Turning Nebojsa Zelenovic towards green politics with the insistence on turning the economy into a circular economy brings something seemingly new to the political life of Serbia, in which specific programs, policies and ideological directions have not been talked about for a long time.
Green movements and the circular economy are an important part of the political offer in all more developed European countries, but in Serbia, neither politicians nor voters seem to have been particularly attracted to these issues.
Since the first “invasion” of green parties, and there were several with similar names such as the Green Party and the Green Party of Serbia, voters have failed to distinguish them from each other, let alone recognize the differences in their programs. Later, there was simply talk of “those greens who are in power” and “those other greens”, and there were also “those third” greens who turned into today’s Party of Freedom and Justice.
From this short history, it can be concluded that the citizens of Serbia did not “fall” for green policies, but also that the parties did not know how to present them properly and collect political points on topics such as air and water pollution, renewable energy, sustainability and circular economy.
The new green direction of Nebojsa Zelenovic
If the announcements are to be believed, the party Together for Serbia, whose leader Nebojsa Zelenovic hinted at only a part of this program through several interviews, will try that.
Speaking about his program in “Three Points” and the new direction in politics that he will lead, Nebojsa Zelenovic said earlier this year that he was in favor of “transforming the economy into a circular economy, which should solve the unsustainable difference between rich and poor, returning importance to the middle” class and to prevent the frightening consequences of climate change. All this will happen through the acceleration of economic growth.
Regarding the program solutions, Nebojsa Zelenovic gave Talas some frameworks in which the program will move, emphasizing that they plan to present more detailed solutions by the end of this month.
“Our political program will give a clear view of Serbia’s involvement in the great economic revolution that will begin in Europe and America. We will provide solutions for our energy, industry, as well as other branches of the economy. Increasing the use of energy from renewable sources and reducing the use of raw materials that we obtain from nature, with a huge increase in the use of recycled raw materials are the main directions. Digitization and increasing the economic power of the population, through regular schooling and training during the working life, are the main pillars of change. Investing in science and technological development will crucially determine the success of this program of change,” he said.
Zelenovic previously announced the formation of the “Green Coalition” with other organizations and movements with which he cooperates, such as the left-wing Let’s Not Drown Belgrade, but also the Liberal Civic Democratic Forum.
Such announcements are in line with his approach and cooperation with members of the European Parliament from the “Greens” group, who have recently expressed greater interest in events in Serbia.
What is a circular economy and how different is it from a market economy?
Citizens of Serbia can hear only the basics about the circular economy – that it is an economy based on “circulation” as the name suggests, that it implies waste processing and thus a higher level of environmental protection in the first place, but also job creation in sectors related to waste processing, the use of waste as a raw material thus reducing production costs (mainly).
Beyond that, the average citizen / voter does not know much, because even political options do not educate him about it.
On the other hand, if a comparison of the circular and market economy is made, it may seem that the circular economy must be led by stronger state intervention that would start economic activity in terms of waste processing, give subsidies to companies dealing with environmental solutions and attract this type of investment. However, this does not have to be the case, and examples from around the world show that green policies can very well fit into the market approach to the economy.
One such case is the coalition of center-right and left-wing parties in Austria, which have found a minimum of common interests in co-operation. This raises the question of whether such a model of cooperation between the right, which represents the interests of businessmen and the left, which fights for environmental sustainability, is the right measure and balance of these different policies.
Where is the circular economy in Serbia?
But, let’s return to the reality of Serbia.
Talk about the circular economy in a country that still does not have a single waste processing plant, where the construction of the first, and for now the only, waste incinerator in Vinca is still pending, where small hydropower plants and wind farms are turning into corruption and money laundering scandals, instead of good businesses for private actors to enter the electricity generation market, and citizens do not know where and how they can dispose of electrical waste, it seems too idealistic.
In addition to the general program principles, for a more serious address of the problems of climate change, pollution and sustainable economy in Serbia, it is very important that politicians decide on policies that would lead to the biggest polluters.
How will it solve the problem of factories that emit pollutants, such as the Chinese Zijin in Bor? Zidjin obviously has a privileged position and protection of the current government, and he manages to avoid levies and penalties that would lead to the modernization of the plant and investment in filters for purifying the air from harmful substances that are emitted into the air. Therefore, it would be useful for political parties, especially those from the opposition, to offer substantially different solutions to this problem, which would not only include subsidies – giving budget money to equip factories according to environmental standards, which could act as a “monetary reward” for some citizens for polluters, but also some other modalities by which the state could advocate for the preservation of the environment.
An even more important issue than polluting private factories is that political parties advocating a green economy be more clearly identified with state-owned companies that are the biggest polluters, as is the case with EPS (Elektroprivreda Srbije, Elektromreža Srbije, and other related companies).
The state system for the production and distribution of electricity, but also the thermal power plants that are connected to this system, are without equal the biggest culprits for the level of air pollution in Serbia, a problem that has become increasingly acute in previous years.
Politicians and parties who want to make some essential difference on this issue, in relation to the functioning of the current government, must clearly say how they will approach the management of EPS, whether and under what conditions they will allow other actors to enter the electricity generation market only then does the ground open for discussion on renewable energy sources.
Getting energy from wind, water or the sun can be (somewhat) cleaner solutions compared to existing traditional energy sources, but it is important to know who are the companies that will work on such solutions and under what conditions they will be entrusted with how to the principles of free market, rule of law and fair market competition would also be met.
The idea of investing in science is certainly important here because professional, scientific solutions and technological innovations are what should lead to any change in economic relations, so as not to lead to situations of investing in projects of political interest, which will quickly prove to be completely unprofitable, and the greater the danger, not so “green”, ie harmful to the environment.
What do economists say – how to find ecological solutions in the economy?
Aleksandar Radivojevic, an economist at the Foundation for the Development of Economic Science at the Faculty of Economics in Belgrade, told Talas that it is important to distinguish between circular solutions at the micro level – for example, connecting several companies in a material processing chain, from applying circular economy at the macro level changes in production models.
Changes at the calm level are necessary steps that can bring positive effects, he points out, adding that the promotion of the circular economy in Serbia could lead to the establishment of new companies that will devise innovative solutions in this area and the next step is to connect such companies.
– In the next step, industrial zones would be formed in Serbia in which companies would be connected in such a way that the waste material of one company represents a raw material for the production of another company in that industrial zone, something like the Kalundborg partnership in Denmark, which includes 11 companies. Such zones would represent small-scale circular economies, in which several companies operate in accordance with the ideas of the circular economy, Radovijevic points out.
He says that private companies can find different ways to use the waste material of another company as a raw material in their own production and thus get involved in the circular system.
However, in his opinion, something more is needed for positive results at the brand level.
– It is necessary to take into account all aspects of production, starting with the design of the production processes in a way that allows the highest possible utilization of waste material, or production planning in a way that maximizes the number of companies in the circular system. The idea is that the production of each company results in waste material that another company can use in production and that the number of companies in that system is as large as possible. Such a result cannot be achieved without the state as the bearer of these activities, he stated.
He also stated that the European Union and China have so far shown the most success in the implementation of this concept, emphasizing that the EU adopted a package of measures for the transition to a circular economy at the end of 2015.
– The approach of the European Union divides the process of implementation of the circular economy into four phases important for its success: product design, production, use and waste operations, defining the activities of impact on each phase individually, but also on the process as a whole. The success of the implementation depends on the level of integration of the principles of the circular economy in each of these phases, but also on their synchronization, says Radivojevic.
Economic journalist Misa Brkic has a different attitude, who in a conversation with Talas says that he does not think that the state must bring green solutions because companies can independently decide to include an ecological approach in their business because it is in their interest.
He points out that states, institutions or any organizations do not have to be the ones to design business policies for companies.
– That story about the green planet could endanger the market economy. I find the state too much influence. I would not give the state too many chances to deal with green strategies, I would leave it to companies to assess how important it is to them. Owners and managers of companies should be visionaries, companies should be the ones to take care of not only their profits, but also their environment, I don’t think that states should do that. I think that the business is mature enough to take care of its own and the future of the environment, Brkic points out. He reminds that Zelenovic, who opened the topic of circular economy, in his political activity relies a lot on the practices of the European Union, but that in the case of green strategies in Serbia, which is economically significantly weaker, not all solutions offered by the EU can be applied.
As an example, he cites thermal power plants in Serbia, which are the biggest polluters in Europe, but he adds that this is not a problem that our country can and should solve on its own, because in that case all the burden of green energy will fall on consumers.
“That is why carefully planned solutions are needed,” Brkic points out.
It can be done without state intervention
The circular economy, in terms of the principle of resource reuse, is not necessarily opposed to the principles on which the free market is based, as long as the circulation of resources is not achieved by state intervention and market control over the state by some state or other supreme authority.
The world institutions that are considered the main promoters of the market economy and globalization – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have also taken into account environmental issues and, although they continue to base their economic policies on free market principles, open departments working on sustainable economy policies environmental protection.
Therefore, enabling freedom of choice and free access to resources and recycling can be included in business, but the state and politicians of any party and government should not be the ones to redistribute resources in the direction of environmental solutions.
The state and politicians can provide incentives for the implementation of sustainable solutions in business, can conduct studies and point to examples of good practice that the private sector will choose to apply.
Therefore, it is good as long as they try to develop political agendas that deal with various social and economic problems, apart from the daily political ones that concern the conflict between the government and the opposition. However, it is important that they talk about the concrete results that the policies they advocate bring, examples of good practice in the world, successful models and their applicability in real circumstances in Serbia, Talas reports.
