On June 30, the Academic Board of SANU “Environment” submitted a series of detailed objections to the Ministry of Mining and Energy concerning the Draft Strategy for the Management of Mineral and Other Geological Resources for the period 2025-2040, with projections to 2050. The public discussion held on the draft at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce was marked by incidents, notably the exclusion of some of the most knowledgeable academic voices, including members of this committee, who had previously provided critical input on the document.
The committee members were denied access to the public hearing, despite applying to participate in advance. The chairman of the committee, academician Bogdan Šolaja, expressed concern that the absence of expert voices undermined the quality of the discussion. Šolaja later presented the SANU Environmental Board’s key objections to the draft, warning that adopting the strategy in its current form would cause significant damage and set Serbia back in terms of natural resource management.
A primary criticism is that the draft fails to restore the state’s rightful control over its mineral resources for the benefit of its citizens. Instead, the document promotes accelerated exploitation without clearly defining the state’s role or ensuring adequate compensation and investment in environmental protection. The strategy contains no quantitative targets for allocating funds toward environmental safeguarding, despite outlining ambitious development scenarios costing billions of dollars.
The draft also lacks clear mechanisms to strengthen the capacity of state and local authorities to monitor mining activities. This includes controlling ore extraction, enforcing environmental laws, and ensuring proper rehabilitation of mining sites, including soil, water, and biodiversity recovery. Furthermore, the strategy dangerously prioritizes mining activities in areas with high ecological value, such as national parks, biodiversity hotspots, and regional drinking water sources. It proposes simplifying procedures to facilitate mining in these protected areas, which could lead to irreversible environmental harm.
Environmental safeguards outlined in the draft are insufficient. Instead of fully protecting nature, air, water, and ecosystems, the strategy focuses on “minimizing” impacts, without establishing strict ecological norms or prohibiting mining in sensitive zones. The document’s vision prioritizes continuous growth of the mining sector, disregarding the need to preserve non-renewable resources for future generations or the potential benefits of postponing or optimizing production.
The strategy also highlights the dominance of foreign companies in Serbia’s mining sector, particularly in copper and gold ore extraction, which has increased dramatically in recent years. This extraction largely benefits foreign investors, without fostering domestic technological development or adding value within Serbia’s economy. Despite promoting increased ore processing domestically, the draft does not guarantee that the population will receive greater economic benefits.
Spatial planning laws are subordinated to mining interests in the draft, streamlining the issuance of exploration and exploitation permits. This liberalization raises concerns about sidelining environmental and community interests. Additionally, the strategy proposes creating a centralized administration for mineral policy and a “single point of contact” for investors, which could further reduce procedural transparency and limit public oversight.
The Geological Survey of Serbia is confined to basic research with no applied research conducted to verify mineral reserves. This leaves critical resource verification to private companies, which raises questions about the accuracy and impartiality of data on mineral wealth. The draft maintains the controversial practice of automatically converting exploration rights to exploitation rights after reserve verification and environmental approval, bypassing competitive tender procedures that would ensure fair market participation.
Expropriation of private land for commercial mining is another contentious point. The draft supports this practice under the guise of public interest, conflicting with private property rights and community cooperation. Moreover, revenues and foreign investments generated by mining should be directed toward environmental protection and rehabilitation of mining areas, but the strategy lacks concrete provisions to guarantee this.
Transparency issues also surround the strategy’s development. The working group included ministries and private companies, but little information is available about the decision-making process, how conflicts of interest were managed, or how expert independence was preserved.
Environmental impact measures proposed in the draft are too general and fail to realistically address the severe environmental degradation already present in mining zones. Rehabilitation of abandoned sites and sustainable waste management remain vague priorities without clear goals or timelines. Water resource management is inadequately treated; groundwater is presented separately from Serbia’s overall water balance, creating misconceptions about water availability. The strategy does not adequately prohibit mining waste disposal or activities in protected water supply zones, endangering vital drinking water resources.
In summary, the SANU Environment Board considers that the current draft strategy lacks a sustainable vision and essential protections for Serbia’s natural resources and communities. The absence of expert voices during the public hearing only heightens concerns about the draft’s adoption without proper revision. The board calls for a strategy that balances economic interests with environmental preservation and social responsibility, ensuring mineral wealth benefits both present and future generations of Serbia.
