The Draft Strategy for the Management of Mineral and Geological Resources of Serbia (2025–2040), with a projection to 2050, has been criticized by environmental organizations, experts and civil society. The document is described as a development-oriented plan, but critics say it functions as a framework for expanding mining across Serbia. They argue that it gives limited attention to environmental protection, public interest and democratic decision-making.
The draft is presented as a model for maximizing mineral exploitation while minimizing costs for investors. Critics say it does not include concrete safeguards for nature and local communities. They point to environmental protection being addressed in abstract terms, without specified mechanisms for monitoring pollution, managing waste or rehabilitating degraded land.
The strategy also sets an objective of minimizing environmental damage while allowing mining in protected categories. Critics cite the inclusion of national parks, water sources, agricultural lands and populated zones as areas where exploitation would be permitted. They say the only explicit exclusion concerns areas containing “strategic deposits,” which they interpret as prioritizing state interests in specific cases.
Expropriation provisions and community participation concerns
The draft also contains provisions that critics say enable land expropriation with limited constraints. According to the criticism, private property can be seized in the name of public interest, including fertile agricultural land. This is described as allowing mining projects even when landowners oppose them.
Critics further argue that the expropriation mechanism weakens local communities’ ability to participate in decision-making or defend their territory. They link this concern to the broader governance approach described in the draft. The criticism focuses on how affected residents could be positioned in relation to projects enabled by the strategy.
Procedural changes proposed for Serbia’s mining sector
In addition to expropriation, critics say the draft promotes privatization and deregulation in the mining sector. They cite proposals to simplify procedures through a centralized “single point of contact” for investors. At the same time, they highlight provisions they describe as controversial, including automatic exploitation rights and long-term licenses without public competition.
According to critics, these steps would reduce state and community control over strategic natural resources. They also say the draft weakens roles attributed to public institutions such as the Geological Institute of Serbia. The criticism extends to limiting influence of domestic academic expertise in managing geological and mineral data.
Mining intensity trends and export of raw materials
Over the past seven years, Serbia has seen an increase in mining intensity, particularly for copper and gold extraction. The criticism states that output grew nearly fivefold between 2017 and 2024. It also says much of this production is exported as low-processed raw ore and flotation concentrate.
Critics add that exports are accompanied by large amounts of waste associated with processing. They say local communities are left to address long-term environmental damage resulting from these operations. The draft strategy is described as envisioning continuation and acceleration of this pattern.
Public consultation and environmental impact assessment availability
Critics also raise concerns about transparency in the consultation process connected to the strategy. They state that the environmental impact assessment was made available to the public for only one week during a national holiday. They add that this timing conflicts with legal requirements calling for at least 30 days of public debate.
The criticism further notes that authorship of the document is not identified publicly and that independent scientific or academic institutions were not consulted during preparation. Critics describe this as an opaque process that undermines public trust. They also say it raises questions about whose interests are served by the strategy.
The criticism concludes that, in its current form, the draft poses risks for Serbia’s environment, democratic institutions and national sovereignty over natural resources. It says the approach prioritizes short-term economic gain for foreign investors over long-term ecological and social well-being. It also calls for an overhaul involving transparent authorship, proper legal procedures, scientific review and stronger public participation.