Europe is preparing to open new mines in the coming years as part of efforts to produce 10 percent of its own critical raw materials. In parallel, a legal review commissioned by the non-governmental organization Transport & Environment says the European Union’s directive on mining waste disposal has shortcomings. The findings are discussed alongside reporting from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre on pollution and monitoring gaps in Serbia.
EU directive on extractive waste faces implementation concerns
The Transport & Environment analysis highlights what it describes as significant problems in how mining waste disposal is regulated. It argues that Europe’s rules are outdated in places and, according to the review, can be less stringent than those in countries such as Brazil or China. The NGO also points to a risk that implementation could vary widely across member states.
The review is based on a legal analysis of the EU Extractive Waste Directive from 2006, conducted by the Dutch environmental law firm Horchner Advocaten. Transport & Environment says one key finding is a “significant risk of fragmentation” in applying the directive, with multiple provisions left unclear. The NGO adds that some elements would depend on discretion at the level of individual member states.
Transport & Environment also states that it remains unclear who would be responsible in the event of accidents or damage. It further says the directive does not specify how strong or how regularly prevention and monitoring planning should be carried out. The NGO calls for a revision of the directive and presents recommendations.
Serbia: contaminated sites and lack of regular soil monitoring
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has reported that the mining industry is a major source of land pollution in Western Balkan countries. For Serbia, the JRC identified 709 contaminated sites covering 3,203.7 square kilometers. The report also states that Serbia does not conduct regular soil monitoring.
The JRC report links the existence of information about polluted hotspots to pilot projects involving foreign donors. It also notes that contaminated sites are not monitored by any authority, according to the reporting referenced alongside the legal analysis. The figures place emphasis on gaps in oversight for areas affected by mining-related contamination.
Public information and inspection coverage cited by environmental advocate
Dejan Milošević from “Prvi, prvi na skali” told Vreme that risks are worsened by insufficient public awareness about environmental conditions threatened by mining activities, including in Serbia. He said citizens without information lack a system of (self-)defense and do not know what to watch for or what to pay attention to nearby. Milošević said inspections should be a source of information.
Milošević also described a problem with missing registries and what he characterized as an absence of serious monitoring that is publicly accessible from local polluters to national inspection bodies. He said citizens need warnings when incidents occur in areas where mining operations take place. He listed potential impacts he associated with mining activity, including suspended PM10 and PM2.5, dust, transport of products, hazardous substances used, hazardous waste disposal, tailings and landfills, contamination of food, water and soil, and daily tremors.
He cited an example from 2021 in which citizens were not timely or fully informed about results from 119 regular inspections, 110 extraordinary inspections, and 22 official advisory visits. Milošević said these actions were carried out by only two mining inspectors and two geological inspectors regarding whether the environment was endangered. He added that in 2021 a Basic Court banned activities of Euro Lithium Balkan in Valjevo after victims were left without water and there were cases of poisoning.
Inspector capacity versus high-risk sites and company oversight
Milošević said the number of inspectors is too small to monitor conditions at 216 high-risk sites. He also said inspectors cannot oversee 328 sites or closely follow operations across hundreds of companies. As a point of comparison for inspection capacity, he referenced the United States, where the Environmental Protection Agency has over 2,500 inspectors.
The discussion connects regulatory questions raised by Transport & Environment with monitoring limitations described for Serbia through JRC reporting and Milošević’s account. It also follows statements made after Serbia signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the EU on strategic partnership in sustainable raw materials. European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič said at the time that the EU has “the most comprehensive and strictest regulatory framework for sustainable development and environmental protection in the world.”
Balkan Green Energy News is cited as stating that European environmental standards are often presented as safeguards for extraction of critical raw materials such as lithium against harm to environmental quality and human health within both EU territory and elsewhere. The legal analysis referenced by Transport & Environment disputes how clearly those protections translate into consistent implementation across member states under the Extractive Waste Directive from 2006.