Serbia has recently adopted plans and strategies to combat climate change and environmental pollution, but these documents remain vague and lack concrete actions, with revisions already anticipated, reports Demostat. The country’s coal power plants are outdated—built 45 to 50 years ago, poorly maintained, using low-quality lignite with an energy efficiency of only 29-30%.
In late 2021, unusually warm weather coincided with severe air pollution in Belgrade, initially blamed on individual heating sources, though experts pointed to poor-quality coal and sludge burned in nearby thermal power plants. Subsequent equipment failures at the coal-fired plants exposed shortages and inefficiencies, forcing reliance on expensive gas and imported electricity, which cost Serbia around one billion euros.
Despite these problems, both the public power utility EPS and the private sector have made few investments in renewable energy, missing opportunities as Europe pushes for fossil fuel phase-out by 2050 through the European Green Deal. Serbia has signed regional agreements like the Western Balkans Green Agenda but has yet to make significant progress toward restructuring its energy sector.
The Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (INEKP) adopted last year outlines goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions but falls short of achieving full climate neutrality by 2050. Current plans envision only an 80-90% reduction from 1990 levels and lack clear, enforceable measures. Experts warn that existing coal plants operate without proper environmental permits and fail to meet pollution standards, with investments like desulfurization plants proving insufficient.
The state’s energy and climate policies are misaligned, balancing between ensuring energy security and reducing emissions. This has resulted in delays and uncertainty regarding the shutdown of coal plants, with some now projected to operate until 2030 instead of 2023 as initially planned.
Experts highlight Serbia’s significant potential to improve energy efficiency—currently one of the worst in Europe—by optimizing transport, industry, and household energy use. However, structural problems persist due to aging coal infrastructure, limited renewable energy capacity (only 21-23%), and stalled projects like the reversible hydroelectric plant Bistrica.
Reducing coal use remains challenging due to its high emissions of CO2, sulfur oxides, and other pollutants. Cleaner coal technologies with higher efficiency and improved environmental controls could help, but broader adoption of renewables and possibly gas-fired plants (despite Serbia’s heavy reliance on gas imports) will be necessary. Reforestation and better environmental management, including soil reclamation from mining sites, are also critical.
Funding previously allocated for environmental rehabilitation is now often redirected to unrelated municipal expenses, weakening efforts to mitigate pollution. Experts call for stronger application of the “polluter pays” principle and investment in clean production methods, emphasizing that Serbia must balance its energy needs with urgent climate goals to avoid ecological and economic risks.
