An independent expert evaluation of the environmental impact assessment report for the rosia montana

AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE ROSIA MONTANA MINE PROPOSAL

ALBURNUS MAIOR August, 2006 Financed by

THE STAPLES TRUST GREAT BRITAIN

2

Despre Alburnus Maior Alburnus Maior is a community organisation based inRosia Montana.

It represents the interests of 300 families from Rosia Montana and 100 from Bucium.

The association was founded in 2000 by local property oners who refuse to be involuntarily resettled.

Alburnus Maior opposes Gabriel’s mine porposal on social, environmental, cultural and economic grounds.

Contact:

Alburnus Maior Berk Street No. 361 517615 Rosia Montana Alba County / Romania Tel/Fax: +40 364 119 862 e-mail: alburnusmaior@ngo.ro www.rosiamontana.org www.rosiamontana.ro This report was financed by: Open Society Foundation Str. Caderea Bastiliei nr. 33 Sector 1 010613 - Bucuresti Romania.

Telefon: +40 21 212 1101 Fax: +40 21 2121032 E-mail: msepetean@osf.ro www.osf.ro

Staples Trust Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts Allington House (1st floor) 150 Victoria Street London SW1E 5AE

3

4

Contents:

Introduction Acad. Prof. Dr. Ionel Haiduc

p. 7

1. Outlook on the legality of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Rosia Montana Project Romanian Academy - Legal Research Institute -

p. 11

2. Evaluation of the Rosia Montana EIA Report with an accent on Biodiversity Szabó József, John Akeroyd, Andrew Jones, Geczi Robert, Bodis Katalin

p. 23

3. An Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Rosia Montana Project with an Emphasis on Archeological and Cultural Patrimony Issues Dr. Horia Ion Ciugudean

p. 103

4. Assessment of the Rosia Montana EIA report with a focus on the Socio-Economic and Community Issues Sorana Olaru – Zainescu p. 118 5. An Assessment of the Resettlement and Relocation Action Plan for Rosia Montana Sorana Toma p. 153 6. Review of the Rosia Montana Environmental Impact Assessment Report with a focus on water and water quality-related issues Dr. Robert E. Moran p. 159

5

6

7

Foreword Public participation in decision-making and access to information lead to better decisions in terms of groundedness and quality. At the time of writing we are amidst the public consultation procedure for Gabriel’s Rosia Montana gold/silver mine development. Sadly this procedure has proven; this at least to me, to be nothing other than a publicity event organized by and for the project owner. There is no space for dialogue; for the public to express their concerns so that the public authorities can take due account of these at the decision-making moment. The EIA report itself is overwhelming in terms of volume and discouraging in terms of accessibility and content.

In light of this I must confess that I am extremely proud of the determination expressed by many citizens who persisted in reading the documentation and insisted to make creative, innovative and important comments during the consultations.

The Rosia Montana mine proposal has been a major provocation to Romania’s civil society; including the Romanian Academy due to the environmental, social, cultural, economic and juridical concerns associated with its development. Whilst it is questionable whether gold mining contributes to sustainable wealth creation, a multitude of examples from all over the world including Romania point to significant risks and costs for the host countries and its citizens. In many incidences these risks and costs become apparent only once a mine is operational but then the damage is done and governments often have little or no power for remedy.

In order to help decision-makers to enforce the precautionary principle and to remind them what is at stake, I am happy to endorse this report, which is a first assessment of the Rosia Montana EIA report. Its aim is to explain some of the proposal’s obvious uncertainties, shortcomings and to identify its true ‘winners’ and ‘loosers’. The views expressed belong the individual authors.

Hopefully their contribution will prepare the grounds for a fair and much needed dialogue on this subject.

If the voice of civil society counts and if the authorities thus refrain from endorsing this risky mine proposal, then this would prove to be a sign of maturity and responsible governance form the part of the decision-makers.

This in return is a step our country is in dire need of in order to achieve the stability to move forwards.

Acad. Prof. Dr. Ionel Haiduc Bucharest, August 2006

8

9

ROMANIAN ACADEMY - LEGAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE -

Outlook on the legality of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Rosia Montana Project

10

11

CASA ACADEMIEI – Calea 13 Septembrie nr.13, sector 5, 050711 Bucuresti; tel: (004)021/318.81.30; fax: (004)021/ 318.24.53; e-mail:icj_juridic@yahoo.com; WEB: www.icj.ro

Outlook on the legality of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Rosia Montana Project Preceding remarks: The norms of the positive law that include the frame law on environmental protection and derivative legislation, that the project titleholder Rosia Montana Gold Corporation SA and the Ministry for the Environment and Water Protection have to take into consideration in the design of the Environmental Impact Assessment Study and during the review proceedings are annexed to this study (see appendix 1).

Even though the Environmental Impact Assessment Study (EIA)1, designed by authors accredited by the Ministry for the Environment and Water Management, pretends to be an exhaustive document, we will herein analyze several aspects that concerns the legality of this study. Upon careful scrutiny, these aspects can lead to the dismissal of the request for an environmental license through a governmental decision2, according to art 19 of the Emergency Governmental Ordinance no. 195/20053. If it is the case that the 1

2

The abbreviation for the Environmental Impact Assessment is henceforth EIA The environmental license and the authorization/integrated environmental authorization for mining activities

that use dangerous substances in the processing work and concentration process, with production capacities larger that 5 million tones/year and/or if the surface the activity is conducted on is larger than 1000 hectares, the Government has to pass a decision, based on a proposal by the central environmental protection authority and according to the project titleholder the yearly production of ore will be between 7.3 and 15.4 million tones/year. See table 1-1 on page 10 of 49, Chapter 1- General Information about the EIA Report.

3

Modified and approved by Law no. 265/2006.

12

environmental accord - an individual authoritative administrative act - will be issued, it could be attacked in an administrative court by any person who has an interest to so do.

The first essential aspect that involves the evaluation of the pre-existing factual situation refers to the manner in the consultants have understood to treat the “Zero Alternative”. There are several arguments to be made that the EIA Report does not start from a proper basis for the evaluation of the “Zero Alternative”. The report contains instead statements that are overwhelmingly subjective about the economic consequences, concluding that poverty in the area will increase if the project does not granted an environmental license.

We have to point out that the assessment algorithm for the Zero Alternative entails an anticipation of the evolution of environmental factors in the absence of the project 4. The EIA report lacks a spatial and temporal projection on the evolution of the environmental factors which would start from the very important premise that the Romanian State, through Minvest Deva SA, is in the course of fulfilling its legal obligations to ecologically rehabilitate the area of the mining operation in Rosia Montana, after all its operations ceased in June 2006. Even though the project owner is aware of Minvest Deva SA’s intentions5, it nevertheless assumes that the former’s mining operations will not be followed by the environmental rehabilitation of the old mining operation area, against the precise provisions of article 3, point 25 corroborated with article 32, paragraph 1, letter c and d, linked with article 39, paragraph 1, letter k and article 52, paragraph 1, letters b and d of the law no. 85/2003 (Mining Law).

Minvest Deva is currently working on a closure and ecological rehabilitation plan 6 and has 4

In the best practices manual approved by the Ministry for the Environment and Water Management, Order no. 117/2006, the Zero Alternative is defined as „the forecast for the state of the environment and the population’s health in the case of the non-implementation of the respective plan/project (the so called Zero Alternative)”.

5

Please see the project owner’s (RMGC) declaration « Our cooperation with Minvest for the Ecological Rehabilitation of Existing Operations », Vol. 7, General Outlook on the EIA Report, p. 12 and “according to graphic for the closure of inadequate dumps, approved through the Governmental Decision no. 349/2004 on waste dumps, all dumps in rural areas, including those in the Rosia Montana area will be close until 2009.

The larger waste dumps in the region, like those in Abrud, Campeni and Zlatna will be closed in 2009” (volume 22, Waste Management Plan of the EIA Report, p. 83 which stands in contradiction with the statement: “we have no intention to restore the social and ecological conditions in Rosia Montana to the pre Rosia Montana project conditions”, vol. 31, Community Sustainable Development Plan of the EIA Report, p.

12.

6

The closure and ecological rehabilitation plan includes among other things : filling up of galleries, ecologic rehabilitation of the mining platform, the planting of saplings and grass, the maintenance of

13

already been allocated 1.17 million Euros by the Ministry for the Environment, for the first stage of these procedures7.

The respective plan will be the subject of an environmental impact assessment procedure that will include pubic consultations. This means that the mining impacted environment in Rosia Montana will be rehabilitated through reforestations, the treatment of acid waters, the stabilization of waste dumps and that socio-cultural and infrastructure rehabilitation8 measures will be taken.

This should have been the premise that the project owner should have started from when examining the baseline conditions and not the erroneous alternative that starts from a negative impact assessment: “…the continuing pollution of waters and the soil through uncontrollable streams and ex-filtrations caused by the RosiaMin operations, the historical mining works and the practice of uncontrolled waste deposits and the status quo which results from the Romanian state’s (through Minvest Deva SA) finalizing of the closure and environmental rehabilitation operations9”.

Consequently, the two projects - the closure and the environmental rehabilitation of the present state-owned mine and the RMGC plan to open a new mine - are clearly incompatible. Thus, the two environmental licenses cannot be issued by the environmental protection authorities simultaneously or successively, within a short time interval. The only legal solution, according to article 94, paragraph 1, letters g,h, i of the Governmental Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2005 would be to have the Romanian state that is a shareholder in the National Company Minvest Deva SA to abide by the principle “the polluter

plantations, a 4 year monitoring of the stability of the waste dumps and the plantations; on the tailing pond: the transportation of residues and concentrates to ponds, concrete thresholds in the valley basins, creation of monitoring channels, creation of support walls, drenches, deposits of fertile soil, planting of grass and saplings, rehabilitation of neutralization plants and the post-monitoring of waters, the post-monitoring of the stability of tailing ponds for a period of 30 years.

7

Please see the article Rosia Montana Mine closes temporarily published in the newspaper Bucharest Daily News, no. 538, 1 August 2006. 2006 “According to Alba Deputy Prefect Clement Negrut, the mine and the mud-setting pond in the Rosia Montana area will be made safe by 2011. For now, said the Alba official, the greatest problem is the ecological recovery of the zone, of the mud-setting pond in particular. The Ministry of the Environment allocated for this purpose funds totaling 1.17 million euros.”

8

According to letter no 3206 dated 09.06.2006 from Minvest Deva S.A., the company’s board issued the decision no. 94 dated 31.03.2006 on the closure of all its mining activities in Rosia Montana. At the moment the Mine Closure and Environmental Rehabilitation Plan is being finalized (projected to be final in the third semester of 2006) and will then be submitted to an EIA procedure, which was also confirmed by the National Agency for Mineral Resources in its letter no 6090/09.06.2006.

9

See Volume 16 of the EIA report, page 8 “Analysis of the Alternatives”.

14

pays”, to continue and finalize the closure and ecological rehabilitation project for the old operation Rosia Min and to have the investor, RMGC wait until this process ends and rewrite its studies about the baseline conditions, with reference to this Zero Alternative.

The EIA Report does not evaluate the impact of deforestations on a significant surface of land. The EIA Report shows that in the perimeter of the proposed industrial area there are 234.8 hectares of forests10. The impact of such massive deforestations is obvious: landslides, erosions, climatic change, the significant alteration of socio-cultural conditions in the respective areas, the loss of some key habitats for the native fauna and flora, the loss of genetic diversity, a quantitative and qualitative impact on waters, all representing a direct and permanent impact on the environment.

The scoping list explicitly asks the project owner to evaluate in detail the impacts of deforestation, both on the environment11 and on human health12. The requested information can not be found in the EIA report.

The authorization procedures13 for the permanent tenancy of forest areas which belong to the national forest fund, the subsequent deforestation of these surfaces and the

10

See Volume 7 of the EIA report, “General Information”, page 37;

11

The remark made by the Ministry for Transport, Constructions and Tourism, point 11, see

http://www.mmediu.ro/dep_mediu/rosia_montana.htm; 12

The question asked by the Institute for Public Health, pct. 8: “An evaluation of the risk on health generated by

the losses of agricultural and forestry land: - the disturbance of air’s capacity for self-purification generated by the loss of vegetation in the area; - the extinction of natural obstacles that use to offer protection against the movements of polluted air.“ See http://www.mmediu.ro/dep_mediu/rosia_montana.htm; 13

According to Article 26 of the Governmental Ordinance no. 96 /1998 republished, on the regulation of the silvic regime and the administration of the national forest fund, The permanent tenancy or the temporary use of lands which belong to the national forest fund, according to the provisions of article 23 and 24, can be realized only with the agreement of the property owners and it is approved as follows [...] c) for an area larger than 50 hectares, through a Governmental Decision, at the request of the legal persons who are the beneficiaries and following the proposal of the public central authority responsible for forestry.

15

entire gamut of financial obligations14 that the project owner has for these operations are also not described. This fact impedes a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed project Even though from a purely formal point of view, the project owner will have to undergo a separate environmental impact assessment procedure for the permanent tenure of surfaces from the national forest fund and for the deforestation of these woods, this does not mean that the present EIA Report has to obscure the assessment of the environmental impact these deforestations will have. This because, as we have shown above, this impact is one of the most severe types of direct impact, it is irreversible and has, in its turn, indirect effects upon other environmental factors in the Rosia Montana Project area. The project owner has not given an adequate response to questions about the Prognosis on direct effects included in Annex 3 of the MAPAM Order no. 863/2002. Consequently, the public authority cannot evaluate and impose via the environmental accord measures that would mitigate this impact (e.g. reforestations for forest boundary land surfaces).

Another serious flaw in the EIA Report is the manner in which responsibility over the issue of mining waste management is assumed. The “Waste Management� section of the Report in its current form represents a structural deficiency that renders the granting of an environmental accord impossible. The erroneous premise the project owner starts from is the inapplicability of Directive no. 1999/21/EC on land filling of waste, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC), no. L 182 from the 16th of July 1999 and transposed into the Romanian legislation with Governmental Decision no. 349/2005 published in the Official Gazette no. 394/2005. Following an erroneous interpretation of art 3 of G.D. no. 349/2005 against point no. 8 of the Preamble of the new European Mining Waste Directive 2006/21/CE, the project owner concludes that the European Directive 2006/21/CE, as a special norm, prevents the enforcement of the Governmental Decision no. 349/2005.

Even though, ad absurdum, we would at present consider the EU accession process over, we would still have to wait for the transposition of this Directive into the internal legislation, because the directive contains recommendations and doesn’t include any 14

According to Article 23, point of the Governmental Ordinance no. 96 /1998 republished, The permanent tenancy of lands which belong to the forest fund, stipulated at point (1) lit. a) and b), is made after the payment of the following taxes and compensations: a) the tax for permanent tenancy of forest lands which goes to the Fund for land improvements, according to article art. 92, point (4) of Law on land fund 18/1991, republished, and which is a fund administered by the central public authority in charge of forests; b) the value of the land and the wood which goes to the property owner of that respective land; c) the value of the loss in growth, generated by the exploitation of wood before its standard age of exploitability, this in the case the land is covered with forest, compensation which goes to the land owner.

16

sanctions. We also have to mention that the European Communities Court of Justice, in its judicial practice, has acknowledged that it is only exceptionally15 that a directive can have a general normative character. Only at that moment would one be able to state with certainty that the transposition norm is or is not a special law in relation with the governmental decision no. 349/2005. The Romanian state can decide whether it understands to enact norms that are stricter than the directives now in force but at present no such technical and juridical elements for the transposition of the 2006/21/EC directive are known. Consequently, given that the governmental decision no. 349/2005 excludes from its provisions only the land filing of uncontaminated soil, of inert waste resulted from prospecting and exploitation operations, the treatment and stocking of mineral resources, it follows, per a contrario, that this text is applicable to processing waste.

Another argument in favour of this conclusion is the fact that table 5.10, annex 5 of this governmental decision mentions Minvest Deva SA’s tailing pond from the Salistei Valley where Rosia Min has deposited its current mining waste. The processing waste fall into the category of dangerous waste according to the annexes I B, I C, I D and I E of Law no.

426/2001 for the approval of the emergency governmental ordinance no. 78/2000 on waste regime.

Consequently in the design of the Corna Valley tailings pond, the project owner has to abide by the provisions of the governmental decision no. 349/2005 that regulates: - requirements on location: according to the above mentioned legal requirements, a waste deposit has to be situated 1000 metres away from any inhabited community. The construction of the waste deposit on fissured rock (as is the case of the Corna Valley), in the areas of protection of potable water sources (as is the case of the water sources for the town of Abrud) or in the areas protected for their natural or cultural patrimony (as are the archaeological vestiges from the Carnic Massive and the natural monuments Piatra Corbului and Piatra Despicata) is also banned.

- requirements on insulation: a deposit owner has to apply artificial insulation which abides by the norms for physical and chemical resistance and stability over time, in agreement with the rules for its imperviousness and an airtight system for the collection of levigate liquids, to ensure the accumulation of levigate at the base of the deposit is maintained at a minimal level. In subchapter 2.8.1.9 of the chapter “Waste Deposits” which describes prophylactic measures which have been taken to minimize the effect of toxic waste - the resulted waste 15

C.J.C.E., 22 February 1984, Kloppenburg, file no 70/1983, Recueil de jurisprudence 1984 page 01075 on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ and TPI, Ord. 20 October 1994, Asociación Española de Empresas de la Carne contre Conseil de l'Union européenne, File T-99/94.

Recueil de jurisprudence 1994 page II-00871 on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/.

17

from the processing plant – there is no mention of an insulation method of the deposit’s tub (base and interior slopes of the protection dams of the tailing pond) even though at point 1.2.2 corroborated with point 1.3. of Annex 2, General requirements for all classes of waste deposits of the Governmental Decision no. 349/2005 sets quantitative and qualitative conditions for the layers of insulation, both natural and artificial.

- requirements for authorization: the waste deposit operator must present, as part of the documentation for obtaining the environmental accord/authorization, an avis for water management, issued by the competent public authority - requirements for establishing the financial guarantee: a waste deposit operator is obliged, before starting the land filling activity, to prove the existence of the financial guarantee that it will fulfill its obligations on the deposit’s security, environmental and human health protection, all stipulated in the environmental authorization. This financial guarantee has to be maintained and adjusted all throughout the period of operation, closure and post-closure monitoring of the deposit. The operator is obliged to constitute a fund for closure and postclosure monitoring of all environmental factors (monitoring which has to last at least 30 years).

- monitoring and post-closure requirements: the post-closure monitoring period is determined by the competent environmental protection authority. This period is of at least 30 years and can be extended if through the post-closure monitoring program it is established that the waste deposit is not yet stable and presents a potential risk for the environmental factors.

As a conclusion, the EIA Report shows that the project owner is not in compliance with the provisions of the Governmental Decision no. 349/2005 on land filling of waste.

Building on the integrated pollution prevention and control principle, legislated through the Emergency Governmental Ordinance no. 152/2005 approved by law no. 84/2006, this juridical analysis must be extended onto the other stages of the licensing procedure for the Rosia Montana Project because they themselves can be the object of EIA procedures. From our analysis of the urbanism documents we have come to the following conclusions: - Being in the impossibility to continue the environmental licensing procedure because of the suspension16 of the urbanistic certificate no. 68/2004, the project owner RMGC has 16

The urbanistic certificate no. 68/2004 makes no reference whatsoever to the adminsitrative teritory of Campeni. It was suspended throught the civil court sentence no.205/CA/15.06.2005 of the Alba Iulia Tribunal, file no 2637/2005, irrevocable following the rejection of the appeals against it introduced by the Alba County Council and RMGC ( Alba Iulia Court of Appeal’s decision no 2092/2005 file no 4373/2005 )

18

requested and received from the Alba County Council a new urbanistic certificate no.

79/2006 for the purpose of planning and executing the construction works for the Rosia Montana mining project; - From the analysis of the content of the new urbanistic certificate we can observe the Rosia Montana project has suffered substantial modifications from its form described in the document “Project Presentation Report17” submitted by SC Rosia Montana Gold Corporation S.A. in order to start the environmental licensing procedures, at least under the following aspects: a) The total land surface is 12.573.164,63 square metres and not 13.461.656,42 square metres as it was stated in the old urbanism certificate; b) The construction works are proposed in the administrative territories of the Rosia Montana and Bucium communes and the towns of Abrud and Campeni;

c) The construction of several industrial objectives is no more proposed: - the tailing pond with a tailing surface of 363,13 hectares; - the main dam of the pond (180 metres high, with a final storing capacity of 153 million cubic metres of processing waste and one million cubic metres of technological water); - the dam for the secondary retention system; - the semi-passive treatment lagoons.

Consequently, the two administrative acts with an individual character that will be issued at the end of this licensing procedure - the environmental accord granted through a governmental decision and the construction license issued by the Alba County Council - will be in flagrant contradiction with each other because the first act will make reference to the industrial facilities enumerated above and the urbanistic certificate and implicitly the construction license (which compels the project owner) will make no mention of all these.

We therefore conclude that the urbanistic certificate no. 78 dated 26.04.2004 reflects an intention for a new project, incompatible with the one exposed in the urbanistic certificate no. 68/20.08.2004 and in the project presentation report submitted to the local environmental protection agency in Alba Iulia on the 14th Dec. 2004 in order to initiate the environmental licensing procedure.

Therefore RMGC has modified its project18, as one can see from urbanistic certificate no. 78/26.04.2006 issued by the Alba County Council. This however means that the initial 17 18

See http://www.mmediu.ro/dep_mediu/rosia_montana/PPR%20Rev_01_ROM_fara_comentarii.pdf As such Volume no 31 of the EIA report entitled Community Sustainable Development Plan makes reference on page 38 that “the community sustainable development plan includes the Commune of Rosia Montana as well as the two towns of Abrud and Campeni“.

19

request for an environmental accord dated 14 December 2004 has remained without object.

Therefore, the ministry for the Environment and Water Management should have not continued, based on the latest urbanism certificate, the EIA procedure. The legal solution would have been to reject the request for an environmental accord as being without object.

According to article 32 corroborated with articles 44 and 47 of Law no. 289/2006 which modifies and updates Law no. 350/2001 on urbanism and territorial management, and with article 10 of Law no. 50/1991 modified and republished, the urbanistic certificate no.

78/26.04.2006 should have included on page 3 the obligation to elaborate and approve through a local council decision four zoning plans19 for surfaces to be included in the project proposal. These are administrative territories belonging to the towns of Campeni and Abrud and to the communes of Bucium and Rosia Montana. The Alba County Council should at the very least have requested via the urbanistic certificate the design of a new county territorial management plan for the Rosia Montana industrial area. Like this at least the industrial area would have been compliant with articles 22 and 23 of Law no. 350/2001.

In addition to these four Zoning Plans, according to articles 17, 21, 28 of Law no.

422/2001 on the protection of historical monuments, the Commune of Rosia Montana is compelled to elaborate and approve through a local council decision an urbanistic plan for the protected area20 which includes thirty-three historical monuments, the entrance to the mine gallery Catalina-Monulesti and the proposal to establish a new museum. Even though the project owner has stated that this Zoning Plan will be elaborated and approved “in a future design phase”, in reality this should have been the first phase that the project owner and its partners - the local public authorities - should have necessarily undertaken before the 19

The obligation imposed in the urbanistic certificate no 76/26.04.2006 to design one single Zoning Plan for the whole Rosia Montana Industrial Development Area violates article 38 alin 2 pct. b, alin. 4 lit. d, e, f and alin. 5 lit. c of Law no 215/2001 on local public administration corroborated with article 25 alin 1 of Law no 289/2006 which modifies and updates Law no 350/2001 on territorial management and urbanism; this because each of the four local councils has the competence to vote a local council decision approving a corresponding Zoning Plan for the respective portion in its administrative territory that will be occupied by the project.

20

See Volume 7 of the EIA report, General Information, page 37 „ The ministry for Culture and the Cult’s

National Commission for Historical Monuments approved the establishment of a Protected Area, based on the permits no 61 dated February 2002 and no 178 dated June 2002. The second authorization stipulates that in a future design stage the project owner has the obligation to submit a Zoning Plan for the protected area and a Management and Rehabilitation Plan for Protected Area. The later needs to be sequenced with the progressive classification of the valuable buildings and the establishment of their legal statute. “

20

submission of the project presentation report to the Environmental Protection Authority in Alba in order to receive the environmental license.

This procedural course is the sole

possible from a legal point of view. According to article 5, paragraph 2, letter A corroborated with art 9, paragraph 3 of the new Strategic Environmental Assessment procedure (evaluation of the impact on the environment for plans and programs) instituted through the Governmental Decision no. 1076/2004, corroborated with article 9 of the Emergency Governmental Ordinance no. 195/2005 these plans must be validated through an environmental avis separately and prior to the environmental license required for the mining project itself.

The Private Law Division of the Romanian Academy’s Institute for Legal Research, coordinated by Professor Dr. Marilena Uliescu

Szabo Jozsef, Msc, Drd Calugareni, str 6/12 535600 Odorheiu Secuiesc Tel: 0742041989 joszef@birdingdelta.com

21

Evaluation of the Rosia Montana EIA Report with an accent on Biodiversity

22

23

Szabo Jozsef, Msc, Drd Calugareni, str 6/12 535600 Odorheiu Secuiesc Tel: 0742041989 joszef@birdingdelta.com

Evaluation of the Rosia Montana EIA Report with an accent on Biodiversity

by Jozsef Szabo

SummaryTranslation General Observations on the Chapter The Flora and Habitats in Rosia Montana In the biodiversity study, the methodological section there is a minute description of the research stages for the study of the flora in Rosia Montana and Corna Valley, the areas where the investor plans to open the largest open mine in Europe. In this methodological chapter we find the following statement: “during sample collection the map of the vegetation was continuously and progressively updated based on observed vegetation distribution models and the characteristics of the specific areas”. This phrase and the methodology described at pages 14-15 leave unattended the following issues: -on page 17 a set of “Carex (C. acutiformis, C. riparia, C. gracilis, C. inflata etc.)” are enumerated which are not afterwards included in the comprehensive list of plant species found in Annex 1.

-if on page 17 Hieracium transsilvanicum is mentioned as a “differentiated” species of the dacian beach forests in Rosia Montana and its surrounding areas and also of the pure spruce fir which in fact are associated within the researched area (Hieracio transsilvanicaePiceetum Pawl et Br. – Bl. 1939 em. Borhidi 1957) (middle section of page 18), this species is not found in Annex 1. On page 19 we find the following phrase: “ in these areas one can find the juniper tree which is grouped into Vaccinio-Pinetum mugi Hadac 1956, Jenik 1961 associations. Obviously, Pinus mugo is not referenced in Annex 1, even though it would be important to have it included as this association forms a priority habitat according to the Habitat Directive: *4070) The species that indicate the presence of the floristic associations described at page 20-and we are referring specifically to Thymo comosi – Seslerietum rigidae Zolyomi 1939, Sedo hispanici – Poëtum nemoralis Pop et Hodiºan 1985 are not included in the list of species in the study’s Annex 1.A lot of species included in the description and characterization of the forest habitats (pp. 30-42) are not found in the list of species in Annex 1 (e.g. Anthenaria dioica, Viola reichenbachiana, Galium odoratum, Lathyrus vernus, Carex digitata, Dactylis polygama –to name only a few from a list that includes more than 20 species).

Other observations about the Introductory Chapter: On page 10, at the end of the chapter “The Local Context” the conclusion is drawn that “the entire Aries river basin is a natural patrimony with a distinct scientific value”. On page 19 we find the enthusiastic phrase: “in the structure of the grasslands one can remark the high 24

specific diversity, where vegetal species of the most spectacular kinds can be found, that together, given their colors make the former some of the most beautiful grasslands in our country”. On page 20 we learn that “the perimeter of the future project is located in an area which is on no major interest as far as biodiversity is concerned” and on page 21 that “this area is one of the most severely impacted areas in Romania, with the biodiversity being particularly affected”.

In the middle of page 10 we find Figure 1.1. “The European Bio-Geographical Areas”, which is misplaced in the context described above and furthermore it is a flawed drawing that apparently aims to understate the richness and diversity of bio-geographical areas in Romania (see the bio-geographical areas in the Romanian Habitats Manual, Donita et al., p.

23).

On page 21, Figure 3.6.: there is no mention of the data source for this figure and the year it dates from. Rosia Montana is not indicated on the map which is draw at such a large scale that it the village cannot be located on it. (later it is stated that a large density of the human population in Rosia Montana can be observed on this map) Page 21, paragraphs 4 and 5: it is known that the secondary agricultural habitats that are farmed with traditional means represent, in many cases, habitats rich in species of organisms that have lost their primary habitats (Poschlod ºi Wallis-DeVries 2002, Baur et al.

1997, 2004). Therefore, the traditional agricultural habitats cannot be deemed “impacted”.

The initial natural integrity cannot be debated over given the fact that there are extremely few areas which have not been impacted by human activities around the globe.

On the issue of the “natural equilibrium” mentioned on page 21, paragraph 5: in the last decades of ecological research we have been demonstrated that this concept has been invalidated and can lead to erroneous interpretations. Ecosystems and populations seem constant and balanced when observed on a specific temporal and spatial scale but at other levels they can be shown to be dynamic (Pickett et al. 1992). Therefore, this study cannot overlook the dynamics of the communities on a long term and the likely impact the mining project will have on them.

On the principle of ecological imbalance (page 22, paragraph 4): this often gives birth to very diverse communities. Numerous ecosystems from both tropical and temperate regions depend on perturbing processes that maintain the biodiversity (Meffe ºi Carroll 1997). The fact that there has been a perturbation of the geological layer in the past cannot prompt us to conclude that this ecosystem is poor in terms of biodiversity. It must be underscored that the Management Plan for the “Natura 2000” sites (in the countries where this network is functional) that preserve secondary grasslands, include intervention measures (e.g. grazing and mowing). Within clear limits there interventions are compulsory and even paid for.

The statements on page 24, second paragraph: numerous studies have pointed to the importance of semi-natural ecosystems in terms of their biodiversity when they are maintained through traditional agricultural practices Erhardt, 1985a, Erhardt, 1985b, Erhardt ºi Thomas, 1991, Groombridge, 1992, Baur et al., 1997, Baur et al., 2002, Fischer ºi Wipf., 2002, Poschlod ºi Wallis-DeVries, 2002, Pykälä, 2003, Reif et al., 2003, Waldhardt ºi Otte, 2003, Baur et al., 2004, Poschlod et al., 2005, Pykälä et al., 2005, Rusdea et al., 2005). These semi-natural habitats cannot be regarded to be on no importance.

25

On page 25, paragraph 2: in terms of biodiversity, the fact that the farming land take up a surface of about 1% is irrelevant. Also the term “unproductive land” is not relevant in the context because this is a study that considers the biodiversity and not agricultural activities.

Even though the authors try to prove the negative impact human interventions have had on grasslands and for that reason, underscore the latter’s reduced value, in terms of biodiversity, on page 27 we learn that “the use of natural grasslands for grazing and mowing is a paradoxical source of biodiversity. The heterogeneity of the vegetation is favorably influenced by this mode of use. At present, when the aggression against natural systems is so intense, grasslands have an essential role in maintaining the landscape. (point 3.1.5.3.).

Please also note the absence of diacritics from the original document.

Conclusions The botanical section of the EIA Report is utterly incoherent. One can notice a series of contradictions between the fundamental arguments in the text, from one page to another.

Principles that are formulated on one page are contradicted several pages thereafter. The conclusions can therefore only be false. As far as the characterization of the flora goes, vegetal associations are enumerated and described as being part of the researched area.

However, not even the most important species for these associations are mentioned in Annex 1, “The Systematic List of Plant Species Identified in the Rosia Montana area” There is, arguably, a complete incongruence between the Species List in Annex 1 and the narrative section of the report. The plant species enumerated in the Annex should have also been included in the report, on the characterization lists for the habitats or the vegetal associations. Even though they make up only 18% of the forest habitats they are described in approximately 20 pages. However, secondary grasslands are not at all described when types of forests are discussed, even though they make up 60% of these habitats. There is a vague reference to several associations but there is no description of them therefore no direct link with Annex 1 can be established. Consequently, specific grassland habitats are not described even though the law requires that (L 345 din 2006, Ord. 863 din 2002). The same piece of legislation also stipulates that it compulsory that plat species are analyzed, to establish their place in the Red Lists, an analysis which has not been included in the study or its annexes.

Bibliography: Baur, B., Ewald, K.C., Freyer, B., Erhardt, A., 1997. Őkologischer Ausgleich und Biodiversität. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland.

Baur, B., Zschokke, S., Coray, A., Schläpfer, M., Erhardt, A., 2002. Habitat characteristics of the endangered flightless beetle Dorcadion fuliginator (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae): implications for conservation.

Biological Conservation 105, 133–142.

Baur, B., Duelli, P., Edwards, P.J., Jenny, M., Klaus, G., Künzle, I., Martinez, S., Pauli, D., Peter, K., Schmid, B., Seidl, I., Suter, W., 2004. Biodiversität in der Schweiz – Zustand, Erhaltung, Perspektiven. Haupt Verlag, Bern, Switzerland.

Biro, Zs., Sagi, M., Simo, I. 2005 Verespatak csigafaunajanak felmereseben tett elso lepesek, pp. 10-14, vol. 4, Collegium Biologicum, Cluj Napoca Boros, I., Kiss, K., Mathe, I., Urak, I., 2005 Adatok Verespatak hangya – (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), futobogar – (Coleoptera: Carabidae) es pokfaunajahoz (Arachnida: Araneae), pp. 15-24, vol. 5, Collegium Biologicum, Cluj Napoca Erhardt, A., 1985a. Diurnal Lepidoptera: sensitive indicators of cultivated and abandoned grassland.

Journal of Applied Ecology 22, 849–861.

26

Erhardt, A., 1985b. Wiesen und Brachland als Lebensraum für Schmetterlinge. Eine Feldstudie im Tavetsch (GR). Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 98, 1–154.

Erhardt, A., Thomas, J.A., 1991. Lepidoptera as indicators of change in the seminatural grasslands of lowland and upland Europe. In: Collins, N.M., Thomas, J.A. (Eds.), The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats. Academic Press, London, pp. 213–236.

Ehrlich, P.R. si Murphy, D.D., 1987. Conservation lessons from long-term studies of checkerspot butterflies. Conservation Biology 1, 122-131.

Fischer, M., Wipf, S., 2002. Effect of low-intensity grazing on the species-rich vegetation of traditionally mown subalpine meadows. Biological Conservation 104, 1–11.

Geczi, A., Bodis, K., 2003, Környezeti monitoring Verespatak–Aabrudbánya vidékén , kriterion cluj napoca Groombridge, B. (Ed.), 1992. Global Biodiversity. Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Chapman and Hall, London.

Harrison, S., Murphy, D.D. si Ehrlich, P.R., 1988. Distribution of the Bay checkerspot butterfly, Euphrydyas editha bayensis: evidence for a metapopulation model. American Naturalist 132, 360-382.

Meffe, G.K., Carroll, C.R. and Contributors, 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology Second Edition.

Sinauer Associates, INC Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Minor, E.K., Agoston-Palko E., Hegyi Zs., 2005. Elozetes adatok Verespatak emlosfaunajahoz, pp. 64-72, vol. 5, Collegium Biologicum, Cluj Napoca Pickett, S.T.A., Parker, V.T. si Fiedler, P.L., 1992. The new paradigm in ecology: Implications for conservation biology above the species level. În P.L. Fiedler si S.K. Jain (eds.), Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation Preservation and Management, pp. 65-88. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Poschlod, P., WallisDeVries, M.F., 2002. The historical and socioeconomic perspective of calcareous grasslands – lessons from the distant and recent past. Biological Conservation 104, 361–376.

Poschlod, P., Bakker, J.P., Kahmen, S., 2005. Changing land use and its impact on biodiversity. Basic and Applied Ecology 6, 93–98.

Pykälä, J., Luoto, M., Heikkinen, R.K., Kontula, T., 2005. Plant species richness and persistence of rare plants in abandoned semi-natural grasslands in northern Europe. Basic and Applied Ecology 6, 25–33.

Reif, A., Rusdea, E., Goia, A., 2003. Wie bei uns vor 200 Jahren. Nutzung einer traditionellen Kulturlandschaft im Apuseni-Gebirge Rumäniens. Natur und Museum 133, 125–139.

Rusdea, E., Reif, A., Povara, L., Konold, W. (Eds.). 2005. Perspektiven für eine traditionelle Kulturlandschaft in Osteuropa - Ergebnisse eines inter- und transdisziplinären, partizipativen Forschungsprojektes im Apuseni-Gebirge in Rumänien Culterra vol. 34, pp. 1–401.

Sos, T., Szatmari, B., 2005 Elozetes adatok a tervezett aranybanyaszat altal veszelyeztetett verespataki elohelyek keteltu es hullo faunajahoz, pp. 78-85, vol. 5, Collegium Biologicum, Cluj Napoca Veres, K., Benedek, O., Zs., Lakatos, L., Ujvarosi, L., Adatok a Verespatak (Rosia Montana) kornyeki nedves elohelyek ketszarnyu (Insecta: Diptera) faunajahoz: Trichhoceridae, pp.102-108, vol. 5, Collegium Biologicum, Cluj Napoca Waldhardt, R., Otte, A., 2003. Indicators of plant species and community diversity in grasslands.

Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 98, 339–351.

27

PERSONAL INFORMATION Name Address Telephone Fax E-mail Nationality Date of birth

JOZSEF SZABO CALUGARENI, STR. 6/12; 535600 ODORHEIU SECUIESC, ROMANIA +40 266 415406; +40 742041989 +40 268 415406 jozsef@birdingdelta.com; jozsef.szabo@gmail.com Romanian 27 March 1973

WORK EXPERIENCE • Dates (from – to) • Name and address of employer • Type of business or sector • Occupation or position held • Main activities and responsibilities

FROM 1999 – 2004 NOVEMBER Romanian Ornithological Society/BirdLife Romania (Gh. Dima str. 48, Cluj Napoca) Environmental and bird protection Important Bird Area Conservation Officer To coordinate the protection and monitoring of Romania’s most important sites for birds

• Dates (from – to) • Name and address of employer • Type of business or sector • Occupation or position held • Main activities and responsibilities

BEGINNING WITH 2004 NOVEMBER Otus Society for Nature Protection Environmental protection Program Officer To create projects for strengthening the NGO’s capacity

• Dates (from – to) • Name and address of employer • Type of business or sector • Occupation or position held • Main activities and responsibilities

FROM 2005 WWF Danube Carpathian Program (Mariahilfer str. 9, Wiena, www.wwf.org/dcpo ) Environment Biology consultant To coordinate site designation for priority habitats in Romania

EDUCATION AND TRAINING • Dates (from – to) • Name and type of organisation providing education and training • Principal subjects/occupational skills covered • Title of qualification awarded

• Dates (from – to) • Name and type of organisation providing education and training • Principal subjects/occupational skills covered • Title of qualification awarded

• Dates (from – to)

Beginning with 2000 Babes Bolyai University Cluj Napoca Biology, birds Phd Student

1997-1998 Central European University Budapest Environmental Sciences and Policy

1991-1996

28

• Name and type of organisation providing education and training • Principal subjects/occupational skills covered • Title of qualification awarded

Lucian Blaga University Sibiu Environmental Sciences and Biology Master of Sciences

PERSONAL SKILLS AND COMPETENCES

MOTHER TONGUE

HUNGARIAN

OTHER LANGUAGES

• Reading skills • Writing skills • Verbal skills • Reading skills • Writing skills • Verbal skills

ROMANIAN EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT ENGLISH EXCELLENT GOOD GOOD

As a student I’ve volunteered at many environmental protection oriented organizations, and I am a foundation member of Romanian Ornithological Society/BirdLife Romania, Otus Association for Nature Protection and Ecotour Sibiu. According to the circumstances I always work in a multicultural environment.

SOCIAL SKILLS AND COMPETENCES

ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS AND COMPETENCES

As IBA Conservation Officer I’ve set up a network of 27 IBA caretakers for the monitoring and protection of Romania’s most important sites for biodiversity.

Editor of IBA Best Practice Guide for Romanian caretakers, IBA Newsletter.

Set up the network for the National Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (more than 120 volunteers).

Implemented training courses for new volunteers and participated at many international workshops and trainings that were necessary to my job (on lobbying, communication and others) Set up a network of volunteers for National Waterfowl Census (more than 30 volunteers).

Over 35, in Romani and abroad mainly on Bird protection and related issues

ARTICLES PUBLISHED

DRIVING LICENCE(S)

B

29

Rosia Montana: a case for protection rather than destruction

30

31

Rosia Montana: a case for protection rather than destruction Report by John Akeroyd & Andrew Jones July 2006 Authors of this Report Dr John Akeroyd is a freelance botanist, author and editor, who has been a regular visitor to Transylvania since 2000, working on the conservation of biodiversity and landscape in the Saxon Villages. After St Andrews University, he received a PhD from Cambridge University, and then researched and lectured at Trinity College, Dublin, and Reading University, where he compiled the second edition of volume 1 of Flora Europaea. Since 1989 he has been involved in publication, agro-tourism and plant conservation projects in Britain, Ireland, Europe and the Mediterranean region; in 1994 he co-founded Plant Talk magazine on global plant conservation. His latest book, The historic countryside of the Saxon Villages of southern Transylvania, was published in 2006.

Dr Andrew Jones is a grassland expert specialising in farming and habitat management, ecological restoration and grassland genetics. With a PhD in the genetics of grassland forage crops, he has worked on developing food products from high nature value grasslands. He has a background as a research scientist at the UK’s leading grassland research institute (Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research), has worked for the Australian government farming research organisation (CSIRO) in the tropical beef industry, and has gone on to advise the UK Wildlife Trusts on grassland conservation. He has established the Grasslands Trust as the UK’s leading grassland charity, and since 2003 has been involved in Romanian grassland conservation.

1. Introduction We visited the area of the proposed extended mining area on 1–2 July 2006, an optimal time to study the flora of these sub-montane habitats. Despite inclement weather we were able, on foot, to examine the whole range of habitats around Rosia Montana village and adjacent countryside. To quote the recent EIA Report, the Project area is: “of no major interest for biodiversity. This is due to multiple and very long term interaction between environment and anthropogenic factors … impacts on biodiversity were due to both agricultural and historic industrial activities.”

Having thus been quite prepared to witness scenes of devastation, damaged habitats and degraded biodiversity, instead we were excited to witness considerable habitat richness and complexity within such a small area. Had we been able to make a longer visit, we would certainly have observed even more plant diversity. In summary, although many of the woodlands were semi-natural spruce plantations (but by no means without biological interest) or naturalized Scots pines, we encountered at least eight pristine grassland/mire/bog plant communities, all species-rich. The bog habitat is possibly unique in northern Romania. The EIA Report has described the fauna, flora and vegetation of the area, and in the light of historical interactions between mining, farming and forestry, concluded: “this is one of the most impacted areas of Romania, with severely affected biodiversity.” The authors clearly feel that Rosia Montana and its hinterland have little or no conservation value. We would argue instead that Rosia Montana is a national treasure, a place of considerable value that in other parts of Europe would be a primary candidate for protection and conservation in an international context.

32

2. Brief description of flora and vegetation The grasslands especially, and associated flushes and mires, proved to be species-rich and of great botanical interest, as well as often superb spectacles of colourful wildflowers. Some 60% of the area is apparently covered by “meadows” (grasslands), with 20% hay-meadows.

As well as a number of rare and threatened grassland plants and communities, it is of interest that we recorded eight grassland orchid species, of which six are Red-listed as Rare in Romania: Pyramidal Orchid (Anacamptis pyramidalis), Fragrant Orchid (Gymnadenia conopsea), Bug Orchid (Orchis coriophora), Burnt-tip Orchid (Orchis ustulata), Lesser Butterfly-orchid (Platanthera bifolia) and Globe Orchid (Traunsteinera globosa). A particularly surprising habitat that we encountered was sphagnum bog in hollows with associated acid mire, flushed mire and meadow habitats. (a) Pastures Dry and wet oligotrophic pastures are dominated by Mat-grass (Nardus stricta), with Creeping Bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and Heath Grass (Danthonia decumbens), rich in forbs (non-graminoid species) (Carici-Nardetum strictae and Hieracio pilosellae-Nardetum strictae), and grass-heath with Winged Broom (Chamaespartium sagittale) and Dyer’s Greenweed (Genista tinctoria) (Agrostio- Genistetum). On steeper, rockier slopes, this vegetation develops into incipient bilberry/ling/winged broom heath, with Ling (Calluna vulgaris) and Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) (Vaccinio-Callunetum vulgaris Bük. 1942). These heathy communities on steep slopes with broken ground of rock outcrops, boulders and stable block-scree were present as diverse variants. Sometimes with an open scrub of Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Juniper (Juniperus communis), Mountain Ash (Sorbus aucuparia) and Spiraea (Spiraea ulmifolia), they are floristically relatively rich. Among the herbaceous species are Bugle (Ajuga genevensis), Kidney-vetch (Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. carpatica), Mountain Everlasting (Antennaria dioica), False Brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum), Deptford Pink (Dianthus armeria), Charterhouse Pink (Dianthus carthusiana), Bloody Cranesbill (Geranium sanguineum), Sticky Catchfly (Lychnis viscaria), Purple Moorgrass (Molinia caerulea), Salad Burnet (Sanguisorba minor), Small Scabious (Scabiosa columbaria), Golden Rod (Solidago virgaurea), Wall Germander (Teucrium chamaedrys), Trifolium alpestre and Trifolium montanum and Cowberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea). A group of woodland and woodland edge species also occurs here: Peach-leaved Bellflower (Campanula persicifolia), Yellow Foxglove (Digitalis grandiflora), Irish Fleabane (Inula salicina), Zigzag Clover (Trifolium medium), Common Valerian (Valeriana officinalis), Germander Speedwell (Veronica chamaedrys) and Spiked Speedwell (Veronica spicata).

Other species in the grass-heath Nardus noda include the graminoids Sweet Vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), Crested Dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus), Meadow Fescue (Festuca pratensis), Red Fescue (Festuca rubra) and Woodrush (Luzula campestris). Nongrass species, often on and around with ant-hills, indicating relatively high species diversity, include: Lady’s-mantle (Alchemilla monticola), Carline Thistle (Carlina vulgaris), Mouse-ear Hawkweed (Hieracium pilosella), Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Lesser Hawkbit (Leontodon taraxacoides), Ox-eye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), Tormentil (Potentilla erecta), Self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), Lesser Stitchwort (Stellaria graminea), Large Thyme (Thymus pulegioides), White Clover (Trifolium repens), Red Clover (Trifolium pratense) and Heath Speedwell (Veronica officinalis). An area of pasture near one of the lakes has Moonwort (Botrychium lunaria) and Lesser Butterfly-orchid (Platanthera bifolia), both rare species in Romanian grasslands. At least some of these plant assemblages of oligotrophic pastures should probably be included in “6230 Species-rich Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas” listed as a priority habitat in Annexe 1 of the EU Habitats Directive.

33

(b) Hay-meadows Extensive sub-mountain mesotrophic hay-meadows (mountain mesophilous manured meadows) adjacent to the pastures are colourful and species-rich (Arrhenatheretum, Scorzonero rosae–Festucetum rubrae nigicentris and Astrantio– Trisetetum, approaching variants of Gladioli–Agrostetum Br.-Bl. 1930), with a mixture of grasses and forbs. More acidic soils had Hypochoerio radicatae– Agrostietum tenuis meadows. Grasses include Sweet Vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), False Oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), Quaking-grass (Briza media), Crested Dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus), Meadow Fescue (Festuca pratensis).

These presumably class as “6520 Mountain hay-meadows” (Annexe 1 of the EU Habitats Directive). This ‘High Nature Value’ meadow habitat was present here in a particularly species-diverse facies nodum.

Other species present include: Kidney-vetch (Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. Carpatica var. pseudovulneraria), Arnica (Arnica montana, on Annexe IV of EU Habitats Directive, and vulnerable in Romanian grassland inventory 2003), Astrantia (Astrantia major), Peachleaved Bellflower (Campanula persicifolia), Knapweed (Centaurea nemoralis), Centaury (Centaurea erythraea), Beaked Hawk’s-beard (Crepis vesicaria), Hairy Chervil (Chaerophyllum hirsutum), Hedge Bedstraw (Galium mollugo subsp. erecta), Lady’s Bedstraw (Galium verum), Dyer’s Greenweed (Genista tinctoria), Spotted Cat’s-ear (Hypochoeris maculata), Narrowleaved Everlasting-pea (Lathyrus sylvaticus), Ox-eye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), Sticky Catchfly (Lychnis viscaria), Burnt-tip Orchid (Orchis ustulata), Lousewort (Pedicularis exaltata), Scorzonera-leaved Rampion (Phyteuma scorzonerifolia), Yellow Rattle (Rhinanthus minor), Sorrel (Rumex acetosa), Meadow Clary (Salvia pratensis), Purple Viper’s-grass (Scorzonera purpurea subsp. rosea, Red-listed as Rare in Romania, rare-vulnerable in Romanian grassland inventory 2003), Betony (Stachys officinalis), Mountain Clover (Trifolium montanum), Hungarian Clover (Trifolium pannonicum) and Red Clover (Trifolium pratense). More marshy meadows with tall herbs [EU semi-natural tall-herb grasslands?] have other species, including Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris), Meadow Saffron (Colchicum autumnale), Tufted Hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmeria), Wood Cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum, rarevulnerable in Romanian grassland inventory 2003), Wood Avens (Geum rivale), Fragrant Orchid (Gymnadenia conopsea), Ragged Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi), Pedicularis exaltata, Scorzonera-leaved Rampion (Phyteuma scorzonerifolia), Sorrel (Rumex acetosa), Globeflower (Trollius europaeus, Red-listed as Rare in Romania, rare-vulnerable in Romanian grassland inventory 2003) and Black Falsehelleborine (Veratrum nigrum).

34

Meadow with Trollius europaeus (c) Flushes and mires One flushed mire has sheets of cottongrass grading into more acidic communities with rare Marsh Cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris) and a numerous sedges. This distinctive and unique acid bog (7110 on Annexe 1 of EU Habitats Directive), allied to the association SphagnoCaricetum echinatae, had Sphagnum bog-moss, supporting Round-leaved Sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), Mud Sedge (Carex limosa) and Heath Spotted-orchid (Dactylorhiza maculata), all cited as rare species in the2003 Romanian grassland plant inventory.

Heath Spotted-orchid Round-leaved Sundew (Dactylorhiza maculata) (Drosera rotundifolia) This mire community is an EMERALD priority habitat (Caricetum limosae Br.-Bl. 1921; !54.5 Transition Mires)). Such important wet habitats do not exist in isolation but comprise part of a complex of associated open habitats including base-rich mires with rare Dioecious Sedge (Carex dioica) and Bug Orchid (Orchis coriophora), ‘High Nature Value’ hill/mountain mesotrophic hay meadow containing vulnerable (grassland inventory) species such as 35

Arnica montana, Botrychium lunaria (rare-vulnerable in Romanian grassland inventory 2003) and Trollius europeaus, and dry oligotrophic Nardus pastures.

Arnica montana Other species include Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris), Star Sedge (Carex echinata), Hairy Sedge (Carex hirta) Small Yellow-sedge (Carex viridula), Marsh Cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris, Red-listed as Rare in Romania, rare in Romanian grassland survey 2003) and the skullcap Scutellaria hastifolia. Some of these flushes can be ascribed to Middle European (W and C Europe, from Netherlands and France to Poland, Slovakia, Romania and northern Italy) cottongrass/yellowsedge fens (Eriophorum latifolii (Coldea 1991) and Carici flavae– Eriophorum latifolii Soó 1944). Other such communities included other small sedges (Carex dioica, C. lepidocarpa, C. panicea and C. viridula, etc.), together with horsetails (Equisetum species) and Jointed Rush (Juncus articulatus).

36

Broad-leaved Cottongrass (Eriophorum latifolium) In AJ’s experience as a habitat restoration specialist who has worked on projects for a range of organisations, this complex of bog habitats may be unique in Romania and would be impossible to replace using even the most expensive and exhaustive techniques in ecological restoration and mitigation. The complex soil chemical reactions including the role of hydrogen pumps in Sphagnum, and variation in acid peats will have created these habitats over thousands of years possibly from vegetation succession and infill of small lakes and pools – hence they are extremely sensitive features. (d) Meadows adjacent to the village Lower fields around the village have mesotrophic tall meadow vegetation (Arrhenatheretum elatioris Br.-Bl. 1925or Filipendulo vulgaris–Arrhenatheretum Hundt et Hübl 1983), rich in numbers of species, although perhaps without the rare floristic elements of higher altitude, more nutrient-poor hay-meadows. They probably receive more fertilization, in the form of animal dung, than the other meadows.

Grasses, sedges and rushes: Creeping Bent (Agrostis stolonifera) Sweet Vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) False Oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) Quaking-grass (Briza media) Soft Brome (Bromus hordeaceus) Star Sedge (Carex echinata) Hairy Sedge (Carex hirta) Downy-fruited Sedge (Carex tomentosa) Crested Dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus) Cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata) 37

Meadow Fescue (Festuca pratensis) Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus) Jointed Rush (Juncus articulatus) Rye-grass (Lolium perenne) Timothy (Phleum pratense) Smooth Meadow-grass (Poa pratensis) Yellow Oat-grass (Trisetum flavescens) Legumes (a classic high legume Transylvanian assemblage): Kidney-vetch (Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. carpatica var. pseudovulneraria) Wild Liquorice (Astragalus glycyphyllos) Crown Vetch (Coronilla varia) Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) Black Medick (Medicago lupulina) Hop Trefoil (Trifolium campestre) Zigzag Clover (Trifolium medium) Mountain Clover (Trifolium montanum) Sulphur Clover (Trifolium ochroleucon) Hungarian Clover (Trifolium pannonicum) Red Clover (Trifolium pratense) White Clover (Trifolium repens) Tufted Vetch (Vicia cracca) Common Vetch (Vicia sativa) Other species: Milfoil (Achillea millefolium) Astrantia (Astrantia major) Eastern Wart-cabbage (Bunias orientalis) Spreading Bellflower (Campanula patula) Peach-leaved Bellflower (Campanula persicifolia) Caraway (Carum carvi) Knapweed (Centaurea nemoralis) Centaury (Centaurea erythraea) Hairy Chervil (Chaerophyllum hirsutum) Chicory (Cichorium intybus) Autumn Crocus (Colchicum autumnale) Marsh Hawk’s-beard (Crepis paludosa) Beaked Hawk’s-beard (Crepis vesicaria) Crosswort (Cruciata laevipes) Wild Carrot (Daucus carota) Ferulago sylvatica Dropwort (Filipendula vulgaris) Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmeria) Hedge Bedstraw (Galium mollugo subsp. erecta) Lady’s Bedstraw (Galium verum) Dyer’s Greenweed (Genista tinctoria) Meadow Cranesbill (Geranium pratense) Fox-and-Cubs (Hieracium aurantiacum) Square-stalked St John’s-wort (Hypericum tetrapterum) Spotted Cat’s-ear (Hypochoeris radicata) Field Scabious (Knautia arvensis) Meadow Vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis) 38

Narrow-leaved Everlasting-pea (Lathyrus sylvaticus) Rough Hawkbit (Leontodon hispidus) Ox-eye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) Creeping Jenny (Lysimachia nummularia) Water Forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides) Peucedanum aegapodioides Pepper Saxifrage (Pimpinella major) Scorzonera-leaved Rampion (Phyteuma scorzonerifolia) Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) Hoary Plantain (Plantago media) Common Milkwort (Polygala vulgaris) Creeping Cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans) Self-heal (Prunella vulgaris) Yellow Rattle (Rhinanthus minor) Sheep’s Sorrel (Rumex acetosella) Sorrel (Rumex acetosa) Curled Dock (Rumex crispus) Meadow Clary (Salvia pratensis) Whorled Clary (Salvia verticillata) Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) Wood Club-rush (Scirpus sylvaticus) Bladder Campion (Rumex acetosa) Betony (Stachys officinalis) Lesser Stitchwort (Stellaria graminea) Hartwort (Tordylium maximum) Germander Speedwell (Veronica chamaedrys) (e) Rocks and stony ground On the most precipitous slopes, Saxifraga paniculata and Silene nutans subsp. dubia grow on vertical rock outcrops and in the crevices of boulders, together with the ferns Forked Spleenwort (Asplenium septentrionale), Lanceolate Spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes) and Polypody (Polypodium vulgare). Lower down the hills some of the rocks were distinctly calcareous and locally dominated by Rockrose (Helianthemum nummularium), with Basil Thyme (Acinos arvensis).

39

Natural rock community There were also naturally occurring level bare rock or open, gravelly areas within pastures towards the summits of the hills. These are probably associated with metal ores, which prevent complete grass domination and represent natural rock gardens – with at least three Sedum species including Biting Stonecrop (Sedum acre) and the rare stonecrop Sedum rubens. Other species include grasses (Poa and Festuca spp.), Hoary Cinquefoil (Potentilla argentea), Spring Cinquefoil (Potentilla tabernaemontani), Sheep’s Sorrel (Rumex acetosella) and Annual Knawel (Scleranthus annua). The natural bare rocky ground with Sedum, and outcrops tending to Calaminarian communities with the metallophile fern Asplenium septentrionale, are among the richest assemblages of habitats of this type we have seen anywhere.

The potential influence of metal ores on vegetation to produce Calaminarian plant associations would be indicated by the presence of Asplenium septentrionale and this needs further study. It is worth noting that Calaminarian habitats (EU Habitats Directive Annexe 1, 6130 Violetalia calaminariae association), often surrounding the ancient working of metalliferous rock veins and associated spoil receive protected status in many parts of the EU for a suite of rare and unusual plant species which often show signs of adaptation to produce local races/ecotypes. Population phenotypic diversity in Silene nutans subsp. dubia (see below) is evidence of this process.

40

Asplenium septentrionale

Silene nutans subsp. dubia (f) Mine workings Mining scars and debris are colonized by Ling (Calluna vulgaris), later by Redberried Elder (Sambucus racemosa), Silver Birch (Betula pendula) and Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris). Rock communities tending towards Calaminarian, with Asplenium septentrionale and Silene nutans subsp. dubia, are a feature of the mined areas. It is worth noting that Calaminarian habitats (EU Annexe 1, 6130 Violetalia calaminariae), often surrounding the ancient working of metalliferous rock veins and associated spoil are receiving protected status in the EU (e.g.

Halkyn Mountain, North Wales, and Gang Mine, Derbyshire), for their facies of rare and unusual plants. Some of these species show evidence of adaptation to produce local ecotypic variants or races, and we regard the presence of considerable population phenotypic diversity in Silene nutans subsp. dubia (height, habit, flower colour, variation towards subsp. nutans, etc.) as circumstantial evidence of this process. It also indicates the need for detailed survey of these mine workings for such characteristic species; also lichens and other lower plants (the EIA reported only 10 lower plants, all mosses). At least 300 bryophytes are recorded from the Apuseni Mountains. Floristically these metallophile communities are analogous but not referable to those in northern Europe and, as suggested by the presence of Silene nutans subsp. dubia (endemic to the mountains of Transylvania), probably represent an undescribed plant community. This nodum has affinities with both Woodsia ilvensis–Asplenietum septentrionalis T.Tx. 1937 (R6219) and the endemic and 41

threatened ‘Dacian communities of fissures of siliceous rocks with Asplenium septentrionale, Asplenium septentrionale and Silene nutans subsp. dubia (R6219)’. Other species on mine spoil (and presumably genetically adapted, itself a phenomenon usually restricted to a handfull of species) include: Creeping Bent (Agrostis stolonifera), Tufted Hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Wavy Hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), Smooth Meadow-grass (Poa pratensis), Winged Broom (Chamaespartium sagittale), Cypress Spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias), Wild Strawberry (Fragaria vesca), Dyer’s Greenweed (Genista tinctoria), a hawkweed (Hieracium sp.), Sheep’s Sorrel (Rumex acetosella), Sulphur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), Heath Speedwell (Veronica officinalis); also annuals such as Annual Knawel (Scleranthus annuus), Heath Groundsel (Senecio sylvaticus) and Sand Spurrey (Spergularia rubra). Mineral flushes from base-rich rocks around mine spoil and workings have an enriched flora. This includes Lady’s-mantle (Alchemilla monticola), Quaking Grass (Briza media), Distant Sedge (Carex distans), Star Sedge (Carex echinata), Hairy Sedge (Carex hirta), Tawny Sedge (Carex hostiana), Spreading Bellflower (Campanula patula), Hedge Bedstraw (Galium mollugo), Lady’s Bedstraw (Galium verum), Ox-eye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), Fairy Flax (Linum catharticum), Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Bug Orchid (Orchis coriophora), Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Common Milkwort (Polygala vulgaris), Salad Burnet (Sanguisorba minor) and Red Clover (Trifolium pratense).

Bug Orchid (Orchis coriophora) (g) Woodland We spent less time in the woodland, as the grasslands proved so interesting and were less thoroughly assessed in the EIA Report, perhaps because they were regarded as damaged anthropogenic communities. Spruce (Picea abies) woodland (forestry plantations) (VaccinioPiceetea) adjacent to the grasslands has a number of additional species to what we saw elsewhere. These included Willow Gentian (Gentiana asclepiadea), Hawkweed (Hieracium umbellatum), Stag’s-horn Clubmoss (Lycopodium clavatum), Wall Lettuce (Mycelis muralis), Aposeris (Aposeri foetida), Wood Speedwell (Veronica montana) and the shrub Guelder Rose (Viburnum opulus).

The EIA (4.3) records that none of the forest habitats identified in the Project area is classified as “priority habitat”. However, a narrow strip of woodland in a gully leading down to one of the lakes has the handsome and distinctive composite Telekia speciosa growing beneath Grey Alder (Alnus incana), Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and an introduced 42

Sorbus sp. (Telekio speciosae–Alnetum incanae (Coldea 1986) 1991). This damp woodland association is an EU Habitats Directive priority habitat (91E0* Alluvial forests, Alnion incanae).

3. Conclusions (a) Hay-meadows and pastures The flower-rich meadows of the Carpathian region of Romania are a priceless ecological and cultural national treasure. Similar meadows, certainly those occurring below 1000 m, have disappeared over much of Europe. In the UK, this habitat has decreased by more than 90% since 1945, and even in eastern Europe such semi-natural grasslands are under increasing threat. The EIA Report notes: “Cultural meadows are very common throughout the southern Carpathians”, observing that “their loss will not have a significant impact on biodiversity at a local or regional level.” We find it difficult to agree with this statement. Such a cavalier attitude towards an important European habitat will only create the conditions whereby that habitat may well disappear, as it has in other countries. Perhaps we should all take a lesson from Sweden, where Lady’s-slipper Orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) is strictly protected. This striking, iconic species, which has been lost all over Europe, is still locally abundant in Sweden, but conservationists there protect it as a resource for all Europeans.

The same principle should apply to saving Romania’s remarkable flower-rich meadows.

They are a national treasure that is perhaps not always appreciated by the Romanian scientific establishment.

Certainly the EIA does not take enough account of this important semi-natural vegetation, for which the Apuseni Mountains are famous. According to the EIA Report, “Protected species of flora have not been identified in the Project area, with the exception of Galanthus nivalis.”

This is technically the case but, as noted above, the grasslands and associated mires contain a number of rare and threatened plant species and communities. Species-rich grasslands, perhaps because they are still widespread in Romania, have not always been given the recognition they deserve as habitats of major ecological and cultural significance, not least for attracting tourists and enhancing the country’s image abroad.

Much more study of the area is required, as the figure of 414 plants, for example, recorded in the EIA Report could be greatly increased by repeated visits and at different seasons. (b) Wetlands In AJ’s opinion as an experienced restoration ecologist, including restoring some of Britain’s most important species-rich hay-meadows, it would be impossible to replace, for example, the very distinctive acid bogs and associated acid mires through habitat restoration or other mitigation. These ombrogenous bog features have developed over thousands of years.

Wetter hay-meadow also would be all but impossible to restore adequately. (c) Wildlife Several of the vertebrate and invertebrate animal species listed in the EIA Report are listed on the Annexes of the EU Habitats Directive or Bern Convention. This is outside our area of expertise, but species recorded such as many of the Lepidoptera and birds, including Redbacked Shrike, Black Woodpecker, Whitebacked Woodpecker and Scops Owl, would seem to be threatened or decreasing over much of Europe. One mammal in particular, Wolf (Canis lupus), recorded from the area, is a priority species on Annexe II of the EU Habitats Directive.

(d) Cultural features As well as its ecological interest, Rosia Montana retains important archaeological and historical remains. The Dacian and Roman gold mines are of enormous cultural importance, 43

at a Romanian, European and global level. One cannot emphasize too much their significance for archaeology and the history of European civilization. The rural vernacular architecture and infrastructure (such as thatched barns) and handsome 18th century buildings in the village both represent significant cultural resources. Rather than destruction, these should be protected as an important heritage for future generations. The area well demonstrates historical interactions between mining, farming and forestry, and associated land use. The scenery too is unusual and of great beauty. In this context, it should be noted that in July 2006, UNESCO added the tin and copper mining landscape of Cornwall and West Devon, UK, to its list of World Heritage Sites.

The decision was based on the contribution that this area has made to mining technology and industry throughout the world, from ancient times but especially during the period 1700– 1914. The Rosia Montana district has an equally prestigious history, having provided gold to both ancient Greece and Rome, and has continued to produce gold (like Cornish tin) until modern times. The mostly coastal areas of Cornish and Devon designated by UNESCO are also of considerable scenic and biodiversity value, much of it associated with the unusual rock and soil conditions of the mining landscape. Changes wrought over millennia of human activity may have enhanced rather than destroyed the ecological and cultural landscape. (e) Mineralogical interest An additional aspect of interest is that the gold-, copper- and silver-bearing rocks at Rosia Montana also contain some rarer elements such as germanium and tungsten (wolfram ore).

It is likely that a number of rare mineral species occur in the rocks in an area of such complex geology. In other parts of Europe, for example Wales, mineral species diversity is being actively conserved in situ.

General conclusion The mining company intends to re-vegetate the area of Rosia Montana once gold extraction has finished. Not only will the area be likely to be contaminated by hazardous waste, but also ‘restoration’ will create a mere facsimile of landscape, replacing an area of great beauty and biological interest. And, as noted above, it would be impossible to replace some acid mires and other major plant communities. Meadows too can take centuries to come back after destruction.

The wholesale destruction of this area would result in the loss of a substantial fragment of a historical, ecological and cultural landscape unique to this part of Romania. Scarce plants, animals and habitats, vanished ways of country life, architectural and industrial archaeological heritage, and rare minerals would be swept away forever. On the other hand the sensitive conservation of this area would not only protect a priceless piece of Romania’s heritage, but also would yield long-term economic potential – and a living for local people – by attracting agro-tourism and other sustainable rural development.

A better solution than destruction of Rosia Montana would be for the village and surrounding area to be submitted to UNESCO for inclusion in the list of World Heritage Sites. In our opinion the site is of that level of importance, and we deplore any plan to destroy such natural and human heritage.

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

Babes-Bolyai University Biology and Geology Department Ecology and Taxonomy Division Head of Division: Conf. dr. Laszlo Rakosy

Statement on the Environmental Impact Assessment Study for the Rosia Montana Economic Area Even though the study appears to be scientific and comprehensive, a careful reading will show that it is in fact made up of words and data compiled from various sources which often have no relevance for or connection with the area under investigation. Numerous and irrelevant data is presented in no way significant for an impact assessment study. The text is loaded with scientific terms or information which is not relevant for the area under study, which can be used to describe any Central European region (e.g. p. 56-58 useful or abandoned insects) In the cases where data was collected from PhD. candidates (data on bentos, water physics and chemical data) or ornithologists, no interpretation or justification of the choices are made or the methods used which in reality have served another purpose. The planned works with also impact two hunting grounds and of course the vertebrates present there.

This aspect was also watered down. Rivers are poor in fish species also because of pollution, a problem which can be easily addressed if mining related pollution is reduced.

The EIA report the company has presented cannot be considered an impact assessment study for the following reasons: -the information presented is too general, not specific and which makes no reference to the impact area -the report includes information which is not relevant for the Rosia Montana area -the impact of the project is clearly minimized and understated -the report is riddled with unscientific speculations -in cases where data was available (e.g. for avi-fauna and bentos) the interpretations and conclusions put forward are irrelevant -the entire report is a study written by dilletants, not by specialists.

Conf. dr. Laszlo Rakosy

Cluj-Napoca, 22.08.2006

98

99

100

101

Dr. Horia Ion Ciugudean National Union Museum Str. Mihai Viteazu 12-14 Alba Iulia, Romania horiaion2001@yahoo.com

An Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Rosia Montana Project with an Emphasis on Archeological and Cultural Patrimony Issues

102

103

Dr. Horia Ion Ciugudean Muzeul National al Unirii Str. Mihai Viteazu 12-14 Alba Iulia, Romania horiaion2001@yahoo.com

An Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Rosia Montana Project with an Emphasis on Archeological and Cultural Patrimony Issues THE BASELINE STUDY ON THE NATIONAL CULTURAL PATRIMONY has been written by STANTEC CONSULTING, a company which is not officially accredited to do research on the evaluation and conservation of the cultural patrimony – mobile and immobile - in Romania.

This fact casts serious concerns about the validity of much of information in the report or the assessments made therein. The latter contains incomplete or inaccurate information as well as subjective and biased appraisals that have a negative impact on an accurate reading of the significance of the cultural patrimony in Rosia Montana in the national and global contexts. Therefore, the references to the pre-roman period, in the introductory chapter (vol 6, p. 7) do not include information about the prehistoric discoveries made in the village’s surrounding areas, thus creating the false impression that such marks do not exist there.

It is also stated, in a tendentious manner, that researches have not produced evidence about the presence of the Dacians in Rosia Montana although in the archeological site’s file, card # 9 about the Orlea Massive very old mining works are identified close to the surface, out of which a wooden post has been dated, using the C14 method, in the interval 50 BC-80 AD (volume 6, annex 1, p. 222), so belonging precisely to the Dacian age. Other data collected from the Carnic Massive, using the radio-carbon method that are also indicative of the Dacian age (3rd century BC- 1st century AD) are negatively commented in chapter 4. 9 of the Assessment Report (p. 22) although they have been published and were commented upon by the French archeological mining team in the first volume of the Alburnus Maior series. The subchapter on the cultural landscape is written with the clear intention to minimize the value of the Rosia Montana area. For that reason false data was inserted such as the statement that the Carnic Massive has been mined in an open pit since the 1970s and hence has been damaged to a large extent (vol. 6, p. 15). There isn’t actually a correct description of the cultural landscape in Rosia, the respective subchapter being overloaded 104

with data about secondary subjects (climate, geology, jobs, local and regional economy etc.), the true potential being left outside the analysis.

The BASELINE STUDY underlines the fact that large areas that will be impacted by the project have not been archeologically explored, this being particularly the case of the Corna Valley, the village of Corna where the map of the archeological sites for the interval 20002005 (vol 6., pl. 4) indicates the almost complete absence of such sites in the south-eastern side where the Carnic waste dump is to be located (vol. 6, pl. 6). According to the present legislation (Law 462/2003), it is illegal to impact, through a project, an area that has not undergone any preceding archeological exploration.

The BASELINE STUDY bares evidence of grave gaps in the research of archeological structures from Rosia Montana (section 5.3.1.). Although four habitat areas have been identified (Hop Gauri, Habad, Taul Tapului and Carpeni) none of them has been comprehensively researched. This fact makes the study unable to offer a precise image about the spatial organization of the ancient mining habitat and its relation with the sacred areas (necropolis and/or temples). Starting from the fact that not less than seven funeral areas have been identified, it is clear that the archeological exploration has not been able to locate all the Roman habitat areas in the region that will be impacted by the mining project.

Furthermore, no architectural military structure has been identified although their presence is recorded on the stamped bricks (vol. 6, p. 78). Just as incomplete and imprecise is the information about the infrastructure. The Roman vicinal roads were surveyed only at two points ( Hop and Habad), the route of which was not tracked on the ground and reconstructed just as the course of the main road from Alburnus Maior to Ampelum (Zlatna) has not even been identified. It must be underlined the insufficient/improper localization and research of the ore processing areas. In the site’s files and cards are only briefly mentioned two possible structures with this particular purpose, at Jig-Piciorag and Tarina (cards # 7 and 8, volume 6, p. 215 and 218). Such structures should have occupied vast areas in the proximity of the gold ore extraction sites but it is clear that their research has been entirely neglected. The serious omissions mentioned above are evidence of the fact that the BASELINE STUDY is incomplete in regards to several essential aspects that concern the identification of the archeological sites in Rosia Montana. This is due to the flawed management of the archeological project and the incompliance with the standard for best practice in archeological research.

105

A seriously disconcerting aspect is represented by the fact that in the case of the ancient and medieval mining patrimony from Rosia Montana, the BASELINE STUDY ON THE NATIONAL CULTURAL PATRIMONY concedes to the lack of research for large areas to be included in the perimeter of the future pits. Consequently, the fact is acknowledged that the Orlea Massive area has been only partially researched, for this site such research being planned to for the interval 2007-2008 (vol. 6, p. 43.). The same aspect is mentioned once more in chapter 4.9. of the Assessment Report, where the fact that the vision about the underground mining patrimony from the Orlea, Tarina, Costi Carpeni “is incomplete” (p. 22) is acknowledged. This admittance is nevertheless not sanctioned by the restrictive implications that an incomplete research is bound by, in as far as the legal provisions on the patrimony go, i.e. the inexistence of an archeological discharge certificate, according to the law 462/ 2004. Because such research could lead to the uncovering of immobile cultural patrimony vestiges of exceptional value it is completely illegal to include this area into the perimeter of a future open mine.

The research of ancient mining works in the Carnic Massive has lead to the uncovering of 7 km of ancient galleries and patrimony elements with unique value like the roman exploration gallery with 125 steps, judged to be an “impressive mining work” by the BASELINE STUDY (vol. 6, p. 87). However, such elements have not been included in the protected area which proves that the project titleholder has not considered the correct application of the possiblevariants-principle, and a subsequent change of location (i.e. of the open mine) to allow for “in situ” conservation.

Even thought the BASELINE STUDY ON THE NATIONAL CULTURAL PATRIMONY claims to be based on a research methodology in accordance with current best practices (vol. 6, p.

36), it can be easily observed that research in the Cetate, Carnic and Jig Massifs has not been able to delineate the mining works from the medieval period (from the interval 11001500 AD), although they are included in the chronology of the mine works established by the French team (BASELINE STUDY, vol. 6, p. 82) and confirmed by documentary sources. All the site cards on underground archeological research (vol. 6, cards # 3,4,5,7 and 9) and the summaries (vol. 6, p. 80) only make references to two historical periods, the Roman and the modern (17th to the 19th century AD), overlooking the identification of works from the medieval period (11th to the 16th century AD).

106

Because it is stated that 70 km of galleries have been researched and mapped (vol. 6, p. 80) it follows that this is the case of an obvious and serious shortcoming in the capacity to correctly

diagnose

and

interpret

the

phases

of

exploitation

and

not

of

an

insufficient/inadequate volume of visited galleries. This deficiency is indicative of the fact that best practices have not been the applied throughout the entire underground archeological research which has failed to identify the medieval underground works.

Another serious shortcoming of the Baseline Study is the complete absence of research and consequently of information about the modern industrial patrimony, particularly the hydrotechnical arrays (artificial lakes, channels) and the location of the over 1000 stamps from the Rosia and Corna valleys. There is only one paragraph that mentions this issue in the totally inappropriate context of the natural landscape (vol. 6, p. 15). Any specific information is however absent from the section on the industrial patrimony which is only concerned with the presentation of underground mining works and the artifacts in the RosiaMin Museum (vol. 6, subchapters 5.4. and 5.5.). It is therefore clear that in the Baseline Study not all the locations or the characteristics of the archeological, historical or culturally significant sites that can be impacted by the project are mentioned and described.

Furthermore, the ancient, medieval and modern open-air mine works have been completely ignored.

The most subjective and biased part of the Baseline Study is the section on the placing of the archeological patrimony from Rosia Montana in the national and international context.

Tendentiously, the study puts across the idea that the mining patrimony from Rosia Montana is common and similar to that in many other ancient mining sites from across the Roman empire (vol. 6, subchapter 5.5.2.2., p. 104). The study attempts to defend this false thesis by presenting a long list of mining sites from Romania in which, however, were never made epigraphic discoveries comparable to those in Rosia Montana (wax slates, the tens of epigraphic monuments). Furthermore, none of those sites has been attested with a proper name as is the case for Alburnus Maior. Similarly, the study presents, lists with ancient mines from Europe and the north-east of Africa, without making a distinction between underground mines (much more rare) and surface mines (the majority) or between those positively documented and those only presumed to exist. An objective examination of that list, with all its inconsistencies allows one to note the fact that out of the tens of sites enumerated there, only three or four (Las Medulas, Vipasca, Urium-Rio Tinto, Dolaucothi) are comparable to Rosia Montana in the complexity of the mining technique used and the 107

associated infrastructure. To support its overtly biased conclusions the Study repeatedly makes reference to Lucia Marinescu’s 2002 study, in factthe Study’s supreme basis of argumentation which is, at this point in time, only a manuscript which has not yet been published and consequently cannot be read.

Given these circumstances, the recurring

quoting from this manuscript and its inclusion in the bibliography (vol. 6, p. 116) is abusive, with the validity of the data taken from that study not verifiable.

The REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY evaluates, in chapter 4.9 the impact on the cultural patrimony. The first critical remark here is about the superficiality with which the impact on the cultural landscape is discussed (3.1.). The primary effects on civil and ecclesiastic architecture in Rosia Montana and Corna are only partly described or illustrated (3.2-3.3). A negative impact which has not been sufficiently analyzed and more specifically, quantified is the effect of the shockwave from explosions in the quarries and the vibrations produced by the heavy-duty-trucks-traffic on the protected monuments and sites. Although it is acknowledged only as a potential impact, in reality this is a primary effect whose destructive consequences on the immobile cultural patrimony have not undergone a quantitative or qualitative assessment.

Reduction measures for this effect include only the cost of repairs although the impact of the explosion and the traffic will be directly experienced in the so-called “protected areas”, a fact which will probably lead to the complete destruction of some of the monuments and sites.

Clear and precise measures that could diminish, if only partially, the effects of the vibrations on the historical monuments are not identified.

The description of the impact on the archeological patrimony and in particular, on the industrial mining patrimony does not fully and correctly present the implications of the legal courts’ decision to suspend the Archeological Discharge Certificate for the Carnic Massive.

The uphold of the court sentence annulling this certificate will determine the exclusion of this perimeter from the project area, an alternative which the authors of the EIA Report have not considered. This fact raises important question marks about the independence and objectivity of this study.

A major negative impact on the ancient mining patrimony from Rosia Montana which is addressed with much superficiality concerns the destruction of the Roman galleries from the RosiaMin Museum. This fact prompts one to infer that the seriousness of this effect has 108

been purposefully undisclosed. The Roman galleries from the Orlea Massive which are open to the public are classified as historical monuments (cod LMI AB-I-m-A-00065.02).

Consequently, based on their legal status they are protected and can not be included in the perimeter of a future open mine, their destruction being an illegal act ( art. 9 and 10 Law 422/2001). In the report the terms that refer to the future of these galleries are inappropriate, e.g. “direct impacting”, “impingement” (section 3, p. 30), the correct ones being “destruction” in the case of a historical monument because of the criminal consequences this action incurs. There is no legal basis for the proposed mitigation measures, the construction of replicas and/or virtual simulations. The law (422/2001, art. 21) makes no reference to any such mitigation measures for historical monuments. These alternatives are consequently not acceptable from a legal standpoint.

The mitigation of the destruction of the 7 km respectively 1.5 km of Roman mine galleries from the Carnic and Orlea Massives, through their inclusion in the future mines, is not possible if the alternative is to set up new galleries. This is the case particularly because no clear alternative is mentioned. Two possible locations are suggested, Catalina Monulesti and Paru Carpeni (p. 44-45).

The CULTURAL PATRIMONY MANAGEMENT PLAN mentions the creation of a Foundation which would administer the cultural patrimony throughout the project years (vol.

33, Management Plans, p. 20-22). With this plan, RMGC seeks, in fact, to transfer its legal responsibilities on the protection, conservation and restoration of archeological monuments and sites from the project area. Although the company alleges that in this manner the independent management of the cultural management would be guaranteed. Nevertheless the funds for creation of this Foundation would be in their entirety RMGC subsidies which will subsequently also cover the Foundation’s running costs. Consequently, the Foundation will be in fact financially dependent on RMGC and thus directly controlled by and influenced by it.

A fact of grave concern about the Cultural Patrimony Management Plan is revealed in the open letter sentby Virgil Apostol and Stefan Balici, architects, executive director and director of S.C. OPUS-ATELIER DE ARHITECTURA to the Environment and Water Management Ministry on 12 August 2006. This company wrote, under a contract with S.C. Rosia Montana Gold Corporation S.A. a “Cultural Patrimony Management Plan fo the Historical Center of the Rosia Montana Village”.

109

The authors of this letter show that “Report on the Environmental Impact Assessment Study for the Rosia Montana Mining Project, RMGC has submitted, the most important conclusions of the Cultural Patrimony Management Plan for the Historical Center of the Rosia Montana Village, written by OPUS, are missing, incomplete or have been used in a context different from the original one. Consequently, OPUS does not take up the conclusions about the management of the cultural patrimony of the historical center of Rosia Montana as they have been presented in the Report on the Environmental Impact Assessment Study for the mining project in Rosia Montana which has been offered by RMGC to the Ministry for the Environment and Water Management.

Based on the facts presented in the open letter written by the management of OPUS it follows that RMGC has distorted the original management plan designed by this company, a practice which could be replicated in other parts of the documentation submitted for the consideration of the Ministry for the Environment and Water Management. In fact, just as it was stated at the beginning of our critical observations, in the Baseline Study there also are obvious omissions and distortions, of the opinions experts who worked on the studies had, which serve exclusively the private interests of the company.

Alba Iulia,18.07. 2006

Archeology expert Dr. Horia Ion Ciugudean

110

CURRICULUM VITAE NAME: CURENT POSITION: ADDRESS:

HORIA ION CIUGUDEAN senior researcher in archaeology Muzeul National al Unirii Str. Mihai Viteazu 12-14 Alba Iulia, Romania Tel: 0040-(0)258-813300; Fax: 0040-(0)258-811853 horiaion2001@yahoo.com

EDUCATION: 1997 Ph. D., Archaeology, Institute of Thracology, Bucharest; 1979 postgraduate courses in the conservation of archaeological heritage, Minister of Culture, Bucharest; 1977 M.A., History (Archaeology), Faculty of History, University of Cluj-Napoca.

LANGUAGES: English (speaking, reading and writing) French (Reading and speaking) German (Introductory Level) RESEARCH INTERESTS: Topical: Archaeology (Prehistoric and Historic); Cultural heritage Conservation; Landscape and Experimental archaeology Regional: Romania, South-East Europe.

GRANTS: 1997 - 2000. - RELINK grant, New Europe College, Bucharest, 1997-2000; 1996. Soros Foundation for an Open Society Grant, Hungary, October 1996; 1992. Grant of Römisch-Germanischen Komission des Deutschen Archaologische Instituts; Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 15.10-15.11.1992; 1992. Research Support Grant of Central European University – Prague, 1992; 1981. Grant of Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici. Capo di Ponte, Italy, 01-31.08.1981.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD EXPERIENCE: 2002 - 2004 Director of the excavations of the Early Bronze Age site at Almasu Mare, Romania; 1999 – 2003 Director of the excavations of the prehistoric site at Ampoita, Romania; 1999 – 2000 Co-director (with Sabin A. Luca) of joint University of Sibiu/Museum of Alba Iulia excavations at Aiud, Romania; 1998 – 1999 Co-director (with Beatrice Cauuet) of joint University of Toulouse/Museum of Alba Iulia excavations at the ancient mining site in the Pianu valley, Romania; 1994 - 1997 Director of the excavations of the prehistoric site at Metes, Romania; 1993 - 1996 Director of the excavations of the Early Bronze Age site at Livezile, Romania; 1992 Co-director (with Haskel Greenfield) of the joint University of Manitoba/Museum of Alba Iulia survey and excavations of Neolithic sites in the Ampoi valley (i.e. Presaca Ampoiului, cave: Sura de Piatrã), Romania; 1991-1993 Director of the excavations of the Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age site at Poiana Ampoiului, Romania; 1990 Director of the excavations of the Early Bronze Age barrow at Telna, Romania;

111

1990 Excavations at Mosorin, Yugoslavia, directed by Prof.. Bernhard Hänsel (University of Berlin).

Crew member; 1989 Excavations at Tartaria, Romania, directed by Prof. Iuliu Paul (University of Sibiu). Crew member; 1984-1986 Co-director (with Ioana Hica-Cîmpeanu) of the joint Museum of Alba Iulia/Museum of Cluj excavations of the prehistoric and Early Middle Age site at Uioara de Jos, Romania; 1979 – 1988; Director of the excavations of the Early Bronze Age cemetery at Ampoita, Romania; 1981- 1982 Co-director (with Gheorghe Anghel) of the excavations of the Early Middle Age cemetery at Blandiana, Romania; 1981 – 1985 Area superviser of the joint Institute of Archaeology Cluj/Museum of Alba Iulia excavations at Alba Iulia, Romania, directed by Prof. Stefan Pascu (Institute of Archaeology Cluj); 1978 – 1987 Area superviser of the joint excavations of the Institute of Archaeology Cluj/Museum of Alba Iulia at the Iron Age hillfort of Teleac, directed by Dr. Valentin Vasiliev; 1973 – 1977 Excavations at Cheile Valisoarei, Romania, directed by Dr. Nicolae Vlassa (Museum of Cluj). Crew member.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS PRESENTED AT PROFFESIONAL CONFERENCES (ABSTRACTS PUBLISHED): 2004. Almasu Mare, com. Amasu Mare, jud. Alba. Punct: La Cruce. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din Romãnia. Campania 2004, Bucuresti 2004, 42; 2003. Almaºu Mare, com. Amasu Mare, jud. Alba. Punct: La Cruce. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din Romãnia. Campania 2003, Bucuresti 2003, 39; 2003. Ampoita, com. Metes, jud. Alba, punct: La Pietri. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din Romãnia. Campania 2002, Bucuresti 2003, 40.

2002. Almasu Mare, jud. Alba, punct: La Cruce. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice. Campania 2001, Bucuresti 2002, 39.

2002. Ampoita, com. Metes, jud. Alba, punct: La Pietri. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din Romãnia. Campania 2001, Bucuresti 2002, 39-41.

2001. Aiud, jud. Alba, punctul: Cetãtuia. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din România. Campania 2000, Bucuresti 2001, 24-25.

2001. Ampoita, com. Metes, jud. Alba, punct: La Pietri. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din România. Campania 2000, Bucuresti 2001, 30; 2000. Ampoita, com. Metes, jud. Alba. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din România. Campania 1999, Bucuresti 2000, 14-15.

2000. Aiud, jud. Alba, punctul: Cetãtuia. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din România. Campania 1999, Bucuresti 2000, 8-9.

1999. Hãpria- "Capu Dosului", jud. Alba. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din România. Campania 1998, Bucuresti 1999, 52.

1998. Metes – "La Pesterã", jud. Alba. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din România. Campania 1997, Bucuresti 1998, 43.

1997. Livezile – "Baia", jud. Alba. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din România. Campania 1996. , Comisia Nationalã de Arheologie. Bucuresti 1997, 34 1997. Metes – "piatra Pesterii", jud. Alba. In: Cronica cercetãrilor arheologice din România.

Campania 1996. Bucuresti 1997, p 36.

1993. Necropola feudal-timpurie. de la Blandiana, jud. Alba. In: Materiale si cercetãri arheologice, XVII/2,1993,361-364, (în colaborare).

1983. Cercetãri în asezarea fortificatã de la Teleac (jud. Alba). In: Materiale si Cercetari Arheologice 15,1983,p.155-158, (în colaborare).

1979. Sãpãturile arheologice de la Ghirbom (campania 1978). In: Materiale si Cercetãri Arheologice 13,1979,257-261.

INVITED PUBLIC LECTURES IN EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES: 2002. The Early Bronze Age in Transylvania, " Eõtvos Lorand" University of Budapest, 8. 04. 2002; 2002. Chronological and Cultural Relations between the Aegean and the Transylvanian Early Bronze Age". Institute for Prehistory, University of Heidelberg, Germany, (June 7, 2002); 1989. The Hallstatt Hillfort from Teleac - Romania; chronological and cultural connections, " Freie Universität" of Berlin, (Dec. 12, l989);

112

1988. Neue Forschungen zum Beginn der Frühbronzezeit in Siebenbürgen" University of München, Germany, (Dec. 7, 1988); 1988. Unknown Tumuli of the Early Bronze Age in Western Transylvania; "Freie Universität" of Berlin, Germany, (Dec. 1, 1988); PARTICIPATION WITH PAPERS/POSTERS IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES/SYMPOSIA: 2000. First European Conference on Voluntary Organisations in the Field of Cultural Heritage, Oslo, Norway, 21-24. 09. 2000; 1999. International Symposium "Instrumentum": "Die Rolle des Handwerks und seiner Produkte in vorschrifthistorischen und schrifthistorischen Gesellschaften im Vergleich", Berlin, Germany, 3-6.12.1999; 1998. International Symposium "Der Nordkarpatische Raum in der Spatbronzezeit", Baia Mare, 710.10.1998; 1998. The VIIIth Symposium of the “Walled - Town Friendship Circle”, Piran, Slovenia, 2124.09.1998; 1997. International Symposium "The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin", Alba Iulia, Romania, 24-28.09 1997; 1996. The VIIth International Congress of Thracology, Mangalia, Romania ,22-29.05.1996; 1996. The International Archaeological Conference on the Hallstatt culture, Szazhalombatta, Hungary, 03-07. 10.1996; 1995. International Symposium "Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in the Balkans", Karlovo, Bulgaria, 04-08.06.1995; 1994. The Ist International Symposium of the European Association of Archaeologists, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 02-05.09.1994; 1994. International Conference " The Identity of Bronze Age Europe", London, United Kingdom, 2729.10.1994; 1994. International Symposium "The Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe", Durham, United Kingdom, 31.10.1994; 1993. International Symposium "The Early Hallstatt Period (1200-700 B.C.) in South-East Europe", Alba Iulia, Romania, 10-12.06.1993; 1991. The XIIth Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia, 01-07.09.1991; 1991. International Symposium "Bronze Age in South-East Europe between 1900 and 1200 B.C." Szolnok, Hungary, 23-27.09.1991; 1986. The World Archaeological Congress, Southampton, United Kingdom, 01-07.09.1986; 1979. International Symposium Valcamonica III: "The intellectual Expressions of Prehistoric Man: Art and Religion", Ponte di Legno, Italy, 28.07.-03.08.1979.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE (UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE): 1991-1995: associate professor at the University of Alba Iulia, Romania (courses in European Prehistory, Ancient History of Near East, Conservation of Archaeological Materials); 1997 – 2002: associate professor at the University of Sibiu, Romania (courses of European Prehistory, courses and seminars of Archaeology, courses and seminars of Archaeological Conservation, courses of Museology); 2004 - : associate professor at the University of Sibiu, Romania (courses and seminars on The Iron Age civilization in the Carpathian Basin); PUBLICATIONS BOOKS/MONOGRAPHS: 2000. Eneoliticul final pe teritoriul Transilvaniei si al Banatului: cultura Cotofeni. Timisoara; 1997. Cercetãri privind epoca bronzului si prima vârstã a fierului în Transilvania. Alba Iulia; 1996. Epoca timpurie a bronzului în centrul si sud-vestul Transilvaniei. Bucuresti.

BOOKS IN CO-AUTHORSHIP: 2005. Cercetãri arheologice în pestera Cauce Sibiu.

113

1995. Repertoriul arheologic al judetului Alba, (with. V. Moga), Alba Iulia.

1991. Civilizatia dacicã timpurie în aria intracarpaticã a României. Contributii arheologice: Asezarea fortificatã de la Teleac, (with V. Vasiliev, I. Al. Aldea), Cluj-Napoca; BOOKS CO-EDITED: 2000. Army and Urban Development in the Danubian Provinces of the Roman Empire (edited by H. Ciugudean and V. Moga). Bibliotheca Mvsei Apvlensis XV, Alba Iulia; 1998. The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin (edited by H. Ciugudean and F. Gogâltan), Bibliotheca Mvsei Apvlensis VIII, Alba Iulia; 1994. The Early Hallstatt Period (1200-700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (edited by H. Ciugudean and N. Boroffka), Bibliotheca Mvsei Apvlensis I, Alba Iulia.

CONTRIBUTIONS: 1999. Betrachtungen zum Ende der Wietenberg-Kultur. Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Älteren Geschichte des Südöstlichen Mitteleuropa (hrgs. Von Nikolaus Boroffka und Tudor Soroceanu). Internationale Archäologie. Bd. 7, Verlag Marie Leidorf Gmbh – Rahden/Westf, 107-131; 1997. L' insediamento fortificato di Teleac. I Daci (a cura di Grigore Arbore Popescu), Electa, Milano, 40-43.

1995. Der dritte hallstattzeitliche Depotfund von Vintu de Jos, Kr. Alba, Siebenbürgen. In: Bronzefunde aus Rumänien (bearbeit und redigiert von T. Soroceanu), PAS, bd.10, Berlin,213-224; 1986. Animal depictions on the territory of Romania from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. In: Cultural Attitudes to Animals Including Birds, Fish and Invertebrates, Vol.3. Final Papers of the World Archaeological Congress, 1-7 Sept. 1986, Southampton, England, Allen & Unwin; 1983. Funeral and magic practices in the necropoles of the Cotofeni culture. In: The intellectual expressions of the prehistoric man: art and religion. Acts of the Valcamonica Symposium'79, Milano, l69-176. dr. Horia Ion Ciugudean

114

Ministry of the Environment and Water Management, Hon. Ms. Sulfina BARBU, Minister of the Environment and Water Management OPUS-Architecture Studio Ltd. Calea Vitan 8, bl. V51, sc.2, ap.42 Sector 3, 031296 Bucharest tel/fax +40 (0)21 3217632, e-mail atelieropus@yahoo.com Bucharest, 12 August 2006

Re: The Historic Center of Rosia Montana - Cultural Heritage Management Plan Madam Minister, We would like to draw your attention to a problem which we consider to be of the utmost urgency concerning the site of Rosia Montana.

During December 2005 / April 2006 our company, S.C. OPUS – Atelier de arhitectura S.R.L. / OPUS Architecture Studio Ltd (OPUS), wrote the “Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Historical Centre of the Village of Rosia Montana” – a report commissioned by S.C. ROSIA MONTANA GOLD CORPORATION S.A (RMGC).

The undersigned, the authors of this report, were asked – as representatives of OPUS and as certified architects and specialists in architectural restoration, urbanism and the investigation of historical monuments, accredited by the Romanian Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs – to deliver a professional assessment, in the form of an expert report, regarding exclusively the Historic Center of Rosia Montana.

This document was to be potentially included in the “Environmental Impact Assessment Report of the Mining Project” for the Rosia Montana site, a report that RMGC was to submit to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Management for permitting.

We found that our report can be retraced but fragmentarily in the “Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Mining Project in Rosia Montana” (EIA) submitted by RMGC to the Ministry.

We wish to emphasize that our professional opinions formulated in our study cannot be disjointed, neither in form nor in content, without radically distorting the conclusions.

Therefore, we would like to stress the fact that in the EIA submitted by RMGC the most important conclusions of “The Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Historical Centre of the Village of Rosia Montana” devised by our company, are missing, incomplete or have been used in a context different from their original one.

115

Consequently, OPUS will not endorse the conclusions on the management of the cultural heritage of the Historical Center of Rosia Montana, as they are presented in the “Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Rosia Montana Mining Project” submitted

by RMGC to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Management.

We consider as our professional duty to present you with the original and complete “Cultural Patrimony Management Plan for the Historical Center of the Village of Rosia Montana” elaborated by OPUS, that you will find appended to this letter. For your convenience, we have highlighted the most important paragraphs that were modified or removed.

We do hope that our letter will provide you with all the elements to reach an enlightened decision on Rosia Montana, a site of public interest and of great local, national and universal importance.

Yours sincerely, Virgil APOSTOL, Architect Executive Director OPUS - Architecture Studio Stefan BALICI, Architect Director OPUS - Architecture Studio

116

Sorana Olaru - Zainescu Alternative Development Program Coordinator C/o Alburnus Maior Str. Berk 361 517615 Rosia Montana Alba County – Romania. sorana@rosiamontana.ro

Assessment of the Rosia Montana EIA report With a focus on the Socio-Economic and Community Issues

117

118

Sorana Olaru - Zainescu Alternative Development Program Coordinator C/o Alburnus Maior Str. Berk 361 517615 Rosia Montana Alba County – Romania. sorana@rosiamontana.ro

Assessment of the Rosia Montana EIA report With a focus on the Socio-Economic and Community Issues The present report was written in response to the Report on the Environmental Impact Assessment Study submitted by the Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (RMGC) to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Management in order to obtain the environmental permit necessary for the Rosia Montana mining project.

Based on the analysis of social, economic, environmental and community implications of RMGC’s EIA report, the ministry for the Environment should not grant the environmental permit for the project proposal. The following substantiated arguments and recommendations are given in support: From a methodological point of view, the flaws are as follows:  Some of the statistical data presented in the report are false, misrepresent similar data from statistical yearbooks or do not cite any reference.  Some of the statistical data presented in the report are truncated and present numerous overgeneralizations or incorrect extrapolations.  Some of the interpretations of the statistical data presented in the report are simply wrong or biased.  The terminology used is not consistent throughout the report, which is confusing.

These methodological flaws lead to incorrect and unsubstantiated conclusions that should not be factored in the objective analysis of the impact that the RMGS project would produce. The false data and the biased interpretation of population data represent serious warning signals as to the validity of the other data the RMGC presented so far in its EIA documentation.

Observation: The quotes (chapter and page number) are made according to the Romanian version of the EIA – CD edition.

1. Community: living conditions This report analyzes the initial living conditions of the affected community.

Considering that there is no study of the living conditions of the community, we took into consideration the following documents: Study on the initial conditions of the cultural heritage, Community health indicators, Subchapter 4.8 -Social and economic environmentpart of the Potential impact chapter, Subchapter 4.9 –Cultural and ethnic background and cultural heritage – part of the Potential impact chapter, Management plan for the cultural heritage, Plan for the sustainable development of the community.

119

1.1. Community: definition The EIA report defines the affected community and its environment in several chapters that all emphasize how much the community needs the RMGC project as the only solution to its survival. The assessment of the social and economic environment is based on analyses of social, economic and environmental parameters.

The Plan for the sustainable development of the community defines the target community as the sum of all people who live in the direct impact zone of the RMGC project, as well as in the towns of Abrud and Campeni, based on their strong socio-economic and geographic ties with the direct impact zone. It follows that any analysis of the community needs to consider the towns of Abrud and Campeni. This strongly challenges the conclusion of the EIA report with regard to the initial living conditions of the affected community. In this study, whenever we refer to the “Rosia Montana community” we mean the population living within the administrative boundaries of the Rosia Montana village; when we use the term “community’ we mean all the people living in the Rosia Montana village and in the towns of Abrud and Campeni.

Our analysis starts from the conclusions presented in Defining the community, chapter that is part of the Plan for the sustainable development of the community 21. In the analysis, we will reference also other chapters or subchapters on the affected community.

Overall, most references to the community in the EIA report are meant to highlight that Rosia Montana is an isolated monoindustrial area, with a rapidly ageing population, plagued by serious environmental problems, boasting living conditions well below the national average in an area in which alternatives to the RMGC project do not exist. Without romanticizing the situation of the community in Rosia Montana, Abrud or Campeni, we consider that the data presented in the EIA report are incorrect, are biased and greatly harm the image of the community.

In what follows, we will analyze instances of this kind that appear in the EIA report.

1.2. Social characteristics Although the report defines the community as inclusive of the population in Abrud and Campei, the report’s conclusions refer only to the population in the Rosia Montana village.

This represents a first contradiction between the data and the terminology used. We will discuss and debunk several key arguments that the EIA report makes.

1.2.1

“The population is ageing, the best represented demographic group being old women who are often widows”. 22

The ageing of the population is not a characteristic of Rosia Montana only, but a national characteristic of the rural and urban population. According to the 2002 Population and Housing Census, the age group of young persons (under 15) decreased, while the age group of people over 60 increased. The effects of population ageing on the economic and social life are manifest also in the dependency relationships of youth, adults and the elderly.

Thus, from 1992 to 2002 the ratio of youth to 1000 adults decreased from 373 to 279, while that of elderly increased from 269 to 307. In 2002, there were more old people than young

21 22

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community.

120

people in Romania, the ageing ratio –the number of old people per 1000 youth- was 1098, in marked increase from 722 in 199223.

As a result, population ageing is a national process, not a regional one, and it has to be quantified and factored into plans for economic development. Furthermore, this national process speaks to the utility of a new model of economic development based on changing demographic patterns. Population ageing is not the negative characteristic of a certain area, like Rosia Montana, and hence cannot be used as a moral, economic and social argument to justify an economic project that excludes, from the very beginning, the elderly it purports to save.

Regarding the proportion of old women in the community, national statistics show that women consistently outnumber men, representing 50.8 % of the national population in 1992 and 51.3% in 2002. Women outnumber men starting with the 40-44 age groups. It follows that a national phenomenon is again turned into a negative characteristic of the population in Rosia Montana in order to justify the need for the RMGC project.

Other data referring to the gender and age break-down of the population are misinterpreted as well. Figure 4.3.–The age pyramid in Rosia Montana 24 shows the ratio of men to women in various age groups. The caption reads that “the most numerous age groups are old widows and married men”. This statement does not reflect what the figure shows and is aberrant, as the group of married men has its counterpart in married women, a group that was excluded from the category of “the largest age group”. At closer scrutiny, Figure 4.3 shows that old women are not the largest age group; on the contrary, in each of the 60-69, 50-59 and 40-49 age groups, there are no big differences between the number of men and that of women. At the same time, men aged 20-29 outnumber the group of women aged 70-79 and that of women over 80.

Men also outnumber women in the 15-50 age group. The opposite is true for people over 50. This change of pattern can be explained by the premature deaths caused by pulmonary disease and work accidents affecting men who worked in the mine. Considering this, as well as the lay-offs in the mining sector, the demographic pattern in Rosia Montana will plausibly change; one can reasonably argue that the decline in mortality related to mining will reduce the imbalance between men and women in Rosia Montana.

As to the community dynamics presented in Figure 4.225, one can see that the imbalance is larger in Abrud and Campeni than in Rosia Montana. This shows that the population in Rosia Montana has a much more balanced gender break-down.

Incorrect data are present in the explanations for Figure 4.4 as well: “the gender break-down for family heads is 25% women and 75% men”. The following sentence, though, reads that “...the proportion of men who are family heads is slightly over 80%”26 . Math errors cease to be a surprise when Table 2-1 Study of the initial socio-economic conditions

23

Ivan-Ungureanu, Clementina – 2002 Population and Housing Census; Population – demographic structure, Foreword, pp. 5-6.

24

Chapter 4.8 Social and economic environment, section 4: Overview of the initial socio-economic conditions, p.

21.

Chapter 4.8 Social and economic environment, section 4: Overview of the initial socio-economic conditions, p.

20.

Chapter 4.8 Social and economic environment, section 4: Overview of the initial socio-economic conditions, p.

21.

25

26

121

calculates that interviews were taken with “456 family heads who could be relocated, namely 331 family heads in Abrud and 317 in Rosia Montana.” 27 Although there are no supporting data, the report argues that “considering the fact that the RMGC already purchased 42% of households, the social structure of the area was irremediably altered”.28 If this statement were true, it would directly make the RMGC responsible for all the negative aspects that characterize, in RMGC’s view, the community at present. Consequently, the conclusion would be that RMGC’s presence in the area was of the most inauspicious kind.

1.2.2

“ Married men working in the mining sector represent the largest group.”29

The report contains no straightforward data on the proportion of married men working in the mining sector.

Moreover, Figure 5.8 Rosia Montana – structure of jobs30 shows that the number of jobs in the mining sector increased in 2004, which is a false statement contradicted by the lay-offs in the mining sector in that area. The new jobs that the RMGC created in 2004 cannot be classified as pertaining to the mining sector; as a result, they cannot be included in the category of “married men working in mining”. The fact that the RMGC created jobs in other sectors than the mining one is testimony to economic activities that represent a viable alternative to mining. Figure 5.9 – Jobs in Campeni31 suggests that the area is not dependent on mining and can develop in a sustainable manner without it.

1.2.3

“Demographic decline is due to low birth rates and to the massive lay-offs in the mining sector that led to the migration of the youth in search of better life opportunities” 32

According to the two most recent national censuses, the total population in Romania decreased by 1.1 million from 1992 to 2002, at a rate of -0.5% per year. Population shrinking was affected by the marked decrease in birth rates coupled with immigration.33 Thus, demographic decline is a feature of our times. There are no data in the EIA report to support the argument that the lay-offs in the mining sector contributed to the migration of youth. Furthermore, youth migration to urban areas will most likely continue, even in the case of new mining projects initiated in the area; this has to do with youth aspirations to higher education and new opportunities and has nothing to do with mining per se.

Concerning the ratio of working and non-working population, it ought to be mentioned that of the total population of 21,681 million people in the 2002 census, the working population counted 8,851.8 people (40.8%). In other words, 12,829.1 million people (59.2%) were recorded as non-working. 34 For comparison purposes, the working population (39%) 27

Chapter 4.8 Social and economic environment, section 2: Methods of assessing and predicting the impact on the social and economic environment, pp. 13-14.

28 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 4.1 Direct impact, p. 37.

29 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

30 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 58.

31 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 58.

32 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 49.

33 Ivan-Ungureanu, Clementina – 2002 Population and Housing Census; Population volume 1– demographic structure, Foreword, pp. 5-6.

34 Ivan-Ungureanu, Clementina – 2002 Population and Housing Census; Population volume II – Social and

122

and the non-working population (61%) in Rosia Montana35 are very similar to the national breakdown. This shows that Rosia Montana is the norm, rather than the exception in Romania.

1.2.4

“Jobs are largely dependent on the mining sector”36

Jobs were overwhelmingly concentrated in the mining sector in Rosia Montana and in Abrud due to many opportunities in this industry. Against the background of socio-economic and demographic change, statistics show that the population manages to cope with change and with the lay-offs in the mining sector. In this respect, the comment for Figure 5.8.

Employment structure and trends in Rosia Montana, population dynamics and job dynamics in Rosia Montana argues that “despite the demographic decline, the proportion of the working population increased”.37 This very argument shows that jobs are independent of mining. In the same vein, the EIA report cites the positive example of Campeni where “...the diversification of jobs across several economic sectors and the lack of dependency on a single industrial sector (mono-industry) considerably influence economic and social development” .38 The same conclusion is presented in the 4.8. Social and Economic Environment39 „...Cimpeni has a more stable labor market in processing, transporation, education, and public services and which supports a more stable popultation.” P. 28 reads as follows: „In Campeni, living conditions are higher than in the rest of the community. The more diverse and higher income base and population structure have led to a higher degree of development.” The conclusion of p.27 and p.28 in light of Rosia Montana's current state would that mining has not contributed to wealth creation and that communities with more diverse economies are wealthier and more stable.

Section 4.4, from the chapter 4.8 Social and Economical Environment, entitled Local Economical conditions and labor Market. In the section on employment and unemployment dynamics is reads as follows: „Occupations in the mining sector are important in global terms.” This statement has no purpose whatsoever. It is unsustantiated and presents a bias.

1.2.5

“In Rosia Montana unemployment is on the decrease due to the presence of the RMGC company.” 40

As discussed above, the RMGC company itself showed that the area has the capacity to train and retrain the workforce in sectors other than mining and that there are both seasonal and permanent hires in other sectors. The presence of RMGC in the area prevented the development of other economic or agricultural activities that could have created jobs. The General Plan for Urbanism (PUG) submitted by the RMGC and approved by decision of the local council (no. 45/19.07.2002) stipulates that most of Rosia Montana is an industrial area, in which mining is the only legal activity allowed. Declaring the western part of the village as constituting a monoindustrial area greatly affected the whole village and led to significant transformations. The PUG and PUZ stipulate a nine fold increase in the industrial surface of Rosia Montana. The surface declared as industrial area amounts to 1,614 hectares. Most of the industrial area is within the perimeter of Rosia Montana, and the 35

36 37 38 39 40

economic structure Foreword, pp. 5-6.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, Table 5-6, pp.

57.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p.58.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p.59.

4.8. Social and Economic Environment, p 27 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

123

remaining is in Abrud. Before 2000, the industrial area counted 180 hectares, of which 26.8 hectares were quarries. Of the 1,614 hectares of the mono-industrial area, 1,089 hectares (67.5%) are private property. The change of status to industrial area affects 47% of the population in that area and 838 households. This is a crucial point for analyzing the development of Rosia Montana. Although people are active in sectors other than mining (e.g. agriculture, tourism), none of these alternative economic activities can be proven because they are de facto illegal. In conclusion, the RMGC had a negative impact on the development of Rosia Montana, not a positive one as the company claims.

4.8. Social and Economic Environment contains a section entitled 'Economic Activities'. It reads a follows: „Both Abrud and Cimpeni have increased public services due to increased demand created by RMGC in the area.”41 This claim is unsubstantiated. „Government, EU and the World Bank would prefer private sector investment to address development in Rosia Montana based on the presence of an economically viable mineral resource in Rosia Montana”42. Such claim would need to be substantiated.

1.2.6

“School attendance is in decline at the regional level, which reflects the population dynamics.” 43

Demographic decline at the regional level is a fact, it does reflect the general population dynamics, but it does not single out Rosia Montana. The number of school-age children and implicitly of school teachers decreased at the national level. This decrease was particularly prominent in rural areas.

1.2.7

“With a few exceptions, health risks for the people of Rosia Montana are significantly higher than in the region.”44

According to data presented in Community health indicators (chapter 3.2.

Comparative perspective on disease prevalence in Rosia Montana, the county of Alba and Romania),45 the following diseases have a higher prevalence in Rosia Montana as compared to the national or county average: heart disease, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic lung disease. The diseases that have a much lower prevalence in Rosia Montana as compared to the national or county average are: diabetes, anemia, ulcer, cirrhosis and cardiovascular malformations. Of the 9 diseases taken into account, 4 have a higher prevalence in Rosia Montana than the national or county average, whereas 5 have a lower prevalence. In conclusion, the previous statement on community health is not warranted.

Table 4- 6., from the Volume 14 of the EIA Study Report, entitled 'Health risks in Rosia Montana' indicates 'No Data' in the 'Acute Risk to Develop' section. This in essence contravenes the studies conclusion which goes as follows:”Health conditions in Rosia Montana are predicted to improve as a result of expected improvements in environmental conditions due to the resettlement process removing people from higher risk areas, and mitigation strategies of the RMP in the historical and other areas .”

At the same time, the EIA report draws our attention to the fact that “the situation is much more serious for people who don’t have health insurance, like the non-working 41 42 43 44 45

4.8. Social and Economic Environment, p.23 4.8. Social and Economic Environment, p.26 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Pp. 19-23.

124

population”.46 This statement is false, as only part of the non-working population does not have health insurance. For instance, pupils, students and retirees are counted in the nonworking group, but their health insurance is covered by the state. The report recurrently stigmatizes the retirees, by statements such as: “The high number of retirees reduces the workforce available for economic activities; it is the working population who provides for them.”47 The group of retirees cannot possibly reduce the workforce available, simply because they are not part of it. The interpretation that the working population provides for retirees is also biased. When they were part of the workforce, the retirees paid their dues to retirements funds, which is meant to cover their retirement pension. The retirees participate in a social circuit that should not be understood in simplistic terms. The statement above clearly illustrates that the RMGC misunderstands or denies a whole socio-economic system.

The elderly represent an important social group who plays an important role in community development, role that ought to be valued, not stigmatized.

1.2.8 The locals’ perceptions and expectations The perceptions and expectations of the locals regarding the RMGC project are only superficially touched upon in the EIA report and the references to the sources cited are faked. “In order to assess the locals’ perceptions and expectations, an independent organization (ICCV) organized discussions with the various interest groups in Rosia Montana.”48 Footnote no. 34 references this statement to „page.50Page:74” (sic!); however, page 50 of the report contains no such information and page 74 is the page where the statement is made in the text. Thus, it is impossible to verify the data based on which the community is divided in “1. Persons who support the mining project at Rosia Montana, 2.

Persons who oppose the mining project”. This black-and-white division is unrealistic and simplistic, as opinions about the project are much more diverse in the community and can hardly be characterized as either pro or con. The data according to which support for the project comes from the youth, business men, trained professionals, and the Rroma, whereas the project opponents are the elderly and the women, are completely false and cannot be substantiated.

1.2. 9 Conclusions about social characteristics None of the social characteristics analyzed in the EIA report suggests a state of crisis of the community in Rosia Montana. No real data support the interpretation that the community in Rosia Montana is the exception from the rule, with its ageing population, high percentage of non-working people and of women. On the contrary, these allegations greatly harm the image of the community in Rosia Montana.

Furthermore, if one takes into consideration also the community in Abrud and in Campeni, all conclusions allegedly representative for the “community” are incorrect.

1.3 Economic characteristics 1.3.1 ”The infrastructure of buildings, roads and public utilities is in very bad condition; Information and telecommunication systems are badly implemented, but improvements are under way.”49 46 47 48 49

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p.73.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 58.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 74.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

125

“Present living standards in the community are well below EU standards”, as stated in chapter 4.6.1.2. Housing – living standards50. Figure 4.14 shows the state of basic services, such as drinking water, sewage and electricity. The data presented also in Chapter 5 –Defining the community in the Plan of sustainable development for the community show that most households are connected to the electric grid and have wood-based heating systems. Wood-based heating is used in all three communities (i.e. Rosia Montana, Abrud, and Campeni) to a roughly comparable degree, which argues that it is not poverty, but rather efficiency and convenience that determine preferences for wood-based heating. Over 20% of the locals in Rosia Montana had a toiled in their house, whereas the national average is 12%.51 Almost 90% of households in the rural areas are not connected to the sewage system; the corresponding percentage of households in Rosia Montana and Abrud in this situation is close to this national figure.52 Living standards in Rosia Montana are in no way different from general living standards in rural Romania; on the contrary, in some respects the infrastructure in Rosia Montana is better than the national average.

In conclusion, Rosia Montana does not stand out negatively in terms of poverty level and living standards.

Chapter 5.9. Infrastructure53 does not clarify whether the analysis of the infrastructure is limited to Rosia Montana only, whether it includes also the county of Alba, or the larger community in Rosia Montana, Abrud, and Campeni. Contradictory statements abound. Subchapter 5.9.2. reads that “there is no public garbage disposal service”. This is a false statement, as this system exists and is currently improved at the level of the village.

Also, the Local Council in Abrud obtained the amount of 589,181 Euros from the PHARE 2003 Program– Social and Economic Cohesion, Investment plan for the project for selective garbage collection and for building a transfer point in the area of Abrud, Rosia Montana, Bucium and Ciuruleasa. This new garbage disposal project will be put into practice soon.

1.3.2

“The mining sector is crucial for the economy of both Rosia Montana and Abrud, but is less important for the town of Campeni”.54

As we demonstrated in a previous paragraph, the mining sector is indeed important but it is not crucial for the sustainable development of the area. Mining activities in the past created a system of sites, artifacts, practices and values that can be capitalized upon in tourism.

1.3.3

“The RMGC has a distinctive and marked impact on the area, local investments amounting to 124. 4 billion lei in 2004.”55

RMGC’s activities carried out before the company obtained the necessary permits to start the project are not related to mining and do not contribute to the development of the area. We draw attention to the fact that the RMCG is a private company with a well defined 50

51 52 53 54 55

Chapter 4.8. The social and economic environment in Rosia Montana, Section 4: Overview of initial socioeconomic conditions, p. 33.

FSD- rural Euro barometer, 2005.

FSD- rural Euro barometer, 2005.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 79.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

126

interest in the area, and who will cease its local investments if it does not get the permits it needs.

At the same time, RMGC’s presence stopped any other investment in the area, due to the changes in the General Plan for Urbanism. In conclusion, RMGC’s presence in the area is inauspicious and does not constructively contribute to the development of the area.

1.3.4

“The steep slopes and the high altitude are improper for agriculture and orchards.” 56

Agriculture in Rosia Montana is both a complement to household income and a full-time job at the level of farms. Local and county statistics miss the income generated by agricultural activities for two reasons: a. The General Plan for Urbanism does not allow for legal agricultural activities. b. Complementary income from agricultural activities has never been properly researched and captured by statistics.

Considering the lack of reliable data about agriculture, the statement according to which only subsistence agriculture is viable is in fact false. There are initiatives to create pig farms, a milk collection system, a small dairy farm, and to constitute associations of producers. All these represent viable alternatives to mining, but they could never materialize because the 2002 General Plan for Urbanism did not legally allow for their existence. Considering the quality of the soil and the traditional agricultural practices, agricultural products can be classified as organic, which would respond to the growing need of organic products on the Romanian and foreign markets. Thus, it is not industrial agriculture, but organic and dynamic agriculture that constitutes a viable alternative for the area. According to the EIA report, the soil in Rosia Montana is not polluted with heavy metals. Considering also that the local farmers never used chemical fertilizers, organic agriculture has a bright future in Rosia Montana.

1.3.5

“The forests are often cut before the trees mature, in order to be used for heating (99% of households) and for cooking (60% of households), which negatively impacts the environment.” 57

The EIA report contains no data on the extent of illegal cutting of trees in the area.

Therefore, we consider that the statement above represents a false value judgment, as it is based only on the fact that most households use wood-based energy. In fact, the total stripping of forests proposed in the RMGC project is much more deleterious to the environment than the current degree of tree cutting. To reiterate, it has not been proven that tree cutting activities violate the law on legal tree cutting. Illegal tree cutting, if found out, must have been sanctioned according to the law. The report, however, contains no statistics and sources based on which one can check the validity of the statement about illegal tree cutting.

1.3.6

“Tourism in Rosia Montana is insignificant and underfunded, as is regional tourism.”58

The data on tourism in the EIA report are truncated and contradictory. Contrary to the bleak prospects for tourism stated above, the Plan for the management of the cultural heritage –chapter 2.3.4.3. Tourism59 argues that “in the context of gradual bankruptcy of 56 57 58 59

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

P. 46.

127

the mining industry in the Apuseni Mountains and of adequate investments, the development of tourism in the area remains a significant option for the future”. By contrast, the Plan for the sustainable development of the community –chapter 7. Investment in Rosia Montana60, states that “in essence, demand in tourism, particularly in an isolated village like Rosia Montana is insignificant. This is demonstrated by data and studies presented in subchapter 5.3. Tourism.” Considering that there is no such chapter 5.3.

Tourism in this report (chapter 5.3 is titled Interested parties, p. 47) we challenge the general validity of the information presented and draw attention to other studies about tourism.

Furthermore, Figures 5.16 and 5.1761 do not mention the source of data; no official source is cited in this subchapter.

Tourism is an expanding sector in the Apuseni Mountains and in Rosia Montana, as well as a top priority for national economic development. Tourism represents a viable alternative in terms of costs and benefits, as it results from recent studies, such as the Tourism-based model of sustainable development of the Zlatna-Bucium-Rosia Montana-Baia de Aries mining area, as an alternative to the decline of extractive monoindustrial activities, conducted by the Institute for Research and Development in Tourism in May 2006.

Although there are many tourists coming to Rosia Montana, the General Plan for Urbanism does not legally allow for the existence of hotels or inns. According to the Institute for Research and Development in Tourism, the total number of tourists who visited the area in 2004 amounted to 9,828, of which 8,354 were Romanian and 1,474 were foreigners, for a total of 20,638 nights. These data are valid for the Zlatna – Bucium Rosia Montana – Abrud – Campeni - Baia de Aries area and do not quantify the number of non-recorded tourists and the nights they spent outside the system of licensed hotels. The estimates of the Alburnus Maior Association amount to 15,000 tourists every year.

Given the discrepancy between the number of tourists estimated by the Alburnus Maior Association and by the RMGC, we would like to note the following. The estimates of the number of tourists were made based on consultations with the curator of the Mining Museum, who estimated that an average of 55 tourists per month visit the museum during the summer months.62 This contradicts the Study of initial conditions of the cultural heritage, Chapter 1.5.9. –Tourism today arguing that “in order to visit the local collection [of the Mining Museum], one has to make in advance a series of arrangements, because there are no regular public visit hours and no curator in the museum.” This contradiction casts doubt on the estimates made by the museum curator. His statement that tourists are invited to contribute a donation in the absence of an entrance fee 63 is false. The museum has no donation fund, whereas foreign tourists pay an entrance fee of 5 to 100 RON, and Romanian tourists a fee of 3 to 5 RON. There are no accounting records for the fees paid by tourists. All the money goes to the museum curator. The fear of being charged with embezzlement may be at the origin of the estimates about the low number of tourists that the curator made. In conclusion, the data need to be double-checked and independent monitoring of the tourists in Rosia Montana needs to be carried out, in order to correctly estimate the number of tourists who visit Rosia Montana throughout the year.

60 61 62 63

P. 88.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 67.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5.7.2 Tourism, p. 65.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5.7.2 Tourism, p. 65.

128

The “Golden Way” project referenced in the Plan for the sustainable development of the community64 represents more than a tourist initiative. The projects helps the locals get free business advice about how to set up a business in tourism, which is impossible under the current provisions of the PUG. Three information boards were set up in the area, 5,000 promotion brochures were printed and a website (www.drumulaurului.ro) was created to complement print materials. The project continues in the Bucium area, where information boards will be set up, meetings will be organized to offer business advice to the locals, brochures will be disseminated, an inn will be opened to tourists and the official site (www.buciumanii.ro) will be launched.

In conclusion, the data on tourism presented in the EIA report is inconsistent and invalid. The tourist potential of the area is significant; the fact that the locals do not capitalize on it is directly caused by the illegal character of such enterprises in the PUG, not by lack of local initiatives or lack of interest from tourists.

Fig. 1 Two of the boards for the “The Golden Way” project

1.3.7

“Except for the RMGC investments in the area, other investments are meager.”65

RMGC’s investments are noticeable in the Rosia Montana village, but not in Abrud and Campeni. The Campeni town has seen strong development in the past decade, which spills over into Rosia Montana, regardless of the presence of the RMGC. 1.3.8

“Except for mining activities, there are huge disincentives for investors to invest in the area.”66

This statement is false and biased. The RMGC is the only company to have a mining license, which rules out from the very beginning any other investors in mining. As we repeatedly demonstrated, the PUG prevents any other investment in Rosia Montana.

The status of economically disadvantaged area mentioned in the Study on the initial conditions of the cultural heritage, chapter 1.5.8.1. Regional economy67, was granted to the region of the Apuseni Mountains by governmental decision no. 813/07.10.2001. The statement that “many business that brought investments to the area went bankrupt because the area was designated an economically disadvantaged region”68 is false. This designation offers fiscal incentives that are meant to encourage rather than discourage investment.

64 65 66 67 68

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5.7.2 Tourism, p. 65.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

P. 19.

P. 19.

129

According to Emergency Decree No. 24/1998 on the status of economically disadvantaged areas, the following fiscal incentives apply: a) exemption of: - customs taxes, VAT tax on cars, machinery, installations, equipment, transportation means, imported in order to boost investment in the area; - tax on cars, machinery, installations, equipment, transportation means, produced in Romania and purchased as part of investments in the area; b) reimbursement of customs taxes for raw materials, spare parts, and imported parts for the purposes of local production. c) exemption of profit taxes for the whole period in which the status of economically disadvantaged area is maintained; d) exemption of taxes levied for changing the destination of land or removing land from the agricultural circuit for the purposes of investment.

In order to benefit from these incentives, investors have to obtain a certificate of investment issued by the regional Development Agency. The RMGC already takes advantage of these incentives based on certificate no. 99/25.04.2001.

1.3.9

“There are better investment opportunities in other areas, such as the Campeni town”.69

The statement identifies correctly good opportunities for development in Campeni.

These opportunities are also beneficial for the community in Rosia Montana, due to the proximity of the two communities and of the strong links between them. However, the development of Campeni cannot possibly have a negative impact on Rosia Montana; the two are rather complementary, one being a village, the other one a town. Thus, they will attract different kinds of investors and of funds.

The statement that “there is absolutely no intention to go back to the social and environmental conditions existing prior to the Rosia Montana Mining Corporation and to the Rosia Montana Project ” 70 demonstrates once again that the community is on the right development track and broke away from its past dependency on mining.

1.3.10 The SWOT Analysis The SWOT analysis on the socio-economic development of Rosia Montana71 is presented in Table 5-11 as a conclusion to the report. The report specifies that this analysis “does not take into consideration the Rosia Montana project itself”. Nonetheless, the analysis contains again information that is false and biased, as well as elements that clearly factor in the existence of the RMGC project: “transparency”, “contacts with new cultures from other regions in Romania and from countries of origin of the expats”, “risk of unjust distribution of the benefits of the project in the community”. Here again, the EIA report is plagued by blatant lack of professionalism.

69 70 71

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter. 1.1 Introduction, p. 19.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 75.

130

1.3.10 Conclusions to the economic characteristics The data presented in the report are false and biased; they omit relevant information, such as changes in the PUG and the omission from the conclusions of Campeni, town that saw considerable development of late, with benefits for the community in Rosia Montana.

Rosia Montana is not totally dependent on mining, because there are viable development alternatives and the locals seriously consider them.

1.4. Environmental characteristics 1.4.1

“From an environmental point of view, there are few conservation efforts underway, water resources (rivers, etc) are polluted, the habitat is fragmented, the landscape is deteriorated, and the human impact is relentless”.72

This statement is partly true, but it does not reflect the specificity of the Rosia Montana area. Water pollution is indeed high, but only in the industrial area, which represents a very small part of Rosia Montana, namely 95 hectares of the 4200 hectares of the village. Habitat fragmentation and landscape deterioration characterize also the 95 hectares affected by the mining industry of the Romanian state. For the remaining area, the mountain landscape has significant biodiversity that was not closely studied so far. Over 100 species of plants and protected animals are recorded in Rosia Montana. The alleged low level of conservation is contradicted by the presence of these species and by the existence of natural reserves in Rosia Montana as well as in neighboring villages (e.g. Piatra Corbului, Piatra Despicata, Detunatele, Poiana cu narcise din Bucium) The statement about the continuous impact of the human factor is a truism, as this happens everywhere. There are few spots left, such as high peaks and the arctic region, where the human factor does not significantly affect the environment.

1.4.2

“The activities of Rosiamin as well as the past mining activities led to the formation of acid mine water, to visible landscape deterioration and to safety problems”. 73

Rosiamin is the partner company to Gabriel Resources in the RMGC project. The fact that Rosiamin polluted so much testifies to the low credibility of the company. In its plan to close down mines, the Romanian state accepted to be in charge of improving the environmental record of mining areas. At any rate, even now landscape deterioration on those 95 hectares is much smaller than the projected 1566 hectares to be affected by the RMGC project, a true environmental disaster.

1.4.3 Conclusions to environmental characteristics The image of a polluted community is false and it harms the chances of developing economic alternatives to mining.

Existing pollution does not justify the creation of a new mining area that will be 10 times larger than the existing one.

1.5 Patrimony and culture

72 73

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Chapter 5: Defining the community, p. 43.

131

The following comments are made taking into consideration chapter 4.9. Cultural and Ethnical Conditions, Cultural Heritage In addition to providing an inventory of cultural property, the paper claims to also assess the 'intangible cultural heritage' (Unesco 2003). This is not the case: The report fails to diskuss and assess the loss of intanglible heritage with regards to the churches and cemeteries impacted by the RMP. Experiences at different relevant mine sites throughout the world show that 'chance finds' protocols are inefficient from a practical point of view.

Section 2.4.1. entitled 'Roman Artefacts' claims that no archaeological excavation had been performed in Rosia Montana prior to the project. This is incorrect. Volker Wollman, amongst others performed archaeological excavations at Rosia Montana in the seventies and and eighties and indeed the mining museum opened at Rosia Montana in 1981 exhibits some of these findings. Others can be found at the Unirea History Museum in Alba Iulia.

The so-called 'Underground Mining Works' section is heavily biased from a scientific point of view. The archaeological significance of a particular site is related to the RMP, rather than being evaluated for its own merits. The passage on the Carnic massif 74 undermines its archaeological importance. In the archaeological world, Roman mine galleries with „inclined plane passages, with or without steps”75 are extremely significant and valuable.

Moreover at Carnic „Certain characteristics forms found in trapezoidal sections of some exploratory galleries were not charateristic of Roman mining. These traditions may have been of local and of Dacian origin or have come with miners brought from Dalamatia or Illyria” (p25). This statement clearly highlights Carnic's unique archaeological importance.

There are not traces left to date showing how the Dacians mined. Little is known about the influence that the Dalamtians and Illyrians played after being conquered by the Romans. In either case the findings at Carnic are unique in archaeological terms. The report does not highlights these facts. It is therefore severly biased and unprofessional.

In comparison, the archaeological importance of Catalina Monulesti and Paru Carpeni are highlighted and accentuated. In archaeolgical terms however, Carnic is at least of equal importance. The reason for highlighting the importance of the former two is based on the fact that the project sponsor proposes to preserve Catalina Monulesti and Paru Carpeni as a mitigation measure. Carnic on the other hand contains the highest proven and estimated gold reserves and without its expolitation the RMP would be economically unfeasible.

Page 29 reads as follows:” In an attempt to preserve modern day mining heritage, the state owned mine, in cooperation with local residents of Rosia Montana, established a mining museum in the 1980's.”

This expression is a bias. The museums main features are the Orlea Roman mine galley as well as the altars, grave stones and other stone sculptures found at Rosia Montana dating from Roman, Medieval, Austro-Hungarian times.

74 75

4.9. Cultural and Ethnical Conditions, Cultural Heritage, p.25 idem 54

132

Page 30 reads as follows:”althought the loss of residential buildings from Rosia Montana and Corna will have a direct impact on their urban setting, the architecture of these buildings is common throughout the Apuseni region.”

This statement respents a bias: The loss of the residential buildings inlcudes houses that are classified as historic monuments and this because they are uncommon.

Page 30 reads as follows:”... the economic activity generated by the project and through the implementation of the Community Sustainable Development Programme will dramatically improve the community's ability to provide much needed maintenance and care for the historical structures located within and outside the Protected Zone. Several of these structures have deteriorated and are considered unsafe by modern standards of human habitation.”

This quote contains several mistakes. Firstly, whether the economic activity of the mine proposal will dramatically improve the communities' ability to....needs to be substantiated, the reference to the Community Sustainable Development Programme is insufficient. Secondly, according to the OPUS study on the Managament Plan of the cultural patrimony p. 33 „RMGC the majority owner of houses in the historic area, carries out selelectively maitancence works. Nonetheless, a significant part of the buildings owned by the comppany which ared to a great extent valuable buildings continue to rapidly deterioate as a consequence of the lack of maintance works.” Whilst the quote highlights and explains the reason for the deterioration of Rosia Montana's historic buildings it also highlights the bias in the dramatic improvement caused by RMGC's economic activity.

Page 31 reads that „ the Orlea area the archaeolgical researches are scheduled to be undertaken between 2007 and 2012.” to Romanian applicable legislation all the areas under the projects footprint need to be archaeologically discharged in order ot obtain the construction permit and expolitation license.

Page 32 reads as follows:” In Rosia Montana, as stated in the Ressettlement and Relocation Action Plan, the existing Rosiamin mine is subsidized by the central governmement. The progressive closure of this operation has already resulted on the loss of more than 800 jobs; the additional loss of 500 more jobs will have a significant social, environmental, and economic impact on Rosia Montana and Abrud. Additionally, a local copper mine operation „Cuprumin”, located in a nearby valley, is also being slated for closure in the near future. The Closure of the two mines will have a serious negative impact on the economic vitality of the entrire region.”

The above statement is biased, irrelevant in the study and contains serious mistakes.

Page 33 reads as follows:”Consultation with representatives of each congregation having property in the project affected area began in 2002 is on-going. The relocation of the churches requires signed agreements .....” According to declarations made by the Historic Hungarian Churches this is not the case. Unrelated but still interesting to note is that in the course of 2002 the Historic Hungarian Churches as well as the Orthodox Church released official declarations vis a vis Gabriel's intention to puchase church properties. All of the them

133

offically decalred their opposition to relinquish their properties at Rosia Montana. These decisions are final.

The report does not indicate an estimate of how old the Tau Gauri Funary Monument is (see 47).????? page 53 reads as follows:” in order for Rosia Montana to enter into the modern area of mining, it is essential that employees be properly trained and that opportunities for mining in the region presist beyond the limited time frame of the project life.”

This is a biased statement in the sense of an opinion regarding the mine proposal per se and thus has not place in a scientific report on the Cultural and Ethical Conditions, Cultural Heritage.

The Cultural and Ethical Conditions, Cultural Heritage Report contains no bibilography.

The Cultural and Ethical Conditions, Cultural Heritage Report lists no author assuming responsibility for the content and sources.

2. Potential Impact The comments of potential impact refers to chapter 4 of the EIA, Potential Impacts, respectivly 4.8. The Social and Economic Environment of Rosia Montana. It should be noted that although this report contains - like any other of the RM EIA Study Report Baseline Information, there exists no seperate Baseline report for the Social and Environmental Environment. Baseline Reports are vital in order to assess any proposal's true impact and potential liabilities. Given the particuarities of this mine proposal which including the resettlement and relocation of the local population a seperate Scoial and Economic Baseline Report should be mandatory.

The Baseline information in 4.8 Social and Environmental Enviromnent chapter is incomplete. Importantly, it contains no economic and social analysis of the impact that the resettlement and relocation has already caused upon the Community (Rosia Montana, Abrud, Cimpeni) and host communities.

2.1 Terminology and methodology The social impact of the RMGC project is divided in direct impacts and indirect impacts76. Even thou it is mentioned that the direct impacts, the most important ones, are detailed in the Resettlement and Relocation Action Plan, the document does not exist as part of the EIA, so it could’t be analysed. Taking into consideration the importance of such a document, we consider as a mistake its uninclusion in the EIA. Moreover, there are several sendings to the Resettlement and Relocation Action Plan during the EIA documentation, even thou such a document is separated by the official EIA documentation.

It is stipulated from the very first beggining that „A complexity regarding the RMP and assessment of the socio-economic impacts (both negative and positive) and mitigation strategies is that: There is no precedent in Romania for a major extractive project implemented in conformance with Romanian regulations and transposed EU legislation and 76

4.8 The Social and Economic Environment, Potential impact, p. 40.

134

standards”.77 The unexistance of a precedent can’t be considered as an indicator of complexity. Moreover, all the mining activities in Romania were made and are made according to national and international law. By negating this fact, the RMGC is negating the whole legislativ and juridical system of Romania. Thus a remarc like this can’t be considered as valid.

Monitoring is a method used during the evaluation proces and represents the process of sistematic colection and analization of the information regarding activities.

Considering the importance of the monitoring chapter we belive that it should be more developed than a column on a table. Even on this column, a first confusion is created by the misused of the terms measurment and monitoring indicator. This two terms are treated together as a whole, but there is a complementarity relation between them not a synonimy.

In order to monitor the realization of the program and in order to measure the eficiency raported to the objectives, a set of indicators is necesary. These indicators are to be established in the initial period of the program in order to make posible the data colection.

From a methodological point of view, there are subjective indicators and objective indicators.

The objective indicators are the ones that can be measured by scientific instruments elaborated by experts in a controled manner (observation griles, tests, etc) or are registered as measures that cannot be distorsed subjectively. The subjective indicators are the one based on measures made by natural subjects (natural observator) or with the help of commune instruments of observation (questionary, interview, observation etc). These indicators are refering to the perception of social actors. For a relevant monitoring it is desired to be used as many objective indicators as possible.

In the potentia impacts study there is less consideration for this methodology, as it is not mentioned nor the period nor the frequence of the monitoring. The system of indicators is not described properly and there is no demonstration that the indicators are relevant.

Moreoreve, in table 7.1 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures, Implementation Responsibilities 78, the indicators for the pozitiv impact are not mensioned at all.

Regardless of the category of impact (positiv or negative), for an eficient evaluation it is necesary to cuantify all the efects. It is a methodological mistake.

The fact that there is no base line study for the community and that the data included in the impact study are false (q.e.d. in chapter 1) is relavant for our demonstration regarding the futilily of this study. The potential impact has no relavant base and it is not real estimated.

From a methodological point of view chapter 4.8. The social and economic environment has important mistakes and doesn’t have a scientific base and credibility.

2.2 Notes on the chapter 4.8 General issues Table 1.1 entitled 'Summary of the Socio Economic Related Impacts' is reapeated roughly two times in volume 14. It makes in several instances reference to a managment plan entitled RRAP. RRAP is no where to be found in the EIA. The EIA thus is incomplete.

Table 1.1. presents no management plan for topic 17 and 18.

77 78

4.8 The Social and Economic Environment, p. 14.

4.8 The Social and Economic Environment, p. 47

135

Fields, infrastrucure and demography It is missing the description of the impact generated by the change in field destination The change in the field destination is refering only to the infrastructure. The surface of Piatra Alba is not suficient for remaking the agricultural fields for the relocated farmers. This is a long term negativ impact, especially because not all the people can be hired in the mining field, a part of the population should continue to work on in the agricultural field.

Working field Lessening the working force after the closure of Minvest is not an impact generated by the RMGC project. If such formes of impact are introduced in the study, there also should be stipulated the following social impacts: the negativ impact generated by changing the field destination trought the urbanistic plan in 2002. the positiv impact of the action proposed in the regional development plan for the former mining areas (requalification courses, credits, etc the positiv impact of the touristic activities promoted by Alburnus Maior etc.

Acces The „long term positiv” impact generated by the „Improved transport infrastructure to locality and region via upgrading road link & logistical support” 79 is contradicting the impact stipulated in the Community safety field: „Significant volumes of traffic, particularly large machinery increases risks to people. Risk most acute for non displaced people, pedestrians, cyclists, young and the very old.” 80 It is less then probable that the effect of that trafic to be: „easier for the people, including tourists to enter and leave the region”81 Economy All the aspects refering to the establishment of new small entreprises by the locals does not consider that in the area of the RMGC project there isn’t the posibility to develop other kind of economic activities because of the incompatibility with the urbanistic plans. On the other hand, the opening of the mine will reinforce on the image of a mono-industrial Rosia Montana, making imposible the „growth of confidence regarding the foreign investments in Rosia Montana”82 The evaluation of potential impact in the construction period and in the exploatation perioad are treated together, even thou each period has its own specificity and must be treated separately.

Closure The action „socio-economic indicators at Rosia Montana demonstrates a positiv growth”83 is not valid in case of mining closure.

The impact evaluation is not valid and relevant from the point of view of both the methodology and the content in the case of the EIA for Rosia Montana. We 79 80 81 82 83

4.8 The Social and Economic Environment, Potential impact, p. 42 4.8 The Social and Economic Environment, Potential impact, p. 42 4.8 The Social and Economic Environment, Potential impact, p. 42 4.8 The Social and Economic Environment, Potential impact, p. 43 4.8 The Social and Economic Environment, Potential impact, p. 44

136

propose the reanalization of the proposed project from the perspective of the social and economic impacts.

3. The Plan for the sustainable development of the community The analysis of the Plan for the sustainable development of the community refers solely to chapters 8 and 9 in the above-mentioned study, which “represents the sustainable development program proper and its means of implementation”.84 From the very beginning we draw attention to the fact that the plan proper that should be presented in this document only covers 2 chapters out of 9, that is 36 pages out of the total 166, without appendices.

In order to avoid terminological confusion, we shall use the title Plan for the sustainable development of the community to refer to the entire work, that is volume 31 of the EIA study and PDDC to refer to the actual plan for the sustainable development of the community contained in the above-mentioned chapters.

We shall start from another contradiction encountered in the study, related to the development framework. “The government’s development priorities do not include Rosia Montana” says note 7.185, while chapter 6 deals precisely with Governmental development for Rosia Montana.86 It is attempted once again to suggest that nobody cares about Rosia Montana in terms of development. However, certain regional and legislative frameworks cannot be ignored, which naturally leads to contradictions such as the one above.

Referring to the statement: “There are no laws or governmental policies to guide or oblige an investor to assess the sustainable development aspects of his investment”87, we must say that the very elaboration of the plan for the sustainable development of the community is one of the investor’s responsibilities according to the environmental legislation in force. Thus, RMGC submitted this impact study not out of concern for community development, but because they are bound to do so by the environmental protection law in force.

3. 1 Terminology and methodology In Chapter 2, The political framework88, there is a brief presentation of the terminology used in the study, such as the notions of sustainable development, community development, community sustainable development programs. Due to certain omissions and to the fact that there is no relevant source quoted in order to define the terminology, we shall make the following observations.

3.1.1 Sustainable development The concept of sustainable development did not appear in the ‘90s, as it is said in the chapter analyzed, but earlier, in the ‘80s, due to the escalation of the conflict between economy and the environment. Environmental and economic development issues were approached separately up to the mid ‘80s. International agreements on the environment were drafted and adopted by developed industrial countries, while those on economic development concerned primarily developing countries. The accumulation of very serious problems in certain areas, the appearance of global environmental issues, led to a common 84 85 86 87 88

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Terminology used in this document, p. vii.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 94 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 76 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 24 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 21

137

approach to the two aspects. It was increasingly clear that the willingness of developing countries to escape the burden of debt by offering their natural riches to developed countries with economies focused on their own interests, would sooner or later lead to ecological collapse. Thus, the concept of sustainable development appeared precisely from the need to protect these countries, not from the need to justify investments made by multinational corporations. The social consent of the local community represents a major, though difficult, issue, as there are increasingly widely supported opinions according to which, in the global era, the economy functions outside of any democratic control, people and local communities being left at the whim of (global) processes they cannot influence directly.89 We find the right formula in the 1987 Brundtland Report: sustainable development (sustainability). The Brundtland Report, in fact the World Commission for Environment and Development report entitled Our common future, represented the theoretical framework for approaching this issue at the 1992 UN conference on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro. This conference brought together 115 world leaders and ended with the creation of a 500-page program with 40 chapters known as AGENDA 21. Agenda 21 reflects global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on sustainable development.90 Until now, more than 180 countries have adhered to the program, Romania among them, thus showing their willingness to support sustainable development in their own economies by implementing Agenda 21, an excellent opportunity for community sustainable development.

Local Agenda 21 represents a process of implementing sustainable development at the local level whose main aspect is improved sustainability for local authorities by integrating sustainability into their projects, plans and policies. Partnership initiatives among community groups, local authorities, and the private sector represent, especially at the local level, the prerequisite for successful sustainable development. There are over 6416 local communities (cities, villages) in the world, elaborating and implementing local sustainable development strategies and action plans – Local Agenda 21, thus recognizing the importance of the sustainable planning process.

Although it is the only framework which makes direct reference to the implementation of a sustainable development program, Agenda 21 is not mentioned in the Political framework chapter, nor is it mentioned in any of the chapters of the Plan for the sustainable development of the community.

The concept of sustainable development indeed refers to three goals - economic welfare, social stability and environmental protection – and it is defined in the quoted report as development which “satisfies the needs of the present without compromising the possibility of future generations to satisfy their own needs."91 Conceptually, sustainable development has three basic interpretations:  The ecological interpretation, the so-called "green definition"- refers to development which, on the long term, does not produce changes which can disturb the natural balance: the potential of natural resources does not decrease, pollution remains below the natural absorption threshold, biological diversity is maintained. Thus, where the RMGC project is concerned, the ecological interpretation does not apply, precisely due to destruction and consumption in a short period, not to the preservation of biological diversity and natural resources.

89 90 91

Korten, David C. - When the Corporation Rules the World, Kumarian Press Inc., USA, 1995. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm Muresan, M (coord.); Hosu, I.; Savulescu, Al. - Elaborarea strategiilor de dezvoltare durabila la nivel local, Civitas, Cluj, 2002.

138



The economic interpretation – considers development sustainable if today’s consumption does not affect resources in a way which will negatively affect tomorrow’s consumption. Thus, where the RMGC project is concerned, the economic interpretation does not apply precisely due to the thorough consumption of mineral resources in the area, which leaves future generations without the possibility of finding ways to capitalize on them.



The social interpretation – also called sustainable subsistence – identifies government responsibility in giving up certain current benefits in favor of a policy which will allow social categories with very limited resources to adopt prodevelopment behavior. Thus, where the RMGC project is concerned, social interpretation does not apply, due to the government’s decision to endorse a project which benefits the state to the detriment of the community in Rosia Montana, which will have to be resettled/relocated.

Thus, we can conclude the conceptual analysis of sustainable development by saying that development is sustainable if it is ecologically fundamented, economically profitable and socially accepted. In the case of the RMGC project none of the conditions is fulfilled in order to call the development sustainable.

3.1.2. Community development In broad lines, by community development we can understand “the planned evolution of all aspects in a community which can lead to welfare (be it economic, social, cultural, or environmental)”92 Another dimension of the community development process includes all those actions which lead to the increased ability of people, both individuals and groups, to react to the challenges and opportunities in their community. Community development initiatives must originate within the community and must be managed by the community.93 Thus, community development is primarily defined as developing the human capacities in a community. The purpose of community development, irrespective of the problem it focuses on, is the creation of local capacities and local organization, so that the community gains the ability to identify, analyze and solve its problems without any intervention from the outside. Ultimately, any community development supposes “selfdetermination capacity”.94 Community development is in no way compatible with an action plan for resettlement and relocation. The association of the two terms in the RMGC study95 denies the very essence of community development, that of community initiative.

Although the World Bank established a set of rules which can transform the resettlement process into a sustainable action, this does not apply to the Rosia Montana case, as there is strong opposition to resettlement/relocation from the community.

92

Frank, F; Smith, A. - The community development handbook, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1999, p. 6.

93 Balogh, Márton; Bosovcki, Amanda; Dragos, Dacian C., Hintea, Calin Emilian; Hosu, Ioan - Facilitator comunitar, ghid de pregatire, Fundatia Civitas pentru Societatea Civila, Cluj-Napoca, 2003, p. 11 94 Asociatia Romana de dezvoltare comunitara, Fondul Roman de Dezvoltare Sociala – Ghidul facilitatorului în comunitate, p. 2 95 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Cap. 2 Cadrul Politic, p. 32

139

We shall discuss these aspects in more detail in the notes on the PDDC proposed by RMGC. 3.1.3. Community sustainable development Community sustainable development is another term used in the EIA study in direct relation with community sustainable development programs. There is no mention of what are the characteristics of a sustainable developed community, nor of how this sustainable development of the community can be reached. It is important to define the term of community sustainable development from the perspective of examples of sustainable developed communities, as this concept goes beyond the conceptual framework of the general process of sustainable development. We shall make the following observations on this subject.

The major objectives of community sustainable development are protecting the environment, eradicating poverty, improving the quality of life, developing and maintaining an efficient and viable local economy. A sustainable community appreciates and promotes healthy ecosystems, uses resources efficiently, develops and ensures a viable local economy. The sustainable community’s vision of development is supported and promoted by all community sectors, civic associations, local authorities, religious organizations, youth, etc.

A sustainable community is in control of the development process, the decisions it makes, ensuring sustainability at the local level. This sustainable community has an active social structure – actors, groups, associations and institutions which are able to mobilize for long-term common actions and assume responsibility for this ongoing development process.

Sustainable communities prosper because the population works in collaboration and partnership for improving the quality of life. The sustainable community uses its own resources to satisfy the needs of current generations, ensuring at the same time the necessary resources for future generations. It mobilizes its capacities to ensure qualitative medical services and high living standards for all its residents by limiting waste, preventing pollution, maximizing conservation and developing local resources and using them efficiently in order to revitalize the local economy.96 We shall discuss the information presented above in the notes on the PDDC proposed by RMCG. 3.1.4. Program The term “program” is used in the phrase "community sustainable development program", defined as “a program of incentives and measures designed to: maximize the benefits the Project brings to the community, ensure that Rosia Montana will remain a viable investment area even after the Project ends.”97 It is clear that the term is wrongly defined, and we shall therefore make the following observations.

In the literature, the program represents an institutional framework which supports projects converging towards a general objective. Several projects constitute a program.98 96

97 98

Institute for Sustainable Communities - A Guide to implementing Local Environmental Action Programs, Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, 2000 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Cap. 2: Cadrul politic, p. 21 Balogh, Marton – Managementul de proiect, Fundatia Civitas pentru o Societate Deschisa, Cluj-Napoca, 2003

140

The term is also used to refer to all of the activities to be implemented within a project, but this use of the term is not encouraged, as the term of “calendar of activities” is preferred.

From a methodological point of view, the program supposes the existence of a goal, of priorities and measures, general and specific objectives, actions resulting from these objectives, results, an internal monitoring and evaluation system, as well as a budget.

According to European Community provisions on interventions in the community through structural funds,99 the logic of an intervention in the community, which constitutes the basis of the program structure, is the following:

Here, the program resources are first related to accomplishments, and then to results and impact. The means by which the program reaches its operational, specific and general objectives are also presented:  Operational objectives are expressed through the notion of accomplishments (for Impact (long term effect)

Resources

General objectives

Results (direct and immediate effect)

Specific objectives

Realizations

Operational objectives

Program Objectives

Program’s intervention

example providing training courses for people who have been unemployed for a long period);  Specific objectives are expressed through the notion of results (for example increasing through training courses the qualification level of people who have been unemployed for a long period);  General objectives are expressed through the notion of impact (for example reducing unemployment rates among people who have been unemployed for a long period).

PDDC does not take into account any of the structures above. The mere mention and description of activities does not constitute a correct intervention program in sustainable development. Although the working documents of the European Commission are not legally binding (yet), not taking them into consideration indicates lack of professionalism in elaborating the intervention plan and result in a total lack of credibility and accuracy.

On the other hand, the sustainable development program cannot exist if there is no development strategy including the aspects mentioned above, as well as other elements of community analysis. The literature does not dwell on the description of sustainable 99

COMISIA EUROPEANA, DIRECTIA GENERALA XVI, POLITICA REGIONALA SI COEZIUNE, Coordonarea si evaluarea interventiilor, document de lucru 3, Indicatori de monitorizare si evaluare: orientari metodologice, p. 4, 5

141

development programs, as the terms "strategic planning" and "local development strategy" are preferred. 100 In our case, without the support of a complex development strategy, careful planning and consultation, the community development plan does not answer the community’s needs and does not constitute a commitment.

3.1.5 Document structure. Ethics and methodology Across the world, community sustainable development is strictly related to the implementation of Local Agenda 21, not community development plans made by corporations with a clear financial interest in the area. Within the Plan for the sustainable development of the community proposed by RMGC, the actual plan for the sustainable development of the community, PDCC, is not structured according to the main elements of such a document, as it results from the implementation of Local Agenda 21. To support our statements, we refer to the poll carried out between 2001-2002 by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) regarding the global Local Agenda 21 process.

The study states that the way in which a community develops sustainable is represented by the sustainable planning which integrates economic, social and environmental aspects.

Thus, over 60% of the 6416 communities in the Local Agenda 21 process elaborated Local Agenda 21 - Local Action Plans which include:  The way to community sustainable development  Objectives, goals, strategies and concrete commitments of APL and local partners Although this structure is not mandatory by law, the lack of the abovementioned elements in the PDDC makes us doubt the professionalism of those who elaborated this document, as well as its overall credibility.

Moreover, the PDDC starts from a series of premises which have been shown to be false in chapter 1 of the present analysis.

PDDC does not follow the ethical principles of consulting the community about its future. Although the planning of the development is done by actors within the community with the help of the local administration, in the case when the intervention in the community is done from the outside, the plan must first be approved by the local community.

In support of our statements above we point out the following principles of sustainable planning at the local level, as described in the literature mentioned in the bibliography:  sustainable development is made for the citizens and with their participation  sustainable development is based on a long-term vision defined by consensus, as it results from the community consultation process  sustainable planning integrates environmental, economic and social priorities  sustainable planning must be included in the budgeting process, in order to ensure the financial coverage of the strategies elaborated  sustainable development priorities are identified on the basis of a multilateral analysis of the existing situation, prognosticating possible risks, examining the interdependencies between local, national and global challenges

100

Vezi Muresan, M (coord.); Hosu, I.; Savulescu, Al. - Elaborarea strategiilor de dezvoltare durabila la nivel local, Civitas, Cluj, 2002.

142

 





the sustainable development process is monitored on the basis of local performance indices a sustainable development strategy is elaborated on the basis of existing development programs and policies, encouraging convergence, complementarily and coherence among different existing policies the broad participation of the community helps launch new ideas and issues to be discussed, identify the capacities necessary for the realization of the proposals made, and develop the necessary consensus for carrying out priority actions local sustainable development strategies are fundamented on local capacities and resources. Many of the existing strategies have failed as they were not implemented due to the lack of capacities and aptitudes necessary for efficiently carrying them out.

Although chapter 8.4 The main objective of the program for the sustainable development of the community states that “There are two components of the program for the sustainable development of the community: The sustainable development of the community directly related to the Rosia Montana project; The sustainable development of the community stimulated by the Rosia Montana project”, this differentiation is subsequently not observed. As the two development components have completely different objectives, the resulting plan, which does not take into account these aspects, is therefore not credible and does not match the reality created by the project.

Also from the structural point of view, the only aspect mentioned at this level is the structuring of the PDDC according to the top-down, and respectively bottom-up approaches.101 Irrespective of the approach, the fact that the PDDC is not structured along clear objectives with corresponding sets of activities makes it difficult to monitor and assess, therefore irrelevant as a development plan.

Although chapter 5, The definition of community states that the PDDC takes into consideration the community in Rosia Montana, Abrud and Campeni, it only refers to objectives concerning the community in Rosia Montana. There are indeed socio-economic connections between Rosia Montana, Abrud and Campeni. However, when drafting a PDDC they must be considered separately due to the fundamental differences between them. A community is a social group with a certain territorial integrity and the specificity of living together in a given space. Thus the PDDC should contain separate sections on planning for Abrud, Rosia Montana and Campeni. Moreover, the three towns have different administrative apparatuses and different actors involved in the development process. At the same time, taking into account the resettlement and relocation process and the “concern” shown by RMGC to the community, the PDDC would have a new meaning and should have separate sections for at least the following new communities: - the community in the Rosia Montana historical area, which must not be resettled or relocated - the community in the protected industrial area, which will be highly affected but not resettled or relocated - the community relocated to Piatra Alba - the community relocated to Alba Iulia The PDDC does not take these aspects into account, which makes it irrelevant to the development process in the area.

3.2 Notes on PDDC 101

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Cap. 8 Programul de dezvoltare durabila a comunitatii, p. 99

143

Beyond the omissions and methodological mistakes in the Plan for the sustainable development of the community, the mere association of a mining project which supposes the resettlement or relocation of the community with a development plan for the same community is a contradiction.

3.2.1 The vision When establishing the community vision, the premise, which is partially false in fact, refers to the existence of an ageing, poor, unemployed, unqualified community with a very little developed infrastructure and no possibilities to capitalize on the agricultural, tourist or cultural potential of the area. At least four areas are mentioned as being used to create a community distinguished at regional and international level: “the specialization in mining, community and sustainable development, the specialization in construction, archaeology and heritage”. These elements will sustain Rosia Montana “not only after the mine is closed, but also generations from now”.102 This statement is aberrant, as it will not be possible to use the potential specialization in mining in the Rosia Montana community after the mine is closed, which will lead to increased migration of the workforce skilled in mining. As this is a significant part of the community, we can conclude that in this case the Rosia Montana community cannot be on its way to development through specialization in a field which will only be available for 16 years. The same will happen with the workforce specialized in construction, as RMGC will build everything that can be built in terms of infrastructure, accommodation, etc., before the mine is closed, according to the promises made. Thus, workforce migration will increase. It is also aberrant to state that a community going through a resettlement and relocation process can constitute a model of excellence for community and sustainable development.

The process of outlining a community vision must fulfill a series of fundamental criteria, which is not the case with the platforms mentioned above. “Irrespective of who those who project these community development visions are (a group or the entire community), the community development plan must satisfy several fundamental requirements: to be well planned and refer to the long term (preferably), to be endorsed by the community, to consider all development processes and to be fair to all parties involved.” 103 It is clear that the RMGC vision is not fair to all parties involved, it is not long-term and does not treat development processes overall.

Also due to a lack of careful planning, the study includes statements such as: “An essential component for the maintenance and development of these fields of excellence is the creation of institutions for specialized higher education.”104 The process of creating accredited higher education institutions is complicated and supposes a series of human and financial resources which exceed the medium-term development capacity of Rosia Montana.

In the course of our research in Rosia Montana we never heard higher education in Rosia Montana mentioned as a community development priority. It is thus clear that the RMGC vision is not directly related to the community’s vision.

In what concerns the community in Piatra Alba, the new Rosia Montana community in RMGC’s vision, we point out the fact that up to this moment there is no one who wishes to resettle there. This is admitted in the Non-technical summary: “From the 102 103

104

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 97 Balogh, Márton; Bosovcki, Amanda; Dragos, Dacian C., Hintea, Calin Emilian; Hosu, Ioan - Facilitator comunitar, ghid de pregatire, Fundatia Civitas pentru Societatea Civila, Cluj-Napoca, 2003, p. 9 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 97

144

population affected by resettlement and relocation, 42% opted for the relocation package, according to RRAP provisions. The rest of 58% of the community are waiting for the EIM results”.105 The community management plan does not take into consideration the fact that Piatra Alba is not part of the community vision.

3.2.2 Activities generated by development - the top-down approach The top-down approach refers to the activity through which “interested factors specifically try to create and implement activities which promote socio-economic development”.106 From the methodological point of view there are two types of approach to community development: the conventional approach (called top-down approach in the study), in which an external agent decides on a certain mode of action for the people and then tries to convince them that this project is important to them and they must take care of it; and the modern approach, in which the community initiates the entire process, comes up with ideas, decides what to do, how to do it, who will do it, etc. Thus, when the community comes up with its own problems and solutions and implements the latter, they will want to keep what they have gained all the more. The conventional approach has long been out of use in community development practice. Instead, community facilitators are trained to offer the community support in becoming directly involved in their own development.

The difference between the conventional and modern approach:107 Conventional approach The external agent decides for the community The image they perceive is: - the people do not know what is important for them - the people do not know how to solve their problems “Specialized" people must convince the people that a project: - is to their benefit - is theirs - must be taken care of (by them) - must be taken part in

Modern approach The people are involved from the start: - they think - they analyze - they plan - they lead - they implement - they monitor - they assess By being involved, the people will be motivated. They will: - see the benefit - feel capable - feel responsible - find solutions - believe it is possible The Alburnus Maior association believes in the modern approach and has two community facilitators trained to support the community in identifying a development plan.

Based on community consultation and resource analysis, Alburnus Maior has already elaborated a development strategy on the short, medium and long term, and has started implementing it.108 Thus, we believe that the top-down approach is not an example of good practice in community development.

Rezumatul fara caracter tehnic, p. 8 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 99 107 Asociatia Romana de dezvoltare comunitara, Fondul Roman de Dezvoltare Sociala – Ghidul facilitatorului în comunitate 108 Olaru Zainescu, Sorana - Dezvoltare durabila alternativa mineritului la Rosia Montana, Analiza resurselor si elemente de strategie, Asociatia Alburnus Maior, 2006 105 106

145

We shall now analyze a series of activities described in chapter 8.4 The top-down approach – activities generated by development: 3.2.2.1 Workplaces in the Rosia Montana project It is estimated that the number of workplaces in the project will be of approximately 1200 in the projection stage and 560 in the exploitation stage. However, at this moment there are no exact data referring to the necessary qualifications and the ability of the community to cover these qualifications. On the other hand, suppliers will be employed in the construction stage that can bring their own workforce. The hiring policy which is being elaborated does not constitute sufficient commitment for the hiring of people from the community. If we consider the fact that there were 1288 people employed in mining in 2004109 it is obvious that the RMGC project does not sustainable solve the workplace problem. Even if it solved the problem of all the workplaces in the community, the mere fact that the project only lasts for 14 years does not represent a sustainable aspect. What will the miners do once the project is over? Where will they use their qualifications? In the Alburnus Maior view, the community should face the collapse of mining by immediately identifying new development solutions and by creating new workplaces in the community.

3.2.2.2 The stimulation of socio-economic development and the diversification of the industrial and economic facilities..

The stimulation of socio-economic development is treated evasively by transferring responsibility to the Rosia Montana Development Foundation. Alternative socio-economic development to the Rosia Montana project is only possible after the closure of the mine, due to incompatibility in terms of territory use. Thus, this aspect does not represent a sustainable aspect. Moreover, it is stated that “The long-term sustainable development of the community – which continues after the new mine is closed – depends on the creation of industrial and economic activities not connected to mining. However, we must take into account the problems described in chapter 7: Investment in Rosia Montana is an obstacle."110 As we demonstrated in the previous chapter, investment in Rosia Montana is not possible due to the modification of the PUG at the proposal of RMGC. Once the PUG is remodified, the industrial and economic facilities in Rosia Montana will develop without the help of the mining company.

Thus, it is stated that in Rosia Montana it is not possible to develop the tourism, the agriculture, and services at this time, but in 20 years, when large part of the cultural and natural heritage will be lost, exactly the same development alternatives are proposed, because mining will not be possible anymore.111 Irrespective of how we look at this, the approach is more than absurd, it is not supported by data from the field, and it is definitely not sustainable.

The following questions inevitably rise, and answers to them cannot be found in the EIA report: a. How can the analysis of initial conditions state that agriculture cannot be practiced in Rosia Montana due to infertile soil and then revert to "earning a living from working the land - the creation of an extended service program for the development of cattle farms which 109 110

111

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 58 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, Cap. 8 Programul de dezvoltare durabila a comunitatii, p. 101 Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 101, paragraful 2

146

use organic products, of growing vegetables, fruit and making hay, sustainable fuel from wood and other strategies for earning a living from land cultivation”?112 b. How will the mining project benefit the condition of the soil and substratum in Rosia Montana? Which market will accept organic products from Rosia Montana on the substratum of a barren gangue waste dump or a decanting pond? d. Where will fertile soil be brought from? Who will work the land when the qualifications proposed by the company are in mining and construction?

Questions of this type can be asked for each of the activities proposed: crafts, wood processing, agro-tourism, etc.

3.2.2.3. The consolidation of local authority capacities The consolidation of local authority capacities does not depend on the implementation of the RMGC project. Such a statement is an offense to the Romanian government. The priority of post-adherence special programs is to consolidate the capacity of local administration to develop infrastructure and other projects.

The Central Regional Development Strategy describes all the objectives, priorities and measures which ensure the development of the Rosia Montana area without RMGC’s help. 113 Alburnus Maior and partners will support this process of developing the local administration's project implementation capacity by helping with the implementation of the LEADER project (together with the Ministry for Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development), community organization and facilitation programs, etc.

3.2.2.4 Other activities mentioned: lessening impact and managing development Lessening the social and economic impact constitutes a set of specific activities which will not be necessary in the absence of the RMGC project. However, the description of these activities is vague and does not offer guarantees, as all the responsibility is transferred to the Rosia Montana Development Foundation, a structure which does not exist yet and whose credibility is not high.

The objective of the management of community development initiatives is the realization of the relocation areas. As we have already contested this terminological association, we shall only refer to a series of basic aspects. After reading the literature in the field, the conclusion is that the resettlement and relocation process has many negative consequences on the population, which exceed the level of financial compensation. The compensation is structurally incapable of rebuild the income and means of living the population had before the relocation. Even if supplementary measures are taken, the compensation will not be able to ensure the living standards advocated by the investors.

There is no sufficient compensation, as shown by studies of the last 20 years. Moreover, losing homesteads and the cultural space of a community tends to create strong alienation, family tragedy, as well as depressive nostalgia for the birthplace. The marginalization of resettled people is in close relation to losing their home. Feeling unjustly treated, people lose their self-confidence, they feel stigmatized, as they lose their social status, and they develop a refugee mentality they cannot shed for the rest of their lives. In the present case, when a large part of the community does not agree and does not accept the resettlement and relocation process, speaking of managing sustainable development from the perspective of this process is unacceptable.

112 113

Idem 29 Agentia de Dezvoltare Centru - Plan de dezvoltare al Regiunii „Centru” pentru perioada 2007-2013, p. 105138

147

In what concerns the management of the cultural heritage, we contest from the very beginning the definitive loss of cultural heritage through the possible implementation of the RMGC project. The sustainable development of tourism is possible precisely by not implementing the project and changing the destination of the land to the initial one through a new urbanism plan. We also ask: a. How is tourist development possible in 20 years’ time when a large part of the patrimony will have disappeared and Rosia Montana will bear the stigma of a mining area with a surface mine, and it is not possible now? Who will be in charge of developing tourism in the future, when the inhabitants of the new community will be miners and builders?

3.2.3 The bottom-up approach The bottom-up approach, the correct one in our view, is not presented in detail, but from the perspective of analyses which will be carried out by the Rosia Montana Development Foundation. In spite of the almost 10 years spent in the community, RMGC has not elaborated any analysis to assess the way in which the community desires to develop in order to present it in chapter 8.10. The bottom-up approach – The human and natural capital of the community.114.

This proves once again that RMGC does not take into account the community’s opinion.

In what concerns the possibility of using the available natural capital, it is stated that: “The following list is merely speculative, as qualified experts must properly estimate this potential”.115 We must point out that qualified experts should already have estimated this potential, as the 0 alternative is deemed unviable! Then, on the basis of what research has the alternative been evaluated as unviable?

Alburnus Maior and partners have already assessed the natural capital and have proposed sustainable development alternatives to the mining project. 116 We also believe that RMGC's interventions in the community are not sustainable and contribute to increasing poverty, hindering the development activity proposed by the Alburnus Maior association.

The RMGC good-neighborhood program, for example, does not lead to increased community cohesion and civic spirit, as vulnerable people are offered help by RMGC employees, especially paid for this, not as a result of mobilizing the community to help the ones in need. At the same time, the free internet hall, the free training programs, the free mici and beer parties do not represent sustainable actions and do not teach the community how to solve its own problems.

3.2.4. The Rosia Montana Development Foundation Taking into account the fact that PDDC does not represent a sustainable program, the very existence of the Foundation is questionable. It is not stated anywhere when this Foundation will be established, and when it will become independent from RMGC. At the same time, the fact that the Foundation is responsible for the PDDC implementation and it is P. 110.

Plan for the sustainable development of the community, p. 115 116 Bran, Paul (coord.) - Componenta ecologica a strategiei de dezvoltare economica a zonei Muntilor Apuseni, Studiu de caz Rosia Montana, editura ASE, Bucuresti, 2003 Olaru Zainescu, Sorana - Dezvoltare durabila alternativa mineritului la Rosia Montana, Analiza resurselor si elemente de strategie, Asociatia Alburnus Maior, 2006 114 115

148

100% independent from RMGC represents a denial of responsibility to the community. As a result, PDDC and the moral guarantees offered by RMGC to the community are false.

The activities of the Foundation copy the activities already implemented by the Alburnus Maior Association and partners. In support of this, we refer to page 122 in the study, chapter 9.6.7.Visiting Rosia Montana – the Tourist Information Center, the Cultural Center and the Mining Museum. In Rosia Montana there is already a tourist information center at Alburnus Maior headquarters, and the Golden Way project is also implemented by Alburnus Maior and partners.

3.3. Conclusions to the notes on the Plan for the sustainable development of the community The concepts of sustainable development, community development and community sustainable development are misinterpreted in order to justify the RMGC project and PDDC as sustainable.

No reference is made to theoretical and/or practical work in the field in order to define the above-mentioned terms.

No reference is made to the framework program for sustainable development implementation, Local Agenda 21.

PDDC is not structured according to the widely accepted principles of sustainable planning.

PDDC starts from false premises and it is neither initiated nor endorsed by the community. No inhabitant of Rosia Montana has opted so far for relocation to the new settlement.

PDDC refers exclusively to the Rosia Montana community, although at the beginning it states that the communities in Abrud and Campeni will also be included. Moreover, PDDC does not take into account the specific conditions created as a result of the resettlement and relocation process.

Considering all the above-mentioned aspects, we believe that PDDC and the Rosia Montana Development Foundation do not represent viable alternatives for the sustainable development of the area.

149

References Agentia de Dezvoltare Centru - Plan de dezvoltare al Regiunii „Centru” pentru perioada 2007-2013 Asociatia Romana de dezvoltare comunitara, Fondul Roman de Dezvoltare Sociala – Ghidul facilitatorului în comunitate Balogh, Márton; Bosovcki, Amanda; Dragos, Dacian C., Hintea, Calin Emilian; Hosu, Ioan Facilitator comunitar, ghid de pregatire, Fundatia Civitas pentru Societatea Civila, ClujNapoca, 2003 Bran, Paul (coord.) - Componenta ecologica a strategiei de dezvoltare economica a zonei Muntilor Apuseni, Studiu de caz Rosia Montana, editura ASE, Bucuresti, 2003 Cernea, Michael M. - Involuntary Resettlement in Development Projects: Policy Guidelines in World Bank-Financed Projects, World Bank Technical Paper Number 80. Washington, D.C., 1998 Cernea, Michael M. - Involuntary Resettlement: Social Research, Policy, and Planning. In Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991 Chambers, Robert - The Social Consequences of Resettlement, London: Pall Mall Press, 1970 COMISIA EUROPEANA, DIRECTIA GENERALA XVI, POLITICA REGIONALA SI COEZIUNE, Coordonarea si evaluarea interventiilor, document de lucru 3, Indicatori de monitorizare si evaluare: orientari metodologice Frank, F; Smith, A. - The community development handbook, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1999 Herve, Emilie si Jolivel, Amelie - Diversification economique on zone rurale miniere: le choix du diagnostic territorial come outil de reflection, Alburnus Maior, 2004.

Institute for Sustainable Communities - A Guide to implementing Local Environmental Action Programs, Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, 2000 Muresan, M (coord.); Hosu, I.; Savulescu, Al. - Elaborarea strategiilor de dezvoltare durabila la nivel local, Fundatia Civitas pentru Societatea Civila, Cluj-Napoca, 2002.

Korten, David C. - When the Corporation Rules the World, Kumarian Press Inc., USA, 1995.

Olaru Zainescu, Sorana - Dezvoltare durabila alternativa mineritului la Rosia Montana, Analiza resurselor si elemente de strategie, Asociatia Alburnus Maior, 2006 Recensamantului Populatiei si al Locuintelor 2002, Vol I Populatie- Structura demografica Recensamantului Populatiei si al Locuintelor 2002, Volum II - Populatie Structura Social – Economica

150

151

Sorana Toma Ion Campineanu 20A, ap 41 Bucharest 0040 722388466 stoma@gwu.edu

An Assessment of the Resettlement and Relocation Action Plan for Rosia Montana

152

153

Sorana Toma Ion Campineanu 20A, ap 41 Bucharest 0040 722388466 stoma@gwu.edu

An Assessment of the Resettlement and Relocation Action Plan for Rosia Montana The following information concerns the Resettlement and Relocation Plan (RRAP) presented

by RMGC for the Rosia Montana project.

The arguments herein are based on my experience in the field of development and involuntary resettlement. My perspective on this topic is influenced by the work of Professor Michael Cernea, a reputed expert on involuntary resettlement with the World Bank.

Professor Cernea has guided my research and at his suggestion and request I wrote this assessment report of the resettlement and relocation plan. First of all, from an ethical perspective, development projects which incur the resettlement and/or relocation of the community, and the departure from the native lands have to be based on sound reasons.

The trauma caused by uprooting has been repeatedly demonstrated so that a project of this nature must demonstrate its public utility and clearly show that it is worth subjecting the population to a pressure of this kind.

RMGC cannot claim that the gold mining project will be undertaken for the “benefit of the community”, in a manner similar to that a public utility project, for instance the building of infrastructure. This is a private project, designed to make profit even if emphasis will be put on the subsequent sustainable development of the affected community. In any case, the project titleholder has not managed to put up a convincing case about the development potential and public utility of the project. Consequently there are no adequate circumstances for resettlement and relocation. Nevertheless, the resettlement and relocation program was started in 2002, “at the request of the community”, the company claims. Given the fact that RMGC is boasting about the support it has from the majority of the people in the village, for the proposed project, it is likely that a large section of the community chooses the relocation package and moves to Piatra Alba, the new village, in order to benefit from all the advantages that stem from this process. Contrary to these expectations, to date, no request has been made for relocation on Piatra Alba.

In the Non-Technical Summary of the EIA this fact is acknowledged: “from the population impacted by the resettlement and relocation process, 42% have opted for a relocation plan according to the provisions of the RRAP. The other 58% of the community is waiting for the results of the EIA”117. This fact demonstrates that the resettlement plan is not regarded as an opportunity by the local community since the choice of those who have decided to sell their properties has been to leave Rosia Montana rather than to partake in the “sustainable development” process. Also on the topic of public utility, it is estimated that there will be a number of 1200 jobs created in the development phase and 560 in during exploitation even though there is no specific data available about the required qualifications and the community’s capacity to attain those qualifications. On the other hand, in the construction phase, the works will be contracted out to companies that will bring their own workforce. The employment policy that is being developed is not a satisfactory commitment to guarantee the employment of workforce from within the local community.

117

the non-technical summary, section 2, Rosia Montana Project, p. 8

154

Compared to the number of employees in the mining sector, 1288 in 2004 118, it is obvious that the RMGC does not offer a sustainable solution for the employment issue. Moreover, the loss of the native lands and the cultural space of the community creates powerful alienation, family tragedies and a feeling of nostalgia for the native places. The marginalization of resettled people is directly proportional to the loss of the space considered “home”. Feeling unjustly treated people lose their self-respect, feel stigmatized, lose their social status and develop a refugee mindset for the rest of their lives. In this specific case, when a part of the community does not accept and is against the relocation and resettlement plan, debates about an eventual development based on these principles is unacceptable.

The strong opposition against the project is in fact the main reason why the mining project has not been deemed a public utility project.

In the case of a project which entails the dislocation of the community, only when it’s been demonstrated that the project is useful and desired by the community and that the involuntary resettlement process has been scaled down as much as possible 119 , the design of the resettlement and relocation plan begins. The social impact of the RMGC project is divided into forms of direct and indirect impact120. Although it is mentioned that the forms of direct impact, actually the most important ones, are discussed in the RRAP, such a document does not exist in the EIA study. Furthermore, in the EIA there are several references made to the RRAP even though this is not a part of the EIA. Given the importance of this document, we regard its absence from the EIA as a grave mistake, particularly because of the fact that an analysis of this plan cannot be considered by the Ministry for the Environment and Water Management’s technical team that will evaluate the EIA. Therefore, the document cannot be regarded as being an official one.

Even an overview of the RRAP can point out a set of major background deficiencies. The World Bank recommends that the resettlement of the population whose livelihood is dependent on working the land be made according to a “land for land” strategy (O.P. 4.12 Para. 11). In other words, the resettlement plan must assure the resettled people that the new location can cover their needs related to the agricultural works they had carried out-an equivalent for the plot of land which was ceded (O.P. 4. 12 Para 6b). For that reason, the rural resettlement plan has to be based on a very important indicator: the surface of land needed to recreate the productive base of the resettled people (Cernea, Economics of Involuntary Resettlement, 1999, a World Bank Publication).

But the area chosen by RMGC for relocation can not ensure that such a measure is respected. If all the locals in Rosia Montana opt for resettlement, a possible development which has to be considered, RMGC has to make sure that they can all continue their traditional way of life so that they are not overwhelmed by this change. The surface area that RMGC will use for the mining project is 1258 hectares out of which more than 1000 hectares are made up of private agricultural lands. The RRAP states the fact that approximately 50 hectares from the communal land is available in the new village Piatra Alba and added to 118

The community sustainable development plan, chapter 5, The Definition of the Community, p. 58

119

The World Bank’s primary requirement on involuntary resettlement, articulated in its resettlement policies-O.P. 4.12, is that it should be avoided in cases where viable and feasible alternatives exist or the possibility to minimize its effects

120

4.8. The social and economic environment, chapter 6, the potential impact, page 40. 4.8.

155

that, 50 hectares of private agricultural land. There is no information about the location in Alba Iulia. The rate for the land is 10 to 1 so the locals will not be able to continue working in the agricultural sector.

The RRAP does not comply with O.P. 4.12 Para. 11 and O.P. 4.12 Para 6b.

Another basic requirement of the World Bank’s resettlement policy is based on the “sufficient resources for investment” principle that states that the individuals resettled because of the project have the ability to resettle as independent producers or employees and benefit from the advantages the project offers (O.P. 4.12, Para. 2b). Many studies written by Michael Cernea and other international scientists have shown that the reestablishment of a community can not be attained through the mere compensation for the property that has been lost. The resettlement and relocation process has proved that, in spite of the reparation methods used, most of the people that have been relocated have come to be in a worse situation. Compensation cannot reassemble the lifestyle the impacted population had before resettlement. Even if additional measures are taken, compensation cannot be a warranty for the lifestyle promised by the investors.

Even if RMGC proposes measures, others than money compensations, the former are insufficient and inefficient, their sole effect very likely being an increase in the displaced population’s dependence on the mining project. The fact that the locals from Piatra Alba have a job with the mining company is not a sustainable way to support the local population.

All the retraining courses that will be offered during the first years of the project will be mining-related; tourism and agriculture-related activities cannot be undertaken concurrently with the mining project. Because a financial audit of the project is not available, the quantum of the investments and the profit to ensue cannot be estimated. This fact generates a lack of credibility about the company’s financial ability to finance the entire resettlement and relocation process and all the actions for the development of the community. Furthermore, responsibility for the development plan has been entirely delegated to an NGO, 100% independent from RMGC. There is no mention about the time when this foundation will be created and of the moment when it will become independent from RMGC. At the same time, the fact that this foundation is responsible for the implementation of the PPDC and is 100% independent from RMGC is evidence of a declining of the responsibility the company has assumed in front of the community and which it now denies by delegating it.

These are some general comment about the RRAP. A detailed analysis of the RRAP will be undertaken once it is included in the EIA. In conclusion, we ask the Environment Ministry to ask the titleholder to include the RRAP in the EIA before a decision on the application for an environmental license is taken. Given that the resettlement process was kick-started in 2002 we ask for the commissioning of an independent study and monitoring of this process that should establish whether the relocated population is happy with the new lifestyle and living conditions. These studies should be, in our opinion, the basis for the new RRAP to be presented by RMGC.

SORANA TOMA stoma@gwu.edu Address: Ion Campineanu, 20A, bl 18A, app 41 Cell :+40 0722388466 Bucharest, Romania Citizenship: Romanian

156

EDUCATION George Washington University Washington, DC Study abroad program of one year, September ’05 to May ’06. First year of Masters in International Development. Coursework included : Development and displacement, Development Anthropology; Race and Minority Relations Sorbonne University Paris, France B.A. in Social Studies, with honors, June 2005. Coursework included: social theory, statistics, macroeconomics, international development, political science City of Paris Scholarship for academic distinction.

“Saint Sava” high school Bucharest, Romania Graduated with honors, June 2002 WORK EXPERIENCE INTERLIS CONSULTANCY London, Great Britain Student researcher in the framework of a European research project for the French Post Office.

Conducted interviews, analyzed data and prepared a 100-page report on the usages of money and the post office

by British youth. Gained significant experience researching, interviewing, and writing. Collaborated with a team of 15 student researchers with different cultural backgrounds. Summer 2005 SAINT ANTOINE PUBLIC HOSPITAL Paris, France Intern in the patient admissions division. Analyzed the functioning of the admissions service. Designed questionnaires and observation guides. Identified problems and recommended changes in order to improve the service. Spring 2005 UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST, Master of Anthropology Romania Student researcher. Conducted fieldwork and data-analysis for a development project in two Romanian villages of the Black Sea. Worked closely with an architecture firm to design a regional development plan. Summer 2004 MUSEUM OF MAGIC Paris, France Translator, office assistant. Translated texts from English to French. Processed data, handled customer inquiries, organized files. September 2003- May 2004 MEDIA MONITORING AGENCY Bucharest, Romania Media analyst. Monitored and analyzed the image of Romania in the foreign press. 2002 – present WORLD BANK Bucharest, Romania Assistant, Interpreter. Assisted the production of a World Bank documentary on the HIV/AIDS in Romania; Researched, arranged meetings, acted as an interpreter. Summer 2002 ACTIVITIES AND INTERESTS Active volunteer involvement at the Community of EMMAUS (social reinsertion) of Pau, France , summer 2003 Tutoring in English for French students (ages 11 to 20) Fieldwork in the Danube Delta – observed and assisted students from the Romanian Master of Anthropology, 2002 Market research agent for Arthur, Clara et Cie : applied questionnaires on consumption habits Languages: English, French, Romanian, conversational Spanish and German Computer Skills: Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe Photoshop Interests: Travel, ballet, ski, international development, Romania

157

Robert E. Moran, Ph.D. Michael-Moran Assoc., LLC Water Quality/Hydrogeology/Geochemistry Golden, Colorado, U.S.A. remoran501@comcast.net

Review of the Rosia Montana Environmental Impact Assessment Report with a focus on water and water quality-related issues

158

159

Robert E. Moran, Ph.D. Michael-Moran Assoc., LLC Water Quality/Hydrogeology/Geochemistry Golden, Colorado, U.S.A. remoran501@comcast.net

“Why repeat past mistakes when there are so many new ones to commit?”

Descartes Review of the Rosia Montana Environmental Impact Assessment Report with a focus on water and water quality-related issues [All references to specific Environmental Impact Statement (EIA) volume and page numbers presented in this report pertain to the numbers on the covers of the Printed Version of the Rosia Montana Project (RMP) EIA. These numbers are different from the CD version of the EIA.]

Executive Summary This report focuses on water and water quality-related issues, those issues which normally cause the most serious and expensive, unforeseen, economic impacts and public liabilities at mining sites. 

The EIA is poorly organized, confusing and not comprehensive. In general, it is not possible to determine which specific individuals or companies authored which specific EIA sections and opinions, thereby avoiding any direct responsibility for authorship. It fails to meet many of the serious EIA-preparation criteria stated in Romanian Ministerial Order OM 863/2002, which describes the criteria of an acceptable EIA. In its present condition, the EIA is not suitable to allow the public or regulators to reasonably evaluate impacts. Much of this EIA has been written in the style of a public relations document, not a technical document. Despite repeated claims, the EIA was not prepared by independent consultants and compiled in an independent manner. Portions of the EIA appear to have been deliberately manipulated to minimize the exposure of unfavorable aspects and impacts.



The Rosia Montana Project (RMP) site is seriously contaminated from recent, State-owned mining activities. Unfortunately, the EIA does not adequately define the extent of the specific chemical constituents causing the water quality contamination. It presents data for an overly-simplified list of chemical constituents [pH, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, chromium, selenium, sulfate, and bicarbonate] , and neglects to present adequate data for numerous other environmentally-important metals and metal-like elements such as: aluminum, antimony, chromium +6, cobalt, copper, iron, lithium, manganese, molybdenum, strontium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc; numerous anions such as: nitrate, ammonia, chloride, fluoride; natural radioactive constituents such as: uranium, radium, strontium, thorium, potassium-40, gross alpha and beta; organic compounds relating to massive use of fuels, oils, chemical reagents, explosives, etc.; cyanide (WAD and Total) and related decomposition products, such as thiocyanate and cyanate. The RMGC data base contains data for many of these constituents, but their presence was not summarized or clearly revealed in the EIA.



Information from past RMP site activities and contamination at similar gold mines and processing sites around the world indicates that cyanide was probably used to 159

process the existing tailings and, in addition, that it is only reasonable to evaluate the presence of natural radioactivity at this site. Neither the presence of cyanide or radioactive elements in the water and soil baseline data has been revealed in the EIA. This appears to be an effort to: 1) minimize the environmental and health impacts resulting from past State-operated activities; and 2) avoid developing a quantitatively-defensible baseline water quality data base that could be used to reliably define future RMGC liabilities that might result from the proposed project. 

Do the terms of the RMP project agreements between the Romanian State and RMGC absolve RMGC from all responsibility for environmental and health liabilities, past and future?



The EIA fails to adequately define the specific baseline conditions—especially for surface water, ground water, health and impacts from the existing tailings and existing processing plant. It fails to present recent baseline data. This leaves many important questions about responsibility and liability— past, present and most importantly future—unanswered.



The Health Baseline studies failed to collect samples of fingernails, hair, blood or urine from citizens within the impacted area. Data from such data would allow development of a quantitative health baseline.



The EIA assumes that, following closure and remediation, all pre-existing impacts will have disappeared, long-term. This is one more unsubstantiated promise— especially because existing facilities such as the Abrud and Saliste tailings are unlined and unremediated. They will continue to release contaminated leachates long-term. It appears that the RMP remediation will not involve the collection and treatment of contaminated leachates presently being released from the existing tailings.



The EIA is not reliable for predicting or realistically evaluating environmental and related future impacts. Therefore, it is not suitable to define the realistic financial liabilities for investors.



Acid rock drainage and other contamination are likely long-term impacts that will occur at this site, post-closure. The EIA contains foolishly-optimistic, predictive statements regarding the likelihood of ARD. As a result of the activities proposed in the EIA, the RMP water quality, in general, will improve while the RMP is being actively operated and maintained. It is much less certain how effective the proposed measures will be for mitigating long-term, post-closure ARD and related contamination.



Responsible financial assurance measures should be implemented and they should assume the need for operation and maintenance of perpetual, active water treatment facilities---if E.U. Guidelines are to be met. Without long-term collection of effluents (direct and indirect discharges) and active treatment, area streams and ground waters will likely fail to meet appropriate water quality criteria and be toxic to many aquatic organisms and most fishes. These impacts may not become obvious until many years following mine closure.



The EIA neglects to evaluate the likely reasonable economic costs of environmental and health impacts, including price inflation, past and present.

.

160



Despite the need to utilize massive quantities of water in RMP operations, the EIA makes no mention of the costs related to water use or water contamination. As usual, they are “externalized” in the EIA.



The EIA public consultation and disclosure process is a charade. It does not reasonably inform the public of options or likely impacts, and fails to allow actual dialogue at the public consultations. This EIA and its related disclosure process fail to reveal much of the important environmental and health information, preventing a reasonable evaluation of the trade-offs to be made by the public.



Romanian authorities at all levels have failed to adequately protect the public or to assist it in evaluating and understanding the actual environmental and health impacts resulting from the past mineral development-related impacts at Rosia Montana. Romanian mining and environmental agencies clearly lack the institutional capacity and will necessary to enforce the appropriate laws. Under these regulatory conditions where mines are essentially self-regulated, adequate remediation and long-term clean-up are unlikely to occur. The long-term costs will ultimately fall on the Romanian and E.U. taxpayers.



This project, if proposed at a comparable site in the E.U., the U.S.A., or Canada, would not receive regulatory approval.

1. Introduction Purpose and Scope The following report is intended to provide a brief, technical review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Rosia Montana Project [RMP], (Gabriel Resources, May 2006). This report does not discuss all aspects of the EIA, but focuses on water and water quality-related issues, those issues which normally cause the most serious and expensive, unforeseen, economic impacts and public liabilities at mining sites. It is intended to express viewpoints and perspectives that are not discussed, or are inadequately discussed by the mining company.

RMGC has spent many millions of dollars to hire consultants and prepare this EIA. My responses are an attempt to illuminate some of the issues and viewpoints that RMGC and their consultants have failed to make public.

My participation in these activities was requested by the Romanian non-governmental organization (NGO) Alburnus Maior (AM), supported by funds from the Staples Trust / U.K. and the Open Society Foundation / Romania. Alburnus Maior provided technical and logistical support for my efforts, but the opinions expressed here are my own, and they may differ from those held by Alburnus Maior, or other portions of Romanian and EU civil society.

I fully recognize that there is presently a broad spectrum of opinions concerning approval of this project in Romanian society. At one end of the opinion spectrum are citizens concerned predominantly about obtaining jobs, at the other end are those, landowners such as members of Alburnus Maior, who totally oppose approval of the project. Many of the others are somewhere in the middle. All require reasonable information in order to understand the broader consequences and to form intelligent decisions.

161

The opinions presented here are neither pro- nor anti-mining. I have often worked for clients with both orientations. This report is not intended to tell the citizens and regulators what to do. Rather, it is intended to provide technical assistance to the general public and the Romanian government so that better informed decisions can be made and to constructively influence the public review process. The ultimate choices, however, must be made by the citizens and their elected representatives. They are the ones who will be personally impacted and held responsible.

These opinions were developed after reviewing all relevant portions of the RMP EIA, in both electronic and paper versions. The electronic version was obtained in June 2006 from the official internet link provided by the Romanian government, and the printed volumes, in English, were provided to me by Alburnus Maior after receiving them from John Aston, Vice President of Rosia Montana Gold Corp. (RMGC) in Rosia Montana on August 1, 2006. I also reviewed a copy of the Technical Report of the RMP (Gabriel Resources, March 2006) provided by RMGC. In addition, my opinions were informed by my activities in Romania (July 31 through August 25, 2006), which included: several visits to the mine site and the general region, including Bucium; meetings with representatives of RMGC staff reviewing project details, details of the EIA, and numerous aspects of other RMGC water quality and geochemistry data files not included or summarized in the EIA; meetings with the Romanian Academy; conversations with local citizens, several former employees of the former State-owned mining company, and local and national NGOs; collection of tailings samples; and participation at public consultations in Cluj Napoca. Lastly, these opinions are informed by more than 34 years of applied hydrogeological and geochemical experience.

RMGC was cooperative in allowing me to review selected reports and data and in responding to technical questions. In addition, representatives of Alburnus Maior and myself were taken on a tour of the site by Mr. John Aston, Vice President of RMGC who answered numerous questions regarding the EIA documents, data, and proposed project.

2. Background The Rosia Montana Project (RMP) is located near the village of Rosia Montana in westcentral Romania approximately 50 km northwest of the regional capital, Alba Iulia in the Metaliferi Mountains which belong to a larger, regional mountain unit called the Apuseni Mountains of Transylvania.

RMP is owned and managed by Rosia Montana Gold Corp. S.A. (RMGC), which is a joint venture formed between Gabriel Resources Ltd. of Canada (80%), MINVEST (National Company for Copper, Gold and Iron Minvest S.A.) a company owned by the Romanian government (19.31%), and three Romanian minority shareholders: Cartel Bau, Foricon S.A., and Comat S.A. (each with 0.23%).

Gabriel Resources and its subsidiary, RMGC, are staffed by several senior members having significant relevant experience, but neither entity has previously operated a mine.

RMGC is proposing to operate an open pit gold and silver mine by redeveloping and expanding an existing mine that has been operated using both underground and open pit methods since before Roman times--- for roughly 2000 years. Much of the proposed project site is significantly contaminated by the previous mining activities, especially those of the Romanian-government owned operations. Contamination sources include, predominantly, tailings, waste rock, and draining underground workings. However, the

162

proposed mine production is planned to be roughly 40 times larger than the state-owned operation.

The project is presently designed to have an operating life of about 19-20 years, with processing continuing for approximately 16 years, based on the presently-defined ore. The 24 hr. / 7 day-per–week operation will include a processing plant using conventional cyanide leaching techniques, combined with cyanide decomposition facilities. The EIA indicates that the plant operations will require about 238 to 251 liters / sec. of water (Water, Vol.11, pg. 36). However, on pg. 33 of the Water report it states that extraction from the Abrud River is likely to be 360 cu. meters per hour (100 L / sec.).

Some of the relevant operational and environmental details include:  site elevation is between approximately 500 and 1200 m above sea level (ASL) --site annual precipitation ranges between about 600 and 1000 mm.  four open pits [total depths between about 220 to 260 m]  total wastes generated: approximately 471,831,000 tons [ EIA, Waste, V. 10, pg. 31].  waste rock: approximately 256,900,000 tons [EIA, V.10, pg. 30-31]. overburden: approx. 590,000 cubic meters, or about 790,000 tons [EIA, V. 10, pg.31].  tailings produced: between approx. 214,905,000 and 256,926,000 tons [numerous different quantities are cited in the EIA (i.e. EIA, V. 8, pg. 17-18; V. 8, pg. 57; Vol. 10, pg. 56, etc.]. Tailings dam maximum height: 185 m.

Based on the Gabriel Resources Technical Report (2006), the project will have an operating cost for gold production averaging $181 per ounce for the first five years, and $237 per ounce over the life of the mine. The EIA, V. 19, states that the presently defined gold and silver reserves are 10,100,000 ounces and 47,600,000 ounces, respectively, with an anticipated total production of about 8,000,000 ounces of gold and 28,800,000 ounces of silver. [Volume 8, pg. 77 of the EIA states that estimated total metal production will be the same as the reserves cited above: 10.1 M ounces of gold and 47.6 M ounces of silver].

The Technical Report (2006, pg. 12) states that it “….has confirmed the technical feasibility and economic viability of producing an estimated 7.9 million ounces of gold and an estimated 29 million ounces of silver from the property….”.

The Non Technical Summary (Vol. 19, pg. 7) states that the RMP project will require the resettlement of 974 households. No further discussion on the impacts of such resettlement is included in the EIA. Instead it appears that this evaluation has been put into a separate report, the Resettlement and Relocation Action Plan (RRAP) available at: www.rmgc.ro, which is referred to several times in the EIA. However the RRAP is not included within the EIA. The NTS further states that all land decisions will be voluntary and will follow the World Bank’s involuntary resettlement recommendations. This wording seems to imply that the RMP can be reconfigured to fit any potential land situation that might arise. This conclusion seems unrealistic.

Modern open pit mining relies predominantly on the use of mechanized equipment and massive quantities of explosives and chemicals to extract gold and silver from the rock.

For example, below are the quantities of some of the fuels, processing chemicals and explosives expected to be used during the 17-year life of the RMP (Vol. 7, Chapt. 1, General Information, Tables 1-2, and 1-3, pg.15-16): Quantities Gasoline 13,948,500 L Diesel Fuel 279,786,000 L Lubricants 3,570,000 L 163

Fuel Oil Hydrochloric acid Lime Sodium cyanide Sodium hydroxide Sodium metabisulfite Ammonium nitrate Copper sulphate

290,394 tons = 263,994,540 kg 39,100 tons 918,000 tons 204,000 tons = 185,454,540 kg 34,000 tons = 31,000,000 kg 221,000 tons 79,220 tons = 72,018,180 kg 1,563,636,000 kg

Most of the materials listed above are classified as hazardous substances, and significant quantities are routinely released into the environment at modern gold mining sites.

3. EIA General Comments Characteristics of the Report Despite being an enormous compilation of 33 volumes, at least 4500 pages in length, the EIA fails to truly provide the public or regulators with a technically-coherent basis on which to judge the adequacy of the proposed project. Most volumes are poorly organized with numerous sections repeated over and over in various volumes. Sections, figures and tables are often inconsistently arranged and numbered, so that it is difficult to follow the meaning.

There is no detailed Table of Contents for the entire EIA, and very strangely, the first attempt to present the reader any sort of overall summary is not to be found until Volume 19---the Non Technical Summary! In the RMP EIA, basic discussions of water resources are incoherently scattered throughout numerous volumes with little attempt to integrate the data and concepts. Hence it is unnecessarily difficult to interpret the validity of the conclusions.

Worst of all, the EIA fails to coherently and adequately summarize the most important data and information regarding specific, quantitative baseline conditions for water resource availability, water quality, geochemistry, health, etc. Instead of focusing on summaries of data and information in simple tables and figures, the EIA compilers have frequently substituted volumes of words, often in the form of predictions, promises or computer simulations-- rather than presenting the actual data. Such an approach is common at proposed mining sites, especially those of the smaller, “junior” companies, where there is no existing cash flow. Hence the proponents attempt to save money by not drilling and completing monitoring wells, for example. More disturbing is the fact that crucial data have been withheld from this public document, or have been misleadingly edited, especially with respect to baseline water quality.

A flagrant example is the chapter in Volume 1, entitled Sediment Contaminants Baseline Report, prepared by Fluvio, a technical group within the Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences at the University of Wales. Based on the directly-worded Executive Summary, this study involved, among several tasks, the detailed sampling and analysis of water quality and sediment samples from 421 sites during the years 2002 through 2004, from throughout the RMP and surrounding region. Despite this broad scope, the Fluvio report has been edited such that most of the technical data and conclusions concerning the water quality findings are largely gone. Hence the report in its present form is referred to as a “Sediment Contaminants Baseline Report”, which is extremely misleading. The original authors have clearly indicated these problems by stating that both edited and complete compilations of the Fluvio water quality and sediment data bases are included on

164

an accompanying CD (see pg. 11, Vol. 1). No such CD or summaries of the actual Fluvio data are included in or with the EIA. Additional issues related to the Fluvio report are discussed below in the Water Quality Baseline responses.

Returning to the overall RMP EIA, it fails to adequately define and describe some of the information most crucial for evaluating the existing physical status of the site and potential impacts of the proposed activities. Of particular concern are the following:  inadequately defined the existing water quality, the baseline—especially for sources of water supply and ground water;  a health baseline that is largely useless quantitatively;  inadequately defines alluvial and bedrock ground water resources, both in terms of availability and water quality;  fails to adequately discuss connections between the existing contamination and the elevated incidences of disease conditions in the local populations.

Responsible Authors It is impossible for the reader to readily determine which companies or individuals actually prepared and authored most of the individual volumes, chapters, sections, and specific conclusions. Thus, there is no way to ascribe specific responsibility for the statements and conclusions. Also, there is no obvious way to determine whether the conclusions were made by firms and, most importantly, individuals with significant, relevant mining-related experience. It is clear in several sections that many of the authors, whoever they are, do not have the requisite specific experience.

Pages iii through vii of Volume 19 present listings of the various firms and contact individuals at these firms that participated in the preparation of the EIA. However, these lists fail to state who authored what! Volume 7, Chapt. 1, (General Information), pg. 7-9 again presents a similar list, and calls it: “Certified Author of EIA Study”. Again it is impossible to determine which sections and opinions were authored by which groups and individuals. Comparable EIAs prepared in the EU, Canada or the U.S.A., often prepared by similar large teams, make clear which firms and usually which senior individuals were responsible for preparing specific sections and conclusions. They also normally summarize the technical backgrounds of the main contributors, specifying the numbers of years of mining-related or other relevant experience. No such information is provided in the RMP EIA. Many of the water-related conclusions are based on work presented in detailed Engineering Reports which have not been included as Appendices to the EIA---which is normally done for comparable EIAs. As a result, there is no way that a technical reviewer can verify that the opinions presented in the EIA correspond to those presented by the original authors.

This confusing and imprecise manner of ascribing authorship of specific sections and opinions in the EIA is clearly prohibited by Romanian Ministerial Order, OM 863 / 2002 —“for approval of the methodological guidelines applicable to the stages of the environmental impact assessment framework procedure”. This Order is discussed below.

“Independence” of the Contributors Throughout the EIA, both in the text and on various tables and figures, the contributing consultants are repeatedly labeled as “independent”. This designation is, charitably 165

speaking, misleading. As far as can be determined, all of the contributors were directly or indirectly selected, directed and compensated by the staff of RMGC / Gabriel. This is clearly not an “independent” team of experts.

Much of the wording style is that of a public relations document or advertisement, especially that of the Non Technical Summary (NTS), rather than that of a technical document. It minimizes most of the negative aspects--both present and future impacts--by providing verbal assurances and promises instead of technical data. It would have been much more useful to describe, statistically, how the impacts at Rosia Montana compare, and are likely to compare, to those at the hundreds of similar gold mines around the world.

What have been the long-term impacts at such sites, statistically? In this way, one could make comparisons that are statistically-reasonable. Instead the EIA pretends to be able to quantitatively, deterministically, predict the future impacts, often using computer simulations. Such predictions, throughout the mining world, have been proven to be highly inaccurate and are generally overly optimistic.

Utility of the EIA Apparently, by presenting such a massive EIA, filled with optimistic predictions and promises, it is hoped that the public and regulators will be confident and certain that the future impacts are known. Unfortunately, this EIA is seriously flawed and does not allow the public or regulators to adequately evaluate the reasonably-expected impacts.

In addition, by presenting such a massive, poorly-organized, and confusing EIA, a company can respond to difficult public questions by dismissively saying, in essence: Read the EIA; the answer is there. Or they can respond: Obviously you have not read the complete EIA, or you would understand that we have answered that question previously.

EIA Process Details: Romanian Guidance Romanian Ministerial Order OM 863/2002 [subtitled: “for approval of the methodological guidelines applicable to the stages of the environmental impact assessment framework procedure”] contains two sections that provide specific and clear directions to the Romanian authorities on how to evaluate an EIA: 1-A list describing the specific contents that must be included in an EIA; 2-A checklist that must be used by Romanian authorities to evaluate the completeness and acceptability of any EIA. Review of this checklist must occur following the public consultations.

It is obvious that the RMGC EIA fails to comply with numerous aspects of Ministerial Order 863 / 2002, as will be demonstrated repeatedly below.

Role of Romanian Authorities: RMP EIA RMGC has been working closely with the Romanian authorities for many years, since 1997. The Exploitation License allowing RMGC / Gabriel to mine and process gold and silver was awarded by the Romanian government in June 1999. It was officially transferred from MINVEST, the State mining company, to RMGC in October 2000. Despite this permit situation, mining at Rosia Montana has been conducted by MINVEST until June 2006, when active mining and processing ceased.

It is common knowledge that hundreds of severely-contaminated mining and mineral processing sites exist in Romania. Officially, it is the responsibility of the National Agency 166

for Mineral Resources (NAMR) to coordinate the promotion and licensing of mining.

However, it is the responsibility of the Ministry for the Environment and Water Management to evaluate the quality and adequacy of the RMP EIA. Despite the fact that open-pit mining has been conducted at Rosia Montana since the 1970’s, no Romanian agency, national or regional, has taken the responsibility to actually oversee environmental activities at the mine. To add to the confusion, the regional Environmental Guard in Alba Iulia has the theoretical responsibility to investigate environmental matters at Rosia Montana, but only when requested, or when an accident occurs.

In 2006, it seems the mining industry is still largely self-regulating. Many of the negative aspects of the RMP EIA and the recent operations criticized in this report should have been detected and corrected previously by the appropriate regulatory agencies.

Volume 7, (General Information), pg. 6 states that all liability for previous mining and processing activities remain the responsibility of Minvest. It is important for the Romanian and EU citizens to know whether the future liabilities that may develop from the RMP will also remain, technically, the responsibility of Minvest.

4. EIA Process: Public Consultation My participation at the RMP public consultation meeting in Cluj on August 7, 2006, showed me that hundreds of citizens attended the meeting and most stayed from the beginning to the end---from about 1630 on August 7, until about 0400 on August 8. Nevertheless it also became clear that the structure of the entire process was controlled by RMGC, preventing any actual dialogue. The majority of the first hour and a half was a public relations presentation on the RMP by RMGC. The public was then allowed to ask questions or make comments verbally from the floor, but rather than conducting an interactive response with the questioner, the company representative simply supplied a stock answer, or made a non-response reply. In all cases, RMGC had the final say, which allowed them to shape the final wording. This is not real public consultation; it is a charade. It gives the impression that civil society has a significant role, but it really doesn’t and hasn’t.

When this form of largely-meaningless Public Consultation is coupled with such an incomplete, disorganized and biased EIA, it should be obvious to any observer that the general public is not truly encouraged to provide substantive input into the project approval process.

5. EIA Report : Technical Comments The following comments discuss some of the most important technical issues the general public and regulators need to understand in order to evaluate an EIA. They discuss only selected aspects of the EIA. The RMP EIA presents baseline data that are incomplete and which do not allow a reader to adequately evaluate the pre-mining water quantity conditions. To a lesser extent the baseline water quality data are also inadequate, especially with respect to ground water quality. In addition these data are not organized and summarized in a fashion that makes it easy for the regulators or the general public to evaluate either the pre-mining conditions or the future impacts.

Hydrogeology Baseline / Ground Water Quantity 1

• What quantities of ground water can be extracted from the water-bearing rocks and sediments at the RMP project site, prior to mining?

2 167

Throughout numerous, uncoordinated volumes, the EIA repeatedly states that significant ground water does not exist within the RMP site. However, the EIA fails to present the detailed technical information to support this contention.

Acceptable EIAs prepared for comparable projects inevitably begin the Hydrogeology discussions by clearly stating who preformed the specific hydrogeologic work and on what dates. The RMP EIA hydrogeologic information is, apparently, based on work performed during 2003 and before. Therefore it does not reflect present conditions.

It is unclear exactly which group performed which work; the maps and text have different names on them.

Secondly, acceptable EIAs present tables that summarize the technical details for all of the sources of ground water information (springs, hand-dug wells, boreholes, constructed monitoring wells, piezometers) used to generate the conclusions. Such tables identify, both by general category and by specific site the water-yielding zone (if known), the construction details of the wells, boreholes and piezometers (total depths, diameters of boreholes, casing and perforation information, details on methods to develop the wells or boreholes, the estimated or measured yields of springs, etc. In addition, they provide tabular summaries, by specific well, borehole, etc., the technical details that summarize any hydrogeologic testing that was performed. For example, such tables summarize the types of specific tests performed (slug or bail tests, packer tests, pumping tests) and the test details (test duration, pumping rates, etc.).

The RMP EIA fails to present such detailed summaries, and no testing details are provided. More importantly, it appears the hydrogeologic conclusions were developed without adequate drilling or adequate testing of either the alluvial or bedrock aquifers.

Table 4.1, Hydrogeology Baseline (Vol.2) indicates that the alluvial deposits have the capability to transmit significant quantities of water. It also indicates, qualitatively, that ground water is likely to be encountered in the weathered zones of the shallow bedrock and possibly in several other bedrock zones, largely due to movement along fractures and faults. Despite stating that the presence of ground water is likely in these zones, RMGC did not direct their consultants to perform the testing necessary to quantify the hydrogeologic details.

The EIA presents no evidence that long-term aquifer tests have been performed for either the alluvial or bedrock water-bearing units. Thus, it is not possible to reliably define the quantities of ground water present at the site. Apparently no deep ground water wells have been constructed within the project area.

The Hydrogeology Baseline Report [in Vol. 2] gives the appearance of having much subsurface hydrogeologic information, but in fact, it contains predominantly information on alluvial ground water flow directions (Figure 4.1) and some limited discussion of the subsurface engineering conditions near the proposed TMF. This information on alluvial water levels and flow directions is based on old data and may not reflect present conditions. No comparable data are presented for any of the bedrock zones.

Figure 4.1 shows the presence of only 4 locations designated “monitoring wells”. Other parts of the EIA [Water Baseline Report (Vol.1)] refer to these four locations as “monitoring boreholes”. The actual construction details of these 4 monitoring locations are undefined, therefore it is unclear whether they were originally drilled as narrow diameter exploration or 168

geotechnical boreholes, or if they were ever actually completed (gravel-packed, cased, developed, etc.) as true monitoring wells. These uncertainties suggest that the 4 sites were never completed as actual wells.

It is of greater significance to note that there are only 4 boreholes within the entire RMP site with which to sample ground water. This conclusion is of most significance for defining the ground water baseline conditions---see discussions below.

There are numerous other sources of information within the EIA that indicate the presence of ground water, which RMGC has failed to define. For example, underground mines normally maintain detailed records on the volumes of water pumped out of the workings.

Where are these data? They are not mentioned in the EIA. Given the scale of the proposed operations and the depths to which the pits will be excavated, the public should be concerned about possible declines of water levels in hand-dug wells and possible reduction of flows at selected springs. What might be the future interactions between ground and surface waters? These aspects are not defined in the EIA. The Water EIA (Vol. 11, Chapt. 4.1), the Water Baseline Report (Vol. 1) and the Hydrogeology Baseline Report (Vol. 2) fail to provide any integrated discussion of ground water flow, availability, and ground water quality aspects. Similar studies usually conduct aquifer tests in which water quality samples are collected at various time intervals during the aquifer testing. In this way one is able to learn a great deal concerning the possible interconnection of various zones and the potential for the migration of contamination plumes.

Why was no ground water testing performed in the alluvial zones near the existing tailings impoundments? Such testing would have provided quantitative information on the hydraulic characteristics of the alluvium and information as to whether these zones are presently contaminated.

By failing to adequately define the shallow and bedrock ground water conditions, the public has no way of knowing the quantities of ground water actually available and are unable to realistically evaluate the extent of present ground water contamination. Thus the public and regulators will be unable to confirm or deny that the proposed activities have, for example, depleted existing ground waters or whether future ground water quality has gotten worse or better [see Water Quality discussions below].

Additional Technical Support for the opinions above is presented in the Appendices.

Baseline Water Quality 1 • What is the baseline (existing, pre-RMP) water quality of the surface and ground waters within the project area and areas likely to be impacted? What areas have already been impacted?

If an EIA fails to present reliable baseline water quality data [statisticallyrepresentative of all sources and seasonal variability], prior to the beginning of a project, there is no way for regulators or the public to quantitatively determine whether new impacts have been subsequently caused by the new activities. For the RMP, this is especially important due to the extensive past activities of Minvest. An 169

inadequate baseline data set prevents the public and regulators from evaluating the actual water quality impacts that have already occurred due to past activities, and their possible relationships to human health conditions, etc. Without adequate baseline data, there is no reliable mechanism for holding any party responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Mining baseline monitoring programs need to collect data that reveal possible contamination from a wide range of construction, mining and mineral processing activities.

These activities use tremendous quantities of processing chemicals, fuels and oils, explosives, etc.- all of which can generate contamination.

Baseline chemical samples should be collected and analyzed for a broad range of inorganic and organic compounds---much broader than the few parameters reported in either the EIA or the RMGC data files which I observed. Such analyses should include, as a minimum: field and lab pH, specific conductance, water temperature, together with total determinations (and in some cases dissolved determinations) of: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, zinc, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium, sulfate, nitrate, ammonia, boron, phosphorus, fluoride, chloride, and natural radioactive constituents (uranium, thorium, strontium, potassium-40, gross alpha and beta, in general), cyanide and related breakdown compounds (metal-cyanide complexes, cyanate, thiocyanate), organic carbon, oils and greases, together with a comprehensive scan for organic compounds, especially determinations that indicate the presence of fuels. Baseline data sets also need to include representative data on volumes of sediment and quality assurance / quality control parameters [i.e. total suspended sediments, turbidity, total dissolved solids, ion balances, etc.]

RMGC states that they have collected more complete water quality data than the constituents listed above, as is demonstrated by Table 3-8, Vol. 1, pg. 18. The full extent of RMGC’s water quality monitoring is unclear with respect to exact calendar dates and locations. RMGC showed me examples of the more complete water quality data files in their offices in Rosia Montana. However, it should be noted that these more complete data were not summarized in the EIA, which could easily have been done. Most importantly, many of these constituents that were not presented in the EIA are often the constituents that are most useful for making interpretations concerning the sources of contamination and their possible migration pathways [hydrogeologic and geochemical interpretations].

The EIA argues that a total compilation was too onerous and difficult for their database capabilities. However, such complete summaries are presented in most comparable EIAs all over the world.

Volume 1, State of the Aquatic Environment, contains a strangely-abridged report entitled: “Sediment Contaminants Baseline Report”, prepared by Fluvio, a technical group within the Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences at the University of Wales. As discussed above, the original objective of this report was: “The collation of all published and unpublished geochemical (water and sediment) data sets for the Abrud / Aries catchment and integration within a GIS database.” In addition Fluvio performed detailed sampling and analysis of water quality and sediment samples from 421 sites during the years 2002 through 2004, from throughout the RMP and surrounding region. Despite this broad scope, the Fluvio report has been edited such that most of the technical data and conclusions concerning the water quality findings are largely gone.

170

The Fluvio authors have clearly stated that both edited and complete compilations of the Fluvio water quality and sediment data bases are included on an accompanying CD (see Sediment Contaminants Baseline Report, pg. 11, Vol. 1). No such CD or summaries of the actual Fluvio data are included in or with the EIA. Why was this water quality information not included and integrated into the RMGC Water Baseline Report?

Again, the reader is made suspicious by the “Statement of Liability” on pg. 30. It states: “Whilst the University will use all reasonable endeavors to ensure the accuracy of the work performed and any information given, the University makes no warranty, express or implied, as to accuracy and will not be held responsible for any consequences arising out of any inaccuracies or omissions unless such inaccuracies or omissions are the result of negligence on the part of the university or its agents.” Such a Statement is an extremely unusual addition to any EIA document.

Based on information in the Fluvio report (pg. 39--44, and Figs. 9-1 thru 9-5), the original study included, among all the data, analytical results (2002-2004) for both water and sediment samples collected down gradient of the old tailings piles.

Additional Technical Support for these Baseline Conclusions are included in the Appendices.

Baseline Surface Water Quality The EIA states that several programs of baseline surface water quality monitoring have been conducted sporadically over many years (since at least 1998). A summary of surface water quality data is presented in Appendix A., but the tables fail to show the sampling dates, and baseline data for many important chemical constituents are lacking or are inadequate at numerous locations, as is discussed below.

The Water Baseline document (Vol. 1, pg. 9-10) describes field activities during only one month in 2000, and it is unclear what sampling occurred during 2001. RMGC provided me examples of the historic data on water draining from the 714 Adit, Site R085 [An adit is the entrance to an underground tunnel that is roughly horizontal.], from their more extensive computer data base. These data indicate that the Adit was sampled once in 2000 (late November); twice in 2001 (May and October); twice in 2002 (April and November); three times in 2003, 2004, 2005. RMGC stated that surface water monitoring was continuing, but that the later data had not been entered into the database. Hence, it appears that the baseline surface water quality data (Water Baseline, vol. 1 and Appendix A), represent very few samples from only 2000-2001, and most of the hydrogeologically-important constituents are missing (see discussion below).

EIA Volume 1, Water Baseline Report, presents only selected water quality data. Appendix A reports data for: pH, total (T) and dissolved (D) arsenic (As), T/ D cadmium (Cd), T/D Nickel (Ni), T/D Lead (Pb), mercury (Hg---assumed to be T, but it has no specific designation), T Chromium (Cr), selenium (Se---assumed to be T), sulfate (SO4, or using the British spelling, sulphate; usually reported as T), bicarbonate (HCO3, usually reported as T).

For both surface water and ground water quality baseline data, the EIA fails to compile a summary of the complete water quality data collected at all water monitoring locations from all dates. Additional surface water quality data collected during 1998 (March, April, May) 171

are presented in the Biological and Bacteriological Baseline Report (Vol. 1). For some unexplained reason, RMGC has chosen not to integrate these1998 data [V.1, pg. 11-14] into the baseline data base, even though these analyses report many more constituents than the analyses in the Water Baseline Report. Clearly, part of the difficulty is that, between 1998 and the present, different parties have collected samples, different sampling and handling methods may have been used, different laboratories and analytical procedures were likely employed. None of these specific parties or details are clearly identified in the EIA. For all of the above reasons, comparable EIAs around the world compile their baseline water quality data sets over a period of one to two years of intensive sampling---prior to the initiation of the operational phase.

The water quality data for Adit 714 (from 2000-2005) in the RMGC database indicate that extremely elevated concentrations of the following constituents, as a minimum, are capable of being released from the Rosia Montana ores and wastes under low pH conditions: arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, nickel, lead, zinc, antimony, chromium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, and selenium. These data indicate that “complete” baseline data set should be compiled for selected crucial surface water (and ground water) monitoring locations. Such a “complete” suite of constituents would include all or most of the constituents described at the beginning of the Baseline Water Quality section above. It is especially important that a revised / expanded baseline monitoring database be compiled which also includes nitrate, ammonia, uranium, common organic compounds and fuels, and cyanide [WAD and Total], together with cyanate and thiocyanate and radioactivity determinations.

Clearly, the list of baseline water quality constituents actually reported in the EIA is truncated in an attempt to avoid revealing the full extent of the existing contamination. Given the presence of large accumulations of processed tailings, it is imperative that cyanide concentrations be included in a revised compilation of baseline.

The Adit 714 data in the RMGC computer database shows only one determination for cyanide (Apr.19, 2002), with all the other dates reporting cyanide concentrations as “0”. It would be much more informative if one knew the actual detection limit for this cyanide determination. RMGC stated that the CN results were for Total CN, but the exact CN form was not specified on the table. It is of concern that no recent water quality data--representing either surface or ground waters--- are presented in the EIA from areas down gradient of any existing tailings piles.

Missing constituents: The surface water baseline in the EIA [V.1, Water Baseline] fails to include or discuss the following important constituents, as a minimum: cyanide (any form), nitrate, ammonia, chloride, fluoride, numerous metals and metal-like elements, organic compounds (petrol, kerosene, etc.), and radioactive constituents.

Because of the confused nature of the EIA, it is not possible to determine the detailed surface water baseline conditions of the RMP. In order to quantitatively define baseline surface water quality for the RMP, “complete” water quality data need to be collected monthly for at least a year from at least one monitoring station near the mouth of both the Rosia and Corna Valleys. Discussions with RMGC indicated that surface water site S010, near the mouth of Rosia Stream might be a suitable site for intensive monitoring. However, this has not been done. The baseline data presented in the EIA for S010 are totally inadequate in terms of the months sampled and the completeness of constituents analyzed and reported. Similar detailed baseline data should be compiled for

172

the sites near the mouth of Corna Stream and the Saliste Valley downgradient of the existing tailings, near its confluence with the Abrud River. .

Useful baseline data should also include the calculation of constituent loads [concentration x flow] for all environmentally important constituents. With such data, one can determine changes in the actual mass of chemical constituents, such as cadmium, moving through the system. Because RMGC maintains a weir at station S010, such calculations can be made and should be included in a revised baseline database.

Baseline Ground Water Quality [Note: See discussion in Baseline Hydrogeology section for more details on the inadequacies of the ground water program.]

The EIA presents no recent, baseline ground water quality data. No sampling dates are shown on any tables in Appendix A. Also, the text fails to describe the actual dates ground water samples were collected. The ground water quality baseline does not contain any data from actual constructed monitoring wells of known depths. These data come from a combination of springs, hand-dug wells, and, apparently, uncased boreholes. The geologic water-bearing zones that yield these waters are not identified.

Ground water quality baseline data are not interpreted with respect to the site hydrogeology. Several of the wells in both Corna and Rosia Valleys appear to be contaminated by mining waste sources. Unfortunately, because the list of chemical constituents presented in the EIA lacks some of the most informative constituents, such as nitrates, cyanide, etc.- it is not possible to verify these conclusions.

In acceptable mining EIAs, ground water quality samples are usually collected monthly or at least quarterly prior to compilation and release of the EIA. Acceptable EIAs routinely include baseline ground water monitoring wells constructed in areas near and down-gradient from the proposed mining and processing facilities, including proposed smelters, waste rock and tailings locations. Most reliable ground water studies require monitoring a minimum of three wells down-gradient of a possible contamination source. In such informative EIAs, baseline ground water quality and hydrogeology information are integrated to allow interpretation of contamination sources, flow mechanisms, and ground water-surface water interactions. The RMP EIA ground water baseline contains few if any of these attributes.

Figure 4.1 of the Hydrogeology Baseline shows only one down gradient monitoring borehole in each of the important RMP ground water flow paths: the Rosia Valley (R087), the Corna Valley (C165), and the Saliste Valley (D029).

Only one other monitoring borehole is shown on Figure 4.1, C166, the only other Corna Valley monitoring borehole that has been sampled. Unfortunately, that borehole would be covered by the proposed TMF, thus it is not a useful location for long-term monitoring and comparison to baseline conditions.

None of the specific completion details of these wells are presented (such as diameter, casing details, total depth), nor is the reader told, most importantly, the details describing how the samples were collected and handled. No collection dates are provided for any of the ground water baseline data in Appendix A, Volume 1.

Two ground water monitoring sites are located downgradient from the recently-active tailings impoundment in the Saliste drainage. These are hand-dug well D002, and monitoring borehole D029. No recent data for these two sites are presented in the EIA. 173

The older data reported in Tables 13 and 14 indicated that, at that time, these ground waters still contained adequate alkalinity to prevent pHs from dropping below about 6.0.

Recent, “complete� analyses are needed at these locations to verify that the tailings alkalinity has not been depleted.

The Hydrogeology Baseline Report states (pg. 6) that the Saliste Valley contains the existing Saliste tailings impoundment and is planned to contain the southwest portion of the plant site. Nevertheless, RMGC has failed to construct adequate monitoring wells / piezometers with which to evaluate the potential impacts to ground water quality, or to define baseline conditions in these two areas.

No recent ground water monitoring data are presented in the EIA for any locations down gradient of the old tailings in the Abrud drainage. Given the age of these tailings, it is likely that alkalinity and pH concentrations have dropped. Samples are needed in these areas to define the extent of ground water contamination.

The EIA contains little usable data with which to define the local ground water quality. Clearly, the EIA provides inadequate, quantitative information to allow the public to determine baseline water quality concentrations at the RMP. These data also raise concerns that numerous drinking water sources within both the Corna and Rosia Valleys may have been contaminated for some time.

International WQ Guidelines Appendix 1 is a summary of the international water quality Standards and Guidelines most relevant to the RMP. It compares the Standards and Guidelines from the World Bank, the United States, Canada and Romania. This table does not include Standards and Guidelines for most organic compounds. Note that many of the constituents listed in this table, for which international Standards exist, are not included in any of the RMP baseline water quality data reported in the EIA. Health Baseline Volume 5, Health Baseline, states that residents of Rosia Montana and other nearby villages exhibit elevated incidences of numerous disease conditions when compared to other populations. The results were obtained through the use of a medical questionnaire answered by citizens in and near the RMP, and comparisons to other national health statistics. This study, however, does not provide a quantitatively useful health baseline.

Given that local environmental conditions have been seriously degraded for many years, it would have been extremely informative if the study had involved the collection of blood, urine, hair, fingernails, etc. from a large number of these citizens---especially those that had worked at Rosia Montana and those that live near the existing tailings and other facilities. In this way, the potential relationships between the past environmental degradation and the reported health anomalies could have been evaluated. In addition, a quantitative health data base could have been compiled which would allow comparison to future, comparable samples. Apparently, no such samples have been collected. Their existence is not reported in the EIA. Section 6, Risk Assessment, describes supposed statistical relationships between health and environmental data. Unfortunately, the simple one to one correlations, such as the relation between soil mercury concentrations and hypertension, are far too simplistic to be of much value. Most toxicologists would argue that, in such environments, health impacts, 174

such as hypertension, are likely to be produced by the synergistic effects of several toxic substances working together.

ARD / Post-Closure Water Quality Acid rock drainage (ARD) is one of the most common and certainly the most expensive environmental impacts encountered at metal mine sites having significant quantities of sulfide-rich ores and wastes. Rosia Montana ores frequently have between 2 and 5 percent total sulfur, which indicates the presence of pyrite in significant concentrations.

Many of the waste rock types clearly have acid-generating tendencies. One need only review the existing RMGC water quality data or travel through the site to observe the strong tendency of numerous local rock types to generate ARD. Some RMP site wastes presently generate effluents having field pHs less than 2.9. If one considers a wide range of metal mine sites throughout the world, field pHs below 3.0 are not common. Such values indicate a strong tendency to generate ARD in the rocks.

The EIA states that: “The project is unusual as a mining operation in that, because of the existing contamination from historical mining activities, most of its impacts on the aquatic environment, particularly on water quality, will be beneficial.�[Vol. 11, Chapt. 4.1, Water, pg. 8].

This project is not actually so unusual. At least three similar sites at which I have had involvement come to mind--- all in the U.S.A.: the Summitville Mine in Colorado, the Red Dog Mine in Alaska, and the Zortman-Landusky Mine in Montana. All had previous, significant contamination, two from historic mining and one (Red Dog) from natural erosion of the ore body. In all three situations the parent corporations were Canadian companies, and the operators received their permits partly on the basis that the new activities would clean up the existing contamination. All three of these sites currently require operation of a full time water treatment facility, with no end in sight. Treatment at two of the sites, Zortman and Summitville is being paid by the U.S. taxpayers because both operations went into bankruptcy after severe, unpredicted water quality problems became obvious.

The RMP EIA authors make varying and conflicting statements and predictions throughout numerous EIA volumes about the tendency of the site wastes and facilities to ultimately generate ARD [ i.e.: Vol. 8, Chapt. 2, Technological Processes, pg. 129; Vol 10, Chapt. 3 [Waste], pg. 18, 20, 34, 36; Vol. 13, Chapt. 4.5, Subsoil Geology, pg. 21-31; Vol. 22, [Waste Management Plan, pg. 25; Vol. 11 [Potential Impacts], Chapt. 4.1, Water, pg.51, 55, 60, 65, etc. ]. Despite many of these naĂŻve and misleading statements, it appears obvious that regulators should take a conservative approach and assume that, in the long-term, ARD will be generated from several Rosia Montana sources, postclosure.

As a result of the activities proposed in the EIA, the RMP water quality, in general, will improve while the project is being actively operated and maintained. It is much less certain how effective the proposed measures will be for mitigating long-term, post-closure ARD and related contamination. Acid rock drainage and other contamination are likely long-term impacts that will occur at this site, post-closure.

In addition, the RMP geochemical data indicate that the public should be concerned with general long-term water quality degradation that will likely result from the release of contaminants, even without the formation of acid conditions. Such contamination is likely to result from the mobilization of numerous anions like nitrate, sulfate, ammonia, together with increased sediment loads, and total dissolved solids (TDS), and mobilization 175

of fuels, greases, and numerous metals and metalloids that are mobile at both acid and alkaline pHs, such as arsenic, aluminum, antimony, iron, manganese, mercury, lead, nickel, chrome, selenium, molybdenum, uranium, etc.

Sulfide Rock Much of the RMP rock will be sulfide-rich material. Additional evidence of the pervasive impacts associated with mining sulfide ores can be found by reading Todd and Struhsacker (1997). This study was commissioned by the mining industry in an attempt to favorably influence mining legislation in the State of Wisconsin (U.S.A.). It was intended to show “…that a mining operation has operated in a sulfide ore body in the United States and Canada for at least 10 years without polluting groundwater or surface water from acid drainage at the tailings site or at the mine site or from release of heavy metals.” It was also intended to show “….that a mining operation that operated in a sulfide ore body in the United States or Canada has been closed for at least 10years without polluting groundwater or surface water from acid drainage at the tailings site or at the mine site or from the release of heavy metals.”

Data from hundreds of mine sites from the U.S. and Canada were investigated. A careful reading of the details in this paper shows that the authors were unable to locate any sites that totally complied with the criteria at the time the paper was published.

Additional technical support for these opinions is included in the Appendices.

Semi-PassiveTreatment.

In numerous volumes (i.e. Vol. 11, Chapter 4.1, Water, pg. 74-75) the EIA gives the impression that post-closure water quality will be maintained within the appropriate guidelines by employing semi-passive treatment cells, which will replace the previouslyemployed active treatment plant. Furthermore, it is claimed that no negative impacts to water quality will result from the long-term use of such semi-passive treatment.

Unfortunately, the technical literature and real world experience demonstrate that, given the type and degree of contamination present at the RMP, semi-passive treatment solutions will not allow sufficient improvement in water quality to meet international discharge standards and the waters would likely be toxic to sensitive plants and aquatic organisms. These semi-passive treatment methods have been especially unsuccessful when employed in areas that have severe winter conditions.

I know of no examples, anywhere, that can demonstrate the long-term, applied success of semi-passive treatment methods in cleaning such waters to meet the desired standards / criteria. It is likely that, long-term, the effluents released down gradient from the Secondary Containment Dam will be unsuitable for many agricultural and domestic uses, if only semi-passive treatment is employed.

Cyanide Environmental Concerns Cyanide is one component of environmental concern in the chemically-complicated “soup” that makes up the RMP process wastes (tailings) and those from typical cyanide-leach gold wastes (Moran, 1998, 2000a, 2000b). It can be present in mining wastes and the surrounding environment in numerous chemical forms that result from the reaction and decomposition of cyanide, such as free cyanides, metal-cyanide complexes, cyanates, thiocyanates, ammonia, possibly organic-cyanide compounds, cyanogen, cyanogen chloride, and chloramines. All of these chemical forms have some degree of toxicity when released into the environment (Moran, 2001, 2002).

176

The RMP EIA fails to include any form of cyanide data in its discussion of the site baseline water quality for either surface or ground waters (see Water Baseline Report, Volume 1). Furthermore, the EIA is exceedingly unclear with respect to the existing cyanide contamination of the waters and soils at the RMP site and surrounding areas containing the existing tailings. On page 8 of Chapter 4.1, Water [EIA, volume 11], it states: “Cyanide will be introduced to the area during the proposed Project for the processing of the precious metal ore; however, it should be noted that cyanide has occasionally been detected during routine sampling of the baseline condition, albeit below the level prescribed by TN001 (see Table 4.1-17).� Does this mean that cyanide was used by Minvest in the earlier processing and that it is a contaminant in the existing tailings? RMGC has publicly denied that cyanide was previously used at the site.

The present RMP water quality baseline monitoring [ground water and surface water] should have included data for WAD-CN, Total-CN, thiocyanate, and cyanate. Future water quality monitoring should also include these cyanide forms in all analyses.

Wastes such as those for the proposed RMP---and likely in the fresh tailings present on site---are quite complicated chemically, containing fluids with high concentrations of suspended sediments; cyanide and breakdown compounds (such as free cyanides, metalcyanide complexes, cyanates, thiocyanates, ammonia, possibly organic-cyanide compounds, cyanogen, cyanogen chloride, and chloramines); numerous metals (for example, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, mercury, molybdenum, vanadium, zinc); non-metals (sulfates, chlorides, fluorides, nitrates, and carbonates may all be elevated); radioactive constituents (such as uranium, radium, gross alpha and beta); organic compounds; and high pH. The high pH environment in cyanide leach wastes makes many metals and metal-like elements more mobile, hence it is common for such wastes to have elevated radioactivity and metal concentrations. Commonly, neither regulators nor the public are aware of the actual chemical components or concentrations of such wastes.

The Rosia Montana ores and wastes release usually high concentrations of total cobalt--up to 2483 micrograms per liter---from the waters draining the underground workings (see RMGC data base, Site 085, the 714 Adit). These data suggest that cobalt-cyanide complexes will form in the processed wastes, together with numerous other metal-cyanide complexes. Research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (Johnson, et. al., 2001, 2002, 2005) has found that such complexes, and many other complexes, can release significant quantities of free cyanide, creating conditions that are extremely toxic to aquatic organisms when released into the environment.

Cyanide Detoxification The EIA states that the waste solutions from the process plant, the tailings solutions, will be treated using the INCO cyanide decontamination process. This process is frequently employed to treat ores containing iron sulfides, or where iron cyanide complexes are present in the effluents in significant concentrations. It involves the addition of SO2, air, and a copper catalyst to break down cyanide. While this process does greatly reduce free cyanide concentrations, it results in the formation of several other byproducts that may be toxic to aquatic organisms, such as: cyanate, thiocyanate, sulfate, ammonia, nitrate, some free cyanide, and elevated copper concentrations. Such treated effluents may also contain elevated concentrations of other metals.

177

Most Canadian gold sites that use the INCO process are able to generate effluents that meet the official discharge standards in relation to cyanide concentrations. However, many of these effluents are still toxic to organisms in bioassay tests (Dr. George Dixon, toxicologist, U. of Waterloo, personal communication, 1999). Thus, these complex solutions produce toxicity effects we do not understand, probably as a result of synergistic effects, or they contain toxic constituents that are not being detected or regulated (Moran 2001, 2002a).

Interestingly, the concentrations of many metals and other chemical constituents [i.e. aluminum, antimony, arsenic, copper, cobalt, lead, mercury, manganese, molybdenum, iron, selenium, strontium, thallium, sulfate, chloride, alkalinity, cyanate, thiocyanate, ammonia, nitrate, some free cyanide, etc.] in the tailings liquid can actually increase following INCO treatment.

Based on lab testing, RMP tailings waters/ effluents will have significantly reduced cyanide concentrations, BUT they will contain Total CN concentrations that significantly exceed the Romanian TN001 Standard following the INCO treatment. [Table 4.1-18, p.

60, Vol. 11, Chapt. 4.1, Water].

Table 4.1-18 data show that, following INCO treatment, the RMP tailings effluent concentrations will increase to above TN001 Standards for Total cyanide, ammonia, arsenic, calcium, molybdenum, and sulfate. These test results represent the expected effluent composition after only a few days of contact time between the tailings liquids and solids. In practice, the liquids and solids will be in contact for many years, theoretically forever. Thus the actual chemical compositions of such tailings effluents usually have much higher concentrations of many additional components when determined after months or years of contact time.

Note that the Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment cyanide concentrations reported in the Technological Processes Report (Vol. 8, Chapt. 2, pg.89) are totally different and much higher than those reported in Vol. 11, table 4.1-18 (see above). Such test results, obviously, provide only a very general approximation of the actual chemical composition of the future tailings.

A more comprehensive version of the INCO-Treated tailings effluent analyses is presented in the Waste Report, Vol. 10, pg. 19-20, Table 3-6, and contains an informative footnote: “The data results from laboratory tests. Under large scale operating conditions, the Cyanide concentrations are expected to be in the range of CN Tot = 12—15 mg/L and CN WAD = 5—10 mg/L.” These anticipated cyanide concentrations greatly exceed the TN001 Standard for total cyanide. This implies that such lab tests are largely useless for making precise, quantitative predictions of effluent concentrations.

Cyanide Management / Code Following the Baia Mare spill and several other environmental incidents involving cyanide, a mining industry-funded research association, together with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) organized a series of meetings in an effort to prepare a cyanide “code”, with the objective of describing “best use” practices. Unfortunately, this process was funded primarily by the industry, and was largely controlled by it. Even the participants from the UNEP staff came largely from industry-sponsored positions.

178

Therefore, the Code reflects, predominantly, what is best for industry, not the interest of the environment or the public.

While it contains many positive aspects, one should note that the Cyanide Code is a voluntary program, involving self-monitoring by the industry, not by regulatory authorities.

Unfortunately, the CN Code states that direct or indirect discharges to surface waters can contain up to 0.50mg/L WAD CN. Then, the Code states that a Free CN concentration less than 0.022 mg/L downstream of any established mixing zone is acceptable. Most objective experts would agree that there is no reliable analytical method to analyze Free CN at low concentrations (C. Johnson, US Geological Survey; G.Miller, U. of Nevada). More importantly, many fresh water aquatic organisms would be killed by prolonged exposure to a WAD cyanide concentration of 0.50 mg/L, or a free CN concentration of 0.022 mg/L. If read closely, one will note that the Cyanide Code contains no actual remediation measures for a spill of cyanide into a river or lake---because all of the options have significant environmental impacts (Moran 2002a). Nevertheless, the tone of the EIA implies that the public should have no concerns regarding a cyanide spill into water! This is simply untrue.

The Cyanide Management Plan (vol. 26, pg. 29) states that WAD cyanide in the tailings will be kept at or below the 10 mg/L EU regulatory limit. Firstly, WAD cyanide determinations fail to detect numerous other toxic forms of cyanide. More importantly, ingestion of a solution containing 10 mg / L WAD CN would be rapidly toxic to numerous species of wildlife.

Cyanide Monitoring As noted previously, cyanide is not included in the Water Baseline Report Vol. 1] summaries of routine water quality [Appendix A Data Tables]. It is clear that RMGC has water quality data on cyanide in their databases, but these have not been made public in the EIA, and these databases fail to define the specific form of cyanide that was determined.

The EIA “Monitoring� volume [Volume 17, Chapter 6] is totally unclear what forms of cyanide will be determined during routine water quality monitoring at the RMP, both during operation and post-closure. Table 6-2 lists only Total Cyanide, while Table 6-3 lists Total CN, Free CN, and WAD CN. However, it is clear from the wording on pg. 1617 that the actual CN forms to be monitored have not yet been determined. Both Total and WAD should be included in future monitoring and should have been reported in all past monitoring and determination of baseline.

Radioactive Components Past uranium mining in the Apuseni Mountains is well known (Steblez 1995). In addition, the presence of uranium and other naturally-radioactive constituents (such as uranium, radium, potassium-40, strontium, thorium, gross alpha and beta, etc.) in precious-metal ores and wastes is commonly reported throughout the world. Many such constituents accumulate in the tailings due to the elevated pH environments of the process fluids, which can mobilize these and other oxyanionic forms. The Waste Report (Vol. 10, Table 3-6 pg. 19) shows that the TMF decant water had a uranium concentration of less than 0.010 mg/L. Nevertheless, this was one sample, and it failed to look at the broader 179

population of naturally-radioactive constituents. Also, the EIA apparently does not report the uranium concentration in the tailings solids themselves (Table 3-4, vol. 10 (Waste), pg.

17, where uranium is not reported.). In such metallurgical tests, the contact time between the water and sediments is short---only a few days. Thus, the results often greatly underestimate the actual concentrations of numerous metals and metalloids in the actual produced tailings.

Despite the repeated statements throughout the EIA that: “Radiological characteristics: no geological and technical indications.” (i.e. Vol. 10, Chapt. 3, pg. 16)---it seems only prudent that uranium and gross alpha and beta determinations should have been included in the RMGC water quality baseline. Note that, in Gabriel’s home country, Canada, public drinking waters are required to contain no more than 20 micrograms per liter (20 parts per billion) of elemental uranium.

Toxicity Testing Regulatory agencies often require that the potential toxicity of mining effluents be evaluated by conducting Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests, where organisms, such as freshwater shrimp (Ceriodaphnia) are exposed to varying concentrations of the actual waste mixture. Actual WET tests should be conducted using treated RMP tailings solutions, rather than relying on promises or theoretical predictions. Such testing demonstrates the total toxic effect of all the chemical components within the wastes “acting” together on the test organisms.

Water Costs This EIA contains no discussion of the costs the company will pay for water as a commodity. Frequently in less developed countries, industries, including mining operations, are not required to pay for the water they use. Sometimes they will be charged a nominal and artificially-low price for the use of surface waters---prices much lower than are usually paid by agricultural users. However, often the mining companies will simply avoid even these modest water costs by constructing wells near rivers or lakes, which then extract the surface waters indirectly, because the nearby ground waters are usually interconnected with the surface waters (Moran, 2002b).

Both the EIA and the Technical Report (Gabriel Resources 2006) state that fresh water for project use will be taken from the Aries River and transported to the site via a 12.7 km long, buried pipeline (Technical Report, pg. 20). Will RMGC be required to pay an actual market price for the water they use? Will RMGC pay for construction of the pipeline?

The EIA provides no specific hydrogeologic details to evaluate either the interactions of the surface and ground waters or to evaluate the actual costs the company will pay for water. As a result, any attempts to describe cost-benefit analyses would seem to be unrealistically biased.

Cumulative Impacts RMGC is currently conducting additional exploration near Bucium, to the southeast of Rosia Montana. It is possible that these ore bodies may also be developed in the foreseeable future. Thus, as with most similar gold mine EIAs, the document fails to realistically discuss the total impacts the local population is likely to experience. If other ore bodies are developed, additional natural resources will be impacted. In fact, many of the technical details presented in the EIA will obviously change.

180

Companies normally argue that they cannot evaluate a scenario that does not actually exist. Obviously that sort of comment is foolish as that is precisely what EIAs were originally intended to do. This EIA should have been required to evaluate the cumulative impacts to all populations and resources within the region, and required to evaluate and discuss “what if” scenarios which would consider the possible impacts to regional water resources, etc. if several of the additional metal deposits were also permitted and operated.

Financial Assurance i. Environmental Remediation If unexpected environmental impacts occur after mine closure, who will pay for them and with what funds? There are literally thousands of mining and mineral processing sites throughout the world that have been abandoned without adequate, sometimes any environmental remediation. Despite industry claims, many of these are modern mines operated in the last ten to twenty years.

The most significant and costly problems of abandoned mine sites almost always involve water contamination, where operation of a long-term water treatment plant should have been required. However, often these contamination problems do not become obvious to the public until after the projects have been closed and the responsible corporation is dissolved or gone. In the U.S.A. and Canada, there are numerous examples where environmental problems have become obvious, often after the mines have closed, and the costs to remediate these problems have often been from a few millions of dollars up to hundreds of millions of dollars (U.S.). Under these conditions, the cleanup costs must be paid with public funds.

In both Canada and the U.S.A., it is now routine procedure for the State and Federal regulatory agencies to require the mining companies to provide some form of adequate financial assurance, often a financial bond. The bond is normally provided by a reputable insurance company and held for the government by an independent trustee. Canada, the home base for RMGC’s corporate parent, Gabriel Resources, has defined detailed provisions describing all aspects of the calculation, collection, holding and release of such financial assurance bonds.

As with all other aspects of the EIA and environmental approval process, the most crucial requirement is that truly, financially-independent experts be employed to calculate the financial amounts of the reclamation bonds. The weakest aspects of most comparable bonding / financial assurance plans often are:  reclamation bond amounts are far too low because they have been calculated by “interested” experts who assume that long-term, active, water treatment will not be required---and then it is!  tranches of the bond are often released to the corporation (or insurance company) sequentially as post-closure reclamation occurs, so that no remaining bond is available to the government. Frequently, water contamination does not become clearly evident until years or even decades after mine closure, often when all, or most of the bond has been released.  the State authorities require the company to provide only relatively small percentages of the total anticipated bond during the early years of operation. If a company were to go bankrupt during these initial years, inadequate funds would be available to operate an active water treatment plant.

181

Given the existing ARD conditions at the RMP [severely depressed pH conditions, often below pH 3.0, together with very high dissolved metals and other chemical constituents] Romanian and EU authorities should assume that funds will be required to operate an active water treatment plant, long-term, and possibly in perpetuity, post-closure. This represents the reasonable, financially-conservative assumption that is often avoided at many comparable sites.

Volume 29 [Mine Rehabilitation and Closure Management Plan], pages 128 through 130, entitled RMP’s Environmental Finance Guarantee (EFG), discusses some legal and theoretical aspects for ensuring that funds will be available for closure and rehabilitation of the site. Table 1, pg. 130 summarizes RMP Closure Estimate Costs. It estimates that $70,789,884 (USD) will be needed to cover environmental closure costs.

Note that the cost estimates calculated by RMGC’s experts assume that most of the anticipated clean-up costs will not be provided to the Romanian authorities until after year 16. If RMGC were to develop financial problems before then, the State would have inadequate funds to cover long-term remediation costs.

It should also be noted that the EIA fails to provide funds necessary to collect and treat waters contaminated by the existing tailings piles located in the Abrud and Saliste drainages.

Discussions regarding financial assurance should be made publicly available. The public would have increased confidence in the EIA process, if the details of financial assurance issues had been included in the original EIA. The actual legal and contractual details of the EFG have not yet been determined, but they need to be finalized and made public in the EIA. When negotiating the terms financial assurance, it seems likely that RMGC would require some financial credit for the improvements in water quality they claim will occur. ii. Institutional / Infrastructure Costs---Development Foundation RMGC has stated that numerous new facilities, infrastructure and programs will be initiated or upgraded as part of the project. Examples include improved water supply and treatment systems, schools, roads, health clinics, re-training of citizens, etc. Once the mine closes, however, cash flow ceases and funds are no longer available to operate and maintain such activities.

RMGC has proposed that such long-term needs will be financed via operation of the Rosia Montana Development Foundation [see Volume 31, pages 103 through 115. Similar foundations have been initiated in the last few years at other mining sites in Chile and other locations. Most have been set up with relatively small amounts of capital.

Because these are recent developments, it is far too early to draw conclusions regarding their long-term success.

Despite all of the benefits promised in the Community Sustainable Development Management Plan (section 9 of volume 31), none of the specific details concerning the operation of this Foundation are presented. The Foundation might operate as described, but it might not. There appear to be no Romanian or EU laws that require the Foundation to operate as promised. In order to actually develop the activities mentioned above, long-term, such a Foundation would require large amounts of capital. The EIA

182

provides no specific details on the amounts of capital that would be provided to operate the Foundation.

Also, the public should know that it is not possible to point to any examples of sustainable gold mines with long-term records of operation. Such operations don’t exist. They may in the future, but at present, the term sustainable mining is presently an undemonstrated desire, a wish.

6. Miscellaneous EIA Comments Biodiversity Report, Vol.13, Chapter. 4.6, provides no quantitative analysis of benthic invertebrates to allow use as actual baseline.

The Soil Pollution section of Vol.13, Soils, p. 25, states that the current Cetate and Carnic Pits are “stationary potential sources of pollution.” This section then concludes: “In effect, the area currently contains no mobile source of soil pollution.”

The pits themselves are obviously stationary, if one neglects the movement of the pit sediments via mass wasting. However, this discussion naively neglects to consider that numerous chemical constituents contained within and on the pit walls and floor are mobile---including blasting residues, mobile metals and metalloids, non-metals, etc.

Exposure of these soils or rock to weathering allows the chemical constituents to be mobilized into the environment, especially via ground water pathways.

Most importantly, the Soil study fails to provide an adequate, quantitative data base of the baseline chemical components [especially metals / metal-like elements, selected anions and organic compounds] in the soils, especially in areas where future facilities will be constructed.

Monitoring Report, Vol. 17: This report provides no defined goals for water uses following closure of the RMP. It states that environmental and social performance criteria will be established, but none have.

Such criteria should have been established and presented within the EIA. Table, figure and section numbers do not correlate. The sections are numbered 1.0—5.0, but the Tables are numbered 6.1—6.11! This report presents similar confusions for Figure and Exhibit numbering.

-Page 5 states: “A detailed discussion of the existing (monitoring) programme is presented in Section 6.1.2.” However, no such section exists. For clarity, this report should have been combined with baseline volumes.

Page 16 states: “Parameter suites will be defined in the appropriate monitoring plans, and a provisional schedule is shown in Table 6.2.”

Nevertheless, nothing is actually defined.

Social and Economical Environment Report, Vol. 14: On pg.12 it states: “There is no precedent in Romania for a major extractive project implemented in conformance with Romanian regulations and transposed EU legislation and standards; there is no precedent in Romania for a major extractive project implemented in conformance with International Finance Institutions’ and the Equator Principles’ requirements.”

183

Such an initial statement should raise great concerns on the part of outside investors and regulators about the ability of the Romanian regulatory agencies to successfully oversee such a project.

In general, the wording of this volume shows obvious bias towards mining without recognizing or quantifying any of the past / present environmental costs that are routinely associated with mining. Apparently these costs have all been externalized.

On pg. 27-28, the authors make several reasonable observations about the existing, lessdeveloped economic conditions, BUT they then argue, circularly, for replacing mining with MINING, and again externalize the associated environmental and health costs!

Page 27, sect. 4.5 states: “Environmentally the area is of low conservation value---water resources (streams, etc.) are, by and large, polluted, habitats fragmented, landscape scarred, and on-going anthropogenic impacts occur.�

On page 28 it notes that Campeni has a more diverse and higher income base than Rosia Montana. Correct, but this situation does not result from having mining.

Page 29- 32, reports that the Health Status is much reduced compared to the general Romanian status. It states that there are several causes, but concludes it results partly from risks related to mining.

Who will pay to redress these degraded and depressed conditions? The implication is that new mining will pay to redress these issues. What will be the sources of funds for remediating the environmental and health issues, and for maintaining the local infrastructure after the RMP project closes?

This report proposes substituting one short-term solution for another.

Most importantly, this report provides no balanced, quantitative cost-benefit analysis to support its conclusions.

Risk Cases Report Vol. 18, Chapt. 7: Long-term versus Short-term Impacts.

This report focuses on describing the risks that various acute or catastrophic events will occur during the life of the RMP. Unfortunately, it neglects discussing the slow, chronic, almost invisible processes, such as long-term ground water contamination that almost always occurs at mine sites.

Such chronic processes are much harder to evaluate and predict, thus they are often disregarded---as they are here. However, they frequently represent the much greater longterm financial risk for the public.

As evidence of this, one should know that insurance providers have, for several decades, refused to provide insurance covering such long-term, chronic releases to the environment, while they do provide insurance for acute, catastrophic, unforeseen events---such as a tailings dam failure. The insurance industry argument has been that if an environmental release was long-term and chronic, it was therefore not unforeseen, and the causes should have been rectified by the company. Thus, they have generally not paid claims to mining companies relating to such chronic releases.

184

Page 17, vol. 18, Ch. 7: implies that the main mining risks are related to cyanide.

Worldwide experience would suggest that this is untrue. The financial risks associated with the development of chronic ARD and water competition are probably more significant risks.

Contrary to what is stated here, some research suggests that cyanide ingestion may have chronic impacts in some aquatic species (see references cited by Heming and others, 1985, 1989). Most of the recent, readily available cyanide research is funded by industry, thus such studies have not received much support. The wording here shows a poor understanding of the associated chemistry and research, and demonstrates a pro-project bias.

Pages 20-23: Provides descriptions of accidents that are totally simplistic and dismissive.

What would the Romanian and Hungarian authorities have done if they HAD been notified promptly to remediate the Baia Mare spill? As stated above, there is no treatment of such a spill into water which does not entail significant environmental impacts (i.e. the addition of hypochlorite to cyanide spills).

Ch. 8 reiterates that cost-benefit analyses of the various options were never performed.

Furthermore, it describes sustainable mining, for which no long-term examples can be shown!

World Bank Relationships / Extractive Industries Review In 2002 the IFC withdrew from financial support to for Gabriel’s Rosia Montana proposal.

According to Bloomberg News, the IFC was concerned about the lack of planned pollution controls, revenue management, and the relocation of hundreds of residents. IFC Spokesperson Corrie Shanahan explained that “there were significant environmental and social issues connected with the project” (Bloomberg News, 2002).

In 2001, civil society represented by a consortium of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) pressed the World Bank Group (WBG) president, James Wolfensohn for a review of the Bank’s involvement in the Extractive Industries sector, which includes mining. Civil society had become critical of the WBG’s role in lending to and oversight of these industries, and they “wanted to be consulted and recognized as equal partners in development, especially in extractive industries that deplete nonrenewable extractive resources and have negative impacts on affected communities and resettled indigenous people.”

[Quote from Extractive Industries Review Final Report, vol. 1, Dr. Emil Salim; http://www.worldbank.org/ogmc/files/eirreport/volume1english.pdf] As a consequence, the WBG set up the Extractive Industries Review (EIR), a two-year, interactive process to evaluate the Bank’s involvement in this sector, which evaluated past successes and failures, and made recommendations for future Bank practices. In the fall of 2003, I was appointed to the Advisory Board of the EIR, which assisted Dr. Emil Salim in preparing the Final EIR report. The Final EIR report was submitted to the WBG at the beginning of 2004. Amongst the recommendations accepted by the WBG are as follows: 1. “The sequencing of our activities in EI (Extractive Industries) will be based upon governance capacity and risks. Where we make judgments in favor of involvement we will disclose our rationale. For significant projects we will require risks to be mitigated.”

185

2. “The Bank Group will require revenue transparency as a condition for new investments in EI.” 3. “We will establish independent monitoring mechanisms for our largest projects.”

4. “The Bank Group will only support extractive industry projects that have the broad support of affected communities.”

The entire EIR Management Response report [World Bank Group Management Response to the Final Report of the Extractive Industries Review; September 17, 2004] can found at the link above.

Conclusions It is important to note firstly, that mining companies are not predominantly development companies. Their main expertise is in extracting gold and silver from rock; not primarily at preventing environmental degradation, and certainly not at developing communities.

Secondly, one needs to recall that simply because a company states or predicts that no negative impacts will occur (for example, that water supplies will not be impacted), even when stated repeatedly for 4500+ pages, this does not mean that significant impacts will not, in fact, develop.

Many of the most crucial, misleading and potentially-costly aspects presented in this EIA relate to the last words of the Introduction to Chapter 4.1, volume 11, Water, pg.8: “In closure, most of the existing and Project-related sources of these pollutants will be permanently removed or closed, and the project will commit to the longer-term management of any potential residual post-closure sources of acid rock drainage, even though these will be below the levels that occur in the current baseline condition.

Other impacts associated with the Project are related to water resources and surface water and groundwater quality that could become affected by new potential sources of contaminants. The principal example is the use of cyanide in ore processing. There are potential impacts associated with these contaminants that will require the implementation of mitigation measures and management plans. Cyanide merits particular attention due to concerns related to past environmental incidents in Romania (Baia Mare) and elsewhere, and public perceptions about the chemical. Although cyanide has a significant intrinsic acute hazard potential, the chronic toxicity of cyanide in the environment is less than some metals that currently exceed standards in the Project area. At hazardous concentrations, cyanide is managed entirely within the closed process circuit.

The following section presents the baseline information and provides a summary quantification of the existing water quality issues.”

Let’s examine these words more carefully. Referring to the words from page 9 above, the EIA is unclear and misleading when describing precisely what is meant by: 1- “…..most of the existing and Project-related sources of these pollutants will be permanently removed or closed, ………” One is forced to ask: Which specific sources will not be removed or closed? How does this relate to the existing tailings?

2- “….and the project will commit to the longer-term management of any potential residual post-closure sources of acid rock drainage……” Specifically, what is RMGC committing to when they say longer-term management? Does this mean they agree to fund perpetual collection and active water quality treatment of contaminated waters ---if this is required following closure?

3- “….even though these will be below the levels that occur in the current baseline condition.” This phrase raises two issues that require clarification. Firstly, 186

we do not presently know what the future water contaminant concentrations will be---despite the simplistic predictions presented in the EIA. Secondly: What are the specific baseline concentrations that RMGC is committing to for surface and ground waters? Which specific data from which specific monitoring sites are considered to represent the specific baseline concentrations? Unfortunately, the EIA is totally unclear concerning this issue. Does the EIA refer to the very limited baseline concentrations included in the Water Baseline Report, Volume 1, or to the data and information presented in this volume, vol. 11, chapter 4.1, beginning on pg. 10, confusingly entitled Baseline Information? This distinction is crucial for successful regulation of the RMP site.

4- “Other impacts associated with the Project are related to water resources and surface water and groundwater quality that could become affected by new potential sources of contaminants.” Note that this states, reasonably, that ground quality could become affected. However, throughout the EIA it has been implied that ground waters will not be impacted, and that almost no ground water exists at the site. Conveniently, the EIA has failed to adequately define either the presence or quality of alluvial and bedrock water-bearing zones. Thus, if releases of contaminants to the site ground waters do occur, the present baseline information will be inadequate to reliably define these releases or ascribe responsibility.

5- “Cyanide merits particular attention due to concerns related to past environmental incidents in Romania (Baia Mare) and elsewhere, and public perceptions about the chemical.” True, but then why was cyanide not included in the baseline data set presented in the Water Baseline Report, Vol. 1? Because of this omission, the reader is unable to readily determine whether the RMP environment is presently contaminated with cyanide. Neither will this inadequate baseline data base allow one to evaluate potential future contamination with any forms of cyanide. Should one relate aspects of the Baia Mare spill to the present RMP project? Clearly yes. However, RMGC has argued in the public consultations that the Baia Mare event has no relevance to the proposed project and comparisons should not even be discussed.

6- “Although cyanide has a significant intrinsic acute hazard potential, the chronic toxicity of cyanide in the environment is less than some metals that currently exceed standards in the Project area.” This statement is at least partially correct. Even some non-metals such as free ammonia, which is commonly released at mining sites and results partly from the use of blasting compounds, is roughly as toxic to fish as is free cyanide (Moran 2001). Why was ammonia not included within the RMP water quality baseline data reported in volume 1?

There are literally dozens of potentially-toxic chemical constituents in the RMP effluents that can be chronically toxic to aquatic organisms. Hence a much broader list of constituents must be specifically defined in the RMP baseline.

7- “At hazardous concentrations, cyanide is managed entirely within the closed process circuit.” Most modern gold operations attempt to operate a closed process circuit. Essentially all of these systems leak to some extent, long-term.

Inadequate definition of the ground water baseline conditions prevents the public and regulators from detecting such leakage.

“The following section presents the baseline (emphasis added) information and provides a summary quantification of the existing water quality issues.” This wording is extremely misleading and confusing. Which are the specific data to be considered 187

baseline water quality data? Those included here in Vol. 11, Chapter 4.1, or those presented in the Water Baseline Report of Volume 1?

The EIA makes clear that RMGC has presented an overall message that, not surprisingly, focuses predominantly on the positive aspects of the project, and minimizes the negative or potentially negative issues.

Recommendations 1-The EIA needs to be rewritten by a team of experts that are professionally and financially independent of RMGC or their representatives. Independent sources of funding should be raised to support this process.

2 –Representatives of the general public should be allowed total access to all historical environmental and health monitoring data relevant to the RMP and surrounding areas, including the Bucium area.

3-The general public should be allowed access to contract agreements between RMGC and the Romanian government, including: details on indemnification, insurance, and financial assurance issues. Public access to these documents should be facilitated whether the project is approved or not.

4-Financial Assurance measures that are truly robust, enforceable and available to the public must be negotiated prior to project approval. These assurances must stipulate that most of the assurance vehicle / bond be delivered to an independent trustee at the beginning of the project. Conditions must meet those that would be required by an international, commercial lending institution, as a minimum.

5-As has been recommended in the Extractive Industries Review Report (see above), the World Bank Group has been encouraged not to lend to projects in countries where institutional capacities are lax. Thus, it seems reasonable that Equator Banks would follow the same guidelines. Hence the RMP should not be accepted until the Romanian government can demonstrate they have the regulatory capacity and will to enforce the appropriate regulations.

References Cited ASTM (2000): D5744-96, standard test method for accelerated weathering of solid materials using a modified humidity cell. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards,11.04.

American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conschohocken, Pennnsylvania (257269).

Bloomberg News, October 11, 2002, “World Bank halts talks on Gabriel’s Romanian Mine” : www.rosiamontana.org/documents/english/press/bloomberg.htm International Cyanide Management Institute, July 2005; International Cyanide Management Code for the Manufacture, Transport, and Use of Cyanide in the Production of Gold; www.cynanidecode.org European Environmental Bureau (EEB), October 2000, The Environmental Performance of the Mining Industry and the Action Necessary to Strengthen European Legislation in the Wake of the Tisza-Danube Pollution: EEB document n° 2000/016.

188

Gabriel Resources Ltd., 2006 (March), Technical Report on the Rosia Montana Gold Project, Transylvania, Romania. [Preprared by Gossage, Corser, Marek, Smith, and Lattanzi].

Heming, T., R.V. Thurston, E. L. Meyn, and R. Zajdel, 1985, Acute Toxicity of Thiocyanate to Trout: Trans. Am. Fish Soc., V.114, p. 895-905.

Heming, T. and R.V. Thurston, 1985, Physiological and Toxic Effects of Cyanides to Fishes: a Review and Recent Advances, in Cyanide and the Environment, Proc. Of a Conf., D. Van Zyl(,ed.), Dec. 1984,Colo. State Univ., Ft. Collins.CO, Geotechn.

Engineering Program, Dept. Civil Engineering, v. 1,p 85-104.

Heming, T. A. and K. A. Blumhagen, 1989, Factors Influencing Thiocyanate Toxicity in Rainbow Trout Salmo gairdneri: Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. V. 43, pg. 363-369.

Johnson, C.A., Grimes, D.J., and Rye, R.O., 2000, Fate of process solution cyanide and nitrate at three Nevada gold mines inferred from stable carbon- and nitrogen-isotope measurements: Trans. Instn. Min. Metall., v. 109, p. C68-C78.

Johnson, C.A., Grimes, D.J., Leinz, R.W., Breit, G.N., and Rye, R.O., 2001, The critical importance of strong cyanocomplexes in the remediation and decommissioning of cyanidation heap leach operations, in C.A. Young, L.G. Tidwell, and C.G. Anderson, eds., Cyanide: social, industrial, and economic aspects: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, Warrendale, PA, p. 35-49.

Johnson, C.A., Leinz, R.W., Grimes, D.J., and Rye, R.O., 2002, Photochemical changes in cyanide speciation in drainage from a precious metal ore heap. Environmental Science & Technology, v. 36, p. 840-845.

Johnson, C.A., Grimes, D.J. Leinz, R.W., and Rye, R.O., 2005, Cobalt-cyanide complexing in ore processing effluents at gold mines: significance for cyanide persistence and cobalt mobility: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, v. 37, p. 179.

Little, E.E., Calfee, R.D., and Johnson, C.A., 2005, Photo-enhanced toxicity of cobaltcyanide to aquatic life: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, v. 37, p.

179.

King Jr., Neil, “Romanian Gold-Mine Loan is Blocked by Wolfensohn”, Wall Street Journal, 11 October 2002: http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB1034285853548371156,00.html Lapakko, K.A., 2003, Chapter 7. Developments in Humidity-Cell Tests and Their Application, in Environmental Aspects of Mine Wastes (J.L. Jambor, D.W. Blowes & A.I.M. Ritchie, eds.) Mineralogical Association of Canada Short Course Vol. 31.

Lapakko, K.A., Wessels, J.N. 1995. Release of acid from hydrothermal quartz-carbonate hosted gold-mine tailings. In Sudbury '95, Conf. on Mining and the Environment, May 28June 1, Sudbury, Ontario, p. 139-148.

Moran, Robert E., 1998, Cyanide Uncertainties—Observations on the Chemistry, Toxicity, and Analysis of Cyanide in Mining-Related Waters: Mineral Policy Center Issue Paper No.1, Wash., D.C. (available at: 189

http://www.earthworksaction.org/ewa/pubs/cyanideuncertainties.pdf and at: http://www.mineralresourcesforum.org/technical/cyanide/cyanidem.htm).

Moran, Robert E., 2000a, Cyanide in Mining: Some Observations on the Chemistry, Toxicity and Analysis of Mining-Related Waters: in Proc. Central Asia Ecology—99, Lake Issyk Kul, Kyrgyzstan, June,1999. [Available at www.zpok.hu/cyanide/baiamare/docs/ MoranCyanidePaper0799.rtf and http://www.earthworksaction.org/ewa/pubs/morancyanidepaper.pdf ].

Moran, Robert E., 2000b, Is This Number To Your Liking? Water Quality Predictions in Mining Impact Studies, p. 185-198, in Prediction: Science, Decision Making and the Future of Nature. D. Sarewitz, R. Pielke, Jr., and R. Byerly, Jr., eds., Island Press, Washington, D.C., 405 pg.

Moran, R.E., 2001, More Cyanide Uncertainties: Lessons from the Baia Mare, Romania, Spill---Water Quality and Politics. Mineral Policy Center Issue Paper No. 3, Wash. D.C., 15 pgs. (available at: http://www.mineralpolicy.org/publications/issuepapers.php3?nav=4 http://www.earthworksaction.org/ewa/pubs/mcu_final.pdf and http://www.zpok.hu/cyanide/baiamare/impacts.htm ).

Moran, Robert E., 2002, De-coding Cyanide. A Submission to the European Union and the United Nations Environment Programme: Sponsored by Hellenic Mining Watch, Ecotopia, CEE Bankwatch, FOE Europe, FOE Hungary, FOE Czech Republic, Food First Information and Action Network, Minewatch UK, and Mineral Policy Center, 25 pg.

[Available at: http://www.hnutiduha.cz/publikace/studie/kyanidova_studie.pdf , www.mineralpolicy.org/publications/, http://www.eireview.org/eir/eirhome.nsf/ (DocLibrary)/15583282B873481185256BFB00609501/$FILE/Decoding%20Cyanide %20(Feiler).pdf Morin, K.A. & Hutt, N.M., 1994, Observed Preferential Depletion of Neutralization Potential Over Sulfide Minerals in Kinetic Tests: Site-Specific Criteria for Safe NP / AP Ratios. In International Land Reclamation and Mine Drainage Conference and Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage 1. U. S. Bureau of Mines Special Pub. SP 06A-94, p.148-156.

Morin, K.A. & Hutt, N.M., 1997, Environmental Geochemistry of Mine Site Drainage: Practical Theory and Case Studies. MDAG Publishing, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Price, William A.,1997, Guidelines and Recommended Methods for the Prediction of Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Minesites in British Columbia: B.C. Ministry of Employment and Investment, 141pg. plus appendices.

Robertson, J.D. and K. D. Ferguson, Dec. 1995, Predicting Acid Rock Drainage: Mining Environmental Management, vol.3, no.4, pg.4-8.

Steblez, W. G.,1995, The Mineral Industry of Romania: U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals Information: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/1995/9433095.pdf Todd, J.W. and D.W. Struhsacker, 1997, Environmentally Responsible Mining: Results and Thoughts Regarding a Survey of North American Metallic Mineral Mines: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Preprint 97-304, Littleton, Colorado.

190

191

APPENDICES Appendix 1. International Water Quality Standards and Guidelines.

Parameter

Units

IFC Precious Mineralsi Mine Effluents 6.0-9.0

pH TSD

Units mg/l

Tot Susp Solids Turbidity COD Bioch Ox Dem Oil+Grease Total N Total Phos Sodium Chloride

mg/l NTU mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

Cl, tot res Sulfate Sulfide

mg/l mg/l mg/l

Nitrate

mg/l

Nitrite Ammonia (as N) Flouride Aluminium

mg/l mg/l

Antimony Arsenic

mg/l mg/l

0.1

Boron Cadmium

mg/l mg/l

Chromium,hex Chromium (tot) Copper

World Bank Guidelinesii Open Pit Mining 6.0-9.0

50

50

250 50 10 10 2

250 50

US EPA Drinking Waterix 6.5-8.5 500

US EPA Aquatic Lifeiii Acute Chronic 6.5

Canada Agriculturaliv Irrig.

Livest

9 5003500

3000

Canadav

Canadavi

Romaniavii viii

Drinking Water 6.5-8.5 500

Freshwater Aquatic Life 6.5-9.0

Drink.

Water xi 6.5-9.5xii

Industrial watersx 6.5-8.5 2000

33

35(60)

<=5 25

10 2 250

100700 0.019

1

200 250

15 2 200 250

10(N)

13

250 100g/l 50 xiii

0.019

0.50xiv 0.50

1 2

0.011

250

1000

1

0.002 10 (as N)

100

125 25

1

500 0.2 600 1 25

0.002 to 0.325

0.032 0.049

4.0 (2.0) 0.05-0.2

0.75

0.087

1.0 5.0

1.0-2.0 5.0

1.5 0.1

0.12 0.005-0.1

1.2 200g/l

5 5.0

0.1

0.006 0.05(0.01)

0.34

0.15

0.10

0.025

0.006 0.005

0.005

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.005

0.002

0.00025

0.0051

0.08

5 0.005

0.000017

10g/l 1.0 5.0g/l

mg/l mg/l

0.1

0.1

0.016

0.011

0.008

0.050

mg/l

0.5

mg/l mg/l

20

20

to

10 (15) 5

0.1 0.5

1.3(1.0)

192

0.001 0.05

0.013

0.009

0.2-1.0

0.5-5.0

1

0.002-0.004

0.2

50g/l

0.1 1.0

0.1

0.1

Parameter

Units

Iron(tot)

mg/l

IFC Precious Minerals Mine Effluents 3.5

Lead

mg/l

0.1

Manganese Mercury

mg/l mg/l

Molybdenum Nickel

µg/l mg/l

0.5

0.5

Selenium

mg/l

0.1

0.1

0.05

Silver Thallium Uranium Zinc

mg/l mg/l µg/l mg/l

0.5

0.5

2

2

0.1 0.002 30 5

Alpha, Gross Radium Cyanide (total)

picoCi/L picoCi/L mg/l

Cyanide(free)

mg/l

Cyanide WAD Chlor,tot resid Phenols Fecal Coliform Tot. Colif.

Temp (increase) Salinity (change)

mg/l mg/l mg/l MPN/100ml

0.01

World Bank Guidelines Open Pit Mining 3.5

US EPA

0.1

0.015

0.01

0.05 0.002

Drinking Water 0.3

US EPA Aquatic Life Acute Chronic

0.065 0.025 0.0014 0.47

Canada Agricultural Irrig.

Livest

1

5

0.0025

0.20

0.00077 0.052 0.005

0.0032

0.0019

0.12 0.12

0.12

Canada

Canada

Romania

Drinking Water <0.3

Freshwater Aquatic Life 0.3

Drink.

Water 200g/l

Industrial waters 5

0.10

0.01

0.001-0.007

10g/l

0.2

0.2 0.003

<0.05 0.001

50g/l

10-50 0.2

500 1.0

0.020.5

0.05

0.01

0.000026

1.0g/l

1 0.05

73 0.025-0.15

20g/l

0.1 0.5

0.001

10g/l

0.1

0.0001 0.0008 0.01 1.0-5.0

0.2 50.0

20 5

0.03

15 5 2(0.20)

1

0.5 (0.05) 0.2 0.5 400

0.5 0.2 0.5 400

<3C

<3 C

<20%

<20%

0.1

0.1

5000g/l

5

0,1 Bq/l 0.022

0.0052

0.2

0.0005

0.2

50 g/l

0.1

10g/l 0.50 <5 <5

0.004 100 1000

0.2 0.3

0 35 Cxv

193

Appendix 2 Hydrogeology Technical Support.

The Hydrology Baseline (Vol. 2), sect. 3.1, pg. 11, states that the unconsolidated deposits, are up to 12 m thick in valley bottoms; 3 to 10 m thick on valley slopes.

Fig. 3.3, Hydrogeologic Cross-sections: are actually engineering cross sections intended to define the geologic materials and their engineering properties near the proposed tailings dam.

They reveal no quantitative hydrogeologic information.

Vol. 2, pg.19-20; Table 4-1: Hydrogeologic Setting. This section describes hydrogeologic data sources. However, few useful details are provided on the quantitative aspects of the tests performed. Normally such hydrogeologic discussions summarize details on well construction, pump test duration, etc. Slug and packer tests mentioned here were conducted in boreholes, which usually have small diameters. Such tests are generally useful only to define the hydraulic characteristics within a short radius around a borehole. They are not reliable for developing estimates of ground water availability throughout an extensive water-bearing unit. This section also mentions that some pump tests were conducted, but it fails to say how many, for how long, pumping well diameter, etc. There is no indication in this baseline volume that long-term pump tests were performed on any alluvial or bedrock wells or boreholes.

Vol. 2, Fig. 4.1: Shows potentiometric surface of unconfined aquifer based on piezometer data.

It is totally unclear from the text on pg. 20, which data from what dates were used to construct Fig. 4.1. Nevertheless, such a project needs piezometric data from many dates and seasons to construct several such maps in order to note seasonal and long-term trends.

Table 4.1, p.20, General Hydrogeologic Units: Such a Table normally provides information on the actual wells / boreholes / piezometers used to develop these interpretations [note, depths, completion intervals, etc.]. No such specific information is summarized in this document.

The Table describes several bedrock units that have lower permeability, often via fractures, but does not provide subsurface data to support these statements. Many similar shales at other sites can conduct significant volumes of water long-term via fracture permeability.

Vol. 2, pg.23, Black Shale: States that the shale contains conglomerate layers that are laterally and vertically discontinuous, which are not considered significant water-bearing units, except in the upper weathered zones. Why doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the Baseline Report provide any quantitative data to demonstrate this?

Vol. 2, pg.23: States that bedrock near the Cetate and Carnic Pits is drained (to an elevation of 714m) because of existing underground workings. No piezometers were installed. The discussion here regarding water in the underground workings implies that these geologic units store and transmit water. However, RMGC has not presented any quantitative information on these units. Normally, any company operating underground workings will maintain detailed records on the volumes of water pumped. No such information has been mentioned in the EIA. Vol.11, Ch 4.1, p.64: States that they expect to encounter ground water at an elevation of 714 m ASL. Such a statement assumes that RMGC has detailed hydrologic drilling information from these areas and depths. Was testing performed? What volumes of water are anticipated? The technical details supporting such a statement should have been summarized.

Vol. 2, pg. 24: States that the underground workings all interconnected, but provides no technical support for this statement. Also, the conclusion seems to contradict statements made 194

in the Archeological ---------. It further states that the workings will hydraulically interconnect all pits, with the possible exception of the Jig Pit. Why didn’t consultants perform any testing from underground?

Vol. 2, pg. 24: “…high yield water supply wells are not present at the mine site or in the immediate vicinity.” True, but there are low-yield wells and they are likely to be impacted by the proposed activities.

Pg. 25., etc.: States that the project valleys contain gaining streams, which implies they are receiving ground water inflow. It further states: piezometer responses to rainfall events “indicate that the stream and alluvial ground water are generally in direct connection with each other.”

Pg. 27: Summary of Hydrogeologic Model. This section discusses theoretical possibilities, but provides almost no actual data on much of the system.

Pg. 27: States: “Because of this extensive underground network, extensive pit dewatering is not likely to be needed until mine levels extend below 720 to 715 m-ASL.” This obviously implies the presence of bedrock ground water. Why was this not adequately evaluated?

Do underground workings interconnect valleys hydraulically?

Is ground water (alluvial, bedrock) presently contaminated?

Underground mining studies: [v.14, pg. 23-29 demonstrate clearly ancient capabilities to de-water workings (70 km): elevating / hydraulic wheels, wooden drainage channels / systems, drainage rooms, etc.---shows presence of some bedrock ground water; probably from structural pathways. Presently recognized vols. seem low. v. 14, Exhibits 4.9.6a and 4.9.6b: Show sites of underground workings investigated for archeological aspects. All are significantly above the elevations of the proposed pit floors.

Old workings elevations investigated for archeological purposes: about 1020m—930m.

Underground workings (more modern) elves.: down to about 660 m ASL. Proposed Pit bottoms: 760m (Carnic); about 680m ASL –Cetate. [proposed pit depths about 220—260m below land surface.]

The relationships above emphasize concerns for impacts to ground waters / surface waters from pit dewatering.

On p.64, of the Water Report [Vol. 11, Chapt. 4.1, Section 5.2.3] it states: “During mining groundwater is expected to be encountered at an elevation of around 714 m ASL (714 adit).

When the pit bottoms are excavated below this level, groundwater is expected to start draining into the pits, including possibly some reverse drainage from the current mine adits. Prolonged pit dewatering operations may result in groundwater drawdown leading to reduced groundwater contributions to surface water flows in the Rosia Valley where the pits are located.”

Appendix 3 Baseline Water Quality Technical Support.

--Include in the EIA a simple description of the sample collection and handling methods employed, including which parties performed the activities, and the specific dates of these activities. The present document simply states that samples were collected according to standard methods. Incorrect sampling and sample handling procedures are generally the main causes of unreliable water quality data. Generally, the greatest errors result from holding samples too long prior to filtration, adding preservative, chilling, and analysis.

195

--Designate chemical constituents as Total or Dissolved, so that the reader can determine whether they result from analysis of unfiltered or filtered samples.

--Summarize the baseline data so that one can determine the actual pre-mining, baseline concentration, by monitoring location, for any chemical constituent that has a relevant standard or criterion. A format that has been used in other studies includes: Station Designation / number Constituent (i.e. Dissolved Aluminum) n (number of determinations) Range (minimum—maximum) Mean (average, calculated by including all determinations, including < values) Median Confidence Intervals Appendix A, Vol. 1, presents a statistical summary for selected chemical constituents, which includes some of the categories above, but is presented in an unclear manner. For example, neither the sampling dates represented are shown, nor are the names of the parties that collected the samples.

It is important to the public that specific baseline water quality be designated, by sampling location. Otherwise it will be largely impossible to “prove” that future contamination has occurred (or not) at a specific location. This requires that statistically-reliable baseline data on the mean or median concentrations of all constituents having relevant regulatory standards or criteria be determined and summarized. This should have been completed for the present EIA. The RMP EIA presents no designated baseline concentrations (means) for numerous constituents, for example arsenic, antimony, cadmium, chrome, cobalt, mercury, selenium, cyanide, nitrate, sulfate, etc.

Note: It is not statistically-meaningful to make conclusions about data where there are less than about five or six data points in the “population”. That is, if one wishes to describe, for example, the mean or median baseline mercury concentration in a certain spring or well, the data set needs to include at least 5 or 6 reliable determinations of mercury, preferably collected within one year. For surface water sites, baseline statistics should be computed from monthly data, preferably collected during twelve consecutive months. Statistics derived from smaller populations can be highly unreliable.

Appendix 4 Technical Support: Geochemistry / ARD / Post-closure Water Quality 1-Vol. 10, Waste, pg. 33, shows the percent of various rock types that may be generating. It fails to present a summary of the numbers of samples by rock type or to summarize the actual, detailed ABA data. Nevertheless, it demonstrates clearly that significant percentages of the various rock types are likely to generate ARD. Unfortunately, nowhere in the EIA are the actual ABA data presented to allow independent evaluation.

On the following page, pg. 34, it states: “Based on weighted averages of the waste rock geochemical tests, the overall waste rock mass will generate near-neutral pH water.” This assumes that the neutralizing potential of some rock types will buffer and prevent ARD from forming. Such statements are totally contradicted by real world experience.

Unfortunately, I have had experience at metal mine sites where waste rock with as little as 0.2 % total S, and below, have lead to massive ARD problems. In addition, simple average data on the waste rock neutralizing potential (NP) versus the average acid-producing potential (AP) [ the NP / AP], often fails to accurately predict real world ARD problems. This is partly because 196

the migrating water must actually come in contact with and chemically-react with these AP and NP-producing mineral grains. Often they do so selectively, in a manner that does not reflect the average geochemical composition. More importantly, there is an inherent time-related bias in this type of geochemical testing, and static tests do not consider the effects of TIME (Morin & Hutt, 1994). The NP-producing minerals react more rapidly than do the AP-producing minerals, so that over the long-term, the NP will be depleted, and, if sufficient AP minerals are present, the waters will become acid.

These general conclusions about static geochemical tests are corroborated by many other researchers, including Kim Lapakko of the Minnesota (U.S.A.) Department of Natural Resources, one of the foremost experts on geochemical testing of mine ores and wastes (see, for example, Lapakko 2003).

Thus, the overall RMP geochemical test data indicate that there is a significant chance that ARD will develop in some undefined percentage of the local waste rock.

2- Vo. 10, Waste, pg. 18: describe kinetic test data to argue that ARD problems will probably not develop. These were three tests of 26 weeks duration where selected samples of the tailings were reacted with air and water and leachate samples were collected weekly and analyzed.

Vol. 13, Chapt. 4.5, Subsoil Geology, pg. 21 through 31 and associated Exhibits also present results for several sorts of kinetic tests. Here the EIA states that at some tests were conducted for 52 weeks. Strangely, these discussions were never coordinated and summarized with the other geochemical test results presented in the Waste volume.

Such tests are an attempt to simulate accelerated weathering or chemical reactions that would occur in the tailings samples. Such tests are subject to NUMEROUS sources of significant error, but if conducted scrupulously, they can be useful for predicting whether ARD will develop--- at least qualitatively.

One of the largest sources of kinetic testing error results from running the tests for an inadequate period of time. Twenty-six weeks is generally far too short a time period to be useful for predicting whether ARD will develop in the long-term. It is true that 20 weeks is the time duration mentioned in one testing method (ASTM 2000), however, essentially all geochemists experienced in such testing agree that much longer time periods are required to adequately predict whether ARD will develop. A few examples of quotes from internationallyrecognized experts should make this point obvious:  Lapakko (2003): “One major concern regarding the ASTM D5744-96 method is that it recommends a minimum test duration of 20 weeks. However, the method also states in Note 12 (ASTM 2000, pg. 265) that additional testing may be required to demonstrate the complete weathering characteristics of mine-waste samples (e.g., as much as 60 to 120 weeks were required for some samples). If only a 20-week test duration is used, this is clearly too short to allow for potential drainage acidification from mine-waste samples in general.” That is a polite way of saying that the official guidance on test duration is ridiculous. In fact, Lapakko’s laboratory has conducted numerous kinetic tests having durations of many years where the chemistry has continued to change. 

Morin and Hutt (1977): “The duration of humidity cell test(s) is usually at least 40 weeks, or until the rates of sulphate generation and metal leaching have stabilized at relatively constant rates for at least five weeks. Experience has shown that stabilization can take over 60 weeks, and significant changes may take place even after several years.”

197



Price (1997) states that stabilization of kinetic / humidity cell tests often requires at least 40 weeks, can sometimes take over 60 weeks, and may even require several years (pg. 100).



Robertson and Ferguson (1995), on the research staff of Canadian mining company Placer Dome stated the following: “Kinetic testing methodology prescribes that tests should last a minimum of 20 weeks, although Placer believes that this time frame is inadequate for reliable results unless the samples are extremely high in sulphur content, low in buffering capacity, and/or potentially highly reactive. On sites which warrant this type of testing the company typically runs samples for two to three years, allowing for a more complete assessment of slower or marginally reactive materials.”

RMP has not demonstrated that the waste rock, the pit wall rock, or any of the other wastes, including the tailings will not generate water quality problems. In fact, the available data indicate exactly the opposite. A simple, review of the environmental history of numerous similar gold mining operations throughout the world would support the view that the majority have degraded local water quality---and this includes both older and modern mines.

It seems technically unreasonable for RMGC to have made predictions about future water quality at this specific RMP Mine site, without also taking into account the actual water quality results at hundreds of mines throughout the world. The latter approach would have allowed a more reliable, statistical overview of a population of gold mines, which would yield meaningful conclusions about future water quality. The present approach does not.

Clearly the available data do not disprove that ARD will develop in the long-term. Furthermore, it is likely that many of the sources of mine activities and wastes will generate contaminants that are mobile even without the formation of ARD conditions. These include, nitrate and ammonia from blasting compounds and cyanide decomposition, increased suspended sediment loads from erosion, increased concentrations and loads of metal and metal-like compounds, many of which are mobile under both low and high pH conditions. These include constituents such as arsenic, aluminum, selenium, mercury, molybdenum, uranium, antimony, etc. In addition, almost all similar mine sites release significant concentrations of organic contaminants into the environment, many resulting from the use of massive quantities of fuels and organic reagents.

Based on data patterns from similar mines throughout the world, many of the contaminants noted above are likely to be released into the environment and will degrade water quality relative to baseline conditions within the RMP drainages.

The TMF will be unlined and constructed in part [in deeper sections of dam] with potentiallyacid-generating (PAG) waste rock. Post-closure it will clearly yield contaminated leachates, despite revegetation. Successful segregation of PAG rock at comparable sites is often only partially successful. [v.13, CH. 4.5 Subsoil Geology, p. 22.]

Report needs a simple, statistical summary table of actual ABA data by lithology. Exhibit 4.5.3 plots distribution, but not actual ABA values. Weighted mean averages of ABA data underestimate ARD risk---doesn’t consider actual chemical reactivity.

-Column testing, Vol. 13, Ch. 4.5, p. 25-26: incorrect interpretations.

-field barrel tests, p. 26-27, indicate waste rock will go acid.

Pg.27-28: Basic Conclusion: “…..large-scale ARD generation is not likely.” “The most probable water quality for seepage and runoff from the waste rock is therefore that of neutralized ARD.” Incorrect! This should concern potential investors. Who are specific authors?

198

Robert E. Moran, Ph.D. Michael-Moran Assoc., LLC Water Quality/Hydrogeology/Geochemistry Golden, Colorado, U.S.A. Phone: (303) 526-1405 remoran501@comcast.net

Dr. Robert Moran has more than thirty-four years of domestic and international experience in conducting and managing water quality, geochemical and hydrogeologic work for private investors, industrial clients, tribal and citizens groups, NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, law firms, and governmental agencies at all levels. Much of his technical expertise involves the quality and geochemistry of natural and contaminated waters and sediments as related to mining, nuclear fuel cycle sites, industrial development, geothermal resources, hazardous wastes, and water supply development. In addition, Dr. Moran has significant experience in the application of remote sensing to natural resource issues, development of resource policy, and litigation support. He has often taught courses to technical and general audiences, and has given expert testimony on numerous occasions. Countries worked in include: Australia, Greece, Mali, Senegal, Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, South Africa, Iraqi Kurdistan, Oman, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Canada, Great Britain, Romania, United States.

EDUCATION University of Texas, Austin: Ph.D., Geological Sciences, 1974 San Francisco State College: B.A., Zoology, 1966 PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Moran and Associates, President, 1983 to 1992; 1996 to present Michael-Moran Assoc., LLC, Partner, 2004 to present Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Senior Consulting Geochemist, 1992 to 1996 Gibbs and Hill, Inc., Senior Hydrogeologist, 1981 to 1983 Envirologic Systems, Inc., Senior Hydrogeologist/Geochemist, 1980 to 1981 Tetra Tech Intâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;l. / Sultanate of Oman, Senior Hydrogeologist, 1979 to 1980 Science Applications, Inc., Geochemist/Hydrologist, 1978 to 1979 U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Hydrologist/Geochemist, 1972 to 1978 Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Research Scientist Assistant, 1970 to 1971 LANGUAGES English, Spanish

199

200

201

i

IFC Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines for Precious Metals Mining (Draft) July 2004

ii

World Bank General Env.-Proc. Wastewater discharges to surface waters: Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook, July 1998: [http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/PMExt.nsf/d798dd11401b4e068525668000766b9d/cb6c29e967664f658525666e00 705a4e?OpenDocument ] iii US EPA Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life—acute(Ac)and chronic(Chr): http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/index.html#criteria Due to space limitations, A=acute, and C=chronic. iv Canadian Guidelines for the Protection of Agricultural Water Uses(1999)—Irrigation (Irrig.) and Livestock (Livest.): http://www2.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/agrtbl_e.doc Due to space limitations, I=irrigation, and L= livestock. v Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Dec. 2004, Summary Table: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/e1_062.pdf vi

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2003, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life.

MERCURY: Inorganic mercury and methylmercury. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/ceqg_hg_wqg_fctsht_aug2003_e.pdf vii Substance for which there are no maximum admissible limits in the applicable legislation, these limits will be set up based on studies carried out by specialized institutes, accredited according to the law, subcontracted by the water user.

The studies will comprise the quantitative and qualitative methods for analysis of the respective substances, as well as adequate treatment technologies. The maximum admissible limits will than be approved by the competent central authority for water and environmental protection. In the case of the used waters containing polluting substances with values over the present limitations, it i mandatory to treat them or to take appropriate technological measures for these waters to reach the admissible values. In extraordinary circumstances, the central public authority for waters and environmental protection can proceed to a derogation from the present law. viii For polluting substances, other than those stipulated in table 1, the maximum admissible values are established in the water permits, based on the characteristics of the natural receptor, on its self-cleaning capacity, on the characteristics of other used substances discharged in the same natural receptor, on the needs of other water users and on the necessity for environmental protection. ix U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Drinking Water Standards: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#inorganic Arsenic standard in ( ) becomes effective January 2006.; US EPA, 2002, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/pc/revcom.pdf x Maximum admissible values xi

Romanian law on drinking water quality stipulates as a parameter pH (S.U.)

xii

Water doesn’t have to be aggressive

xiii

Following formula shall be applied: ([nitrate] / 50) + ([nitrite] / 3) <= 1

xiv

Following formula shall be applied: ([nitrate] / 50) + ([nitrite] / 3) <= 1

xv

Temperature of the natural receiving waters shall not be higher than 4C