On June 30, the Academic Board of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) unit “Environment” submitted a set of detailed objections to the Ministry of Mining and Energy regarding a draft Strategy for the Management of Mineral and Other Geological Resources for the period 2025–2040, with projections to 2050. The objections were presented following a public discussion on the draft at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce. The session included incidents, including the exclusion of some academic voices that had previously provided input on the document.
Committee members said they were denied access to the public hearing despite applying in advance to participate. The chairman of the committee, academician Bogdan Šolaja, stated that the absence of expert voices affected the quality of the discussion. Šolaja later presented the SANU Environmental Board’s key objections, warning that adopting the strategy in its current form would cause significant damage and set Serbia back in natural resource management.
Objections on state control, environmental funding targets, and monitoring capacity
A central criticism is that the draft does not restore what SANU describes as the state’s rightful control over mineral resources for citizens’ benefit. The objections say the document promotes accelerated exploitation without clearly defining the state’s role or ensuring adequate compensation and investment in environmental protection. The strategy is also described as lacking quantitative targets for allocating funds to environmental safeguarding, even though it outlines development scenarios costing billions of dollars.
The draft is also criticized for lacking mechanisms to strengthen monitoring capacity for mining activities by state and local authorities. The objections cite ore extraction control, enforcement of environmental laws, and rehabilitation requirements for mining sites, including soil, water, and biodiversity recovery. SANU further states that mining is prioritized in areas with high ecological value, including national parks, biodiversity hotspots, and regional drinking water sources.
The objections say the draft proposes simplifying procedures to enable mining in protected areas. SANU warns this could lead to irreversible environmental harm. It also argues that environmental safeguards focus on “minimizing” impacts rather than establishing strict ecological norms or prohibiting mining in sensitive zones.
Safeguards described as insufficient; focus on sector growth and non-renewable resources
SANU’s Environmental Board says the strategy does not fully protect nature, air, water, and ecosystems as intended by its critics. Instead of setting prohibitions for sensitive areas, it is characterized as relying on impact minimization language. The objections also describe a vision that prioritizes continuous growth of the mining sector.
The board states this approach disregards preserving non-renewable resources for future generations. It also points to potential benefits from postponing or optimizing production as not addressed in a way SANU considers adequate. In parallel, SANU highlights what it describes as dominance by foreign companies in Serbia’s mining sector.
The objections specifically mention copper and gold ore extraction as areas where activity has increased dramatically in recent years. SANU says extraction largely benefits foreign investors without fostering domestic technological development or adding value within Serbia’s economy. It adds that although ore processing is promoted domestically, the draft does not guarantee greater economic benefits for the population.
Permitting rules, institutional changes, and land expropriation concerns
SANU says spatial planning laws are subordinated to mining interests in the draft. The objections describe streamlined issuance of exploration and exploitation permits as part of this shift. They add that this liberalization raises concerns about sidelining environmental and community interests.
The board also cites institutional proposals including a centralized administration for mineral policy and a “single point of contact” for investors. SANU says these changes could reduce procedural transparency and limit public oversight. It further criticizes how permits relate to broader governance arrangements described in the draft.
Expropriation of private land for commercial mining is another contentious point raised by SANU. The objections say the draft supports expropriation under an asserted public interest rationale while conflicting with private property rights and community cooperation. SANU also states that revenues and foreign investments generated by mining should be directed toward environmental protection and rehabilitation but says concrete provisions are missing.
Geological data verification, tender bypass claims, transparency gaps
SANU’s Environmental Board says the Geological Survey of Serbia is limited to basic research with no applied research conducted to verify mineral reserves. As a result, it argues that reserve verification is left to private companies. This is described as raising questions about accuracy and impartiality of data on mineral wealth.
The objections say the draft maintains a practice where exploration rights are automatically converted into exploitation rights after reserve verification and environmental approval. SANU characterizes this as bypassing competitive tender procedures that would ensure fair market participation. It links this concern to how rights are transferred within the framework described by the draft.
Transparency issues are also raised regarding how the strategy was developed. SANU states that a working group included ministries and private companies but says little information is available about decision-making processes. It adds that information is limited on how conflicts of interest were managed and how expert independence was preserved.
Environmental impact measures: rehabilitation timelines, waste management, groundwater treatment
SANU says environmental impact measures proposed in the draft are too general to address severe degradation already present in mining zones. It describes rehabilitation of abandoned sites and sustainable waste management as vague priorities without clear goals or timelines. The objections also say water resource management is treated inadequately.
SANU notes that groundwater is presented separately from Serbia’s overall water balance in a way it says creates misconceptions about water availability. The board further states that the strategy does not adequately prohibit mining waste disposal or activities in protected water supply zones. It links this omission to risks for vital drinking water resources.