by Uroš Popadić
Research Forum Coordinator,
European Movement in Serbia
Column – Research Forum, European Movement in Serbia
The last year brought a high amount of disturbance and discontent to Serbia due to the Government’s plans to move forward with Lithium mining in the Jadar valley of western Serbia. Previously the plans were postponed after civil unrest and obstruction, yet after the ruling party won elections at the local and Republic level, the plans were reinstated. The unrest and protests quieted down after massive student protests took center stage, but the discontent still remains as the problem is unsolved. There is controversy on several points, which complicates the situation. Lithium mining has the potential to significantly pollute the environment in its surroundings if rigid ecological standards aren’t properly followed. A large section of the population is sceptical and distrustful of the government and its promises to follow adequate environmental standards. The political situation in Serbia is highly polarised and the citizens are divided into the pro and anti government camps, and this was exacerbated by the most recent elections which did not go smoothly. The opposition parties from both sides of the political spectrum have made use of the popular discontent and have engaged in anti-lithium mining rhetoric in order to gain political favour with the general population. The ruling party rejects an open dialogue with the opposition and has labeled the protests as biassed and political and not based on the protection of the environment. Such polarisation is not conducive to either side, nor to Serbia’s accession negotiation, as whether lithium is highly useful or not is not a topic that can be openly discussed in such a tense situation, and exploitation cannot be attempted without strong oversight. Leaving aside the consideration that lithium exploitation itself might not be a necessary element of Serbia’s economic development, and that there may be superior alternatives, or considerations that the project itself should even be abandoned along with any plans of exploitation in the future, the paper argues that even if we consider that lithium mining could be beneficial (as argued by most EU member states) there should still be a moratorium on any mining in the current situation or the near future.
The Serbian political scene has seen a number of protests on various topics over the years, yet the electoral performance of the opposition was limited. Opposition parties, especially those that are ecologically oriented and left wing, support the protests. The main concerns behind the protests are not just tied to environmental degradation, but also the fear that the profits would go to a private foreign company, as well as the fear of government corruption and weakness of the rule of law. With lithium mining becoming politicised, and with the public highly polarised, we analyse the causes of the problem and potential solution while understanding the views on the importance of lithium for the energy independence and strategic stability of the EU, but arguing that its fundamental values of the Rule of Law have to come first. Therefore our paper does not deal with whether lithium mining is good or bad for Serbia, but rather that such projects are impossible in the current political and institutional climate, in spite of the strong EU rhetoric supportive of exploitation. Even EU states which support the mining should understand not only the opposition to it that exists in large segments of the population, but that the current attempts at exploitation are carried out without respect for the rule of law or political rights and freedoms.
Lithium and its Importance for the EU
The European Parliament (EP) has approved a plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, and an important part of this is the increased use of electric vehicles, for which Lithium is necessary, so that the EU’s demand for lithium is expected to exceed its supply. To secure key minerals the EP passed the Critical raw materials act which hopes to increase European lithium mining in order to avoid shortages. Portugal is about to begin mining as its Environment Agency approved the environmental impact assessment for mining, although the local population is not happy about the potential effects. [1] The act considers the materials important not just for the renewable energy needs of the EU, but for defence and technological needs, as the EU is worried about a strategic dependence on outside suppliers. It includes environmental safeguards and is oriented towards the long term sustainability of the energy infrastructure of the EU. The mining is also a part of the Green Deal industrial plan which is connected to the EU net zero industry act, both key elements of the climate change mitigation strategy.[2] As such, lithium is a topic of high importance for the economic and ecological plans of the EU in the long term.
Environmentalists are generally worried about the mining of raw materials, but advocates believe it is needed to achieve the green goals and follow through with the green deal, which serves a greater “Green” purpose. The tension between the need for critical raw materials and nature conservation has been playing out across the continent, with Europeans so far using lithium extracted on other continents away from view. The EC considered mining for these resources to be strategically important enough to override public interest in conservation and decrease the regulations which protect the environment as rigidly as they do today.[3] As global demand is expected to rise rapidly and to an enormous extent in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement on combating climate change and to sustain the green transition, the existing reserves are being aggressively targeted. Demand for lithium might grow by over forty times by 2040, and the transformation of the international energy industry is fueling demand for raw materials. As lithium is a rare element, a small number of states has control over most of it, giving them political power, as states hope to diversify their supply.[4] This elevates lithium to the level of a strategic resource, control of which is imperative for the security of the union in future.
Elsewhere, Australia generally has low opposition to lithium production, in Argentina its economic benefits are prioritised as they are widely seen as a way to lift the country out of its economic crisis.[5] Chile has a more restrictive tax and exploitation policy, while in Bolivia it is managed by state owned companies.[6] Chile and Mexico are hoping to nationalise their supply for both energy and strategic reasons.[7] As far as Europe is concerned, Czechia has the largest lithium deposit, and its government expects great economic benefits that would prevent economic stagnation. The extraction will be managed by the mostly state owned electricity producer of Czechia, which will cooperate with the nearby state of Saxony. The mining benefits would be augmented by a local battery factory, and the plan is to phase out the local coal mining in order to contribute to the green transition. The local population is concerned with the deterioration of air and water quality, but the government is adamant about the effects being minor in the general context of benefits.[8] Germany is also interested in sourcing more critical raw materials at home, but is likewise meeting local opposition. The Rhine valley has a large lithium reserve which is necessary for its green economy goal of supplying most of its electricity from renewable energy. The German greens embraced domestic mining but urged robust environmental and social standards, understanding that these resources are a crucial question for the whole of Europe. German industry is keen on the project yet the local residents are frightened, and the government is trying to reassure them of the safety of the processes through transparency and inclusive involvement.[9] This means that the EU itself is preparing to exploit lithium within its own borders, and so the desire to use Serbian lithium is not unexpected in its foreign policy, however these EU states have a much better record on safeguards and transparency.
France is preparing a one billion Euro lithium project that would become its largest mining operation in decades. Lithium was discovered in the Allier region which was an industrial heartland, yet the local residents here are also concerned. France organised dozens of events by the commission for public debate with the citizenry, and the government is keen to point out the importance of lithium for the green transition and the EUs energy security.[10] Serbia’s reserves are comparable to those of Czechia, and is becoming increasingly important as the EU is looking to increase production across the continent.[11] The local population is more distrustful of the government than populations in the EU, and the major fear is the lack of transparency and trust in the president’s words.[12] The government promised to follow international environmental guidelines and to look up to EU countries, and promised that the country would become a significant player in the emerging lithium industry. They consider a ban on an entire branch of industry to be unreasonable, and exploiting lithium as an innovative way to fight climate change, while anti-mining activists claim that exploitation would ruin the local environment and its other resources.[13] However the difference with Serbia is that the public institutions which are meant to oversee the process are not trusted to follow strict ecological guidelines, showing a concern with the rule of law, even if lithium mining could be conducted in a safe way.
EU Lithium Exploitation and Obstacles
The transition to a Green economy as a way of fighting climate change is a strategic orientation of the EU. It is also crucially important for its strategic autonomy and energy independence.
[14] The EU is currently importing eighty percent of its lithium, mostly from Chile, and this dependence is a primary reason for the upcoming lithium mining in Europe. There are societal obstacles to this in various European countries,[15] including Serbia, where lithium is a divisive topic that has been exploited politically, with the opposition being against extraction to the extent that parts of it refuse debate and public consultation. China is another source of Lithium which the EU is reluctant to use due to geopolitical concerns, even though it views lithium as a strategic resource.[16] This gives an role to Serbia vis a vis the EU and its enlargement objectives, especially in the context of increased global supply chain insecurities and the fear that the EU could lose access to key energy resources. This has been by the ruling party in Serbia for its promotion of immediate lithium exploitation to the detriment of public debate or safeguards.
The latest elections brought about a right leaning European Parliament, leading to difficult discussions on key environmental policies and the political sustainability of the green deal. EU Conservatives and those further to the right are sceptical and even hostile to the green deal, and due to the changing geostrategic situation the EU leadership is more interested in security and competitiveness than in environmental issues.[17] The EU has bigger problems now and cannot afford to focus on green issues when its security and stability are on the line. The Green Deal has been moderated due to emerging concerns, but is still imed making the EU less dependent on Russian fossil fuel, as this now has become more crucial. The new five year strategy is aimed at making Europe more self-sufficient, prosperous and competitive, as well as strong and secure.[18] This is related to the EUs greater interest in playing a greater global role, while at the same time consolidating itself at a time of acute geopolitical challenges.
EU greens are becoming more open to compromise as there is an increasing backlash against the cost of green policies, and as such could be willing to sacrifice certain safeguards in order to keep the green policies going.[19] Trade tensions with the USA and China, as well as uncertainty over the war in Ukraine are taking centre stage in EU politics, as geopolitical developments have been challenging for the EU. Business organisations are resisting regulations and demanding an increase in competitiveness which green policies constrict. There is still widespread support for climate action and green policies, but it is no longer prioritised like before, and cohesion has suffered as well.[20] Even though the president of the European Commission stated that lithium will be more important than oil and gas, stressing the urgency of obtaining it, there is still fierce opposition by concerned locals and politicians keen to profit on the issue. The environmental concerns have been addressed by several projects which used more expensive production methods to safeguard the environment, and this is facilitated by the high value and price of lithium,[21] which could decrease just as well.
The EC is prioritising economic growth, yet environmental groups are opposed to this,[22] as they try to maintain EU green policies.[23] They consider the climate crisis to be the major challenge of the generation, rather than economic prosperity or geopolitical stability, yet the social elements of their manifesto outline a plan for a new green industry,[24] which would have to include lithium. The backlash against Green policies is being felt across Europe,[25] with green policies attacked as unrealistic and costly, yet the interest for green policies remains among voters.[26] As green policies have entered the mainstream they have had to be somewhat diluted, especially as the major concerns and demands of green parties in the EU have mostly been addressed.
The fear persists in Serbia and other countries that lithium mining will not address climate change and that the governments would not follow proper guidelines and provide adequate oversight. All mining poses some risk, including the various currently operating mines. Environmental groups are torn between supporting the Green transition and opposing lithium mining.[27] In all cases strict environmental safeguards are demanded in order to protect the environment,[28] and protection of the environment is underlined even in the context of energy security and strategic stability.[29]
The Question of Lithium in Serbia
Recently, European Greens have shown some solidarity with the greens in Serbia,[30] calling for genuine consultations which would ensure government and company (Rio Tinto) accountability for the protection of the environment. Their concern however is that the EU must ensure a legal framework fitting lithium exploitation, not that the mining should be stopped per se.[31] The Serbian Greens pointed out that Serbia has not harmonised its laws on the effects of mining on the environment with EU legislation, which should come first before any exploitation of resources is considered.[32] Thereby it directly connected ecological issues with the Rule of Law, which is the main reason for the fear and uncertainty felt in Serbia. The environmentalists in Serbia are afraid that the government would sacrifice the environment for economic reasons, with many of them refusing any dialogue or consultations. While the area has a low population it still has important natural resources, and the situation has been used as an example for general environmental discontent, being connected to other worries around the country. The protests were embraced by various groups with their specific interests, as well as by political parties. Critics answer that if lithium is not mined in Serbia it will be sourced from other countries, simply moving the ecological problems but not decreasing the need for it. Suggestions have also been made to put lithium mining under the control of the government instead of a private company, as has been done elsewhere.[33]
The Serbian Parliament rejected the draft law on the prevention of lithium mining, which the opposition offered up for a vote. The parliamentary discussions were marked by accusations and harsh rhetoric on both sides, including insults and digressions, creating a political crisis. The government claimed that they are demanding the Rio Tinto company to adhere to Serbian and international standards related to protection of the environment, however the opposition denies this. Both sides are making exaggerated claims, with elements of the activists and opposition employing harsh rhetoric of foreign exploitation of Serbia. Corruption was highlighted as an important topic by the opposition, while the government used incendiary rhetoric about the opposition spreading alarmism in an opportunistic way, showing the mutual mistrust. The opposition members rejected the possibility of a referendum on lithium, claiming that it would be rigged, and denied the economic benefits that the mining would bring. The government expressed fears that the opposition would take to the streets to cause destabilisation, with the opposition expressing dismay at the state of public political institutions, leading to the possibility of larger protests.[34]
In July of 2024 the EU signed an agreement with Serbia on lithium mining, and the Chancellor of Germany considered it important for Europe’s economic security and energy independence, giving Serbia a deeper strategic role. This led the environmentalist opposition in Serbia to conduct disruptive protests and civil disobedience, which cited a lack of trust in the government and institutions as a reason to disbelieve its environmental protection assurances.[35] Serbia still has no official exploitation contract with the Rio Tinto company,[33] and the EU agreements with Serbia over lithium came not long after controversial elections which were followed by strong criticism by the opposition including a partial boycott. The deal is also a way to bring Serbia closer to the EU and away from Russia and China, yet the opposition sees this as tolerating the president’s repression of democracy and accuses the EU of pragmatism.[34]
The ecological protests therefore are politically and ideologically diverse but all oriented at obstructing the government and demanding the rule of law, rather than having only a short term anti-mining purpose. The importance of lithium for the green transition also puts various groups which consider themselves to be green in opposition to each other, dividing more moderate and more extreme greens activists, where the former are willing to compromise for the green transition but only with respect for the rule of law, while the latter are primarily ecologically motivated and are against lithium mining by default.[35] Due to the firm positions on both sides, an open and productive debate is not currently possible, with political leaders using the crisis for political gain. The government has not yet adequately adjusted its environmental legislation with EU laws, and has acted not in accordance with its legal obligations before, causing the public to doubt the guarantees that the lithium project would be implemented in line with EU standards.[36]
The government and activist positions are incompatible and conflict with each other,[37] each side having their experts which speak for and against the project.[38] The parliamentary atmosphere was extremely tense and emotionally charged,[39] showing a divide between the government and opposition where the former prioritises economic growth and the latter prioritise environmental concerns and government transparency and oversight The anger directed at the EU is in large part based on the perception that the union is prioritising energy security in its dealings with Serbia, rather than prioritising the fundamental values of the union such as the rule of law and government accountability, which are seen as lacking in Serbia. The Serbian government is using its lithium resources as a way to improve its prospects of joining the EU and to increase their diplomatic visibility, gaining economic and political benefits.[40] The agreement also helps integrate Serbia into the EU’s common market and aids its accession process, and is aimed at supporting the green transition and the increase of the use of sustainable energy, which is tied to the competitiveness and sustainability of European economies, which requires a viable supply chain of materials.[41]
Economic analysis carried out by experts in Serbia has shown that the supposed benefits of lithium exploitation are exaggerated, and that the average citizen would not see a visible improvement. The current project plan would mean that the state would finance the infrastructure needed for the project while it would not have a share in the Project that would remain fully in the hands of a private company. Untransparent subsidies would also be provided, and the main benefit by far would be to the foreign private company.[42] Experts are therefore divided and are not in direct dialogue and cooperation, with sides being taken and further polarisation being deepened. The economic and political effects for lithium exploitation are still vague and there is no established process by which civil society and the public at large can participate in an open dialogue with the government. The legal aspects of the proposed mining operation by the Rio Tinto company are problematic, as the legislative background for lithium mining and the project in particular is not transparent or consolidated, leaving gaps and problems in a legal sense.[43] These are some of the further arguments against the current continuation of the mining project, as even the government’s arguments for immediate exploitation are being challenged, undermining the justification for its lax attitude towards civil rights.
These concerns, along with the ecological ones, mean that the support which the EU has for the exploitation of lithium in these conditions has decreased the reputation and influence of the union among citizens who consider themselves in opposition to the government. The support for joining the EU among citizens in general decreased beneath fifty percent.[44] These are important concerns, as those parties which make up the civic opposition have always been pro EU. EU officials are trying to maintain that lithium exploitation is unconnected to Serbia’s accession negotiations,[45] however this has done little to assuage doubts. Chancellor Scholz urged for the energy independence of Europe, and for the integration of Serbia into the European single market.[46] Therefore it is obvious that there are important geopolitical and economic considerations that must be taken into account in this issue, not only environmental ones, as the question of Lithium in Serbia is a part of a larger and multidimensional issue.
The protests, which have been going on for years, were radicalised due to the refusal of the government to engage in dialogue and soften their attitude, as well as by the gradually increasing state repression of citizens.[47] Those who oppose the project are labeled in pro-government media as opposing the economic prosperity of the country,[48] and indirectly or even maliciously supporting Serbia’s regional competitors and rivals.[49] The government’s rhetoric questions the rationality of those who oppose exploitation, ignoring the demands for institutional transparency and increased democratic oversight.[50] The concerns expressed by citizens are disregarded as alarmism, in an attempt to discredit all criticism and make the protesters seem malicious instead of engaging in a dialogue. They represent the protests as a political attack on the government by the opposition that helps the foreign rivals of the state, ignoring substantial discussions on the potential harm and benefits for the citizens.[51] This behavior should worry the EU, economic and energy interests notwithstanding. In order to present the government policy as the only proper one, and the position of the protesting activists as being politicised and opportunistic, as well as irrational, there is a strong and sustained media attack on the activists. They are presented as a threat to the constitutional order and the very security of the state, with state and state-supported media creating panic among the general population while misrepresenting the goals and causes of the protests.[52] This has been used to justify increasingly repressive measures against the protesters, violating their rights and freedoms, and creating a sense of insecurity among them.[53] The government has treated the protesters with scorn and derision, slandering them.[54] The protesters are constantly refused a dialogue by the government’s qualification that they are only interested in political power because the governing policy is unquestionably correct.[55] The position of the government is that the protests should be ignored until they disappear, and they pressured public media directly in order for them to change their reporting.[56] The protests are continually underestimated by the government, which considers them small and insignificant, as well as exploited by the opposition.[57] Untransparent punishments serve to frighten the activists and violently suppress protest and opposition, and even the scientific community is pressured, further polarizing society.[58] The qualification of protesters as undermining the constitutional order of the state allowed the government to use state security to increase its repression and to justify such action to its voters. Such behavior is not conducive to dialogue, public confidence in the government, and to the creation of an atmosphere of respect and cooperation even across political lines, as befits a democracy.
Policy Proposals and Recommendations
As lithium is an important resource that the EU finds to be of crucial value, and as there are potential economic and diplomatic benefits for Serbia, the solution then cannot be to simply end the debate and stop all mining, but to find a way to do it in a safe and sustainable way. This would obviously necessitate strong and independent safeguards at multiple levels, including state institutions and in civil society, and international institutions. Concern over the protection of the environment is justified and beneficial, and should result in environmental safeguards. However the main issue in Serbia is the lack of popular trust in the government and the polarisation of the population.
-As the EU is planning to extract its Lithium, making such a process normalised, avoiding all future exploitation of lithium in Serbia is a challenging prospect. In order to prepare for any possible future mining, strong safeguards should be put in place. Environmental protection is a serious topic that should not be politicised, and discussions should be bolstered by independent expert assessments. Independent expert oversight and a public discussion that allows for the expression of all views should be immediately established. Mechanisms for transparency should be demanded by the population until the government establishes them, and civil society must be included in the process.
-There has to be a moratorium period where the mining project is fully stopped to allow for a full and transparent discussion, including all stakeholders and institutions, and to await an improved situation regarding the rule of law. The government should accede to the rightful demands of the citizens to increase its transparency and release publicly important information regarding the project.
-The major problem in Serbia, like elsewhere, is not primarily environmental and ecological, but is a political problem tied to a lack of trust in institutions and respect for the rule of law. The political polarisation and lack of transparency, the dysfunctional democracy, as well as the fear of corruption, all contribute to the crisis. Therefore measures to improve the rule of law have to be prioritised before any steps are taken towards the creation of the environment conducive to any possible exploitation of lithium resources.
-Increased EU oversight over the strengthening of institutions and democratisation, as well as over the conducive environment for an active civil society, is imperative. The lack of trust in institutions can be improved by the EU pressuring the Serbian government to give way to more international oversight and to respect the political and civil rights of all its citizens.
-The government has not been transparent or inclusive in many instances over the past years, and there is a disconnect between standards, laws and rules being officially established, and their effective implementation on the ground. This creates the need for civil society to be active and vigorous, and to include the general population in its work while putting pressure on the government. EU support for civil society is of high importance as the Serbian government is neglecting its responsibilities in that regard. The government should accept public and international monitoring and take heed of the reports on the rule of law and political rights that are regularly published, while those reports which come from the EU should have a harsher tone.
-The EU should help facilitate an open dialogue between the government and the opposition, similar to its previous attempts. This dialogue should be followed by pressure on the government and public institutions to approach political debate in good faith. As a side track, the EU economic and social council should help create a dialogue space in civil society, and to give it increased visibility. This dialogue would include experts and citizens and would provide for monitoring mechanisms that could put pressure on the government in order to preempt corruption. France already has a national dialogue commission, and something similar is possible elsewhere, provided that political tensions and polarisation are reduced.
-There has to be an end to pro-government and government-controlled media attacks on activists and the opposition. Journalistic ethics have to be followed in order to ensure a lowering of polarisation. If the state regulatory bodies fail to pressure media outlets which promote hate speech, especially if this is done due to government pressure, EU institutions have to act to condemn such actions.
-The harmonisation of Serbian laws on the environment with EU standards has to be prioritised in an inclusive and transparent manner, with public and EU oversight. European environmental assessment standards and oversight mechanisms should be adapted to the local situation, and promoted to the general public to increase understanding of them. The legal provisions for lithium mining in general need to be transparently and professionally established, with help from independent expert bodies, in order to make sure that any future mining is done in full observation of the law.
-The Serbian accession processes should be sped up as Serbia uses this opportunity to introduce new reforms, but only if the rule of law is improved. Financial support from the EU for economic development is necessary, as well as greater financial support to civil society in order to provide independent oversight and further include citizens in public deliberation. This would improve the pro-EU attitudes by the citizens which would see an interest in their wellbeing. The EU supporting a moratorium on lithium mining for the time being would also improve its standing and increase trust towards it. The EU should make it clear that further progress on Serbia’s EU accession will depend on demonstrable progress in upholding the rule of law, protecting the environment, and ensuring meaningful public participation in decision-making processes.
-Finally, fully transparent and inclusive feasibility studies should be undertaken to weight the positive and negative aspects and consequences of possible lithium mining. If these expert-led studies conclude that lithium mining is either not the best use of the resources of the area, or that its negative effects outweigh the positive ones, the possibility should remain that the mining be abandoned altogether. Even so, this is only possible in an environment where the rule of law is observed, and civil rights and freedoms are respected.
Conclusion
For any further movement on the issue it is necessary to have a decrease of public tensions and an open dialogue free from harsh rhetoric. Likewise a greater role for experts CSOs is needed, and a more hands-on approach by the EU which has to provide strong oversight vis a vis its fundamental values. If the citizens do not trust that the government will carry out a project of national significance in line with EU standards and according to its own laws, especially a project with such profound consequences, then such a project cannot begin. Even so, the question of lithium and other strategic resources will remain for decades to come, necessitating a national strategy on this issue. Serbian citizens must make sure that any government they have will follow proper standards and regulations. The moratorium on lithium mining is necessary for a future wide and open discussion in the society, recreating trust in public institutions and healing the divides. Such a discussion can only be possible if the rule of law is observed and if there is trust in public institutions and in their transparency. We have argued that while it is understandable that Lithium is a resource of high importance for the energy needs of Europe, as well as for its strategic position and self-sufficiency, the conditions are not yet met in Serbia which would facilitate a transparent process of exploitation that would meet international standards and satisfy the concerns of the citizenry.
Likewise, the situation has brought about grave breaches in the rule of law and fundamental human rights. We have found the opposition to mining to be directly connected to the rule of law, and to concerns about transparency and corruption, rather than just being about environmentalism. There are many reasons for and against lithium mining, yet in a situation where open public debate is lacking and polarisation is high, a public consultation is not possible. The government has also used harsh measures against protesters, especially through its media outlets, further exacerbating the situation. Therefore we suggest that any mining should be delayed until the political crisis in Serbia related to the rule of law is solved. In fact, after the anti-mining protests a new and more radical protest movement emerged in response to the collapse of a part of the Novi Sad train station, killing fifteen people. This movement, led by students, is directly aimed at the rule of law, confirming our hypothesis that the main reason for the previous protests was concern over the rule of law, and strengthening our argument that any mining plans have to be delayed until conditions for public dialogue and consultations are possible.
References:
[1] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/lithium-mining-race-europe-china-supply-chainshttps://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/lithium-mining-race-europe-china-supply-chains;https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1661
[2]
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/areas-specific-interest/critical-raw-materials/critical-raw-materials-act_en;https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/green-deal-industrial-plan/european-critical-raw-materials-act_en;https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0474&from=EN
[3]
https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-green-dilemma-mining-key-minerals-without-destroying-nature/
[4]
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary
[5]
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/25/battle-lines-redrawn-as-argentinas-lithium-mines-ramp-up-to-meet-electric-car-demand
[6]
https://www.csis.org/analysis/leveraging-argentinas-mineral-resources-economic-growth
[7]
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chiles-boric-announces-plan-nationalize-lithium-industry-2023-04-21/
[8]
https://www.dw.com/en/lithium-the-czech-republics-white-gold-rush/a-66821017;https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/czech-government-pushes-for-lithium-mining-despite-regional-scepticism/
[9]
https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-lithium-extraction-earthquake-mining/
[10]
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/10/05/inside-the-industrial-heartland-where-france-wants-to-build-a-1-billion-lithium-project
[11]
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/08/09/why-is-europe-desperate-for-lithium-and-why-are-serbians-up-in-arms
[12]
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4yg09rl8lo
[13]
https://www.nin.rs/english/news/53266/dedovic-handanovic-for-nin-we-wil-not-enter-into-any-projects-that-are-harmful
[14]
https://reform-support.ec.europa.eu/what-we-do/green-transition/enhancing-eu-mining-regional-ecosystems-support-green-transition-and-secure-mineral-raw-materials_en
[15]
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/05/09/critical-raw-materials-lithium#:~:text=%E2%80%9COnly%20Portugal%20is%20currently%20producing,for%20ceramics%20rather%20than%20batteries.
[16] https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/serbias-lithium-sacrifice-zones-or-opportunity-for-europes-peripheries/
[17]
[18]
[19]
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-greens-are-on-the-ropes-eu-elections/
[20]
https://ecfr.eu/publication/winds-of-change-the-eus-green-agenda-after-the-european-parliament-election/
[21]
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/02/23/lithiums-green-potential-fails-to-defuse-europes-opposition-to-mining
[22]
[23]
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2024/09/26/the-uncertain-future-of-the-european-green-deal_6727371_114.html#
[24]
https://europeangreens.eu/2024-manifesto/
[25]
https://eu.boell.org/en/2024/06/11/greens-eu-ep-election-2024
[26]
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nneg6252eo
[27]
https://eurogeologists.eu/correia-understanding-the-narratives-in-the-public-debate-about-mining-in-europe/
[28]
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/FTI_July2021.pdf
[29]
https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/blog-post/eu-climate-agenda-cannot-destroy-our-natural-ecosystems
[30]
https://zelenolevifront.rs/borba-protiv-litijuma-nije-borba-protiv-eu-evropski-zeleni-podrzali-protivljenje-rio-tintu-u-srbiji;https://beta.rs/content/212402-zlf-evropski-zeleni-podrzavaju-borbu-gradana-srbije-protiv-iskopavanja-litijuma;https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2024/09/26/european-greens-express-solidarity-with-the-opponents-of-the-lithium-mining-in-serbia-ahead-of-parliamentary-debate/
[31]
[32]
[33] https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/serbias-lithium-sacrifice-zones-or-opportunity-for-europes-peripheries/
[34]
https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/politika/5551173/nastavljena-sednica-narodne-skupstine–treci-dan-rasprave-o-rudarenju-litijuma.html https://www.glasamerike.net/a/projekat-jadar-rio-tinto-iskopavanje-litijuma-skupstina-srbije-odbila-predlog-zabrane-iskopavanja-opozicija-vlast-sednica/7817767.html 1
[35]
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4yg09rl8lo
[36]
https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/ekonomija/2815110/vlada-srbije-i-rio-tinto-potpisali-memorandum-o-projektu-jadar.html ; https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/srbija-rio-tinto-jadarit-litijum/31665241.html
[37]
https://www.boell.de/en/2024/09/30/mining-lithium-undermining-democratic-future-eu-deal-takes-serbia-further-europe
[38]
https://www.bbc.com/serbian/lat/svet-69280861
[39]
https://www.boell.de/en/2024/07/18/lithium-mining-serbia-open-and-productive-debate-not-possible
[40]
https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/protest-srbija-skupstina-litijum/33141002.html
[41]
https://www.nin.rs/english/news/55141/dean-of-the-faculty-of-mining-and-geology-for-nin-exploitation-of-jadarite-yes-but-under-strict-control
[42]
https://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/637275/Zavrsena-rasprava-o-litijumu-glasanje-u-17-30-casova;https://www.bbc.com/serbian/lat/srbija-69395170
[43]
https://www.politico.eu/article/serbian-president-aleksandar-vucic-german-chancellor-olaf-scholz-meeting-lithium-deal-electric-vehicles;https://apnews.com/article/germany-serbia-lithium-scholz-vucic-114befbdab762c829b98616e94b99a0d; https://www.rferl.org/a/serbia-germany-lithium-mining-environment/33043393.html
[44]
https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/memorandum-o-razumevanju-srbija-eu-litijum/33043201.html
[45]
https://novaekonomija.rs/vesti-iz-zemlje/drakulic-soskic-popovic-mijatovic-litijum-jadar-analiza-26-evra-rio-tinto;https://www.nin.rs/ekonomija/vesti/59442/sta-srbija-moze-da-ocekuje-od-litijuma-velika-ekonomska-analiza-projekta-jadar
[46]
https://n1info.rs/vesti/advokat-o-litijumu-drzava-ne-moze-da-sprovodi-adekvatan-nadzor-nad-luna-parkovima-a-kamoli-nad-takvim-rudarskim-projektima-s-tri-inspektora/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=webpush&utm_campaign=2025-03-10-Advokat-o-litij
[47] https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2024/07/29/eus-endorsement-of-lithium-mining-will-further-tarnish-its-reputation-in-serbia/
[48]
https://www.danas.rs/vesti/politika/intervju-franciska-brantner-eu-nije-trgovala-sa-vucicem-po-principu-litijum-za-demokratiju; https://www.bbc.com/serbian/lat/srbija-69207447
[49]
https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-maros-sefcovic-lithium-deal-serbia-environmental-concerns/
[50]
https://www.biepag.eu/blog/pulling-a-fast-one-the-lithium-deal-between-serbia-and-the-eu;https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-maros-sefcovic-lithium-deal-serbia-environmental-concerns/
[51]
https://www.nin.rs/politika/vesti/53329/vucic-projekat-ce-znaciti-kvantni-skok-srbije-u-buducnost-bicemo-pouzdan-partner; https://n1info.rs/english/news/vucic-global-battery-alliance-important-for-serbia/
[52]
https://www.novosti.rs/vesti/politika/1391780/hrvati-suzama-srbiji-kapati-litijumske-milijarde-hrvatska-nema-nijedno-nalaziste-video
[53]
https://www-slobodnaevropa-org.translate.goog/a/ekoloska-udruzenja-ustavni-sud-protest-jadar/33030503.html?_x_tr_sl=hr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp;https://oie.rs/strategija-razvoja-energetike-rs-do-2040-na-javnoj-raspravi-do-15-avgusta-ocekivani-kapacitet-vetroelektrana-i-solarnih-elektrana-skoro-11-gw;https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/dusan-teodorovic-zorana-mihajlovic-krivicno-gonjenje;https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/zorana-mihajlovic-dusan-teodorovic-projekat-jadar;
[54]
https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/ekonomija/5371003/dubravka-djedovic-handanovic-za-rts-nisam-ministarka-za-litijum-ali-lezimo-na-milijardama.html;https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/kako-su-portali-bliski-vlasti-izvestavali-o-protestu-protiv-rudarenja-litijuma;https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/politika/4621293/vucic-uslovi-protesti.html;https://www.dw.com/sr/litijum-nema%C4%8Dka-%C5%A1tampa-o-protestima-u-srbiji/a-69807423
[55]
See “Ole Waever, Securitization and Desecuritization” u “On Security pp. 46–86 (Edited by Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Columbia University Press)”, for the concept of securitisation used here;https://lens.civicus.org/serbias-lithium-mining-plans-show-green-transition-challenges/
[56]
See “Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford University Press, 1991), pp. 35–40.”for the concept of ontological security used here; https://www.masina.rs/za-objave-na-drustvenim-mrezama-zatvor-a-policiji-odresene-ruke-da-iznuduje-izjave-nacrt-izmena-krivicnog-zakonika/
[57]
https://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/636360/ana-brnabic-litijum-vazna-tema-predlog-zakona-besmislen-necemo-podneti-amandmane;https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/srbija-vucic-predlog-zakona-zabrana-iskopavanja-litijum/33127804.html;https://www.danas.rs/vesti/politika/vucic-zakon-opozicija-litijum;https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/rio-tinto-litijum-brnabic-ustavni-sud/33038528.html
[58]
https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/drustvo/5516950/ana-brnabic-rio-tinto-litijum.html;https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/ana-brnabic-protest-eko-straza;https://n1info.rs/vesti/brnabic-imamo-ekoloske-akiviste-koji-dodju-i-svi-puse-ko-turci-na-protestima/
[59]
https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/politika/5482771/vucic-dobro-je-sto-srbija-ima-litijum-to-ce-biti-nasa-komparativna-prednost.html; https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/politika/5558124/aleksandar-vucic-litijum-briks-crna-gora.html; https://www.danas.rs/vesti/politika/vucic-zakon-opozicija-litijum ;
You can download the column in PDF by clicking HERE.
