a blog about Carpathian shepherds on the road, and other journeys

Translate

Tuesday, 5 March 2013

A wedding, and lambing not yet started

Ghita and his shepherds reached the winter grazing grounds in November, after many of the usual alarms and excursions.  How hard it was, I will never know, because Ghita is reticent about disasters: he has to save his energies for the present.  Apart from the two dogs which the hunters killed near Cluj, wolves took 30 of his sheep sometime in December or January.

Just after Christmas, I got a phone call from Ghita's mother.  I was at home, thinking of anything but, and when she rang, I couldn't understand who it was:

Drrrn-drrn, drrn-drrn, drrn-drrn.

Me: Hello?

Other end: (Silence)

Me: (slightly sharper) Hello?

Other end: ALO!!!!!!!

Me: (startled, then incredulous)  Paraschiva?

Other end: DA!  Ce mai faceti?  

Me:  (still incredulous, Paraschiva never wastes time on the phone, and to
receive a call from her in Wales is unheard of)  Bine, si Dumneavoastra? 

Paraschiva: Bine!  Asteptam o nunta, si daca sunteti in tara pe 20 ianuarie, veti fi bineprimiti.

Me: (bowled over)  Da?  Extraordinar!  Sper sa vin.  Doamne ajuta!

Other end: (click)

So Ghita and Andreea were getting married!  It was wonderful, glorious, heart-warming news.  I was recovering from an eye operation and hoped I'd be well enough to get out to Romania in time.

Thanks to providence, the good surgeons of Swansea, and my kind, supportive cohabitee I arrived in the village of J three days before-hand, in time to help with the wedding preparations.  These consisted of making vast quantities of food in the old Camin Cultural, one of J's two community halls.  This building, made of concrete and painted a thankfully fading acidic green, was freezing as regards temperature but blazing with good will and laughter.

Inside the hall, the main chamber was a lofty, cavernous space whose walls were clad with brown-painted wood-pannelling to above head height, and whose floor was a well-worn parquet, stained to a discreet, muddy colour from years of good use - ranging from formal public meetings to carefree celebrations such as the one that was about to begin.  Ghita's wedding was an occasion for everyone to revel in, and that it had brought them an unexpected relief from post-New Year dreariness.

It was bustling with activity: it seemed that the whole village was involved in one way or another.  Friends, neighbours and relations - people often combined all three categories - rushed about merrily, chopping freshly-killed, home-grown pork and mutton to be served as steaks or minced into long sausages on an industrial mincer, dicing cooked carrots and parsnips for beef salad, arranging vast saucepans of delicately folded sarmale (stuffed cabbage leaves) into beautiful whirlpool patterns, singing and joking as the steam rose from red faces, necks and fingers.  After an hour or so, one of Ghita's five sisters laid food out on long trestles for the helpers and we were regaled with delicious meat stew, cake, plum brandy and the dreaded orange drink that begins with F.

There was a lump in my throat because all these near-strangers had brought me into their hearts as though I was one of their own.  It felt like a colossal privilege.  I hardly saw Paraschiva: she was like a flash of black lighting, here, there and everywhere, directing operations with a sure mind trained by years of bringing up six children, one husband and numerous quadrupeds all of whom needed guiding in one way or another.

Paraschiva is one of J's true matriarchs.  She is capable of flashing anger and if it breaks over your head, you'd better watch out because her words can be sharp and penetrating as daggers, but if you're prepared to stand and take your medicine, nobody is more forgiving and sunny in the afterwards.  In his book on the Margineni shepherds who led their flocks to southern Russia and the Caucasus, Toma Lupas wrote in praise of Margineni women, whom he says are the most wonderful combination of feminity and strength.  In Paraschiva, you see one such personified.

On Sunday, the wedding day, I arrived at 10.30am, as requested: the day was cold and snow lay in wet solid banks, and where it had compacted the ice was treacherous.  Like everyone else, I was wrapped up in overcoat, scarf, and about twenty base layers on top of my elegant wedding gear, and I wore my trusty old Swiss hiking boots instead of court shoes: hardly elegant, but it was more important to be there.  Dragos Lumpan had arrived too, with his state of the art cameras: Ghita was his friend before mine, and Dragos is in the final stages of making his film, The Last Transhumance, in which Ghita and his men feature several times.

In the hall lobby, a three-man Gypsy band played their socks off - jinking and bouncing with their saxophone, accordion and drum, the guys had come from Bordeaua, J's Gypsy district, and in the chill blast that came in from outside, they certainly helped to keep everyone feeling cheerful.  (When I went to visit Bordeaua, the people I met there told me they are not Roma but Baiesi, that is, descendants of the poor, 18th century miners who came to J from the Apuseni Mountains in search of a new start in life.)  More guests arrived every minute: with an inward yelp of delight I recognised Andreea's pretty mother and sister, and her sister's husband, but embarrassingly not her father, who did recognise me, and was - naturally - quite offended that I could not remember him. The bride's party had driven up that day from Salaj in a minibus because unusually the wedding was being arranged - and presumably paid for - by Ghita's parents, and I felt a pang of sorrow for them because they really should have been the hosts and they looked a little shy and uncomfortable.  After a five-hour journey, it was not surprising.  But like everyone else, they soon radiated happiness. 

The hall itself looked immaculate: instead of the two trestles I'd seen on the Friday, they were covered in swathes and flounces of red and white net and satin, and arranged in diagonal rows, herringbone fashion, one row along each of the two side walls, leaving a decent space for processions in the middle.  A large red and white heart fixed on the wall at the back of one other table, placed parallel to the wall, showed where the bridal party would sit.  There were more tables on the stage and at the opposite end, near the door, a smaller stage was cluttered with electronic gadgets and cables ready for the musicians to take their stand there. To the other side of the door into the hall, a step led down into a two-room kitchen from which steam floated aromatically: the four or five volunteer cooks were there again, hair plastered to their scalps, bending over the huge vats of bubbling liquids in which I thought I could see sausages, dumplings, soup, stew.  Here too were a new group of people, dressed in smart black and white waitering gear: this is certainly going to be a serious, no holds barred affair, I can see, I told myself.

Ghita was (thanksbetogoodness) in evidence, in a very smart white waistcoat and shirt, black jacket, trousers, and dickie bow - an Adonis in person.  He looked absolutely joyous.  He must have come from the winter farm in the past couple of days as well; he only has a couple of hands to look after the flocks (split as last year into two halves, one for lambing ewes, the other for rams and non-breeding ewes).  Immediately after the wedding, he had to return to work - no romantic honeymoon for this dedicated couple.  

At 11, Andreea herself arrived, looking more regal and lovely than I had ever seen her, and completely different to the diffident slip of a girl who had greeted me in Paraschiva's kitchen on the Friday morning.  At that moment, I had not clapped eyes on her since the previous April and was not sure if it were she.  Andreea had broken the ice for both of us by stating, quite truthfully, that it was hard for strangers to know where to put themselves at a time like this!  I guess she was talking about herself as well as me, and felt for her.  It has not exactly been a whirlwind romance but Andreea's people live a long way from J and she has not had time to get to know his family well.  I was sure they would treat her well, but could understand her nervousness.  Not to speak of the momentousness of getting hitched in the traditional Romanian style.  An option such as mine - to live with someone else without being officially married - would not be open to her and Ghita, and I'm sure they wouldn't have wanted it, but this was a daunting occasion nevertheless.
    
What the bride wore: a full white dress embroidered with tiny, shiny silvery-white beads and a fluffy white jacket to keep out the cold.  She had white flowers in her hair which is dark blonde, and which she wore up.  She came into the lobby with a basket on her arm.  In the basket were little flowery tokens for each guest: she went around each of us pinning the tokens to our chests.  Boy it was packed in there!  Everyone wanted a picture.  The kids who were nasi, that is godparents, to the bride and groom, stood out by their special costumes, that sober and extremely elegant combination of clothing which is confined to black and white, but the little girls wore fine veils of cream coloured material as thin as gossamer which made them look a bit like Dutch milkmaids.  How beautiful and dignified all this was is hard to describe. 

And so, the day began: after the giving of posies, the couple went to the Primaria (town hall) for their civil wedding.  In J, the primaria is next to the old camin (and to the new one, but you don't need to know that just yet).  Urged by Ghita's sisters, I followed the procession into the building, up the white marble stairs to the first floor, and into another lobby, where standing as far back as I could, I heard rather than saw, my two friends tie the knot.  The deputy mayor conducted the service in a serious but relaxed manner.  After his kindly speech - the deputy mayor was amongst friends, you could tell from the briskness and not infrequent joshing which he allowed himself - we had glasses of champagne and bonnes bouches which helped to keep out the cold a little, and mildly tiddly, I followed the procession back down the stairs and outside again, where a crowd of villagers was waiting in a dutiful phalanx to enjoy the spectacle of one of J's favourite sons getting married to this little-known girl from outside the county.

We walked up the hill to the second of J's two Orthodox churches, which is Ghita's parish church but looks like a miniature cathedral.  It is an early 20th century building, very white with a tall circular arcaded tower - not as charming as the older one but it is an imposing landmark and lives up to its nickname of the Cathedral of the Mountains.  Inside, Dragos and the other official photographer performed gymnastics with their cameras, taking pictures from all angles, back, front, sideways, from above in the balconies, and from down below, nipping about all over the sacred spaces, while the priest got on with the solemn business in hand, and while Ghita and Andreea stood, knelt and stood again, exchanged vows and rings, and then eventually tender smiles and a kiss (sure I could write for Mills and Boon...).  And we all trooped out again, down the slippery paths and steps to the icy road, and back to the hall.

Where chaos broke out.  The well-behaved procession of nasi, little ones and larger, suddenly descended upon bride and groom and an unseemly rough and tumble ensued in which Andreea seemed to be given away for a bar of chocolate and Ghita for, well, I couldn't make it out, it all happened too fast, and my Romanian, pretty serviceable at a steady trot, gave out under this gallop.  As I heard later from my friend Ileana who keeps the Pastoral Museum, the nasi pretend to sell off the mireasa and mirelul (bride and groom) before the wedding feast begins.

And feast it was, for the eye, the ear, the nose and the stomach: the hall was decked with red and white satin bows and streamers, and there were gadroons of food and drink, not only what you could see at the start, laid out decorously on the trestle tables, but course after course which issued out of the steaming kitchen, to delight the carnivores, herbivores, cake gluttons and drunkards among us to the point of unbelievable satiety.  There were hot soups, grilled meats, rice and potato dishes, and cold collations with (a recent innovation this) plenty of fruit and salads - including the salata de boeuf which I'd helped to dice - to offset the traditional hunkiness of Romanian cuisine.

And of course there was music, non-stop, mostly live and definitely boisterous.  It was pop-folk music, and apart from the digital recordings, it came from two bands (one a Baiesi Gypsy group from Bordeaua, an upwardly mobile ghetto attached to the northern side of J), and from two glamorous female singers who sang raunchy solos on the floor of the hall, and from Dinu B, one of Ghita's closest friends, who gave a virtuoso fluier performance of such melancholy and longing that it set my spine on fire.

And of course there was dancing - I wish I could remember the differences between the Jiana, the Hategana and the Invartita but we had all of these rounds or horas as people call them, linking the dances to the brandy, the double-distilled horinca which of course flowed like rivers).  And there were spectacles such as fireworks which sprang out of the floor in silver flares (one of them practically under Andreea's feet), and dramatic, candle-lit entrances by the waiters and waitresses, dressed in black trousers, white shirts and elegant waistcoats, bearing the next course.  Of course.  

Andreea and Ghita's wedding went on all day, and all night, until 5am.  There was a short break around 5pm, when the guests went home to feed their livestock.  When they came back they had changed out of their warm, day clothes, emerging like butterflies out of chrysalises in silk and satin and velvet, the women in high heels, with their hair piled in shining coifs that defied gravity, the men in smart suits that made them hard to recognise as the tough guys in all-purpose khaki who I was used to, stomping around the village and charging about in their 4x4s.  Some of the younger kids stayed at home after this watershed, but others came back to the hall, to run around amongst our legs until very late.  At one point I noticed the floor: soft wood planks stained black with decades of drink and the other inconsequential things that we chuck away when we are very happy.  People treated the floor like a friend, and lay on it for rest.  Or maybe I was enjoying myself so much that the floor looked like the deck of a ship in a rolling sea, rising up to greet me.

As for me, I held out until 3am; by that time Dragos had long since disappeared.  Walking home to Ileana's by night, I realised that all my inhibitions: fearing I wouldn't fit in, would be seen as an interloper, an awkward presence in the midst of all the celebration, had evaporated.  The air smelt icy and sharp, ready for anything.  I knew that after a few hours' rest, I would be too.     

Update: Thanks to Vodafone and Protv, Ghita has become a star - you can visit his facebook page, Ghita Ciobanul.  We wish him and his family every success.  

















Thursday, 13 December 2012

You'll never walk alone!

Transhumance may be dying out in Europe but it's not quite the end of the road for wandering shepherds: next year, some Polish shepherds are going to retrace the old sheep walk from Romania to Valassko in the Czech Republic.  Starting on 14th May, they'll be heading in a semi-circle, encompassing part of Ukraine, Poland and Slovakia before reaching the traditional Romanian shepherds' winter grazing area - Valassko from Vlach land - in September.  Polish shepherds' transhumance 2013

Meanwhile, by harrowing the internet you can find a flock of other sheep walk revivals: in Aubrac, northern Aveyron, France for example, where if you pay 195E, you can follow the cowherds for a day, plus meals and accommodation: A day on transhumance in Aubrac 2013

And in Marseille, Theatre du Centaure is organising a theatrical transhumance event involving Morocco, Italy and Provence - and they're inviting participants to take their horses: see their details http://www.mp2013.fr/transhumance.... What's it all about: have a look here and see if you can work it out!  Theatre du Centaure Transhumance 2013

Meanwhile I'm planning a trip to Northern Caucasus to look for traces of Romanian shepherds there, and will soon be posting more about the village of Jina in the mountains where it all started.   


Thursday, 29 November 2012

Autumn road

It was 7.30 on a balmy evening in late October. Ghita, his friend Dinu and three hired shepherds were about to set off with their combined flocks on their six-week trek to Salaj.  I wanted to go too, but circumstances - lack of suitable gear, fears about my safety, issues that seem craven in retrospect, held me back.

Earlier that evening, after waiting all day for fear of missing them, I had walked from the village to the point in a lonely, narrow valley where the autumn transhumance would begin. Ghita, Dinu, Andrei and another hired shepherd called Nicu S, were with the sheep. They also had seven heavily laden donkeys and a couple of extra dogs. The sun cast long shadows over the golden hills which were dry as dust from another summer without rain. Even so, as the day's heat evaporated, we were smitten with the scent of fertile land.

There was an easy comradeship among the shepherds. It dissolved the barriers between bosses and employees. Their excitement infected me. Here we were, making our way quietly along the hill tops, giving trouble to nobody, engaged in the demanding business of herding animals to shelter, health and ultimately productivity.  It was a forcible contrast to the so-called progressive, industrial farming that was so eloquently predicted by 'The Grapes of Wrath'. Here, in the warm glow of a mid-autumn afternoon, it seemed crazy to think any other way of living could possibly be better.     

It took us two hours to reach the other shepherds. They were waiting with the sheep at one of the rented grazing areas on the open hills. It was already dusk. Ghita and his companions spread lumps of grey salt for the sheep to lick.  His father, the diminutive Simion, a wit of 65 summers who had spent most of the past one living out with the flock, was reluctant to leave.  "I'm not going home", he said flatly, when I told him Ghita had arranged for me to walk back with him to the village. 

I was in several minds myself.  Nicu R, who had returned to his job after 18 months in jail, asked me, "Aren't you coming?  Go on, it would be fun."  Nicu R's crime had been to react too violently when a landowner attacked Simion for letting their sheep stray onto his lucerne. He had brained the man (the landowner luckily recovered). I wanted to go, but Nicu L's drunkenness and Ileana's warnings  - 'You never know what the shepherds will do' - were still ringing in my ears. It wasn't just I who might suffer. If something went wrong it could make things tricky for Ghita.

Things happened fast.  One second I had been trailing desultorily behind Nicu R and Simion, wondering whether I could change my mind or not, and whether there was really any danger from Nicu S, who although very sweet when sober, often gets drunk; the next, Ghita was gripping Simion's hand, they were exchanging formal goodbyes, 'Sa traiti. Drum bun!' - the family ties sparking like flint.  Then G grasped my hand too:  'Doamne ajuta!' was all I could manage, my feelings overcoming my powers of speech.  No time for elaborations.  He was off into the night.

farmers have to trust their companions. If not, disaster may fall. Dumitru Budrala's 1997 film, La Drum (On the Road) made that appallingly clear. A Jina sheep farmer was murdered in a forest while the film was being made, and Budrala incorporated the funeral into the opening sequences. Earlier this spring I had seen how precarious the interactions are with my own eyes. *

Simion, Andrei the orphan shepherd, and I picked our way home in the dark. We all had torches but the men did not use theirs. I soon realised why. It was more pleasant to walk in the moon's patchy light than the torches' artificial glare. I switched mine off too; if I broke my neck, it was too bad. We padded along the sandy tracks past ghostly trees under the black velvet sky, hardly speaking at all.

We were not alone: there was Stela the seven year old mare who clopped along on her inch-high calkins without needed a halter. There was her foal, a dark phantom whom I heard rather than saw. There were two leggy pups that had been bundled into a deseag (a sack-like shoulder bag made of rough, scratchy wool) and slung loosely over a cojoc across Stela's back. The pups soon fell off, lying in a heap on the ground, where they squeaked in terror. After they fell a second time, Andrei slung the sack over his shoulders. There were two other dogs. I had the privilege of leading one called Linda, and was astonished that she actually walked to heel. The dog which Simion was holding kept dragging him back towards its mates who had gone on the road.

Although the village is not my home, it felt like it that night. As we struggled up the last steep banks to Simion's house, panting but victorious, lights twinkled around us. Smells of dewy, herby grass wafted towards us on the breeze. It was two and a half hours since we had left Ghiţa and the others. .

A team of reporters from Pro tv made a short documentary about my passion for Romania. Paul Angelescu, Teodora ‘te iubesc’ (that’s her nickname, I don’t know her surname), and Sergiu Matei (‘the mighty midget’) burst in on us like roistering kids, teasing a laugh out of me and the audience. Good-naturedly, Ghita agreed to be filmed on the road even though he was miles away. It meant he had to hold the flock for hours on a hillside, battered by an arctic wind, until we showed up. At the end of the sequence, the camera swung to the shepherds who sang a traditional Christmas song for the public. Dinu accompanied them on his pipe.

It was nearly a month to the day since I had last seen the flock. Talking to camera, Ghiţa declared that he loved this way of life but could not tell how much longer they could continue to go on the road. Off the record, he said a hunter had shot one of his dogs.

Our joint performance was screened on 1st December 2012, Romanian National Day.


When I wrote this, Nicolae D from Jina and Coman S from Rasinari had given up on transhumance. That left Dumitru C from Rasinari, four others that I knew of in Jina, and one from Gura Raului. Doing a survey was not easy - nobody announces this sort of thing publicly, and I had to rely on nosiness and luck. A good guess was that since 1989 the numbers had fallen by nine-tenths. Before land restitutions began, at least 50 flocks from Jina made long-distance journeys on foot.

Two hired shepherds walked out on Ghita: one had been threatening to do so for several weeks, but the other went without warning, taking one of the dogs with him.  Andrei had left the flock in the summer; he said he wasn't keen to work with Nicu S, but there was probably another more important reason - that it is a hard life, and imposes social restrictions that few young people can endure. 

Thursday, 30 August 2012

Is the Romanian government deliberately squeezing small farms?  A few weeks ago, I signed an on-line petition hosted by Care2.com which stated that Romania's agricultural ministry was diverting funds which should have gone to small-holders, and posted it onto my Facebook page.  Admittedly I did so without taking the trouble to find out first if the claim was true, but fearful of the loss of more precious habitats and biodiversity in a country where governmental corruption is rife, I did write to Dacian Ciolos, the (Romanian-born) EU commissioner for agriculture.  Mr Ciolos has made a good impression and he seems remarkably fair and open.

Within a few days one of his cabinet, also Romanian, replied.  She explained, as I already knew, that in 2014, the Common Agricultural Policy is due for big changes some of which are supposed to favour small farms. 

I'm posting her reply below (blue text) to help anyone who wants an insight into what's going on, at least in Brussels, and reads Romanian.  I wrote to the Romanian Agriculture Minister too but he hasn't replied.

Another person whom I've met in connection with Romania's rural development programmes is the researcher, Krystyna Larkham.  She has been organising conferences in Romania for academics to discuss rural development under the title of Rural'Est. Krystyna contacted me because they were worried that the petition ignores what is a far more complicated situation facing small farms. 

First of all, define 'small farm'.  Romania has millions of small-holdings which are not considered commercially viable but which support the people who run them.  Calling them subsistence farmers implies that they are unable to support themselves in any way, which isn't necessarily the case.  A lot of 'subsistence' farms produce food for the families who work on them, and in Romania the coldly bureaucratic notion of a subsistence farm is so alien to the character of a small, working family farm that it's laughable.  Romanians use the term gospodarie, which means home, hearth, the centre of the family, a spiritual haven, a place where people grow real food rather than the processed muck that global corporations want everyone to buy, they embody self-reliance and self-sufficiency, and encompass hundreds of years of tradition and history...  If the world had more gospodarii, we might have less starvation.  But I digress.     

At the moment only farms which comprise 1 hectare or more of land are eligible for support.  This includes a million farms but excludes three million smaller holdings.  According to Krystyna, this isn't necessarily a bad thing because the administrative burden would be too great.  Romanian officials don't have the capacity to deal with so many individual cases on the ground: their local offices are understaffed and often don't have access to computers. Even the Min of Ag offices don't have enough computers for all of their staff, so you can understand why things seem in a mess.

But from 2014 they will be eligible for more help from what's known as Pillar 2 of the CAP whereby funds are allocated for services provided and protecting the environment (ie 'rural development' rather than direct income for farmers as in Pillar 1), and, if I understand this correctly, it will be given direct from the EU and not depend on the national government's interpretation of the legislation.  Smaller farms can apply for different kinds of funding not necessarily through the CAP.

Krystyna clarified things further by saying:

"I [am]... very sympathetic to the plight of the small farmer in Romania.....I think that a clear expression of [my] position is that a lot of energy can be wasted campaigning for something which is legally, fiscally or practically impossible (for example, immediate financial support within the CAP for every small farmer in romania). Instead, it is important to keep them in mind, but to also work on alternative and parallel solutions to aid their situation, for example advising against current legislation reforms which will make it (even) harder, if not illegal, to sell in markets and on the side of the road, and increasing uptake of membership in agricultural associations."
 

There is still a lot of confusion worldwide as to what is fair: the World Trade Organisation has its own take and this effects the CAP, because the EU has to negotiate what it pays farmers with the WTO. 

I admit to being still at sea since there are so many strands to these issues but having met Krystyna and her colleagues, I feel a bit happier about what some CAP policy-makers - or maybe just the think tanks, but it's a start - are trying to do for Romania's gospodarii.  This still leaves the question of the environmental merits of small, mixed, extended farms whose animals graze mountainous areas: do they help preserve biodiversity or not?

Sprijin pentru micii fermieri in cadrul primului pilon al PAC
 
  • Până la data de 15 octombrie 2014 orice agricultor beneficiar de plăţi directe pentru anul 2014 poate decide ca din anul respectiv să participe la Schema pentru Micii Fermieri  .
  • Prin această schemă, un stat membru va putea face o plată fixă către micul producător cuprinsă între 500 și 1000 de Euro/an indiferent de mărime fermei lui, necondiţionată de aplicarea practicilor agricole durabile (greening) şi cu proceduri mult simplificate.
  • Suma exactă va fi decisă de fiecare Stat membru, fie în funcţie de plata medie pe beneficiar, fie în funcţie de plata medie pe hectar, la o ferma de 3 ha.
  • Micii producători vor putea beneficia şi de serviciile de consultanţă şi de sprijin pentru dezvoltare economică şi restructurare finanţate în cadrul programului de dezvoltare rurală
  • Această schemă este obligatorie pentru statele membre şi facultativă pentru agricultori.  
  • Aceasta schemă va fi însoţită în programele de dezvoltare rurală de o schemă de restructurare agricolă care încurajează ieşirea micilor agricultori prin transferul permanent al terenurilor catre alţi fermieri, printr-o plată egala cu 120% din plata pe care micul fermier ar fi primit-o în cadrul schemei pentru mici fermieri. Cele doua scheme formeaza un dispozitiv comun simplificare-restructurare.


In ceea ce priveste pilonul II - dezvoltare rurala , si aici avem o serie de masuri fie strict menite pentru micii fermieri, fie menite pentru toti fermierii, dar avantajoase si pentru micii fermieri. De exemplu: 

  • se vor finanta activitati de inovare la nivel de ferma si se introduce un parteneriat european de inovare menit sa faciliteze colaborarea dintre fermieri, NGOs, institute de cercetare si autoritati
  • se introduce o masura de cooperare menita sa stimuleze asocierea producatorilor pentru a fi mai puternici pe lantul alimentar
  • se consolideaza sistemul de consiliere agricola
  • micii fermieri vor avea posibilitatea unor finanţări de până la 15.000 Euro/ferma mică pentru pornirea unei afaceri .
  • pentru zonele defavorizate natural se propune o noua clasificare a acestor zone pe baza a 8 criterii bio-fizice. Statele membre au libertatea de a defini până la 10% din terenul agricol ca zonă cu dificultăţi specifice, pentru menţinerea sau îmbunătăţirea protecţiei mediului înconjurător
  • pentru zonele montane, precum şi pentru cele situate la peste 62º N sprijinul financiar poate creşte până la 300 Euro/ha (de la 250 Euro/ha)
  • se introduc finantari pentru dezvoltarea circuitelor scurte
  • de asemenea, statele membre pot decide sa creeze sub-programe de dezvoltare in domeniile considerate importante pentru zonele rurale - circuitele scurte de exemplu fiind un domeniu posibil de avut in vedere

Gasiti insa mai multe informatii cu privire la elementele reformei PAC la urmatorul link:



Este adevarat ca si in afara PAC sunt actiuni posibile. Pe 20 aprilie Dl Comisar Ciolos a organizat impreuna cu Dl Comisar Dalli (responsabil pentru sanatate si protectia consumatorilor) o conferinta privind agricultura locala si dezvoltarea circitelor scurte. In acest context s-a adresat si problematica marketingului produselor provenind din circuite scurte si precum si necesitatea simplificarii regulilor de igiena pentru producatorii mici. Comisia Europeana lucreaza in acest moment la aceste subiecte.


To give some additional perspective, I'm quoting from a PhD thesis by a British post-graduate student of EU agricultural policies:
  
"There remains support amongst Romanian politicians for the CAP as a means of ensuring the competitiveness of European agriculture but as [Dacian] Ciolos, when Romanian Minister of Agriculture, put it in a guest editorial, the EU has to make a fundamental choice for the future of the food, landscape and quality of life within its whole territory. To quote:
'Farmers should not be considered only as running food production enterprises. They act within a living environment that offers not only food and raw materials but an enriched public life. In other words European agriculture has to be multifunctional: competitive not only for the market but also for citizens, as an economic activity that uses and manages renewable resources of public interest’. "

From 'A Competitive European Agriculture Designed for the Citizens - Romania's perspective’ 2008, (journal compilation for the Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists) and quoted in Michael Pearson, The Discordant Accord, an examination of the legal and political structure of the European Union and its compatibility with the cultures of its diverse member states, doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Kent, Canterbury, 2010.) 

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Stand up for Sheep: Transportation of live animals for slaughter

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is running a campaign against the live transportation of Australian sheep for slaughter in the Middle East.  It has implications for everyone who breeds animals for consumption abroad, including farmers in Britain and Romania, where the EU's humane legislation is often ignored.  I don't want this blog to become a trumpet for other people's causes but as with the Rosia Montana gold mine debate, this campaign lies close to my heart.  I've pasted the following text from PETA's website: 


Urge the Australian Minister for Agriculture to End Live Export
Over the last 30 years, Australia has exported more than 200 million living animals to Middle Eastern countries that have no laws in place to protect them. During the grueling trip across the Indian Ocean, more than 2.5 million of these animals have been trampled to death or have died from dehydration, starvation, or disease. PETA Australia has protested in the Middle East and met with local activists to educate them about the cruel journey, but we need your help.
Animals Australia visited Kuwait during Eid al-Adha (the Festival of Sacrifice). More than 800,000 Australian sheep were sent to the Middle East for Eid al-Adha in a single year. The abuse that Animals Australia exposed adds to what PETA, PETA Asia-Pacific, and other groups have uncovered in the past.
Investigators observed that sheep were dragged by their legs despite signs that were posted overhead instructing handlers not to do so. Inexperienced workers cut sheep's throats—while the animals were still conscious—with blunt or inappropriate knives. According to one investigator, "Australian sheep were being purchased, bound with wire and shoved into car [trunks] whilst others were being dragged terrified on their stomachs towards filthy slaughter areas on the side of roads where they waited amongst the dead and dying to have their throats cut."
Much of the treatment that investigators observed is contrary to Islamic teaching and runs contrary to World Organisation for Animal Health guidelines for the handling, transport, and slaughter of animals.
Please urge Australia's minister for agriculture, Joe Ludwig, to end live export now.
https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4223
ttps://secure.peta.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=5&ea.campaign.id=14300

Monday, 25 June 2012

Dragos Bucur pulls his gold teeth out for Rosia Montana

Just watch this. Uitati acest film.  Please.  Va rog.  It doesn't need translation

Rosia Montana FanFest from 15-19 August 2012.  Wish I could be there. 

And just to show that not all campaigners have the same colours,  follow this guy, Tica Darie, as he cycles across Europe in support of Salvati Rosia Montana.

UPDATE: BBC Radio 4 Crossing Continents on Rosia Montana - a very incisive and well-balanced report. 

Sunday, 24 June 2012

Rosia Montana


Update: Resurgence has published an article I wrote about Rosia Montana and Romania's green movement, called Seeking the Light, September/October 2014.

In October 1998 I visited Rosia Montana, Romania's oldest town and the site of an extraordinary Roman gold mine.  Rosia Montana lies in the Apuseni Mountains, to the south-west of my latest shepherding adventures.  It is known as Verespatak in Hungarian - before joining Romania in 1918, this area was part of Hungary; in 1540 it belonged to the semi-independent principality of Transylvania, then it was a scion of the Habsburg Empire, and after 1867, Rosia Montana came under the dual monarchy of Austria Hungary. 

But in the mid-1990s, when I was researching the Blue Guide, mining prospectors began looking for sources of new gold in Rosia Montana.   

From the Roman period (106-271AD), gold and copper mining had continued in Rosia Montana and adjacent valleys - known as the Golden Quadrilateral - intermittently until the present day.  A French archaeologist, Beatrice Cauuet, even found evidence of pre-Roman workings in Rosia Montana.  They were pieces of wood which the Dacians had used in their own subterranean galleries.  The Dacians were an Iron Age people who inhabited the land that became the Roman province of Dacia. 

Under the communists, Rosia Montana's gold was extracted from open pits.  It was said that other, more valuable minerals were found there too, and people I spoke to remembered goods trains trundling across the country carrying uranium to the USSR.  I have had no way of proving this.  

By the mid-1990s, Rosia Montana was certainly a depressed looking place.  The government-run mines had virtually come to a standstill.  In the meantime, following the 1989 revolution, Romania had become a newborn state, and in the turmoil of transition, capitalism, predatory and otherwise, was taking over from a centralised economy.  As the Croatian writer, Dubravka Ugresic, puts it so succinctly,  "newborn states are more exciting than stable ones... [they] launder both dirty money and dirty secrets".  (From How I could have been Ivana Trump and where I went wrong, published in Orient Express, vol 3, 2003.)

I went to Rosia Montana to find out about its archaeology.  The Roman galleries with their chisel marks and straight sides were impressive, and the more recent diggings made by independent miners as well as those employed by the Habsburgs brought home how deeply mining culture had burrowed into the life of the Apuseni.  My guide led me up a forest track above the village and out into green pastures which gave an idyllic, panoramic view of the Apuseni Mountains.  He showed me the system of lakes and gulleys that powered the wooden stamp mills, one or two of which still stood in the little mining museum, alongside a magnificent piece of machinery from Erith in Kent. 

While visiting Rosia Montana I heard about the prospectors.   To cut a long story shorter, it turns out that Rosia Montana is still sitting on 300 tonnes of gold.  And people want to get it out.  People including Romania's president, Mr. Basescu.  People who say that getting the gold out by creating Europe's largest open pit will save the area, save Romania.  They say 'we can't let this gold stay in the ground'.  Their arguments should be convincing: they assure us that the gold mine will provide jobs and improve the lives of the locals out of all recognition, but by the way this will mean destroying 2000 homes, bulldozing a couple of mountains to the ground, and obliterating most of the remaining Roman - and not forgetting the Dacian - archaeology which has still not been fully investigated.  Oh, and it will mean installing a tank that is designed to hold up to 250 million tonnes of cyanide waste, all in a farming area and about ten miles from a town of 13,000 people.  On that first and on two or three later visits, I met worried villagers.  What they told me made me feel sick and I got involved in a campaign to stop the mine.

My friend Adela (not her real name) is a Romanian archaeologist who also got involved.  She believes in justice, fairness and honesty.  I stayed with her in late March on my way from Cluj to Salaj, before I began walking with sheep.  Adela is in her early 70s now, but her fighting spirit is undimmed.  But she was looking more stressed than I had ever seen her.  And some of the stress came from anxiety about the possible fate of Rosia Montana.  

I'm taking up the narrative from those few days that I spent in Cluj:


30th March
Adela has been suffering from spondylosis and she had a headache; she was also preparing a paper for a conference in Bucharest about the – parlous, according to her - state of Romanian archaeology in cities.  So in spite of her ailments, she was going at full tilt.  Even though her own intellectual pursuits were so important, she was, as always, incredibly kind and helpful.  We went to her optician so I could find out how much it would cost to have some new glasses, she bought me a bag of mandarins, looked up the times of buses to Zalău, called a taxi and gave me a bottle of water, all so I could get off in time.  She lives with her sister, who paints religious icons in her spare time, and both were unstintingly generous.  I felt bad about landing on them when they are getting elderly and are under so much stress. 

Rosia Montana: an anxiety that won’t dissolve.
A lot of their worries are financial: the director of Adela’s archaeology institute forced her to retire even though she wants to continue working.  She is taking legal action against the decision, sensing that it has a lot to do with her outspokenness, especially in connection with the proposed open cast mine at Roşia Montana.  We have been down some of that road together but because she lives so much closer to the valley concerned, she is much more passionate about the devastation the pit will probably cause.   

Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, the mining company involved in the exploitation of Rosia Montana's gold and silver, is what's known in the trade as a junior.  That means it's a relatively small, relatively new, relatively inexperienced operation.  80% of RMGC belongs to Gabriel Resources (also a junior, registered on the Toronto stock exchange), and 19.3% to the Romanian Government.  RMGC promises jobs for local miners, it promises to clean up the damage left by the previous mining operations and recreate the landscape when it has taken all the gold it wants, and it promises to help promote tourism to the area.  It’s hard to see people wanting to visit a place which has been turned into a desert but there’s no accounting for freaks.    

Rosia Montana and nearby Abrud did look forlorn when I saw them in October 1996 -  although the autumn landscape didn't help - and they remain dogged by poverty.  Nobody could wish people there to suffer.  But is RMGC really such an angel?  Who are the ones who will become happy and prosperous under RMGC's plans?  What will people earn?  How many Romanians from the immediate area around the mine will be employed?  Who will monitor the discharges of dirty water?  And will the company really clean up after itself as it declares, reintroducing 'indigenous fauna and flora' to empty craters?   

Looking for ‘objective’ information on the net, I found Eddie O’Hara’s report to the European Parliament on 21st December 2004.  Mr. O’Hara was a British Socialist MEP, and the general rapporteur on cultural heritage for the EU’s committee on culture, science and education.  Eddie O'Hara's report  

The report was rather dismissive of the objections to the open-cast mine, criticising ‘excessively fundamentalist’ academic arguments, and citing ‘modern mining techniques’ which have not been taken into account – without specifying what those techniques might be.  Referring to the company website,  I found that RMGC plans to build a lake to hold 215 million tonnes of cyanide tailings after the gold has been extracted using ‘conventional carbon-in-leach technology’.   It goes on to say that the lake will be designed to hold extra capacity (up to 250 million tonnes), the cyanide will be diluted to a maximum of 5-7 parts per million, below the EU/Romanian legal demand of 10 parts per million, and that 85% of the water used in the extraction process will be recycled and not discharged into the environment.  It says that the TMF, the tailings management facility, the tank (in other words, the tailings lake) will be able to resist earthquakes of 8 degrees on the Richter Scale and to stand up to ‘two consecutive 1 in 10,000 year rainfall events within 24 hours.’  I feel like taking a bow.  It would be impressive if you believe that the mine company will wave a magic wand and suddenly all Roşia Montana’s poverty will be a thing of the past, its blasted landscapes restored, its waters clean, not only from the communist mining operations but when RMGC has taken its 300 tonnes from the four pits, and hey presto the place will be full of dancing fawns and fit for children to play in.  Then why are people so passionately against it?  Surely they can’t all have vested interests?  You can see some of the reasons why if you switch to this link, Maia Morgenstern on YouTube

Leaping back to Mr. O’Hara in 2004: he underlined the economic benefits the mine would bring to the area, but he did state that RMGC had been vague about how it was going to provide them.  Since then we’ve had the ‘economic crisis’ of 2008 – some people had been feeling the 'crisis' long before then – and Romanians have had to put up with drastic cuts in their salaries and pensions (although in 2012 these have been partially restored).  Using the unconvincing rubrik that we must all 'tighten our belts' - did you see any highly-paid politicians and bankers doing this? - the Romanian president has been telling everyone that they’ve got to accept Roşia Montana or else.   

There is a perception that the anti-mine campaign is run by fetele (the girls), i.e. a group of girls: immature, emotional people whose arguments can safely be ignored.  It’s true that a handful of outspoken, well-informed and courageous young women, including Romanians and foreigners, have taken key roles in the fight against the mine project.   In the late 1990s I spent time with some of them, going to a peaceful protest that was held in Roşia Montana itself.  It was one of the most inspiring episodes of my life.  Believing in the warnings, the history of mining tragedies that have happened and are still happening all over the world, my partner and I contributed what we could.  But I couldn’t keep up the pace and I had to earn a living so I pulled back.       

After all the bullying, the name-calling, and 15 years of debate in the media and battles in the law courts (trials which were initiated for the most part by fetele, who were surely too childish to undertake such rational procedures?), sceptics like me and many of my Romanian friends are still dubious about the long-term benefits of a quick Rosia Montana fix.  

According to Romanians who have studied the case and are against the mine, the numbers of jobs provided for locals will be few and short-term.  And all the time I'm trying to envisage a scenario in which armies of diggers bring ready-made landscapes, complete with the right types of soil, its molecular infrastructure intact, so that an indigenous Apuseni landscape will reappear as if nothing had happened.  If I shut my eyes I can see the diggers, but they aren't replacing any blue-remembered mountains. 

RMGC has been singing its own praises on tv commercials that run on several Romanian channels: during my three days in Cluj I watched the telly quite a lot – we don’t have it at home! – and noticed the gold mine ad coming up again and again.  I didn’t count its frequency but it seemed intrusive.  Especially since while vaunting its virtues, RMGC has been tightening its stranglehold on Romanian journalists – the quid pro quo for receiving the advertisement is not to criticise the mine.   I don’t know how this clause is worded or if it even exists, but it’s common knowledge that broadcasters who want to criticise RMGC’s plans, however reasonably, are put off from the start.  Such behaviour goes hand-in-hand with the information that while maintaining with its hand on its heart that Rosia Montana has no other alternatives but to accept the mine, RMGC has - allegedly! - stamped on any other initiatives, small new farming ventures and the like, that might threaten its position as the only true begotten Lady Bountiful of Rosia Montana.  Once again, I have no direct proof of this but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. 

It’s only 23 years since Romania was ruled by a culture of fear.   Superficially that era is over.   Wall-to-wall political debates monopolise at least two of the country’s tv channels practically every night.   The vociferous arguments, the mud-slinging and shouting – there is laughter too - are signs of some kind of democracy, but after a while the discussions just seem to go round and around, getting nowhere: you get the feeling that there are puppet-masters behind the talking heads and the same old are in charge. 

Since then, a huge amount of work has been done to publicise the project on the world stage: RMGC has hired a sophisticated media team to highlight the pros, while the anti mine campaigners have brought off their own coups, including bringing in famous personalities such as the Britisg actress, Vanessa Redgrave, who was one of many individuals who bought plots of land to prevent RMGC from swallowing the entire town.  

The original protest group of villagers from Roşia Montana has changed.  One of its most tireless leaders was Mrs Ruxandra Manta, a retired history teacher who lived in the village itself.  I met her twice.  She was extraordinarily open to me, eloquent in her conviction that the mine company meant her community no good.  

The second time we met, she was much less confident.  In fact Mrs Manta was shaking; you could touch her fear.  We went to see a place in the heart of the village, beside one of the main roads, where she claimed that prospectors from Gabriel Resources had been digging up the land, causing landslides which made people's gardens collapse.  It was shocking and the implications of having to cope with strangers who would act with such bare-faced affrontery, all with the apparent connivance of the village mayor, made it easy to understand why this lioness was quaking in her boots.  

Mrs Manta died of cancer in about 2003.  Her husband who had worked for the communist-run mine and was an employee of Gabriel Resources when we met him, said her illness had been brought on by anxiety.  The trouble is he couldn’t prove it.  So I was gladdened to find this memorial to her, a video of the woman herself speaking about Rosia Montana: to see it, click on Mrs Ruxandra Manta

Alburnus Maior, the organisation that Roxy Manta helped to found, also recruited Stephanie Roth.  Stephanie comes from a Swiss-French background but was brought up in Britain.  She had previously helped to prevent the Dracula Theme park being built in a forest of 500-year old oak trees near Sighisoara.  She took Roşia’s case to the World Bank, and she won the Goldman Environmental Prize for her work on behalf of Roşia Montana.  Stephanie was not paid for her involvement in the campaign.  Nor, incidentally, was I.  Several other people from Roşia Montana joined the organisation including a farmer and former miner, Eugen David, who is its president.  It’s lovely to see that visitors have been flocking to his pensiune, Tarina, in solidarity with the campaign.  If you read Romanian you will find out more here: Eugen David's new pensiune.

Alburnus Maior still exists but it has split into several disparate organisations.  I'm afraid this has weakened its impact.  But the message comes across loud and clear from the organisation's website, Salvaţi Roşia Montana, which is Alburnus Maior's main mouthpiece, with versions in English as well as Romanian: click on http://rosiamontana.org.

To ignore the cloud that hangs over the Apuseni Mountains – and has already burst in terms of acid mine drainage from the previous, communist-era pit and quarries in other parts of the mountains must surely be dangerous.  The precedents of mine companies offering people the earth and delivering hell are too numerous to mention.   You could well say, it's none of our business: we have roofs over our heads and food in our bellies.  I got involved because I couldn't bear the intimidation, the lies, and the conviction that Romanians will regret selling their heritage for a mess of potage.  Once the mine starts it will be too late to save what's left of Rosia Montana, and their children and grand-children will ask why on earth they let it happen.  I don't want Adela dying in the same way as Roxy.  All I can do is pass the word on.  All we - not - like sheep.   

UPDATE: 22 November 2013, following the Romanian Senate's vote against the gold mine, Stuart Meikle has posted another very interesting article in Romania-Insider

Since the Romanian president has given the go-ahead for the open cast mine, Cotideanul has had the courage to print these articles:
 http://www.cotidianul.ro/pentru-generatiile-viitoare-221317/
http://www.cotidianul.ro/un-act-de-tradare-nationala-221233/ 

And in case something happens to the Cotidianul page, here is the first article in full:  
23 august 2013, la TVR 1, emisiunea ecomomică a domnului Moise Guran; a fost la Roşia Montana şi, contra cost, un inginer minier l-a condus să viziteze minele romane.
Aflăm nu doar că ai ce vedea la Roşia Montana, ci şi că inginerul - miner din tată în fiu - a zis “Dă-i dracului de munţi, avem destui”. Oamenii vor să facă minerit, chiar dacă acesta este făcut cu buldozerul şi cu cianuri, nu aşa cum l-au făcut părinţii şi stramoşii domnului inginer!
Se tot afirmă că locuitorii din Roşia Montană sunt muritori de foame fără începerea mega-proiectului iniţiat de Frank Timiş imediat după 1997. Nimeni nu pomeneşte de drama comunităţii de la Roşia Montana sudată printr-o convieţuire seculară, indiferent de etnie şi religie. La Roşia Montana mai sunt câteva familii care fac parte din această comunitate; marea parte a comunităţii a cedat presiunii zilnice începute din 2000 şi tentaţiei unei “îmbogăţiri” cu preţul de cumpărare oferit de Firma ce încă nu avea nici o avizare sau forma legală de a începe exploatarea.


Au rămas în zonă acei locuitori veniţi din patru colţuri ale României în momentul în care N. Ceauşescu a scos de pe Lista Monumentelor masivul Cetate şi l-a aruncat în aer pentru a scoate minereul ce conţinea aur...
Proiectul Firmei Roşia Montană Gold Corporation (RMGC) a putut face primii paşi printr-o mişcare aranjată de cei de la Agenţia Naţională (?) de Resurse Minerale, care au acordat licenţa de exploatare firmei româneşti Minvest. Printr-o asociere “desigur absolut dezinteresată”, şefii firmei Minvest au transferat licenţa firmei lui Frank Timiş. Roşia Montană Gold Corporation a devenit posesoarea licenţei cu care se făcea exploatarea de la Roşia Montană, cea începută de comunişti în masivul Cetate (“Licenţa de exploatare nr. 47 a fost transferată pe baza Legii Minelor 61/1998, Art. 14 de la Minvest la RMGC [RMGC ca titular, Minvest rămânând companie afiliată] - prin Ordinul Agenţiei Naţionale pentru Resurse Minerale [ANRM] Nr. 310/9.10.2000, publicat în M.O. Partea I, Nr. 504/13.X.2000.” - Grupul pentru Salvarea Roşiei Montane din Academia de Studii Economice Bucureşti, 11 februarie 2010)

Nu am să înţeleg, şi nimeni nu mi-a putut explica, de ce, dacă licenţa de exploatare pentru mina în suprafată de la Roşia Montană aparţinea firmei RMGC, totuşi statul român a subvenţionat mineritul aici până în 2006, când la iniţiativa RMGC s-a cerut închiderea minei!

Probabil cu înţelegerea “patrioţilor” de la Agenţia (naţională) de Resurse Minerale Firmei i s-a facilitat explorarea tuturor zăcămintelor naţionale din zona Roşiei Montane, statul “administrând păgubos” exploatarea aurului. Know how-ul experţilor firmei posesoare a licenţei n-a fost în stare să facă profitabilă exploatarea din Cetate doar pentru că era de 13 ori mai mică decât cea care se vrea demarată?
Pe vremea când arheologii îşi propuneau reprezentanţii în Comisia Naţională de Arheologie (CNA), am făcut şi eu parte dintre cei aleşi şi am luat cunoştinţă nemijlocit de cererea lui F. Timiş, adresată în toamna 2000 de a se da avizul pentru zona unde şi-a propus să exploateze tot aurul munţilor, în mai puţin de două decenii. Ne-a pus pe masă câteva volume cu poze făcute cu ocazia unor cercetări începute în 1999 de cercetători “angajaţi” direct, fără avizul necesar al CNA. Fără nici o tresărire de etică profesională, concluziile cercetărilor prezentate erau că totul era în stare de “colaps şi precolaps”, deci se propunea avizarea minei în suprafaţă. Cu două exceptii, toţi membrii CNA au respins avizarea cerută de “investitor”.

Puterea de “convingere” a investitorului, care fusese la şedinţa comisiei monumentelor CNMI, s-a concretizat în mai multe măsuri succesive luate de noua conducere a Ministerului Culturii (acad. Răzvan Theodorescu) care prin legislaţia creată abia sub ministrul Ion Caramitru reprezintă Statul garant pentru protejarea monumentelor istorice, patrimoniului arheologic şi cultural al României.

Membrii incomozi ai Comisiei Naţionale de Arheologie şi ai Comisiei Naţionale a Monumentelor Istorice au fost înlocuiţi cu cei ce se subordonau complet deciziilor funcţionărimii din minister.

În condiţiile în care exista Legea 5/2000, Anexa 3 prin care Roşia Montana în întregime, dar în special galeriile romane şi casele din centrul istoric erau identificate ca “valori de patrimoniu cultural de interes naţional, monumente istorice de valoare naţională excepţională”, existau toate motivele pentru a se exclude distrugerea lor prin lucrări de minerit la suprafaţă. Totuşi, Ministerul Culturii şi Cultelor a iniţiat un Program Naţional de Cercetare “Alburnus Maior” cu scopul declarat de a desfiinţa din punct de vedere juridic protecţia monumentelor şi siturilor din zona Roşia Montană (s-au dat descărcări de sarcină arheologice fără ca cercetările să fi fost finalizate; într-una din aceste zone “descărcate” cercetările au descoperit faimosul mormânt ce va rămâne martor singuratic al nenumăratelor necropole ale minerilor ce se vor excava ca să stoarcă aurul).

RMGC a făcut cunoscut un rezumat tehnic al proiectului său şi a organizat repetate “dezbateri” cu publicul pentru a-l convinge cât de benefic şi important este să permiţi exploatarea completă a resurselor minerale din perimetrul Roşia Montana şi Bucium.

Era deja în 2003, ştiam că orice problemă ridicam serveşte celor ce fac PR în favoarea exploatării să “cosmetizeze” proiectul. Dacă iniţial în proiect NU exista nici o referire la intenţiile de a proteja patrimoniul din zonă (doar era în colaps!), acum se erijau în cei care sponsorizează cercetări, acolo unde noi românii nu am fost în stare să le facem....

La Cluj, în dec. 2003, am participat la o astfel de dezbatere la care erau şi colegii care făceau cercetările arheologice în cadrul programului Alburnus Maior. Nu m-am referit la aceste cercetări, ci l-am întrebat pe Richard Hill, atunci reprezentantul firmei, dacă avem dreptul să exploatăm tot aurul şi să lăsăm moştenire generaţiilor viitoare doar resturile mega-exploatării şi întreţinerea haldelor cu reziduuri toxice. Răspunsul foarte corect al domnului Hill a fost că doar Statul român poate aprecia această chestiune. Trebuie să fi fost mare supărare căci susţinătorii RMGC (Goldului) din interiorul breslei m-au ameninţat oficial că voi mai lua poziţii contra exploatării doar în calitate de ”casnică”. A durat ceva până şi-au pus ameninţarea în operă, dar am mai “cârtit” cerând mereu Autorităţilor să nu mai permită încălcările legii care se făceau pentru a pregăti exploatarea păguboasă şi murdară a aurului, prin distrugerea peisajului minier de valoare excepţională.
La un deceniu după, aflu că, “în cazul opririi proiectului, statul român va trebui să acorde despăgubiri companiei” (Mădălin Voicu, Sinteza şedinţei din 17 iunie a..c. a Comisiei permanente comune a Camerei Deputatilor şi Senatului pentru relaţia cu UNESCO).

La aceleaşi despăgubiri făcea referinţă şi domnul Guran în emisiunea sa de la Televiziunea Română, comentând vizita unei delegaţii a acestei Comisii şi a domnului ministru al Culturii la Roşia Montană, în 20 august a.c. Afirmativ, România nu mai poate da înapoi căci aşa cum explica interlocutorul său de pe Facebook,s-a ţesut pas cu pas o “plasă” din care nu mai putem scăpa - iniţial autorităţile locale, apoi cele statale până la Preşedinte au fost subjugate interesului celor care vor să demoleze cei patru munţi din Roşia Montană.

Din 2000, sunt martorul acestor paşi prin care începând cu funcţionarii de la Agenţia de Resurse Minerale (numai naţională nu s-a dovedit!), de la Ministerul Culturii, de la Ministerul Mediului, primarul din Roşia Montana şi apoi alţii din Ţara Moţilor (doar firma lui F. Timiş s-a dezmembrat pentru a face proiecte în tot Cadrilaterul Aurului, nu s-a rezumat doar la perimetrul Roşia-Bucium, au licenţe la Certej [Săcărâmb]-Brad, Bolcana, Voia, Muntele Rotund etc.) fac tot ce li se cere din partea “investitorului”.

Statul Român, prin reprezentanţii săi, a devenit cel care îşi trădează interesul ca să servească profitul unei firme private. Gabriel Resources şi-a făcut capital punând la bursă acţiuni pe care le-a vândut afirmând că proiectul implică şi Statul Român. Din vânzarea acestor acţiuni, Statul Român nu a beneficiat cu vreun cent. Ba, a devenit dator Firmei că n-a putut mări capitalul atunci când ea a binevoit să o facă!
Invocând la bursă o anume garantare din partea Statului Român, Gabriel Resources a împărţit cu largheţe capitalul în “sponsorizări” pe care nu le socoteşte nimeni (DNA sau alţii asemenea) ca fiind conflict de interes şi ilegale.

Din cele afirmate în cunoştinţă de cauză (?) de deputatul Mădălin Voicu şi de economistul Moise Guran, avem a trage concluzia că nu ne putem lua dreptul de a refuza proiecte NOCIVE din punct de vedere economic, de mediu şi cultural ca să nu plătim despăgubiri. Într-un stat de drept, justiţia s-ar sesiza şi ar merge să vadă în responsabilitate cui stau toate acele “îngăduinţe” care îi permit acum “Investitorului” să ne ceară despăgubiri deşi nu a făcut altceva decât să îşi servească interesul (în mod incorect şi agresiv!!) atunci când a cheltuit sute de milioane de dolari.

Investitorul NU a “sponsorizat” cercetările, investitorul a indeplinit o prevedere legală pentru orice iniţiator care vrea să obţină un aviz de construcţie. Legea NU obligă să se acorde descărcarea de sarcină arheologică doar pentru că s-au finanţat cercetările ”preventive”. Potrivit legii (Ord. 43/2000 republicată 2007 art.7, a,c), în funcţie de rezultate – şi aici ele au fost excepţionale, aşa cum ştiau cei care au inclus Roşia Montană în Legea 5/2000 pe baza căreia se protejează şi conservă generaţiilor viitoare cele de valoare naţională (în cazul nostru chiar mondială!). Presiunile făcute abuziv de investitor sunt puse în evidenţă prin faptul că Avizul de descărcare de sarcină arheologică a masivului Cârnic, unde se află cele mai spectaculoase rezultate ale cercetărilor miniere, a fost anulat definitiv şi irevocabil prin hotărâre judecătorească în 2008. Pentru Firma şi pentru cei subjugaţi intereselor ei din Comisia Naţională de Arheologie şi Ministerul Culturii nu contează hotărârea judecătorească – şi în dispreţul prevederilor legale au “redactat” un nou aviz de descărcare de sarcină arheologica pentru acelaşi Masiv Cârnic şi desfiinţând toate galeriile romane de valoare unică şi excepţională şi cele din preistorie până în zilele noastre pe un pumn de bani “risipiţi” şi pentru care Statul va plăti daune....
Sigur cercetările, chiar cele mai extinse într-un sit minier roman, şi publicarea rapoartele săpăturilor nu au costat sute de milioane de dolari. Şi, contrar obligaţiilor legale, rezultatele cercetărilor de suprafaţă nu au fost protejate şi conservate, căci în PUG terenul pe care s-au descoperit intra în perimetrul de dezvoltare a proiectului minier deşi acesta nu fusese nici măcar avizat...

Firma a achiziţionat mai toate monumentele din centrul istoric al Roşiei Montane; am asistat cu spaimă la degradarea lor; Monumentele au prin lege o zonă de protecţie. Firma şi-a permis să demoleze ceea ce a considerat ea că stă în calea “proiectului”, desfiinţând contextul care forma un ansamblu istoric, produs al dezvoltării sociale şi economice. Centrul istoric devenit proprietate RMGC a ajuns într-adevăr în stare de “precolaps”.

Organizaţiile nonguvernamentale au început să restaureze monumente rămase comunităţii care se opune exploatării şi “relocării”, ceea ce n-a încăput pe mâna investitorului NEAUTORIZAT; abia atunci RMGC a intervenit cu mult ciment, schimbând structural monumente într-o pseudo-restaurare.

Doar cineva pentru care Convenţiile ratificate de Statul Român şi legile naţionale rămân necunoscute sau de aruncat la coş, doar acei reprezentanţi ai Statului Român pot lua în serios programul de protecţie a patrimoniului arheologic şi cultural preconizat de Gold Corporation.

Scandalos este că s-au găsit academicieni “independenţi” care deţin ştiinţă, nu şi conştiinţă, care laudă acest program “mărinimos” deoarece “va salva” exclusiv ceea ce iese din perimetrul pe care se va face exploatarea în suprafaţă a aurului, unde nu îşi construiesc “uzina”, unde nu pun haldele de steril şi nu fac lacul de acumulare a resturilor de la cianurarea minereului.

Tot ce “protejează” şi vor să propună “turismului” se va afla într-un peisaj lunar cu munţii excavaţi prin explozii şapte zile din şapte, an de an, pe drumuri pe care se vor transporta containerele cu cianuri (căci zilnic se vor utiliza câteva tone); fără îndoială turiştii vor face un pelerinaj la barajul de arocamente înalt de 180 m la 2 km deasupra Abrudului, care trebuie să reziste la o cantitate uriaşe de mâzgă cu reziduuri de la procesarea aurului.... Desigur acei turişti vor fi dornici să guste apa care va conţine “mai puţină cianură decât o ceaşcă de cafea” şi vor fi întâmpinaţi de minerii îmbogăţiţi de pe urma mărinimiei Investitorului!
Aceeaşi “mărinimie” a unui alt investitor cu nume puţin schimbat, dar tot specialist în exploatarea aurului în suprafaţă, se va manifesta în tot Cadrilaterul Aurului concesionat cu inimă deschisă de funcţionărimea de la Agenţia (Naţională) de Resurse Minerale!

Nici o instituţie a statului ”beneficiar al mărinimiei” celor care ne  vor face serviciul să ne îmbogăţească cu câteva procente din aurul care există în munţii noştri nu vrea să vadă câţi din cei care au dat concesiuni şi licenţe pe bogatiile subsolului - proprietate publică inalienabilă (Constitutia, 2003 art 137) au făcut saltul direct în statul de plăţi ale celui care le-a primit...

Nu mai avem dreptul nici să punem problema dacă rămâne sau nu generaţiilor viitoare ceva din ce se ascunde în măruntaiele pământului nostru!

Şi ne întoarcem la emisiunea lui Moise Guran care ne-a mai spus că parlamentarii din Comisia pentru Unesco care au mers la Roşia Montana au fost ghidaţi cu multă artă de angajaţii firmei RMGC să vadă doar ceea ce se va “proteja” şi au fost întâmpinaţi de locuitorii “paşnici” dispuşi să pună la zid pe oricine ar fi avut de propus o alternativă la Proiectul neasemuit de propice dezvoltării locurilor de muncă...

Am fost sfătuită, cu un deceniu în urmă, de unul dintre savanţii străini dornici să salveze patrimoniul de importanţă mondială de la Alburnus Maior să mă adresez domnului Christopher Grayson (Head of Secretariat Culture, Science and Education Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe); şi cum ampla informare asupra situaţiei i-a stârnit interesul, a solicitat un răspuns şi din partea Parlamentului român, care a propus o vizită de informare; am fost printre cei invitaţi să participăm la vizita făcută de raportorul EddieO’Hara şi Ch. Grayson la Roşia Montana. Ca experţi, împreună cu prof. Ioan Piso şi dr. Horia Ciugudeanu am aşteptat toată ziua, până la ora 17, să fim în contact cu delegaţia Comisiei de Cultură. Evident până la acea oră delegaţia a făcut turul cercetărilor arheologice condusă de angajaţii firmei de arheologie ai Gold Corporation şi şefii programului “Alburnus Maior”, cei care au propus avizul de descărcare de sarcină arheologică a tot ce au cercetat până la acea dată, cu excepţia unui mormânt roman. Corect ar fi fost ca fiind de faţă să ne spunem observaţiile critice privind scopul programului de cercetare şi nevoia conservării vestigiilor vieţii minierilor romani.

La ora 17, după ce am semnat o declaraţie pe proprie răspundere că intrăm în galeriile Cârnic, după ce am luat echipamentul de protecţie, a apărut un şef RMGC care ne-a zis că nu avem aprobarea să intrăm în galerii. La protestul meu vehement, înregistrat şi de domnii Grayson şi O’Hara, ni s-a îngăduit să facem vizita ghidaţi de dna Dr. Beatrice Cauuet, arheologul minier căruia i se datorează minunatele rezultate.

Uimirea în faţa galeriilor săpate doar cu dalta şi ciocanul, în faţa ştiinţei cu care au făcut romanii exploatarea, probabil ca urmare a adoptării tehnicii folosite anterior de supuşii regelui dac, mândria de a avea în ţară o astfel de bogaţie are să mă urmărească mereu şi îmi dă imboldul să continui să cer salvarea lor! În ziua următoare era prevăzută întâlnirea cu localnicii care se opun proiectului. Probabil o neconcordanţă în programul celor de la RMGC a făcut ca aproape o oră membri ai comunităţii, localnicii care refuză să părăsească locurile natale, membrii Asociaţiei Alburnus Maior şi-au spus punctul de vedere şi-au afirmat durerea că sunt supuşi unei presiuni permanente să accepte să-şi vândă proprietăţile şi să lase frâu liber exploatării. În momentul în care a început să-şi spună cuvântul prof. I. Piso a izbucnit în sala Primăriei un puhoi de “mineri” veniţi cu autobuzele. Spaima s-a întipărit pe faţa domnului O’Hara, care după câteva minute a ridicat “întâlnirea”. Această experienţă privind “organizarea” de către experţii RMGC a vizitei de informare “obiectivă” sub apanajul parlamentarilor mă îndreptăţeşte să susţin punctul de vedere al membrilor asociaţiei localnicilor şi a Asociatiei Heritage, care au refuzat să meargă în clădirea primăriei vechi, astăzi ”cedată” RMGC, unde nu ar fi reuşit să scoată o vorbă fără a fi bruiaţi de masa de manevră adusă pentru a susţine nevoia locurilor de muncă - câte locuri de munca şi pe ce perioadă?! Cei norocoşi să le ocupe nu vor avea anii necesari pensionării...

Începând din 2002, Academia Română, specialiştii români şi străini în protecţia monumentelor, în protecţia mediului, geologi şi ingineri minieri au pus în evidenţă motivele pentru care acest proiect este dăunător intereselor României din punct de vedere economic, social şi cultural.

Singura consecinţă a fost ignorarea de către reprezentanţii temporari ai poporului român din ministere şi Parlament a acestor puncte de vedere susţinute cu argumente decisive.

Nici una din propunerile venite din partea specialiştilor de a se respinge din start proiectul aberant prin proporţii şi soluţiile ce ignoră legislaţia naţională şi mondială privind protecţia mediului şi a patrimoniului imobil şi spiritual nu a fost luată în considerare. Nu s-a ţinut cont că proiectul de dezvoltare pe doar două decenii nu se poate considera dezvoltare durabilă, că nicăieri aceste exploatări nu au avut ca rezultat dezvoltarea şi prosperitatea comunităţior locale. Acum ni se spune, fără să cunoaştem clauzele secrete ale Contractelor, licenţelor acordate, că este obligatoriu să faci o crimă de mediu şi să distrugi un patrimoniu unic într-o regiune care are toate elementele să trăiască din resursele proprii, dacă nu i-ar fi fost limitată existenţa prin declararea în 2002 a zonei ca zonă monoindustrială, la dispoziţia celui care a plătit Planul de Urbanism General (PUG).
Nu sunt economist, dar cu bun-simţ poţi prevedea că orice despăgubire impusă de nişte contracte încheiate în defavoarea statului şi poporului român va fi mult mai mică decât pagubele pe termen lung pe care le va produce exploatarea resurselor minerale din perimetrul concesionat lui F. Timiş, azi la dispoziţia firmei RM Gold Corporation şi Gabriel Resources.

Epuizarea zăcămintelor de aur şi argint, precum şi a celorlalte metale rare afectează dezvoltarea viitoare a societăţii româneşti; deteriorarea peisajului de un pitoresc deosebit, protejarea doar a unei infime părţi din patrimoniul cultural vor exclude dezvoltarea regiunii prin turism cultural şi ecoturism. Generaţiile viitoare rămân să gestioneze un iaz cu deşeuri toxice de 600 ha creat într-o vale cu soluri permeabile de unde se vor scurge necontrolat în apa freatică. Va trebui să supraveghezi şi consolidezi stăvilarul de la gura lacului ca să împiedeci accidentul care ar înghiţi Abrudul şi tot ce este în aval. Tragedia de la Certej, ascunsă poporului prin grija securităţii, s-ar putea repeta la o scară nemăsurat mai mare.

Acestea sunt perspectivele pentru moştenirea pe care o pregătim generaţiilor viitoare!
Premierul a afirmat ca Parlamentul este singurul care va putea hotărî dacă se va începe proiectul preconizat de Gabriel Resources şi firma RMGC.

Dacă distinşii nostri reprezentanţi şi-ar lua răgazul să citească cele scrise de savanţi, experţi în economie, geologie şi protecţia patrimoniului, dacă şi-ar lua timpul să citească legile româneşti şi europene, dacă nu s-ar gândi să schimbe aceste legi ca să se potriveasca interesului unor profitori agresivi, nu ar trebui să ne fie teamă şi am putea spera că şi urmaşii urmaşilor noştri se vor bucura de dreptul la patrimoniu naţional (aici includ şi avuţiile naturale, nu numai cea culturală identitară!), la un mediu curat, la proprietate netulburată, la dezvoltarea în parametri tradiţionali.

Un Stat membru al Consiliului Europei care ”ia măsurile necesare pentru aplicarea dispoziţiilor Convenţiei în ce priveşte aportul patrimoniului cultural la edificarea unei societăţi paşnice şi democratice, precum şi în procesul de dezvoltare durabilă şi de promovare a diversităţii culturale” (Convention-cadre du Conseil de l'Europe sur la valeur du patrimoine culturel pour la société, Faro, 27.X.2005 art 1, d al 1).

Ai putea crede că avem de a face cu reprezentanţii unui Stat partener al Convenţiei Patrimoniului Mondial interesaţi să identifice şi să propună în Lista patrimoniului mondial bogăţiile culturale specifice poporului lor. Au chiar grijă să antreneze şi societatea civilă, Asociaţiile nonguvernamentale (ONG) în acest proces...
Avem doar o Comisie parlamentară care se preocupă de acest domeniu şi susţine acţiunile mature ale ministerului de resort, cel care are monopolul propunerilor de înscriere şi de protecţie a bunurilor de valoare universală. Avem şi autorităţi locale mândre să deţină astfel de valori de interes mondial!

Numai că toate astea sunt de faţadă, servesc să lase bună impresie celor care nu au timp să ia act de starea lucrurilor, primesc informaţii mai mult sau mai puţin “obiectivizate” de grupuri de interes.

Încă din 2002 în scrisoarea deschisă adresată preşedintelui Ion Iliescu şi ministrului Culturii 50 de arheologi şi istorici din ţară au specificat: “Descoperirile făcute în cadrul programului de cercetare Alburnus Maior demonstrează că ne aflăm în faţa unui patrimoniu naţional de importanţă majoră care se înscrie în patrimoniul comun european şi mondial.Apreciind că ansamblul de vestigii antice Alburnus Maioreste unic în peisajul arheologic românesc, considerăm necesară propunerea de clasare ca ansamblu arheologic (cf legea 422/2001 art 3,b) în Lista monumentelor istorice, precum şi includerea sa între zonele arheologice de interes naţional prioritar (legea 378,art 2,g, în completarea listei anexe) şi considerăm ca îndreptăţită solicitarea de a-l include în patrimoniul arheologic protejat european şi mondial” (vezi revista „22”, nr 667 din 16-22 dec 2002).

Care ar fi fost situaţia dacă domnul academician Theodorescu, ministrul Culturii, ar fi ascultat colegii, cercetători ai Institutelor Academiei Române şi nu ar fi trecut în tabăra Gold Corporation împreună cu cele două comisii de „specialitate” restructurate ca să servească fără abatere nevoilor firmei. Cum era să fi dat miniştrii culturii M. Muscă, Paleologu, Kelemen importanţă proiectului privind declararea „Ţării Moţilor peisaj cultural evolutiv UNESCO, în primejdie”, agreat de ICOMOS şi UNESCO unde a ajuns fără susţinerea Statului interesat. Cine să îşi imagineze în lume că statul NU este interesat să-şi conserve identitatea şi monumentele care i-o definesc?

Ce conştiinţă profesională şi ce respect de sine şi de atribuţiile funcţiei pe care au onoarea să o acupe au ministrul Culturii şi cel al Mediului din acest guvern, când iniţiază un proiect de lege în favoarea companiei RMGC care „salvează” patrimoniul cultural deşi reprezentanţii firmei au zis repetat că nu sunt instituţie de binefacere. Pe 27 august, "Guvernul a aprobat acest proiect de lege care, potrivit procedurii, va trebui adoptat de Parlament. Principalele măsuri propuse în proiectul de lege sunt: Aprobarea Acordului privind unele măsuri aferente exploatării minereurilor auro-argentifere din perimetrul Roşia Montană; ce nu spune comunicatul guvernului este că Legea prevede declararea proiectului ca fiind de utilitate publică şi de interes naţional deosebit, mandatarea unor entităţi publice să aducă la îndeplinire unele măsuri aferente exploatării minereurilor auro-argentifere din perimetrul Roşia Montana, modificarea unor acte normative privitoare la expropieri şi autorizaţii de construcţie.

În primul rând vor schimba Legea minelor 85/2003, art 11 prin care de la acea dată nici o exploatare minieră nu se putea iniţia acolo unde există. Şi numai miniştrii Culturii şi, acum, ai comisiei parlamentare nu au vrut să vadă masivul Cârnic, masivul Orlea cu mina vizitabilă din 1970, templele cu altarele votive in situ, necropolele cu mii de morminte similare cu singurul ceva mai bogat, ce va fi „salvat” căci nu are aur dedesubt!
După ce a iniţiat împreună cu dna Plumb acest proiect de lege, care în fapt dă mână liberă distrugerii planificate a mediului şi patrimoniului de la Roşia Montană şi Bucium, profesorul Daniel Barbu a făcut o deplasare „de informare la firma” pe care o asimilează cu interesul poporului român la beneficiul exploatării zăcămintelor auro-argintifere ce îi aparţin.

Membrii Comisiei pentru Unesco la Roşia Montana au făcut şi ei deplasarea ca să acopere în faţa românilor pactul semnat de guvern cu firma Gabriel Resources şi RMGC. Îşi ascund mârşava trădare a rostului lor în numita Comisie, dacă nu şi în Parlamentul (ales de pe urma manifestaţiilor din iarna 2012) în spatele semnăturilor primarilor sponsorizaţi de Investitorul care în schimbul banilor le impune conduita. Primarii se opun acceptării Roşiei Montane ca patrimoniu mondial; au ei căderea să aprecieze valoarea inestimabilă a vestigiilor unei întregi istorii a tehnicii de exploatarea a aurului? Au ei capacitatea să conştientizeze profitul pe termen lung al dezvoltării turismului ca urmare a înscrierii printre cele mai excepţionale situri din lume. Rostul unui om de cultură, temporar ministru al Culturii, poate fi să se încovoaie în faţa incompetenţei, dacă nu şi corupţiei care stă la baza scrisorii de respingere a valorii excepţionale a Alburnus Maior.

Exploatarea minieră va dura doar 16 ani şi comunităţile lor vor alege alţi primari până să se dezmeticească cu ce s-au ales din dezvoltarea mineritului cu cianuri!

La Zürich, în primăvară, cu cinism, dl. Tim Wood, directorul executiv la Denver Gold Group, gazda European Gold Forum, a afirmat că ”Guvernele sunt în situaţia unui cerşetor care nu are de ales”.
Probabil cu asta ne-am ales după ce am sperat că vorbele angajează pe cei ce ne cer votul. Sfântă naivitate!
Românii au dreptul să pună doar la 4 ani ştampila, apoi sunt reprezentanţii lui care fac jocurile, susţinuţi de reprezentanţii UE, la fel de responsabili şi ei faţă de popoarele lor....

Cum să crezi că parlamentul va mişca în front când i se spune că este interesul naţional în joc; cine îşi va bate capul să analizeze obiectiv lucrurile. Guvernul va fi cel responsabil, el a făcut propunerea legislativă.
Pentru maximum 5,2 miliarde lei, un sfert din împrumutul prăpădit de guvernele Boc!, guvernul va lăsa generaţiile viitoare, pe propriii copii, fără un peisaj cultural unic, fără aurul la care ar avea şi ei dreptul. Sau poate că RMGC a făcut deja asigurări de sponsorizare a strămutării acestor copii în Canada sau Barbados...
Ministrul implicat în protecţia patrimoniului cultural de la Roşia îşi bate joc de noi sau consideră că nimeni în afară de dl Rodwell plătit de RMGC nu cunoaşte criteriile de înscriere în Lista patrimoniului mondial, şi afirmă că “dacă ceea ce am văzut astăzi (n.red.: în cadrul vizitei efectuate marţi la Roşia Montană) va continua şi vom avea cu adevărat circa 30 de kilometri de galerie romană, medievală şi tereziană conservaţi, cele 120 de clădiri care sunt destinate să fie conservate vor fi restaurate, situl va avea un aspect urbanistic împrospătat şi restituit, cred că peste circa 7-10 ani într-adevăr vom putea cu foarte mari şanse să facem un proiect de înscriere pe Lista Tentativă UNESCO. Aşa cum arată situl acum nu avem nicio şansă”, (http://www.agerpres.ro/media/index.php/cultura/item/217476-Barbu-despre-situl-Rosia-Montana-Acum-nu-avem-nicio-sansa-sa-fie-inscris-pe-Lista-Tentativa-UNESCO.html). Criteriile de integritate, autenticitate nu vor mai exista după ce exploatarea decretată acum de interes naţional va distruge TOATE GALERIILE ROMANE DE VALOARE UNICĂ DIN masivele CÂRNIC şi ORLEA!

La fel de instruit în noţiunile cu care operează legislaţia UNESCO se poate observa şi în propunerea ministrului culturii de a crea un “Parc Arheologic Naţional (SIC!) care să cuprindă Sarmisegetuza Regia (face parte din monumentele UNESCO laolaltă cu alte cetăţi dacice, prin grija aceluiaşi ministru I. Caramitru) şi Sarmisegetuza Ulpia Traiana (niciodată nu a fost pe lista tentativă UNESCO). Dificultatea va consta în faptul că o suprafaţă foarte mare se va suprapune peste Parcul Naţional Retezat (oare?)...şi ar fi benefică asocierea Roşiei Montane cu acest proiect împreună cu zona arheologică de la Săcărâmb (comuna Certej - absolut necercetată, deşi se va “implementa” proiectul DevaGold) şi Muzeul Aurului din Brad” . (Comisia permanentă comună a Camerei Deputaţilor şi Senatului pentru relaţia cu UNESCO, sinteza şedinţei din 25 iunie 2013)

Voi, ROMÂNI, veţi fi cei care, pe lângă miliardele împrumutate sub oblăduirea tătucului Băsescu, veţi gestiona şi tot dezastrul post mega-exploatării din Roşia Montana - Bucium (şi fiţi fără grijă, şi din restul Cadrilaterului Aurului!). Cu ocazia asta rezolvăm şi problema acelui nucleu de Moţi care au făcut răzmeliţi peste răzmeliţi din Evul Mediu încoace („bolşevicii” pe care i-a înfierat jucătorul preşedinte la Roşia Montană, mai an).

Poate mă înşel şi veţi apăra dreptul vostru şi al copiilor voştri (eu nu am!, ca să spun ai noştri, dar ce fac, fac pentru ai ţării!).

Cineva trebuie să răspundă că din 2000 a făcut doar jocul unei firme care îşi închipuie că face legea în România. Cineva trebuie să răspundă că nu sunt luate în considerare din studiile făcute de experţii români şi străini dacă nu conchid cu axioma că exploatarea în suprafaţă cu cianurare este în avantajul exclusiv al României, pentru care se „sacrifică” marii acţionari din Gabriel Resources - RMGC.

Pe primul loc ar fi Agenţia Naţională de Resurse Minerale, apoi cei care au dat PUG în repetate rânduri, deşi au fost anulate în justiţie ca ilegale; cei care au dat avizele de descărcare de sarcină arheologică pentru tot ce a cerut Investitorul, indiferent de valoarea excepţionala a fiecărui element, dar mai cu seamă ca peisaj minier din preistorie până în ziua de azi.

Mai suntem un POPOR sau doar o populaţie înfometată după reformele celor ce s-au aranjat de la „revoluţie” încoace?

Dr. Ioana Bogdan Cătăniciu