A proposed $2.4 billion lithium project in Jadar, Serbia, has triggered protests and a public dispute over findings related to exploratory drilling. The project is linked to Rio Tinto, which is seeking approval for work that could start in 2028. Demonstrations have focused on concerns about potential impacts on farmland, forests, and water sources.
In 2022, opposition efforts contributed to the Serbian government revoking Rio Tinto’s initial planning permit. That decision was later overturned in July by the Serbian Constitutional Court, prompting renewed demonstrations. Prime Minister Miloš Vučević said on social media that “nothing will be done until we receive firm guarantees that the excavation will be safe and secure.”
Scientific Reports study and reported downstream water results
The controversy intensified after a July publication in Scientific Reports. The paper reported high levels of arsenic, boron, and lithium in water downstream from the mine’s test wells. The researchers warned that the project could affect local biodiversity and the livelihoods of communities reliant on agriculture and forestry.
Rio Tinto Chief Scientist Nigel Steward and three researchers from the University of Belgrade criticized the study. They said the paper contains errors and lacks rigor, arguing it should be retracted or significantly corrected. The journal’s chief editor, Rafal Marszalek, confirmed the article is under review.
Disputed methods, baseline data, and project area estimates
One criticism cited by Rio Tinto-related researchers concerns the absence of baseline data on metal levels in soil and water before exploration. They argued that elevated readings might reflect a “natural phenomenon.” The paper also faced challenges over how large the project area is, with authors citing figures of 2031 to 2431 hectares while the planned area is 388 hectares.
The critics also said some references used in the study were unsupported. In response, Jovan Tadić, a chemist and co-author of the study, said the claim of insufficient rigor is unfounded. He stated the work underwent two rounds of peer review and included comparisons of upstream and downstream samples.
Peer review responses and competing expert assessments
Tadić added that differences in interpreting “coverage” could account for discrepancies about site size. The Scientific Reports team said it addressed some of Rio Tinto’s concerns and agreed to make corrections where necessary. Mark Macklin, a river scientist at the University of Lincoln, acknowledged minor inaccuracies but said a retraction is unnecessary.
Macklin described Rio Tinto’s approach as overly critical of small errors. Karen Hudson-Edwards, an environmental geochemist at the University of Exeter, supported Rio Tinto’s critiques, saying the study lacked sufficient sampling and baseline data for a rigorous assessment. Rio Tinto maintained it collected baseline data as part of its environmental impact assessment.
Community involvement and “social license” concerns
Beyond scientific disagreements, observers raised issues about public participation in planning for mining activities. Ivana Živojinović, a researcher at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, said local communities were not sufficiently involved in the planning process. She linked this to mistrust and concerns about livelihoods and cultural heritage.
Živojinović advocated deeper community engagement and participation in mining projects. Rio Tinto said it continues to seek engagement with critics and remains open to fact-based dialogue regarding environmental impacts from the Jadar project.