by Dr. Cestmir Hrdinka
At first let me thank to organisers for the invitation. In my presentation I want to express a NGOs view on POPs in the Central and Eastern Europe. I’m going to speak mostly about situation in the Czech Republic that is in some aspects often similar to the situation in other countries in this region. Some perception from Czech Republic could be very helpful and applicable in your countries.
You have heard a presentation of Prof. Holoubek about POPs in the Czech Republic - sources, inventories, levels, etc. I’m going to give you an additional point of view, a view from regional NGOs working on POPs issue.
As you may know the Czech Republic has done relatively a lot of work in the field of research and inventory in comparison with other countries in CEE region. We approximately know sources, we have some data about POPs contamination and levels in animals and people. What we are missing is a sufficient legislation. From our experience research itself can not ensure an elimination and phase-out of POPs. We shouldn’t forget it.
Let me give you two examples that having enough scientific data doesn’t mean we are prepare to protect environment and people.
1) We know PCB and dioxin levels in breast milk in the Czech Republic are relatively high and an action is needed. But at the same time we don’t have emission limits on dioxin for incinerators. As a result a new municipal incinerator with capacity 300 000t wastes a year has been built in Prague - Malesice. Without having an appropriate filter the incinerator is supposed to exceed 40 - 50 times EU limits on dioxin but it fit well with Czech legislation. This incinerator has been described as safe one by municipal authorities.
2) In the years 1990 - 1992 the inventory of Elbe river pollution had been carried out. The international commission on Elbe river protection prepared a recommendations for an immediate action to lower river pollution. It worked out a list of pollutants that should be quickly reduced. Among others there are PCBs and a group of organohalogens (AOX) on the list. In 1998, we still don’t have an emission standards for waste water for these chemicals. As a results of missing legislation and despite the fact the production and use of PCBs has been banned years ago Greenpeace was able to measure high levels of PCBs in waste water of chemical plant Synthesia in 1997.
NGOs feel that a way from research to practical active steps, to legislation and other regulatory mechanism is often too long and very complicated. We are aware a reliable research is needed for taking an action to protect environment but at the other side we have experience the more research , inventories are required the later is a decision taken. The question is: could we afford to wait for new research, for more data before a global action on POPs is taken? No! We have to take an action as soon as possible. There are enough scientific data, references on POPs. We know these chemicals caused many human health problems including cancer, imunotoxicity, neurotoxicity etc.
I recognise and understand problems of many countries in this region when they simply have not money to analyse POPs. We know how expensive are dioxin analyse. in the current situation and on the base of lack of money I encourage you to use data from other countries like Czech Republic, Hungary as well as westeuropean countries as much as possible to solve the lack of financial means. The POPs pollution and levels may differ between different countries but in the end the health effects caused by POPs are in principle the same in Albania, Bulgaria or the Czech Republic.
We know POPs can travel a long distances. We have found a big level in region thousands km apart from industrial sources. There may be a lower dioxin (POPs) level in breast milk in one country while the level by the neighbours may exceed the tolerable daily intake. Does it mean we will ask only one of both to take an action? No. It wouldn’t make sense. With national program, we are able to reduce only certain amount of POPs and the scope is limited. We know that in case of POPs national legislation is not enough to protect the global ecosystem so we need a global agreement on POPs. A national legislation could be seen as a supportive tool for achieving an international agreement on POPs.
NGOs think an international binding agreement is needed. What we must be aware any agreement, legislation or limits are insufficient tools if there is no or only limited control. A strong legislation or agreement need to have also a penalty system. This is a problem in the Czech Republic just now and may be a problem also in other countries in CEE region. The environmental law is developing very quickly and often forget sanctions in cases of breaking the law. We have cases a subject has broken the law, regulation but there are no penalty for it. For example every incinerator in the Czech Republic has obligation to measure a dioxin emissions once a year. Because of lacking of sanction only about 25 % of incinerator measure it.
On the base of facts we have, we hope we will all agree to a need an international binding agreement that will reduce POPs over the globe. We should try to find ways how to reduce POPs in different parts of the world. Setting up limits could be a good first step but it is not the right final step. The final step must be phasing-out POPs. In regard on these facts we should adopt an agreement that will phase-out POPs.
The global binding agreement or instrument should take into account
a) POPs which are intentionally produced:
These POPs should be phase-out. this shouldn’t be a problem in the nearest future. For those which are use for specific reason as DDT for malaria control we have to try find alternatives.
b) POPs that are generated as unwanted contaminants, by-products, combustion products:
By these POPs anthropogenic sources should be identify and also phase-out. In this case the process of phasing-out POPs will be a long term one and we need some steps.
c) Obsolete POPs stock:
Destroy the POPs in the way that they don’t generate new POPs.
At the end of my presentation I want to give you a positive example from the Czech Republic how to effectively reduce POPs.
We know that an important dioxin source in the Czech Republic are open burning and waste burning at home which are very difficult controllable. PVC in waste (mainly from packaging) is an important source of dioxin by burning. It is simpler and more effective to phase-out PVC from waste then control uncontrollable combustion or additionally to deal with dioxin in the air. Recognising this problem the Czech Republic banned use of PVC packaging in 1997 with effect by 2001.
This example could be applicable also in other countries in CEE region. The philosophy is to phase - out POPs by phasing-out sources, that means at the beginning of life cycle. It is more progressive then control POPs by setting limits and dealing with emissions at the „end of pipe".