By Nafiz Guder and Kerem Okumus
Jan Dusik, former Mınister of Environment of the Czech Republic, was the leading coordinator of environmental issues during the Czech Presidency of the EU in the first half of 2009. Since graduating from the Law School of Charles University in Prague and the University of Oxford, Dusik has headed numerous Czech delegations and regional and global environmental events. On January 20, he was in Ankara, Turkey to attend a conference titled 'Smart Governance: Regulatory Impact Assessment, an event taking place as part of REC Turkey's 'Capacity Building in the Field of Environment' project. After delivering a speech to the assembled audience, Dusik spoke with Green Horizon's Turkish sister publication, Yesil Ufuklar.
Yesil Ufuklar: What do you think generally about the European Union's environmental policies and their implementation?
Jan Dusik: It's a very comprehensive and admirable set of legislation that places European environmental protection standards at a high level. Of course, this has taken a few decades to develop. It doesn't respond to all the current environmental issues, and it's a moving target. You always have to anticipate that today's directives might be different in two or three years' time. Work on the environment is ongoing, and I believe that for countries like the Czech Republic, membership in the European Union means making important environmental improvements, just because this set of European legislation either wouldn't be adopted or would take much longer to implement.
Some targets, such as conservation of biodiversity or limiting carbon emissions, have not been met. Is this because of weak implementation, or are the targets themselves too ambitious?
Sometimes there are targets which represent good intentions, but you find out later that they're impossible to implement, for various reasons. Sometimes it's because the targets are too ambitious, but it's mostly because there's reluctance towards implementation in parts of Europe. It might be possible if everyone has done what they should do, but if you have a mixed picture of implementation, then you have a problem meeting the target set at the beginning. It really is a problem that not every country implements the EU legislation with the same urgency and vigour.
There were some debates before the 2004 EU enlargement in which it was argued that the new member states would decelerate the EU's environmental performance, whether for reasons of culture or infrastructure or whatever. Were such objections justified then or now?
I think there is some division between new and old member states, but sometimes it's exaggerated. You cannot that in ten of ten cases or nine of ten cases that it's the newcomers who would be the troublemakers, or the ones pulling the brake. Of course, the costs of the new legislation are more difficult to bear for the new member states; also, the new member states are still learning about the EU's decision-making procedures, and of how to influence draft European legislation in order to have a balanced outcome. There are cases when the old member states are better off because they're more familiar with how everything works and can use such knowledge to suit their purposes. But I also think that things are changing and progressing. I think a good thing is that new member states have now started to hold the EU rotating presidencies: Slovenia, the Czech Republic and now Hungary. We will have Poland and others, and this provides an opportunity for further integration into the family, rather than to be viewed as someone from Mars, so to speak.
In terms of the European Union and environmental issues, what do you expect to take place in the next ten years? What will be priorities on the agenda?
Of course, climate will be an important and growing part of the agenda. But there are also mounting issues concerning the availability of resources; biodiversity is a serious concern. Technology and innovation: how to use technologies for a better environment. Also, energy efficiency and recycling. I think these are the ways forward, but not in an isolated way. We need to see things in an integrated way. If we modernise, if we want to be competitive in the world, it also means being eco-efficient, being efficient with resources and energy. And this would also bring about a better state of the environment.
What have been the most valuable lessons learned in the past ten years?
There are examples pointing to some difficulties - with biofuels, for example. There was a target for committing to a certain percentage of biofuel use, but it turned out afterwards that the reality wasn't as rosy as the forecast. So sometimes you need to revisit earlier commitments and be either more realistic or more responsive to developments. If I look at the theme of today's conference, that there needs to be proper impact assessments before adopting European legislation - that this reduces the risk of finding out later on that we were unrealistic or that we have created problems elsewhere while trying to regulate area.
After the Copenhagen summit, it seems that the EU took a step backward in leading efforts to combat climate change.
I wouldn't necessarily share this view. Yes, Copenhagen was somewhat of a disappointment. There were very high expectations, and these expectations were not met, for various reasons and from various players. Then the European Union said: Okay, we have our internal legislation, and we are still basically committed to 20 percent reductions individually, and we will go to 30 percent if there is sufficient will from other parties. And that's the stick that the EU is now holding. And now, of course, things agreed to in Copenhagen have been made more specific in Cancun, which I do see as progress. If you compare Cancun to the outcome of Copenhagen, it's still below expectations. But the reality of the Copenhagen results, the Copenhagen Accord, has been largely approved in Cancun. Of course, one side effect of Copenhagen was that the EU was not the world's main decisive power. I mean, we had ambition, we had legislation, we had all the states and heads of governments there, but it wasn't enough. The main result was agreed on between the US and China. And that sends a signal that goes beyond climate and beyond environment, and is really about global order and shifting power. And it will be interesting to see how the climate negotiations progress in South Africa in 2011, but there needs to be a follow-up of the Kyoto Protocol in one way or another. We'll see whether it's just a voluntary agreement, whether it's a new treaty, or whether it's a mixture. But yes, the EU was disappointed at being sidelined to some extent. Hopefully, it will re-establish its leading role, but this might be hard to do.
What the impact has EU membership had on the Czech Republic in terms of environmental management and energy conservation? And what impacts has the Czech Republic had on the EU as a member?
With EU membership we got a good system of environmental legislation which preserved some parts of the previous national legislation and, on top of that, introduced new things coming from the EU. Our environmental legislation became more complex and maybe more respected by other partners. It is really an important part of European legislation and was also important in the negotiation sessions for EU accession.
What are some of the key changes to have occurred since joining the EU?
For instance, we're now one of the frontrunners in the EU in terms of packaging waste legislation. We're sorting over 50 percent of plastic. We have really good figures on that. This was thanks to accession. Wastewater treatment plants are being constructed. They're not complete yet, but you can sense the difference. A great number of things, like the introduction of unleaded fuel, come from the EU. Sometimes it's difficult to explain to a person on the street what is actually an improvement to himself or herself.
Has anyone emerged as a loser from EU accession? Surely, not everyone can be happy at the same time.
I would say that we have part of our industrial sector that would prefer to live in the previous era, to continue the old ways of production, and fearful of any new regulations coming into effect. Obviously, they're unhappy with any aspect of European environmental legislation, and they blame any lack of competitiveness on such legislation. My sense is that they are not competitive because they haven't modernised or changed their orientation. The environment for some people is a convenient scapegoat. So what they're doing now is focusing on lobbying to change EU legislation in their favour. But they are using more and more the European structures, which I think is good.
What has been the attitude of the general public to EU membership?
In terms of environmental action, I think that people are relatively happy. They see that there are improvements - not in all areas, but overall I think that people are happy that we have we have a European framework for environment. And I think that the majority is happy that we are in the EU. Prior to accession, a referendum showed that 80 percent were in favour of EU membership.
So there hasn't been a need to conduct public awareness campaigns to convince people of the benefits of membership?
On the contrary. I think there's a constant need to explain what is coming up, why it's coming up. And you need to be very careful not to say: Well, we're doing this because Brussels tells us to do it. That's a disservice both to Czech citizens and the European Union. It's easy to have an idealistic approach, but I think that it's right to say that we're doing such and such a thing because we believe that your environment will become better. But no, it's not right to just sit back and proceed with any old regulation regardless of what people think.
Before accession, what were your financial sources for addressing environmental issues? Did you have access to European Union funding?
Yes, we had pre-accession funds. We also have the state environmental fund, a recipient of environmental charges and fees which provides loans and grants for environmental protection - to that's a national resource. There were definitely private investments as well. There are loans from international financing institutions.
Have you been using the available structural funds?
Yes. The Environment Cooperation Programme is the second biggest [resource?] after becoming a new member. We had ISPA before accession, and that was transport and environment.
During the Czech EU presidency in 2009, was your country able to introduce anything new the environmental agenda?
It's hardly objective for me to comment on that since I was in charge of that (laughing), but I think we were quite successful. We were able to close negotiations on six pieces of legislation, which was unprecedented. We were generally efficient in completing a number of legislative issues: EMAS [the EU's Eco-Management and Auditing Scheme], eco-label, IPPC were brought to agreement. We were very active in international negotiations and preparation for Copenhagen, and successful in chemicals negotiations. I think we did good work, and never considered the role as part of a beauty contest, and I think our colleagues appreciated this.
Do you think that commitment to both environmental issues and development is contradictory in any way? Do we perhaps need to change our global development models or indicators?
It's a complex question. If you look at the climate negotiations, the concern of many of the developing countries is that the 'global north' will simply move from other chapters to climate, and that resources will not be sufficient for other topics such as poverty or health, et cetera. It is a legitimate concern, especially in the period where you have tight budget restrictions, and I think that balance needs to be found. I think we need to work much more on the private-public partnerships in development, especially with those private companies who are active in developing countries, or in both developed and developing countries. Of course, it is a changing environment because if you take China as a developing country, and if you take Ethiopia as a developing country, it's a very different picture. So how you define 'developing country' and how you establish what are the needs of those countries is very different. And this should be reflected in the way that support is provided from international sources. Climate finance and the debate which we have now over how to deal with this issue determine a great deal in the future.
How do you see the role of markets in environmental management? The 'command and control' system is kind of old-fashioned at the moment, but we have seen a lot of problems with implementation and enforcement in several EU countries, and lots of court cases are emerging from the European Court of Justice. Can market-based instruments, such as emissions trading really be effective? How do we strike the right balance?
I'm rather optimistic about market instruments. I think that you're right that command and control is a bit old-fashioned, and that one needs to be more innovative. Overall, I think it's if we want to go further with environmental legislation we need to adapt to the current economic language. So, to use the economic argument for environmental protection, we need to speak about the availability of resources, to speak about the state of public healthcare associated with environmental pollution, and to quantify the impacts in monetary terms and to be able to offer economic incentives for care for the environment. I think that the system for emissions trading, which has been developed in the European Union is a good example that can work over the long term. Of course you have volatility, you have the economic crisis, and you have other disorders which can influence this, but you need to respond to it.
