A proposed lithium mine in Jadar, Serbia, has generated fresh controversy after scientists affiliated with the mining company Rio Tinto called for the retraction of a paper that claims the company’s exploratory drilling has caused environmental contamination.
The $2.4 billion mining project, which Serbian leaders say could start operating as soon as 2028, would meet most of the European Union’s demand for lithium, a key component in batteries for electric vehicles. But it has also prompted widespread protests by Serbs, who worry mining activities will pollute surrounding areas of farmland, forest, and water. In 2022, the opposition prompted the Serbian government to revoke Rio Tinto’s initial planning permit. But that decision was overturned in July by the Serbian Constitutional Court, sparking renewed protests.
The fears were bolstered by a Scientific Reports paper published in July, in which scientists reported finding high levels of arsenic, boron, and lithium in the water downstream of the mine’s test wells. The researchers concluded the mine could endanger biodiversity as well as the livelihoods of the local community, which is heavily reliant on agriculture and forestry.
But in a letter to the journal editor, published on 19 August, Rio Tinto Chief Scientist Nigel Steward and three University of Belgrade researchers who conducted the company’s environmental impact assessments say the paper contains errors and lacks rigor. It should be retracted or “significantly” corrected, they write.
Chief among their complaints is that the Scientific Reports team did not provide baseline data on metal levels in soil and water before exploration; the elevated levels of these elements could be a “natural phenomenon,” the company scientists say. The authors also misstate the size of the project area, according to the letter, claiming it would be between 2031 and 2431 hectares, when it was planned to be only 388 hectares, and include references that do not support the statements they were linked to.
Jovan Tadić, a chemist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and an author of the paper, wrote in an email to Science that the claim of a lack of rigor is “baseless. … If Rio Tinto wishes to publish a different study, they are welcome to do so. Our study underwent two rounds of peer review and is based on solid evidence.” He adds that the dispute over the size of the site is due to “varying interpretations of what ‘coverage’ actually represents.”
His team relied on government and scientific publications to produce its estimate, he says, rather than Rio Tinto’s draft environmental impact assessments, which contain legal disclaimers stating the information may not be reliable. To get around the problem of not having baseline data, he and his colleagues compared samples upstream and downstream of the test wells, he adds, finding substantially higher levels downstream.
The group has responded to the journal, addressing Rio Tinto’s criticisms and agreeing to make some corrections, such as adding references to support certain statements. Rafal Marszalek, chief editor of Scientific Reports, said in a statement to Science that the journal is “looking into [the paper] carefully, following an established process.”
The paper has some minor inaccuracies that may warrant corrections, says Mark Macklin, a river scientist at the University of Lincoln, but a retraction isn’t necessary: “I don’t think you should throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Macklin—who consulted for Rio Tinto in the 1990s—says he is surprised by the company’s somewhat “heavy-handed” approach, and their focus on small errors, such as pointing out that the mine’s projected annual production of lithium carbonate is 58,000 tons per year, rather than the 50,000 stated in the paper.
But Karen Hudson-Edwards, an environmental geochemist at the University of Exeter, agrees with Rio Tinto’s critiques. The authors “didn’t collect nearly enough samples to make a rigorous assessment,” she says, and are “overinterpreting the data that they have.” Without baseline data or much wider sampling, it’s difficult to understand what the natural chemistry of the area is like. Macklin says any current contamination could stem from a 2014 mining disaster, which should be ruled out as a factor before concluding that the new exploration is to blame.
Steward did not reply to written questions by time of publication. But a representative of Rio Tinto wrote in an email to Science that the company had gathered baseline data as part of its environmental impact assessment, and their research shows “that the Jadar Project can be developed safely.” The company has repeatedly tried to engage with critics including Dragana Đorđević, lead author of the Scientific Reports paper, and remains “open for a fact-based dialogue with all,” the representative wrote. Đorđević did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
On 28 August, Prime Minister Miloš Vučević posted on the social media platform X that “nothing will be done until we receive firm guarantees that the excavation will be safe and secure, that our people will be safe, our land healthy, and the air and water clean.”
That might not end the controversy. Mining companies need “social license,” or assent from local communities, says Ivana Živojinović, who studies land use conflicts at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. Živojinović and her colleagues found locals were not involved in the process from the beginning, which created mistrust as well as fear for their livelihoods and cultural heritage. Mining projects need “profound interaction and participation of the people,” she says. “I think this part is missing.”
More: https://www.science.org/content/article/proposed-lithium-mine-serbia-triggers-publication-dispute
