Below we go through various scenarios and their consequences for the Roşia Montană exploitation project. The following scenarios were devised according to eight different prioritizations, which led to separate weighing choices of the main criteria: (1) indiscriminative assessment of issues importance; (2) coverage of issue in the consulted data; (3) potential of issue improvement; (4) stakeholder interest—the Romanian state; (5) stakeholder interest—civil society and local opponents; (6) local, national and transboundary interests; (7) stakeholder interest—local community; and (8) transparency and citizen interest. For a more detailed view of the criteria, subcriteria and the assigned weights and relations in DecideIT for every scenario, see the Excel document attached.
5.2. Sensitivity Analysis
In the sensitivity analysis below we devised different scenarios changing the weights of the main criteria in order to see to what extent the relation between the alternatives alters the results, depending on the various stakeholder views involved. For a detailed indication of the values assigned to these criteria for each option under analysis, see the Excel table attached to the paper.
Scenario 2: The second scenario we propose stems from the range of interests dedicated to the categories outlined above throughout the consulted documents and statements. The background research revealed that the most widely discussed issues regarding the project were the economic and environmental aspects, covered by governmental statements, license agreements, expert reports, national and international institutes’ positions and others, while social and cultural issues seemed somewhat secondary in the public debate, gaining visibility mainly through civil society efforts. For this reason, we considered in this scenario that the economic and environmental consequences weigh the same, then social and cultural issues also bear equal weights, but the former categories weigh more that the latter (without specifying how much more, because that is uncertain). We also took into consideration the credibility dimension, which we assigned a lower weight than all other four criteria, considering that it has a rather indirect effect on the overall evaluation of the project.
Figure 5.
Scenario 2. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 5.
Scenario 2. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 6.
Scenario 2. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
Figure 6.
Scenario 2. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
Figure 7.
Scenario 2. Comparison Alt. 2 and Alt. 4.
Figure 7.
Scenario 2. Comparison Alt. 2 and Alt. 4.
As we can see in
Figure 5 and
Figure 6, Alt. 2 and Alt.4 are still clearly distinguishable, with the latter being strongly preferred to the former. While Alt. 4 has a higher expected value than Alt. 2, as seen in
Figure 7, and Alt.1, more specific data would be necessary in order to differentiate the alternatives with a strong degree of confidence.
Scenario 3: For the main scenario, we checked the extent to which the
credibility issues affect the evaluation of Alt. 1, the RMGC project, in relation to the other alternatives. If the Company and the Romanian Government would improve the transparency of their negotiations, steps and aims regarding the project and would initiate a permanent dialogue on the topic with citizens and the civil society in the decision-making process,
credibility could be solved and make room for an open democratic discussion on the remaining four criteria. The expected value graphs for scenario 2 where we assigned a weight at most likely point 0 for the credibility criterion can be seen in
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
Scenario 3. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 8.
Scenario 3. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
According to
Figure 8 and
Figure 9, if we discard the
credibility dimension and consider only
economic, environment, social and
cultural issues, the results remain mostly the same: Alt. 3 can be dropped, Alt. 4 is still the best, and Alt. 1 and Alt. 2 overlap, though the former becomes very slightly better than the Zero Alternative. The same shift between Alt. 1 and Alt. 2, making the former slightly more preferable than the latter is noticed when dropping the
credibility criterion in scenario 1, as well.
Figure 9.
Scenario 3. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
Figure 9.
Scenario 3. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
In this case, the only position that changes is that of the Alt. 2, which becomes very slightly preferable to Alt.1, the RMGC project. This is due to the increase of the credibility criteria weight, along with its subcriteria legality and transparency. However, the difference between the two is almost insignificant, which means that more data is needed to compare them. Also, the difference between Alt. 4 and Alt. 2 slightly decreases, but remains significant.
Scenario 4: Romanian officials have repeatedly stressed the economic potential of the RMGC investment, mainly highlighting the profits derived from royalties and state participation, as well as the potential for creating jobs in the area. The desire to exploit natural resources for the beneficial impact upon the national economy has been expressed by various governments and the former president, being the impetus of maintaining the Company project on the public and political agenda. Below we can look at the value graphs when giving the highest weight to the economic aspects, all other criteria having equal weights among themselves, lower than the economic one.
If the economic arguments prevail over all the others, then the results of the decision analysis become somewhat different (
Figure 10 and
Figure 11). Alt. 1 (the updated mining project) becomes almost as preferable as Alt. 4 (doing tourism), with an overlap of almost 95%, but also overlaps to great extent with the Zero Alternative, which makes it somewhat difficult to distinguish between the three alternatives.
Figure 10.
Scenario 4. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 10.
Scenario 4. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 11.
Scenario 4. Comparison Alt.1 and Alt.4.
Figure 11.
Scenario 4. Comparison Alt.1 and Alt.4.
Scenario 5: In this set-up, we prioritize the
social, cultural, environmental and
credibility aspects over the
economical benefits, as demanded by several opposing NGOs including Alburnus Maior and the majority of the protesters. According to critics of the RMGC project, the economical gains derived from the gold and silver exploitation are neither substantial, nor stable enough for a long-term national economic development and better standards of living (the “Dutch disease” of natural resources maintaining instable economies [
42]). Moreover, regardless of the economic potential, some opponents consider the social, cultural and environmental risks and impact much more important to consider in the maintenance or future urban planning of the area, being at the same time active watchdogs of the legal process of obtaining local authority and ministry permits.
Figure 12.
Scenario 5. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 12.
Scenario 5. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 13.
Scenario 5. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
Figure 13.
Scenario 5. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
Again, there is a shift between Alt. 1 and Alt. 2, as the latter (the one favored by the stakeholders who oppose and protest against the project) becomes a better option than the RMGC project for the area.
Scenario 6: The highest risk concerns found throughout the available documentation, expressed by experts, citizens and public officials alike, deal with
environmental aspects. Most countries including Romania require Environmental Impact Assessments for mining projects; RMGC must also submit one in order to get a secure pass from the Ministry of Environment, which has not been granted yet. However, the Romanian side is not the only one having a say in the matter, as the Hungarian government has expressed its call for caution both in diplomatic meetings and expert reports. At the same time, the Romanian state needs to address the rehabilitation and minimization of waste and toxic tailings coming from the state activities in the extractive industries. There are still areas that are affected by the toxic waste from mining activities, among them being the Roşia Montană village. Research shows that the environmental impact of the pollution in the area is significant and the risks associated with it should make pollution mediation a priority on the public decision-making agenda. This scenario weighs the
environmental issues higher than all other criteria, which have smaller equal weights, and the resulting evaluation graphs being available in
Figure 14,
Figure 15 and
Figure 16.
Figure 14.
Scenario 6. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 14.
Scenario 6. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 15.
Scenario 6. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
Figure 15.
Scenario 6. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
Figure 16.
Scenario 6. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 4. (Note: If we prioritize environment over social, economic, cultural and credibility criteria, then the Zero Alternative becomes the second best after Tourism, which is significantly better than Alt. 1).
Figure 16.
Scenario 6. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 4. (Note: If we prioritize environment over social, economic, cultural and credibility criteria, then the Zero Alternative becomes the second best after Tourism, which is significantly better than Alt. 1).
Scenario 7: The social impact of all alternatives has been taken into account, with the implications of the project—resettlements and relocations, public safety, access to jobs, infrastructure, clean water, and so on. Above, we have discussed in more detail the perceptions of local citizens on the project, on the current state of things and on the possible alternatives. Prioritizing social issues over all the others is a scenario that takes into consideration the directly impacted community in Roșia Montană and the surrounding villages. Thus, the highest weight is given to the social criterion and all others have equal smaller weights.
Figure 17.
Scenario 7. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 17.
Scenario 7. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 18.
Scenario 7. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
Figure 18.
Scenario 7. Comparison Alt. 1 and Alt. 2.
The Zero Alternative becomes slightly preferable to the RMGC project when the local community social issues are given the highest value, while tourism remains the optimal decision for the area.
Scenario 8: The legal impediments met by the RMGC project so far have blocked the implementation of the project, but have not yet led to a permanent dismissal of it by the Romanian authorities. Discussions and negotiations behind closed doors have taken place throughout the years, drawing mistrust and criticism from the opponents who fear that legislation can be bent to suit corporate and governmental interests. The lack of transparency and open public debate on parliamentary initiatives and governmental decisions has inflamed the public opinion, making the credibility criterion more important and relevant than any other. By making Roșia Montană a mono-industrial area and, as a consequence, blocking any other enterprise such as tourism to develop, local authorities are as well met with mistrust in choosing the best alternative for the area. Thus, the graphs below show the evaluation of the four alternatives when credibility has the highest weight, and all other criteria have smaller equal weights.
Figure 19.
Scenario 8. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 19.
Scenario 8. Evaluation of the 4 alternatives.
Figure 20.
Scenario 8. Comparison Alt. 2 and Alt. 4.
Figure 20.
Scenario 8. Comparison Alt. 2 and Alt. 4.
If credibility becomes the main issue, the situation changes to a larger extent. The Zero Alternative becomes preferable, while tourism falls to second place and the RMGC project to third, overlapping with Alt. 3.