The discussion on lithium mining in Serbia, with focus on the Jadar project, drew contrasting views during an academic panel at the Kopaonik Business Forum. The speakers addressed potential environmental impacts, project feasibility, and possible economic effects. The debate remained unresolved at the time of the forum discussion.
Water, seismic risk, and concerns over Jadar valley reserves
Zoran Stevanović, a professor at the Faculty of Mining and Geology, opposed lithium mining. He cited environmental risks including water pollution and potential earthquakes. Stevanović highlighted that Serbia’s water reserves in the Jadra valley are important for Belgrade and much of the country.
His position linked the project’s potential impacts to the protection of water resources used beyond the immediate mining area. The panel discussion framed these concerns around how mining activity could affect water quality and associated risks. No specific mitigation measures were detailed in this part of the discussion.
Environmental impacts and agriculture-related concerns
Vera Dondur, a professor of Physical Chemistry, also opposed the project. She argued that the Jadar project could have significant environmental impacts. Dondur said lithium mining could involve unknown risks, particularly in the absence of established global standards.
Dondur also raised concerns about agriculture, including potential harm to crops sensitive to the toxicity of pine that would be involved in connection with the project. The panel discussion presented these points as part of broader environmental risk considerations. She did not provide additional technical details or regulatory references during the forum remarks.
Economic prospects and implications of contract obligations
Dragan Đuričin, an economics professor, presented a more balanced view of lithium mining in Serbia. He suggested the project could be profitable for Serbia, including through potential lithium processing and electric vehicle production. At the same time, he warned about legal and financial consequences if the project were banned.
Đuričin said Serbia might need to pay compensation to Rio Tinto due to existing contracts. His remarks connected economic opportunity with potential costs tied to decisions affecting contractual arrangements. The panel discussion did not specify contract terms or compensation figures.
Regulatory alignment and proposed infrastructure measures
Dinko Knežević, another mining professor, argued that Serbia should pursue an opportunity to return to Europe’s mining map. He said Serbian laws are aligned with European standards. Knežević countered environmental concerns by stating that necessary infrastructure such as embankments would mitigate risks like flooding.
This part of the panel discussion focused on how infrastructure could address specific hazards raised by opponents. Knežević’s comments were presented as a response to concerns about environmental impacts associated with mining operations. No additional engineering specifications were provided during the forum exchange.
Negotiating exploitation conditions as a determining factor
Prvoslav Marjanović from the “Jaroslav Černi” Institute emphasized that outcomes depend on how Serbia negotiates exploitation conditions to protect its interests. His remarks placed emphasis on negotiation parameters rather than on a single predetermined result. The panel discussion therefore treated negotiation strategy as central to how risks and benefits could be managed.
The forum left the debate unresolved, with participants continuing to cite both environmental concerns and economic considerations related to the Jadar lithium project. The positions presented reflected different assessments of risk, regulatory context, and potential returns for Serbia.