of the Roșia Montană Gold Mining Project - openpolitics.ro · available data concerning the...
Transcript of of the Roșia Montană Gold Mining Project - openpolitics.ro · available data concerning the...
A Multicriteria Decision-Making Analysis of the Roșia Montană Gold Mining Project
2015
Adriana MihaiAdina Marincea
Love Ekenberg
A Multicriteria Decision-Making Analysis of the Roșia Montană Gold Mining Project
Research undertaken by MRC – Median Research Centre, Bucharest, Romania eGovlab, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University
Adriana Mihai, Median Research Centre*Adina Marincea, Median Research Centre
Love Ekenberg, Universitatea din Stockholm și IIASA
* Authors contributed equally and are therefore listed in reverse alphabetical order.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 8
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS 15
RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A. 15 TheRomanianstate 19 Thelocalcommunity 21 Publicopinionandcivilsociety 23
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY 25
DecisionanalysisandDecideIT 25 PriorstudieswithDecideIT 26 ThemethodologyoftheRoşiaMontanăcasestudy 28 Backgroundresearch,establishingthecriteriaandsubcriteria 28 DefiningthealternativesofdevelopmentforRoşiaMontană 31 Assigningvaluesandweighstothemulti-criteriatree 34
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 37
Scenario1:indiscriminativeassessmentofissuesimportance 37 Scenario2:coverageofissueintheconsulteddata 40 Scenario3:potentialofimprovingthecredibility 43 Scenario4:stakeholderinterest–theRomanianstate 44 Scenario5:stakeholderinterest–civilsocietyandlocalopponents 47 Scenario6:local,nationalandtransboundaryinterests 48 Scenario7:stakeholderinterest–localcommunity 51 Scenario8:transparencyandcitizeninterest 53 Scenario9:2013draftminingbillstipulations 55 Otherscenariosadvancedinthepublicdebates 59 Researchlimitations 59
CONCLUSIONS 61
REFERENCES 62
INTRODUCTION
TheobjectofthepresentresearchworkconductedbyMRC–MedianResearchCentre,fortheeGovlabattheDepartmentofComputerandSystemSciencesatStockholmUniversity,isadecisionanalysisoftheRoşiaMontanăgoldexploitationcaseandanIT-supportedmodelingofpublicdecisionmaking.TheneedandestimatedutilityforastructuredanalysisoftheavailabledataconcerningtheRoşiaMontanăcasearepalpableintheRomanianpublicsphere;inthelast15years,strongdebatesandtensionsbetweencitizens,journalists,Presidential,GovernmentandParliamentrepresentatives,civilsocietyactorsandcorporateofficialshavetakenplace,asallstakeholdershaveprovidedoftenconflictinginformationandopinionsonthebenefitsandrisksposedbyacyanideexploitationofgoldandsilvermineralsfromtheApuseniMountains,byaCanadianmajority-ownedcompany.Theprojecthastakensomestepsforward,butitisstillawaitinglegalandenvironmentalapprovalsfromtheRomanianGovernment,delaywhichhasabearingupontheRoşiaMontanăvillageandcommunity,aswellasontheinvestmentsmadesofarbythecompany.Romanianpolicymakersarestillfacingvisiblesetbacksintakingadecisionregardingtheexploitation,whilethecompanyiscurrentlypushingforaresolutionthrough“positivedialoguewithdecisionmakers”1.
TheRoşiaMontanăprojectreferstotheplansofexploringandprocessingofgoldandsilvermineralsfromtheRoşiaMontanăareaintheApusenimountains,Romania,usingatechnologybasedoncyanideleaching,bytheexploitationlicenceholder,S.C.RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.(tobereferredtoasRMGC).ThemainshareholdersofthecompanyaretheminingstatecompanyCompaniaNaţionalăaCuprului,AuruluişiFierului“MINVEST”S.A.Deva.2,with19.31%,andGabrielResourcesLtd.basedinCanada,with80.69%shares.MainlyduetothefailuretocomplywiththeRomanianlegislationonenvironmentissues,thecompanyhasnotobtainedalltheneededpermitstobegintheexploration.
Eversincetheexploitationlicencewasgrantedin1999totheNationalCopper,GoldandIronCompany“MINVEST”S.A.Deva,andwasfurthertransferredtothenewlycreatedRMGCin2000,theprojecthasbeenpromotedbythecompanythroughinstitutionallobbyandextensivePRcampaignsinthemediaforitspotentialeconomic,socialandculturalbenefitsforthelocalcommunityandtheRomanianstate.Afteraseriesofrenegotiations
1Gabrielseeksamicableresolutionoverminingdispute,PressRelease,January20,2015. http://gabrielresources.com/documents/GBURelease_Amicableresolutionsought_200115.pdf
2formerRegiaAutonomaaCupruluiDeva,until1998
oftheunprofitableconditionsstipulatedintheinitiallicenceagreement,theGovernmentofRomaniaestimatesadirectbenefitofnearly5.2bnUSD,whichincludesgoldandsilverroyalty,dividendsfortheRomanianstateasashareholder,incometax,andsocialcontributionsforemployees.
However,theenvironmentalrisksofcyanide-basedexplorations,thethreatposedtotheculturalheritageandotherindustriesinthearea,theforcedexpropriationsandseveralisuspicionsofcorruption,illegalitiesandoveralllackoftransparencyofthestate-companyagreementsstirredseriouscitizenandnon-governmentalorganizations’oppositiontotheproject.Legalactionshavebeentakenbyseveralopposingvillagers’NGO,AlburnusMaior,againstanumberofenvironmentalandarchaeologicalpermitsgivenbycountyinstitutionsandministries;furthermore,initiativesaimingtoraiseawarenessandcivicparticipationhavebeentakingplacebothinRoşiaMontană,mainlythroughtheactivisttheatreandmusicfestivalFânFest,andthroughoutthecountry,wherepublicdebates,artexhibitionsandinvestigationswereorganizedbyuniversitiesandotherresearchinstitutes,activistsandjournalists.Thepeakofcitizenoppositiontotheprojectwasthewidespreadprotestsinthefallof2013,triggeredbyadraftminingbilladvancedbyPrime-ministerofRomaniaandtherulingcoalitionatthetime,theSocial-LiberalUnion,whichwouldhavecreatedamoresuitablelegalframeworkfortheprojecttocommence.Counteractingthemainstreammediasilenceonthesubject,valuabledataandpreviouslyclassifiedmaterialsuchasthe1999exploitationlicencesurfacedonlineandbecameincreasinglyvisibleanddiscussed.
Nonetheless,theopinionsamongcitizensremaindivided.AnationalreferendumwassuggestedbythePresidentofRomaniain2013,buttheproposalwasrejectedinParliament.AnopinionpollcommandedbyanewspublicationandconductedinSeptember2013showedthat95%oftheRomaniansfollowedthereportsonthesubject.52%oftherespondentsstatedthatonlythroughthecontinuationoftheRoşiaMontanăminingsafejobscanbesecuredforthelocalcommunity,while35%believethattheareacandevelopthroughtourism,iftheprojectfalls3.
ThecontroversyoftheprojecthasledtheRomanianofficialstotreatitwithcautionintheelectoralcampaignsheldinthelastdecade,theirdiscourseoscillatingbetweenreinforcingRomania’sneedofeconomicbenefitsoutofitsnaturalresourcesandstatingtheirdisapprovalofthecyanideexploration.Althoughsomemembersoftherulingpartiesand
3 CatalinAugustinStoica,“OpiniapublicadespreProiectulRosiaMontanasiGazeledesist”,11decembrie2013,Voxpublica,http://voxpublica.realitatea.net/politica-societate/opinia-publica-despre-proiectul-rosia-montana-si-gazele-de-sist-101065.html
ministerssupporttheproject,othersarestillreluctantinreachingadefinitiveconclusion.Thepostponementofthedecisionregardingthecommencementoftheexplorationcanbemotivatedbythecurrentlegislativeimpediments,thelackofclarityregardingthemultipleargumentsonbothsidesandthecitizenoppositiontotheproject.
Thecurrentreport,supportedbytheUniversityofStockholm4incollaborationwithMedianResearchCentre,Bucharest,representsafirstattempttosystematizethemainargumentsissuedbythestakeholders(RMGC,theRomanianofficials,thecivilsociety,thelocalcommunity,expertsandcitizens).Webelievethatthemostappropriatemethodofanalysisandevaluationoftheavailabledata,forestablishingwhichoptionisthemostsuitableforasustainabledevelopmentoftheRoşiaMontanăarea,isamulti-criteriadecision-makingmodel5.Aswewillseebelow,thisscientificmethodcanservetheRomaniandecisionmakersintheprocessofweighingthedataforreachingadefinitiveandobjectiveconclusion.
4 ThisresearchwasfundedbytheSwedishResearchCouncilFORMAS,projectnumber2011-3313-20412-31,aswellasbyStrategicfundsfromtheSwedishgovernmentwithinICT—TheNextGeneration.
5 Multi-criteriadecision-makinganalysis(MCDA).AsevedeaşiMihai,A.;Marincea,A.;Ekenberg,L.AMCDMAnalysisoftheRoşiaMontanăGoldMiningProject.Sustainability2015,7,7261-7288.
8
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
MedianResearchCentrefollowedthemajorstepstakenintheRoşiaMontanăcasebythemainpartiesinvolved6,fromofficialagreementsandpermits,topoliticalstatementswhicheitherpushedtheprojectforward,orblockeditduetothepolitical,socialorenvironmentalrisks.
1995: GabrielResourcesNLwinstheauctionorganizedbythestate-ownedcompanyRegiaAutonomăaCupruluiDevaforajointventureinexploitingtheoldtailingsatRoşiaMontanăandGurabarza–Brad;thedocumentationshowsthattheauctionwaswononSeptember4th,howevertheofficialreleaseinapublicnewspaperofthebidbytheRomaniancompanywasissuedonSeptember5th.
1997:ListingGabrielResourcesontheVancouverstockmarket,withtheapprovaloftheMinistryofIndustryandCommerce7;GabrielResourcesLimitedandRegiaAutonomăaCupruluiDevabecomeformallyassociatesintheRomaniancompanyEuroGoldResources,whichlaterbecomesS.C.RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.Intheassociationagreement,asumof9millionUSDisstipulatedasinvestmentmadebyGabrielResourcesLimitedforresearchandfeasabilitystudies,withthepurposeof„identifyingthequantitiesandqualityofthedepositswithintheperimeter”8.
1998:RomanianGovernmentadoptsthenewmininglawno.61/1998.InDecember1998,thelicenseagreementfortheexploitationofthedepositswithinalimitedperimeterinRoşiaMontanaisgiventostate-ownedNationalCompanyofCopper,GoldandIron“Minvest”S.A(formerRegiaAutonomaaCupruluiDeva),whilethejointventureEuroGoldResourcesremains„affiliate”;
1999:Thelicenseagreementisvalidatedthroughagovernmentaldecisionno.458/1999,signedbythethenPrime-minister,MinistryofIndustryandCommerce,MinistryofFinancesandthedirectoroftheNationalAgencyforMineralResources.Thelicenseagreement–
6 RalucaToma,TimelineRoşiaMontană,November3rd2013,http://www.openpolitics.ro/Roşia-Montană/timeline-Roşia-Montană.html
7 Lateronandtothepresentday,thecompanyislistedontheTorontostockmarket.8 LicenseagreementfortheconcessionofgoldandsilverresourcesinRoşiaMontanăjustificationand
governmentaldecision,31.05.1999,http://gov.ro/fisiere/stiri_fisiere/licenta-de-concesiune.pdf
9
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
includingtheexactlocationandperimetersforexploitation-anditsadditionalcontractsremainclassified,accordingtotheRomanianlaw,until2013,whentheyareleakedtothepress.
2000:ThetransferoftheexploitationlicensefromtheNationalCompanyofCopper,GoldandIron“Minvest”S.AtothejointventureS.C.RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.isapprovedbytheNationalAgencyforMineralResourcesandbytheGovernment.Meanwhile,homeandlandownersinRoşiaMontanăopposingtheminingprojectassociateandformanNGO,AlburnusMaior,whichwillbealeadingactivevoiceandwatchdogfordefendingtherighttoproperty,theconservationofthenaturallandscapeintheareaandthelegalityofpermitsissuedbylocalornationalinstitutionsonthetopic.
2001-2002: RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationreleasesthefirstfeasibilitystudyfortheRoşiaMontanăexploitation,after4yearsofgeologicalresearchandgeo-technicaldrillingsinthearea.Theproposalforexploitationconsistsof20milliontonsofmineralstobeannuallyprocessedin4openpitsfrommassifsCetate,Cârnic,Jig-VaidoaiaandOrlea,with„averagecontentsof1.46g/tAuand6.9g/tAg,representing10.1millionounces(314t)Auand47.6millionounces(1480t)Ag-insitumetals”9.Thetechnologicalprocessinvolvesblastingthepits,cyanideleachingoftheoreinaprocessplant,andreleasingtheneutralizedsodiumcyanideinatailingsmanagementfacility,behindadammadeofrock.Thearealicensedforthecompanyconsistsof2388ha,outofwhich1346haaredestinedforexploitationand300haforthetailingsmanagementfacilityanddam.Theexploitationpresuposestherelocationanddisplacementof960familiesfromthreevillages–RoşiaMontana,CornaandGuraCornei,housesandcemetaries,thedestructionoffourmassifsandnaturallandscapes,buildingsandchurches10.AplanfordisplacementandrelocationisopenforpublicandprivatedebatesbetweentherepresentativesofRoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationandtheimpactedlocalfamilies.
2002:Theright-wingGreaterRomaniaPartysubmitsamotionopposingtheprojectinParliamentandopensthedebatesurroundingthelegalityofthelicenseprocedures.Themotionaskedfor:abanagainstgoldcyanidizationandaturntoenvironmental-friendlyminingtechnologies;respectingtherighttopropertyofthelocalcitizens;acorrectand
9 RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation,GeologyofRoşiaMontană,http://en.rmgc.ro/Roşia-Montană-project/geology.html
10 RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationMemorandum,2004.www.mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/Roşia_Montană/pdf/memoriu_prezentare.pdf
10
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
transparentprocessofpublicinformingontheproject.TheMinistryofIndustryandCommercetakesafavorableposition,bysignalingthattheresourcesshouldbeexploited;whilethemethodisstillupfordebate,hearguesthat„utilizingcyanideinprocessingthegoldandsilverorewithlowconcentrationisthemostwidelyusedmethodaroundtheworld”.Issuessuchassocialandenvironmentalcostsandrisks,thelackofpreviousminingexperienceandsuccessfulexploitationsconductedbytheinvestors,thedestructionofromanarcheologicaltraces,thelackoffinancialguaranteesfortheimplementationandsafeclosureoftheproject,werediscussedinplenary11intheChamberofDeputees.Themotionwasrejectedwith65votesforand188votesagainst,amongthelatterbeingdeputeesfromtheDemocratParty,theNationalLiberalPartyand.theDemocraticUnionofHungariansinRomania.AlburnusMaiorNGOlaunchesthecampaign„SaveRoşiaMontană”againsttheprojectanditsimpactontheenvironment,ontheculturalheritage(ancientgalleries,heritagebuildings),aswellasonthelocalcommunityandpropertyowners.
2003: Prime-ministeraskstheParliamenttoappointaSpecialCommitteetoassesstheRoşiaMontanăprojectrisksandadvantages.Bydecisionno.8/2003,the13memberscommitteeissupposedto„formulateaunitaryviewpointconcerningtheeconomical,social,culturalandenvrionmentalaspectsimpliedbytheproject”12.Twomonthslater,theCommitteepublishesareport13whichreinforcestheeconomicalbenefitsfortheRomanianstate,estimatedat583millionUSD,andassuresthewiderpublicthatnolegislationbreacheswereobservedinthelicenseagreementorintheactivityofthecompanyuptothatpoint.Inspiteofthepositivenoteofthereportandofitsfavorablereceptioninthelocalpress,twomembersofthecommitteereleasedseparatestatements,however,drawingattentionontheinsufficientdatagatheredinashorttimespan,onthequestionabledebatesformat,aswellasonthelackoftransparencyoftheParliamentaryhearings,wherethepresswasnotallowedaccess.Prime-ministerAdrianNastasedeclares,basedonthecommitteereport,thatheis„skeptical”aboutthechancesoftheprojecttobeimplemented,duetothehighenvironmentalrisks.
11 ChamberofDeputiesSession,DebateontheRoşiaMontanăsimplemotion,signedby71deputees.December10th2002.http://www.cdep.ro/pls/steno/steno.stenograma?ids=5367&idm=11&idl=1
12 Hotărâreanr.8/2003pentruconstituireaComisieicomunespecialeprivindefectuareauneianalizeasupraProiectuluidedezvoltareminierăRoşiaMontană
13 Thereportisnolongeravailableforpublicconsultation,butstatementsissuedbythe2003specialcommitteememberscanbefoundinthemedia–VeronicaMarinescu,DesiRaportulComisieiparlamentarenudaundaverdeinvestitiei,autoriiproiectului„RoşiaMontană“sesivadcastigatori,CurierulNational,June12th2003 http://www.curierulnational.ro/print/15612
2004:MinistryofCultureapprovesthecertificateofarcheologicaldischargesfortheCârnicmassif,legaldocumentnecessaryfortheexploitationofaprotectednaturalheritagesite.
2004 presidential elections:candidateandprime-ministerAdrianNăstasereinforceshisoppositiontotheproject,declaringthatthegoldwillbetakenaway,leavinginsteadthecyanidetailings;candidateandmayorofBucharestatthetimeTraianBăsescu(whowonthepresidentialelectionsandstayedinofficeuntilnovember2014)supportstheprojectforitsvalueandjob-creatingpotential.Atthesametime,thenewMinistryofEnvironmentannouncesherrefusaltoissueanyenvironmentalpermitsfortheproject.
2005: DiplomaticmeetingsbetweentheRomanianandtheHungarianprime-ministersandministriesofenvironment;theHungarianMinistryofEnvironmentopposestheprojectandadvisestheRomaniansidetoaskforanimpactassessmentstudy.
2002-2006: Feasibilitystudies,researchandconsultingconductedbythecompanyandnationalandinternationalexpertsfordraftingthedocumentationneededforlegalapprovals;submittingtheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentfortheRoşiaMontanăProject14totheMinistryofEnvironmentandforpublicdebate;finalizingtheGeneralUrbanismPlanfortheAlbacountyandtheZonalUrbanismPlanfortheRoşiaMontanavillage,bothincludingtheprojectactivities.Theapprovalsoftheurbanismplansaremandatoryfortheprojectdevelopment.
2002-2004 and 2006-2008: Thecompanypurcahsespropertiesinthevillagestobeaffectedbytheproject.
2006: TheMinistryofEnvironmentreleasestheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentfortheRoşiaMontanăProjectforpublicdebates,makingthedocumentationavailableonlineandforrequest.RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationtakespartin16publicconsultationsinRomaniaandHungaryandreceives5600questionsonthedatafromtheEIA,towhichthecompanyrespondsthroughtheMinistryofEnvironmentwebsite,in200715.Theanswersareavailableonline,asanannextotheEIA.
14 http://en.rmgc.ro/Roşia-Montană-project/environment/environmental-impact-assessment.html15 MinistryofEnvironment,RoşiaMontanădocumentation,http://www.mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/Roşia_
Montană/Roşia_Montană.htm
11
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
12
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
2008: RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationsuestheMinistryofEnvironmentanditsSecretaryofStateforunjustifiablyrefusingtoissuethepermitsforthedamconstructionatCornaandCetate.NationalandinternationalorganizationsGreenpeace,AlburnusMaiorandtheIndependentCenterfortheDevelopmentofNaturalResourcesoffertheirlegalsupportandexpertizetotheMinistry.In2009,theBucharestCourtofLawrejectsthelegalactiontakenbythecompany,infavoroftheMinistry.
2009 presidential elections:thesocialist-democratcandidateMirceaGeoanădeclaresthataslongastheprojectthreatenstheenvironmentandtheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopment,hewillopposeit.PresidentinofficeandcandidateTraianBăsescuavoidspoliticalstatementsontheprojects,leavingthedecisioninthehandsofexperts.However,herestateshispositionregardingtheexploitationofresources,namelythatitshouldbedone,inprinciple,butwithoutirremediablyjeoperdizingarcheologicalsitesandtheenvironment.RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationinauguratesRecea,thenewlybuiltneighbourhoodinAlbaIuliacity,destinedforthe125familieswhohaveagreeduponrelocating.
2009:ProvisionalMinistryofEconomyincludestheprojectontheagendaofthenewlyformedgovernment,announcinghisintenttoacceleratethecommencementoftheexploitation.MinistriesofCultureandofEnvironmentdeclarethatinthelackofguaranteesandmoreextensiveresearch,theywouldnotgivethenecessarypermits.
2010: AseminarontheRoşiaMontanăprojectentitled„MakingEuropealeaderinsustainableandresponsiblemining”16wasorganizedattheEuropeanParliamentinBrusselsbyliberalMEPincollaborationwithGabrielResourcesLimited.TheeventwasseverelycriticizedfornotinvitingMEPsorexpertsopposingtheprojectandtheNationalLiberalPartyhadtoissueastatementremindingthepublicopinionthat,duringitsgovernmentalmandate,theprojectwasblockedduetoacost-benefitanalysisrevealingtheunprofitabilityoftheprojectfortheRomanianstate.TheEuropeanParliamentadoptsananti-cyanideuseresolution,advisingthebanofcyanideminindintheEuropeanUnion.AmongthesupportersoftheresolutionaretwoRomanianMEPs.Meanwhile,thecompanyobtainsarenewedurbanismcertificateandtheMinistryofEnvironmentresumestheevaluationoftheEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.
2011:Conflictingopinions:whiletheprime-ministerdeclaresthattheagreementsmadebetweentheRomanianstateandthecompanyarenotinthebestinterestofthestate,
16 http://www.nineoclock.ro/Roşia-Montană-scandal-liberals-reject-accusations/
thePresidentdeclaresthattheproject„needstobedone”afterarenegotiationofthestatebenefitsandthatthegovernmentmusthavethecouragetoassumeresponsibility.Oppositionleaders(amongwhichthepresent-dayprime-minister)criticizethePresident’sinvolvementandrejecttheproject.OppositionpartieslaunchtheirvisionforasustainabledevelopmentwhichincludesmandatorymeasuresfortheRoşiaMontanăcase:declassifyingtheagreements,independentcost-benefitanalyses,identifyingthemostappropriatetechnologyfortheexploitation,takingintoconsiderationtheEPanti-cyanideresolution,respectingtherighttopropertyofthevillagers.TheMinistryofEnvironmentnegotiatestheloweringoftheconcentrationofcyanidewiththecompany,andtheMinistryofEconomyoffersitsfullsupportfortheproject.Thecompanysponsorsanextensivearcheologicalresearchandconservationprogramoftheancientromangalleries,incollaborationwiththeNationalMuseumofHistoryandwithotherresearchinstitutions.
2012: Newlyappointedsocial-democratprime-ministermentionsthreeconditionsforgettingonwiththeproject:environmentalsafetyguarantees,regenotiatingthestateshareswithinRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationandputtinganendtothelobbyinfluencingthepoliticaldecision.TheMinistryofEconomyannouncesthelocalcommunitythattheprojectissettostartandthatafavorabledecisionwillbemadebytheendoftheyear.Prime-ministerinfirmsthestatement,mentioningthatadecisionwillnotbetakenbytheendoftheyear,continuingthechainofcontradictionsinstatementscomingfromthesamegovernment.MinistryofEnvironmentasksforadeclassificationofthelicenseagreement.AlongwithParliamentaryelections,theAlbacountyorganizesareferendumaskingthecitizensof35villagesandtownswhethertheyagreewiththecompanyprojectornot.While62,45%ofthevoteschose„yes”and35%votedagainsttheproject,thereferendumfailedtobevalidatedduetolowerthanrequiredturnout,withonly43,20%ofcitizenswitharighttovotecastingtheballot.
2013: TheprojectisputontheagendaoftheMinistryofInfrastructureandNationalInterestProjectsandstatementsarereleasedinfavouroftheprojectandagainsttheopposingNGOs,politicalleaderssupportingthe„reindustrialization”ofRomania.Newminingbillisdraftedbythegovernmentandsubmittedtotheparliament:miningprojectsbecomeof„publicutilityandnationalinterest”addressingtheconstitutionalconditionwhichstipulatesthat„noonecanbeexpropriatedunlessitisforapublicinterestcause,setbylawandwithjustcompensation”.Theminingbillalsoincludesrenegotiationsofthestateparticipationinthecompany,thesharesraisingfrom19.31%to25%,aswellasanincreaseofthestatebenefitsfromroyalties,from4%to6%.TheMinistryofJusticegivesanegativevoteforthemininglaw,invokingunnecessarylimitationsofthecitizenrights,ambiguouswordingandunconstitutionalbreachesinissuesconcerningexpropriationandperimeterdelimitations.
13
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
14
SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
RiseProject(independentinvestigativejournalism)publishesthelicenseagreementanditsadditionalcontracts,followedbyotherdocumentsreleasedontheMinistryofEconomywebsite.Proofsofirregularitiesemergeandstreetprotestsagainstthedraftlawtakeplacealloverthecountry,fromseptember1st.Followingthestreetpressures,presidentoftheSenateandleaderoftheNationalLiberalPartytakesthesideoftheprotesters.Prime-ministersubsequentlydeclarestheprojectclosedandthevictoryofthestreetandcivilsociety,statinghisintentionofquicklyrejectingitinanemergencyvoteinParliamentduetoanobviousmajorityopposingit.HisstatementmakesGabrielResourcesLimitedstocksontheTorontostockmarketdropwith51%,thecompanyreleasingastatementbywhichtheRomanianstateisbeingthreatenedwith“litigationformultiplebreachesofinternationalinvestmenttreatiesforupto$4-billion”17.Followingthecorporatereaction,PMannouncestheyhavereconsideredtheinitialrejectionofthedraftlaw,proposinginsteadaSpecialCommissionappointedbytheParliamenttohearoutallthestakeholdersinvolved,alongwithNGOs,citizens,independentexpertsandjournalists,localandnationalauthoritiesandrepresentativesofthecompany.
2014 presidential elections:Lookingattheirelectoralagendas,itseemsthatthe6mostvisiblecandidatesaredividedwhenitcomestotheRoşiaMontanăproject:MonicaMacoveiandCălinPopescuTăriceanuareneutral,ElenaUdreaismorepro-developmentoftheprojectandVictorPonta,KlausIohannisandKelemenHunoraremoreanti-developmentoftheproject18.Thereisobviouslystillnoconsensusonwhatdecisionshouldbemadeinthiscaseandthepoliticalriskishighinassumingadefinitiveposition.TheNationalAgencyforMineralResourcesannouncesupcomingauctionfortheconcessionofnewperimetersforexploration,fourofwhichcontaingoldandsilverdeposits.
2015: GabrielResourcesLimitedissuesaformalnotificationtothePresidentandPrimeMinisterofRomaniacallingforaformalengagementinaprocessofconsultation,seekingan„amicableresolutiontothisdisputewhichwillleadtothedevelopmentoftheProjectforthebenefitofallstakeholders”.
17 GabrielthreatensRomaniawithbillion-dollarlawsuit,TheGlobeMail,September11,2013 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/gabriel-resources-ceo-vows-to-sue-if-romania-kills-europes-biggest-gold-mine/article14240950/
18 AccordingtothedatagatheredbyMedianResearchCentrefortheapplicationTestVotPresidentialElections2014.Theapplicationisavailableherehttp://www.openpolitics.ro/testvot,anddetailsonthemethodologyemployedarehere:http://www.openpolitics.ro/noutati/homepage/tot-ce-ai-nevoie-sa-stii-despre-testvot-prezidentiale-2014.html
Throughouttheyears,therehasbeennoconsensusonthefutureoftheprojectwithinasingleparty.Think-tankRomâniaCurată(CleanRomania)lobbyingagainstcorruption,forparliamentarytransparencyandtheruleoflaw,publishedalistof43wellknownpublicofficialswhohavesupportedtheminingprojectthroughfavorableactionsandstatementsinministriesorparliament.Theofficialscamefromallmajorpartieswhichhavebeenpartoftherulingcoalitionsofthepast15years.19
ThefinalreportissuedbytheSpecialParliamentaryCommissioninNovember2013includesproandagainstargumentsissuedbythemainemittentsofreports,lawsandpermitsfortheRoşiaMontanăproject,servingasagoodstartingpointforamulticriteriadecisionanalysiswhichtakesintoconsiderationthemultiplestakeholderpointofviews.Thecommitteeconclusionsrecommendtherejectionofthebill(whichtookplaceinParliamentthefollowingmonths),aswellasthefollowing:a)fairpartnershipconditionsbetweenthemajorityshareholderandtheRomanianstate-ownedcompany,respectingcompulsorycommunitynormsandtheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopmentintheareaswheretheprojectwillbeputintoexecution;b)realimprovementandlargereconomicbenefitsaftertherenegotiationsoftheinitialagreement;c)acarefulreexaminationofalternativescenariosonminingexploitationroyaltyandcontributionrate-setting;d)athroughoutinvestigationofthelegalityofactionswithintheproject;e)anecessityofbroaderlegislationongoldandsilveralloyminingprojectstobedebatedbyparliamentsoastoenableminingdevelopmentinRomaniaandinvestments.
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.,withmainshareholderGabrielResourcesLimited(80,69%shares).AccordingtotheAnnualInformationFormofGabrielResourcesLtd.fortheyear2013,thecompanyisregisteredinYukon,Canada,andoperatesthroughitssubsidiariesinLondon,Bucharest,RoşiaMontanaandBrussels.Thecompanypresentsitselfashavingasinglefocus,namely“permittinganddevelopingitsworldclassRoşiaMontanăgoldandsilverproject”20.BesidestheexploitationlicensefortheRoşiaMontanagoldandsilverdeposits,thecompanyalsoowns,throughitsRomaniansubsidiary,anexplorationconcessionforgold,silverandcopperdepositsinBucium,withinthesamecounty.
19 http://www.romaniacurata.ro/captura-statului-la-purtator-43-de-nume-sonore-pe-lista-neagra-a-exploatarii-Roşia-Montană/
20 http://www.gabrielresources.com/site/index.aspx
15
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
16
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
Belowwecanseetheinter-corporaterelationshipbetweentheCompanyanditssubsidiaries,aswellasthepercentageofownershipheldbytheCompanyineachandthemineralsowned:
FIGURE1.Stakeholderscheme,RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationS.A.Source:AnnualInformationFormofGabrielResourcesLtd.,March12,2014,p.6
RMGold(Services)Ltd.(UK)
MinvestS.A.(Romania)
RomAurSRL(Romania)
NFIGabrielFinanceS.A.(Romania)
“Non-BankingFinancialInstitution”
GabrielResourcesLtd.(Yukon,Canada)
GabrielResources(Barbados)Ltd.(Barbados)
GabrielResources(Netherlands)B.V.(Netherlands)
GabrielResourcesJerseyLtd.(Jersey)
RosiaMontanaGoldCoroporationSA
(Romania)
100.00%
100.00% 100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
80.69%
19.31%
100.00%
0.22%
0.22%
99.55%
RosiaMontana Project
Bucium Project
GabrielResourcesLtd.hasmade,between1997and2013,investmentsof550millionUSD,accordingtotheirstatementstothe2013specialparliamentarycommittee.Themajorareasofinvestmentsfocusedon:geologicalresearch(98millionUSD),culturalheritageresearchandpreservationmeasures(28millionUSD),displacingsites(50millionUSD),propertyacquisition(105millionUSD),taxesandfees(50millionUSD),miningequipment(55millionUSD),techni-calstudies(90millionUSD),generalandadministrativecosts(74millionUSD).Noofficialdocu-mentationwassubmittedtojustifythesums;themediareleasedfurtherexpensesmadebythecompanyforlobbying,PRandadvertising(millionsof€cf.2013specialcommittee,p.15).
Thestate-ownedcompanyMINVEST(19,31%ofshares)hasmadenoinvestmentsintheproject,asitwasstatedintheagreementbetweentheRomaniansideandtheinvestors.Thecompanyalsoowns19%ofanotherjointventureforminingactivities,DevaGoldS.A.,whosemainshareholderisEldoradoGoldCorporation(CA).DevaGold,whosedirectoristheformerdirectorofMINVEST,ownstwpexplorationlicensesforperimetersintheneighbouringcountyHunedoara,atCertej,90kmfromRoşiaMontana.TheminingprojectatCertejhasverysimilarinitialagreementswiththeRomanianstate21andplanstousecyanideinordertoextractgoldandsilveraswell;however,in2005,thecompanydecidedtochangethetechnologyfromleaching(totalcyanidation,technologychosenbyRoşiaMontanaGoldCorporation)toflotation,processwhichdiminishesthequantityofcyanideusedperyearto1,653tons,incontrastto12,000tons/year,volumerequiredbytheleachingprocess.
ThereareseveralotherlicensesforexplorationintheApuseniMountains,releasedbytheNationalAgencyforMineralResources;theprojectsproposeopen-pitmining,andareindifferentstagesofdevelopment,fromestimatingthequantitiesoforeinthedepositstoawaitingenvironmentalandexploitationpermitapprovals.
FIGURE2.Mainperimetersforgoldandsilverexplorationlicenses,ApuseniMountainsRed:RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.Green:SamaxRomaniaS.A.Yellow:DevaGoldS.A.
21 Afacereaaurului:DevaGoldextindeproiectulCertej,RiseProject,October31st,2014.http://www.riseproject.ro/afacerea-aurului-deva-gold-extinde-proiectul-certej/
17
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
18
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
Table 1. Mining licenses in Romania and the main shareholders
Projectname Company Mainshareholders Licensetype
1. Roşia Montană Roşia Montană Gold Gabriel Resources exploitation Corporation S.A. Ltd. (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 2. Bucium Roşia Montană Gold Gabriel Resources exploration Corporation S.A. Ltd. (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 3. Certej Deva Gold S.A. Eldorado Gold Corporation exploitation (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 4. Brad Deva Gold S.A Eldorado Gold Corporation exploration (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 5. Muncel Deva Gold S.A Eldorado Gold Corporation exploration (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 6. Deva Deva Gold S.A. Eldorado Gold Corporation exploration (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 7. Băiţa- Deva Gold S.A. Eldorado Gold Corporation exploitation Crăciuneşti (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 8. Rovina-Câlnic Samax Romania S.A. Carpathian Gold (CA) exploration 9. Cireşata Samax Romania S.A. Carpathian Gold (CA) exploration
ÎAlongwiththestate-ownedcompanyMinvest,thefirstsevenprojectslistedaboveareofinteresttotheshareholdersoftheCanadiancompaniesaswell.AllcompaniesarelistedontheTorontostockmarketandhavecommonshareholders,hedgefundssuchasVanEckAssociatesCorporation.BaupostGroupLLCorFidelityManagementandResearchCompany.PositivepoliticalstatementsandpermitapprovalsregardingtheRoşiaMontanăprojecthaveinfluencedthequotationofthecompanies,whilenegativeeventssuchasthe2013protestsandrejectionofthedraftbillhaveseverelyaffectedthestocksvalue.
SincetheNationalAgencyforMineralResourcesannouncedfutureauctionsforotherperimeterscontaininggoldandsilverdeposits,thedecisiontakenintheRoşiaMontanăcasecouldbeaprecedentforfuturenegotiationsanddevelopmentsinotherprojectsofmininginRomania.
ThedocumentationweconsultedissuedbyRMGCincludestheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentreports,infographics,mapsandothersummariesoftheprojectavailableontheirwebsite,aswellastheirhearingsinfrontofthe2013SpecialCommittee.Also,inorder
tohavemoreinsightonthecompanyprojectandontheimpactedareaoftheeventualexploitation,wewenttoRoşiaMontană22andwereabletospeaktothespokespersonofthecompany,Mr.CătălinHosu,whopresentedthesitesinfocusandexplainedthetechnologicalprocessimpliedbytheproject,aswellastheinvestmentsmadeinthepreservationofculturalheritageandinapilotprojectoffilteringouttheacidwaters.TheconversationconfirmedtheinformationputforwardbytheCompanyintheirofficialdata,butitalsofailedtoclarifythequestionmarksregardingthelackoffinancialguarantees23,therisksassociatedwithsettingthetailingsmanagementfacilityonCornaValley(whichislikelytocontaingeologicalfaults,accordingtotheNationalInstituteofGeology),theinherentrisksassociatedwithcyanideleaching(evenifconsideredBAT–bestavailabletechnology)andthenegotiationswiththefamiliesrefusingtorelocate.
The Romanian state
FollowingtheaccessiontotheEuropeanUnion,theRomanianstatecouldnolongersubsidizetheminingactivitiesofstate-ownedcompanies;afterthefallofcommunism,thestatewasconfrontedwithatypicaldeindustrializationperiod,whichledtosignificantlylowerproductioninseveralindustries,includingmining.Datashowsthatoutof14miningregionsacrossthecountryandaprox.65,000directandindirectjobsinthenon-energymining,only2000employeesarecurrentlypaidfromgovernmentalfunds24.Significantunemploymentrateshavehadsocialandeconomicalimpactsintheaffectedareaswhereminingactivitieshavebeenceased.
After1989,theNationalAgencyforMineralResourcesreleasedanumberofexploitationlicensestostatecompanies,whichparteneredwithforeigninvestors,suchas intheRoşiaMontanăcase.AnotherjointventurewascreatedbetweenthestatecompanyRemin(whichdecreaseditsemployeenumberfrom30,000duringcommunismto
22 September201423 Mandatoryrequirement,accordingtoEUDirective26/21/EC,art.2524 Infographic,MininginRomaniafromdeclinetorebirth,Hotnews.ro,January15th2013,sponsoredbyRoşia
MontanăGoldCorporationS.A.http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-Roşia_Montană_social-14009179-infografic-mineritul-romania-declin-renastere.htm
19
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
20
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
14,000in1996,to300peoplein200925)andanAustralianbusinessownedbythesamepersonwhostartedupGabrielResources26.TheresultingprojectoftheventurewastheBaiaMareandBaiaBorsaexploitations,infamousnowforthecyanidespillaccidentin2000,whencyanidetailingspermeatedtheTisaandDanuberivers27.Althoughtheinvestorsandthestatecompanydidnottakeonanyresponsibilityfortheaccident,theInternationalTaskForceevaluationsshowthatthebreakofthedamwascausedbypoordesignandtechnicalcalculationsintheconstructionphase,aswellasbypoormonitoringintheimplementationphaseoftheproject.
OneoftheEUdirectiveswithwhichRomaniahadtocomplyafteritsaccessionin2007concernedtherehabilitationandminimisationofwasteandtoxictailingscomingfromthestateactivitiesintheextractiveindustries28.However,therearestillareaswhichareaffectedbythetoxicwastefromminingactivities,amongthembeingtheRoşiaMontanăvillage;thehistoricalpollutionofsoilandsurfacewaterswithheavymetalsandtheircompoundshasnotyetbeenhandlededbythelocalornationalauthoritiesandtothepresentday,acidwaterisdrainedintotheRoşiastreamfromtheoldminegalleries.Researchshowsthattheenvironmentalimpactofthepollutionintheareaissignificantandtherisksassociatedwithitshouldmakepollutionmediationapriorityonthepublicdecision-makingagenda29.ThepoorcommittmentoftheRomanianstateinusingEUandnationalfundsformanagingthehazardouswastewasrecentlysanctionedinCourtbytheEuropeanCommission,forafailuretocomplywithEUlegislationonminingwasteinthecaseoftheBoşneagpond,anabandoned102hatailingpondthatholdswasteextractedfromcopperandzincmines
25 CompaniaminieraReminBaiaMareesteinliniedreaptacuproceduriledefaliment,ZiarulFinanciar,May3rd,2009,http://www.zf.ro/companii/compania-miniera-remin-baia-mare-este-in-linie-dreapta-cu-procedurile-de-faliment-4282533/
26 CompaniaminieraReminBaiaMareesteinliniedreaptacuproceduriledefaliment,ZiarulFinanciar,May3rd,2009,http://www.zf.ro/companii/compania-miniera-remin-baia-mare-este-in-linie-dreapta-cu-procedurile-de-faliment-4282533/
27 ReportoftheInternationalTaskForceforAssessingtheBaiaMareAccident,establishedbythegovernmentsofRomaniaandHungary,theEuropeanCommissionandtheUnitedNations,December2000.http://viso.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pecomines_ext/docs/bmtf_report.pdf
28 Directive2006/21/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof15March2006onthemanagementofwastefromextractiveindustriesandamendingDirective2004/35/EC-StatementbytheEuropeanParliament,theCouncilandtheCommission,OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0021&from=EN
29 LucrinaŞtefănescu,BrînduşaMihaelaRobuandAlexandruOzunu,IntegratedapproachofenvironmentalimpactandriskassessmentofRoşiaMontanăminingarea,Romania.EnvironmentalScienceandPollutionResearch,Vol.20,Issue11,November2013,pp.7719-7727.
inMoldovaNouă30.EUregulationsonminingactivitiesandwastemanagementexplicitlymentiontheneedfor„aneffectivesystemofinspectionsorequivalentcontrolmeasures”andofcontinuousmonitoringoftheprojectinallitsstages;however,thecapacityofauthoritiesresponsibleforeffectivemonitoringoftheimplementationoftheprojectisstilldebatableduetoallegationsofcorruptionandmismanagement.
The local community
In2007,asociologicalstudywasconductedintheareaswhichwouldbeimpactedbytheRoşiaMontanăproject,namelyinthetownsAbrudandCâmpeni,andvillagesBistra,Bucium,Ciuruleasa,Lupşa,MogoşandRoşiaMontană.62,7%oftheinterviewedhadintheirfamiliesformerminersandheldpositiveexpectationsfromtheproject31.Thestandardoflivingintheareaswasperceivedasratherpoororverypoorin2009,asmostoftherespondentsdeclaredamonthlyincomeof300to900RON(between100and300USDatthetime),while16%ofthevillagersinRoşiaMontanăhadadailyincomeoflessthan2USD,comingtoalargeextentfromsocialsecuritybenefits.Anotherstudywasconductedintheareasin2011,lookingatthedegreeofconfidencethecommunityhadintherevivalofsurfaceexploitationmining.Almost2/3oftherespondentshadlittleorverylittleconfidenceintheinvestors,and1/3statedtheyhadstrongconfidenceinthecompany.ThehighestdegreeofconfidenceinthecompanywasmanifestedamongthevillagersfromRoşiaMontană(52,8%),someofthemalreadyworkingforthecompany.Somerespondentsdrewattentionofthefactthatwhilethepeoplewhoworkforthecompanyhaveabetterstandardoflivingthanbefore,theoneswhoareandwillnotbeemployedintheminingproject,makingalivingoutofagricultural,woodprocessing,farmanimalsortourism,willbeseverelyaffectedbytheproject.
Thejobswhichwouldbecreatediftheprojectisimplementedarethemainreasonsforthehighexpectationsofthelocals.Otherexpectationsforthedevelopmentoftheareamentionsolutionssuchasthereopeningofundergroundminesorlong-termsurfacemining,creatingstrategiesforincreasingthetourisminthearea,aswellasinvestingindairiesandothertypesoffarming.
30 Environment:CommissiontakesRomaniatoCourtovertoxictailingpond,EuropeanCommissionpressrelease,October16th2014,Brussels.http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1149_en.htm
31 MihaiPascaru,Glocalizareromânească.ImpactulcomunitaralproiectuluiRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation.LimesPublishingHouse,Cluj-Napoca,2013.
21
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
22
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
TheinhabitantsoftheCornavillage,whichwillbetheclosesttothetailingsponddesignedwithintheproject,wereaskedhowtheyfeelaboutthepondbeingsituatedintheCornacut-off.9,4%oftherespondentssaidtheyagreedwiththeinitiativewithnosadfeelingsaboutit,28,1%declaredtheyagreedwithit,butarehoweversadaboutit,and29,7%statedtheydisagreedwiththetheinitiative.Moreover,31,3%oftherespondentsbelievedthattheminingprojectwouldhaveapositiveimpactonthearea,while48,8%believedthecontrary.
AskedaboutwhethertheyseeanyotheralternativesbesidestheRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationprojectforthefutureofthearea,46,9%oftherespondentsbelievedthereareotheralternatives,while31,9%believedtheprojectwastheonlyoption.
In2013,aseriesofinterviewswereconductedwithfamilieswhohaveagreedtorelocatefromRoşiaMontanăandCornatothenear-bycityAlba-Iulia,wheretheCompanybuiltanewneighbourhoodfromscratch.Thequestionswereaimingtoextractthepeople’sinputontheperceivedadvantagesanddisadvantagesbroughtbytheirdecisiontoagreewiththeCompany’soffer.Themainadvantagesstatedbytherespondentsincludedbetteraccesstopublicservicessuchashealth,education,socialassistance,betterinfrastructuresuchasaseweagesystem,runningwater,streetlightingandbetterchancesofemployment.ThedisadvantagestheymentionedwerethehigherlivingexpensesincontrastwiththelowsalariestheygetinAlba-Iulia,theperceptionandfearofbeingmarginalizedandhome-sickness.
Public opinion and civil society
Thelocalcommunitiesare,aswehaveseen,dividedintheirviewsontheprojectimpactinthearea.Thevillagersandpropertyownerswhoopposetheprojecthaveformedin2002anNGO,AlburnusMaior,whichactedattheforefrontofthecampaign„SaveRosiaMontana”.Severalnationalandinternationalorganizations(primarilyenvironmentalandcultural),artists32andjournalists33haveadheredtoAlburnusMaior’scampaignanddisseminatedinformationonthepotentialrisksoftheprojectbothlocallyandnationally.Throughinvestigativejournalism,amulti-artactivistfestival(FânFest,RoşiaMontană,2004-present),publicdebatesandotherawarenessactionsthroughoutthecountry,theyhaveformedacriticalmassofcitizensopposingtheprojectforawidevarietyofreasons.Althoughitwassuggestedseveraltimes,nonationalreferendumwasconductedonthematterandtheavailableopinionpollsarenotcredible,astheirmethodologyisquestionableandtheycommissionedbypartizanpressoutlets.
DuringourvisittoRoşiaMontanăinseptember2014,wetalkedtoarepresentativeoftheNGOtoseeifthereareanyscenariosinwhichtheprojectwouldbecomeacceptable,fromtheirpointofview;noneofthesolutionsprovidedbytheCompanysuitedtheinterestsoftheNGOmembers.Irreconciliableaspectsincludeexpropriations,therelocationofthecemetery,aswellastheinterferencewiththeculturalheritage,thethreatposedtobuildingsbecauseofexplosivesuseandthecyanidetailings.
Onalargerscale,thereisnostructuredinputoncitizenpreferences.Intime,theyhavebeenexposedtothestakeholders’discourses,buttheylackedthemeansofparticipatinginthedecision-makingprocess.TheChamberofDeputeeswebsitefeaturesapagededicatedtotheproject,wherefewdocumentsissuedbytheCompany,aswellasbyindependentexpertsandinstitutionssuchastheRomanianAcademy,theAcademyofEconomicStudies,andothersaremadeavailable,alongwithaforumfordiscussion.Whileusersexpresstheirviewsontheproject,nointeractionbetweenthemandarepresentativefromtheofficialhostoftheforumtakesplace.Whiletheopinionsaredividedontheproject,themostcommonlymentionedalternativeistourism.Incidentally,itisonthisforumwherewehavefoundabouttheexistenceoftheextensivestudyconductedbytheNationalInstituteofResearchandDevelopmentinTourismofthestrategiesofsustainabledevelopmentthroughtourismin
32 Seeoneoftheleadingprotestartists,„InterviewwithDanPerjovschi”,ArtMarginsOnline,October25th2013,http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/728-interview-with-dan-perjovschi
33 SeeforinstanceMihaiGoţiu,AfacereaRoşiaMontană,EdituraTact,Cluj-Napoca,2013.
23
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
24
MAIN STAKEHOLDERS
formerminingareas.AlburnusMaiorhasalsoputforwardthealternativeoftourismbysupportingandpromotingaresourceandstrategyanalysisofsustainabledevelopmentinRoşiaMontană.34
Duringthe2013protests,awidearrayofreasonsforwhichpeopleopposetheprotesthavesurfaced,duetotheFacebookcommunitypageUniţiSalvăm35,aswellastotheslogansandpostersfromthestreet:corporateandpoliticiangreed,mediafailureandbiasininformingthepublic,corruption,cyanideinfestingwatersandsoil,sacrificingmountainsandlandscapes,sellingofnaturalandmineralresourcestoforeigners,responsibilitytofuturegenerations,mendinglegislationtosuitcorporatepurposes,abusiveexpropriations.However,thereisstillnostudyreflectingthepublicopiniononhowtheprojectwouldimpactpeople’slives.
34 SoranaOlaru-Zăinescu.DezvoltaredurabilăalternativăminerituluilaRoşiaMontană.Analizaresurselorşielementedestrategie.AsociaţiaAlburnusMaior,2006.
35 UniţiSalvăm,https://www.facebook.com/unitisalvam,aprox.50,000members
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
Decision analysis and DecideIT
Bothpublicauthoritiesandcorporationsusedecisionanalysisinprocessesofcomplexdecision-makingandpolicyanalysis36.Decisionanalysismodelshaveevolvedovertime,fromtheclassicdecisionanalysisbasedontheapplicationofrationalchoicetheories37 tocomputationalmodelsthatallowworkingwithimpreciseinformation38.ThisrathernewapproachtodecisionanalysisliesatthefoundationsoftheDecideITsoftware,whichallowsoperatingwithimpreciseanduncertaininformationinthemodellingandanalysisofadecisionproblemandcarryingoutsensitivityanalyses,inordertodecidewhichamongdifferentdecisionalternativesismoresuitablewhenconsideringfactorslike:thestakeholdersinvolved,theprobabilities,valuesandweighsofdifferentcriteria.
Thesoftwareisaproductoflong-termresearchcarriedoutbytheDepartmentofComputerandSystemsSciences(DSV),StockholmUniversityandtheDepartmentofInformationTechnologyandMedia,MidSwedenUniversity(ITM).Itsevolutionisdocumentedbydifferentscholarsinbothitsearlier39andmoreadvancedstages40.Duetoitsapplicabilityincomplexandlarge-scaledecisionenvironments,theDecideITtoolhasbeenusedoverthelast15yearsinvariousfields,rangingfrominvestmentdecisionanalysisforcompaniestopublicdecisionsupportforlocalgovernments41.Scholarshavediscussedtheadvantagesandlimitationsoftheapproachestoevaluatingimprecisedecisiondata42.
36 Sutinen,Danielson,Ekenberg,Larsson,201037 Clemen,1996;Keeney&Raiffa,197638 Danielson,2005;Fasth&Larsson,2012;Fasth&Larsson,2013;Larsson,Johansson,Ekenberg&Danielson,
200539 Danielson,Ekenberg,Johansson,&Larsson,200340 Danielson,Ekenberg,Idefeldt,&Larsson,2007;Danielson,Ekenberg,Ekengren,Hökby&Lidén,200841 Sutinenetal.2010
42Ekenberg2000;EkenbergandThorbiörnson2001;Ekenbergetal.2005;andDanielsonandEkenberg2007
25
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
26
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
Prior studies with DecideIT
In2012,DanielsonandEkenbergcarriedoutacasestudyregardingtheTiszaRiverinHungary.Usingaprobabilisticmulti-stakeholderapproachtheyassessedfourdifferentscenariosfordesigningapublic-privatefloodinsurancesysteminHungary.Theyoptedforadecisionmodelthatwouldincludethemainstakeholdersduetotheratherconflictingviewsthattheyheld:ontheonehand,mostHungariansexpectedthegovernmenttoprotectthemandcovertheirlossesincaseoffloods,whileontheother,publicauthoritiesconsideredthatthispolicywasnolongeraffordable,andwantedtotransfertheresponsibilitytotheprivatesector43.
Intheiranalysis,thescholarsusedbackgrounddataprovidedbytheHungarianAcademyofSciencesandalsoconductedinterviewswiththestakeholderandworkedonasimulationmodeltestingtheeffectsofdifferentpolicyoptions.UsingDecideIT,theygeneratedadecisiontreeincludingestimatesofthevaluesandprobabilitiesofeachalternative:
43 Danielson&Ekenberg,2012
FIGURE3.Adecisiontreefordecisionsunderrisk(Danielson&Ekenberg,2012)
Asimilardecisionanalysis44wasconductedintheislandofÄlgö,asubmunicipalityinSwedenmarkedbylong-termdisagreementsbetweenthecitizensandthemunicipalitygovernmentoverthedecisionalternativesonthefollowingsubjects:
AnewwaterandsewersystemAnewroadplanAnewcommutingmarina.
Becauseofthecontroversy,thedecisionshadbeenpostponedforseveralyears,andthemunicipalityofNackadecidedtofinallymakeadecision.Inordertoachievemaximumtransparency,toinvolvethedifferentstakeholdersandtheiropposingviews,theychosetobacktheirdecisiononbackgroundresearchandanalysis.Thescholarsuseddecisiontreesandmulti-criteriahierarchytreesinDecideITtoevaluatethefivealternatives.Thevalues
44 Danielsonetal.2007,2008
A1
A2
P11 P111
V1111
V1121
V1211
V1221
V2111
V2121
V2211
V2221
P112
P121
P122P211
P212
P221
P221
P12
P21
P22
27
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
28
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
andweighsofthecriteriawereassignedbasedontheinputfrompoliticians,expertsandstakeholders.Theresearcherswereabletodrawriskprofilesforthealternatives,andcouldeliminatetheoptionswithconsequencesdeemedtoosevere,aswellastodifferentiatebetweenalternativesthatwouldotherwisehaveseemedequallypreferable,thusfacilitatingtheresolutionofayears-longdispute.
AnothersimilarcasestudyforusingdecisionanalysisregardsacitytrafficplanningdecisionprobleminStockholm45.Unlikeinthepreviousexamples,inthiscasetherewasnotyetcontroversy,andthedecisionanalysiswascarriedoutintheinitialphaseofplanningdecisionmaking.TheCityofStockholmadoptedin2010anewCityPlanbasedonastrategicpoliticalvisionforthegrowthofthecityoverthenext20yearsto2030,whichwasexpectedtohaveabigimpactontransportwithinthecity.Inordertotacklethischallenge,theCityTrafficAdministrationhasstartedworkingonaTrafficPlanningStrategy,anddecidedtodetermineifusingadecisionanalysismodelwouldhelpintheprocess.Theresearcherstesteddifferentalternativesbydefiningasetofmultiplecriteria,whichwereweighedandassignedvaluesintermsofintervalsandrelations,duetotheimprecisenatureofthedata.Thecriteria,aswellasthedecisionalternativesandtheassessmentimpactweredefinedduringaseriesofworkshops.Basedonthesedata,theresearcherswereabletoconductasensitivityanalysisandtofilteroutoneofthealternatives.
The methodology of the Roşia Montană case study
Background research, establishing the criteria and subcriteria
Thefirststepoftheanalysisconsistedinbackgroundresearch.Over100documentsfromthepast15yearshavebeengatheredregardingtheRoşiaMontanăminingproject,whichcoverthemainofficial,formalandlessformaldocumentscoveringthecaseandproducedbyawiderangeofstakeholders.
45 Larsson,Firth,&Ekenberg,2011
Thesedocumentsvaryintermsoftype:
OfficialreportsLegislativeacts(draftorapprovedbills,governmentdecrees,emergencyordinances,contractsetc.)Studies(Researchstudies,technicalstudies,financialstudies)Books,Scientific/Academic/ResearcharticlesPressarticlesOfficialwebsitesofRMGCorofpublicinstitutionsDeclarations,petitions,contestations,discourses
andofsource:
ISSUERS
Governmentand TheRomaniangovernmentpublicinstitutions Nationalpublicinstitutions Localpublicinstitutions TheRoşiaMontanăSpecialCommittee
EuropeanUnion Europeaninstitutions(theEuropeanCommission, theEuropeanParliamentetc.)
Theprojectpromoter RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation(RMGC)
Experts Independentexperts(nationalandinternational) Researchinstitutions,academies,universities
Civilsociety Localcommunity AlburnusMaior UnitiSalvamcommunity Journalists Othernon-governmentalorganizations,associations, foundations Citizens
Thecorpuswasselectedsoastocoveralltheimportantstakeholdersandtheirpointsofviewregardingtheproject,inabalancedway.Intheselectionofthedocumentsanimportantcriterionwastheircredibility;theresearcherstriedtoidentifywithprioritythosedocumentsthatexpressedtheofficialpositionofthedifferentstakeholdersinvolved,aswellas
29
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
30
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
documentsthataresupportedbydata/factualinformation/research.Forthisreasonmostofthecorpusconsistsinstudiesandreports.
Inordertofacilitatethehandlingofthislargecorpusoftexts,theNVivosoftwareforqualitativecontentanalysiswasused.Thedocumentationprocessresembledthatofatraditionalcontentanalysis,inthatitwasguidedbyaschemeofcategories(seeFigure4andAnnex1),whichwascreatedthroughaninductiveapproach–basedonthedocumentationathand.Aninitialmulti-criteriatreewasdesignedbasedontheargumentsidentifiedinapreviousanalysis46,whichwaslateronelaborateduponduringthethoroughbackgroundresearchphase.Themainbranchesofthemulti-criteriatreeare:Economy,Environment,SocialandCultural,toowhichwelateraddedthedimensionofCredibility,consideringthattheissuesregardingthetransparency,legalityandcredibilityoftheentiredevelopmentoftheRoşiaMontanăprojecthaveplayedasignificantroleintheunfoldingoftheevents,especiallyduringthelastyears(formoredetails,refertothesectioninthisreportabouttheShorthistoryofthedecision-makingprocess).Eachofthesebranchesweresplitinmultiplecategoriesandsubcategoriesrepresentingtheargumentsbroughtupbythedifferentstakeholdersregardingthepossibleconsequences,bothpositiveandnegative,oftheexploitationproject(Figure4).
WiththehelpofNVivo,theresearcherswentthroughallthedocumentspreviouslycollectedandcodedrelevantfragmentsoftextundereachcriteriaintheschemeofcategories,separatingnegativefrompositiveevaluations,aswellasthedifferentissuersoftherespectivepositions/arguments.Thisprocesshelpedusmapthestakeholders’attitudestowardstheproject,aswellastocheckwhichcriteriaandargumentsaremorecommonlydiscussedbythedifferentpartiesinvolved,whicharetheoneswherethereissomeconsensusversustopicswheretheviewsarehighlydivergent,whoholdsthenegativeandthepositiveopinionsetc.Thisinformationwaslaterusedintheprocessofassigningvaluesandweighstothemulti-criteriatree.However,duetothefactthatwetriedtoensurethebalanceandpluralityofstakeholdersandperspectives,weidentifiedbothnegativeandpositiveevaluationsforeverycriterion,whichmadeithardtodecideinabsolutetermswhichperspectiveismoreaccurate.
46 http://www.openpolitics.ro/rosia-montana/argumente-pro-si-contra-rosia-montana.html
Defining the alternatives of development for Roşia Montană
Duringthebackgroundresearchphasewewerealsoabletoidentifythedecisionalternativesfortheanalysis.Wechosetoresumetothemostcommonlydiscussedfouralternatives,forwhichwehavemanagedtogatherreliabledata:
Alternative 1 (Alt.1).Theupdatedprojectwiththeprovisionsfromthe2013Agreement47 betweenRMGCandtheRomanianGovernment(whichwasalsodebatedbytheSpecialCommission),forwhichwehadmostofthedocumentation.
Alternative 2 (Alt.2).TheZeroalternative,whichimpliesthattheminingprojectwouldbedropped,butnothingelsewouldbedoneinstead.Itisanon-actionalternativeanditwasassessedfromaseriesofdocuments,amongwhich:theEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentforRoşiaMontanăProject(EIA)documentation48submittedbythecompany,thereportfromtheHungarianMinistryofEnvironmentandWaters49,followingtheConventiononEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentinaTransboundaryContext,astudyfromtheRomanianAcademy50,theSpecialCommission’sReport51andotherexpertstudies.
Alternative 3 (Alt.3).Theprojectinitsinitialform,withtheprovisionsfromthe1999ExploitationLicense52.
47 GuvernulRomaniei-GabrielResourcesLtd.-RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationS.A,Acordprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontană,http://legea.rosiamontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2-Acord-vDPIIS_29-07-2013_actualizat-30-07-2013-TC.pdf
48 RMGC,EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentforRoşiaMontanăProject,http://en.rmgc.ro/rosia-montana-project/environment/environmental-impact-assessment.html
49 ComentariipemargineaStudiuluideImpactasupraMediuluipentruProiectulRosiaMontanafacuteinbazaConventieiEspoodecatreMinisterulMediuluisiApelordinUngariacusprijinulunoragentiiguvernamentalesiaunororganizatiinon-guvernamentale,http://www.cdep.ro/img/rosiam/pdfs/comments_hung.pdf
50 AcademiaRomână,2013,ANALIZAACADEMIEIROMÂNEPRIVINDPROIECTULDEEXPLOATAREMINIERĂDELAROŞIAMONTANĂ-RISCURIPRIVINDMEDIULŞIDEZVOLTAREADURABILĂAZONEI,http://www.acad.ro/forumuri/doc2013/d0619-ProiectulRosiaMontana-AnalizaAR.pdf
51 ComisiaSpecialăComunăaCamereiDeputaţilorşiSenatuluipentruavizareaProiectuluidelegeprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontanăşistimulareaşifacilitareadezvoltăriiactivităţilorminiereînRomânia,2013,RaportasupraProiectuluidelegeprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontanăşistimulareaşifacilitareadezvoltăriiactivităţilorminiereînRomânia,http://www.senat.ro/Legis/PDF/2013/13L475CR.pdf
52 AGENTIANATIONALAPENTRURESURSEMINERALE,CampaniaNationalaaCuprului,AuruluisiFierului“MINVEST”S.A,SCEUROGOLDRESOURCESS.A,LICENTADECONCESIUNEPENTRUEXPLOATARENR.47/1999,http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/782220/licenta-rosia-montana.pdf
31
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
32
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
Alternative 4 (Alt.4).ThealternativeoftouristicdevelopmentintheRoşiaMontanăarea.OntheChamberofDeputieswebpage,aforumfordebateontheRoşiaMontanăissueshasathreaddestinedfordiscussingalternativesotherthantheRMGCproject.Themostpopularsolutionseenbytheuserswasdoingtourisminthearea.However,nowhereontheministries’websitesorontheChamberofDeputieslistofavailabledocumentsontheRoşiaMontanăcasecouldwefindastudyonthetouristicpotentialofdevelopmentofthearea.Wefoundthatsuchastudydoesexist,itwasconductedbytheNationalInstituteofResearchandDevelopmentinTourismduring2004-2006,financedthroughthePHAREprogramandtheMinistryofEducationandResearch.TheinstituteisresponsiblewithelaboratingstrategiesandimpactstudiesfortouristicdevelopmentthroughoutRomania,manyoftheirresultsleadingtoregionaldevelopmentstrategiesandfinancedbytheMinistryofTourism.TheirmodelofdevelopmentoftheareasinApuseniMountainsaffectedbyminingclosuresconsistsoffivevolumeswhich,accordingtotheprincipalinvestigator,GeorgetaMaiorescu,withwhomwediscussed,weresenttotheministriesin2006andremainedwithoutananswer.ShealsosubmittedtheirresultstotheMinistryofEnvironmentasaviablealternativetotheRMGCprojectinthepublicconsultationontheEIAreports,andreceivedananswerfromthecompany,insteadoftheMinistry.Thisalternativeseemstobethemostpopularamongthecivilsocietysector,includingamongresearchinstitutionssuchasTheAcademyforEconomicStudiesortheRomanianAcademy.Citizens,localNGOsandtheSaveRoşiaMontanăcampaignhavebeenpromotingthisalternativethroughanannualactivistfestivalinRoşiaMontană,lobbyingfortheinclusionoftheculturalheritageontheUNESCOlistofprotectedheritagesites.
FIGURE4.Thecriteriaandsubcriteria
Economic
Environmental
Cultural
Social
Credibility
Profit/gains for national economyTotalprofitforeconomy
RoyaltiesfromAu andAgmining
Profitfromstateparticipation
TaxesForeigninvestmentsFinancialbenefits fromtheconservationofculturalheritage
Impact on water, air and soilSurfacewaters-localSurfacewaters-transboundary
UndergroundwatersAirqualitySoilquality
Impact on biodiversityHabitatPlantspeciesWildlifeForestsMeadowsRaremetals
Archaeological discharges and accidental discoveries
Measures to protect and preserve cultural heritage (other than historic buildings)
Protection and restoration of historic buildings
The research programme undertaken by RMGC
Other cultural effects
Social impact on the community
Relocations and resettlements
Credibility
Legality
Transparency
Safety of locals (health, social and physical safety)
Impact on natural landscapePreservationAttractiveness
Hazard risks
Environmental rehabilitation measuresEnvironmentalfinancialguarantees
Regionalsustainabledevelopment
Costs for national economy LossofgoldbyforeignexploitationProblemsinfutureminingofothernaturaldepositsinthearea
Costsfortherehabilitationoftheecosystemaftertheexploitationincaseofenvironmentalaccidents
CostsforcleaningthehistoricalpollutionintheareaforRO
Otherenvironmentcosts (naturalresoucers-energyconsumption)
Otherfinancialrisks
Profit/gains for local communityJobs,trainingsIncreasedstandardofliving/Economicgrowth
Costs for local communityLong-termcostsofmono-indus-trialeconomy(unemploy-ment,re-qualificationofworkers,lowinvestmentsintheregion)
Costsforotherbusinessownersandemployeesinthearea(eg.tourism,woodprocessing,agricultureetc.)
33
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
34
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
Assigning values and weighs to the multi-criteria tree
ThedecisionanalysiswascarriedoutusingtheDecideITsoftware.Inordertoevaluatethefouralternatives,themulti-criteriatreewascomputedandvaluesandweighswereassigned.Sincethebackgroundresearchrevealedthatthedocumentationinvolvesmainlyprojectionsandscenariosbasedonratherimpreciseoruncertaininformationwhichisoftenconflictingdependingonthesource,weusedaninterval-basedmethodtoestimatethevaluesofthecriteria,complementedbyqualitativeestimates(relationsbetweenthecriteria).Thisapproachistypicalformulti-stakeholderanalyses53thatdealwithimprecisedata,aspreviouscasestudieshaveshown54.
Duetothenatureoftheinformation,wedesignedamulti-criteriatreeinsteadofadecisiontree.Inordertoreduceuncertaintyandsubjectivityasmuchaspossible,weuseda[-1,1]interval,withthefollowinglogic:Values[-1,0]=mostprobablynegativeconsequences(orbestcasenone),buttheintensityisunknown(eg:iftherewillbeenvironmentalaccidents,theywillimplyrehabilitationcosts,whichmeansthatthebestscenarioisthe0scenario)[0,1]=mostprobablypositiveconsequences(ornoconsequences),buttheintensityisunknown(ex.Profitfromroyaltiesisinitselfapositiveoutcome,worstcasescenariobeing0profit)0 =noconsequence(theprofitgeneratedbytheprojectbecomes0inAlt.2)-1=mostprobablynegative(eg.environmentalcostssuchasthehighamountofenergyandothernaturalresourcesconsumedfortheprojectareacertainnegativeimpact)1 =mostprobablypositive(weactuallydidn’tfindcaseswheretoassignthisvalue,takingintoconsiderationthatitwouldalsoimplyarelativeconsensusamongexperts)[-1,1] =whereexpertsarealmostequallydividedanditishardtosaywhethertheconsequencewillbegoodorbad,orwherewedonothaveenoughreliabledataforsuchpredictions(eg.concerningtheconservationofculturalheritage,orinregardtothesocialimpactofAlt.2).
Thesevalueswereassignedseparatelyforeachcriterionundereachofthefouralternatives.Toalargeextent,wetriednottomakeassumptionsinourevaluationsthatwerenotdirectly
53 seeDanielson&Ekenberg,201254 Danielsonetal.2007,2008;Larsson,Firth,&Ekenberg,2011
supportedbydata,andweavoidedassigningprecisevalues,workingwithintervals,weighsandrelationsbetweencriteria.Inaddition,weassigneddifferentweighstothecriteriaanddefinedequivalencerelationsbetweenthefouralternativesforeachcriterion(betterthan,equalandapproximatelyequalto,worsethan).
Thedecisioninformationcanbeconsideredasconstraintsinthespaceformedbyalldecisionvariableswhicharecollectedaslinearconstraintstothesolutionsetsofthespacesspannedbytheweightandvaluevariables,respectively.Theseconstraintsmaybebothrangeconstraints,i.e.constraintsinvolvingonlyonevariablesuchasintervalboundaries,andcomparativeconstraintsinvolvingtwovariables.Tofurtheraidinthemodellingoftheproblem,theorthogonalhullconceptisintroduced,indicatingtothedecision-makerwhichpartsofthestatementsthatareconsistentwiththeinformationgivensofar.Thisbecomesthentheprojectionoftheconstrainedspacesontoeachvariableaxis,andcanthusbeseenasthemeaningfulintervalboundariesforthedecisionsituation.Thesametypeofinputisusedforthecomponentsinvolved,i.e.,alternativevaluesv,andweightswj,althoughthenormalizationconstraintsƩwj=1mustnotbeviolatedintheweightcase.
AllinputintotheRoşiaMontanămodelwassubjecttoconsistencychecksperformedbytheDecideITtool.Thecalculationsarebasedontheweightedsumofthealternativevaluesunderthecriteriaandsub-criteriaaggregatedfortheentiredecisionproblem.Forinstanceinathreeleveltreeasthecurrentone,thisbecomes,V(As)=Ʃwi Ʃwij Ʃwijkvijk(As),wherevijk(As)isthevalueofalternativeAsundersubcriteriaijk.Giventhis,wethencalculatethestrengthofalternativesasameanforfurtherdiscriminatingthealternatives.Thestrengthsimplydenotesthedifferenceinweightedvalue,i.e.theexpressionV(Ai)–V(Aj)forthedifferencebetweenalternativesAişiAj.Inthiswaywecanreadilycalculatethemaximumandminimumdifferencebetweenthealternatives.
Theprocessofassigningvalues,weighsandrelationsisbasedontheprevioussystematicdocumentation,wherewetriedtocovermostofthedocumentationavailablefromabroadrangeofsourcescoveringthetopic.Asalreadymentioned,weprioritizedofficialdocumentsandexpertstudies,duetotheirhigherreliability.Theselectionofthedocumentationwasmadeontheprincipleofbalancedrepresentation,ourgoalbeingtocovertheargumentsofallstakeholdersinvolvedinafairmanner.ThedatabaseisavailableinExcelformatonrequest.
Inordertoensurethereliabilityoftheassigningvaluesprocess,areliabilitytestwasapplied.Thetworesearchersassignedthevaluesandrelationsindependentlyandafterwardsconfrontedtheevaluations,discussingthedifferencesandreachingconsensusregardingtheoptimalwaytoproceed.Furthermore,inthesensitivityanalysispresentedinthenextsection
35
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
36
A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY
ofthereportwedeviseddifferentscenarioschangingtheweighsofthecriteriainordertoseetowhatextenttherelationbetweenthealternativesalters.
Animportantfeatureofthisprocessisthesensitivityanalysis.Thisanalysisattemptedtohighlightwhatinformationwasthemostcriticalfortheobtainedresultsandmustthereforebesubjecttocarefuladditionalconsideration.Italsopointswhichoftheassessmentsaretooimprecisetobeofanyassistanceinthediscriminationofalternativesandthusshouldbemademoreaccurate,therebytriggeringandfacilitatingiterationintheprocess.Theembeddedsensitivityanalysis,calledtheconceptofcontraction,isperformedbyreducingthewidthsoftheintervals(contraction)forthevaluesandweightsintheanalysismodelofthedecisionproblem.Theconcept’sideaistoshrinktheorthogonalhullwhilestudyingthestabilityofthemaximumstrengthatdifferentcontractionlevels.Thelevelofcontractionisindicatedasapercentage,sothatfora100%levelofcontractionallorthogonalhullintervalshavebeenreducedtotheirrespectivefocalpoints.Thecontractioncanbeseenascuttingthehullfromtheextremepoints(havingalowerreliabilityoralowerdegreeofbelieftowardsthefocalpoint,increasingthelowestpermitteddegreeofbelief.Whendealingwithintervalstatementsonlythisisquitesimple,andmorecomplicatedwhencomparativeconstraintsareinvolved.
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Aswehavepreviouslymentioned,thefivemaincriteriaofourmulti-criteriadecisiontreeare:economic, environment, social, cultural and credibility.Thefouralternativescomputedinthedecisionmodelare:Alt. 1 =Theupdatedprojectwiththeprovisionsfromthe2013AgreementbetweenRMGCandtheRomanianGovernment(whichwasalsodebatedbytheSpecialCommission)Alt. 2 =TheZeroalternative(theprojectisdroppedandnothingelseisdoneinstead)Alt. 3 =Theminingprojectinitsinitialform,withtheprovisionsfromthe1999ExploitationLicense.Alt. 4 =Theminingprojectisdroppedandinsteadalong-termtouristicdevelopmentprojectintheRoşiaMontanăareaisimplemented.
BelowwegothroughvariousscenariosandtheirconsequencesfortheRoşiaMontanăexploitationproject.Thefollowingscenariosweredevisedaccordingto9differentprioritizations,whichledtoseparateweighingchoicesofthemaincriteria:(1)indiscriminativeassessmentofissuesimportance;(2)coverageofissueintheconsulteddata;(3)potentialofimprovingthecredibility;(4)stakeholderinterest–theRomanianstate;(5)stakeholderinterest–civilsocietyandlocalopponents;(6)local,nationalandtransboundaryinterests;(7)stakeholderinterest–localcommunity;(8)transparencyandcitizeninterest;(9)2013draftminingbillstipulations.
Scenario 1: indiscriminative assessment of issues importance
Ifwegiveallemitters’viewsandinterestsequalimportanceandrefrainfromweighingdiscriminatelyonaccountoftheexpertknowledgeavailableoneachcategory,visibilityinthepublicsphere,localversusnationalagendas,ortypesofcapitalatstake,weconsiderthatallmaincriteria,economic,environmental,social,culturalandcredibilityhaveequalweights.Ourevaluationthusreliesontheconstrainsusedforeachsub-criteriaandthequalitativerelationsthereof.Consequently,byusingthesesettings,theexpectedvalueofthefouralternativesisvisibleinthefiguresbelow.Theexpectedvaluegraphisarepresentationofanaggregationoftheweighedsumforallcriteria.Theupperandlowergraphlinesaretheminimumandmaximumexpectedvaluesalongthehorizontalaxis,from0to100%contractionlevels.
37
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
38
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Theexpectedvaluegraphsbecomeasfollows:
FIGURE5.Scenario1.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
0.350
0.274
0.198
0.122
0.046
-0.029
-0.105
-0.181
-0.257
-0.332
-0.409
85% contraction level
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
FIGURE6.Scenario1.ComparisonAlt.1andAlt.2
FIGURE7.Scenario1.ComparisonAlt.4andAlt.2
39
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
40
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Eventhoughwehaveworkedwithimprecisedata,thedecisionanalysismodelisratherrobust,enablingustoevaluatethefouralternatives.BasedonFig.5,wecandrawthreeconclusionswithareasonableamountofconfidence:
Alternative 3(Theprojectintheinitialform,withtheprovisionsfromthe1999license)istheleastadvantageousofthefour,andcanbediscarded(atacontractionlevelof85%thereisnooverlapwiththeothers,andthevaluesarenegativeandlowest).
Alternative 4(Tourism)appearstobetheoptimaldecisioninthisscenario.
Alternative 1(Theminingprojectinitsupdatedform)andAlternative 2(Nominingproject,nothinginsteadtobedoneinthearea)overlapconsiderably,whichmeansthatinthisscenariothereisnotenoughdatatostrictlydifferentiatebetweenthem,theconsequencesofeachoptionbeingrathercomparable.However,Alt.2becomesveryslightlypreferabletoAlt.1,theRMGCproject.Fig.6confirmsthatthedifferencebetweenAlt.1andAlt.2isinsignificantandthatmoredetaileddataisneededinordertobettercomparativelyassessthetwooptions.Fig.7comparesAlt.4withAlt.2(andimplicitlywithAlt.1,duetotheoverlapbetweenthetwo)andconfirmstheconclusionfromFig.5,namelythatAlt.4,atouristicdevelopmentproject,wouldbetheoptimalsolution.
Scenario 2: coverage of issue in the consulted data
Thesecondscenarioweproposestemsfromtherangeofinterestsdedicatedtothecategoriesoutlinedabovethroughouttheconsulteddocumentsandstatements.Thebackgroundresearchrevealedthatthemostwidelydiscussedissuesregardingtheprojectweretheeconomicandenvironmentalaspects,coveredbygovernmentalstatements,licenseagreements,expertreports,nationalandinternationalinstitutes’positionsandothers,whilesocialandculturalissuesseemedsomewhatsecondaryinthepublicdebate,gainingvisibilitymainlythroughcivilsocietyefforts.Forthisreason,weconsideredthesecondscenariotobeonewheretheeconomicandenvironmentalconsequencesweighthesame,thensocialandculturalissuesalsobearequalweights,buttheformercategoriesweighmorethatthelatter(withoutspecifyinghowmuchmore,becausethatisuncertain).Thecredibilitydimensionwasassignedalowerweightthanallotherfourcriteria,consideringthatithasaratherindirecteffectontheoverallevaluationoftheproject.
FIGURE8.Scenario2.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
0.355
0.279
0.204
0.128
0.053
-0.022
-0.098
-0.173
-0.249
-0.324
-0.400
85% contraction level
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
41
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
42
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE9.Scenario2.Alt1vs.Alt2
FIGURE10.Scenario2.Alt4vs.Alt2
AswecanseeinFig.8,Alt.3andAlt.4areclearlydifferentiatedinthisscenarioaswell,atouristicdevelopmentintheRosiaMontanaareabeingtheoptimalchoice,andtheRMGCprojectbeforetherecentrenegotiation-thepoorestchoice.Unlikethefirstscenario,Alt.1becomesslightlymorepreferabletotheZeroAlternative,buttheiroverlappingisstilltoohightoassesstheirdifferentiation(forthis,seeFig.9).
Scenario 3: potential of improving the credibility
Forthethirdscenario,wecheckedtheextenttowhichthecredibilityissuesaffecttheevaluationofAlt.1,therenegotiatedRMGCproject,inrelationtotheotheralternatives.IftheCompanyandtheRomanianGovernmentwouldimprovethetransparencyoftheirnego-tiations,stepsandaimsregardingtheprojectandwouldinitiateapermanentdialogueonthetopicwithcitizensandthecivilsocityinthedecision-makingprocess,credibilitycouldbesolvedandmakeroomforanopendemocraticdiscussionontheremainingfourcriteria.Theexpectedvaluegraphsforscenario2whereweassignedaweightatmostlikelypoint0canbeseenbelow:
0.358
0.282
0.207
0.131
0.056
-0.020
-0.095
-0.171
-0.246
-0.322
-0.397
85% contraction level
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
FIGURE11.Scenario3.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
43
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
44
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE12.Scenario3.Alt1vs.Alt2
AccordingtoFig.11and12,ifwediscardthecredibilitydimensionandconsideronlyeconomic,environment,socialandculturalissues,theresultsremainmostlythesame:Alternative3canbedropped,Alternative4isstillthebest,andAlternatives1and2overlap,thoughtheformerbecomesveryslightlybetterthantheZeroAlternative.
Scenario 4: stakeholder interest – the Romanian state
RomanianofficialshaverepeatedlystressedtheeconomicpotentialoftheRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationinvestment,mainlyhighlightingtheprofitsderivedfromroyaltiesandstateparticipation,aswellasthepotentialforcreatingjobsinthearea.Thedesiretoexploitnaturalresourcesforthebeneficialimpactuponthenationaleconomyhasbeenexpressedbyvariousgovernmentsandtheformerpresident,beingtheimpetusofmaintainingtheCompanyprojectonthepublicandpoliticalagenda.Belowwecanlookatthevaluegraphswhengivingthehighestweighttotheeconomicaspects,allothercriteriahavingequalweightsamongthemselves,lowerthantheeconomicone.
FIGURE13.Scenario4.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
0.318
0.252
0.187
0.122
0.057
-0.009
-0.074
-0.139
-0.205
-0.270
-0.335
85% contraction level
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
45
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
46
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE14.Scenario4.ComparisonAlt.1andAlt.4
Iftheeconomicargumentsprevailoveralltheothers,thentheresultsofthedecisionanalysisbecomesomewhatdifferent(Fig.13,14).Alternative1(theupdatedminingproject)becomesalmostaspreferableasAlternative4(doingtourism),withanoverlapofalmost95%,butalsooverlapstogreatextentwiththeZeroAlternative,whichmakesitsomewhatdifficulttodistinguishbetweenthethreealternatives.
Scenario 5: stakeholder interest – civil society and local opponents
Inthisset-up,weprioritizethesocial,cultural,environmentalandcredibilityaspectsovertheeconomicalbenefits,asdemandedbyseveralopposingNGOsincludingAlburnusMaiorandthemajorityoftheprotesters.AccordingtocriticsoftheRMGCproject,theeconomicalgainsderivedfromthegoldandsilverexploitationareneithersubstantial,norstableenoughforalong-termnationaleconomydevelopmentandbetterstandardsofliving(the“Dutchdisease”ofnaturalresourcesmaintaininginstableeconomies).Moreover,regardlessoftheeconomicpotential,someopponentsconsiderthesocial,culturalandenvironmentalrisksandimpactmuchmoreimportanttoconsiderinthemaintainanceorfutureurbanplanningofthearea,beingatthesametimeactivewatchdogsofthelegalprocessofobtaininglocalauthorityandministrypermits.
FIGURE15.Scenario5.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
0.361
0.281
0.202
0.122
0.043
-0.036
-0.116
-0.195
-0.275
-0.354
-0.434
85% contraction level
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
47
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
48
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE16.Scenario5.ComparisonAlt.1andAlt.2
Again,thereisashiftbetweenAlt.1andAlt.2,thelatter(theonefavoredbythestakeholderswhoopposeandprotestagainsttheproject)becomingabetteroptionthantheRMGCprojectforthearea.
Scenario 6: local, national and transboundary interests
Thehighestriskconcernsfoundthroughouttheavailabledocumentation,expressedbyexperts,citizensandpublicofficialsalike,dealwithenvironmentalaspects.MostcountriesincludingRomaniarequireEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentsforminingprojects,RMGCalsosubmittingoneinordertogetasecurepassfromtheMinistryofEnvironment,whichhasnotbeengrantedyet.However,theRomaniansideisnottheonlyonehavingasayinthematter,theHungariangovernmentexpressingitscallforcautionbothindiplomaticmeetingsandexpertreports.Atthesametime,oneoftheEUdirectiveswithwhichRomaniahadtocomplyafteritsaccessionin2007concernedtherehabilitationandminimisationofwasteandtoxictailingscomingfromthestateactivitiesintheextractiveindustries.However,therearestillareaswhichareaffectedbythetoxicwastefromminingactivities,amongthembeingtheRoşiaMontanăvillage.Researchshowsthattheenvironmentalimpactofthepollutionintheareaissignificantandtherisksassociatedwithitshouldmakepollutionmediationa
priorityonthepublicdecision-makingagenda.Thisscenarioweighstheenvironmentalissueshigherthanallothercriteria,whichhavesmallerequalweights,theresultingevaluationgraphsbeingavailablebelow:
FIGURE17.Scenario6.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
0.345
0.263
0.181
0.099
0.018
-0.064
-0.148
-0.227
-0.309
-0.391
-0.472
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
49
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
85% contraction level
50
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE18.Scenario6.Alt4vs.Alt1
FIGURE19.Scenario6.Alt1vs.Alt2
Ifweprioritizeenvironmentoversocial,economic,culturalandcredibilitycriteria,thentheZeroAlternativebecomesthesecondbestafterTourism,whichissignificantlybetterthanAlt.1.AccordingtoFigures18and19,Alt.4issignificantlybetterthanAlt.1,andAlt.2isbetterthanAlt.1.
Scenario 7: stakeholder interest – local community
Inthecurrentscenario,wemostlytookintoconsiderationthesocio-economicimpactofallalternativesonthelocalcommunity.Inwhatconcernstheeconomicaspects,weweighedthepotentialfinancialcostsandbenefitsforthelocalpeoplebroughtbyeachoption,prioritizingemploymentopportunities,jobtrainings,standardoflivingandeconomicgrowth,aswellastheimpactofeachoptionuponotherbusinessesandemployeesinthearea.Tothesesubcriteriaweassignedhigherweightsthantothesubcriteriadealingwiththeimpactofeachalternativeforthenationaleconomy(forthis,seeFig.4).
Inwhatconcernsthesocialaspects,welookedatissuessuchas:theimpactofrelocationsandresettlements,thephysicalsafetyandhealthofthelocalcommunity,accesstojobs,infrastructure,cleanwater,etc.ChoosingtoprioritizethesocialandeconomicaspectsovertherestderivesfromtheworriesandinterestsofthepeoplefromRoşiaMontanăandnearbyvillages,directlyaffectedbytheimplementationofanyofthealternatives.
51
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
52
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE20.Scenario7.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
0.486
0.401
0.316
0.232
0.147
0.062
-0.023
-0.108
-0.193
-0.278
-0.363
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
85% contraction level
FIGURE21.Scenario7.Alt1vs.Alt2
Whenthesocio-economicimpactonthelocalcommunityisgiventhehighestweight,theZeroAlternativeandthe2013RMGCProjectoverlapalmostentirely.TheresultsfromFig.21faithfullyrelfectthedividedopinionsofthelocalpeopleinregardtotheminingproject,apartofthemsupportingit,andothersradicallyopposingit.Still,wecanseethatthisisanotherscenarioinwhichatouristicdevelopmentseemstobetheoptimalsolutionforthearea.
Scenario 8: transparency and citizen interest
ThelegalimpedimentsmetbytheRMGCprojectsofarhaveblockedtheimplementationoftheproject,buthavenotyetledtoapermanentdismissalofitbytheRomanianauthorities.Anewminingbillhasbeenonthetableofdiscussionsandnegotiationsbehindcloseddoors,whichhavetakenplacethroughouttheyears,drawingmistrustandcriticismfromtheopponentswhofearthatlegislationcanbebenttosuitcorporateandgovernmentalinterests.Thelackoftransparencyandopenpublicdebateonparliamentaryinitiativesandgovernmentaldecisionshasinflamedthepublicopinion,makingthecredibilitycriteriamoreimportantandrelevantthananyother.BymakingRoşiaMontanăamono-industrialareaand,asaconsequence,blockinganyotherenterprisetodevelopsuchastourism,localauthorities
53
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
54
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
areaswellmetwithmistrustinchoosingthebestalternativeforthearea.Thus,thegraphsbelowshowtheevaluationofthefouralternativeswhencredibilityhasthehighestweight,andallothercriteriahavesmallerequalweights.
FIGURE22.Scenario8.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
0.429
0.346
0.262
0.179
0.096
0.013
0.070
0.154
0.237
0.320
0.403
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
85% contraction level
55
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Ifcredibilitybecomesthemainissue,thesituationchangestoalargerextent.TheZeroAlternativebecomespreferable,whiletourismfallstosecondplaceandtheRMGCprojecttothird,overlappingwithAlt.3.
FIGURE23.Scenario8.Alt2vs.Alt4
Scenario 9: 2013 draft mining bill stipulations
AccordingtoArt.3fromtheBillformodifyingandsupplementingtheMiningLawno.85/2003,discussedbytheSenate,specialpublicinterestprojectswouldbethe„miningprojectswhoseeconomicandsocialbenefitsderiveddirectlyorindirectlybythestateand/orlocaladministrativeunitsaregreaterthantheenvironmentalnegativeeffects;thebenefitsshouldbesolidlyarguedandsupportedbythecompulsorinessofenvironmentalrehabilitationintheclosurephaseoftheproject.”55
55 seeReportoftheCommitteeforeconomy,industryandservices,No.XX/597/02.12.2013,p.5
56
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Themaincriteriaofconcernforspecialpublicinterestprojectswouldbecome:1.Economicandsocialand2.Environment;consideringourdecisiontreeforRoşiaMontană,whichcanbecomea„specialpublicinterest”project,weeliminatetheculturalaspects,aswellascredibility,andallsub-criteriafrom1and2remainthesame.Theresultsbecomeasfollowing.
Thus,ifwegivehigherweightstotheeconomicandsocialcriteria,thantotheenvironmentcriterion,thebestsolutionforthedevelopmentoftheareaisAlt.4,withAlt.1andAlt.2overlappingalmostentirely.
FIGURE24.Scenario9a.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
0.441
0.364
0.287
0.211
0.134
0.057
-0.020
-0.097
-0.174
-0.251
-0.328
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
85% contraction level
Ifweattributehigherweightstotheenvironmentaspectsthantotheeconomicandsocialcriteria,thehierarchyisthesame,butAlt.2becomesmuchbetterdifferentiatedfromAlt.1,becomingthesecondbestoption:
FIGURE25.Scenario9b.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
57
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
0.384
0.300
0.217
0.133
0.049
-0.034
-0.118
-0.201
-0.285
-0.369
-0.452
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
85% contraction level
58
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Andifallcriteriabearequalweights,wegetthesamehierarchyofalternatives,withAlt.4beingthebestoptionandAlt.1andAlt.2overlappingtoahighextent:
FIGURE26.Scenario9c.Evaluationofthe4alternatives
Theclearerdifferenceinsomecasescanbeexplainedbythehigherweightsgiveninthiscasetothesocialaspects,aswellasbythedropoftheculturalaspects,whicharenowdisregarded.CulturalaspectsweighedconsiderablymoreinthefavouroftheRMGCprojectinourpreviousscenarios,sincethisisoneofthemainareasinwhichtheyhaveinvestedduringthelastyears.
0.418
0.340
0.262
0.184
0.106
0.028
-0.049
-0.127
-0.205
-0.283
-0.361
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999
85% contraction level
Other scenarios advanced in the public debates:
1.Ifadifferenttechnologyisusedintheexploitation,skippingthecyanideleachingprocessandthetoxictailingsraisingtheenvironmentalconcerns,weighswouldbeimpossibletoestimatewithinAlternative1,sinceRoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationisnotwillingtomodifythetechnology.Theentirebusinessplan,feasibilityandinvestmentstudiesarebuiltonthepresenttechnology.AseparatealternativebackedbyafeasibilitystudyofalternativeexploitationsofthedepositsshouldbeanalyzedbytheRomanianstateorbyotherinvestors.
2.IfmininglegislationisadoptedsoastoeasetheapprovalofenvironmentalpermitsneededfortheimplementationofAlt.1,theRMGCproject,therisksandbenefitsofthisalternativeincreaseproportionally,astheycanbereplicatedinothersimilarfutureprojects.Also,takingintoconsiderationthereleaseofnewlicensesforexplorationbytheNationalAgencyforMineralResources,theprecedentoftheRoşiaMontanaprojectcanleadtofuturesimilarchoicestobeemployedbyinvestors.
3.IfweconsiderthedocumentationprovidedbytheNationalInstituteofResearchandDevelopmentinTourismonAlternative4,theirresearchandcost-benefitanalysisaimatatouristicdevelopmentofnotonlytheRoşiaMontanaarea,butalsoofotherareasinApuseniMountainsaffectedbyminingclosuresafterRomania’saccessiontotheEuropeanUnion.Asuccessfulsustainabledevelopmentthroughtourismcouldaswellbereplicated.
Research limitations
Naturally,thedecisionmodelfacedcertainobstaclesandlimitations,mostsignificantly:
I.Theuncertaintyofthedataandtheconflictingevaluations:Probablythebiggestproblemthatwefacedwasthatmultiplesourcesholdconflictingargumentsregardingthesameissue.Duetotheresearchers’lackofexpertizeintherespectiveareas,thecomplexityoftheissuesandthefactthatmostofthecriteriainquestionarepredictionswithahighlevelofuncertaintyandcontroversy,theonlyoptionfortheanalysiswastoworkwithrathervagueandgrossevaluations,whichresultedinalowerconfidenceinthedifferentiationbetweenthefouralternatives.
59
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
60
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
II.Insufficientreliabledataforcertainscenarios:thiswasthecaseforthetourismalternative,wherewewereabletofindonlyonecomplexstudywithreliable,research-basedprojections.
III.Lackofproperauthorshipattribution:theEIAreportsfailtomentiontheauthorsbehindeachreport,butonlylistalltheinstitutes,independentexpertsandcompanieswhichhavecontributedwiththeirexpertize(aproblemalsoencounteredforotherdocuments).AftertheEIAwassubmittedtotheMinistryofEnvironmentin2006,apublicconsultationfollowedduringwhichcitizens,NGOs,institutesandexpertswereinvitedtosubmittheirquestionsandconcernsaboutthedocumentation.ThequestionsweresenttotheMinistry,buttheanswerscamefromthecompany.
IV.Citizens’commentsonFacebook,blogsorpublicdebateswere,asexpected,themostimpreciseanddidnotaddextracontenttotheinformationavailableinreports,booksandarticles.Themostrecurrentissuessignalledbycitizensandthecivilsocietyweretranslatedintothemulti-criteriaanalysisbyassigninghigherweighstotheconcerns.Generally,thesameconcernswerealsodetailedinotherdocuments,comingfromeg.theRomanianAcademy,theAcademyofEconomicStudies,andothers,thereforetheweighsreflectedmoreemittersthanone..
V.Limitedresources:Unlikeother,biggercasestudiespresentedinthisreportthatwerecarriedoutwiththefinancialsupportofpublicauthorities,ourlimitedresourcesdidnotallowustoorganizeworkshopswiththestakeholdersinvolvedoremployothermeansofobtainingamorepreciseanddirectassessmentoftheirpositiononthetopic.Thisimpliesboththatourresearchwaslimitedtosecondarydata,andthatarigorousstakeholderanalysiswasnotfeasible.However,thecurrentresearchrepresentsawell-documentedstartingpointforfurther,morerefineddecisionanalysisthatwouldhelpbetterdifferentiatebetweenAlt.1.andAlt.2.,whichatthemomentareheldasthemostavailableoptionsandwhich,inouranalysis,arehardtoprioritizeoneovertheother.Also,studiesonotherpotentialalternativescanbeconductedfollowingourmulti-criteriadecisiontree.
Thisresearchwouldn’thavebeenpossiblewithoutthedocumentationmadeavailablewiththecivilsocietyprotestsandjournalisticinvestigations,whichreleasedthelicensecontractsandmadewayforaparliamentarypublichearingofthemainstakeholdersandoftheargumentsproandagainsttheproject.
61
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Drawingonthesensitivityanalysiswecanconcludethatthealternativeofimplementingtheprojectwiththeoldprovisions,datinginthe1999license,canbedropped,becauseitisclearlythemostdisadvantageousofthefouroptions.Inaddition,inmostcases,theTourismalternativeturnsouttobetheoptimalone,butwemusttakethisresultwithcautionbecauseincertaincasesthedifferencefromAlternative1and2isnotverylarge,andbecausethedataavailableforthisoptioncomesfromimpreciseanduncertainprojections.Thereprecautionsarereflectedbythe8thScenario,whereCredibilityissuesareprioritized,and,asaconsequence,thebestalternativebecomesthatofnotdoinganything(Alt.2).ThisisbecausetheTourismAlternativeultimatelydependsonpoliticalwill,investorinterestandonhowsuchaprojectwouldbeimplemented.Inaddition,the8thScenarioreflectsthecurrentsituation,whereactionhasbeenfrozenasaresultofthemassiveprotestswhichweretoagreatextentduetothelackoftransparency,thelegalityproblemsandthecredibilityofthewholeprocess.
Anotherconclusionthatcanbedrawnfromtheanalysisisthatwiththecurrentdataitisdifficulttosaywhetheritisbettertolaunchtheprojectinitsupdatedform(Alt.1)ortonottakeanyfurtheraction(Alt.2).Inmostcases,thesetwoalternativeslargelyoverlap,orthedifferentiationsareratherinsignificant.Thereisonlyonescenariowherethereisaclearhierarchybetweenthetwooptions:ifwevaluemorethecredibility,legalityandtransparencyoftheprocess,thesituationshiftsandtheZeroalternativebecomesawiserdecision.Thisresultcanbetranslatedinavaluablerecommendationfortheminingcompanyandforthepoliticaldecision-makers.Ifthesestakeholderswantthecontinuationoftheprojectanditsacceptancebycivilsociety,thekeychallengeistoincreasethetransparencyoftheprocessandimprovethecredibilityandlegalaspects,enteringanhonestdialoguewiththecivilsociety,inordertogainpeople’strust.Iftheseaspectscannotbemet,thedecision-makersneedtopayattentiontothealternativesavailableforasustainabledevelopmentinthearea.
Futurepossibledirectionsofinquiryandaction: Researchincooperationwithothermemberstatesofalternativetechnologiesleadingtoenvironmentallysafermining;cost-benefitsanalysis,sustainability,rangeofapplicability;
Expandingthemulti-criteriatreewithmoretechnicalinformation,leadingtoawidernumberofbranchesandsubcriteria,aftergainingmoreinputon:touristicdevelopment,localauthorityplansincasetheprojectisrejectedforgood,publicopinionpreferencesandperceivedrisksandneeds.
Alternativesforsustainabledevelopmentinareaswherestate-fundedminingwasceased.
62
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
AcademiaRomână,AnalizaAcademieiRomâneprivindproiectuldeexploatareminierădelaRoşiaMontană-Riscuriprivindmediulşidezvoltareadurabilăazonei,2013,http://www.acad.ro/forumuri/doc2013/d0619-ProiectulRosiaMontana-AnalizaAR.pdf
AgenţiaNaţionalăpentruResurseMinerale,CompaniaNaţionalăaCuprului,AuruluişiFierului“MINVEST”S.A.,S.C.EUROGOLDRESOURCESS.A.,Licenţădeconcesiunepentruexploatarenr.47/1999,http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/782220/licenta-rosia-montana.pdf
Clemen,R.T.(1996).MakingHardDecisions.DuxburyPress.ComisiaEuropeană,Mediu:ComisiatrimiteRomâniaîninstanţăpentrudeversareaiazuluidedecantaretoxic,
comunicatdepresăalComisieiEuropene,16octombrie2014,laBruxelles,http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1149_en.htm
Comisiapentrueconomie,industrieşiservicii,RaportulComisieipentrueconomie,industrieşiservicii,nr.XX/597/02.12.2013,p.5.
ComisiaSpecialăComunăaCamereiDeputaţilorşiSenatuluipentruavizareaProiectuluidelegeprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontanăşistimulareaşifacilitareadezvoltăriiactivităţilorminiereînRomânia,RaportasupraProiectuluidelegeprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontanăşistimulareaşifacilitareadezvoltăriiactivităţilorminiereînRomânia,Bucureşti,Noiembrie2013,http://www.senat.ro/Legis/PDF/2013/13L475CR.pdf
Dana,F.RosiaMontanaScandal:Liberalsrejectaccusations,29Ianuarie2010,http://www.nineoclock.ro/rosia-montana-scandal-liberals-reject-accusations/
Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.(2012).“ARisk-BasedDecisionAnalyticApproachtoAssessingMulti-StakeholderPolicyProblems[Oabordareanaliticăadecizieiîncondiţiideriscpentruevaluareaproblemelordepoliticămulti-stakeholder]”.ÎnA.Amendola,T.Ermolieva,J.Linnerooth-BayerşiR.Mechler(ediţiile)IntegratedCatastropheRiskModelling:SupportingPolicyProcesses[Modelareaintegratăarisculuidecatastrofă:Sprijinireaproceselorpolitice],Springer.
Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.,Johansson,J.,şiLarsson,A.(2003).“TheDecideITDecisionTool[InstrumentuldedecizieDecideIT]”.ProceedingsoftheThirdInternationalSymposiumonImpreciseProbabilitiesandTheirApplications[şiaplicaţiilelor],pp.204-217,CarletonScientific.
Danielson,M.(2005).“GeneralizedEvaluationinDecisionAnalysis[Evaluareageneralizatăînanalizadeciziei]”.EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch162(2),pp.442-449.
DanielsonM,EkenbergL.(2007).“ComputingUpperandLowerBoundsinIntervalDecisionTrees[Limitesuperioareşiinferioaredecalculînarboriidedeciziecuintervale]”.EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch,181:808–816.
Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.,Idefeldt,J.,şiLarsson,A.(2007).“UsingaSoftwareToolforPublicDecisionAnalysis:TheCaseofNackaMunicipality[Folosireaunuiinstrumentdeprogramarepentruanalizadeciziilorpublice:CazulMunicipiuluiNacka]”.DecisionAnalysis[Analizadeciziei]4(2),pp.76-90.
Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.,Ekengren,A.,HökbyT.,şiLidén,J.(2008).”DecisionProcessSupportforParticipatoryDemocracy[Suportpentruprocesuldeluareadecizieipentrudemocraţieparticipativă]”.JournalofMulti-CriteriaDecisionAnalysis15(1-2):15-30.
Ekenberg,L.(2000).“RiskConstraintsinAgentBasedDecisions[Constrângerideriscîndeciziilepebazădeagent]”.ÎnA.KentşiJ.G.Williams(Eds.)EncyclopaediaofComputerScienceandTechnology,23(48):263-280,MarcelDekkerInc.
EkenbergL,Thorbiörnson,J.(2001).“Second-OrderDecisionAnalysis[Analizadecizieideordinsecund]”.InternationalJournalofUncertaintyFuzzinessandKnowledge-BasedSystems,9(1):13-38.
63
REFERENCES
EkenbergL,ThorbiörnsonJ,BaidyaT.(2005).“ValueDifferencesusingSecondOrderDistributions[Diferenţeledevaloarefolosinddistribuţiiledeordinsecund]”.InternationalJournalofApproximateReasoning,38(1):81–97.
Fasth,T.,şiLarsson,A.(2012).“Portfoliodecisionanalysisinvaguedomains[Analizadecizieideportofoliuîndomeniiimprecise]”.ÎnProceedingsofthe2012IEEEInternationalConferenceonIndustrialEngineeringandEngineeringManagement[VolumulConferinţeiInternaţionaleIEEE2012petemaInginerieIndustrialăşiManagementIngineresc],61–65.
Fasth,T.,şiLarsson,A.(2013).“SensitivityAnalysisinPortfolioIntervalDecisionAnalysis[Analizadesensibilitateînanalizadecizieideportofoliuluipeintervale]”.ProceedingsoftheTwenty-SixthInternationalFloridaArtificialIntelligenceResearchSocietyConference[Volumulceleide-aDouăzecişişaseConferinţeInternaţionaleaSocietăţiipentruCercetareîndomeniulInteligenţeiArtificialeFlorida].http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/FLAIRS/FLAIRS13/paper/viewFile/5919/6148
GabrielResourcesLtd.,Gabrielseeksamicableresolutionoverminingdispute,comunicatdepresă,20ianuarie2015.http://gabrielresources.com/documents/GBURelease_Amicableresolutionsought_200115.pdf
Goţiu,M.AfacereaRoşiaMontană,EdituraTact,Cluj-Napoca,2013.GrupuldeComandoBaiaMare,RaportulGrupuluideComandoInternaţionalpentruevaluareaaccidentuluidela
BaiaMare,stabilitdeguverneledinRomâniaşiUngaria,ComisiaEuropeanăşiOrganizaţiaNaţiunilorUnite,decembrie2000.http://viso.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pecomines_ext/docs/bmtf_report.pdf
GuvernulRomâniei,GabrielResourcesLtd.,RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationS.A.,ACORDprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontană,http://legea.rosiamontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2-Acord-vDPIIS_29-07-2013_actualizat-30-07-2013-TC.pdf
Hotnews.ro,Infografic,MineritulînRomâniadeladeclinlarenaştere,15ianuarie2013,sponsorizatdeRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationS.A.http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-Roşia_Montană_social-14009179-infografic-mineritul-romania-declin-renastere.htm
KeeneyR.L.,şiRaiffa,H.(1976).Decisionswithmultipleobjectives:Preferencesandvaluetradeoffs[Deciziicuobiectivemultiple:Preferinţeşicompromisuridevaloare].JohnWiley&Sons.
Larsson,A.,Firth,D.,şiEkenberg,L.(2011).“Screeningşianalizadecizieiînplanificareatraficuluiurban”,Proceedingsof1stIEEEForumonIntegratedandSustainableTransportationSystems[VolumulEdiţiei1aForumuluiIEEEprivindSistemeledeTransportIntegrateşiDurabile],2011.
Larsson,A.,Johansson,J.,Ekenberg,L.şiDanielson,M.(2005).“DecisionAnalysiswithMultipleObjectivesinaFrameworkforEvaluatingImprecision.InternationalJournalofUncertainty[Analizadecizieicuobiectivemultipleîntr-uncadrupentruevaluareaimpreciziei.InternationalJournalofUncertainty]”.FuzzinessandKnowledge-BasedSystems13(5),pp.495-510.
Maiorescu,G.(Coord.).ModeldedezvoltareturisticăazoneiminiereZlatna-Bucium-RoşiaMontană-BaiadeArieşînperspectivadezvoltăriidurabile,caalternativăaactivităţiimonoindustrialeextractiveîndeclin;InstitutulNaţionaldeCercetare-DezvoltareînTurism:Bucureşti,2004-2006.5vols.
Marincea,A.ArgumenteleproşicontraproiectuluideexploataredelaRoşiaMontană,2013.http://www.openpolitics.ro/rosia-montana/argumente-pro-si-contra-rosia-montana.html
Marinescu,V.“DesiRaportulComisieiparlamentarenudaundaverdeinvestitiei,Autoriiproiectului„RosiaMontana“sesivadcastigatori”.CurierulNaţional.23Iunie2003,http://www.curierulnational.ro/print/15612
Mediafax,„CompaniaminieraReminBaiaMareesteinliniedreaptacuproceduriledefaliment”,ZiarulFinanciar,3mai2009,http://www.zf.ro/companii/compania-miniera-remin-baia-mare-este-in-linie-dreapta-cu-procedurile-de-faliment-4282533/
Mihai,A.,Marincea,A.,Ekenberg,L.(2015).“AMCDMAnalysisoftheRoşiaMontanăGoldMiningProject”.Sustainability,7,7261-7288,http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/6/7261/htm
ParlamentulEuropeanşiConsiliulEuropean,„Directiva2006/21/CEaParlamentuluiEuropeanşiaConsiliuluidin15martie2006privindgestionareadeşeurilordinindustriileextractiveşimodificareaDirectivei2004/35/CE-DeclaraţiaParlamentuluiEuropean,ConsiliuluişiComisiei,MonitorulOficialalUniuniiEuropene”,OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
64
REFERENCES
HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0021&from=ENMinisterulMediului,RoşiaMontanădocumentation,http://www.mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/Roşia_
Montană/Roşia_Montană.htmOlaru-Zăinescu,S.DezvoltaredurabilăalternativăminerituluilaRoşiaMontană.Analizaresurselorşielemente
destrategie.AsociaţiaAlburnusMaior,2006.OpenPolitics,TotceainevoiesăştiidespreTestVot–Prezidenţiale2014,2014,http://www.openpolitics.ro/
noutati/homepage/tot-ce-ai-nevoie-sa-stii-despre-testvot-prezidentiale-2014.htmlParlamentulRomâniei,Hotărâreanr.8/2003pentruconstituireaComisieicomunespecialeprivindefectuarea
uneianalizeasupraProiectuluidedezvoltareminierăRoşiaMontană,http://lege5.ro/Gratuit/gqzdkmbz/hotararea-nr-8-2003-pentru-constituirea-comisiei-comune-speciale-privind-efectuarea-unei-analize-asupra-proiectului-de-dezvoltare-miniera-rosia-montana
Pascaru,M.Glocalizareromânească.ImpactulcomunitaralproiectuluiRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation.EdituraLimes,Cluj-Napoca,2013.
Reguly,E.GabrielthreatensRomaniawithbillion-dollarlawsuit,TheGlobeMail,September12,2013http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/gabriel-resources-ceo-vows-to-sue-if-romania-kills-europes-biggest-gold-mine/article14240950/
RomâniaCurată,Capturastatuluilapurtător:43denumesonorepelistaneagraaexploatariiRosiaMontana,7Noiembrie2011,http://www.romaniacurata.ro/captura-statului-la-purtator-43-de-nume-sonore-pe-lista-neagra-a-exploatarii-Roşia-Montană/
RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation,GeologiaRoşieiMontane,http://en.rmgc.ro/Roşia-Montană-project/geology.html
RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation,EvaluareaImpactuluiasupraMediuluipentruProiectulRoşiaMontană,http://en.rmgc.ro/rosia-montana-project/environment/environmental-impact-assessment.html
RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation,Memorandum,2004,www.mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/Roşia_Montană/pdf/memoriu_prezentare.pdf
Stoica,C.A.,“OpiniapublicădespreProiectulRoşiaMontanăşiGazeledeşist”,11decembrie2013,Voxpublica,http://voxpublica.realitatea.net/politica-societate/opinia-publica-despre-proiectul-rosia-montana-si-gazele-de-sist-101065.html
Sutinen,M.,Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.,Larsson,A.(2010).“Web-basedAnalyticalDecisionSupportSystem[Sistemesuportpentrudeciziaanaliticăavândlabazăweb-ul]”.Proceedingsofthe10thInternationalConferenceonIntelligentSystemsDesignandApplications[Volumulceleide-a10-aConferinţeInternaţionaleprivindConcepereaşiAplicaţiileSistemelorInteligente],IEEE,pp.575-579.
Ştefan,O.“InterviucuDanPerjovschi”,ArtMarginsOnline,25octombrie2013,http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/728-interview-with-dan-perjovschi
Ştefănescu,L.,Robu,B.M.,Ozunu,A.,„AbordareaintegratăaimpactuluiasupramediuluişievaluareariscurilordinzonaminierăRoşiaMontană,România”.EnvironmentalScienceandPollutionResearch,Vol.20,Ediţia11,noiembrie2013,pp.7719-7727.
Toma,R.,TimelineRoşiaMontană,3noiembrie2013,http://www.openpolitics.ro/Roşia-Montană/timeline-Roşia-Montană.html
UniţiSalvăm,https://www.facebook.com/unitisalvam.***,ComentariipemargineaStudiuluideImpactasupraMediuluipentruProiectulRoşiaMontanafacuteinbaza
ConventieiEspoodecatreMinisterulMediuluisiApelordinUngariacusprijinulunoragentiiguvernamentalesiaunororganizatiinon-guvernamentale,http://www.cdep.ro/img/rosiam/pdfs/comments_hung.pdf
http://www.gabrielresources.com/site/index.aspxhttp://www.documentcloud.org/documents/782246-Roşia-Montană-acte-premergatoare.html#document/p1