M. Martin Bursik

According to you, what are the main issues in waste policies today : in Europe, and/or in your country?

Unfortunately, I have to confirm the date often quoted in the field of waste treatment in Europe. In spite of efforts made in the last fifteen years, the quantity of waste keeps growing in Europe. This increase is strongly influenced by the ever-increasing quantity of local refuse. Waste recycling and incineration does not diminish but the absolute quantity of waste dumped in landfills does not either because the production of waste is constantly rising.

The Czech Republic has not really been following this trend, as in this country the total quantity of waste produced is rather stagnating or even diminishing. It is due to the general transformation of the country’s society and economy. For example, the production of waste in the energy and resources exploitation sectors has been significantly reduced. But I am upset about the lack of prevention in the production of waste and in the systematic involvement of all hierarchic levels in the treatment of waste. The non-observance of objectives specified by the European legislation on the disposal of biodegradable waste in landfills and the weak material use of local refuse are important problems.

How urgent do you regard issues of waste production prevention on the one hand and the recycling of waste on the other, issues that are at very heart of current changes to European regulations (Thematic Strategy and draft Framework Directive)?

To me the priority is waste production prevention in the frame of the product’s life cycle since its conception until it becomes a waste. This approach should for example be applied to the design of new products, so as to minimise the production of waste and risks related to the elimination of the product itself. These products should then be designed to guarantee a long life cycle. Their recycling should be guaranteed to allow their elimination or reuse without any risk for the environment. This should be the responsibility of manufacturers and not of the product’s consumers or users. Of course I support recycling, but not at all costs – only if this tangibly contributes to environment protection. This implies a more in-depth analysis of products’ life-cycle and of the level of recycling technologies.

Do you believe that this European regulation is moving in the right direction?

To my opinion, the new draft European legislation takes problems I have just mentioned into account. Unfortunately, the current draft European directive does not enable member countries to exert a sufficient control on waste to be incinerated. It changes the classification of local refuse incineration facilities, which are no longer classified as facilities for the elimination but as facilities for the use of such waste. These points should be modified in the final version of the directive.

What is your perception of the various waste realities in the European area: in each of the Member States or between the different Member States?

You are touching a sensitive issue. The UE legislation on waste and refuse consists in different directives transposed into national legislation in different ways, with a variable degree of seriousness, of accountability mechanisms, etc… Limitations, if any, are minimal, and could be made stricter for each country. Unfortunately, too strict national limitations sometimes create a pressure encouraging the exportation of wastes to other member countries where limitations are softer. Differences in waste treatment costs also contribute to this attitude. The result may then be not only a tendency to export waste legally (see above), but also illegally. For example, illegal imports to the Czech Republic is reportedly justified by the ban, especially in the Federal Republic of Austria, on dumping non-processed refuse in landfill sites. And foreign producers of wastes, to avoid important pre-processing costs, prefer to export it illegally.

I consider that it is important to ensure a same level of treatment for biodegradable waste throughout Europe. Steps should be taken to avoid their disposal in landfills and encourage a selective collection and a high level of treatment. This is why the Czech Republic, in cooperation with other member states, has been advocating the management of this problem through a separate directive on biodegradable waste.

Attention should be drawn on the absence of a follow-up of waste and refuse treatment in EU countries based on an indexing system. A unified set of indexes with calculation procedures needs to be introduced as is already the case in some directives (batteries).

What is your perception of the challenges posed by the social acceptability of waste and waste treatment plants: how should we inform the population? How should we involve the population?

In most cases, the Czech Republic is opposed to significant technological investments in the field of waste and refuse treatment. We should rather promote objective information on actual (perfectly proven) impacts on environment (see for example the LCA concrete technology). Sufficient and, most importantly, comprehensible information on each concrete local case rather than evasive general observations should be provided to the population. Waste and refuse should be considered as a source of material and energy and presented as such. Investors too are allowed to present their intentions in a more or less acceptable way, as for example in the frame of an EIA.

How do your country’s experience and stances benefit and/or contribute to a European policy on waste?

The development of waste treatment in the Czech Republic is going to be governed, at least for the next ten years, by the conditions of the ambitious national Waste and Refuse Treatment Plan (government order No 197/2003 Sb). The Czech Republic actually finds itself at the start of a modern planning process. The national waste and refuse treatment plan’s objectives are closely related to regional plans’ objectives and to the objectives of the most important producers (corporations, towns and communes). A yearly evaluation of the Plan’s results will be carried out on both the national and each region’s level. The evaluation will be based on 35 indexes (the same indexes will be used on the national and the regional levels). These results may bring about gradual changes in management instruments and enable the realisation of the Plan’s objectives within the set deadline. The waste and refuse treatment planning system, including its legal bases and its monitoring system, was designed in such a way that it can be applied in other member countries.