Mining in Serbia has become a frequent topic of public debate. Unfortunately, it is often highly politicized. Yet mining is much more than a protest for or against Rio Tinto. Biljana Abolmasov, dean of the Faculty of Mining and Geology, speaks for "Vreme" about the problems faced by the Faculty of Mining and Geology, the future of mining in Serbia, missed opportunities, excavation in the Jadra valley and the reconciliation of economic and ecological interests.
"WEATHER" When we talk about Mining-geological faculty, we are talking about an important institution, with a long tradition. Yet, every year we witness a decreasing number of students. Why is that so?
BILJANA ABOLMASOV: In the last eight years, practically since 2016, we have been faced with a drastic drop in the number of students enrolled at the Faculty of Mining and Geology. However, it seems to me that this is not only our problem, but that in general technical faculties and those dealing with fundamental research such as physics, chemistry and mathematics have a decline in the number of enrolled students. Technical faculties require much more time spent on the book, and our faculty, like all other technical faculties, is difficult, and the graduates are engaged in responsible work in the economy, and this is probably one of the reasons for the disinterest of young people. Also, as a country, we are recording a significant decline in the birth rate. On the other hand, the fact is that as a society we need many more students at our faculty and the fact is that we need even better quality students.
In addition to the lack of students, what are the biggest problems of the faculty?
In addition to the lack of students, we also have significant financial-investment-technical problems, that is, problems with the building itself. In two years, the building will be 100 years old; it used to be the barracks of the cavalry regiment, during the Second World War and after the war it was a prison, and in 1946 it became a faculty. The facade is crumbling, the building requires urgent roof repairs, and the faculty simply cannot provide funds for such extensive work. The equipment in the laboratories is outdated or not enough. There are staff at the faculty, so far we still don't have a clear problem that we can't keep young people as assistants, but it will become a problem more often in the future if this trend of financing by the ministry continues. Previously, it was an honor to get a job at the University, to stay as an assistant, and then as a professor, while today you can rarely find young people who will agree to such a thing. Salaries at the University are far less than in the entire sector of the economy, so our best children go to the economy and that is until they finish their master's studies - more often right after their basic studies.
Mining in Serbia is often talked about today. Yet, from what you said, it seems that tomorrow there will be no one to work in mining?
That's my fear too, and I said that at the Faculty Day celebration. With the very small number of enrolled students, as well as the fact that at most thirty percent of them finish their studies within the deadline, it means that in five years there will be no one to work in the mines. I really can't predict who will work. On the other hand, I don't think we should import labor from abroad. I have the impression that even young people are not ready to go and work outside of Belgrade when they graduate from our faculty, even though they know that our work is field work. There are no mines in Belgrade. For example, the company Ziđin offers very favorable employment conditions, but almost no one will agree to go to Bor, which is simply not logical if someone does not have a job. All our graduates who want to work, according to the surveys and statistics we keep, do not look for a job for more than three months.
How many students are we talking about per year??
Between fifty and eighty students in total graduate from the faculty each year at all levels of study and in all study programs, namely three study programs at the mining department and six study programs at the geology department. The drastic problem of the small number of students is, for example, the study program for geophysics, where this year we do not have a single student in the first year. We currently do not have a single seismologist at the Seismological Institute of Serbia. The problem is not only that students will not enroll in geophysics because it is one of the most difficult study programs, but also in the fact that the Seismology Institute of Serbia has very low salaries, so no one will work for that money from the graduates, they go to NIS or the private sector.
How do you see the future of mining in Serbia??
As a country, we have mineral resources and they can be exploited by certain technological procedures, which is a process that takes place in mines. Before that, geologists have to explore said mineral resources, which is the domain of geological research. We have enough resources so that the state can earn decent income from them. I personally think that the integrity of a country today depends on what it has as a country and how independent it is in relation to the various needs of modern society, because we have to import everything we don't have. The crisis caused by the war in Ukraine just showed how sensitive we are as a modern society and how dependent we are on certain resources. The former Yugoslavia was a country where mining was respected as a profession, just as Serbia was traditionally a country where many mineral resources were exploited for centuries. I don't see why mining, and therefore geology, shouldn't be our future.
Does Serbia today have the capacity to explore and mine on its own and with domestic companies?
For me personally, the biggest problem is that we, as a country, were not able to start Bor in the way that Ziđin started it, or that we were not able to start the story of Jadra, or to organize the research of all those deposits that are being explored today . In this way, firstly, we would have more work as a profession, and secondly, significantly more money would remain in our country. Now it is obvious that we did not have enough capacity. This, it seems to me, is something that older generations like me should accept, however much we may not like it. The social system and the entire world economy have changed, and it is obvious that we as a country were not able to adapt financially and do something like that on our own.
When that possibility was lost?
Things changed significantly in the nineties and after that time. When I started working, there were three seals on our geological maps: state secret, top secret and military secret. You were not allowed to be a foreigner working in our profession since you were working with confidential data, as our data was treated at that time. I don't think it's bad that you can now ask me as a dean, or the faculty, what we do in the domain of consulting services, but we get questions that we just want to, we can't answer because of the confidentiality agreement, or we don't have the information that would interest the public.
For example, until twenty years ago you had to ask permission from the military if you wanted to publish a geological map at a congress, while coordinates on maps were not allowed to be displayed at all. Now everything is free, everything is open and allowed. I'm not sure that's always a good thing.
What is your view on Rio Tinto??
If the state misses the opportunity to use and make money from what it has, I don't think it's good, because the economic moment in which you can use it will simply pass. First of all, I am not referring only to lithium, but to all other mineral resources. When this topic is discussed in the media, journalists often don't call us first, but call people who, by their profession, do not deal with mining or geology at all. There are various stories of farmers whose blueberries were consumed in the Jadra valley, but no one tells the whole truth about how and why it happened and whether in that case someone else is to blame, not geological research. Geological research in itself does not pollute the environment, but unprofessionally executed wells without a permit can reach aquifers that have an increased content of harmful substances. At the same time, no mine or any kind of exploitation is present.
Is Rio Tinto some kind of tipping point that started talking about mining?
It is, but in the wrong way. Rio Tinto is identified with politics. If you are for Rio Tinto, then you are for the existing government, and if you are against them, then you are for the opposition. That is completely wrong. At the same time, jadarite research in that area began 20 years ago and was welcomed by the public at that time as a great success of economic importance for our country.
There was no discussion or conversation on this topic from the very beginning.
I don't want to be rude, but with some people it is not even possible to conduct any kind of dialogue. It is difficult to have a dialogue with people who are not from the profession, and think that based on the information they read on the Internet, they know everything, including non-existent technical data. Unfortunately, this also includes certain members of SANU who are currently advocating nuclear power plants, and they are fully aware of the fact that for the last 20 years in Serbia there has been no trained staff to design and work in them.
The fact is that the state did not adopt the spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia, and then the area plan of the city of Loznica was withdrawn in December 2021. The legal basis for any further design is frozen, meaning you have no legal basis to do anything in terms of exploitation. As far as I know, the main mining project is not finished, and neither is the environmental study. There is talk all the time about the project, which is still far from the start of exploitation.
Do you think there will be excavations in the Jadra valley??
I really don't know. It depends at least on our faculty. Geological surveys are tasked with finding resources, and fellow miners should bring them, in the case of the rumored underground exploitation, to the mining facility for exploitation. This is where our work ends. Which plants will be on the surface of the field - from processing technology to machine plants, communication systems and so on, that is no longer our profession. Other professions deal with that.
Where is the greatest risk of pollution?
On the surface of the field, in the very processing and disposal of what is not usable. Exploitation itself is not harmful, the question is how and where the tailings will be disposed of and how much there is, because it must necessarily be there. There is not a single mine in the world that does not have tailings. Additionally, only we and no one else in the world have jadarite, which means that there is no proven technology for its exploitation. Mines in Portugal or Australia cannot be shown as bad examples because they are all surface mining, and here, as far as I know, underground mining is planned. So, the fact is that the design is not finished and I don't think we should speculate any further at this moment.
What is logical for our faculty is that if there is exploitation, young people will come from exactly those regions where exploitation should be carried out to study at the faculty and that it will be their job tomorrow. I don't mean only western Serbia and Jadar. If these young people are not going to protect their country by doing the job they were trained to do, we should not expect the Chinese or anyone else to do it for us. If we as a country cannot be the ones to exploit, then at least we should give our people a chance to work and live a decent life. I am personally against granting professional licenses in our profession to any foreigner.
Do you think that Serbia would have the capacity to mine jadarite itself??
In this economic moment, difficult. It seems to me that it is already too late and that the opportunity has long been missed.
photo: marija janković...
How to reconcile economic and environmental interests in mining?
To begin with, there must be a willingness for one side to even listen to the other. I think that is the beginning of every dialogue, and I am not sure that at this moment there is a real desire for a rational conversation. Both sides in the dialogue must be ready to present arguments of different levels of importance. Certainly the issue of the environment is the most important, but in that dialogue the parties would have to act with real facts, and not with assumptions, or by masking the facts with populist fairy tales. Also, communication on social networks regarding our profession is full of aggression, which does not fit in any way with a country that expects to become a member of the EU and be economically stable, and where our profession will have a significant share in the GDP.
On the other hand, I have the impression that Bor and Majdanpek are not mentioned anywhere near as much as the Jadar project, what is the difference? Gold processing also requires a process that uses large amounts of sulfuric acid, but this is not currently the focus of the media either.
Is the relationship between mining and ecology in the EU different from Serbia??
We have very good laws, we just need to enforce them. However, we have very few mining or geological inspectors. I believe that at least thirty more should be employed. It seems to me that then the situation on the field would change a little. Those people would have to be adequately paid and independent in their decisions. We will necessarily have to harmonize certain items of our law with the laws of the European Union, including the part on mining and geological research, as well as ecology. This would mean that we need to reach a certain level of social awareness and economic development to meet environmental standards. An important aspect is control and monitoring by the state in all places where exploitation is carried out.
Would such a system in the long run lead to a reconciliation of ecology and mining?
It depends on what the ecologists' goal is and how rationally we can all be ecologists together. When on one occasion a stand was set up in New Belgrade with a petition to forever ban lithium mining in Serbia, a large number of civil servants from the surrounding public institutions signed it. Most of them have two cell phones and laptops in their backpacks. It is pure hypocrisy because they will not give up lithium batteries in phones, computers or cars, it would just be good if lithium is not exploited here but somewhere else, for example, in Africa. We must all be ready to make sacrifices if we want to reconcile mining, modern society and ecology.
For the end, what do you think about mineral rent in Serbia?? Is there room to raise it??
Personally, I think there is room to raise the mining rent by some percentage. Of course, it is irrational to expect, as individuals suggest, that it be fifty to fifty percent (company-state) in the current economic circumstances in Serbia. The difference that the state would get by raising the mining rent compared to the current percentages can be invested in mining and geological inspectors, environmental monitoring and its preservation. This would enable us to implement our laws in mining and geology with sufficient personnel, but also to be constantly present in the exploitation fields through modern monitoring techniques, precisely for the sake of environmental protection.
