We are facing a period in which attempts are made to resolve these issues with amendments and supplements of the Law on Environmental Protection, the Law on Waste Management and the Law on Nature Protection, prior to the opening of Chapter 27.
Dear colleagues, associates and friends,
You have before you the fifth edition of the E-magazine issued by the Company „MITECO Kneževac".
In this issue, we devoted special attention to the new laws regulating environmental protection and Chapter 27, being one of the most demanding ones in the EU accession process.
The area of environmental protection is very significant, the reasons for this being manifold – unemployment is rising throughout Europe, modern technologies are requiring less and less human factor, investments in classic types of industries are still far from our reach, and we have to deal with histrocial heritagein polluted sites of the once economic giants. As a result, I feel that this area is a priority one which as a society we must recognize and accept.
There is a serious dilemma whether this is to be the task of the state administration or government, as we used to call it, or should it be a branch of economics as everything else. Is protection of natural resources only a battle to be fought by the "Greens", or could it be a opportunity for sustainable development of the Serbian economy which is lacking in resources? My humble opinion is that this should be the task of private investors, supported by the regulatory role of the state administration and transparency of a corrective factor. This would help avoid tabloidization and politicization of these issues.
We are facing a period in which attempts are made to resolve these issues with amendments and supplements of the Law on Environmental Protection, the Law on Waste Management and the Law on Nature Protection, prior to the opening of Chapter 27. Namely, we are the first country which in the accession process is faced with the task of preparing a report on the status analysis, i.e. a post-screening document. Are we as a society aware of the fact that this period is irreversible, in terms of the bureaucratic procedure of the EU, and that later we will have to pay for any shortcomings?
Let me draw your attention to the financial model of the Green Fund, which was so named probably to make a distinction between the old one which was cancelled. In my opinion, if cancelling the old one was a mistake, which it wasn't, then the forming of a new one definitely should not be a mistake. Therefore, I feel that the Green Fund should not be seen as a state sudsidy to various interest groups, but, rather, it should be used for infrastructural projects such as municipal waste incinerators or for facilities for treatment of waste waters, primarily the recovery of historical pollution.
Also, I feel that it should by no means be used for subsidies to the recycling industry as that can be secured by tax exemptions and other mechanisms. Namely, the perception that economy on it own cannot produce models of removal of waste which can be recycled is wrong. I will always vote for market oriented mechanisms as it has been proven that, in the end, they turn out to be the only feasible mechanism. Only such a market can have, aside form the companies and local self-governments, the presence of the state administration, as well as civil society organizations.
Thereby, in consideration of all of the above stated, and instead of a conclusion, I wish to voice a plea and a request that, regarding the functioning of the Environmental Protection Fund, the opinion of the Serbian waste industry should be heard and accepted.