of 66 /66
A Multicriteria Decision-Making Analysis of the Roșia Montană Gold Mining Project 2015 Adriana Mihai Adina Marincea Love Ekenberg

of the Roșia Montană Gold Mining Project - openpolitics.ro · available data concerning the Roşia Montană case are palpable in the Romanian public sphere; in the last 15 years

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

A Multicriteria Decision-Making Analysis of the Roșia Montană Gold Mining Project

2015

Adriana MihaiAdina Marincea

Love Ekenberg

A Multicriteria Decision-Making Analysis of the Roșia Montană Gold Mining Project

Research undertaken by MRC – Median Research Centre, Bucharest, Romania eGovlab, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University

Adriana Mihai, Median Research Centre*Adina Marincea, Median Research Centre

Love Ekenberg, Universitatea din Stockholm și IIASA

* Authors contributed equally and are therefore listed in reverse alphabetical order.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 8

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS 15

RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A. 15 TheRomanianstate 19 Thelocalcommunity 21 Publicopinionandcivilsociety 23

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY 25

DecisionanalysisandDecideIT 25 PriorstudieswithDecideIT 26 ThemethodologyoftheRoşiaMontanăcasestudy 28 Backgroundresearch,establishingthecriteriaandsubcriteria 28 DefiningthealternativesofdevelopmentforRoşiaMontană 31 Assigningvaluesandweighstothemulti-criteriatree 34

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 37

Scenario1:indiscriminativeassessmentofissuesimportance 37 Scenario2:coverageofissueintheconsulteddata 40 Scenario3:potentialofimprovingthecredibility 43 Scenario4:stakeholderinterest–theRomanianstate 44 Scenario5:stakeholderinterest–civilsocietyandlocalopponents 47 Scenario6:local,nationalandtransboundaryinterests 48 Scenario7:stakeholderinterest–localcommunity 51 Scenario8:transparencyandcitizeninterest 53 Scenario9:2013draftminingbillstipulations 55 Otherscenariosadvancedinthepublicdebates 59 Researchlimitations 59

CONCLUSIONS 61

REFERENCES 62

INTRODUCTION

TheobjectofthepresentresearchworkconductedbyMRC–MedianResearchCentre,fortheeGovlabattheDepartmentofComputerandSystemSciencesatStockholmUniversity,isadecisionanalysisoftheRoşiaMontanăgoldexploitationcaseandanIT-supportedmodelingofpublicdecisionmaking.TheneedandestimatedutilityforastructuredanalysisoftheavailabledataconcerningtheRoşiaMontanăcasearepalpableintheRomanianpublicsphere;inthelast15years,strongdebatesandtensionsbetweencitizens,journalists,Presidential,GovernmentandParliamentrepresentatives,civilsocietyactorsandcorporateofficialshavetakenplace,asallstakeholdershaveprovidedoftenconflictinginformationandopinionsonthebenefitsandrisksposedbyacyanideexploitationofgoldandsilvermineralsfromtheApuseniMountains,byaCanadianmajority-ownedcompany.Theprojecthastakensomestepsforward,butitisstillawaitinglegalandenvironmentalapprovalsfromtheRomanianGovernment,delaywhichhasabearingupontheRoşiaMontanăvillageandcommunity,aswellasontheinvestmentsmadesofarbythecompany.Romanianpolicymakersarestillfacingvisiblesetbacksintakingadecisionregardingtheexploitation,whilethecompanyiscurrentlypushingforaresolutionthrough“positivedialoguewithdecisionmakers”1.

TheRoşiaMontanăprojectreferstotheplansofexploringandprocessingofgoldandsilvermineralsfromtheRoşiaMontanăareaintheApusenimountains,Romania,usingatechnologybasedoncyanideleaching,bytheexploitationlicenceholder,S.C.RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.(tobereferredtoasRMGC).ThemainshareholdersofthecompanyaretheminingstatecompanyCompaniaNaţionalăaCuprului,AuruluişiFierului“MINVEST”S.A.Deva.2,with19.31%,andGabrielResourcesLtd.basedinCanada,with80.69%shares.MainlyduetothefailuretocomplywiththeRomanianlegislationonenvironmentissues,thecompanyhasnotobtainedalltheneededpermitstobegintheexploration.

Eversincetheexploitationlicencewasgrantedin1999totheNationalCopper,GoldandIronCompany“MINVEST”S.A.Deva,andwasfurthertransferredtothenewlycreatedRMGCin2000,theprojecthasbeenpromotedbythecompanythroughinstitutionallobbyandextensivePRcampaignsinthemediaforitspotentialeconomic,socialandculturalbenefitsforthelocalcommunityandtheRomanianstate.Afteraseriesofrenegotiations

1Gabrielseeksamicableresolutionoverminingdispute,PressRelease,January20,2015. http://gabrielresources.com/documents/GBURelease_Amicableresolutionsought_200115.pdf

2formerRegiaAutonomaaCupruluiDeva,until1998

oftheunprofitableconditionsstipulatedintheinitiallicenceagreement,theGovernmentofRomaniaestimatesadirectbenefitofnearly5.2bnUSD,whichincludesgoldandsilverroyalty,dividendsfortheRomanianstateasashareholder,incometax,andsocialcontributionsforemployees.

However,theenvironmentalrisksofcyanide-basedexplorations,thethreatposedtotheculturalheritageandotherindustriesinthearea,theforcedexpropriationsandseveralisuspicionsofcorruption,illegalitiesandoveralllackoftransparencyofthestate-companyagreementsstirredseriouscitizenandnon-governmentalorganizations’oppositiontotheproject.Legalactionshavebeentakenbyseveralopposingvillagers’NGO,AlburnusMaior,againstanumberofenvironmentalandarchaeologicalpermitsgivenbycountyinstitutionsandministries;furthermore,initiativesaimingtoraiseawarenessandcivicparticipationhavebeentakingplacebothinRoşiaMontană,mainlythroughtheactivisttheatreandmusicfestivalFânFest,andthroughoutthecountry,wherepublicdebates,artexhibitionsandinvestigationswereorganizedbyuniversitiesandotherresearchinstitutes,activistsandjournalists.Thepeakofcitizenoppositiontotheprojectwasthewidespreadprotestsinthefallof2013,triggeredbyadraftminingbilladvancedbyPrime-ministerofRomaniaandtherulingcoalitionatthetime,theSocial-LiberalUnion,whichwouldhavecreatedamoresuitablelegalframeworkfortheprojecttocommence.Counteractingthemainstreammediasilenceonthesubject,valuabledataandpreviouslyclassifiedmaterialsuchasthe1999exploitationlicencesurfacedonlineandbecameincreasinglyvisibleanddiscussed.

Nonetheless,theopinionsamongcitizensremaindivided.AnationalreferendumwassuggestedbythePresidentofRomaniain2013,buttheproposalwasrejectedinParliament.AnopinionpollcommandedbyanewspublicationandconductedinSeptember2013showedthat95%oftheRomaniansfollowedthereportsonthesubject.52%oftherespondentsstatedthatonlythroughthecontinuationoftheRoşiaMontanăminingsafejobscanbesecuredforthelocalcommunity,while35%believethattheareacandevelopthroughtourism,iftheprojectfalls3.

ThecontroversyoftheprojecthasledtheRomanianofficialstotreatitwithcautionintheelectoralcampaignsheldinthelastdecade,theirdiscourseoscillatingbetweenreinforcingRomania’sneedofeconomicbenefitsoutofitsnaturalresourcesandstatingtheirdisapprovalofthecyanideexploration.Althoughsomemembersoftherulingpartiesand

3 CatalinAugustinStoica,“OpiniapublicadespreProiectulRosiaMontanasiGazeledesist”,11decembrie2013,Voxpublica,http://voxpublica.realitatea.net/politica-societate/opinia-publica-despre-proiectul-rosia-montana-si-gazele-de-sist-101065.html

ministerssupporttheproject,othersarestillreluctantinreachingadefinitiveconclusion.Thepostponementofthedecisionregardingthecommencementoftheexplorationcanbemotivatedbythecurrentlegislativeimpediments,thelackofclarityregardingthemultipleargumentsonbothsidesandthecitizenoppositiontotheproject.

Thecurrentreport,supportedbytheUniversityofStockholm4incollaborationwithMedianResearchCentre,Bucharest,representsafirstattempttosystematizethemainargumentsissuedbythestakeholders(RMGC,theRomanianofficials,thecivilsociety,thelocalcommunity,expertsandcitizens).Webelievethatthemostappropriatemethodofanalysisandevaluationoftheavailabledata,forestablishingwhichoptionisthemostsuitableforasustainabledevelopmentoftheRoşiaMontanăarea,isamulti-criteriadecision-makingmodel5.Aswewillseebelow,thisscientificmethodcanservetheRomaniandecisionmakersintheprocessofweighingthedataforreachingadefinitiveandobjectiveconclusion.

4 ThisresearchwasfundedbytheSwedishResearchCouncilFORMAS,projectnumber2011-3313-20412-31,aswellasbyStrategicfundsfromtheSwedishgovernmentwithinICT—TheNextGeneration.

5 Multi-criteriadecision-makinganalysis(MCDA).AsevedeaşiMihai,A.;Marincea,A.;Ekenberg,L.AMCDMAnalysisoftheRoşiaMontanăGoldMiningProject.Sustainability2015,7,7261-7288.

8

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

MedianResearchCentrefollowedthemajorstepstakenintheRoşiaMontanăcasebythemainpartiesinvolved6,fromofficialagreementsandpermits,topoliticalstatementswhicheitherpushedtheprojectforward,orblockeditduetothepolitical,socialorenvironmentalrisks.

1995: GabrielResourcesNLwinstheauctionorganizedbythestate-ownedcompanyRegiaAutonomăaCupruluiDevaforajointventureinexploitingtheoldtailingsatRoşiaMontanăandGurabarza–Brad;thedocumentationshowsthattheauctionwaswononSeptember4th,howevertheofficialreleaseinapublicnewspaperofthebidbytheRomaniancompanywasissuedonSeptember5th.

1997:ListingGabrielResourcesontheVancouverstockmarket,withtheapprovaloftheMinistryofIndustryandCommerce7;GabrielResourcesLimitedandRegiaAutonomăaCupruluiDevabecomeformallyassociatesintheRomaniancompanyEuroGoldResources,whichlaterbecomesS.C.RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.Intheassociationagreement,asumof9millionUSDisstipulatedasinvestmentmadebyGabrielResourcesLimitedforresearchandfeasabilitystudies,withthepurposeof„identifyingthequantitiesandqualityofthedepositswithintheperimeter”8.

1998:RomanianGovernmentadoptsthenewmininglawno.61/1998.InDecember1998,thelicenseagreementfortheexploitationofthedepositswithinalimitedperimeterinRoşiaMontanaisgiventostate-ownedNationalCompanyofCopper,GoldandIron“Minvest”S.A(formerRegiaAutonomaaCupruluiDeva),whilethejointventureEuroGoldResourcesremains„affiliate”;

1999:Thelicenseagreementisvalidatedthroughagovernmentaldecisionno.458/1999,signedbythethenPrime-minister,MinistryofIndustryandCommerce,MinistryofFinancesandthedirectoroftheNationalAgencyforMineralResources.Thelicenseagreement–

6 RalucaToma,TimelineRoşiaMontană,November3rd2013,http://www.openpolitics.ro/Roşia-Montană/timeline-Roşia-Montană.html

7 Lateronandtothepresentday,thecompanyislistedontheTorontostockmarket.8 LicenseagreementfortheconcessionofgoldandsilverresourcesinRoşiaMontanăjustificationand

governmentaldecision,31.05.1999,http://gov.ro/fisiere/stiri_fisiere/licenta-de-concesiune.pdf

9

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

includingtheexactlocationandperimetersforexploitation-anditsadditionalcontractsremainclassified,accordingtotheRomanianlaw,until2013,whentheyareleakedtothepress.

2000:ThetransferoftheexploitationlicensefromtheNationalCompanyofCopper,GoldandIron“Minvest”S.AtothejointventureS.C.RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.isapprovedbytheNationalAgencyforMineralResourcesandbytheGovernment.Meanwhile,homeandlandownersinRoşiaMontanăopposingtheminingprojectassociateandformanNGO,AlburnusMaior,whichwillbealeadingactivevoiceandwatchdogfordefendingtherighttoproperty,theconservationofthenaturallandscapeintheareaandthelegalityofpermitsissuedbylocalornationalinstitutionsonthetopic.

2001-2002: RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationreleasesthefirstfeasibilitystudyfortheRoşiaMontanăexploitation,after4yearsofgeologicalresearchandgeo-technicaldrillingsinthearea.Theproposalforexploitationconsistsof20milliontonsofmineralstobeannuallyprocessedin4openpitsfrommassifsCetate,Cârnic,Jig-VaidoaiaandOrlea,with„averagecontentsof1.46g/tAuand6.9g/tAg,representing10.1millionounces(314t)Auand47.6millionounces(1480t)Ag-insitumetals”9.Thetechnologicalprocessinvolvesblastingthepits,cyanideleachingoftheoreinaprocessplant,andreleasingtheneutralizedsodiumcyanideinatailingsmanagementfacility,behindadammadeofrock.Thearealicensedforthecompanyconsistsof2388ha,outofwhich1346haaredestinedforexploitationand300haforthetailingsmanagementfacilityanddam.Theexploitationpresuposestherelocationanddisplacementof960familiesfromthreevillages–RoşiaMontana,CornaandGuraCornei,housesandcemetaries,thedestructionoffourmassifsandnaturallandscapes,buildingsandchurches10.AplanfordisplacementandrelocationisopenforpublicandprivatedebatesbetweentherepresentativesofRoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationandtheimpactedlocalfamilies.

2002:Theright-wingGreaterRomaniaPartysubmitsamotionopposingtheprojectinParliamentandopensthedebatesurroundingthelegalityofthelicenseprocedures.Themotionaskedfor:abanagainstgoldcyanidizationandaturntoenvironmental-friendlyminingtechnologies;respectingtherighttopropertyofthelocalcitizens;acorrectand

9 RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation,GeologyofRoşiaMontană,http://en.rmgc.ro/Roşia-Montană-project/geology.html

10 RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationMemorandum,2004.www.mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/Roşia_Montană/pdf/memoriu_prezentare.pdf

10

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

transparentprocessofpublicinformingontheproject.TheMinistryofIndustryandCommercetakesafavorableposition,bysignalingthattheresourcesshouldbeexploited;whilethemethodisstillupfordebate,hearguesthat„utilizingcyanideinprocessingthegoldandsilverorewithlowconcentrationisthemostwidelyusedmethodaroundtheworld”.Issuessuchassocialandenvironmentalcostsandrisks,thelackofpreviousminingexperienceandsuccessfulexploitationsconductedbytheinvestors,thedestructionofromanarcheologicaltraces,thelackoffinancialguaranteesfortheimplementationandsafeclosureoftheproject,werediscussedinplenary11intheChamberofDeputees.Themotionwasrejectedwith65votesforand188votesagainst,amongthelatterbeingdeputeesfromtheDemocratParty,theNationalLiberalPartyand.theDemocraticUnionofHungariansinRomania.AlburnusMaiorNGOlaunchesthecampaign„SaveRoşiaMontană”againsttheprojectanditsimpactontheenvironment,ontheculturalheritage(ancientgalleries,heritagebuildings),aswellasonthelocalcommunityandpropertyowners.

2003: Prime-ministeraskstheParliamenttoappointaSpecialCommitteetoassesstheRoşiaMontanăprojectrisksandadvantages.Bydecisionno.8/2003,the13memberscommitteeissupposedto„formulateaunitaryviewpointconcerningtheeconomical,social,culturalandenvrionmentalaspectsimpliedbytheproject”12.Twomonthslater,theCommitteepublishesareport13whichreinforcestheeconomicalbenefitsfortheRomanianstate,estimatedat583millionUSD,andassuresthewiderpublicthatnolegislationbreacheswereobservedinthelicenseagreementorintheactivityofthecompanyuptothatpoint.Inspiteofthepositivenoteofthereportandofitsfavorablereceptioninthelocalpress,twomembersofthecommitteereleasedseparatestatements,however,drawingattentionontheinsufficientdatagatheredinashorttimespan,onthequestionabledebatesformat,aswellasonthelackoftransparencyoftheParliamentaryhearings,wherethepresswasnotallowedaccess.Prime-ministerAdrianNastasedeclares,basedonthecommitteereport,thatheis„skeptical”aboutthechancesoftheprojecttobeimplemented,duetothehighenvironmentalrisks.

11 ChamberofDeputiesSession,DebateontheRoşiaMontanăsimplemotion,signedby71deputees.December10th2002.http://www.cdep.ro/pls/steno/steno.stenograma?ids=5367&idm=11&idl=1

12 Hotărâreanr.8/2003pentruconstituireaComisieicomunespecialeprivindefectuareauneianalizeasupraProiectuluidedezvoltareminierăRoşiaMontană

13 Thereportisnolongeravailableforpublicconsultation,butstatementsissuedbythe2003specialcommitteememberscanbefoundinthemedia–VeronicaMarinescu,DesiRaportulComisieiparlamentarenudaundaverdeinvestitiei,autoriiproiectului„RoşiaMontană“sesivadcastigatori,CurierulNational,June12th2003 http://www.curierulnational.ro/print/15612

2004:MinistryofCultureapprovesthecertificateofarcheologicaldischargesfortheCârnicmassif,legaldocumentnecessaryfortheexploitationofaprotectednaturalheritagesite.

2004 presidential elections:candidateandprime-ministerAdrianNăstasereinforceshisoppositiontotheproject,declaringthatthegoldwillbetakenaway,leavinginsteadthecyanidetailings;candidateandmayorofBucharestatthetimeTraianBăsescu(whowonthepresidentialelectionsandstayedinofficeuntilnovember2014)supportstheprojectforitsvalueandjob-creatingpotential.Atthesametime,thenewMinistryofEnvironmentannouncesherrefusaltoissueanyenvironmentalpermitsfortheproject.

2005: DiplomaticmeetingsbetweentheRomanianandtheHungarianprime-ministersandministriesofenvironment;theHungarianMinistryofEnvironmentopposestheprojectandadvisestheRomaniansidetoaskforanimpactassessmentstudy.

2002-2006: Feasibilitystudies,researchandconsultingconductedbythecompanyandnationalandinternationalexpertsfordraftingthedocumentationneededforlegalapprovals;submittingtheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentfortheRoşiaMontanăProject14totheMinistryofEnvironmentandforpublicdebate;finalizingtheGeneralUrbanismPlanfortheAlbacountyandtheZonalUrbanismPlanfortheRoşiaMontanavillage,bothincludingtheprojectactivities.Theapprovalsoftheurbanismplansaremandatoryfortheprojectdevelopment.

2002-2004 and 2006-2008: Thecompanypurcahsespropertiesinthevillagestobeaffectedbytheproject.

2006: TheMinistryofEnvironmentreleasestheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentfortheRoşiaMontanăProjectforpublicdebates,makingthedocumentationavailableonlineandforrequest.RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationtakespartin16publicconsultationsinRomaniaandHungaryandreceives5600questionsonthedatafromtheEIA,towhichthecompanyrespondsthroughtheMinistryofEnvironmentwebsite,in200715.Theanswersareavailableonline,asanannextotheEIA.

14 http://en.rmgc.ro/Roşia-Montană-project/environment/environmental-impact-assessment.html15 MinistryofEnvironment,RoşiaMontanădocumentation,http://www.mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/Roşia_

Montană/Roşia_Montană.htm

11

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

12

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

2008: RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationsuestheMinistryofEnvironmentanditsSecretaryofStateforunjustifiablyrefusingtoissuethepermitsforthedamconstructionatCornaandCetate.NationalandinternationalorganizationsGreenpeace,AlburnusMaiorandtheIndependentCenterfortheDevelopmentofNaturalResourcesoffertheirlegalsupportandexpertizetotheMinistry.In2009,theBucharestCourtofLawrejectsthelegalactiontakenbythecompany,infavoroftheMinistry.

2009 presidential elections:thesocialist-democratcandidateMirceaGeoanădeclaresthataslongastheprojectthreatenstheenvironmentandtheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopment,hewillopposeit.PresidentinofficeandcandidateTraianBăsescuavoidspoliticalstatementsontheprojects,leavingthedecisioninthehandsofexperts.However,herestateshispositionregardingtheexploitationofresources,namelythatitshouldbedone,inprinciple,butwithoutirremediablyjeoperdizingarcheologicalsitesandtheenvironment.RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationinauguratesRecea,thenewlybuiltneighbourhoodinAlbaIuliacity,destinedforthe125familieswhohaveagreeduponrelocating.

2009:ProvisionalMinistryofEconomyincludestheprojectontheagendaofthenewlyformedgovernment,announcinghisintenttoacceleratethecommencementoftheexploitation.MinistriesofCultureandofEnvironmentdeclarethatinthelackofguaranteesandmoreextensiveresearch,theywouldnotgivethenecessarypermits.

2010: AseminarontheRoşiaMontanăprojectentitled„MakingEuropealeaderinsustainableandresponsiblemining”16wasorganizedattheEuropeanParliamentinBrusselsbyliberalMEPincollaborationwithGabrielResourcesLimited.TheeventwasseverelycriticizedfornotinvitingMEPsorexpertsopposingtheprojectandtheNationalLiberalPartyhadtoissueastatementremindingthepublicopinionthat,duringitsgovernmentalmandate,theprojectwasblockedduetoacost-benefitanalysisrevealingtheunprofitabilityoftheprojectfortheRomanianstate.TheEuropeanParliamentadoptsananti-cyanideuseresolution,advisingthebanofcyanideminindintheEuropeanUnion.AmongthesupportersoftheresolutionaretwoRomanianMEPs.Meanwhile,thecompanyobtainsarenewedurbanismcertificateandtheMinistryofEnvironmentresumestheevaluationoftheEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.

2011:Conflictingopinions:whiletheprime-ministerdeclaresthattheagreementsmadebetweentheRomanianstateandthecompanyarenotinthebestinterestofthestate,

16 http://www.nineoclock.ro/Roşia-Montană-scandal-liberals-reject-accusations/

thePresidentdeclaresthattheproject„needstobedone”afterarenegotiationofthestatebenefitsandthatthegovernmentmusthavethecouragetoassumeresponsibility.Oppositionleaders(amongwhichthepresent-dayprime-minister)criticizethePresident’sinvolvementandrejecttheproject.OppositionpartieslaunchtheirvisionforasustainabledevelopmentwhichincludesmandatorymeasuresfortheRoşiaMontanăcase:declassifyingtheagreements,independentcost-benefitanalyses,identifyingthemostappropriatetechnologyfortheexploitation,takingintoconsiderationtheEPanti-cyanideresolution,respectingtherighttopropertyofthevillagers.TheMinistryofEnvironmentnegotiatestheloweringoftheconcentrationofcyanidewiththecompany,andtheMinistryofEconomyoffersitsfullsupportfortheproject.Thecompanysponsorsanextensivearcheologicalresearchandconservationprogramoftheancientromangalleries,incollaborationwiththeNationalMuseumofHistoryandwithotherresearchinstitutions.

2012: Newlyappointedsocial-democratprime-ministermentionsthreeconditionsforgettingonwiththeproject:environmentalsafetyguarantees,regenotiatingthestateshareswithinRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationandputtinganendtothelobbyinfluencingthepoliticaldecision.TheMinistryofEconomyannouncesthelocalcommunitythattheprojectissettostartandthatafavorabledecisionwillbemadebytheendoftheyear.Prime-ministerinfirmsthestatement,mentioningthatadecisionwillnotbetakenbytheendoftheyear,continuingthechainofcontradictionsinstatementscomingfromthesamegovernment.MinistryofEnvironmentasksforadeclassificationofthelicenseagreement.AlongwithParliamentaryelections,theAlbacountyorganizesareferendumaskingthecitizensof35villagesandtownswhethertheyagreewiththecompanyprojectornot.While62,45%ofthevoteschose„yes”and35%votedagainsttheproject,thereferendumfailedtobevalidatedduetolowerthanrequiredturnout,withonly43,20%ofcitizenswitharighttovotecastingtheballot.

2013: TheprojectisputontheagendaoftheMinistryofInfrastructureandNationalInterestProjectsandstatementsarereleasedinfavouroftheprojectandagainsttheopposingNGOs,politicalleaderssupportingthe„reindustrialization”ofRomania.Newminingbillisdraftedbythegovernmentandsubmittedtotheparliament:miningprojectsbecomeof„publicutilityandnationalinterest”addressingtheconstitutionalconditionwhichstipulatesthat„noonecanbeexpropriatedunlessitisforapublicinterestcause,setbylawandwithjustcompensation”.Theminingbillalsoincludesrenegotiationsofthestateparticipationinthecompany,thesharesraisingfrom19.31%to25%,aswellasanincreaseofthestatebenefitsfromroyalties,from4%to6%.TheMinistryofJusticegivesanegativevoteforthemininglaw,invokingunnecessarylimitationsofthecitizenrights,ambiguouswordingandunconstitutionalbreachesinissuesconcerningexpropriationandperimeterdelimitations.

13

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

14

SHORT HISTORY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

RiseProject(independentinvestigativejournalism)publishesthelicenseagreementanditsadditionalcontracts,followedbyotherdocumentsreleasedontheMinistryofEconomywebsite.Proofsofirregularitiesemergeandstreetprotestsagainstthedraftlawtakeplacealloverthecountry,fromseptember1st.Followingthestreetpressures,presidentoftheSenateandleaderoftheNationalLiberalPartytakesthesideoftheprotesters.Prime-ministersubsequentlydeclarestheprojectclosedandthevictoryofthestreetandcivilsociety,statinghisintentionofquicklyrejectingitinanemergencyvoteinParliamentduetoanobviousmajorityopposingit.HisstatementmakesGabrielResourcesLimitedstocksontheTorontostockmarketdropwith51%,thecompanyreleasingastatementbywhichtheRomanianstateisbeingthreatenedwith“litigationformultiplebreachesofinternationalinvestmenttreatiesforupto$4-billion”17.Followingthecorporatereaction,PMannouncestheyhavereconsideredtheinitialrejectionofthedraftlaw,proposinginsteadaSpecialCommissionappointedbytheParliamenttohearoutallthestakeholdersinvolved,alongwithNGOs,citizens,independentexpertsandjournalists,localandnationalauthoritiesandrepresentativesofthecompany.

2014 presidential elections:Lookingattheirelectoralagendas,itseemsthatthe6mostvisiblecandidatesaredividedwhenitcomestotheRoşiaMontanăproject:MonicaMacoveiandCălinPopescuTăriceanuareneutral,ElenaUdreaismorepro-developmentoftheprojectandVictorPonta,KlausIohannisandKelemenHunoraremoreanti-developmentoftheproject18.Thereisobviouslystillnoconsensusonwhatdecisionshouldbemadeinthiscaseandthepoliticalriskishighinassumingadefinitiveposition.TheNationalAgencyforMineralResourcesannouncesupcomingauctionfortheconcessionofnewperimetersforexploration,fourofwhichcontaingoldandsilverdeposits.

2015: GabrielResourcesLimitedissuesaformalnotificationtothePresidentandPrimeMinisterofRomaniacallingforaformalengagementinaprocessofconsultation,seekingan„amicableresolutiontothisdisputewhichwillleadtothedevelopmentoftheProjectforthebenefitofallstakeholders”.

17 GabrielthreatensRomaniawithbillion-dollarlawsuit,TheGlobeMail,September11,2013 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/gabriel-resources-ceo-vows-to-sue-if-romania-kills-europes-biggest-gold-mine/article14240950/

18 AccordingtothedatagatheredbyMedianResearchCentrefortheapplicationTestVotPresidentialElections2014.Theapplicationisavailableherehttp://www.openpolitics.ro/testvot,anddetailsonthemethodologyemployedarehere:http://www.openpolitics.ro/noutati/homepage/tot-ce-ai-nevoie-sa-stii-despre-testvot-prezidentiale-2014.html

Throughouttheyears,therehasbeennoconsensusonthefutureoftheprojectwithinasingleparty.Think-tankRomâniaCurată(CleanRomania)lobbyingagainstcorruption,forparliamentarytransparencyandtheruleoflaw,publishedalistof43wellknownpublicofficialswhohavesupportedtheminingprojectthroughfavorableactionsandstatementsinministriesorparliament.Theofficialscamefromallmajorpartieswhichhavebeenpartoftherulingcoalitionsofthepast15years.19

ThefinalreportissuedbytheSpecialParliamentaryCommissioninNovember2013includesproandagainstargumentsissuedbythemainemittentsofreports,lawsandpermitsfortheRoşiaMontanăproject,servingasagoodstartingpointforamulticriteriadecisionanalysiswhichtakesintoconsiderationthemultiplestakeholderpointofviews.Thecommitteeconclusionsrecommendtherejectionofthebill(whichtookplaceinParliamentthefollowingmonths),aswellasthefollowing:a)fairpartnershipconditionsbetweenthemajorityshareholderandtheRomanianstate-ownedcompany,respectingcompulsorycommunitynormsandtheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopmentintheareaswheretheprojectwillbeputintoexecution;b)realimprovementandlargereconomicbenefitsaftertherenegotiationsoftheinitialagreement;c)acarefulreexaminationofalternativescenariosonminingexploitationroyaltyandcontributionrate-setting;d)athroughoutinvestigationofthelegalityofactionswithintheproject;e)anecessityofbroaderlegislationongoldandsilveralloyminingprojectstobedebatedbyparliamentsoastoenableminingdevelopmentinRomaniaandinvestments.

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.,withmainshareholderGabrielResourcesLimited(80,69%shares).AccordingtotheAnnualInformationFormofGabrielResourcesLtd.fortheyear2013,thecompanyisregisteredinYukon,Canada,andoperatesthroughitssubsidiariesinLondon,Bucharest,RoşiaMontanaandBrussels.Thecompanypresentsitselfashavingasinglefocus,namely“permittinganddevelopingitsworldclassRoşiaMontanăgoldandsilverproject”20.BesidestheexploitationlicensefortheRoşiaMontanagoldandsilverdeposits,thecompanyalsoowns,throughitsRomaniansubsidiary,anexplorationconcessionforgold,silverandcopperdepositsinBucium,withinthesamecounty.

19 http://www.romaniacurata.ro/captura-statului-la-purtator-43-de-nume-sonore-pe-lista-neagra-a-exploatarii-Roşia-Montană/

20 http://www.gabrielresources.com/site/index.aspx

15

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

16

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

Belowwecanseetheinter-corporaterelationshipbetweentheCompanyanditssubsidiaries,aswellasthepercentageofownershipheldbytheCompanyineachandthemineralsowned:

FIGURE1.Stakeholderscheme,RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationS.A.Source:AnnualInformationFormofGabrielResourcesLtd.,March12,2014,p.6

RMGold(Services)Ltd.(UK)

MinvestS.A.(Romania)

RomAurSRL(Romania)

NFIGabrielFinanceS.A.(Romania)

“Non-BankingFinancialInstitution”

GabrielResourcesLtd.(Yukon,Canada)

GabrielResources(Barbados)Ltd.(Barbados)

GabrielResources(Netherlands)B.V.(Netherlands)

GabrielResourcesJerseyLtd.(Jersey)

RosiaMontanaGoldCoroporationSA

(Romania)

100.00%

100.00% 100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

80.69%

19.31%

100.00%

0.22%

0.22%

99.55%

RosiaMontana Project

Bucium Project

GabrielResourcesLtd.hasmade,between1997and2013,investmentsof550millionUSD,accordingtotheirstatementstothe2013specialparliamentarycommittee.Themajorareasofinvestmentsfocusedon:geologicalresearch(98millionUSD),culturalheritageresearchandpreservationmeasures(28millionUSD),displacingsites(50millionUSD),propertyacquisition(105millionUSD),taxesandfees(50millionUSD),miningequipment(55millionUSD),techni-calstudies(90millionUSD),generalandadministrativecosts(74millionUSD).Noofficialdocu-mentationwassubmittedtojustifythesums;themediareleasedfurtherexpensesmadebythecompanyforlobbying,PRandadvertising(millionsof€cf.2013specialcommittee,p.15).

Thestate-ownedcompanyMINVEST(19,31%ofshares)hasmadenoinvestmentsintheproject,asitwasstatedintheagreementbetweentheRomaniansideandtheinvestors.Thecompanyalsoowns19%ofanotherjointventureforminingactivities,DevaGoldS.A.,whosemainshareholderisEldoradoGoldCorporation(CA).DevaGold,whosedirectoristheformerdirectorofMINVEST,ownstwpexplorationlicensesforperimetersintheneighbouringcountyHunedoara,atCertej,90kmfromRoşiaMontana.TheminingprojectatCertejhasverysimilarinitialagreementswiththeRomanianstate21andplanstousecyanideinordertoextractgoldandsilveraswell;however,in2005,thecompanydecidedtochangethetechnologyfromleaching(totalcyanidation,technologychosenbyRoşiaMontanaGoldCorporation)toflotation,processwhichdiminishesthequantityofcyanideusedperyearto1,653tons,incontrastto12,000tons/year,volumerequiredbytheleachingprocess.

ThereareseveralotherlicensesforexplorationintheApuseniMountains,releasedbytheNationalAgencyforMineralResources;theprojectsproposeopen-pitmining,andareindifferentstagesofdevelopment,fromestimatingthequantitiesoforeinthedepositstoawaitingenvironmentalandexploitationpermitapprovals.

FIGURE2.Mainperimetersforgoldandsilverexplorationlicenses,ApuseniMountainsRed:RoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationS.A.Green:SamaxRomaniaS.A.Yellow:DevaGoldS.A.

21 Afacereaaurului:DevaGoldextindeproiectulCertej,RiseProject,October31st,2014.http://www.riseproject.ro/afacerea-aurului-deva-gold-extinde-proiectul-certej/

17

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

18

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

Table 1. Mining licenses in Romania and the main shareholders

Projectname Company Mainshareholders Licensetype

1. Roşia Montană Roşia Montană Gold Gabriel Resources exploitation Corporation S.A. Ltd. (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 2. Bucium Roşia Montană Gold Gabriel Resources exploration Corporation S.A. Ltd. (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 3. Certej Deva Gold S.A. Eldorado Gold Corporation exploitation (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 4. Brad Deva Gold S.A Eldorado Gold Corporation exploration (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 5. Muncel Deva Gold S.A Eldorado Gold Corporation exploration (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 6. Deva Deva Gold S.A. Eldorado Gold Corporation exploration (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 7. Băiţa- Deva Gold S.A. Eldorado Gold Corporation exploitation Crăciuneşti (CA) şi Minvest (RO) 8. Rovina-Câlnic Samax Romania S.A. Carpathian Gold (CA) exploration 9. Cireşata Samax Romania S.A. Carpathian Gold (CA) exploration

ÎAlongwiththestate-ownedcompanyMinvest,thefirstsevenprojectslistedaboveareofinteresttotheshareholdersoftheCanadiancompaniesaswell.AllcompaniesarelistedontheTorontostockmarketandhavecommonshareholders,hedgefundssuchasVanEckAssociatesCorporation.BaupostGroupLLCorFidelityManagementandResearchCompany.PositivepoliticalstatementsandpermitapprovalsregardingtheRoşiaMontanăprojecthaveinfluencedthequotationofthecompanies,whilenegativeeventssuchasthe2013protestsandrejectionofthedraftbillhaveseverelyaffectedthestocksvalue.

SincetheNationalAgencyforMineralResourcesannouncedfutureauctionsforotherperimeterscontaininggoldandsilverdeposits,thedecisiontakenintheRoşiaMontanăcasecouldbeaprecedentforfuturenegotiationsanddevelopmentsinotherprojectsofmininginRomania.

ThedocumentationweconsultedissuedbyRMGCincludestheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentreports,infographics,mapsandothersummariesoftheprojectavailableontheirwebsite,aswellastheirhearingsinfrontofthe2013SpecialCommittee.Also,inorder

tohavemoreinsightonthecompanyprojectandontheimpactedareaoftheeventualexploitation,wewenttoRoşiaMontană22andwereabletospeaktothespokespersonofthecompany,Mr.CătălinHosu,whopresentedthesitesinfocusandexplainedthetechnologicalprocessimpliedbytheproject,aswellastheinvestmentsmadeinthepreservationofculturalheritageandinapilotprojectoffilteringouttheacidwaters.TheconversationconfirmedtheinformationputforwardbytheCompanyintheirofficialdata,butitalsofailedtoclarifythequestionmarksregardingthelackoffinancialguarantees23,therisksassociatedwithsettingthetailingsmanagementfacilityonCornaValley(whichislikelytocontaingeologicalfaults,accordingtotheNationalInstituteofGeology),theinherentrisksassociatedwithcyanideleaching(evenifconsideredBAT–bestavailabletechnology)andthenegotiationswiththefamiliesrefusingtorelocate.

The Romanian state

FollowingtheaccessiontotheEuropeanUnion,theRomanianstatecouldnolongersubsidizetheminingactivitiesofstate-ownedcompanies;afterthefallofcommunism,thestatewasconfrontedwithatypicaldeindustrializationperiod,whichledtosignificantlylowerproductioninseveralindustries,includingmining.Datashowsthatoutof14miningregionsacrossthecountryandaprox.65,000directandindirectjobsinthenon-energymining,only2000employeesarecurrentlypaidfromgovernmentalfunds24.Significantunemploymentrateshavehadsocialandeconomicalimpactsintheaffectedareaswhereminingactivitieshavebeenceased.

After1989,theNationalAgencyforMineralResourcesreleasedanumberofexploitationlicensestostatecompanies,whichparteneredwithforeigninvestors,suchas intheRoşiaMontanăcase.AnotherjointventurewascreatedbetweenthestatecompanyRemin(whichdecreaseditsemployeenumberfrom30,000duringcommunismto

22 September201423 Mandatoryrequirement,accordingtoEUDirective26/21/EC,art.2524 Infographic,MininginRomaniafromdeclinetorebirth,Hotnews.ro,January15th2013,sponsoredbyRoşia

MontanăGoldCorporationS.A.http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-Roşia_Montană_social-14009179-infografic-mineritul-romania-declin-renastere.htm

19

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

20

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

14,000in1996,to300peoplein200925)andanAustralianbusinessownedbythesamepersonwhostartedupGabrielResources26.TheresultingprojectoftheventurewastheBaiaMareandBaiaBorsaexploitations,infamousnowforthecyanidespillaccidentin2000,whencyanidetailingspermeatedtheTisaandDanuberivers27.Althoughtheinvestorsandthestatecompanydidnottakeonanyresponsibilityfortheaccident,theInternationalTaskForceevaluationsshowthatthebreakofthedamwascausedbypoordesignandtechnicalcalculationsintheconstructionphase,aswellasbypoormonitoringintheimplementationphaseoftheproject.

OneoftheEUdirectiveswithwhichRomaniahadtocomplyafteritsaccessionin2007concernedtherehabilitationandminimisationofwasteandtoxictailingscomingfromthestateactivitiesintheextractiveindustries28.However,therearestillareaswhichareaffectedbythetoxicwastefromminingactivities,amongthembeingtheRoşiaMontanăvillage;thehistoricalpollutionofsoilandsurfacewaterswithheavymetalsandtheircompoundshasnotyetbeenhandlededbythelocalornationalauthoritiesandtothepresentday,acidwaterisdrainedintotheRoşiastreamfromtheoldminegalleries.Researchshowsthattheenvironmentalimpactofthepollutionintheareaissignificantandtherisksassociatedwithitshouldmakepollutionmediationapriorityonthepublicdecision-makingagenda29.ThepoorcommittmentoftheRomanianstateinusingEUandnationalfundsformanagingthehazardouswastewasrecentlysanctionedinCourtbytheEuropeanCommission,forafailuretocomplywithEUlegislationonminingwasteinthecaseoftheBoşneagpond,anabandoned102hatailingpondthatholdswasteextractedfromcopperandzincmines

25 CompaniaminieraReminBaiaMareesteinliniedreaptacuproceduriledefaliment,ZiarulFinanciar,May3rd,2009,http://www.zf.ro/companii/compania-miniera-remin-baia-mare-este-in-linie-dreapta-cu-procedurile-de-faliment-4282533/

26 CompaniaminieraReminBaiaMareesteinliniedreaptacuproceduriledefaliment,ZiarulFinanciar,May3rd,2009,http://www.zf.ro/companii/compania-miniera-remin-baia-mare-este-in-linie-dreapta-cu-procedurile-de-faliment-4282533/

27 ReportoftheInternationalTaskForceforAssessingtheBaiaMareAccident,establishedbythegovernmentsofRomaniaandHungary,theEuropeanCommissionandtheUnitedNations,December2000.http://viso.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pecomines_ext/docs/bmtf_report.pdf

28 Directive2006/21/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof15March2006onthemanagementofwastefromextractiveindustriesandamendingDirective2004/35/EC-StatementbytheEuropeanParliament,theCouncilandtheCommission,OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0021&from=EN

29 LucrinaŞtefănescu,BrînduşaMihaelaRobuandAlexandruOzunu,IntegratedapproachofenvironmentalimpactandriskassessmentofRoşiaMontanăminingarea,Romania.EnvironmentalScienceandPollutionResearch,Vol.20,Issue11,November2013,pp.7719-7727.

inMoldovaNouă30.EUregulationsonminingactivitiesandwastemanagementexplicitlymentiontheneedfor„aneffectivesystemofinspectionsorequivalentcontrolmeasures”andofcontinuousmonitoringoftheprojectinallitsstages;however,thecapacityofauthoritiesresponsibleforeffectivemonitoringoftheimplementationoftheprojectisstilldebatableduetoallegationsofcorruptionandmismanagement.

The local community

In2007,asociologicalstudywasconductedintheareaswhichwouldbeimpactedbytheRoşiaMontanăproject,namelyinthetownsAbrudandCâmpeni,andvillagesBistra,Bucium,Ciuruleasa,Lupşa,MogoşandRoşiaMontană.62,7%oftheinterviewedhadintheirfamiliesformerminersandheldpositiveexpectationsfromtheproject31.Thestandardoflivingintheareaswasperceivedasratherpoororverypoorin2009,asmostoftherespondentsdeclaredamonthlyincomeof300to900RON(between100and300USDatthetime),while16%ofthevillagersinRoşiaMontanăhadadailyincomeoflessthan2USD,comingtoalargeextentfromsocialsecuritybenefits.Anotherstudywasconductedintheareasin2011,lookingatthedegreeofconfidencethecommunityhadintherevivalofsurfaceexploitationmining.Almost2/3oftherespondentshadlittleorverylittleconfidenceintheinvestors,and1/3statedtheyhadstrongconfidenceinthecompany.ThehighestdegreeofconfidenceinthecompanywasmanifestedamongthevillagersfromRoşiaMontană(52,8%),someofthemalreadyworkingforthecompany.Somerespondentsdrewattentionofthefactthatwhilethepeoplewhoworkforthecompanyhaveabetterstandardoflivingthanbefore,theoneswhoareandwillnotbeemployedintheminingproject,makingalivingoutofagricultural,woodprocessing,farmanimalsortourism,willbeseverelyaffectedbytheproject.

Thejobswhichwouldbecreatediftheprojectisimplementedarethemainreasonsforthehighexpectationsofthelocals.Otherexpectationsforthedevelopmentoftheareamentionsolutionssuchasthereopeningofundergroundminesorlong-termsurfacemining,creatingstrategiesforincreasingthetourisminthearea,aswellasinvestingindairiesandothertypesoffarming.

30 Environment:CommissiontakesRomaniatoCourtovertoxictailingpond,EuropeanCommissionpressrelease,October16th2014,Brussels.http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1149_en.htm

31 MihaiPascaru,Glocalizareromânească.ImpactulcomunitaralproiectuluiRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation.LimesPublishingHouse,Cluj-Napoca,2013.

21

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

22

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

TheinhabitantsoftheCornavillage,whichwillbetheclosesttothetailingsponddesignedwithintheproject,wereaskedhowtheyfeelaboutthepondbeingsituatedintheCornacut-off.9,4%oftherespondentssaidtheyagreedwiththeinitiativewithnosadfeelingsaboutit,28,1%declaredtheyagreedwithit,butarehoweversadaboutit,and29,7%statedtheydisagreedwiththetheinitiative.Moreover,31,3%oftherespondentsbelievedthattheminingprojectwouldhaveapositiveimpactonthearea,while48,8%believedthecontrary.

AskedaboutwhethertheyseeanyotheralternativesbesidestheRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationprojectforthefutureofthearea,46,9%oftherespondentsbelievedthereareotheralternatives,while31,9%believedtheprojectwastheonlyoption.

In2013,aseriesofinterviewswereconductedwithfamilieswhohaveagreedtorelocatefromRoşiaMontanăandCornatothenear-bycityAlba-Iulia,wheretheCompanybuiltanewneighbourhoodfromscratch.Thequestionswereaimingtoextractthepeople’sinputontheperceivedadvantagesanddisadvantagesbroughtbytheirdecisiontoagreewiththeCompany’soffer.Themainadvantagesstatedbytherespondentsincludedbetteraccesstopublicservicessuchashealth,education,socialassistance,betterinfrastructuresuchasaseweagesystem,runningwater,streetlightingandbetterchancesofemployment.ThedisadvantagestheymentionedwerethehigherlivingexpensesincontrastwiththelowsalariestheygetinAlba-Iulia,theperceptionandfearofbeingmarginalizedandhome-sickness.

Public opinion and civil society

Thelocalcommunitiesare,aswehaveseen,dividedintheirviewsontheprojectimpactinthearea.Thevillagersandpropertyownerswhoopposetheprojecthaveformedin2002anNGO,AlburnusMaior,whichactedattheforefrontofthecampaign„SaveRosiaMontana”.Severalnationalandinternationalorganizations(primarilyenvironmentalandcultural),artists32andjournalists33haveadheredtoAlburnusMaior’scampaignanddisseminatedinformationonthepotentialrisksoftheprojectbothlocallyandnationally.Throughinvestigativejournalism,amulti-artactivistfestival(FânFest,RoşiaMontană,2004-present),publicdebatesandotherawarenessactionsthroughoutthecountry,theyhaveformedacriticalmassofcitizensopposingtheprojectforawidevarietyofreasons.Althoughitwassuggestedseveraltimes,nonationalreferendumwasconductedonthematterandtheavailableopinionpollsarenotcredible,astheirmethodologyisquestionableandtheycommissionedbypartizanpressoutlets.

DuringourvisittoRoşiaMontanăinseptember2014,wetalkedtoarepresentativeoftheNGOtoseeifthereareanyscenariosinwhichtheprojectwouldbecomeacceptable,fromtheirpointofview;noneofthesolutionsprovidedbytheCompanysuitedtheinterestsoftheNGOmembers.Irreconciliableaspectsincludeexpropriations,therelocationofthecemetery,aswellastheinterferencewiththeculturalheritage,thethreatposedtobuildingsbecauseofexplosivesuseandthecyanidetailings.

Onalargerscale,thereisnostructuredinputoncitizenpreferences.Intime,theyhavebeenexposedtothestakeholders’discourses,buttheylackedthemeansofparticipatinginthedecision-makingprocess.TheChamberofDeputeeswebsitefeaturesapagededicatedtotheproject,wherefewdocumentsissuedbytheCompany,aswellasbyindependentexpertsandinstitutionssuchastheRomanianAcademy,theAcademyofEconomicStudies,andothersaremadeavailable,alongwithaforumfordiscussion.Whileusersexpresstheirviewsontheproject,nointeractionbetweenthemandarepresentativefromtheofficialhostoftheforumtakesplace.Whiletheopinionsaredividedontheproject,themostcommonlymentionedalternativeistourism.Incidentally,itisonthisforumwherewehavefoundabouttheexistenceoftheextensivestudyconductedbytheNationalInstituteofResearchandDevelopmentinTourismofthestrategiesofsustainabledevelopmentthroughtourismin

32 Seeoneoftheleadingprotestartists,„InterviewwithDanPerjovschi”,ArtMarginsOnline,October25th2013,http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/728-interview-with-dan-perjovschi

33 SeeforinstanceMihaiGoţiu,AfacereaRoşiaMontană,EdituraTact,Cluj-Napoca,2013.

23

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

24

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS

formerminingareas.AlburnusMaiorhasalsoputforwardthealternativeoftourismbysupportingandpromotingaresourceandstrategyanalysisofsustainabledevelopmentinRoşiaMontană.34

Duringthe2013protests,awidearrayofreasonsforwhichpeopleopposetheprotesthavesurfaced,duetotheFacebookcommunitypageUniţiSalvăm35,aswellastotheslogansandpostersfromthestreet:corporateandpoliticiangreed,mediafailureandbiasininformingthepublic,corruption,cyanideinfestingwatersandsoil,sacrificingmountainsandlandscapes,sellingofnaturalandmineralresourcestoforeigners,responsibilitytofuturegenerations,mendinglegislationtosuitcorporatepurposes,abusiveexpropriations.However,thereisstillnostudyreflectingthepublicopiniononhowtheprojectwouldimpactpeople’slives.

34 SoranaOlaru-Zăinescu.DezvoltaredurabilăalternativăminerituluilaRoşiaMontană.Analizaresurselorşielementedestrategie.AsociaţiaAlburnusMaior,2006.

35 UniţiSalvăm,https://www.facebook.com/unitisalvam,aprox.50,000members

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

Decision analysis and DecideIT

Bothpublicauthoritiesandcorporationsusedecisionanalysisinprocessesofcomplexdecision-makingandpolicyanalysis36.Decisionanalysismodelshaveevolvedovertime,fromtheclassicdecisionanalysisbasedontheapplicationofrationalchoicetheories37 tocomputationalmodelsthatallowworkingwithimpreciseinformation38.ThisrathernewapproachtodecisionanalysisliesatthefoundationsoftheDecideITsoftware,whichallowsoperatingwithimpreciseanduncertaininformationinthemodellingandanalysisofadecisionproblemandcarryingoutsensitivityanalyses,inordertodecidewhichamongdifferentdecisionalternativesismoresuitablewhenconsideringfactorslike:thestakeholdersinvolved,theprobabilities,valuesandweighsofdifferentcriteria.

Thesoftwareisaproductoflong-termresearchcarriedoutbytheDepartmentofComputerandSystemsSciences(DSV),StockholmUniversityandtheDepartmentofInformationTechnologyandMedia,MidSwedenUniversity(ITM).Itsevolutionisdocumentedbydifferentscholarsinbothitsearlier39andmoreadvancedstages40.Duetoitsapplicabilityincomplexandlarge-scaledecisionenvironments,theDecideITtoolhasbeenusedoverthelast15yearsinvariousfields,rangingfrominvestmentdecisionanalysisforcompaniestopublicdecisionsupportforlocalgovernments41.Scholarshavediscussedtheadvantagesandlimitationsoftheapproachestoevaluatingimprecisedecisiondata42.

36 Sutinen,Danielson,Ekenberg,Larsson,201037 Clemen,1996;Keeney&Raiffa,197638 Danielson,2005;Fasth&Larsson,2012;Fasth&Larsson,2013;Larsson,Johansson,Ekenberg&Danielson,

200539 Danielson,Ekenberg,Johansson,&Larsson,200340 Danielson,Ekenberg,Idefeldt,&Larsson,2007;Danielson,Ekenberg,Ekengren,Hökby&Lidén,200841 Sutinenetal.2010

42Ekenberg2000;EkenbergandThorbiörnson2001;Ekenbergetal.2005;andDanielsonandEkenberg2007

25

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

26

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

Prior studies with DecideIT

In2012,DanielsonandEkenbergcarriedoutacasestudyregardingtheTiszaRiverinHungary.Usingaprobabilisticmulti-stakeholderapproachtheyassessedfourdifferentscenariosfordesigningapublic-privatefloodinsurancesysteminHungary.Theyoptedforadecisionmodelthatwouldincludethemainstakeholdersduetotheratherconflictingviewsthattheyheld:ontheonehand,mostHungariansexpectedthegovernmenttoprotectthemandcovertheirlossesincaseoffloods,whileontheother,publicauthoritiesconsideredthatthispolicywasnolongeraffordable,andwantedtotransfertheresponsibilitytotheprivatesector43.

Intheiranalysis,thescholarsusedbackgrounddataprovidedbytheHungarianAcademyofSciencesandalsoconductedinterviewswiththestakeholderandworkedonasimulationmodeltestingtheeffectsofdifferentpolicyoptions.UsingDecideIT,theygeneratedadecisiontreeincludingestimatesofthevaluesandprobabilitiesofeachalternative:

43 Danielson&Ekenberg,2012

FIGURE3.Adecisiontreefordecisionsunderrisk(Danielson&Ekenberg,2012)

Asimilardecisionanalysis44wasconductedintheislandofÄlgö,asubmunicipalityinSwedenmarkedbylong-termdisagreementsbetweenthecitizensandthemunicipalitygovernmentoverthedecisionalternativesonthefollowingsubjects:

AnewwaterandsewersystemAnewroadplanAnewcommutingmarina.

Becauseofthecontroversy,thedecisionshadbeenpostponedforseveralyears,andthemunicipalityofNackadecidedtofinallymakeadecision.Inordertoachievemaximumtransparency,toinvolvethedifferentstakeholdersandtheiropposingviews,theychosetobacktheirdecisiononbackgroundresearchandanalysis.Thescholarsuseddecisiontreesandmulti-criteriahierarchytreesinDecideITtoevaluatethefivealternatives.Thevalues

44 Danielsonetal.2007,2008

A1

A2

P11 P111

V1111

V1121

V1211

V1221

V2111

V2121

V2211

V2221

P112

P121

P122P211

P212

P221

P221

P12

P21

P22

27

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

28

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

andweighsofthecriteriawereassignedbasedontheinputfrompoliticians,expertsandstakeholders.Theresearcherswereabletodrawriskprofilesforthealternatives,andcouldeliminatetheoptionswithconsequencesdeemedtoosevere,aswellastodifferentiatebetweenalternativesthatwouldotherwisehaveseemedequallypreferable,thusfacilitatingtheresolutionofayears-longdispute.

AnothersimilarcasestudyforusingdecisionanalysisregardsacitytrafficplanningdecisionprobleminStockholm45.Unlikeinthepreviousexamples,inthiscasetherewasnotyetcontroversy,andthedecisionanalysiswascarriedoutintheinitialphaseofplanningdecisionmaking.TheCityofStockholmadoptedin2010anewCityPlanbasedonastrategicpoliticalvisionforthegrowthofthecityoverthenext20yearsto2030,whichwasexpectedtohaveabigimpactontransportwithinthecity.Inordertotacklethischallenge,theCityTrafficAdministrationhasstartedworkingonaTrafficPlanningStrategy,anddecidedtodetermineifusingadecisionanalysismodelwouldhelpintheprocess.Theresearcherstesteddifferentalternativesbydefiningasetofmultiplecriteria,whichwereweighedandassignedvaluesintermsofintervalsandrelations,duetotheimprecisenatureofthedata.Thecriteria,aswellasthedecisionalternativesandtheassessmentimpactweredefinedduringaseriesofworkshops.Basedonthesedata,theresearcherswereabletoconductasensitivityanalysisandtofilteroutoneofthealternatives.

The methodology of the Roşia Montană case study

Background research, establishing the criteria and subcriteria

Thefirststepoftheanalysisconsistedinbackgroundresearch.Over100documentsfromthepast15yearshavebeengatheredregardingtheRoşiaMontanăminingproject,whichcoverthemainofficial,formalandlessformaldocumentscoveringthecaseandproducedbyawiderangeofstakeholders.

45 Larsson,Firth,&Ekenberg,2011

Thesedocumentsvaryintermsoftype:

OfficialreportsLegislativeacts(draftorapprovedbills,governmentdecrees,emergencyordinances,contractsetc.)Studies(Researchstudies,technicalstudies,financialstudies)Books,Scientific/Academic/ResearcharticlesPressarticlesOfficialwebsitesofRMGCorofpublicinstitutionsDeclarations,petitions,contestations,discourses

andofsource:

ISSUERS

Governmentand TheRomaniangovernmentpublicinstitutions Nationalpublicinstitutions Localpublicinstitutions TheRoşiaMontanăSpecialCommittee

EuropeanUnion Europeaninstitutions(theEuropeanCommission, theEuropeanParliamentetc.)

Theprojectpromoter RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation(RMGC)

Experts Independentexperts(nationalandinternational) Researchinstitutions,academies,universities

Civilsociety Localcommunity AlburnusMaior UnitiSalvamcommunity Journalists Othernon-governmentalorganizations,associations, foundations Citizens

Thecorpuswasselectedsoastocoveralltheimportantstakeholdersandtheirpointsofviewregardingtheproject,inabalancedway.Intheselectionofthedocumentsanimportantcriterionwastheircredibility;theresearcherstriedtoidentifywithprioritythosedocumentsthatexpressedtheofficialpositionofthedifferentstakeholdersinvolved,aswellas

29

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

30

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

documentsthataresupportedbydata/factualinformation/research.Forthisreasonmostofthecorpusconsistsinstudiesandreports.

Inordertofacilitatethehandlingofthislargecorpusoftexts,theNVivosoftwareforqualitativecontentanalysiswasused.Thedocumentationprocessresembledthatofatraditionalcontentanalysis,inthatitwasguidedbyaschemeofcategories(seeFigure4andAnnex1),whichwascreatedthroughaninductiveapproach–basedonthedocumentationathand.Aninitialmulti-criteriatreewasdesignedbasedontheargumentsidentifiedinapreviousanalysis46,whichwaslateronelaborateduponduringthethoroughbackgroundresearchphase.Themainbranchesofthemulti-criteriatreeare:Economy,Environment,SocialandCultural,toowhichwelateraddedthedimensionofCredibility,consideringthattheissuesregardingthetransparency,legalityandcredibilityoftheentiredevelopmentoftheRoşiaMontanăprojecthaveplayedasignificantroleintheunfoldingoftheevents,especiallyduringthelastyears(formoredetails,refertothesectioninthisreportabouttheShorthistoryofthedecision-makingprocess).Eachofthesebranchesweresplitinmultiplecategoriesandsubcategoriesrepresentingtheargumentsbroughtupbythedifferentstakeholdersregardingthepossibleconsequences,bothpositiveandnegative,oftheexploitationproject(Figure4).

WiththehelpofNVivo,theresearcherswentthroughallthedocumentspreviouslycollectedandcodedrelevantfragmentsoftextundereachcriteriaintheschemeofcategories,separatingnegativefrompositiveevaluations,aswellasthedifferentissuersoftherespectivepositions/arguments.Thisprocesshelpedusmapthestakeholders’attitudestowardstheproject,aswellastocheckwhichcriteriaandargumentsaremorecommonlydiscussedbythedifferentpartiesinvolved,whicharetheoneswherethereissomeconsensusversustopicswheretheviewsarehighlydivergent,whoholdsthenegativeandthepositiveopinionsetc.Thisinformationwaslaterusedintheprocessofassigningvaluesandweighstothemulti-criteriatree.However,duetothefactthatwetriedtoensurethebalanceandpluralityofstakeholdersandperspectives,weidentifiedbothnegativeandpositiveevaluationsforeverycriterion,whichmadeithardtodecideinabsolutetermswhichperspectiveismoreaccurate.

46 http://www.openpolitics.ro/rosia-montana/argumente-pro-si-contra-rosia-montana.html

Defining the alternatives of development for Roşia Montană

Duringthebackgroundresearchphasewewerealsoabletoidentifythedecisionalternativesfortheanalysis.Wechosetoresumetothemostcommonlydiscussedfouralternatives,forwhichwehavemanagedtogatherreliabledata:

Alternative 1 (Alt.1).Theupdatedprojectwiththeprovisionsfromthe2013Agreement47 betweenRMGCandtheRomanianGovernment(whichwasalsodebatedbytheSpecialCommission),forwhichwehadmostofthedocumentation.

Alternative 2 (Alt.2).TheZeroalternative,whichimpliesthattheminingprojectwouldbedropped,butnothingelsewouldbedoneinstead.Itisanon-actionalternativeanditwasassessedfromaseriesofdocuments,amongwhich:theEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentforRoşiaMontanăProject(EIA)documentation48submittedbythecompany,thereportfromtheHungarianMinistryofEnvironmentandWaters49,followingtheConventiononEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentinaTransboundaryContext,astudyfromtheRomanianAcademy50,theSpecialCommission’sReport51andotherexpertstudies.

Alternative 3 (Alt.3).Theprojectinitsinitialform,withtheprovisionsfromthe1999ExploitationLicense52.

47 GuvernulRomaniei-GabrielResourcesLtd.-RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationS.A,Acordprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontană,http://legea.rosiamontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2-Acord-vDPIIS_29-07-2013_actualizat-30-07-2013-TC.pdf

48 RMGC,EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentforRoşiaMontanăProject,http://en.rmgc.ro/rosia-montana-project/environment/environmental-impact-assessment.html

49 ComentariipemargineaStudiuluideImpactasupraMediuluipentruProiectulRosiaMontanafacuteinbazaConventieiEspoodecatreMinisterulMediuluisiApelordinUngariacusprijinulunoragentiiguvernamentalesiaunororganizatiinon-guvernamentale,http://www.cdep.ro/img/rosiam/pdfs/comments_hung.pdf

50 AcademiaRomână,2013,ANALIZAACADEMIEIROMÂNEPRIVINDPROIECTULDEEXPLOATAREMINIERĂDELAROŞIAMONTANĂ-RISCURIPRIVINDMEDIULŞIDEZVOLTAREADURABILĂAZONEI,http://www.acad.ro/forumuri/doc2013/d0619-ProiectulRosiaMontana-AnalizaAR.pdf

51 ComisiaSpecialăComunăaCamereiDeputaţilorşiSenatuluipentruavizareaProiectuluidelegeprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontanăşistimulareaşifacilitareadezvoltăriiactivităţilorminiereînRomânia,2013,RaportasupraProiectuluidelegeprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontanăşistimulareaşifacilitareadezvoltăriiactivităţilorminiereînRomânia,http://www.senat.ro/Legis/PDF/2013/13L475CR.pdf

52 AGENTIANATIONALAPENTRURESURSEMINERALE,CampaniaNationalaaCuprului,AuruluisiFierului“MINVEST”S.A,SCEUROGOLDRESOURCESS.A,LICENTADECONCESIUNEPENTRUEXPLOATARENR.47/1999,http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/782220/licenta-rosia-montana.pdf

31

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

32

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

Alternative 4 (Alt.4).ThealternativeoftouristicdevelopmentintheRoşiaMontanăarea.OntheChamberofDeputieswebpage,aforumfordebateontheRoşiaMontanăissueshasathreaddestinedfordiscussingalternativesotherthantheRMGCproject.Themostpopularsolutionseenbytheuserswasdoingtourisminthearea.However,nowhereontheministries’websitesorontheChamberofDeputieslistofavailabledocumentsontheRoşiaMontanăcasecouldwefindastudyonthetouristicpotentialofdevelopmentofthearea.Wefoundthatsuchastudydoesexist,itwasconductedbytheNationalInstituteofResearchandDevelopmentinTourismduring2004-2006,financedthroughthePHAREprogramandtheMinistryofEducationandResearch.TheinstituteisresponsiblewithelaboratingstrategiesandimpactstudiesfortouristicdevelopmentthroughoutRomania,manyoftheirresultsleadingtoregionaldevelopmentstrategiesandfinancedbytheMinistryofTourism.TheirmodelofdevelopmentoftheareasinApuseniMountainsaffectedbyminingclosuresconsistsoffivevolumeswhich,accordingtotheprincipalinvestigator,GeorgetaMaiorescu,withwhomwediscussed,weresenttotheministriesin2006andremainedwithoutananswer.ShealsosubmittedtheirresultstotheMinistryofEnvironmentasaviablealternativetotheRMGCprojectinthepublicconsultationontheEIAreports,andreceivedananswerfromthecompany,insteadoftheMinistry.Thisalternativeseemstobethemostpopularamongthecivilsocietysector,includingamongresearchinstitutionssuchasTheAcademyforEconomicStudiesortheRomanianAcademy.Citizens,localNGOsandtheSaveRoşiaMontanăcampaignhavebeenpromotingthisalternativethroughanannualactivistfestivalinRoşiaMontană,lobbyingfortheinclusionoftheculturalheritageontheUNESCOlistofprotectedheritagesites.

FIGURE4.Thecriteriaandsubcriteria

Economic

Environmental

Cultural

Social

Credibility

Profit/gains for national economyTotalprofitforeconomy

RoyaltiesfromAu andAgmining

Profitfromstateparticipation

TaxesForeigninvestmentsFinancialbenefits fromtheconservationofculturalheritage

Impact on water, air and soilSurfacewaters-localSurfacewaters-transboundary

UndergroundwatersAirqualitySoilquality

Impact on biodiversityHabitatPlantspeciesWildlifeForestsMeadowsRaremetals

Archaeological discharges and accidental discoveries

Measures to protect and preserve cultural heritage (other than historic buildings)

Protection and restoration of historic buildings

The research programme undertaken by RMGC

Other cultural effects

Social impact on the community

Relocations and resettlements

Credibility

Legality

Transparency

Safety of locals (health, social and physical safety)

Impact on natural landscapePreservationAttractiveness

Hazard risks

Environmental rehabilitation measuresEnvironmentalfinancialguarantees

Regionalsustainabledevelopment

Costs for national economy LossofgoldbyforeignexploitationProblemsinfutureminingofothernaturaldepositsinthearea

Costsfortherehabilitationoftheecosystemaftertheexploitationincaseofenvironmentalaccidents

CostsforcleaningthehistoricalpollutionintheareaforRO

Otherenvironmentcosts (naturalresoucers-energyconsumption)

Otherfinancialrisks

Profit/gains for local communityJobs,trainingsIncreasedstandardofliving/Economicgrowth

Costs for local communityLong-termcostsofmono-indus-trialeconomy(unemploy-ment,re-qualificationofworkers,lowinvestmentsintheregion)

Costsforotherbusinessownersandemployeesinthearea(eg.tourism,woodprocessing,agricultureetc.)

33

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

34

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

Assigning values and weighs to the multi-criteria tree

ThedecisionanalysiswascarriedoutusingtheDecideITsoftware.Inordertoevaluatethefouralternatives,themulti-criteriatreewascomputedandvaluesandweighswereassigned.Sincethebackgroundresearchrevealedthatthedocumentationinvolvesmainlyprojectionsandscenariosbasedonratherimpreciseoruncertaininformationwhichisoftenconflictingdependingonthesource,weusedaninterval-basedmethodtoestimatethevaluesofthecriteria,complementedbyqualitativeestimates(relationsbetweenthecriteria).Thisapproachistypicalformulti-stakeholderanalyses53thatdealwithimprecisedata,aspreviouscasestudieshaveshown54.

Duetothenatureoftheinformation,wedesignedamulti-criteriatreeinsteadofadecisiontree.Inordertoreduceuncertaintyandsubjectivityasmuchaspossible,weuseda[-1,1]interval,withthefollowinglogic:Values[-1,0]=mostprobablynegativeconsequences(orbestcasenone),buttheintensityisunknown(eg:iftherewillbeenvironmentalaccidents,theywillimplyrehabilitationcosts,whichmeansthatthebestscenarioisthe0scenario)[0,1]=mostprobablypositiveconsequences(ornoconsequences),buttheintensityisunknown(ex.Profitfromroyaltiesisinitselfapositiveoutcome,worstcasescenariobeing0profit)0 =noconsequence(theprofitgeneratedbytheprojectbecomes0inAlt.2)-1=mostprobablynegative(eg.environmentalcostssuchasthehighamountofenergyandothernaturalresourcesconsumedfortheprojectareacertainnegativeimpact)1 =mostprobablypositive(weactuallydidn’tfindcaseswheretoassignthisvalue,takingintoconsiderationthatitwouldalsoimplyarelativeconsensusamongexperts)[-1,1] =whereexpertsarealmostequallydividedanditishardtosaywhethertheconsequencewillbegoodorbad,orwherewedonothaveenoughreliabledataforsuchpredictions(eg.concerningtheconservationofculturalheritage,orinregardtothesocialimpactofAlt.2).

Thesevalueswereassignedseparatelyforeachcriterionundereachofthefouralternatives.Toalargeextent,wetriednottomakeassumptionsinourevaluationsthatwerenotdirectly

53 seeDanielson&Ekenberg,201254 Danielsonetal.2007,2008;Larsson,Firth,&Ekenberg,2011

supportedbydata,andweavoidedassigningprecisevalues,workingwithintervals,weighsandrelationsbetweencriteria.Inaddition,weassigneddifferentweighstothecriteriaanddefinedequivalencerelationsbetweenthefouralternativesforeachcriterion(betterthan,equalandapproximatelyequalto,worsethan).

Thedecisioninformationcanbeconsideredasconstraintsinthespaceformedbyalldecisionvariableswhicharecollectedaslinearconstraintstothesolutionsetsofthespacesspannedbytheweightandvaluevariables,respectively.Theseconstraintsmaybebothrangeconstraints,i.e.constraintsinvolvingonlyonevariablesuchasintervalboundaries,andcomparativeconstraintsinvolvingtwovariables.Tofurtheraidinthemodellingoftheproblem,theorthogonalhullconceptisintroduced,indicatingtothedecision-makerwhichpartsofthestatementsthatareconsistentwiththeinformationgivensofar.Thisbecomesthentheprojectionoftheconstrainedspacesontoeachvariableaxis,andcanthusbeseenasthemeaningfulintervalboundariesforthedecisionsituation.Thesametypeofinputisusedforthecomponentsinvolved,i.e.,alternativevaluesv,andweightswj,althoughthenormalizationconstraintsƩwj=1mustnotbeviolatedintheweightcase.

AllinputintotheRoşiaMontanămodelwassubjecttoconsistencychecksperformedbytheDecideITtool.Thecalculationsarebasedontheweightedsumofthealternativevaluesunderthecriteriaandsub-criteriaaggregatedfortheentiredecisionproblem.Forinstanceinathreeleveltreeasthecurrentone,thisbecomes,V(As)=Ʃwi Ʃwij Ʃwijkvijk(As),wherevijk(As)isthevalueofalternativeAsundersubcriteriaijk.Giventhis,wethencalculatethestrengthofalternativesasameanforfurtherdiscriminatingthealternatives.Thestrengthsimplydenotesthedifferenceinweightedvalue,i.e.theexpressionV(Ai)–V(Aj)forthedifferencebetweenalternativesAişiAj.Inthiswaywecanreadilycalculatethemaximumandminimumdifferencebetweenthealternatives.

Theprocessofassigningvalues,weighsandrelationsisbasedontheprevioussystematicdocumentation,wherewetriedtocovermostofthedocumentationavailablefromabroadrangeofsourcescoveringthetopic.Asalreadymentioned,weprioritizedofficialdocumentsandexpertstudies,duetotheirhigherreliability.Theselectionofthedocumentationwasmadeontheprincipleofbalancedrepresentation,ourgoalbeingtocovertheargumentsofallstakeholdersinvolvedinafairmanner.ThedatabaseisavailableinExcelformatonrequest.

Inordertoensurethereliabilityoftheassigningvaluesprocess,areliabilitytestwasapplied.Thetworesearchersassignedthevaluesandrelationsindependentlyandafterwardsconfrontedtheevaluations,discussingthedifferencesandreachingconsensusregardingtheoptimalwaytoproceed.Furthermore,inthesensitivityanalysispresentedinthenextsection

35

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

36

A DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL FOR THE ROŞIA MONTANĂ CASE STUDY

ofthereportwedeviseddifferentscenarioschangingtheweighsofthecriteriainordertoseetowhatextenttherelationbetweenthealternativesalters.

Animportantfeatureofthisprocessisthesensitivityanalysis.Thisanalysisattemptedtohighlightwhatinformationwasthemostcriticalfortheobtainedresultsandmustthereforebesubjecttocarefuladditionalconsideration.Italsopointswhichoftheassessmentsaretooimprecisetobeofanyassistanceinthediscriminationofalternativesandthusshouldbemademoreaccurate,therebytriggeringandfacilitatingiterationintheprocess.Theembeddedsensitivityanalysis,calledtheconceptofcontraction,isperformedbyreducingthewidthsoftheintervals(contraction)forthevaluesandweightsintheanalysismodelofthedecisionproblem.Theconcept’sideaistoshrinktheorthogonalhullwhilestudyingthestabilityofthemaximumstrengthatdifferentcontractionlevels.Thelevelofcontractionisindicatedasapercentage,sothatfora100%levelofcontractionallorthogonalhullintervalshavebeenreducedtotheirrespectivefocalpoints.Thecontractioncanbeseenascuttingthehullfromtheextremepoints(havingalowerreliabilityoralowerdegreeofbelieftowardsthefocalpoint,increasingthelowestpermitteddegreeofbelief.Whendealingwithintervalstatementsonlythisisquitesimple,andmorecomplicatedwhencomparativeconstraintsareinvolved.

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Aswehavepreviouslymentioned,thefivemaincriteriaofourmulti-criteriadecisiontreeare:economic, environment, social, cultural and credibility.Thefouralternativescomputedinthedecisionmodelare:Alt. 1 =Theupdatedprojectwiththeprovisionsfromthe2013AgreementbetweenRMGCandtheRomanianGovernment(whichwasalsodebatedbytheSpecialCommission)Alt. 2 =TheZeroalternative(theprojectisdroppedandnothingelseisdoneinstead)Alt. 3 =Theminingprojectinitsinitialform,withtheprovisionsfromthe1999ExploitationLicense.Alt. 4 =Theminingprojectisdroppedandinsteadalong-termtouristicdevelopmentprojectintheRoşiaMontanăareaisimplemented.

BelowwegothroughvariousscenariosandtheirconsequencesfortheRoşiaMontanăexploitationproject.Thefollowingscenariosweredevisedaccordingto9differentprioritizations,whichledtoseparateweighingchoicesofthemaincriteria:(1)indiscriminativeassessmentofissuesimportance;(2)coverageofissueintheconsulteddata;(3)potentialofimprovingthecredibility;(4)stakeholderinterest–theRomanianstate;(5)stakeholderinterest–civilsocietyandlocalopponents;(6)local,nationalandtransboundaryinterests;(7)stakeholderinterest–localcommunity;(8)transparencyandcitizeninterest;(9)2013draftminingbillstipulations.

Scenario 1: indiscriminative assessment of issues importance

Ifwegiveallemitters’viewsandinterestsequalimportanceandrefrainfromweighingdiscriminatelyonaccountoftheexpertknowledgeavailableoneachcategory,visibilityinthepublicsphere,localversusnationalagendas,ortypesofcapitalatstake,weconsiderthatallmaincriteria,economic,environmental,social,culturalandcredibilityhaveequalweights.Ourevaluationthusreliesontheconstrainsusedforeachsub-criteriaandthequalitativerelationsthereof.Consequently,byusingthesesettings,theexpectedvalueofthefouralternativesisvisibleinthefiguresbelow.Theexpectedvaluegraphisarepresentationofanaggregationoftheweighedsumforallcriteria.Theupperandlowergraphlinesaretheminimumandmaximumexpectedvaluesalongthehorizontalaxis,from0to100%contractionlevels.

37

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

38

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Theexpectedvaluegraphsbecomeasfollows:

FIGURE5.Scenario1.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

0.350

0.274

0.198

0.122

0.046

-0.029

-0.105

-0.181

-0.257

-0.332

-0.409

85% contraction level

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

FIGURE6.Scenario1.ComparisonAlt.1andAlt.2

FIGURE7.Scenario1.ComparisonAlt.4andAlt.2

39

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

40

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Eventhoughwehaveworkedwithimprecisedata,thedecisionanalysismodelisratherrobust,enablingustoevaluatethefouralternatives.BasedonFig.5,wecandrawthreeconclusionswithareasonableamountofconfidence:

Alternative 3(Theprojectintheinitialform,withtheprovisionsfromthe1999license)istheleastadvantageousofthefour,andcanbediscarded(atacontractionlevelof85%thereisnooverlapwiththeothers,andthevaluesarenegativeandlowest).

Alternative 4(Tourism)appearstobetheoptimaldecisioninthisscenario.

Alternative 1(Theminingprojectinitsupdatedform)andAlternative 2(Nominingproject,nothinginsteadtobedoneinthearea)overlapconsiderably,whichmeansthatinthisscenariothereisnotenoughdatatostrictlydifferentiatebetweenthem,theconsequencesofeachoptionbeingrathercomparable.However,Alt.2becomesveryslightlypreferabletoAlt.1,theRMGCproject.Fig.6confirmsthatthedifferencebetweenAlt.1andAlt.2isinsignificantandthatmoredetaileddataisneededinordertobettercomparativelyassessthetwooptions.Fig.7comparesAlt.4withAlt.2(andimplicitlywithAlt.1,duetotheoverlapbetweenthetwo)andconfirmstheconclusionfromFig.5,namelythatAlt.4,atouristicdevelopmentproject,wouldbetheoptimalsolution.

Scenario 2: coverage of issue in the consulted data

Thesecondscenarioweproposestemsfromtherangeofinterestsdedicatedtothecategoriesoutlinedabovethroughouttheconsulteddocumentsandstatements.Thebackgroundresearchrevealedthatthemostwidelydiscussedissuesregardingtheprojectweretheeconomicandenvironmentalaspects,coveredbygovernmentalstatements,licenseagreements,expertreports,nationalandinternationalinstitutes’positionsandothers,whilesocialandculturalissuesseemedsomewhatsecondaryinthepublicdebate,gainingvisibilitymainlythroughcivilsocietyefforts.Forthisreason,weconsideredthesecondscenariotobeonewheretheeconomicandenvironmentalconsequencesweighthesame,thensocialandculturalissuesalsobearequalweights,buttheformercategoriesweighmorethatthelatter(withoutspecifyinghowmuchmore,becausethatisuncertain).Thecredibilitydimensionwasassignedalowerweightthanallotherfourcriteria,consideringthatithasaratherindirecteffectontheoverallevaluationoftheproject.

FIGURE8.Scenario2.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

0.355

0.279

0.204

0.128

0.053

-0.022

-0.098

-0.173

-0.249

-0.324

-0.400

85% contraction level

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

41

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

42

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE9.Scenario2.Alt1vs.Alt2

FIGURE10.Scenario2.Alt4vs.Alt2

AswecanseeinFig.8,Alt.3andAlt.4areclearlydifferentiatedinthisscenarioaswell,atouristicdevelopmentintheRosiaMontanaareabeingtheoptimalchoice,andtheRMGCprojectbeforetherecentrenegotiation-thepoorestchoice.Unlikethefirstscenario,Alt.1becomesslightlymorepreferabletotheZeroAlternative,buttheiroverlappingisstilltoohightoassesstheirdifferentiation(forthis,seeFig.9).

Scenario 3: potential of improving the credibility

Forthethirdscenario,wecheckedtheextenttowhichthecredibilityissuesaffecttheevaluationofAlt.1,therenegotiatedRMGCproject,inrelationtotheotheralternatives.IftheCompanyandtheRomanianGovernmentwouldimprovethetransparencyoftheirnego-tiations,stepsandaimsregardingtheprojectandwouldinitiateapermanentdialogueonthetopicwithcitizensandthecivilsocityinthedecision-makingprocess,credibilitycouldbesolvedandmakeroomforanopendemocraticdiscussionontheremainingfourcriteria.Theexpectedvaluegraphsforscenario2whereweassignedaweightatmostlikelypoint0canbeseenbelow:

0.358

0.282

0.207

0.131

0.056

-0.020

-0.095

-0.171

-0.246

-0.322

-0.397

85% contraction level

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

FIGURE11.Scenario3.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

43

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

44

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE12.Scenario3.Alt1vs.Alt2

AccordingtoFig.11and12,ifwediscardthecredibilitydimensionandconsideronlyeconomic,environment,socialandculturalissues,theresultsremainmostlythesame:Alternative3canbedropped,Alternative4isstillthebest,andAlternatives1and2overlap,thoughtheformerbecomesveryslightlybetterthantheZeroAlternative.

Scenario 4: stakeholder interest – the Romanian state

RomanianofficialshaverepeatedlystressedtheeconomicpotentialoftheRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationinvestment,mainlyhighlightingtheprofitsderivedfromroyaltiesandstateparticipation,aswellasthepotentialforcreatingjobsinthearea.Thedesiretoexploitnaturalresourcesforthebeneficialimpactuponthenationaleconomyhasbeenexpressedbyvariousgovernmentsandtheformerpresident,beingtheimpetusofmaintainingtheCompanyprojectonthepublicandpoliticalagenda.Belowwecanlookatthevaluegraphswhengivingthehighestweighttotheeconomicaspects,allothercriteriahavingequalweightsamongthemselves,lowerthantheeconomicone.

FIGURE13.Scenario4.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

0.318

0.252

0.187

0.122

0.057

-0.009

-0.074

-0.139

-0.205

-0.270

-0.335

85% contraction level

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

45

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

46

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE14.Scenario4.ComparisonAlt.1andAlt.4

Iftheeconomicargumentsprevailoveralltheothers,thentheresultsofthedecisionanalysisbecomesomewhatdifferent(Fig.13,14).Alternative1(theupdatedminingproject)becomesalmostaspreferableasAlternative4(doingtourism),withanoverlapofalmost95%,butalsooverlapstogreatextentwiththeZeroAlternative,whichmakesitsomewhatdifficulttodistinguishbetweenthethreealternatives.

Scenario 5: stakeholder interest – civil society and local opponents

Inthisset-up,weprioritizethesocial,cultural,environmentalandcredibilityaspectsovertheeconomicalbenefits,asdemandedbyseveralopposingNGOsincludingAlburnusMaiorandthemajorityoftheprotesters.AccordingtocriticsoftheRMGCproject,theeconomicalgainsderivedfromthegoldandsilverexploitationareneithersubstantial,norstableenoughforalong-termnationaleconomydevelopmentandbetterstandardsofliving(the“Dutchdisease”ofnaturalresourcesmaintaininginstableeconomies).Moreover,regardlessoftheeconomicpotential,someopponentsconsiderthesocial,culturalandenvironmentalrisksandimpactmuchmoreimportanttoconsiderinthemaintainanceorfutureurbanplanningofthearea,beingatthesametimeactivewatchdogsofthelegalprocessofobtaininglocalauthorityandministrypermits.

FIGURE15.Scenario5.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

0.361

0.281

0.202

0.122

0.043

-0.036

-0.116

-0.195

-0.275

-0.354

-0.434

85% contraction level

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

47

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

48

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE16.Scenario5.ComparisonAlt.1andAlt.2

Again,thereisashiftbetweenAlt.1andAlt.2,thelatter(theonefavoredbythestakeholderswhoopposeandprotestagainsttheproject)becomingabetteroptionthantheRMGCprojectforthearea.

Scenario 6: local, national and transboundary interests

Thehighestriskconcernsfoundthroughouttheavailabledocumentation,expressedbyexperts,citizensandpublicofficialsalike,dealwithenvironmentalaspects.MostcountriesincludingRomaniarequireEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentsforminingprojects,RMGCalsosubmittingoneinordertogetasecurepassfromtheMinistryofEnvironment,whichhasnotbeengrantedyet.However,theRomaniansideisnottheonlyonehavingasayinthematter,theHungariangovernmentexpressingitscallforcautionbothindiplomaticmeetingsandexpertreports.Atthesametime,oneoftheEUdirectiveswithwhichRomaniahadtocomplyafteritsaccessionin2007concernedtherehabilitationandminimisationofwasteandtoxictailingscomingfromthestateactivitiesintheextractiveindustries.However,therearestillareaswhichareaffectedbythetoxicwastefromminingactivities,amongthembeingtheRoşiaMontanăvillage.Researchshowsthattheenvironmentalimpactofthepollutionintheareaissignificantandtherisksassociatedwithitshouldmakepollutionmediationa

priorityonthepublicdecision-makingagenda.Thisscenarioweighstheenvironmentalissueshigherthanallothercriteria,whichhavesmallerequalweights,theresultingevaluationgraphsbeingavailablebelow:

FIGURE17.Scenario6.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

0.345

0.263

0.181

0.099

0.018

-0.064

-0.148

-0.227

-0.309

-0.391

-0.472

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

49

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

85% contraction level

50

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE18.Scenario6.Alt4vs.Alt1

FIGURE19.Scenario6.Alt1vs.Alt2

Ifweprioritizeenvironmentoversocial,economic,culturalandcredibilitycriteria,thentheZeroAlternativebecomesthesecondbestafterTourism,whichissignificantlybetterthanAlt.1.AccordingtoFigures18and19,Alt.4issignificantlybetterthanAlt.1,andAlt.2isbetterthanAlt.1.

Scenario 7: stakeholder interest – local community

Inthecurrentscenario,wemostlytookintoconsiderationthesocio-economicimpactofallalternativesonthelocalcommunity.Inwhatconcernstheeconomicaspects,weweighedthepotentialfinancialcostsandbenefitsforthelocalpeoplebroughtbyeachoption,prioritizingemploymentopportunities,jobtrainings,standardoflivingandeconomicgrowth,aswellastheimpactofeachoptionuponotherbusinessesandemployeesinthearea.Tothesesubcriteriaweassignedhigherweightsthantothesubcriteriadealingwiththeimpactofeachalternativeforthenationaleconomy(forthis,seeFig.4).

Inwhatconcernsthesocialaspects,welookedatissuessuchas:theimpactofrelocationsandresettlements,thephysicalsafetyandhealthofthelocalcommunity,accesstojobs,infrastructure,cleanwater,etc.ChoosingtoprioritizethesocialandeconomicaspectsovertherestderivesfromtheworriesandinterestsofthepeoplefromRoşiaMontanăandnearbyvillages,directlyaffectedbytheimplementationofanyofthealternatives.

51

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

52

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

FIGURE20.Scenario7.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

0.486

0.401

0.316

0.232

0.147

0.062

-0.023

-0.108

-0.193

-0.278

-0.363

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

85% contraction level

FIGURE21.Scenario7.Alt1vs.Alt2

Whenthesocio-economicimpactonthelocalcommunityisgiventhehighestweight,theZeroAlternativeandthe2013RMGCProjectoverlapalmostentirely.TheresultsfromFig.21faithfullyrelfectthedividedopinionsofthelocalpeopleinregardtotheminingproject,apartofthemsupportingit,andothersradicallyopposingit.Still,wecanseethatthisisanotherscenarioinwhichatouristicdevelopmentseemstobetheoptimalsolutionforthearea.

Scenario 8: transparency and citizen interest

ThelegalimpedimentsmetbytheRMGCprojectsofarhaveblockedtheimplementationoftheproject,buthavenotyetledtoapermanentdismissalofitbytheRomanianauthorities.Anewminingbillhasbeenonthetableofdiscussionsandnegotiationsbehindcloseddoors,whichhavetakenplacethroughouttheyears,drawingmistrustandcriticismfromtheopponentswhofearthatlegislationcanbebenttosuitcorporateandgovernmentalinterests.Thelackoftransparencyandopenpublicdebateonparliamentaryinitiativesandgovernmentaldecisionshasinflamedthepublicopinion,makingthecredibilitycriteriamoreimportantandrelevantthananyother.BymakingRoşiaMontanăamono-industrialareaand,asaconsequence,blockinganyotherenterprisetodevelopsuchastourism,localauthorities

53

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

54

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

areaswellmetwithmistrustinchoosingthebestalternativeforthearea.Thus,thegraphsbelowshowtheevaluationofthefouralternativeswhencredibilityhasthehighestweight,andallothercriteriahavesmallerequalweights.

FIGURE22.Scenario8.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

0.429

0.346

0.262

0.179

0.096

0.013

0.070

0.154

0.237

0.320

0.403

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

85% contraction level

55

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Ifcredibilitybecomesthemainissue,thesituationchangestoalargerextent.TheZeroAlternativebecomespreferable,whiletourismfallstosecondplaceandtheRMGCprojecttothird,overlappingwithAlt.3.

FIGURE23.Scenario8.Alt2vs.Alt4

Scenario 9: 2013 draft mining bill stipulations

AccordingtoArt.3fromtheBillformodifyingandsupplementingtheMiningLawno.85/2003,discussedbytheSenate,specialpublicinterestprojectswouldbethe„miningprojectswhoseeconomicandsocialbenefitsderiveddirectlyorindirectlybythestateand/orlocaladministrativeunitsaregreaterthantheenvironmentalnegativeeffects;thebenefitsshouldbesolidlyarguedandsupportedbythecompulsorinessofenvironmentalrehabilitationintheclosurephaseoftheproject.”55

55 seeReportoftheCommitteeforeconomy,industryandservices,No.XX/597/02.12.2013,p.5

56

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Themaincriteriaofconcernforspecialpublicinterestprojectswouldbecome:1.Economicandsocialand2.Environment;consideringourdecisiontreeforRoşiaMontană,whichcanbecomea„specialpublicinterest”project,weeliminatetheculturalaspects,aswellascredibility,andallsub-criteriafrom1and2remainthesame.Theresultsbecomeasfollowing.

Thus,ifwegivehigherweightstotheeconomicandsocialcriteria,thantotheenvironmentcriterion,thebestsolutionforthedevelopmentoftheareaisAlt.4,withAlt.1andAlt.2overlappingalmostentirely.

FIGURE24.Scenario9a.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

0.441

0.364

0.287

0.211

0.134

0.057

-0.020

-0.097

-0.174

-0.251

-0.328

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

85% contraction level

Ifweattributehigherweightstotheenvironmentaspectsthantotheeconomicandsocialcriteria,thehierarchyisthesame,butAlt.2becomesmuchbetterdifferentiatedfromAlt.1,becomingthesecondbestoption:

FIGURE25.Scenario9b.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

57

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

0.384

0.300

0.217

0.133

0.049

-0.034

-0.118

-0.201

-0.285

-0.369

-0.452

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

85% contraction level

58

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Andifallcriteriabearequalweights,wegetthesamehierarchyofalternatives,withAlt.4beingthebestoptionandAlt.1andAlt.2overlappingtoahighextent:

FIGURE26.Scenario9c.Evaluationofthe4alternatives

Theclearerdifferenceinsomecasescanbeexplainedbythehigherweightsgiveninthiscasetothesocialaspects,aswellasbythedropoftheculturalaspects,whicharenowdisregarded.CulturalaspectsweighedconsiderablymoreinthefavouroftheRMGCprojectinourpreviousscenarios,sincethisisoneofthemainareasinwhichtheyhaveinvestedduringthelastyears.

0.418

0.340

0.262

0.184

0.106

0.028

-0.049

-0.127

-0.205

-0.283

-0.361

Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Proiect Alternativa Proiect Turism RMGC 2013 Zero RMGC 1999

85% contraction level

Other scenarios advanced in the public debates:

1.Ifadifferenttechnologyisusedintheexploitation,skippingthecyanideleachingprocessandthetoxictailingsraisingtheenvironmentalconcerns,weighswouldbeimpossibletoestimatewithinAlternative1,sinceRoşiaMontanaGoldCorporationisnotwillingtomodifythetechnology.Theentirebusinessplan,feasibilityandinvestmentstudiesarebuiltonthepresenttechnology.AseparatealternativebackedbyafeasibilitystudyofalternativeexploitationsofthedepositsshouldbeanalyzedbytheRomanianstateorbyotherinvestors.

2.IfmininglegislationisadoptedsoastoeasetheapprovalofenvironmentalpermitsneededfortheimplementationofAlt.1,theRMGCproject,therisksandbenefitsofthisalternativeincreaseproportionally,astheycanbereplicatedinothersimilarfutureprojects.Also,takingintoconsiderationthereleaseofnewlicensesforexplorationbytheNationalAgencyforMineralResources,theprecedentoftheRoşiaMontanaprojectcanleadtofuturesimilarchoicestobeemployedbyinvestors.

3.IfweconsiderthedocumentationprovidedbytheNationalInstituteofResearchandDevelopmentinTourismonAlternative4,theirresearchandcost-benefitanalysisaimatatouristicdevelopmentofnotonlytheRoşiaMontanaarea,butalsoofotherareasinApuseniMountainsaffectedbyminingclosuresafterRomania’saccessiontotheEuropeanUnion.Asuccessfulsustainabledevelopmentthroughtourismcouldaswellbereplicated.

Research limitations

Naturally,thedecisionmodelfacedcertainobstaclesandlimitations,mostsignificantly:

I.Theuncertaintyofthedataandtheconflictingevaluations:Probablythebiggestproblemthatwefacedwasthatmultiplesourcesholdconflictingargumentsregardingthesameissue.Duetotheresearchers’lackofexpertizeintherespectiveareas,thecomplexityoftheissuesandthefactthatmostofthecriteriainquestionarepredictionswithahighlevelofuncertaintyandcontroversy,theonlyoptionfortheanalysiswastoworkwithrathervagueandgrossevaluations,whichresultedinalowerconfidenceinthedifferentiationbetweenthefouralternatives.

59

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

60

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

II.Insufficientreliabledataforcertainscenarios:thiswasthecaseforthetourismalternative,wherewewereabletofindonlyonecomplexstudywithreliable,research-basedprojections.

III.Lackofproperauthorshipattribution:theEIAreportsfailtomentiontheauthorsbehindeachreport,butonlylistalltheinstitutes,independentexpertsandcompanieswhichhavecontributedwiththeirexpertize(aproblemalsoencounteredforotherdocuments).AftertheEIAwassubmittedtotheMinistryofEnvironmentin2006,apublicconsultationfollowedduringwhichcitizens,NGOs,institutesandexpertswereinvitedtosubmittheirquestionsandconcernsaboutthedocumentation.ThequestionsweresenttotheMinistry,buttheanswerscamefromthecompany.

IV.Citizens’commentsonFacebook,blogsorpublicdebateswere,asexpected,themostimpreciseanddidnotaddextracontenttotheinformationavailableinreports,booksandarticles.Themostrecurrentissuessignalledbycitizensandthecivilsocietyweretranslatedintothemulti-criteriaanalysisbyassigninghigherweighstotheconcerns.Generally,thesameconcernswerealsodetailedinotherdocuments,comingfromeg.theRomanianAcademy,theAcademyofEconomicStudies,andothers,thereforetheweighsreflectedmoreemittersthanone..

V.Limitedresources:Unlikeother,biggercasestudiespresentedinthisreportthatwerecarriedoutwiththefinancialsupportofpublicauthorities,ourlimitedresourcesdidnotallowustoorganizeworkshopswiththestakeholdersinvolvedoremployothermeansofobtainingamorepreciseanddirectassessmentoftheirpositiononthetopic.Thisimpliesboththatourresearchwaslimitedtosecondarydata,andthatarigorousstakeholderanalysiswasnotfeasible.However,thecurrentresearchrepresentsawell-documentedstartingpointforfurther,morerefineddecisionanalysisthatwouldhelpbetterdifferentiatebetweenAlt.1.andAlt.2.,whichatthemomentareheldasthemostavailableoptionsandwhich,inouranalysis,arehardtoprioritizeoneovertheother.Also,studiesonotherpotentialalternativescanbeconductedfollowingourmulti-criteriadecisiontree.

Thisresearchwouldn’thavebeenpossiblewithoutthedocumentationmadeavailablewiththecivilsocietyprotestsandjournalisticinvestigations,whichreleasedthelicensecontractsandmadewayforaparliamentarypublichearingofthemainstakeholdersandoftheargumentsproandagainsttheproject.

61

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Drawingonthesensitivityanalysiswecanconcludethatthealternativeofimplementingtheprojectwiththeoldprovisions,datinginthe1999license,canbedropped,becauseitisclearlythemostdisadvantageousofthefouroptions.Inaddition,inmostcases,theTourismalternativeturnsouttobetheoptimalone,butwemusttakethisresultwithcautionbecauseincertaincasesthedifferencefromAlternative1and2isnotverylarge,andbecausethedataavailableforthisoptioncomesfromimpreciseanduncertainprojections.Thereprecautionsarereflectedbythe8thScenario,whereCredibilityissuesareprioritized,and,asaconsequence,thebestalternativebecomesthatofnotdoinganything(Alt.2).ThisisbecausetheTourismAlternativeultimatelydependsonpoliticalwill,investorinterestandonhowsuchaprojectwouldbeimplemented.Inaddition,the8thScenarioreflectsthecurrentsituation,whereactionhasbeenfrozenasaresultofthemassiveprotestswhichweretoagreatextentduetothelackoftransparency,thelegalityproblemsandthecredibilityofthewholeprocess.

Anotherconclusionthatcanbedrawnfromtheanalysisisthatwiththecurrentdataitisdifficulttosaywhetheritisbettertolaunchtheprojectinitsupdatedform(Alt.1)ortonottakeanyfurtheraction(Alt.2).Inmostcases,thesetwoalternativeslargelyoverlap,orthedifferentiationsareratherinsignificant.Thereisonlyonescenariowherethereisaclearhierarchybetweenthetwooptions:ifwevaluemorethecredibility,legalityandtransparencyoftheprocess,thesituationshiftsandtheZeroalternativebecomesawiserdecision.Thisresultcanbetranslatedinavaluablerecommendationfortheminingcompanyandforthepoliticaldecision-makers.Ifthesestakeholderswantthecontinuationoftheprojectanditsacceptancebycivilsociety,thekeychallengeistoincreasethetransparencyoftheprocessandimprovethecredibilityandlegalaspects,enteringanhonestdialoguewiththecivilsociety,inordertogainpeople’strust.Iftheseaspectscannotbemet,thedecision-makersneedtopayattentiontothealternativesavailableforasustainabledevelopmentinthearea.

Futurepossibledirectionsofinquiryandaction: Researchincooperationwithothermemberstatesofalternativetechnologiesleadingtoenvironmentallysafermining;cost-benefitsanalysis,sustainability,rangeofapplicability;

Expandingthemulti-criteriatreewithmoretechnicalinformation,leadingtoawidernumberofbranchesandsubcriteria,aftergainingmoreinputon:touristicdevelopment,localauthorityplansincasetheprojectisrejectedforgood,publicopinionpreferencesandperceivedrisksandneeds.

Alternativesforsustainabledevelopmentinareaswherestate-fundedminingwasceased.

62

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

AcademiaRomână,AnalizaAcademieiRomâneprivindproiectuldeexploatareminierădelaRoşiaMontană-Riscuriprivindmediulşidezvoltareadurabilăazonei,2013,http://www.acad.ro/forumuri/doc2013/d0619-ProiectulRosiaMontana-AnalizaAR.pdf

AgenţiaNaţionalăpentruResurseMinerale,CompaniaNaţionalăaCuprului,AuruluişiFierului“MINVEST”S.A.,S.C.EUROGOLDRESOURCESS.A.,Licenţădeconcesiunepentruexploatarenr.47/1999,http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/782220/licenta-rosia-montana.pdf

Clemen,R.T.(1996).MakingHardDecisions.DuxburyPress.ComisiaEuropeană,Mediu:ComisiatrimiteRomâniaîninstanţăpentrudeversareaiazuluidedecantaretoxic,

comunicatdepresăalComisieiEuropene,16octombrie2014,laBruxelles,http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1149_en.htm

Comisiapentrueconomie,industrieşiservicii,RaportulComisieipentrueconomie,industrieşiservicii,nr.XX/597/02.12.2013,p.5.

ComisiaSpecialăComunăaCamereiDeputaţilorşiSenatuluipentruavizareaProiectuluidelegeprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontanăşistimulareaşifacilitareadezvoltăriiactivităţilorminiereînRomânia,RaportasupraProiectuluidelegeprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontanăşistimulareaşifacilitareadezvoltăriiactivităţilorminiereînRomânia,Bucureşti,Noiembrie2013,http://www.senat.ro/Legis/PDF/2013/13L475CR.pdf

Dana,F.RosiaMontanaScandal:Liberalsrejectaccusations,29Ianuarie2010,http://www.nineoclock.ro/rosia-montana-scandal-liberals-reject-accusations/

Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.(2012).“ARisk-BasedDecisionAnalyticApproachtoAssessingMulti-StakeholderPolicyProblems[Oabordareanaliticăadecizieiîncondiţiideriscpentruevaluareaproblemelordepoliticămulti-stakeholder]”.ÎnA.Amendola,T.Ermolieva,J.Linnerooth-BayerşiR.Mechler(ediţiile)IntegratedCatastropheRiskModelling:SupportingPolicyProcesses[Modelareaintegratăarisculuidecatastrofă:Sprijinireaproceselorpolitice],Springer.

Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.,Johansson,J.,şiLarsson,A.(2003).“TheDecideITDecisionTool[InstrumentuldedecizieDecideIT]”.ProceedingsoftheThirdInternationalSymposiumonImpreciseProbabilitiesandTheirApplications[şiaplicaţiilelor],pp.204-217,CarletonScientific.

Danielson,M.(2005).“GeneralizedEvaluationinDecisionAnalysis[Evaluareageneralizatăînanalizadeciziei]”.EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch162(2),pp.442-449.

DanielsonM,EkenbergL.(2007).“ComputingUpperandLowerBoundsinIntervalDecisionTrees[Limitesuperioareşiinferioaredecalculînarboriidedeciziecuintervale]”.EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch,181:808–816.

Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.,Idefeldt,J.,şiLarsson,A.(2007).“UsingaSoftwareToolforPublicDecisionAnalysis:TheCaseofNackaMunicipality[Folosireaunuiinstrumentdeprogramarepentruanalizadeciziilorpublice:CazulMunicipiuluiNacka]”.DecisionAnalysis[Analizadeciziei]4(2),pp.76-90.

Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.,Ekengren,A.,HökbyT.,şiLidén,J.(2008).”DecisionProcessSupportforParticipatoryDemocracy[Suportpentruprocesuldeluareadecizieipentrudemocraţieparticipativă]”.JournalofMulti-CriteriaDecisionAnalysis15(1-2):15-30.

Ekenberg,L.(2000).“RiskConstraintsinAgentBasedDecisions[Constrângerideriscîndeciziilepebazădeagent]”.ÎnA.KentşiJ.G.Williams(Eds.)EncyclopaediaofComputerScienceandTechnology,23(48):263-280,MarcelDekkerInc.

EkenbergL,Thorbiörnson,J.(2001).“Second-OrderDecisionAnalysis[Analizadecizieideordinsecund]”.InternationalJournalofUncertaintyFuzzinessandKnowledge-BasedSystems,9(1):13-38.

63

REFERENCES

EkenbergL,ThorbiörnsonJ,BaidyaT.(2005).“ValueDifferencesusingSecondOrderDistributions[Diferenţeledevaloarefolosinddistribuţiiledeordinsecund]”.InternationalJournalofApproximateReasoning,38(1):81–97.

Fasth,T.,şiLarsson,A.(2012).“Portfoliodecisionanalysisinvaguedomains[Analizadecizieideportofoliuîndomeniiimprecise]”.ÎnProceedingsofthe2012IEEEInternationalConferenceonIndustrialEngineeringandEngineeringManagement[VolumulConferinţeiInternaţionaleIEEE2012petemaInginerieIndustrialăşiManagementIngineresc],61–65.

Fasth,T.,şiLarsson,A.(2013).“SensitivityAnalysisinPortfolioIntervalDecisionAnalysis[Analizadesensibilitateînanalizadecizieideportofoliuluipeintervale]”.ProceedingsoftheTwenty-SixthInternationalFloridaArtificialIntelligenceResearchSocietyConference[Volumulceleide-aDouăzecişişaseConferinţeInternaţionaleaSocietăţiipentruCercetareîndomeniulInteligenţeiArtificialeFlorida].http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/FLAIRS/FLAIRS13/paper/viewFile/5919/6148

GabrielResourcesLtd.,Gabrielseeksamicableresolutionoverminingdispute,comunicatdepresă,20ianuarie2015.http://gabrielresources.com/documents/GBURelease_Amicableresolutionsought_200115.pdf

Goţiu,M.AfacereaRoşiaMontană,EdituraTact,Cluj-Napoca,2013.GrupuldeComandoBaiaMare,RaportulGrupuluideComandoInternaţionalpentruevaluareaaccidentuluidela

BaiaMare,stabilitdeguverneledinRomâniaşiUngaria,ComisiaEuropeanăşiOrganizaţiaNaţiunilorUnite,decembrie2000.http://viso.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pecomines_ext/docs/bmtf_report.pdf

GuvernulRomâniei,GabrielResourcesLtd.,RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationS.A.,ACORDprivindunelemăsuriaferenteexploatăriiminereurilorauro-argentiferedinperimetrulRoşiaMontană,http://legea.rosiamontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2-Acord-vDPIIS_29-07-2013_actualizat-30-07-2013-TC.pdf

Hotnews.ro,Infografic,MineritulînRomâniadeladeclinlarenaştere,15ianuarie2013,sponsorizatdeRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporationS.A.http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-Roşia_Montană_social-14009179-infografic-mineritul-romania-declin-renastere.htm

KeeneyR.L.,şiRaiffa,H.(1976).Decisionswithmultipleobjectives:Preferencesandvaluetradeoffs[Deciziicuobiectivemultiple:Preferinţeşicompromisuridevaloare].JohnWiley&Sons.

Larsson,A.,Firth,D.,şiEkenberg,L.(2011).“Screeningşianalizadecizieiînplanificareatraficuluiurban”,Proceedingsof1stIEEEForumonIntegratedandSustainableTransportationSystems[VolumulEdiţiei1aForumuluiIEEEprivindSistemeledeTransportIntegrateşiDurabile],2011.

Larsson,A.,Johansson,J.,Ekenberg,L.şiDanielson,M.(2005).“DecisionAnalysiswithMultipleObjectivesinaFrameworkforEvaluatingImprecision.InternationalJournalofUncertainty[Analizadecizieicuobiectivemultipleîntr-uncadrupentruevaluareaimpreciziei.InternationalJournalofUncertainty]”.FuzzinessandKnowledge-BasedSystems13(5),pp.495-510.

Maiorescu,G.(Coord.).ModeldedezvoltareturisticăazoneiminiereZlatna-Bucium-RoşiaMontană-BaiadeArieşînperspectivadezvoltăriidurabile,caalternativăaactivităţiimonoindustrialeextractiveîndeclin;InstitutulNaţionaldeCercetare-DezvoltareînTurism:Bucureşti,2004-2006.5vols.

Marincea,A.ArgumenteleproşicontraproiectuluideexploataredelaRoşiaMontană,2013.http://www.openpolitics.ro/rosia-montana/argumente-pro-si-contra-rosia-montana.html

Marinescu,V.“DesiRaportulComisieiparlamentarenudaundaverdeinvestitiei,Autoriiproiectului„RosiaMontana“sesivadcastigatori”.CurierulNaţional.23Iunie2003,http://www.curierulnational.ro/print/15612

Mediafax,„CompaniaminieraReminBaiaMareesteinliniedreaptacuproceduriledefaliment”,ZiarulFinanciar,3mai2009,http://www.zf.ro/companii/compania-miniera-remin-baia-mare-este-in-linie-dreapta-cu-procedurile-de-faliment-4282533/

Mihai,A.,Marincea,A.,Ekenberg,L.(2015).“AMCDMAnalysisoftheRoşiaMontanăGoldMiningProject”.Sustainability,7,7261-7288,http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/6/7261/htm

ParlamentulEuropeanşiConsiliulEuropean,„Directiva2006/21/CEaParlamentuluiEuropeanşiaConsiliuluidin15martie2006privindgestionareadeşeurilordinindustriileextractiveşimodificareaDirectivei2004/35/CE-DeclaraţiaParlamentuluiEuropean,ConsiliuluişiComisiei,MonitorulOficialalUniuniiEuropene”,OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/

64

REFERENCES

HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0021&from=ENMinisterulMediului,RoşiaMontanădocumentation,http://www.mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/Roşia_

Montană/Roşia_Montană.htmOlaru-Zăinescu,S.DezvoltaredurabilăalternativăminerituluilaRoşiaMontană.Analizaresurselorşielemente

destrategie.AsociaţiaAlburnusMaior,2006.OpenPolitics,TotceainevoiesăştiidespreTestVot–Prezidenţiale2014,2014,http://www.openpolitics.ro/

noutati/homepage/tot-ce-ai-nevoie-sa-stii-despre-testvot-prezidentiale-2014.htmlParlamentulRomâniei,Hotărâreanr.8/2003pentruconstituireaComisieicomunespecialeprivindefectuarea

uneianalizeasupraProiectuluidedezvoltareminierăRoşiaMontană,http://lege5.ro/Gratuit/gqzdkmbz/hotararea-nr-8-2003-pentru-constituirea-comisiei-comune-speciale-privind-efectuarea-unei-analize-asupra-proiectului-de-dezvoltare-miniera-rosia-montana

Pascaru,M.Glocalizareromânească.ImpactulcomunitaralproiectuluiRoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation.EdituraLimes,Cluj-Napoca,2013.

Reguly,E.GabrielthreatensRomaniawithbillion-dollarlawsuit,TheGlobeMail,September12,2013http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/gabriel-resources-ceo-vows-to-sue-if-romania-kills-europes-biggest-gold-mine/article14240950/

RomâniaCurată,Capturastatuluilapurtător:43denumesonorepelistaneagraaexploatariiRosiaMontana,7Noiembrie2011,http://www.romaniacurata.ro/captura-statului-la-purtator-43-de-nume-sonore-pe-lista-neagra-a-exploatarii-Roşia-Montană/

RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation,GeologiaRoşieiMontane,http://en.rmgc.ro/Roşia-Montană-project/geology.html

RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation,EvaluareaImpactuluiasupraMediuluipentruProiectulRoşiaMontană,http://en.rmgc.ro/rosia-montana-project/environment/environmental-impact-assessment.html

RoşiaMontanăGoldCorporation,Memorandum,2004,www.mmediu.ro/protectia_mediului/Roşia_Montană/pdf/memoriu_prezentare.pdf

Stoica,C.A.,“OpiniapublicădespreProiectulRoşiaMontanăşiGazeledeşist”,11decembrie2013,Voxpublica,http://voxpublica.realitatea.net/politica-societate/opinia-publica-despre-proiectul-rosia-montana-si-gazele-de-sist-101065.html

Sutinen,M.,Danielson,M.,Ekenberg,L.,Larsson,A.(2010).“Web-basedAnalyticalDecisionSupportSystem[Sistemesuportpentrudeciziaanaliticăavândlabazăweb-ul]”.Proceedingsofthe10thInternationalConferenceonIntelligentSystemsDesignandApplications[Volumulceleide-a10-aConferinţeInternaţionaleprivindConcepereaşiAplicaţiileSistemelorInteligente],IEEE,pp.575-579.

Ştefan,O.“InterviucuDanPerjovschi”,ArtMarginsOnline,25octombrie2013,http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/728-interview-with-dan-perjovschi

Ştefănescu,L.,Robu,B.M.,Ozunu,A.,„AbordareaintegratăaimpactuluiasupramediuluişievaluareariscurilordinzonaminierăRoşiaMontană,România”.EnvironmentalScienceandPollutionResearch,Vol.20,Ediţia11,noiembrie2013,pp.7719-7727.

Toma,R.,TimelineRoşiaMontană,3noiembrie2013,http://www.openpolitics.ro/Roşia-Montană/timeline-Roşia-Montană.html

UniţiSalvăm,https://www.facebook.com/unitisalvam.***,ComentariipemargineaStudiuluideImpactasupraMediuluipentruProiectulRoşiaMontanafacuteinbaza

ConventieiEspoodecatreMinisterulMediuluisiApelordinUngariacusprijinulunoragentiiguvernamentalesiaunororganizatiinon-guvernamentale,http://www.cdep.ro/img/rosiam/pdfs/comments_hung.pdf

http://www.gabrielresources.com/site/index.aspxhttp://www.documentcloud.org/documents/782246-Roşia-Montană-acte-premergatoare.html#document/p1