up to consider the ‘Rosia Montana’ law, recommended its rejection. The law intended to give the go-ahead to the Canadian company, Gabriel Resources Ltd, to start the largest gold mining project in Europe by allowing for the expropriation of the remaining opposing owners of land on the site. Following the Commission’s recommendation, the Romanian Senate also rejected the law on November 19. At the time of writing, the Chamber of Deputies has yet to vote.
The rejection of the law represents a welcome outcome for the tens of thousands of Romanians who have publicly voiced opposition to this project. They have argued that the proposed exploration will wipe out four mountaintops, destroy important archaeological sites and create an open-air pond filled with over 200 million tonnes of hazardous cyanide-tainted water within two decades. Their campaign is an example of what can be achieved through peaceful and resilient citizen pressure upon state institutions. The positive news for Romanian democracy is that politicians are becoming sensitive to such pressures.
However, there are still important concerns among those who want to see a decisive outcome against the mining project. First, the Commission’s report does not guarantee the rejection of the project. The Romanian Parliament is working on a new generic mining law, which could amend the original laws the project violates. One of the recently proposed amendments to the mining law is to give mining activities a ‘special interest’ status, which will allow the expropriation of land from individuals who oppose such projects. Actions of this nature point to a political class that can still misuse state institutions and procedural democracy for short-term political and economic gains.
Moreover, the actions of the Government and Parliament reveal a lack of a multi-faceted and comprehensive vision of development policy, which considers social, economic and environmental costs and benefits. The Parliamentary Commission’s Report may appease some of the dissenting voices by proposing the negotiation of a more profitable partnership for the Romanian state. Yet, as its recommendations leave open the possibility of a ‘modified’ project, it is far from being a victory for sustainable development.
In spite of the political shenanigans, the protracted dispute over Rosia Montana offers a fundamental reason for optimism. The longer the dispute goes on, the greater the transformational impact it has in Romanian society. Using social media and alternative news outlets, the loosely networked ‘Save Rosia Montana’ movement has already neutralised one of the most extensive and expensive PR campaigns in the country that promoted the case for mining. New synergies have already been created, with the movement extending its support to a peasant-led anti-fracking resistance group in the eastern part of Romania. If one places these developments against the backdrop of the economic crisis, such resilient and sustained mobilisation for environmental causes is truly impressive.
This movement represents a generation’s opportunity to shape the discourse on development in a progressive and concrete way. Sustainable development can be accomplished through private, public, foreign and local partnerships. Such working relationships, if managed properly, can have a positive impact on communities. From this perspective, an attack on the project that is based on the investors’ origin misses the point. Securing a better financial deal for the Romanian state or Romanian companies in gold-mining projects and in shale gas exploitations does not alter the consequences upon the environment and communities in any way. The projects will still remain unsustainable in the medium and long run.
The movement should remain focused on sustainable development policies and look for positive and concrete initiatives. It can draw support from the existing EU legislative framework on sustainable development, in spite of the EU’s ambivalent stance toward the gold-mining project so far. The protest movement can also be a successful exercise for those who seek the reform of the political class, as long as it continues to steer clear from extremist slogans from the far right and far left of the political spectrum.
Ultimately, even politicians who act on the basis of political opportunism can be brought to make decisions in the best interest of a wider community. Recently, persistent lobbying of the government by environmental organisations proved successful and resulted in the approval of a Forestry Code, which, although not perfect, promotes more responsible management of forests. In the medium and long term, such a message could be the springboard for an entire electoral campaign.
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/1b6KJiL
_________________________________
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.
Now, the Government needs to consider adopting a generic mining law that would incorporate many of the articles of the respective draft bill, so as to allow major projects of national interest to go ahead.
The draft bill would have imposed strict conditions for the investor, and also for the Romanian Government…that ship has sale! It would have been a great opportunity for the Gvt to secure over 70% of the benefits of the Project…too bad!
The Project is a great mining project that proposes a mine that would cleanup the mess left behind by previous mining works!
The ‘mess’ you describe is historical pollution, which will cost a meagre 23 million euros to clean up according to an inhouse report by Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (the subsidiary of Gabriel Resources) published in 2006. Just because a site is polluted does not justify additional pollution with the hazardous substance that is cyanide, which must be contained for decades and decades to come with taxpayers money, assuming RMGC will negotiate a cap on its contribution. Not to mention that it may not be around in 30 years time.
Firstly, the mining project wasn’t rejected, as you state in the beginning of the article, the Parliament simply chose to draft a general piece of legislation for the mining industry in Romania, the restarting of which would be welcome news for the Romanian economy, considering the high level of FDI which this implies, the largest royalty rate in Europe and the fact that thousands of jobs would be created in areas with very high unemployment. Secondly, I don’t understand how rejecting mining would constitute a “multi-faceted development policy”, why should this area, in which Romania has great advantages over other countries, such as skilled workforce, important natural resources and in the case of Rosia Montana even investors with projects elaborated according to the strictest environmental regulations, be ignored?
@Calin
As the post notes, the recommendations of the Commission leave open the re-branding of the project or its approval on the ‘back door’. You fail to note in your comment about the merits of the project that the Commission recommended the penal investigation of the allegations of map forging by Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (RMGC), the subsidiary of Gabriel Resources.
The employment/development argument: There will be more jobs in the initial stages but afterwards, there will be around 800 jobs (not all for the local population) and this only for a mere 17 years. Looking at development only through the FDI lens is not the kind of development that Romania should be promoting or indeed any government that is interested in the economic wellbeing of their populations in the medium and long term.
The kind of sustainable development I am arguing for is outlined in the European Strategy for Sustainable Development (here: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/sustainable_development/l28117_en.htm). The first line of that strategy defines sustainable development as development that will ‘meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ There is nothing in the mining project that will bring prosperity to the region aside from some (probably poorly paid) jobs for the miners for a couple of decades. All other economic activities (agriculture, tourism, wood industry) in the region will suffer as the area becomes contaminated. One step the Romanian government could take in order to create a sustainable future for the population of the village and region is to remove the ‘mono-industrial’ denomination for the area and start the procedures for its inclusion in the UNESCO world heritage list.
Re: historical pollution. While there is some pollution from previous mining activities, it dwindles by comparison to what this project will bring. In fact, the clean-up of the previous mines has been estimated to only 23 million euros according to RMGC’s own in-house report from 2006: 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. By comparison, RMGC failed to secure an insurance company for the project that is willing to underwrite it in case something goes wrong.
Assurances of the pro-mining lobby and promoters that this is the safest and the most environmental friendly project possible are not convincing. The EU classifies cyandide as a hazardous substance and Romania is going to get 200 million tones of that in an open-air pond. The geological set up of the region, the likelihood of human error and the increasingly unpredictable weather patterns make this project an environmental disaster waiting to happen. In Baia Mare, for example, rain was a contributing factor for the cyanide-tainted water spillage in 2000. That spillage was, as you may well know, the gravest environmental disaster in Europe since Chernobyl. Even without a spill (very unlikely, given that the open air pond is going to be there for decades to come), infiltration into the water-bed is a serious public health issue.
I have commented at length on these types of pro-mining arguments also here: The EU should intervene in the debate over Romania’s controversial Rosia Montana mining project: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/10/21/the-eu-should-intervene-in-the-debate-over-romanias-controversial-rosia-montana-mining-project/ Some of the commentators there also pointed out to many more problems and irregularities with RMGC’s gold mining project.
Simona, as you say, the Special Commission rejected a piece of legislation, not the mining project itself. But I disagree with your suggestion that projects like these are ‘unsustainable’. Sustainable development means economic development in a way that is consistent with long-term environmental and social aims. It doesn’t mean rejecting industrial activity or mining on principle. The whole point of the Rosia Montana project is that it will clean up the environment and preserve local heritage, at the same time as creating jobs and bringing economic growth. Just take a look at some of the facts: http://www.rosiamontananews.com/statistics. As I wrote in a Huffington Post article last month (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/catalin-hosu/rosia-montana-gold-project_b_4063178.html), it is only right that legitimate concerns about big industrial projects should be aired publicly. But legitimate debate should be based on facts, not misinformation. If you’d like to know the real story about Rosia Montana, I invite you to come out here and let me show you around. That’s a genuine offer – let me know if you’re interested.
Dear Calin,
Could you please be more specific about the misinformation? Sustainable development is defined as development that does not impede the ability of future generations to make a living on the place where the economic activities take place. Managing the huge hazardous pond after less than two decades of exploitation count probably as valuable and sustainable jobs in the view of the pro-mining lobby.
On an additional note, I find it rather strange that the ‘truth’ about the project can only be promoted in Romania by intimidation tactics, expensive PR campaigns and lobbying. One of the commentators on another post I wrote here (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/10/21/the-eu-should-intervene-in-the-debate-over-romanias-controversial-rosia-montana-mining-project/ ) also noted that the lack of an insurer for the project speaks volumes about the feasibility of the project.
As you like the Huffington Post: here is a piece by Stephen McGrath entitled evocatively ‘Rosia Montana and Dirty Politics’: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stephen-mcgrath/rosia-montana-and-dirty-p_b_4123235.html.