DOCSLIB.ORG

Respondent's Post Hearing Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Respondent's Post Hearing Brief INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES GABRIEL RESOURCES LTD. AND GABRIEL RESOURCES (JERSEY) LTD. Claimants VS. ROMANIA Respondent ICSID CASE NO. ARB/15/31 RESPONDENT’S POST HEARING BRIEF 18 FEBRUARY 2021 LALIVE Gabriel Resources et al. v. Romania Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief 18 February 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 2 ROMANIA HAS AT ALL TIMES ACCORDED FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT TO THE CLAIMANTS’ INVESTMENTS .................................................................... 8 2.1 The Ministry of Environment’s Non-Issuance of the Environmental Permit Does Not Amount to Failure to Provide Fair and Equitable Treatment ......................................... 9 2.1.1 The TAC and the Ministry of Environment Had Discretion in Deciding Whether to Issue the Permit and in Deciding the Conditions to Be Attached to the Permit ............................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 By November 2011, the Ministry of Environment Was Nowhere Near Deciding on the Environmental Permit ....... 14 2.1.3 The November 2011 TAC Meeting Did Not Mark the End of the EIA Review Process ........................................... 17 2.1.4 RMGC Failed to Meet (or Delayed in Meeting) Environmental Permit Requirements .................................. 22 2.1.4.1 RMGC Did Not Secure the Ministry of Culture Endorsement until 2013 ................................................. 22 2.1.4.2 RMGC Did Not Secure the Approval of the Waste Management Plan until May 2013 ................................ 25 2.1.4.3 RMGC Did Not Have (Approved) Urban Plans ............ 26 2.1.4.4 RMGC Did Not Have a Valid Urban Certificate ........... 29 2.1.4.5 RMGC Did Not Comply with the Water Framework Directive ........................................................................ 31 2.1.4.6 RMGC Failed to Secure the Surface Rights .................. 34 ii Gabriel Resources et al. v. Romania Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief 18 February 2021 RMGC Needed the Surface Rights for the EIA Review Process .............................................................. 34 RMGC Needed the Surface Rights to the Project Area, the Buffer Zone, and the Historical Center .......... 36 RMGC Needed the Surface Rights of Certain Recalcitrant Landowners to Start the Project (and thus Could not Defer the Acquisition of those Surface Rights) .............................................................. 38 RMGC Failed to Secure the Surface Rights .................. 38 2.1.4.7 RMGC Did Not Provide Information Regarding Reforestation.................................................................. 42 2.1.4.8 RMGC Failed to Address Critical Technical Issues ...... 42 Cyanide Transportation and Management ..................... 43 Risk of Tailings Management Facility Dam Failure and Pond Seepage .......................................................... 49 The Lack of Sufficient Research at Orlea ..................... 52 Absence of Information Regarding Post-Closure Land Use ........................................................................ 54 2.1.5 The EIA Review Process Was Ongoing in 2012 ................. 56 2.1.6 The EIA Review Process Was Ongoing in 2013-2014 ........ 58 2.2 The Government Did Not Coerce RMGC or the Claimants and Thus Did Not Fail to Provide Fair and Equitable Treatment to the Claimants’ Investments .................................. 62 2.2.1 The Various Governments Did Not Hold Up Permitting ............................................................................................. 63 2.2.1.1 The EIA Review Process Was Not Held Up by the Various Governments .................................................... 64 iii Gabriel Resources et al. v. Romania Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief 18 February 2021 2.2.1.2 The Boc Governments Did Not Hold Up the Permitting Process (between 1 August 2011 and 6 February 2012) .............................................................. 65 There Was No Political Interference in the Permitting Process During the Boc Governments ......... 66 There Was No Political Interference During the November 2011 TAC Meeting ...................................... 72 Public Statements to the Press During the Boc Governments Are Not Measures and Cannot Amount to Governmental Interference in Permitting ....................................................................................... 78 2.2.1.3 The Ungureanu Government Did Not Hold Up the Permitting Process (between 9 February and 7 May 2012) .............................................................................. 79 2.2.1.4 The Ponta Governments Did Not Hold Up the Permitting Process (between 7 May 2012 and 9 September 2013) ............................................................ 83 2.2.2 The Various Governments Did Not Demand an “Increase [of] the State’s Economic Interest in the Project” Coercively or Otherwise ........................................ 85 2.2.2.1 The Governments Did Not Link the Commercial Negotiations with the Permitting ................................... 86 The Claimants Negotiated Freely with the Boc Government ................................................................... 86 The Boc Government Did Not Link the Commercial Renegotiation with the Permitting ................................. 91 The Ungureanu and Ponta Governments Did Not Link the Commercial Renegotiation with the Permitting ...................................................................... 93 iv Gabriel Resources et al. v. Romania Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief 18 February 2021 2.2.2.2 The Claimants Sought, but the Government Declined, to Link the Commercial Negotiations with the Permitting ........................................................ 95 2.2.3 The Various Governments Did Not Reject the Claimants’ Offers ................................................................. 96 2.3 The Submission of the Roşia Montană Law to Parliament and Its Rejection by Parliament Do Not Amount to a Failure to Provide Fair and Equitable Treatment ...................... 98 2.3.1 The Submission of the Roșia Montană Law to Parliament Did Not Breach the Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions of the BITs ........................................ 99 2.3.1.1 The Roșia Montană Law Was an Attempt to Facilitate the Project by Mitigating RMGC’s Inability to Meet Permitting Requirements ................... 99 2.3.1.2 The Respondent Did Not Impose the Roşia Montană Law as a Condition of the Project’s Progress ....................................................................... 100 2.3.1.3 The Roşia Montană Law Was Prepared and Drafted with the Claimants’ Willing Cooperation .................... 102 2.3.1.4 The Roșia Montană Law Would Have Helped RMGC Overcome the Issues that the Project Was Facing .......................................................................... 103 2.3.2 Parliament’s Rejection of the Roşia Montană Law Did Not Breach the Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions of the BITs ......................................................................... 107 2.4 RMGC Never Overcame the Social Opposition to the Project ..................................................................................... 109 2.4.1 From the Outset, RMGC Has Faced Social Opposition .... 110 2.4.2 Social Opposition Disrupted the Permitting Process ......... 112 v Gabriel Resources et al. v. Romania Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief 18 February 2021 2.4.2.1 Social Opposition Disrupted the EIA Review Process ......................................................................... 112 2.4.2.2 The NGOs’ Litigation Campaign Disrupted the Permitting Process ....................................................... 113 Legal Challenges Related to Urban Plans ................... 114 Legal Challenges to Urban Certificates ....................... 114 Legal Challenges to ADCs .......................................... 115 2.4.2.3 Social Opposition Prevented RMGC from Obtaining the Surface Rights ....................................... 116 2.4.2.4 Project Opponents Petitioned the European Parliament .................................................................... 116 2.4.3 RMGC, Not the State, Was Responsible for Managing the Social Opposition ........................................................ 116 2.4.3.1 RMGC Was Responsible for Obtaining the Social License ......................................................................... 116 2.4.3.2 The State Did Not Interfere with RMGC’s Attempts to Manage the Social Opposition ................................ 118 2.4.3.3 The State Defended in Court the Approvals and Permits for the Project ................................................. 118 2.4.3.4 The Roșia Montană Law Would Have Mitigated the Project’s Lack of Social Legitimacy ............................ 119 2.4.4 RMGC Failed to Manage the Social Opposition ............... 120 2.4.4.1 RMGC Failed to Engage with Project Opponents and Address Their Concerns ........................................ 120 2.4.4.2 The Claimants Inflate and Mischaracterize the Evidence of Support for the Project ............................ 123 “Thank You” Letters Sent to RMGC Do Not Demonstrate Support ................................................... 123 vi Gabriel Resources et al. v. Romania Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief 18 February 2021 RMGC’s Polls and Surveys Are Not Reliable Evidence of Support .................................................... 123 Polls Commissioned by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mtntng ACTTVTTIES Tn the APUSENT MOUNTATNS, ROMANTA
    Geosciences in the 27't century. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MtNtNG ACTTVTTIES tN THE APUSENT MOUNTATNS, ROMANTA Elena-Luisa IATAN lnstitute of Geodynamics ,,Sabba S. $tefdnescu" of Romanian Academy, D-21 Jeon-Louis Calderon St, o2oo32 Buchorest, e-mail: [email protected] Mining is one of the oldest industries, and abandoned mines with the potential to release harmful substances into soil, water and air are found throughout Romanian territory. Due to the mining activity of ore deposits for more than 2000 years, in Romania there are over 550 tailings dumps, covering an area of approximately 800 ha and storing over 200 million cubic meters of tailings and 54 tailings ponds, which covers an area of almost 1350 ha and stores over 350 million m3 of waste. Mining activities create a potential impact on the environment, both during exploitation and in the years after mine closure. Underground exploitation presents the risk of collapsing galleries and surface overflowing and involves the dislocation of a large amount of rocks. Quarrying is one of the most common forms of mineral extraction, being particularly harmful to the environment, as strategic minerals are often available in low concentrations, which increases the amount of ore extracted. Althou8h mininB activities are currently stopped in most areas, the potential risk of environmental contamination exists due to the huge quantities of tailings in the tailings ponds and the tailinBs dumps very close to the watercourses. These are permanent sources of pollution for surface and groundwater, soil and air in the area (Fig. 1). The oxidation of sulphide minerals led to the removal of soluble metal ions from the mineralization found in mining related wastes under the effect of water.
    [Show full text]
  • International Conference of Territorial Intelligence, Alba Iulia 2006. Vol.1
    International Conference of Territorial Intelligence, Alba Iulia 2006. Vol.1, Papers on region, identity and sustainable development (deliverable 12 of caENTI, project funded under FP6 research program of the European Union), Aeternitas, Alba Iulia, 2007 Jean-Jacques Girardot, M. Pascaru, Ioan Ileana To cite this version: Jean-Jacques Girardot, M. Pascaru, Ioan Ileana. International Conference of Territorial Intelligence, Alba Iulia 2006. Vol.1, Papers on region, identity and sustainable development (deliverable 12 of caENTI, project funded under FP6 research program of the European Union), Aeternitas, Alba Iulia, 2007. 2007, 280 p. halshs-00531457 HAL Id: halshs-00531457 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00531457 Submitted on 26 Jun 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. International Conference of Territorial Intelligence of Alba Iulia 2006 (CAENTI) | http://www.territorial-intelligence.eu Jean-Jacques GIRARDOT Mihai PASCARU Ioan ILEANĂ Editors International Conference of Territorial Intelligence ALBA IULIA 2006 Volume 1
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Alternative” Will Be Conducted on a Pre-Feasibility Level
    Description of the "Zero" (No Project) Alternative for Roşia Montană Prepared for: S.C. ROŞIA MONTANĂ GOLD CORPORATION S.A. 321, Pietei Street 3385, Roşia Montană, Alba County, Romania Prepared by: WISUTEC Wismut Umwelttechnik GmbH Jagdschänkenstr. 33 D-09117 Chemnitz Germany in collaboration with WISMUT GmbH Jagdschänkenstr. 29 D-09117 Chemnitz www.wismut.de SC Rosia Motana Gold CorporationEnvironmental Impact Study Description of the "Zero" (No Project) Alternative for Roşia Montană Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background and Objective.................................................................................... 5 1.2 Applicable Romanian and International Regulations and Guidelines ................... 6 1.3 Sources of Information.......................................................................................... 6 2 Site Conditions ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Site History............................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Facilities Considered in this Study ........................................................................ 8 2.3 Local Conditions ................................................................................................. 13 General .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin 1995 - 2005 Revision 1999
    DANUBE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMME STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN FOR THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN 1995 - 2005 REVISION 1999 Programme Coordination Unit UNDP/GEF Assistance DANUBE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMME STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN FOR THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN 1995 – 2005 REVISION 1999 Programme Coordination Unit UNDP/GEF Assistance Preface The present Report of the SAP has been prepared on the basis of existing analytical documents, in particular the National Review Reports and the results of the National Planning Workshops. A genuine bottom-top approach has associated in the elaboration of this SAP about 300 professionals and experts from all Danube countries, from central and local Governments, from Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), from universities and research institutions and from the private sector. This planning process has allowed to reflect national considerations concerning the analysis of problems, the formulation of objectives and targets and the identification of appropriate measures for pollution reduction. Transboundary effects of pollution have been identified and the need for regional cooperation has been defined. The first draft of the SAP has been reviewed in the frame of Hernstein II Workshop, Austria, from 12 to 16 May 1999. Experts from all Danube Countries and invited specialists from international and financing institutions have thus contributed to produce a coherent document reflecting genuinely policies and strategies of the Danube River Protection Convention. The ICPDR Steering Group, at the Meeting in Vienna on 10 and
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Environmental Assessment of the Tisza River Basin
    RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE TISZA RIVER BASIN 2004 United Nations Environment Programme Prepared by Karin Burnod-Requia This is a joint publication of UNEP/ROE and UNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe, in collaboration with UNEP/Vienna-ISCC. Disclaimers The contents and views express in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the contributory organizations or the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The opinions, figures and estimates set forth in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. Mention of a commercial company or product in this publication does not imply the endorsement of UNEP. Reproduction This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP. The use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products for publicity or advertising is not permitted. UNEP/Regional Office for Europe International Environment House 11, Chemin des Anémones CH-1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland http://www.unep.org UNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe International Environment House 11, Chemin des Anémones CH-1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland http://www.grid.unep.ch ii CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Analele Ştiinţifice
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scientific Annals of "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University of Iasi ANALELE ŞTIINTIFICE ALE UNIVERSITĂŢII SCIENTIFIC ANNALS OF „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA” din IAŞI „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA” UNIVERSITY OF IAŞI Tom LIX, nr.2, s. IIc, Geografie 2013 Volume LIX, no.2, s. II c, Geography series 2013 ISSN 1223-5334 (printed version) (online version) 2284-6379 eISSN © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License THE POTENTIAL FOR WATER DIFFUSE POLLUTION WITH HEAVY METALS IN ARIEȘ RIVER BASIN 1*Iulia FONTANINE, 2Romulus COSTACHE Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: The potential for water diffuse pollution with heavy metals in Arieș river basin. Arieș river basin is found mostly in the area of mining extractions from Apuseni Mountains. Its position causes a high vulnerability of water courses to pollution with heavy metals derived from mine waters. In this sutdy, in order to determine the potential for water diffuse pollution in Arieș river basin, two main factors were integrated in GIS software, respectively: the potential for surface runoff and the localization of the sources of water pollution with heavy metals (from quarries, mines, blank depositions, decantation ponds). The highlighting of the potential for water diffuse pollution was achieved by computing the DPPI index for each river sub-basin. The index was computed by multiplying the average values of the Flash-Flood Susceptibility Index for each river sub-basin by the number of difuse pollution sources (from quarries, mines, blank depositions, decantation ponds) within the sub-basin units.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Sediment Transport Model of the Mining- Affected Aries River Basin, Romania
    In Cooperation with the World Bank, the Romanian National Agency for Mineral Resources, and Futures Group Initial Sediment Transport Model of the Mining- Affected Aries River Basin, Romania By Michael J. Friedel and Joshua I. Linard Open-File Report 2008–1171 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Friedel, M.J., and Linard, J., 2008, Initial Sediment Transport Model of the mining-affected Aries River basin, Romania: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2008-1171, 23 p. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. ii Abstract.........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Respondent's Rejoinder
    INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES GABRIEL RESOURCES LTD. AND GABRIEL RESOURCES (JERSEY) LTD. Claimants VS. ROMANIA Respondent ICSID CASE NO. ARB/15/31 RESPONDENT’S REJOINDER 24 MAY 2019 Gabriel Resources et al. v. Romania Respondent’s Rejoinder 24 May 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................1 2 THE CLAIMS FALL OUTSIDE THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION................................................................... 11 2.1 Gabriel Canada’s Claims Fall Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction ................................................................................11 2.1.1 Gabriel Canada Cannot Claim Both on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of RMGC......................................................11 2.1.2 Gabriel Canada’s Claims Fall Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction to the Extent They Fail to Comply with Articles XIII(2) and (3)(b) of the Canada-Romania BIT .............................................................................................12 2.1.3 Gabriel Canada’s Claims Fall Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Since They Arise Out of Measures Taken Prior to 30 July 2012 ...........................................................17 2.1.4 Gabriel Canada’s Umbrella Clause Claim Falls Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction ...................................................21 2.1.5 Gabriel Canada’s Claims Are Limited by the Substantive Provisions of the BIT .......................................22 2.1.5.1 Claims Relating to Environmental Measures
    [Show full text]
  • Map 21 Dacia-Moesia Compiled by JJ Wilkes, 1996
    Map 21 Dacia-Moesia Compiled by J.J. Wilkes, 1996 Introduction The map is centered on the Carpathian basin, traversed by the middle course of the Danube, Europe’s greatest river. The sandy wastes of the great Hungarian plain (Alföld), once an inland sea and still marshy in the south, are bounded on the west by the river and on the east by the mountains and high plains of Romanian Transylvania (Dacia). Further south, the rolling hills and wooded valleys of Serbia lie between the mountains of Bosnia and Montenegro to the west and the Bulgarian Stara Planina (Balkan Mts.) and Rhodope range (Map 51 C1) to the east. The plain has a continental climate of cold winters and short hot summers. South of the Danube the climate is milder, though snow and seasonal floods regularly impede movement. The Serbian plain and tributary valleys support cereal cultivation, but the region also has rich mineral deposits, gold, iron ore, silver and lead. Gold and iron ore are also present in western Transylvania. In the Vács (Waitzen) gorge (B2, north of Aquincum) the Danube bends from an eastward to a southward course and flows 230 miles to a confluence with the Dravus (modern Drava). It then continues south-east for 220 miles, during which it receives the Pathissus (Tisza), which drains the Hungarian plain and–through its major tributaries–Transylvania. After confluences first with the Savus at Singidunum (Belgrade), and then with the Margus, the Danube next enters a succession of gorges (Djerdap), where the stream is in places narrowed to barely 500 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mineral Industry of Romania in 2017-2018
    2017–2018 Minerals Yearbook ROMANIA [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. Department of the Interior April 2021 U.S. Geological Survey The Mineral Industry of Romania By Lindsey Abdale and Ji Won Moon Note: In this chapter, information for 2017 is followed by information for 2018. Romania had identified mineral resources of ferrous and Europe (87% of total imports received), followed by countries nonferrous metals, industrial minerals, and mineral fuels, in Asia (10%) and the Americas (including North America, including coal, natural gas, and crude petroleum. In 2017, Central America and the Caribbean, and South America) (2.4%). Romania produced alumina, aluminum, cement, coal, copper, Romania’s main import trading partners were Germany (which iron and steel, refined lead, natural gas, nitrogen, petroleum, and supplied 20% of Romania’s total imports), Italy (10%), Hungary salt. Although Romania was not a significant mineral producer (7.5%), Poland (5.4%), and France (5.3%) (National Institute of on a global scale, it was one of the leading vertically integrated Statistics, 2018, p. 74, 75, 78). aluminum producers in Europe that use imported bauxite (table 1; Alro S.A., 2019). Production Minerals in the National Economy In 2017, the production of manganese (ore, Mn content) increased by 200%; primary and secondary zinc, by 167%; In 2017, Romania’s real gross domestic product (GDP) feldspar, by 67%; secondary lead, by 38%; nitrogen (N content increased by 6.9% from that of 2016, and the nominal GDP of ammonia), by 18%; copper (Cu content of concentrates), by in 2017 was $212 billion. The GDP in current prices for the 16%; salt (other), by 15%; and bentonite, lignite coal, and steel industrial sector was $53.2 billion, which was an increase of pipes and tubes, by 12% each.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Integrated Tisza River Basin Management Plan
    Updated Integrated Tisza River Basin Management Plan Annex 1. List of surface water bodies List of surface water bodies in the Tisza River Basin RIVER WATER TRANS- LENGTH OF RIVER COUNTRY RIVER NAME RIVER WATER BODY NAME EUCD RWB BODY BOUNDARY WATER BODY CHARACTER WATER BODY [km] Hungary Berettyó Berettyó HUAEP322 HMWB 74.382 Hungary Bodrog Bodrog HUAEP334 NATURAL 51.172 Hungary Bódva Bódva felső HUAEP335 NATURAL 15.597 Hungary Bódva Bódva alsó HUAEP336 NATURAL 39.88 Hungary Dongéri-főcsatorna Dong-éri-főcsatorna felső HUAEP431 HMWB 65.653 Hungary Dongéri-főcsatorna Dong-éri-főcsatorna alsó HUAEP432 HMWB 15.277 Hungary Ér-főcsatorna Ér-főcsatorna HUAEP462 HMWB 8.486 Hungary Fehér-Körös Fehér-Körös HUAEP471 AWB 9.741 Hungary Fekete-Körös Fekete-Körös HUAEP475 HMWB 20.511 Hungary Hernád Hernád alsó HUAEP579 NATURAL 53.699 Hungary Hernád Hernád felső HUAEP580 HMWB 68.225 Hungary Hortobágy-Berettyó Hortobágy-Berettyó HUAEP594 HMWB 79.058 Hungary Kálló-ér Kálló-ér HUAEP625 HMWB 29.392 Hungary Keleti-főcsatorna Keleti-főcsatorna dél HUAEP650 AWB 93.692 Hungary Keleti-főcsatorna Keleti-főcsatorna észak HUAEP651 AWB 4.885 Hungary Kettős-Körös Kettős-Körös HUAEP668 HMWB 37.292 Hungary Kraszna Kraszna HUAEP729 HMWB 46.238 Hungary Lónyay-főcsatorna Lónyai-főcsatorna HUAEP766 AWB 45.190 Hungary Maros Maros torkolat HUAEP783 HMWB 28.612 Hungary Maros Maros kelet HUAEP784 HMWB 22.215 Hungary Sajó Sajó felső HUAEP931 NATURAL 52.904 Hungary Sajó Sajó alsó HUAEP932 NATURAL 70.970 Hungary Sebes-Körös Sebes-Körös felső HUAEP953 NATURAL 44.141 Updated Integrated
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Romania: Distribution of Species and Key for Their Identification
    Entomologica romanica 17: 29-50, 2012 ISSN 1224-2594 / article no.: ER17201204 The genus Myrmica Latreille, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Romania: distribution of species and key for their identification Zsolt CZEKES, Alexander G. RADCHENKO, Sándor Csősz, Annamária SZÁSZ-LEN, Ioan Tăuşan, Klára BENEDEK & Bálint MARKÓ Summary: Genus Myrmica is one of the largest ant genera in Romania with 18 species distributed across the entire country. In the frame of this study we present the distribution data of all Romanian Myrmica species: M. bergi, M. constricta, M. gallienii, M. hel- lenica, M. lobicornis, M. lonae, M. karavajevi, M. rubra, M. ruginodis, M. rugulosa, M. sabuleti, M. scabrinodis, M. schencki, M. slovaca, M. specioides, M. sulcinodis, M. vandeli, and a problematic species M. salina. A single species, M. turcica was deleted from the list of occurring species. Four species are reported for the first time in the Romanian fauna:M. bergi, M. constricta, M. gallienii and M. karavajevi, while the occurrence of several species is probable. These species are listed separately. In addition, a key to the worker caste of Myrmica (with the use of male characters for some species) is provided, including species with likely occurrence in Romania. Key words: ants, fauna, Myrmica bergi, Myrmica constricta, Myrmica gallienii, Myrmica karavajevi, new records Introduction Republic (WERNER and WIEZIK 2007), 18 in Germany (SEIFERT 2007), 15 in Hungary (Csősz et al. 2011), The genus Myrmica LATREILLE, 1804 is one the 6 in F.Y.R. of Macedonia (Bračko et al. in press), largest ant genera in the Old World containing more 9 in Montenegro (KARAMAN 2004), 18 in Poland than 150 described extant species (RADCHENKO and (CZECHOWSKI et al.
    [Show full text]