Press Release: Rosia Montana - Romania's Ministry for the Environment refuses to honor civil society's input
RoMo - 13.02.2007 02:15
Bucharest/Romania; 12 February 2007 - Alburnus Maior and Greenpeace CEE are signaling grave irregularities committed by the Ministry for the Environment and Water Management (MEWM) in drawing up the list of annex questions submitted to the Rosia Montana project owner.
Bucharest, 12 February 2007
Dear members of the press,
Please find attached a joint press release by Alburnus Maior and
Greenpeace entitled "Undermining Civil Society: Romania? s Ministry for
the Environment refuses to honor civil society?s input in the Rosia
Montana licensing procedure". It deals with the irregularities committed
by the Ministry in drawing up the list of annex questions submitted to the
Rosia Montana project owner.
Photos from the press conference held today in Bucharest can be found on
 http://www.rosiamontana.ro/Foto_CP_120207_Bucuresti/
We hope that the information will be of interest and remain,
Eugen David
Presedinte
Alburnus Maior
Strada Berk, Nr.361
Rosia Montana
Judetul Alba
www.rosiamontana.ro
****************************
Undermining Civil Society
Romania? s Ministry for the Environment refuses to honor civil society?s input in the Rosia Montana licensing procedure
Bucharest/Romania; 12 February 2007 - Alburnus Maior and Greenpeace CEE are signaling grave irregularities committed by the Ministry for the Environment and Water Management (MEWM) in drawing up the list of annex questions submitted to the Rosia Montana project owner.
On 1 February 2006, MEWM released the list containing the comments and suggestions that resulted from the Rosia Montana public consultation procedure and written comments/suggestions sent by the public. Alburnus Maior and Greenpeace subsequently conducted a diligent analysis of the list and are now in the position to reveal significant and serious logical, mathematical and procedural errors.
Legally, the environmental protection authorities have the duty to accurately evidence the suggestions, analysis and comments received by the public, given that their obligation is to ?ensure that in the decision due account is taken of the outcome of the public participation?. A critical analysis of the list of questions reveals a stark lack of interest regarding the concerns received from the public and a faulty compilation of the document submitted to Rosia Montana project owner. "The Ministry headed by Sulfina Barbu succeeded in putting together 678 pages of illogical enumerations and notes, which shows lack of professionalism and proves the Ministry?s bias in this EIA procedure. I would like to remind our Minister that according to the Aarhus Convention, it has to obligation to ensure transparency, generosity in public access to information and the correct and complete transmittal of all comments and suggestions received from the public to the project owner", declared Eugen David, President Alburnus Maior.
Although the Ministry needed only 5 months to compile the list of questions, (calculated from when the public debates ended), the Ministry failed to register all comments and suggestions received from the public. The most obvious case remains the deliberate registration of over 12 000 organizations, citizens and municipalities from Hungary under one single entry with number 111774/ 25.08.2006, (no. 3027 in the List). Amongst them count Greenpeace Hungary and the Town Hall of Szeged. "The Ministry?s action shows the carelessness with which this procedure is treated. The omission to mention the 12000 signatures collected by Greenpeace Hungary vitiate not only the public participation process, but also the possibility to take a good environmental decision", declared Noemi Nemes from Greenpeace Hungary.
All irregularities found are detailed in an annexed fact-sheet. They include:
- Significant errors in registering the contestations at times marking just one registration number for suggestions and comments received from hundreds of citizens;
- Deliberate confusion between the number of comments and the number of addressers;
- Discriminatory treatment for the foreign public by not publishing the list of questions also in English;
- Incomplete documentation by omitting to publish in the same list the type of contestations to which reference is made;
- Leaving out some of the addressers, although they spoke at the public debates and are registered in the official minutes.
The Rosia Montana EIA report procedure has proven to be the largest active public participation process in Romania but it is essentially obstructed by the state authorities who do not wish to honor an active and independent civil society. "It?s been claimed that Romania lacks an active and strongly organized civil society. However, the public consultations for Rosia Montana proved the potential for mobilization and civic awareness of well over 8000 citizens from all over the country who democratically expressed their opinion. The Romanian authorities? role should have been to value and encourage this unprecedented case. In return, the Romanian state is trying to silence down these beautiful and important efforts ", declared Anamaria Bogdan from Greenpeace CEE.
According to Stefania Simion, activist of Alburnus Maior: ?Gabriel?s performance was down graded by the financial markets as a result of the news that Gabriel has to reply to 5610 contestations. Just imagine how the market would react were it to know that in truth over 21000 contestations were submitted?.
For more information please contact: Alburnus Maior on +40 745 370 524 or alburnusmaior At ngo.ro
Photos from the press conference can be downloaded from http://www.rosiamontana.ro/Foto_CP_120207_Bucuresti/
****************************
FACT SHEET
Subject: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure for the Rosia Montana gold mine proposal
Theme: Public participation in the EIA
Problem: Substantial irregularities are found in the 'Form stating the public's opinion with regards to the Rosia Montana EIA
Date: February 12, 2007
On February 1st 2007, Romania's Ministry for Environment and Water Management officially submitted the list of questions that resulted from the EIA consultation period to Rosia Montana Gold Corporation/Gabriel Resources. The project owner now has the obligation to provide written answers to all these questions. Its answers will form part of an annex to the EIA report. This current stage forms part of the EIA procedure and is entitled 'The analysis stage of the EIA report'.
After a diligent analysis of the list of questions, the Save Rosia Montana Campaign identified substantial irregularities of the documents. The analysis refers to the lists' data and annexes published on the Ministry's official website1.
According to legal provisions, the list of questions should be an assessment and record of the public debates; a reflection of the public's concerns, objections, as well as any commentaries, information, analysis or opinions relevant to the specific proposal under public scrutiny. The environmental authorities have the responsibility to accurately record and asses these comments given that 'the final decision must take into account the public participation result2'. The 678 pages long list of questions are an inaccurate recording; at times even excluding the public's punctual questions; thus facilitating evasive and incomplete answers from the part of the project owner. According to Romanian environmental legislation the Ministry's role is to ensure law enforcement and ensure that the relevant international conventions ratified by Romania are respected.
Amongst the most significant and severe irregularities are as follows:
A. Significant errors in registering the contestations:
Registered with one single entry, 74721/ 16.08.06 (nr. 475 in the Form) are 42 persons coming from Geneva, Beclean, UK, Chad, Switzerland, France, Italy, Belgium, Philippines, Germany.
Registered with one single entry, 109705/ 21.08.06 (nr. 478 in the Form) are 203 persons coming from the villages of Argetoaia, Bucovat, B'ile'ti, Sc'ie'ti, Izvoare, Unirea, Gangeova, Murgeoi Dolj county.
Registered with one single entry, 1116119/ 25.08.06 (nr. 2446 in the Form) are 457 persons from C'l'ra'i, Oradea, Baia Mare, Buz'u, Bac'u, Poland, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Ploie'ti, Prahova, Dâmbovi'', Bra'ov, Hunedoara, Belgium, Boto'ani, Slatina, Sighi'oara, Ro'iori de Vede, Foc'ani, Bucure'ti, Timi'oara, Bistri'a, F'lticeni, Mure', Berlin, Luxemburg, Germany, Ireland, USA, Portugal etc.
Registered with one single entry, 111774/ 25.08.2006, (nr. 3027 in the Form) are over 12000 comments from Hungary; including NGOs and potentially affected municipalities.
B. Deliberate confusion between the number of comments/suggestions and the total number of applicants
The Ministry of the Environment officially stated during a press conference on January 31, 2007 that the number of comments/ suggestions is at a total of 5610. However, the total number of comments/ suggestions is 21 425 submitted by 21 425 individuals, organizations and municipalities from Romania and abroad, of which amongst others:
489 from the directly affected area (Rosia Montana, Bucium, Abrud and Câmpeni)
73 associations
7849 Romanian citizens.
C. Discriminating the foreign public
Ensuring that the opportunity provided to the public of the affected party is equivalent to that provided to the public of the party of origin (Espoo Convention), as well as enforcing the principle of non-discrimination on citizenship, nationality or residence (Aarhus Convention), the Romanian Ministry of the Environment should have published this document both in Romanian and English. According to these international conventions, the interested parties can express their opinion about the mining project in English. The ministry has to include the suggestions/comments in the list of questions along the provisions of the above mentioned international conventions. This is particularly relevant given that detailed contestations submitted in English were summarized by the Ministry by one sentence: "The applicant does not agree with the Rosia Montana project", without listing or mentioning the specific arguments. For example, this has been the case of:
The comments/suggestions submitted by Philip Turner, president the European Council for the Village and Small Towns (no 110783/ 25.08.06 (no 1710 in the Form)).
The comments/suggestions submitted by Joan Kuyek from Miningwatch Canada (no 110787/ 25.08.06 (no 1686 in the Form)).
D. Incomplete documentation
Amongst others, the Ministry of the Environment identified 5 main prototypes of letters/ contestations submitted; without annexing one type of each to the list of questions. Whilst in essence this infringes the principle of transparency, there are occasions when a contestation is listed as one of the prototypes but in essence contains many additional comments/suggestions. This is the case of Eugen Melinte whose letter was registered as 'type1' (10 pages) although his contestation is 25 pages long (110596/ 25.08.06, (no 1394 in the list)).
E. Omitting comments raised during the public debates and/or submitted in writing:
Some of the persons that spoke at the public consultations are omitted from the list of questions that resulted from the public hearings:
Ramona Duminicioiu, participant at the public consultation in Cluj-Napoca, August 7, 2006
Laszlo Bencze, participant at the public consultation in Ro'ia Montan', June 24, 2006
Maria Nan, participant at the public consultation in Turda, August 9, 2006
Ionut Brigle, participant at the public consultation in Alba Iulia, July 31, 2006
Some of the letters send to the ministry and copied to Alburnus Maior are not registered in the list of questions:
Romanian-Amercian League (USA); cc'd to Alburnus Maior
Balasz D.Attila (Oradea); cc'd to Alburnus Maior
Robert Downing (SUA); cc'd to Alburnus Maior
Sabine Thiery (France); cc'd to Alburnus Maior
Cristian Mihai Timar (Oradea); cc'd to Alburnus Maior
Robert E.Rutkowski (SUA); cc'd to Alburnus Maior
Ava Hatfield (USA); cc'd to Alburnus Maior
Christine Klein (Switzerland); cc'd to Alburnus Maior
Conclusion
The violation of the Espoo and Aarhus conventions as well as relevant Romanian legislation by the ministry for the Environment will have repercussions on the Rosia Montana licensing procedure. Any member of the public who maintains an impairment of his/her right or of a legitimate interest can also introduce a legal action challenging the substantive and procedural legality of any acts, decisions or omissions from the part of the competent environmental protection authorities subject to the public participation provisions in the environmental impact assessment procedure, in respect to the provisions of Law 554/2004 on Administrative Litigation, with its subsequent modifications.
*****
ESPOO Convention
Ratified by Romania with Law 22/2001, the Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (Espoo, 1991) recognizes the need to give explicit consideration to environmental factors at an early stage in the decision-making process by applying environmental impact assessment, at all appropriate administrative levels, as a necessary tool to improve the quality of information presented to decision makers so that environmentally sound decisions can be made paying careful attention to minimizing significant adverse impact, particularly in a transboundary context.
AARHUS Convention
Ratified by Romania with Law 86/2000, the Aarhus Convention asserts that regarding decisions on environmental matters, citizens must have access to information, be entitled to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters.
http://www.rosiamontana.ro
http://www.rosiamontana.org
 E-Mail: rosia_montana@gmx.net  Website: http://www.rosiamontana.org
|
