Interview of the Executive Director of the CAObH RNDr. Miloš Kužvart in the magazine Průmyslová ekologie.
Europe wants to save resources, regulations are moving towards circularity, although this is not always the rule, but we want to have a circular economy. Logically, industry is the backbone of the circular economy, but it is being lost. Is circular legislation also contributing to the removal of industry from Europe? If so, how?
The backbone of the circular economy is logically industry, which is dealing with the trend more or less successfully. The Czech Association of the Circular Economy (CAObH) talks about the need for raw material and energy security.
What does this mean and how does the Executive Director of the Czech Association of Circular Economy Miloš Kužvart see the situation of the industry in this context?
First of all, it should be noted that we do not yet have verified data that would indicate any exodus of European industry. What I do not dispute, however, is that the initially clear and legitimate idea of making efforts to protect the climate and natural resources has been 'lost in translation' in the course of its implementation into various regulations, often contradictory, so that the original opportunity to fundamentally innovate and transform a linear economy into a circular and sustainable one has become a burden. Europe wants to save resources and regulations are moving towards circularity, although this is not always the rule. An example of contradictory measures is the 22 isolated targets for mechanical recycling, which often go against each other in terms of availability of inputs (waste) and emissions.
What is currently defining European industry is the EC's efforts to protect the climate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And circularity is closely linked to climate protection.
I would just like to frame my reflections below, perhaps unexpected for some from a former Minister of the Environment, in the context of the last three decades. When I was responsible for the adoption of modern environmental legislation by a future EU member state 25 years ago, the impulses from the EU were positive; after a phase of successful desulphurisation (1991-1998), they led to further innovations and modernisation of industry in the Czech Republic. However, the last few years have been very, very different. Of course, the situation has been exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine and the radical change in the availability of hitherto obvious sources of energy and raw materials and other fatal new moments, such as the lack of skilled labour.
Shouting, "We are spinning in a circle, not the right circle, but rather a vicious one."
Let's take the example of one of our collective members, the Steelworkers Union. Steelmakers in this country and elsewhere in the EU, as part of their decarbonisation efforts, are forecast to soon face a situation where they will probably not have enough steel scrap available, but which is needed to drastically reduce emissions from smelters. While the EU imposes greenhouse gas emissions charges on industry, it no longer prevents scrap metal from being exported outside the EU, from where the steel industry must then re-import it at additional costs and emissions. Meanwhile, scrap exports from the EU have increased rapidly over the last few years. We are spinning in a circle, but not the right circle, a circular one, but rather a vicious one.
There has been no major revision since the original European recycling and climate protection targets were established. But neighbouring countries have responded to the energy crisis with more flexible administration. Not so the Czech Republic; we have not seen the necessary adjustments and simplification of administrative conditions to build more, especially energy infrastructure, faster. The process remains disproportionately lengthy.
Reducing emissions is the right intention on the face of it. However, if too much pressure and increasing demands are applied, it can do the exact opposite: production of steel, cement, ceramics, etc. will move outside the EU, where greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production are much higher, often by a factor of several times. At the same time, this foreign production, for example of steel used in construction, is often of lower quality. The side effects in terms of unemployment and threats to social harmony are unfortunately obvious, which could lead to disaster at a time of growing influence of populist and extremist parties.
So, if I ask you as a recent top politician, can we say that EU policy is responsible for the deindustrialisation of Europe?
Again, I will define myself against the term deindustrialisation, which I think is a premature statement, although it may occur as a consequence of the current unresolved situation. In any case, European policy is hitting industry, for example, by increasing the original targets for percentage changes in recycling rates or greenhouse gas reduction rates without impact studies; it would seem ad hoc, as if the representatives of the European Commission and the European Parliament were competing to see who could propose an even stricter target.
Shouting: "...as if the representatives of the European Commission and the European Parliament were competing to see who would propose an even stricter target."
Is it realistic to stop this trend?
The CABH is an apolitical group, our role is to bring the arguments and experience of our members, industry and organisations that share an interest in circularity and the wise use of raw materials and energy resources for the benefit of the environment. In this regard, we try to appeal to the argumentative level, both at the Czech and European level through our membership in the FEAD organisation, and we are actively involved in commenting on important documents, currently, for example, the amendment to the European Waste Directive, which will affect, for example, the management of bio or gastro waste and waste textiles, which will also have implications for both emissions and circularity in downstream industries.
As citizens, we have the opportunity next spring to responsibly elect a new European Parliament and to take an interest in its work, not just to criticise and berate what is coming to us from Europe. Let us ask why this or that legislator, for example, with his or her vote, has helped the adoption of the much-discussed EURO 7 regulation for emissions from passenger cars and commercial vehicles, which, incidentally, is another example of how more stringent measures are being adopted in the EU without knowing the effects of the previous ones, in this case EURO 6. These representatives of ours in the EU have an amazing ability to supply information, to commission research and so on.
It is no coincidence that last month the leaders of the Confederation of Industry and Transport of the Czech Republic and the Chamber of Commerce of the Czech Republic warned the Czech Government that we are becoming an open-air museum, that we lack the vision and political will to fulfil that vision of a modern country.
The circular economy was and is about sustainability in the ecological, social and economic sense. Within the framework of its Czech and European activities, the CABH strives to make circularity in all three pillars a reality. We are trying to do this in very challenging times when we are all under pressure and priorities are shifting. We need to respond to this so that the goals set, albeit in the longer term, are achieved by and for whom. Such a response could be a sober and coordinated redefinition of the GREEN DEAL into a REAL DEAL that sets realistic and interdependent targets with an assessment of social and economic risks instead of further increasing them.
I see positive European initiatives, such as the existence of the Fair Transformation Fund and the Modernisation Fund, which could help technological change and innovation, and thus help industry and its transformation into a modern form. The first results are already visible and other projects are under way. Unfortunately, however, we also see the downside of some of the funds, which is that they sometimes have unnecessarily restrictive conditions that can block promising projects. For example, there is the lengthy process of the so-called notification of submitted projects to the European Commission.
Pavel Mohrmann
