Interview With Iskra Krstić, Freelance Journalist
Hi Iskra Krstić. Please introduce yourself briefly to our audience.
I am a journalist of a Belgrade-based internet media called masina.rs, short from “The Machine for the production of social critique”. I am also a researcher at the Organisation for Political Ecology – Polekol, also working in Serbia. My academic background are urbanism and political sciences, which makes me a theoretician of critical urban studies. An admirer of David Harvey and Zygmunt Bauman, as many in this region.
As a journalist, I focus on spatial justice, environmental struggles and climate crisis. I have been writing about struggles against different expressions of extractivism for about a decade. I have been covering the clashes around Rio Tinto’s Jadar project in Jadar since the local communities in western Serbia learned about the project in 2019/2020.
There are also other big mining projects which the local communities are against in Serbia. The proposition for the national Spatial Plan 2021-2035 (which activists so far prevented from being formally enacted) includes roughly 40 mines to be opened in Serbia in near future. The exact number of explorative wells is unknown, but it is assumed that explorative areas combined are huge, sometimes compared to a quarter of the Serbian autonomous province of Vojvodina. Some of the existing mines already cause such pollution that up to a quarter of the population in the nearest cities suffers from cancerous diseases, according to official data.
What are the main environmental impacts associated with lithium mining and local communities, often located near lithium mining sites?
To quote Nature magazine: “The proposed exploitation of the Jadar Valley lithium/borate deposit in Serbia, by the Rio Tinto Corporation (…) would be one of the world’s very first lithium mines in populated and agricultural area”.
The Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and a number of Serbian scientists with international reputation and credibility have in the last four years presented strong arguments in favour of the claim that underground lithium mine planned in the Jadar Valley in Western Serbia would have a strong negative impact on the environment and the local communities. A study published in the already mentioned world-renowned Nature magazine, authored by professor Dragana Đorđević et al, states that “local opposition to the mining has arisen due to potential devastating impacts on groundwater, soil, water usage, biodiversity loss, and waste accumulation”.
“With the opening of the mine, problems will be multiplied by the tailings pond, mine wastewater, noise, air pollution, and light pollution, endangering the lives of numerous local communities and destroying their freshwater sources, agricultural land, livestock, and assets”, claims the group of university professors and researchers further. According to their data 145 protected and strictly protected species are at risk. At this point it is important to point out that Rio Tinto pushed hard for Nature to revoke this article, but failed miserably.
….
As underlined out in the abstract, damage to surface and underground waters has already been done by the exploratory wells: “Research drilling by the mining company has already produced environmental damage, with mine water containing high levels of boron leaking from exploratory wells and causing crops to dry out. Furthermore, our investigations reveal substantially elevated downstream concentrations of boron, arsenic, and lithium in nearby rivers as compared to upstream regions”.
It is of utmost importance to stop here once more and point out that this very region is the location of the most significant groundwater reserve in Western Serbi, translating to the biggest source of drinking-quality underground water in the state (the resource’s quantity being three times the size of the current needs of the capital city Belgrade). Scientists claim that the mine “will certainly destroy the one of only three water-bearing areas in Serbia”. According to their calculations, the establishment of landfill for this particular mine would create a constant threat of contamination to downstream sections, endangering the water supply for about 2.5 million people.
Science recognizes other problems, too: “A qualitative data analysis conducted in July 2021 in Gornje Nedeljice, a village in Western Serbia, revealed evidence of soil and water pollution, deforestation, as well as forced displacement of the residents, due to the exploration activities by the Rio Tinto Corporation for a potential mine in the area”.
According to scientific data: “The industrial waste landfill is planned in the Štavica stream basin (area of 167 hectares) where about 26,000 m3 of wood mass would be removed. This amount of forest wood for CO2 assimilation will be permanently destroyed, which will accelerate soil erosion, drying of springs, the disappearance of the living world in the basin and riverbed, and increase the risk of destructive torrential floods". Authors underline that there are numerous examples in the world where mine waters and the leaching of dangerous substances from mining waste have polluted rivers so much that they have become dead. Authors claim that the implications of the proposed Jadar project causing land degradation and soil erosion, correspond to the term “desertification” and represent a direct negation of the principles of the “RIO” conventions (UNFCC-climate change, UNCBD-biodiversity, UNCCD-fight against desertification and land degradation). Furthermore, the project undermines the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the accepted Agenda 2030, as well as domestic legislation related to nature conservation.
…
The quoted article is probably the most popular, but in no way only publication and public statement originating in Serbian science and/or academic institutions which explains the already done environmental and social damages and potential risks. To name just one more, the Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, who was engaged by Rio Tinto to do a preliminary biodiversity impact study in 2020, recently publicly underlined their conclusion that “from the point of view of their team, the draft studies of Rio Sava Exploration (RT’s local daughter-company) do not represent an optimal solution for the protection of biodiversity and natural values in the researched area”. A part of the council of the School of Electrical Engineering was keen to issue a public statement against Jadar Project from the point of view of energetics, which resulted in a scandal in which the whole council resigned.
...
According to the Some Serbian authorities, lithium mining in Serbia will not have any environmental impacts. What do you think?
Serbian scientists have argumentatively stated their claims that it, in fact, will, some of which I quoted earlier. To reiterate: 1) some damage has already been documented in the exploration stages, both in the case of Jadar Project and similar projects 2) there are strong indications that there would be more (e.g. deforestation, soil erosion, drying of springs; population displacement) even if Rio Tinto’s (and similar) projects live up to all possible domestic and international standards and no natural catastrophes happen (such as torrential floods); 3) natural disasters such as torrential floods have become more common due to the climate crisis, and raise the risk of unaccounted for environmental impacts; 4) last but not least, the enforcement of domestic standards and/or international treaties on human rights and environmental protection by the Republic of Serbia is notoriously weak; 5) additionally, in the latest proposed changes to the Criminal code, the Ministry of Justice did not adhere to the progressive shifts in the international law on environmental protection; on the contrary, it is moving towards criminalising activism in legal terms, and preventing it in practice.
The unwillingness of domestic authorities to enforce regulations in the field of environmental protection in recent years has provoked intensive international and domestic reactions. Serbia has been sued by the Energetic Community on several bases; the Bureau of the Berne Convention expressed great concern regarding the procedure for issuing mining permits in Serbia and the consequences of further research activities on nature; etc.
At the same time, in recent years local communities have been increasingly recognizing water, land and soil pollution and degradation (including deforestation for commercial purposes; loss of rivers and drinking waters to small HPPs, gravel extraction, commercial civic construction and polluters of all scales; risks to settlements coming from numerous quarries) as a matter of life and death – in the context of deteriorating and increasingly privatised institutions coupled by the abduction of the judiciary by the hybrid regime.
Thus, a strong environmental movement was basically forced to be forged. Particular articular actors/local organisations have been fighting local issues, but also networking for the sake of informing and know-how exchange (in context of a lack of independent media). Coming back to the question of mines: citizens used their faith in science (whose arguments I explained above), and added to that their own experience with numerous environmentally and socially harmful projects, coming to the conclusion that the envisioned mining projects could be nothing but harmful. They express it in form of a widespread slogan "Nećete kopati", roughly translated to "You shall not pass (to dig)".
The Serbian society's distrust in the government on this issue has been expressed in strong mass gatherings in late 2021. and 2024. Close to 250,000 people signed an online petition against mining of lithium and boron, and 38,000 people left their signatures in paper (btw, the Parliament had a legal obligation to react to this petition, but claims to have "lost" the paper version after submission.) On several occasions members of the civic society addressed EU MEP's on these issues and requested their support.
The distrust the government and its commercial partners has been further enticed at the beginning of November 2024, when an awning of a railway station collapsed, crushing 14 people to death. The incident has been attributed to corruption and negligence and resulted in another wave of protests, arrests of activists and harsh initial charges. The citizens are spreading the message: "The government is unable to fix an awning so that it doesn't kill and cripple people, and they want us to let them dig for lithium?"
What are the social impacts of lithium mining in Serbia especially in region of Jadar?
Scientists and citizens who oppose the project alike point out the fact that Jadar is a densely populated area with prosperous agricultural practices. It is probably the best soil Serbia has.
"The current evidence shows that the proposed Jadar Valley mine would adversely impact 22 villages that depend on agriculture by devastating their rich agricultural land, some 14,000 apiaries, and multiple livestock farms", calculate Đorđević et al. The population of those villages is roughly 20, 000 people. In the part of the Nature magazine study focusing on socio-environmental risks the authors state that the "project would result in job losses for thousands of people who currently rely on the area’s agricultural industries".
They add that 173 ha of arable land stands to be destroyed and calculate that: "Ore excavation and groundwater pumping or leakage would result in the subsidence of almost 850 ha of land". There is already evidence of forced displacement of the residents due to the exploration activities. Thus, this particular project adds more people to the global sum of economic and climate migrants, and might add more.
It needs to be said that significant part of the population has refused to sell their land and is unwilling to relocate at any cost.
"The potential economic loss is intertwined with the rich historical heritage as these residents have been living on this land for generations. The residents strongly oppose the mine’s opening and demand the preservation of their land and livelihoods", state the authors of the Nature magazine study.
They add that the Jadar Project threatens existing tourist destination, threatening over 50 objects of architectural heritage and archaeological sites of historical, cultural, and spiritual significance.
"In addition to given impacts, our estimation suggests that possible income from agricultural activities, estimated at 81.96 million euros per year (based on 17,000 EUR/ha), by far exceeds the potential of ore rent of 16 million euros (Ergo strategy group, September 2023)", it is stated in the Nature magazine.
Several economic experts have done more detailed economic analyses of the project according to available data. They corroborate the claims that the project’s realization would have long-term negative effects on the local agriculture and damage the potential of any sustainable development. To top that claim, they state that the national economy stands to lose more than it would gain from the project. To name just the main points: mining tax in Serbia is miserably low; the laws on mining itself resemble that of the Republic of the Congo; Serbia took on itself the obligation to invest in the needed infrastructure and will take on the financial burden of possible hazard damages (such as those in case of a flood); Serbia will not become an owner of any part of the facility during its period of exploitation (projected at 64 years).
There are also political and psychological matters to be accounted for within the discussion on social impact. The state authorities are advocating strongly in favour of this (and similar) projects, calling citizens who are (possibly prevalently) against the project enemies of state and progress and foreign agents; turning a blind eye to (and adding fuel to the fire of) smear campaigns against activists; raising police and legal pressures through detainments and serious charges; threatening to legalise police violence and criminalise activism.
This 1) annihilates previous efforts on the establishment of a democratic, participative society 2) exacerbates tensions in an already heavily unequal, heavily polarised society 3) alienates and radicalises citizens 4) leads those prone to anger towards more aggression and those prone to fear to anxiety and depression (and alterations of the two) in a society already stressed out to the core by war in the nineties and repetitive economic crises. What exactly happens if a society reaches a boiling point? Noone can yet tell for sure, but we already had mass shootings in a school in 2023, for the first time in history.
The French government believes that lithium production and its use in electric vehicle batteries will be an important measure for decarbonization and independence from imports of this metal. To what extent do you agree with these statements?
The greenest energy is the one that hasn't been spent. Based on available data, I don't think that anybody, the French or any other government, should keep trying to push for an alleged green energy transition without a serious reexamination of the national and global society's energy needs and a sober reexamining of priorities. To my knowledge, if they keep trying to force through the green energy transition without curbing the energy demands, it's going to push us into spending much more resources, globally – while also releasing much more carbon and heat into the atmosphere in the next decades.
The most obvious example used is usually traffic. Instead of supplying individual vehicles with electric batteries (which is what Germany is pushing for in order to save its auto-industry from being run over by Chinese commercial opponents), there should be more investment in public transport. In France, with its railway, this might not seem like a primary, but I would still like to look at the statistics. Urbanism could help here, if anyone would ever listen to the progressive experts.
The second thing to think about is the military. We have no way of tracking down what materials does the military spend for its equipment, and in what quantity. What we do know is that Macron, in particular, keeps raising the military budget but also that the EU has been raising it steadily from 2014, with the European Commission publishing its first European Defence Industrial Strategy earlier this year. And there are actual commercials online presenting "green energy military equipment". Talking about a dystopia... The
The third thing to think about might be the information technologies, because of the existing trends and recent developments. For instance, according to the World Economic Forum, AI currently consumes a fraction of what the information technologies are consuming worldwide (2-3% of global energy demands), but its demands are rising steeply. The techno-optimists would say that it will inevitably optimise and help solve the energy crisis; I'm not that sure. I mean, nuclear plants politics are already being redesigned in some countries to fit the needs of AI. Maybe it would be more sober thinking to reduce the use of AI and save both jobs and energy? How come that entire communities can be forced out of their right to say no, and their right to stay on their land, and putting a limitation to a gadget that most of the world population uses for fun is seen as outlandish? Ok, this might be my little homage to Noam Chomsky's view on this particular technology, but it serves to say that there are many elements of this puzzle to be considered. Many are included in degrowth theory, and there are more economic theories that defy the neo-classic/neoliberal approach which is dragging this civilisation toward its end.
To even start talking about technology we must keep in mind the relations of power. As the authors of my "favorite" Nature study pointed out: "Although governmental policies and the industry’s push towards sustainable energy sources to reduce CO2 emissions have been powerful narratives, they have also served as a barrier to discussion on the negative impacts of lithium battery usage, including recycling thereof. Bibliometric research reveals that the majority of published studies come from lithium-consuming countries and predominantly center on the life cycle of the battery and its costs Only around 5% of these studies focus on the socio-environmental impacts, with just 2% coming from lithium-producing countries. This imbalance in information availability presents a major concern and serves as an urgent call to expand the research by including a holistic examination of lithium mineral extraction and its socio-environmental impact".
How do you assess the role of the public debate on lithium mining in Serbia?
It certainly wasn't executed properly, but I think that it's a bloody miracle that any confrontation of arguments (or, in this case, arguments against violent slogans) happened in media discussions and in the parliament.
As stated earlier, Serbian regime is recognised as hybrid going on authoritarian. Independent legal associations refer to the state of our institutions as "an abduct state". Media sphere is a constitutive element of this, with constantly deteriorating freedoms of press, rising violence towards journalists which goes unprosecuted, including a rising number of SLAPP cases. Media with national frequencies are entirely in service of the ruling party (either the state media or the media owned by actors close to the state authorities), advocating strongly for the mining (and other FDI) projects. There are a few oppositional/corporate media, and the independent media are struggling in every sense of the word.
Ministry of Justice even made a serious step recently towards criminalising activities on social media, which would further cripple the public sphere.
It is in such atmosphere that citizens from the areas in which the mines are planned and other environmental activists managed to inform others of the projects an spatial plans (in the first place); attract the attention of otherwise sleepy Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; catch the interest of those courageous scientists who proved willing to invest time and effort into serious analyses – taking on themselves the risk of SLAPP charges an smear campaigns all the while; partially engage the opposition, so that the parliamentary majority at least be forced to talk about lithium in live broadcasts from the Parliament. This stands to show how strongly the public, the citizens, are willing to fight to get their opinion heard.
A part of the public (which I would say is mostly economic liberal, politically center-right) is still demanding time and space for a public debate. Those invested in the environmental and other struggles, however, say that debate is over and there's no more time to talk: the science has had its say, the citizens submitted their signatures, the Parliament should ban the mining of lithium and boron.
How do you evaluate the agreement between the Serbian government and the European Union for lithium mining cooperation?
I would refrain on commenting on the agreement itself, and leave that to the experts in international law, but I can comment on the statements of EU representatives.
While it's a given that the capitalist center treats the countries of the capitalist periphery in a neo-colonial manner, up until now the EU representatives' statements included a lot of sugar-coating; so, it was in a way surprising, and certainly offensive, to witness the shift from diplomatic courtesy to open bullying in statements that "the EU needs Serbia's lithium", that "lithium is coming out and the only question is who will take it" and the likes.
In the end, considering the dangerous fires that have lithium batteries and produce toxic gases and toxic chemicals, do you generally agree with this technology or not?
There must be another way. Hopefully, technology will advance towards safer solutions.
