The tricks surrounding the referendums and the strategy against the mine in Tran

Part 2 of a series on local referendums against investment projects in Bulgaria – their causes and consequences. You can read Part 1 here.

Taking into account the results of a local referendum and the ways in which they were achieved allows the parties to interpret them in the direction they want and according to the expected benefit. Similar to the results of parliamentary elections. But the success of any local referendum is guaranteed if the municipal administration stands behind it. This is a postulate that is confirmed in every attempt. And the probability of a referendum not being valid is significantly greater in large communities than in small ones.

For example, over 80% of voters in Stara Zagora are in favor of preserving the park, but the low voter turnout of 15% makes it invalid (even if the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court regarding the illegal issue is not awaited). Okay, but the mayor said that he would respect the choice of the people of Stara Zagora. But, with a 15% turnout, this is a weak result. A vicious circle that opens up a field for new negotiations and maneuvers between the parties. Thus, Bedechka's defenders will claim endlessly that the majority of voters voted in favor of the park. And rightly so. Their opponents – that the result is not categorical in quantitative terms, which opens the way for them to continue their pressure on the local government to implement their plans.

In Tran, the result was categorical – with over 60% turnout, over 91% declared themselves against the mine. This automatically gives grounds for a decision by the Municipal Council to suspend any administrative action in favor of the project and to comply with the “will of the people”. The result was interpreted in the same way by the investor, who announced his withdrawal and the freezing of the project. Everything looks great for the local initiative committee, despite the SAC ruling on the legality of the referendum. The convincing result, achieved without the participation of an initiative committee in favor of the mine and the withdrawal from the campaign of the investor himself due to collected data on blatant manipulations immediately before the referendum itself, gives grounds for the external activists who supported the referendum in Tran to try their luck and implement their experience in other municipalities.

It is probably ironic, but a month after the referendum, news emerged that one of the two municipal councilors leading the campaign against the investor in Tran is already seeking solutions from his colleagues to find a new investor for the development of the municipality... Despite the fact that he was extremely active in the eviction of Euromax Services EOOD.

The anti-mine strategy

In Tran, it was important to make a fuss just before the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure began. But why? Because it would irreversibly pave the way for the implementation of the mining project and then the ways to “fight” the investor would be very limited or even impossible. And not because the EIA is being carried out by a company hired by the investor, but because the project is so well structured and compliant with all aspects of the environment and the expectations of the local community and the legislation. The attempts to discredit the investor and its related contractors succeeded because the process did not get to its essence– a real debate with actually established facts from the EIA by real experts who could analyze the facts and data.

Here, the role of each municipality is to finalize the process for issuing a detailed development plan – a role in which it has the right to rule on the legality of the procedure, but not to claim otherwise. Moreover, if the EIA were to be successfully completed (which few doubt due to the investor’s exceptional technical expertise, extensive experience and reputation, listening to the concerns of local people and the latest generation technologies chosen), local opponents would be looking for ways to “peacefully coexist” or their plans (broadly understood) would fail.

Затова и „шуменето“ срещу мината започва през лятото на 2016 г. В Трън се появяват зелени активисти и хора с опит в провеждането на местни референдуми. Известно е, че водачите им натрупват опит в провеждането на референдумите в Горна Малина (2011 г.) и Радомир (2014 г.). След Трън те вече имат три референдума в „актива си“. Затова може да се говори за модел, по който те се предизвикват, за да осуетят мащабни и устойчиви минни инвестиции:

1) contact is made with local activists who are fierce opponents of the investor, because his arrival will destroy the status quo they have built and harm their interests (low-paid labor, weekend villas, gray economy, and perhaps even migrant trafficking);

2) one or more initiative committees are created, which begin campaigning long before the referendum itself is scheduled. (For holding a local referendum, it is also a requirement to have a campaign before the referendum, but it also appears more organized and carries weight and legitimacy in the eyes of the media.);

3) an ideology is created around which support points are accumulated and fragmentary statements and documents are obtained that "confirm" the thesis about the bad investor who brings the apocalypse;

4) hence the rhetoric is saturated with black colors like "They are gluttons. They will drink our water, poison our air, soil and forests. And we will all die.";

5) this leads to the generation of "civil tension", which

6) friendly media respond, and local authorities are forced

7) to reduce the tension through their only known (or suggested) formula. No, this is not about a public dialogue between the municipality, the initiative committee and the investor and the search for a win-win solution. Instead, they are moving towards provoking and holding a local referendum. So, despite walking on the edge of, and even beyond, the law, the consultation with the people of Trn was intended to be an expensive sociological survey (against the background of the meager municipal budget, 20,000 leva. expenses are a solid amount and it would be at least awkward if the result were in favor of the mine).

8) Let's not forget social media. The groups of activists for clean nature in Tran, for example, do not allow anything contrary to their opinion and arguments in favor of the mine in discussions in their groups. They even block profiles that do not impress them despite the moderate tone and argumentation.

The methods for directing public sentiment include insinuations of fear and creating tension in the Municipal Council (there are 11 people in total – six are representatives of GERB, and another 3 are representatives of BSP). During the campaign to provoke a referendum, the mood escalates because the two opponents of the mine demonstrate arrogant and even aggressive behavior in and outside the meeting hall. The incident with the mayor and the bumped child also contributes to their success. As a result, GERB loses their trust in him. And this leads to a weak mayoral institution and an escape from responsibility and a real assessment of the facts.

It should be noted that according to the investor's analysis, the majority of the local municipal council sympathizes with the mining project. And rightly so - it is perceived as an opportunity to revitalize the local economy, to improve the lifestyle and well-being of local residents (understood as permanently living in Tran). I witnessed a scene after the Tran municipal council meeting on 19.01.2017, in which one of the municipal councilors retorted to the chairwoman of the Tran EC Rumyana Boyanova with the words "Since you Sofia residents love Tran so much, why don't you bring such big investors here?!".

Competition - is there any and what is it like?

During the campaign to call for a local referendum, the main question facing all supporters of the mine was whether there was a real competitor to the mining project. There were two main versions: 1) whether there was a secret mining investor who wanted to displace Assarel for the concession or 2) a project from another business sector that felt threatened by its intentions to realize gold mining there.

Both versions do not seem likely. The first - because the mining industry seems to be unified and the companies in it do not do dirty tricks; because through BMGK their goal is the implementation of the Mining Strategy, which would open up the opportunity to implement a number of mining projects in a sustainable and modern way and hence - to improve the positions of the Bulgarian economy and develop the regions as a whole; and also because the excellent reputation of the parent company "Asarel-Medet" is a sufficient "obstacle" for such actions.

The second version was confirmed only after the decision for a local referendum was taken for the second time in May. Until then, rumors spoke of a secret tourist project that envisages the construction of between 120 and 240 small houses on private land in Tran. Thanks to this gated complex, the Tran region will be revived by attracting tourists or new owners of these properties. This project was announced in passing in a TV appearance by Mr. Iskren Milanov, a construction entrepreneur, on the eve of the referendum in response to a question about whether the mine has an alternative.

It is interesting that the decision for the tourist/holiday complex was passed by the Municipality of Tran at the end of 2016 with absolutely zero publicity. An EIA is required for a project of such a scale, but it has not been presented publicly, nor has a transparent public discussion been carried out. There may be such, if so, then access to them is very difficult (or completely absent). Another interesting fact is that the local community does not object to the emerging increased car traffic during the construction of the houses and when their new owners move to the properties and to dust during construction (the fact is that this is among the main factors for environmental pollution in new construction in cities and outside them). It is not known (for now) whether this project will have a wastewater treatment plant - a facility that the people of Tran now need, whose wastewater is discharged directly into their beloved Erma River. There is also no mention of a problem with water supply, even though the current water supply system in the town of Tran is in a deplorable state and the municipality cannot solve this problem without external funding and a project.

The situation in Stara Zagora

In Stara Zagora, the park's defenders are in direct competition with property owners with their campaign. It is probably clear to both sides that there is an option for a compromise solution, but in order to preserve the majority of the unparcelled Bedechka Park, strong public pressure is needed on the Municipality and a categorical sign that non-transparent decisions and attempts to regulate illegal substitutions and unfounded claims of already compensated landowners there will not be tolerated. Their goal with the participation in the local referendum (which they did not want, nor do they want to use for future political purposes), is to show the power of real civil society in protecting a public good - the park.

During the campaign, the possibility of dividing the park into two parts – northern and southern – began to creep in. This is the so-called compromise solution, in which the defenders must give up their demands for the preservation of the entire park, and the investors – to limit their interests only to the southern side. Currently there (south) there is a functioning hypermarket, several active constructions and the plots are “determined” according to their intended purpose. Despite the advanced phase, the compromise solution contains an interesting nuance of compensating all land owners with other plots. But where in a fairly densely built-up city will plots worthy of replacement be found?

The answer may come from the Council of Ministers - with its decision, the Ministry of Defense may provide unnecessary land from the northern part of the territory of the Headquarters of the 2nd Tundzha Brigade. They are in the immediate vicinity of Ayazmoto. The successful attempt to obtain military land from the Municipality of Stara Zagora is known: in 2013, the so-called New Park (Artillery) was opened, located on the grounds of the former barracks in the city. In the days immediately before and after the referendum, Mayor Todorov announced that talks were already underway with the Council of Ministers on the issue of possible compensation with military land.

In the next and final part of this series, we will reach the culmination of the topic of the local referendums in Tran and Stara Zagora - the very questions asked in these referendums and their legal status, as well as the potential effects of the termination of the relevant investment projects.

Image sources: Wikipedia.com, Nova.bg, Pia-news.com, Zapadno.com

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!