Heated debate over Rozino gold mine pits economic hopes against environmental concerns

A heated public debate, marked by clashes of arguments and strong emotions, took place over the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report for the Rozino deposit near the Ivaylovgrad villages of Rozino and Gugutka.

The investment plan by Tintyava Exploration to extract polymetallic ores and gold in the Byala Reka area has set proponents of economic development against defenders of the region’s untouched environment.

For some, the mine represents a chance for jobs, revenue and a way to keep people in the area. For others, it poses a threat to the Byala Reka, protected areas and livelihoods that cannot be restored once mining ends.

The public hearing was held on 28 April at the Probuda 1914 community centre in Ivaylovgrad. Mayor Diana Ovcharova did not attend.

Promises of millions and new jobs

Representatives of the investor focused heavily on the project’s expected economic impact.

According to figures presented during the hearing, the investor plans to invest €250m and create more than 1,000 jobs during construction, with 250 of them becoming permanent positions.

Engineer Zhivka Kovacheva of Gorubso said that, with 13m tonnes of ore and a 2% concession fee, Ivaylovgrad municipality could receive an amount equivalent to several of its current annual budgets.

Kovacheva sought to reassure residents by pointing to 87 years of mining activity in this part of the Rhodopes, including Kardzhali, Ardino and Kardzhali, arguing that “there has been no apocalypse”.

A young man in the audience offered a different calculation. According to him, 11.3m tonnes of ore would be processed in Rozino over 10 years. At current gold prices of around €122 per tonne of ore and a concession fee of roughly €2.50 per tonne, he calculated that the total amount going to the state and municipality would be about €28m.

Around half of that, approximately €14m, would remain with the municipality. Spread over 10 years, that would amount to around €1.4m a year – roughly the cost of building several kilometres of road.

Engineer Daniel Marinov, representing the investor, said the project could provide an opportunity for the development of medium-sized businesses, new roads, better healthcare and improved education.

He also proposed the creation of a fund to support local businesses and the involvement of residents in monitoring water quality.

Environmental concerns

Opposing the project were representatives of environmental organisations, local residents and experts.

Their main concerns centre on the waters of the Byala Reka and the risk of pollution with arsenic and heavy metals.

Conservationists pointed out that the area is home to rare and endangered bird species, including vultures, and warned that the project could affect biodiversity.

Experts from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds raised concerns about the tailings facility and the long-term risks after mining ends.

They said the project did not provide sufficient guarantees that the facility would not become a permanent source of pollution.

“There is no river left unpoisoned after a tailings facility in Bulgaria,” said Pencho Pandakov of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Stoycho Stoev of the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds described the proposed model as “eight years of work in exchange for an eternal tailings facility”.

He also questioned who would ultimately own the project. If the Canadian company transferred the project to a Turkish company, he said, local residents needed to know whether all the promises would remain valid and who would bear responsibility.

Daniel Marinov explained that there was currently a preliminary agreement to purchase the shares in Tintyava Exploration by Turker Mining, which he described as a serious investor. He said there would be no change to the team or staff.

That did not reassure everyone in the room.

One participant said the investor viewed the region as a territory rich in resources, while for local people it was their homeland. He argued that other countries charged higher concession fees for similar activities, although he did not provide specific figures.

Some participants argued that the area should focus instead on ecotourism, organic farming and historical and cultural tourism rather than becoming an area of blasting, explosions and heavy industry.

Svetlana Mitova from Madzharovo asked whether the investor could guarantee that there would be no pollution outside the site after 10 years. She said she had seen what happens around tailings facilities after accidents and heavy rain, when contaminated water begins to flow around them.

She also pointed to the region’s long-running depopulation, with younger people leaving smaller settlements and poverty making residents vulnerable to promises of future prosperity.

In her view, if the region had been properly managed, Ivaylovgrad could have developed without a “gold factory”.

She asked whether every poor municipality should have to open a gold mine for its residents to live better.

The discussion was not without personal attacks.

Some participants saw the mine as a way out of depopulation and the risk of the town “turning into a village”. Others questioned whether the EIA could be completely independent when it had been commissioned by the investor.

Foreign residents who have chosen Ivaylovgrad as their home also took part in the discussion.

Patrick Smit Jos from the Netherlands asked: “What do we need this gold for?” He argued that gold mining was primarily a profit-making machine for large corporations and that the country and local community would receive only a small share of the resource’s value.

He urged local residents to demand a much higher concession fee if they were to accept a mine in the area at all.

Svetlana Mitosheva, a newly elected MP from Progressive Bulgaria, spoke in support of the project. She said she lived in Ivaylovgrad and wanted both herself and her family to remain there.

In her view, the project could bring benefits to the local population and the wider region.

Hristo Petrov also questioned the local authorities. He asked why responsibility for the lack of development was only being sought now and why local government had not been held accountable over the years.

Representatives from Greece also took part. They warned that any pollution would not stop at the border and could affect Greek communities as well.

One of them, Tziros Georgios, said Greece had extensive experience with similar projects in Halkidiki, where local people had also opposed gold mining.

He said the hearing had presented charts and diagrams but not enough real-world examples of what areas affected by this type of mining look like.

Companies, he warned, can leave, but people on both sides of the border remain.

Another participant, who has lived in Ivaylovgrad for nine years, supported the project, arguing that the town was stagnating.

There were no investments, no new jobs and no visible development, he said. For him, the mine represented a chance for the whole municipality to move forward.

Personal guarantees

In an attempt to ease tensions, engineer Daniel Marinov offered a personal guarantee that the project would not threaten people or nature.

He said that once the mine began operating, he would personally drink the contact water and eat a spoonful of sludge from the tailings facility.

His remarks were met with a reaction from the audience and applause from some participants.

But the central question remained: will Ivaylovgrad become a prosperous mining centre, or will it lose its most valuable asset – the clean waters of the Byala Reka and the natural environment of the Eastern Rhodopes?

The decision will ultimately be taken by the competent authorities, but the division within the local community is already a reality.

Environmental groups remain sceptical. In their view, such projects come with strong economic pressure, and there is a significant risk that the EIA could be approved despite objections.

Perhaps the mood in the hall was summed up most accurately by Krasimira Katincharova.

She said the region had no well-paid jobs, small businesses were struggling and people were desperate and therefore willing to cling to almost any promise of future prosperity.

The community centre was packed.

One notable absence was Ivaylovgrad mayor Diana Ovcharova of GERB, who has governed the municipality for several terms. Had she been there, she would have heard one of the harshest assessments of the region’s management: that some residents are now prepared to risk their beautiful natural environment simply to survive in this part of Bulgaria.