The Draft Law on Geological Exploration, which is in the parliamentary procedure, does not contain strict criteria for geophysical soil testing, which would determine the seismic parameters of the location. These parameters are particularly important due to the seismicity of the coastal and central parts of Montenegro, as indicated by the experience of the devastating earthquake in April 1979, after which the seismic regulations here were among the strictest in Europe.
Experts for the Center for Investigative Reporting of Montenegro (CIN-CG) are questioning why the rules magically disappeared from the Law overnight and what happened from the public debate to the Government's proposal, if it is not about benefits for investors for future mega projects.
Experts warn that the proposed solution by the Ministry of Energy and Mining (MEIR) could have serious consequences in the event of a major earthquake. The new law comes at a time when the state is planning concessions and large infrastructure projects, and the proposed solutions, as many argue, would be a relief for investors, but would expose cities to greater seismic risk.
It is surprising that all of this is happening at a time when numerous regulations are being rapidly harmonized for the purpose of integration with the EU, and Europe is introducing even stricter rules for soil research in this area for the purposes of seismically safe design of buildings.
It is particularly questionable how the legal changes would affect an area such as Velika Plaza, where major investment projects have already been announced. This area is one of the most risky for protection from an earthquake perspective.
Geophysicist Dr. Branislav Glavatović explains to CIN-CG that recent geophysical and geotechnical research at the Velika Plaza location near Ulcinj has shown that the soil, composed of sand, gravel, and silt, has significant liquefaction potential, or the danger of so-called soil flow during stronger earthquakes.
"The application of the proposed legal solution in the event of stronger earthquakes could result in tilting, uneven subsidence, sinking and further damage to buildings, certainly endangering the lives of people inside them. The new legal solution will not require determining such soil properties, so it is not clear who in all this could have such an interest and, ultimately, who is allowed to accept such a risk and endanger public safety, except, of course, investors," Glavatović points out.
An expert, who wished to remain anonymous, warns CIN-CG that in the Velika Plaza area, the earthquake could gain a strong acceleration if the seismic wave reaches the sand.
"It's like quicksand, it turns into liquid. Construction there is very risky and expensive. You can't build a 30-story skyscraper there, this is not Abu Dhabi, this is a very earthquake-prone area," he says.
He adds that every beach in that area, from Buljarica and Jaz to the part around Bar, would be risky for construction without soil testing rules.
It is in these areas that the Government is trying to attract large investors, from Mohamed Alabara and so on.
Glavatović warns that removing this provision could be a disservice to serious companies, which build when they have quality soil research behind them, while in practice, when there are no clear guidelines, for safety reasons, sometimes twice as much material for seismic protection has to be used. However, this does not apply to investors who want to complete facilities with as little money as possible, and there are many of them, he warns.
Tamara Beko, a civil engineer with two decades of experience, tells CIN-CG that geotechnical surveys should be mandatory.
"Of course, everything depends on the size, number of floors and purpose of the buildings. To date, favorable locations have been used for the construction of buildings, considering that the construction boom has been going on since the early 2000s. The rest are mostly exclusive, but very demanding locations in terms of building construction, which makes geotechnical research necessary...".
The changes are not in line with European rules.
Experts warn that the proposed solutions are not precise enough to meet the requirements of Eurocode 8, the European standard for the design of structures in seismic areas. This standard requires that the soil characteristics and seismic parameters of the site be determined before design, which is often done through geophysical and geotechnical surveys.
Critics warn that the law leaves the possibility of determining the scope of research later, which could lead to design without sufficiently reliable data on the subsoil, especially in a country with a high seismic risk.
Glavatović points out that this creates a serious formal and practical collision with Eurocode 8, which Montenegro has also adopted as a mandatory standard, in an identical form.
"Recently, the very complex and extensive work of a special, expert European commission has been completed, which has prepared a set of improved second-generation Eurocodes, which will be implemented in the legislation of all European Union countries. The second-generation Eurocodes additionally emphasize the importance and obligation of local soil research for the purposes of seismically safe design of buildings. The Union countries will be obliged to start implementing the innovated standards by 2028, precisely at the moment when Montenegro plans to join that large community," emphasizes Glavatović.
The Ministry refers to solutions from neighboring countries
"The goal of the Bill is not to put investments ahead of safety, but to establish a clear, efficient and modern regulatory framework that simultaneously enables development projects, while fully respecting all safety, professional and spatial protection standards," the Ministry of Energy and Mining told CIN-CG.
From the department he heads Admir Šahmanović They state that protecting the public interest, citizen safety, and respecting professional standards is an absolute priority.
The Ministry does not answer the question of how they will comply with Eurocode 8, which clearly stipulates the obligation to collect reliable soil data, but instead refers to regional solutions.
"After consultations with the professional community, the legislator took the approach applied by neighboring countries located in the same or similar seismic zone, which is to regulate the methods of detailed geological research by a bylaw," said Šahmanović's department.
The Ministry claims that mandatory detailed geophysical surveys have not been removed from the Draft Law, because the current Law does not recognize this category as a specifically defined norm. They state that design standards in seismically risky areas, including European standards, are regulated by special regulations and technical acts. This is precisely what experts criticize, because they believe that key obligations should be in the law, and not left to later acts.
The Ministry claims that spatial protection has been further improved with the new Proposal:
"The permit for detailed geological research contains environmental protection measures. It also stipulates the obligation to obtain the opinion of the competent authorities if the research affects nature and groundwater."
When the obligation is not explicit...
The new Draft Law on Geological Research does not formally abolish seismic safety, but, according to CIN-CG interlocutors, it weakens it in the most important part: it no longer prescribes a clear legal obligation for geophysical surveys to determine the design seismic parameters of a location.
"When such an obligation is no longer explicit, there is a growing space for different interpretations, weaker practice, and a greater risk that facilities will be designed with insufficiently reliable soil data," says Glavatović.
Some experts warn that in a country with a high seismic risk, the scope of soil research should not be allowed to depend on the investor's assessment.
The core dispute is whether obligations should be clearly prescribed by law, or left to bylaws and ministerial decisions. Critics believe that such a model may be simpler for investors, but riskier for the public interest, especially for large construction and mining projects.
"The Draft Law clearly prescribed a special obligation for detailed geophysical soil surveys to determine the seismic parameters of the location, while the Proposal mentions seismic and seismological properties of the soil, but no longer contains a clear legal norm that the investor must obtain this data precisely through mandatory detailed geophysical surveys to determine the project seismic parameters of the location. Thus, the Draft Law leaves more room for arbitrary interpretation, and that is certainly not good when it comes to seismic safety," says Glavatović.
The new Proposal leaves the Ministry the option to subsequently regulate detailed geological surveys of soil and rocks, but also the type and scope of the surveys. Thus, the key safety obligation of investors is lowered from the level of law to the level of by-laws.
The change came after a public debate.
The new Law on Geological Exploration was established by the Government at the end of December 2025, after a public debate and numerous comments from the professional community. The law has been submitted to the parliamentary procedure, but, according to the Ministry, it has not yet been adopted.
One of the most controversial provisions related to mandatory geophysical soil surveys. Some participants in the public debate warned that such an obligation would increase construction costs and slow down investments, especially for smaller facilities. After the debate, the Government changed the solutions, so the obligation was not maintained in its original scope.
This, however, does not resolve the main dilemma: whether there will be sufficiently clear rules to guarantee the safety of facilities in a seismically active country. Critics warn that the law leaves key issues - when surveys are mandatory, who conducts them and under what conditions - to the Ministry's regulations, rather than clearly stipulating them in the law itself.
Some experts called for a more precise formulation to avoid unnecessary costs and different interpretations. Others warned that in a seismically risky country, the scope of research should not be determined arbitrarily, as Eurocode 8 requires reliable data on soil characteristics.
Another concern is that not all objections to stricter protection of sensitive areas have been accepted. The ministry believes it can revoke the approval later if a problem arises, while critics warn that this is weaker protection than a clear preventive ban.
Risk greater than 1979.
The devastating earthquake of 1979 is still a key reminder of the high seismic risk in Montenegro. The issue of soil investigation therefore directly affects the safety of construction.
The 2023 earthquake in Turkey, when a large number of newer buildings collapsed due to non-compliance with earthquake protection regulations, was also a warning, with tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the arrests of those involved in the construction of the buildings that collapsed. The series of earthquakes in Albania was also a warning.
After the 1979 earthquake, the concept of integrated planning was introduced in Montenegro in the 1980s, with the help of Yugoslav and international experts. This concept was recommended by the UNDP as an exemplary model for the Mediterranean region.
Since the early 1990s, however, sensible planning concepts have been abandoned. The consequences are urban chaos in Podgorica and on the coast, which is now spreading north, as well as the construction of apartment blocks on landslides and marshy land.
Professor at the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Podgorica Srđan Janković warned almost a decade ago that the seismic risk today is greater than in 1979.
"Today, a similar earthquake to that in 1979 would cause a significantly higher number of victims and significantly greater material damage," Janković warned at the time.
He confirms this for CIN-CG and emphasizes that everything should be done to reduce the existing risk.
"If the rules are followed and respected, there should be no problems. Buildings being built today should be safer than those built in the past. We need to educate and develop public awareness that we are an earthquake-prone area and that there is this seismic risk," Janković emphasizes.
Beko says that the regulations should be adhered to by all stakeholders in the construction product, starting with investors, designers, auditors, contractors, inspection services and technical acceptance.
"Awareness of seismic and gravitational impacts is very scarce, mostly dominated by various 'marketplace' stories, financially favorable for investors, supported by Google search engines and artificial intelligence," says Beko, warning that "control of the application of seismic norms is beyond real control, mainly reduced to the awareness and knowledge of participants in the construction product."
From a technical issue to criminal liability
According to the Montenegrin Criminal Code, improper design, inspection, supervision and construction of structures that endanger life and property by their demolition are treated as criminal offenses against public safety. When the omissions lead to serious consequences, including the death of one or more persons, the law provides for prison sentences of up to 12 years. If it is an organized act of several participants, it can also be considered a criminal offense of criminal association.
Advocacy Vesna i Sonja Čejović from Bar warn in their analysis that the statute of limitations for such crimes does not run from the moment of the design or construction error, but from the moment of the consequence, the demolition of the building or damage. This means that planning and construction errors can become the subject of criminal liability even decades later, if it is shown that they led to consequences for life and property.
Responsibility cannot be reduced to a single participant in the construction process. Designers, auditors, contractors and professional supervision can be held liable if they do not act in accordance with regulations and technical rules. In addition, the law also provides for compensation for material and non-material damage.
Italy as a warning
The experience of Italy shows that the consequences of a devastating earthquake do not end with ruins, but continue through legal proceedings and determination of responsibility, emphasize the lawyers Čejović. After the earthquake in L'Aquila in 2009, proceedings were conducted against the entire chain of participants, from local officials and designers, to experts who participated in the risk assessment.
These processes have shown, the Čejović sisters point out, that in cases of major disasters, the explanation of "force majeure" is not accepted if it is determined that there were shortcomings in planning, design or risk assessment.
Responsibility, they add, does not stop with the investor or contractor. If facilities were designed without reliable soil data, if institutions issued permits without adequate control, or if urban planning decisions ignored known risks, responsibility extends to all participants in the system. Therefore, geological and geophysical surveys are not just a technical step, but the basis for the safety of the entire project.
The analysis recalls that after the 1979 earthquake, Montenegro had clear guidelines for construction in seismically active zones, including micro-seismic zoning and restrictions on construction in risky terrain. Over time, however, these rules were pushed aside in the face of urbanization, increasing number of storeys, and investment pressures.
It is particularly emphasized that the safety of structures depends not only on the quality of the construction, but also on the characteristics of the soil and location. On unfavorable terrain, near water, on muddy layers and in conditions of so-called "soil dying", even technically well-constructed structures can suffer serious damage. Without quality geological and geophysical research, even the strictest design standards cannot guarantee safety.
Urban planning can also directly affect the number of victims in the event of an earthquake. Excessive building density, small distances between buildings and narrow access roads can make rescue operations more difficult and increase the consequences of collapse. Therefore, seismic safety is not only a technical issue, but also a public policy issue.
The message of the analysis is that risk does not disappear if it is made less visible in laws, plans or procedures. It remains hidden until it is revealed through consequences, and then it is too late to discuss what should have been investigated, checked or banned earlier.
Hundreds of thousands of earthquakes in the last five centuries
The website of the Institute for Hydrometeorology and Seismology (IZH) states that, based on registered earthquakes over the past five centuries, the area of Montenegro and the wider region can be considered a zone of high seismic hazard.
"During the aforementioned period, hundreds of thousands of earthquakes were recorded, some of which were extremely strong, with devastating and catastrophic consequences on the surface," the ZHS website states.
The ZHS recalls a series of strong earthquakes between the 15th and 17th centuries, including the 1667 earthquake near Dubrovnik, which devastated Dubrovnik and the Bay of Kotor. It also mentions a strong earthquake in 1905 in the border area with Albania, which caused destruction around Shkodra and the collapse of buildings in Podgorica.
The most powerful earthquake recorded in the 20th century in the southern Dinarides was the earthquake of April 15, 1979. It occurred at 7:19 a.m., had a magnitude of 7,2 on the Richter scale and an intensity of 9 on the Mercalli scale, affected the Montenegrin coast and northern Albania, and caused numerous casualties and extensive material damage. 101 people died in Montenegro and 35 in Albania, about 600 were injured, and more than 80 thousand people were left homeless.
According to the ZHS, the historical seismicity map for the period 1444-2023 shows that the coastal belt of Montenegro is significantly more seismically active than the interior. The seismogenic zones of Ulcinj, Budva, Boka Kotorska and Skadar Lake stand out in particular, which have generated strong earthquakes in the past. The interior is calmer, with deviations in the zones of Piva, Berane and Plav.
Seismic hazard "measured" back in 1982.
The macroseismic regionalization of Montenegro was done in 1982. The seismic regionalization map was developed by the then Republic Seismological Institute of Montenegro, in cooperation with the Institute for Geological Research of Montenegro and the Institute for Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology from Skopje.
The map of expected intensities for the 200-year return period highlights several active and potentially active seismogenic zones: the southern, coastal region, Ulcinj-Shkodar, Budva and Boka Kotorska zones, with a possible maximum intensity of nine degrees on the MCS scale; the Podgorica-Danilovgrad zone with a possible maximum intensity of eight degrees on the MCS scale; the central and northern part of Montenegro, including Nikšić, Kolašin, Žabljak and Pljevlja, with a possible maximum intensity of seven degrees on the MCS scale; and the isolated Berane seismogenic zone, which can generate earthquakes with a maximum intensity of eight degrees on the MCS scale.
From a long-term forecast perspective, the longer the earthquake return period, the greater the seismic hazard. This indicates that rare but very strong earthquakes can be expected over a 500-year period.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
