Deliblatska Pescara: New Law Opens Door to Construction
On August 31, in a package of 59 items and without public debate, Serbia's parliament amended the law: burned forest land can now become a building site for projects of public interest.
Serbia’s National Assembly passed amendments to the Law on Planning and Construction on August 31, changing, among other things, how burned forest land is treated. The changes went through in a single combined debate covering 59 agenda items, with no prior public discussion. Two watchdog groups, Transparency Serbia and RERI, flagged the provision today, September 2, and are calling on the Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure and the lawmakers who voted for it to publicly explain why it was included.
At the center of the dispute is the amended Article 88 of the existing law. It states that forest land where the forest was damaged or destroyed by fire keeps the land use it had before the fire, the use set out in the relevant planning document. On its face, that reads as a safeguard, Transparency Serbia and RERI note. The problem lies in the clause that follows immediately after.
What the Exception Actually Allows
The next clause in the same article carves out an exception to that rule on keeping the original land use. The designated use of burned forest land can be changed if doing so is necessary to carry out a project recognized by law as being of public interest, or to build public infrastructure. A second possible basis for changing the designation is when it follows from the protection and management regime of a protected area, under the law on nature protection. Whether a given project on burned land meets the public interest test is decided by a commission of the Serbian government.
Transparency Serbia and RERI, in a joint statement, warn about what that wording actually does:
“The adopted amendment appears to protect burned forest land, in the Deliblatska Pescara or anywhere else, from a change in land use. At the same time, though, it significantly eases the procedure for turning forest land into building land for a very broad range of projects that the Government of Serbia’s commission can approve. On top of that, nothing stops a proposal for such a project from surfacing only after a catastrophic fire.”
The Provision Was Missing From the Government’s Original Bill
What the two organizations particularly stress is how the provision made its way into the final text. Rules on the use of burned forest land were absent even from the government’s original bill, submitted to parliament on August 7, which dealt with other matters entirely, capital projects such as solar power plants and waste management. It can only be pieced together indirectly that the change entered the final version through an amendment proposed by the parliamentary Committee on Spatial Planning, Transport, Infrastructure and Telecommunications, at a session held on August 26. Construction Minister Aleksandra Sofronijevic backed the amendment at that same session, and all 12 committee members present adopted it unanimously.
Transparency Serbia and RERI say that neither the text of the amendment, nor its explanatory note, nor any information about why the provision was missing from the original bill was available on the National Assembly’s website.
Denials Made Amid the Fires
The amendment was passed while the wildfires that swept through the Deliblatska Pescara during August were still fresh. The area is a first category protected zone and special nature reserve, considered the largest sand desert in Europe. While the fires were still burning, claims surfaced publicly that the damage could be exploited by prospective investors. At the time, Environmental Protection Minister Sara Pavkov and Energy Minister Dubravka Djedovic Handanovic both denied those claims.
Transparency Serbia and RERI argue that the lack of transparency around the legal change does not calm the public but fuels new doubt:
“The lack of transparency in how the authorities handled these legal changes, instead of calming an anxious public, opens the door to new suspicions.”
What the Two Organizations Are Demanding
The two organizations want the Ministry of Construction and the lawmakers who voted for the amendment to give the public a substantiated explanation, including a detailed account of the procedure that would have to be followed to change the designation of forest land that was intact before it burned. They are also calling for public consultations to examine the motives, consequences and risks of the change.
Until that happens, they say, the National Assembly should adopt, on an urgent basis, an amendment delaying the application of the new rule under Article 88. The Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure has not yet publicly responded to the two organizations’ statement, nor has it announced any plan to revisit the provision before it takes full effect.
