En En Working Document
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2009 - 2014 Committee on Petitions 17.7.2012 WORKING DOCUMENT on the fact-finding mission to Romania, 24-25 November 2011 Committee on Petitions Rapporteur: Erminia Mazzoni DT\916874EN.doc PE483.803v05-00 EN United in diversity EN The delegation The Delegation which visited Romania was made up of seven official Members and four ex officio Members of the Committee on Petitions. Members Ms. Erminia Mazzoni (EPP, IT), Leader of the delegation Mr. Zoltán Bagó (EPP, HU) Ms. Inés Ayala Sender (S&D, ES) Mr. Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D, HU) Mr. Roger Helmer (ECR, UK) Mr. Gerald Häfner (Greens, DE) Mr. Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD, GR) Ex-officio Members Ms. Elena Băsescu (EPP, RO) Mr. Cristian Dan Preda (EPP, RO) Mr. Victor Boştinaru (S&D, RO) Ms. Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE, RO) Objective of the visit The objective of the visit was to obtain a better insight into the concerns raised by several petitioners regarding: a large-scale gold mining project situated in Roșia Montană1, windmill park projects situated in the Dobrogea region2, animal welfare3, international adoptions4 and the detrimental impact of a shopping centre built in the vicinity of a historic cathedral5. The delegation also sought to achieve an enhanced cooperation with the two Romanian Committees on Petitions and the Romanian Ombudsman, with a view to raising awareness about the sphere of competences of the Committee on Petitions in the European Parliament. Background of the main petitions The Rosia Montana petitions were received in 2010, respectively 2011 and drew attention to 1 Petitions 0622/2010 and 0628/2011. 2 Petitions 0111/2008 and 0262/2011 3 Petition 0587/2011. 4 Petitions 1120/2009 and 1109/2010 5 Petitions 0067/2007 and 0149/2007 PE483.803v05-00 2/22 DT\916874EN.doc EN the alleged lack of compliance of a big open-cast gold mining project situated in Roșia Montană with a series of European directives, namely the Mining Waste Directive1, the Water Directives, the Seveso Directive2 and the Air Directive3. The petitioners also had the opportunity to present their arguments on the occasion of the meeting of the Committee on petitions on the 4th of October 2011. The Dobrogea windmills petitions presented serious allegations of potentially irreversible damage to the environment by a large number of windmills in Dobrogea. The petitions were also discussed during the 4th of October 2011 meeting, when the European Commission’s representative explained that infringement proceedings were ongoing for two sites (Macin- Niculitel and Muntii Macinului) and preliminary investigations had been initiated for other sites (ROSPA 0031 Delta Dunarii and Complexul Raxim-Sinoie, ROSPA0091 Padurea Babadag, ROSPA0100 Stepa Casimcea and ROSCI 0201 Podisul Nord Dobrogean). The two petitions concerning the construction of a 20-storey building near Saint Joseph's Cathedral were received in 2007. During a fact-finding visit in 2008, the delegation spent some time visiting the cathedral and the surrounding site. A subsequent letter was sent by the President of the European Parliament to the Romanian President and Prime-Minister, expressing the Committee's views that the construction of an immense shopping centre in such proximity to the cathedral clearly supported commercial and business interests and constituted a flagrant abuse of the authorities' powers, without due attention being paid to cultural heritage. In July 2011, the Suceava Court of Appeal ruled that the building permit granted to the ‘Cathedral Plaza’ shopping centre was illegal. The visit First day (24 November 2011) Meeting with Mr. Dragos Tanase, General Manager of Roșia Montană Gold Corporation (RMCG) and Mr. Eugen Furdui, Mayor of the Roșia Montană Commune The delegation leader, Ms. Erminia Mazzoni, started by introducing the members of the delegation and specified that the visit of the Committee aimed to seek further clarifications concerning the allegations included in two petitions on the Roșia Montană Project. Mr. Eugen Furdui explained that Roșia Montană was a mining community. All people in the area had worked in the mining industry over time and supported the project. The project was 1 Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries 2 Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances 3 Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality DT\916874EN.doc 3/22 PE483.803v05-00 EN the only opportunity to deal with historic pollution in the area (caused by the state exploitation mines up to 2006) and could also solve the social problems. He presented a brochure with 25 mayors and NGO's in the area that supported the project. Asked about the decision of the Court of Appeal to annul the project approval by the Roșia Montană Local Council and the presumed conflict of interests of two councillors, the Mayor specified that the decision of the Appeal Court did not concern the mining project, but the Zonal Urban Plan (Plan Urbanistic Zonal, PUZ) of the Roșia Montană commune. The two local councillors worked for the company and should not have taken the vote. Subsequently, the plan was again put to the vote and the two councillors did not take part in the vote. Mr. Dragos Tanase used a Powerpoint presentation to illustrate the state of degradation of the commune (abandoned pits, pollution levels above maximum allowed levels, acid waters at the Abrudel stream and Aries river confluence). According to the General Manager, there was an 80% unemployment rate in the area and the commune had no perspectives. He specified that the RM Minining Project developed by RMGC would use best available technologies for all components, as defined by the EU standards and BREF document. Moreover, on 4 of the chapters, the project would be considered as a new benchmark and the BAT would need to be updated based on the RM Mining Project. He pointed out that the EIA Study consisted of 20 main chapters (5,000 pages). There had been extensive consultations and 6,000 questions had received an answer. The estimated level of cyanide in the tailings management facility would be very low (5 mg/l for the RM Project compared to the level of 10 mg/l provided for by the EU Directives and 400 mg/l in the Baia Mare accident in 2000). Mr. Tanase went on to present the advantages of the Project. From the economic point of view, it would create jobs (2,300 direct jobs during construction and 3,000 indirect jobs for the project's lifetime), opportunities for local businesses and would bring a 1% contribution to Romania's GDP. From the environmental point of view, the Project would solve historic pollution1. Pits would either be closed and vegetal soil would be planted or would be transformed into lakes. Concerning patrimony, most historical houses would be renovated. As for social life, the Project would restore Community life and traditions. The Project also envisaged sustainable development strategies (professional reconversions, business plans for post mining activities). Mr. Tanase explained that the company had built new houses, with all facilities, in a nearby locality, where local people would be voluntarily resettled. He stated that the company had already purchased most of the private properties required for the project from local land owners. Asked about the potential risks involved, Mr. Tanase made reference to certain studies carried out by Norwegian experts and assured the delegation that the risks would be very low and the Project would be “much safer than nuclear plants”. The dam would be 1,000 times safer than 1 Acid waters would be cleaned from Day 1 of the operation PE483.803v05-00 4/22 DT\916874EN.doc EN any other dam in the world. Asked repeatedly about the guarantees and the value of environmental insurance, Mr. Tanase replied that an amount of USD 127 million would be set aside for the site rehabilitation. The company would also take out insurance, in case a disaster occurred. The comfortable level of the insurance was to be set at a later stage, once the environment permit was granted. Mr. Tanase insisted that the company was ready to accept any insurance amount that would be required by the insurance company. To the question why the Project had so many opponents, Mr. Tanase replied that those people who opposed the project took the easy information out and expressed his wish that they should better inform themselves. Meeting with Mr. Marin Anton and Mr. Cristian Apostol, Secretaries of State in the Ministry of Environment The second meeting took place in the Ministry of Environment, in the presence of two Secretaries of State and various directors of different departments. After a short introduction made by the Head of the delegation, Ms. Erminia Mazzoni, Mr. Marin Anton replied to certain concerns raised in the Roşia Montană petitions: He explained that the Roşia Montană mining project was currently undergoing an environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure, in view of obtaining the environmental permit. Central and local public authorities which had specific powers and duties in terms of environmental protection had been involved. To this end, a Technical Analysis Committee (TAC) was created at central level in 20101. Following requests from the TAC, in order to ensure that the project complied with the relevant legislation, the project holder had supplemented and amended the documentation several times. Concerning compliance with the provisions of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries, he stated that the concentration of cyanide would be between 5-7 ppm at the entrance and would be diminished at the point of discharge, whereas the Directive allowed for a concentration of weak acid dissociable cyanide at the point of discharge of the tailings from the processing plant into the pond of 10 ppm.