The proposed $2.4 billion lithium mine in Jadar, Serbia, has ignited a new wave of controversy. Scientists associated with Rio Tinto, the company behind the project, have called for the retraction of a paper that claims the company’s exploratory drilling has caused environmental contamination.
Scheduled to potentially begin operations in 2028, the Jadar project is poised to meet a significant portion of the European Union’s demand for lithium, a crucial element in electric vehicle batteries. However, it has sparked widespread protests among Serbs concerned about potential pollution of farmland, forests, and water sources. In 2022, opposition efforts led the Serbian government to revoke Rio Tinto’s initial planning permit. This decision was overturned in July by the Serbian Constitutional Court, reigniting public demonstrations.
The controversy intensified following a July publication in Scientific Reports, which reported high levels of arsenic, boron, and lithium in water downstream from the mine’s test wells. The researchers warned that the mine could threaten local biodiversity and the livelihoods of communities dependent on agriculture and forestry. In response, Rio Tinto Chief Scientist Nigel Steward and three researchers from the University of Belgrade have criticized the paper for errors and lack of rigor. They argue that the paper should be retracted or significantly corrected.
The main criticisms include the lack of baseline data on metal levels in soil and water before exploration, which the company argues could mean elevated levels might be a “natural phenomenon.” Additionally, the paper’s estimation of the project area’s size is disputed; the authors cited figures of 2031 to 2431 hectares, while the actual planned area is 388 hectares. They also criticized the paper for including unsupported references.
Jovan Tadić, a chemist and co-author of the study, countered that the claim of insufficient rigor is unfounded. He explained that their study underwent two rounds of peer review and relied on solid evidence, including comparisons of upstream and downstream samples. He also noted that differing interpretations of “coverage” might explain discrepancies regarding the site’s size.
The Scientific Reports team has addressed some of Rio Tinto’s concerns and agreed to make corrections where necessary. The journal’s chief editor, Rafal Marszalek, confirmed that the paper is under review.
Mark Macklin, a river scientist at the University of Lincoln, acknowledged minor inaccuracies but believes a retraction is unnecessary. He expressed surprise at Rio Tinto’s approach, which he found overly critical of small errors. Conversely, Karen Hudson-Edwards, an environmental geochemist at the University of Exeter, supports Rio Tinto’s critiques, arguing that the study lacks sufficient sampling and baseline data for a rigorous assessment.
Rio Tinto maintains that it has collected baseline data as part of its environmental impact assessment and asserts that the Jadar Project can be developed safely. The company continues to seek engagement with critics and remains open to fact-based dialogue.
Prime Minister Miloš Vučević has emphasized the need for firm guarantees on safety and environmental protection before proceeding with the project, stating on social media that “nothing will be done until we receive firm guarantees that the excavation will be safe and secure.”
The controversy highlights the broader issue of gaining “social license” for mining projects. Ivana Živojinović, a researcher at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, notes that local communities were not sufficiently involved in the planning process, leading to mistrust and concerns about their livelihoods and cultural heritage. She advocates for deeper community engagement and participation in mining projects.
