Civil society is sounding the alarm about a deal between Serbia and the European Union (EU) to mine for lithium. The metal is a key ingredient in the batteries that power electric vehicles (EVs), and the EU wants a local source to reduce its dependence on China. The switch to EVs is being promoted as a key part of the EU’s climate transition strategy, but there are economic and political considerations involved, not least the desire to put more distance between Serbia and Russia. Serbia’s increasingly authoritarian government is cracking down on environmental activism. It should respect civic space to ensure a reasoned debate on the climate transition.

Serbia’s environmental activists reacted with dismay at the recent news that their government had struck a deal with the European Union (EU) to mine for lithium. In 2022, they’d scored a victory against an increasingly authoritarian government and mining giant Rio Tinto when the authorities withdrew licences to extract minerals in the Jadar Valley. The decision followed a civil society campaign of mass protests combined with legal action.

But activists always suspected the government was simply waiting until after the next election, held in December 2023, to give the go-ahead to mining. In July, Serbia’s Constitutional Court overturned the government’s decision to cancel the Rio Tinto project, and the EU and Serbia quickly reached an agreement. The mine is due to open in 2028. The announcement was greeted with another round of mass protests involving thousands of people.

Economic and political imperatives

At the heart of the deal is the mineral jadarite, which contains boron and lithium. Lithium plays a key role in electric vehicle (EV) batteries, which is why the EU’s keen to get its hands on it. Recent years have seen a global dash for lithium, as national plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions generally involve switching from oil-powered vehicles to electric ones. The EU has said it wants 30 million EVs on the road by 2030 and plans to ban the sale of new fossil fuel-powered cars in 2035. Lithium mining is presented as part of the green transition.

But mining means environmental harm. Lithium extraction is an intensive process that uses toxic chemicals and huge amounts of water, threatening nearby communities with water shortages and pollution – a major concern in the floodplain of the Jadar Valley, home to around a fifth of Serbia’s agricultural production. People don’t see why their local environment should suffer for the EU to meet its strategic objectives.

The campaign in Serbia highlights some of the dilemmas and potential trade-offs involved in the transition, and the choices being made. There’s more at stake than the EU’s climate strategy: there are strong economic and geopolitical imperatives at play.

The EU doesn’t want to rely on lithium from China, and wants to produce more EVs rather than import the cheap models China churns out, which it’s currently considering imposing tariffs on. This is particularly important for the bloc’s economic powerhouse, Germany, long the EU’s biggest carmaker but whose car companies have been slow to switch to EV production and whose economy is ailing. It’s no coincidence that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz played a leading role in the 19 July Critical Raw Materials Summit, held in Serbia’s capital, Belgrade, where the deal was sealed.

The EU is also looking east, to former Eastern Bloc and Soviet states where it competes for influence with Russia. Serbia’s government has traditionally had warm relations with Russia, and the EU doesn’t want it to drift any further into Vladimir Putin’s orbit. Serbia typically tries to play both sides. For example, it supported a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s all-out war on Ukraine but has consistently resisted calls to impose sanctions, and in 2022 it signed an agreement with Russia to consult each other on foreign policy. Serbia has been a candidate to join the EU since 2012 and welcomes any leverage it can gain with the bloc, which has said little about the government’s authoritarian tendencies and violations of civic freedoms.

Weak safeguards

Serbian civil society groups accuse their government of economic short-termism and corruption. The Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), in power since 2012, blends populism, socially conservative policies and a neoliberal economic stance, pursuing privatisation and a pro-market approach. In 2015, it passed a law declaring mineral extraction, including lithium, to be in Serbia’s strategic interest, making it easier for companies to get permits. The jadarite deposits must seem too good an opportunity to turn down.

Activists say companies linked to the SNS benefit from economic development projects such as the proposed mine, which in turn helps sustain a government that restricts civil society. They also see little potential economic benefit to society as a whole, and clear harm for those who live in the Jadar Valley. They fear one lithium mine will open the door to more.

Campaigners point to the weakness of Serbia’s current environmental safeguards and enforcement mechanisms. This means that while the government and the EU have said they will ensure strong environmental protections, there‘s little confidence these will be upheld in practice. Secrecy makes it hard to hold those involved to account, but test drilling sites have already shown evidence of environmental damage.

Concerns about Rio Tinto are understandable: the company has long been accused of having a grim environmental and human rights record. In Bougainville, an autonomous region of Papua New Guinea, its mining helped kickstart a bloody conflict, and then it dragged its heels for years before acknowledging the environmental damage. In Australia, the company destroyed ancient sacred Indigenous sites to extract iron ore.

Voices from the frontline

Miroslava Nikolić and Žaklina Živković are part of Polekol, a Serbian environmental advocacy group.

 

The Serbian government decided to pursue a lithium mining deal with the EU after years of controversy and protests, largely because it lacks a clear economic strategy. Since the Progressive Party came to power over a decade ago, its focus has been on short-term gains, often through the privatisation of state assets such as companies and natural resources, including land and water. The lithium project is just the latest example of this tendency.

Corruption has also been a driving force, as many of these deals benefit private companies linked to the ruling party, allowing the government to stay in power while disrespecting democratic norms and avoiding accountability.

As for the EU, its interest in Serbian lithium is not just about tackling climate change, but also about broader economic and geopolitical factors. The EU needs lithium to reduce its dependence on Chinese imports for electric car batteries. But in the rush to secure resources for the green transition, corporate interests often overshadow genuine environmental and social concerns, which risks undermining public trust in the process.

In recent years, Serbians have become more aware of environmental issues, and when the full scale of the project became clear, protests began at the local level and quickly grew into a national movement. People realised that this wasn’t just about a mine, but about the future direction of the country. Serbia has the potential for sustainable development, but many fear this will be jeopardised by a shift towards mining.

Local communities, particularly those in agricultural and ecologically rich areas targeted for mining, are determined to protect their way of life. They are living examples of a green transition based on sustainable agriculture rather than heavy mining.

For them, the fight against extractivism is a matter of survival. As they experience firsthand the effects of environmental mismanagement, rural communities are increasingly realising that institutions are failing to protect them.

Nationwide protests successfully raised awareness of the risks of unchecked mining projects and called for a more thoughtful, community-centred approach to development. The movement has also urged the EU to rethink its approach to critical commodities and support the rights of local communities to shape their futures.

The scale and organisation of the protests took the government by surprise. It wasn’t expecting such a strong mobilisation, or such a thorough understanding of the legal and environmental issues involved. This helped us win some initial victories, such as stopping some projects and influencing small reforms. But it didn’t last long.

The government has since escalated its response, using harsher measures such as legal harassment and threats of criminal charges. Activists are accused of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order by force, a charge that carries severe penalties. This aggressive approach highlights the government’s unease with the growing influence of civil society and its ability to mobilise public opinion against controversial projects.

 

This is an edited extract of our conversation with Miroslava and Žaklina. Read the full interview here.

Civic space crackdown

Serbia’s civil society has experienced increased repression during the SNS’s long rule. Environmental campaigners have been targeted.

In July, police arrested and charged seven activists who’d blocked a railway line in the city of Loznica, close to the planned mine. They were accused of blocking traffic through dangerous means and assaulting police officers, which they deny. In August, three activists who also blocked a railway line in Belgrade as part of a mass protest were jailed for several weeks before being released on appeal.

President Aleksandar Vučić piled on the pressure, describing protests that blocked railways and roads as violent and calling them ‘terror of the minority over the majority’, while Prime Minister Miloš Vučević accused protesters of ‘endangering Serbia’. On 1 September, thousands protested outside state TV headquarters to call out the government’s crackdown on environmental activism.

Elsewhere in Serbia, environmental campaigners have been arrested for trying to prevent tree felling, while others have been beaten and harassed by police and threatened and vilified by officials. Other environmental protests have been met with an intimidating police presence.

The state’s authoritarian tendencies aren’t reserved just for environmental activists. LGBTQI+ people are in the firing line too. In 2022, Vučić tried to ban the EuroPride gathering in Belgrade. The authorities also routinely harass and intimidate independent journalists. Nationalist, far-right and ultra-conservative anti-rights groups have flourished on the SNS’s watch, often taking an explicitly pro-Russia stance and attacking civil society. The party and its many affiliated media outlets routinely call civil society ‘traitors’ and ‘foreign mercenaries’.

Need for alternatives

In difficult circumstances, Serbian civil society continues resisting exploitation of the Jadar Valley, including through protest and legal challenges.

What happens in the Jadar Valley matters beyond Serbia, including in Portugal, which has significant lithium deposits, and Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, which form Latin America’s so-called lithium triangle. In Latin America, extraction often entails human rights abuses.

There are similar issues with other minerals needed in the EV supply chain, including cobalt. Cobalt miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo live and work in conditions of modern slavery. Then there’s nickel: in Indonesia, home to the largest reserves, water sources close to mines are riddled with carcinogenic pollution.

The case of Serbia shows that alternatives to environmental destruction in the pursuit of supposedly green goals need to be considered. It can’t just be about replacing fossil fuel-powered cars with EVs – which may be powered by electricity generated by non-renewable means. Other alternatives should be on the table, such as improving and promoting public transport, encouraging active travel such as cycling and walking and positioning amenities in more convenient locations.

And then there’s the batteries themselves. Lithium batteries degrade, but there’s little recycling of the metal because it’s currently cheaper to mine for fresh lithium than recycle existing supplies – a sign of how climate and economic imperatives don’t necessarily align. Used batteries are incinerated or dumped in landfills. However, research is progressing on sodium-based batteries, which would be cheaper and more sustainable than lithium-based ones.

Perhaps a combination of these alternatives could be adopted. What should be clear is that a rush to extract lithium at all costs isn’t the only way to tackle the climate crisis. More sustainable economic models, less based on extraction and consumption, should be up for discussion – and civil society should be free to advocate for them.

OUR CALLS FOR ACTION

  • The Serbian government must stop vilifying civil society and independent journalists and commit to enabling them to play their proper role in holding the government to account, including over environmental issues.
  • The European Union must commit to pressuring the Serbia government to do more to respect human rights, civic space and environmental regulations.
  • Governments in countries with lithium deposits should commit to full and inclusive dialogue with local communities and agree to respect rights and deliver local benefits before proceeding with any development.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Cover photo by Marko Djokovic/AFP via Getty Images