Development of Serbia’s Rogozna gold and base-metals project is facing growing local opposition, while the potential environmental implications for neighbouring Montenegro have not been established.
Strickland targets pre-feasibility study
Australia-listed Strickland Metals, operating through Serbian subsidiary Zlatna Reka Resources, reports 9.25 million ounces of gold-equivalent mineral resources at Rogozna and is targeting completion of a pre-feasibility study in 2027. The company’s investor materials identify Zijin Mining as a strategic investor. The resource estimate includes other metals converted into gold-equivalent terms and does not constitute an estimate of recoverable gold reserves. Further drilling and technical studies are intended to support definition of the potential mining operation, while local residents opposing the project have raised concerns about water supplies, drilling waste and agricultural land.
Environmental complaints over exploration
Environmental organisation Polekol has filed inspection and criminal complaints over suspected failures to implement environmental protection measures at Rogozna. The organisation requested water and soil sampling around allegedly unsecured drilling-mud ponds and called for the company’s exploration authorisation to be withheld or revoked.
Polekol said geological inspectors had identified irregularities and ordered corrective measures. Polekol and the local initiative Ne damo Rogoznu maintain that the reported problems remain unresolved. The complaints do not constitute a final finding of contamination or criminal liability. Zlatna Reka has said Rogozna remains at the advanced geological exploration stage and that it applies environmental monitoring and protection measures prescribed by the authorities.
Exploration approval differs from mining approval
Serbia’s mining ministry said Rogozna had approval for geological exploration rather than mineral extraction. The ministry also said statements made by the company to investors represented commercial assessments and plans and did not constitute government approval for construction of a mine.
The project therefore faces separate questions concerning compliance of current exploration activities with environmental safeguards and whether any future mining proposal could obtain the technical, environmental and regulatory approvals required for construction.
Montenegro’s position remains unconfirmed
Montenegro’s involvement in the Rogozna project remains unconfirmed. Publicly available material did not identify a formal Montenegrin objection, request for a cross-border assessment or announced consultation specifically concerning Rogozna. The geography of the area is also relevant. The Ibar River originates in Montenegro, meaning its Montenegrin section is upstream from the Rogozna region. Ordinary downstream river flows would therefore not transport pollution from Rogozna back toward Montenegro’s upper Ibar.
A significant environmental impact on Montenegro would require an established pathway, such as groundwater connections, airborne emissions, or impacts associated with future infrastructure and waste facilities. The material reviewed does not establish such a pathway. The Espoo Convention provides a framework for notification and consultation when a proposed activity is likely to cause significant adverse transboundary effects. Montenegro could request information and technical discussions if evidence indicated that its territory might be affected. For Rogozna’s investors, resource growth remains linked to further exploration and technical work, while unresolved complaints concerning water and waste management could affect access, permitting and the timetable for progressing from mineral resources to a mine.
