If there is a chance to process the ore where it is mined, it is of course better for us than to bring it “out of the country” because it means new jobs. But every part of the process must be carried out in compliance with environmental standards. Such a question should be seriously considered, which means the calculation of benefits and damages, it is not a decision that is made in one afternoon, but an impact study (on the environment) must be done, the market situation must be seen, and logical discussions must be held, said academic and geologist Vladica Cvetkovic in the show “Half an hour of Demostat”, when asked how he comments on the possibility that lithium ore that would eventually be mined in Serbia should not be exported, but processed here, this will be accompanied by the opening of a factory for the production of lithium batteries and electric cars in one area in our country.

Our interlocutor, who is a regular member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) and a full professor at the Faculty of Mining and Geology in Belgrade, points out that at the gathering organized in SANU called “Project Jadar-what is known”, he heard some “completely contradictory things that I do not even have to be expert in order to see the contradiction”. As he specifies, in the same lecture, the thesis was presented that lithium will fall in price, it will be replaced by sodium in the batteries, and they (Rio Tinto company) will dig everything up and leave, as well as the claim that there is a possibility that lithium price will triple in the next five to ten years, and that we will be “tightened” by contracts so that we can not increase profit for the state, but we will only take ore rent while the company will get  rich even more.

- A lot of this is used as an anti-mining story. There is a lamentation about ore rent and how we will “get only ore rent”, and how, eventually, there will be new jobs and activities that will increase our GDP, but “all this is nothing compared to what the company will get”, this is the same story for the Chinese and Zijin in Bor. However, you have to think about alternatives - if your alternative is to keep the ore deposit in the ground, you live in a meadow and never extract ore from that large deposit, but then there is no whining when your tomatoes have no one to buy. Of course, I would be very unhappy if any ore is extracted only for ore rent, Cvetkovic points out.

Commenting on the fact that Rio Tintos Jadar project was followed by numerous misinformation in Serbia, Demostats interlocutor says that “the first thing that comes at the expense of the company itself - it is a communication strategy, they did not have it, they made initial mistakes in that non-transparency, by inertia, since it is a large company, they did not understand the peculiarity of our public space and they performed here as well as in some other places. However, this would have worked, and if they had been more transparent, because there was a social process here – if it weren’t for Rio Tinto, it would have been some other form, probably it would have been something different about the environmental issue”.

- You had until then Vucics government that manipulated peoples fear very clearly and all the levers of that fear he had already taken over - so you have neighbours who “scare” you, and Vucic says: “I will defend you from them”, you have a pandemic, he says: “I will cure you, here, I bring respirators”, when hunger is mentioned, “I will feed you. So, Vucic had already taken over all these topics, by the time this appeared, it was too late for him to take over that, and then that the other side took over, and these were the first political victories against him. I think its an excessive use of force, because its becoming socially useless. From the resistance to one project came a completely mindless agenda to seek a ban on boron and lithium research in the whole of Serbia, by first asking the spinning public opinion, the frightened ignorant people if they like lithium.I can say first hand that lithium is no more toxic or problematic than other metals that are being exploited, even you have much, much more dangerous metals that can cause a big problem for the environment. Public opinion cannot "nuance" it, because it is frightened by boron and lithium .I was angry with my colleagues in the academic community, they did not distance themselves from it. I dont mind them opposing a specific project, they just had to fence off. So, at the gathering in Sanaa, it was stated that we do not know much about the Jadar project... it is not the fault of Savo Manojlovic, who deals with politics, he is very ambitious, but those who participated in that gathering should say: the conclusion is that the Jadar project is non-transparent and that one cannot go to the exploitation of lithium until more is known about the project, do not use it for anything else”. The participation of these people in anti-terrorist hysteria is visible to me, and I did not present any information about that project that helped Rio Tinto I just want to make sure that I have the right answer, Cvetkovic said.

According to academic Vladica Cvetkovic, “it is a general shame” that the study of the impact of the Jadar project on the environment has not been disclosed. In this context, he notes that “we immediately came up with anti-project rhetoric”, which implied the position:”No, we dont need an impact study”.

“There is no geology law anywhere without an environmental impact study, it is necessary to move from the exploration phase to the exploitation phase. There are several projects in Europe that are in an advanced phase, for example” Barroso “in Portugal. In Germany, too, there is a project where a license for the exploitation of lithium was obtained. But here in our country first there was intimidation, for example, it was claimed:” all countries give up mining, we will be just a colony". Fear is already widespread and someone who wanted to talk about it in an argumentative way is immediately declared a lobbyist, Cvetkovic said.

The interlocutor of Demostat denies claims that he is “a lobbyist for Rio Tinto". "This, of course, is not true, because I did not present any information about the project in any text, in any of my performances, for a very simple reason – I do not know those data, I did not work on that project, on any part of it. Believe me, I did not even try to get into all the details of the project, but I saw that anti-terrorist hysteria was arising on that basis, and I started fighting it, not to "enter" the project, nor to defend it," Cvetkovic points out.

Explaining the phenomenon he calls "eco-populism“, Vladica Cvetkovic states that it is dangerous to plant clips in one sector (mining), and, ”on the other hand, demanding that such a project be transparent is something that no smart person could have anything against".

-What is the mechanism of anti-mental hysteriac - the narrative against Rio Tinto, which is in many ways correct, was used to collect cheap points, with the people, and in the end we came to the point that a group that was politically quite promising started formulating their political demands on the basis of public opinion polls, so then I wonder how we will enter any enlightenment if we ask the people what they want and then formulate our political agenda... The problem is that the green agenda is reduced to that part of the narrative that is easily “glued” to nationalism and implemented with a tool called populism. Populism, therefore, is built on topics such as "our forests, our rivers", Cvetkovic says.

Our interlocutor notes that in the case of all mining projects, whether they are domestic or foreign companies, they must comply with environmental standards, i.e. strive for what is called “environmentally sustainable”, or “green mining”.

"There were always requirements regarding respect for the environment, but these requirements were low, very poorly controlled, I do not know the direct data, I did not deal with the history of mining, but I know that every investor looked to spend minimally on it and to somehow get around it as much as possible. You in all parts of Serbia have the remains of mining, from antiquity, and even those ancients left some ecological consequences. There is no such industry anymore. It does not work under the same conditions, including mining, and now it is all a matter of control and the fact is that we live in a country in which we do not trust. We dont know even how much the monument costs, and we should believe that the authorities will be able to control one big company. Thats all true, but for me it is not an excuse to take the populism used by eco-populists and selectively “beat” it around. Environmental standards are now high, and we need to tell all companies that the time has passed for that profit, not only from the 19th century, but from the beginning of the 21st century. So, if it is worth, work with less profit, if it is not worth it, do not work, because we cannot otherwise agree to it, says Vladica Cvetkovic.

The debate must be held at different levels

Cvetkovic notes that the discussion of mining projects must be conducted “in nuances, in layers, at different levels”. “I have been on the side of mining from the beginning, among other things, because the opponents are so incapable of conversation that it irritates me, and, on the other hand, because I know that industrial development, in general economic development, I heard this from economists, is impossible with low-profit branches, but you have to do it with something that is a much more serious thing. A deposit of such an area with a critical raw material such as lithium cannot stay underground, that is one logical thing, but it is up to us  decide who will do it and under which conditions. Before making such a decision, which is a completely legitimate issue, we need to talk, says our interlocutor.

People trust the scientists who tell them what they want to hear

Vladica Cvetkovic is not optimistic that public opinion in Serbia will become more favorable towards mining. Asked to comment on Demostats research finding that Serbian citizens trust scientists the most and politicians the least, this academic says: “it doesnt give me hope. They trust most scientists who say what public opinion wants to hear".