Polekol’s contribution to the discussion on the Strategy for the Management of Mineral and Other Geological Resources of the Republic of Serbia
On April 23, 2026, the Serbian Parliament adopted the Strategy for the Management of Mineral and Other Geological Resources of the Republic of Serbia for the period from 2025 to 2040, with a projection until 2050. This document announces tectonic changes in the field of geology and mining, which are not foreseen by current legislation or the result of a broad social agreement. The strategy is controversial in its general direction, details and the manner in which it was adopted.
The general direction of the Mineral Resources Management Strategy confirms and strengthens the direction of the current government to prioritize mining over other economic branches, the economic interests of the state, the will of citizens, food sovereignty, water safety and general environmental protection, cultural heritage and the survival of local communities.
In order to understand the risks of the solutions in the Strategy, we must understand the context. Mining threatens to take precedence over all other activities and social activities. Of the five most accumulative industries, three have been mining for years – NIS and two Ziđina, where the profit is exported and our economy languishes at the bottom of the value chain. Economic theory clearly shows that the development of one economic branch at the expense of others does not lead to economic development, but to stagnation. This is described by the “resource curse” and “Dutch disease” models. The excessive growth of mining brings enormous health and environmental consequences and costs, as well as social conflicts. Over 60% of the population of Serbia is against mining megaprojects, and this was clearly manifested through numerous mass public gatherings, such as the protest against the jadarite mine in Jadar.
In such circumstances, the authorities decided that – let’s deal with the details – the Strategy completely ignores the problems of miserable mining rents and mining dumps, as well as conflicts between the interests of mining on the one hand and the interests of health and environmental protection, and the interests of other economic branches (such as forestry, agriculture, energy, and others) on the other. The strategy additionally facilitates the obtaining of mining permits for private companies, while making it difficult for state institutions such as Geozavod to participate in the implementation of applied research, and so on.
Moreover, in the adopted document, the authorities decided on a scenario between “realistic” and “rapid” development. Such a scenario is really more than unrealistic – it is a disastrous idea in our context. Agriculture is in a huge crisis, and water resources are threatened in a number of ways, from pollution to the impact of climate change; public health is neglected and cannot accept the pressures inevitably caused by the intensification of geological research and mining; deregulation has been perfected for 40 years and the planning system has been turned upside down.
This brings us to the question of how to adopt the Strategy. The strategy would have to be harmonized with the Development Plan and Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia. The first document does not exist, and the second expired in 2021, and since then there has been no sign of the new one. What we know about the Draft is that it envisaged 40 new mines throughout Serbia, which is also problematic, but in the context of this discussion we can also dwell on the fact that we do not have a planning basis for the strategy. To make matters worse, in March the authorities further deregulated the planning system by abolishing the Regulation on the Analysis of the Effects of Regulations and the Regulation on the Methodology of Drafting Public Policy Documents. This prevented the legal control of the Republic Secretariat for Public Policy (RSJP) over the activities of decision makers. This move is directly related to the adoption of the Strategy. Namely, RSJP was the only body that the authorities were forced to obey to some extent during the public debate. Of the numerous objections to the Draft Strategy, only a part of the Secretariat’s objections was adopted.
During the public discussion and public inspection of the Draft Strategy, in August 2025, we again witnessed scenes of the authorities defending themselves against citizens and academics from SANU with private security. The officials lied that there were no objections, lied that those interested did not register on time and lied that there was no room for them in the half-empty hall.
There is also a fear that the new Mining Law will further reduce environmental protection standards. Academicians from SANU warned that the Draft Strategy for the Management of Mineral and Other Resources contained a proposal to prioritize mining at locations with recognized mineral resources in the planning documentation. According to SANU’s assessment, this would mean that mining can also be done in protected areas of the highest degree of protection, such as areas in National Parks. Such an institute could not come to life without changes to the current Law on Mining and the Law on Environmental Protection.
The disputed solution from the Draft Strategy was not included in the adopted Strategy – however, it was not rejected for substantive reasons, but for formal reasons. All objections filed by the Academic Committee for Environmental Protection were rejected, including this one. The disputed decision was removed from the final document due to formal non-compliance with other acts, based on the objection of the RSJP. This causes fear among citizens that the Government will again try to introduce this solution through higher-order documents, i.e. the aforementioned laws.
The participation of Ziđin and NIS, as representatives of the mining industry, first of all had to be balanced with representatives of other interests in order to ensure a multi-sector approach and prevent conflicts of interest. The working group should have included representatives of other economic activities – energy, water management and others – and especially representatives of the scientific community, public health and local communities to which the Strategy intends a mining destiny. Instead, neither the Faculty of Mining and Geology (only individual employees), nor other relevant faculties or institutes, nor representatives of civil society participated in the writing of the Strategy. The previous treatment of the companies Ziđin Koper Bor, Ziđin Mining and NIS raises the suspicion that their interests are disproportionately protected during the development of the strategy. These companies are among the most profitable industries in Serbia – while at the same time they suffer almost no consequences due to the pollution they cause, and there are no statements from the top of the state that the state will control them, but rather servilely “ask” them to pollute less.
In the end, environmental protection is an empty letter without real content in the Strategy. The compiler has very superficially analyzed how research and mining will affect the environment, renewable natural resources, survival and development of local communities. Despite even such recognized risks, he decided to develop mining more quickly. The strategy envisages even less control by citizens. It does not envisage better information and participation in decision-making, but it envisages accelerating the issuance of permits and simplifying the introduction of strategically important deposits into planning documents.