THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY MARKET IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE AN OVERVIEW OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HUNGARY, POLAND, SLOVAKIA AND SLOVENIA
THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER for Central and Eastern Europe
’
e
Illustration: Erika Varsanyi
ON THE COVER: en•dan•gered spe•cies (en dan jerd spe shez), 1. a species at risk of extinction in Central and Eastern Europe because of human activity, changes in climate, changes in predator-prey ratios. 2. Pinus peuce: an endemic tree species, commonly known as the Macedonian pine, found on Pelister Mountain which was the first national park in the former Yugoslavia. 3. Bird Study and Protection Society of Macedonia: a Macedonian NGO working to protect local endangered and endemic species with the financial support of the Regional Environmental Center.
’
The Environmental Technology Market in Central and Eastern Europe An Overview of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia
edited by PAWEL KAΩMIERCZYK
Szentendre, Hungary DECEMBER 1997
THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER for Central and Eastern Europe
About the REC The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) is an independent, non-profit, regional organization devoted to the improvement of the environment in Central and Eastern Europe. The REC was established in 1990 by the United States, Hungary and the Commission of the European Communities. Additional donors include Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Today, there are 24 signatory governments to its charter. The REC’s mission is to assist in solving the environmental problems in Central and Eastern Europe by encouraging cooperation among nongovernmental organizations, governments, businesses, and other environmental stakeholders, by supporting the free exchange of information and by promoting public participation in environmental decisionmaking. Beneficiary countries include Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and FR Yugoslavia. In addition to its headquarters in Szentendre, Hungary, the REC has local offices in Belgrade, Bucharest, Budapest, Bratislava, Ljubljana, Prague, Riga, Sarajevo, Skopje, Sofia, Tallinn, Tirana, Vilnius, Warsaw and Zagreb.
ISBN: 963 8454 51 2 Published by: The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe Ady Endre ut 9-11, 2000 Szentendre, Hungary Tel: (36-26) 311-199, Fax: (36-26) 311-294, E-mail:
[email protected] Printed in Hungary by ProTertia This and all REC publications are printed on recycled paper or paper produced without the use of chlorine or chlorine-based chemicals
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Map of the Region
10
Preface
11
Executive Summary
13
Background
15
Project Objectives
15
Scope and Methodology
15
Structure of the Report
15
About the Researchers
16
Chapter 1: Regional Overview
17
1.1 Introduction Environmental Expenditures Market for Environmental Technologies State Environmental Funds Legislation and Enforcement Environmental Administration
17 17 17 17 18 18
1.2 Environmental Priorities and Project Opportunities
19
1.3 Information Channels for Business Opportunities
21
1.4 Demand for Environmental Technologies Summary and Overview Air Water and Wastewater Waste Management Energy Noise, Vibration, and OHS
23 23 24 24 25 27 27
1.5 Major End-users of Environmental Technologies
27
1.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers Purchasing Preferences Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies Barriers to Buying Foreign Environmental Technologies
29 29 29 30
1.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market Perceptions of Environmental Technologies from Selected Countries Major Foreign Suppliers in the Market Recommendations for Foreign Companies Entering the Market
31 31 31 32
Chapter 2: Czech Republic
35
2.1 Summary of Findings
35
2.2 Methodology Sources of Information Used in the Survey
36 36
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Profile of Respondents
36
2.3 Overview of the Market Total Country Spending on Environmental Technology Priority Areas for Environmental Protection
36 37 37
2.4 Project Opportunities Major Environmental Problems Significant Environmental Projects in Progress Major Sources of Information on Business Opportunities Sources of Information on Available Environmental Technologies
40 40 42 43 46
2.5 Demand for Environmental Technology Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview Technologies in Demand by Sector Major Environmental Technology End-users
47 47 47 50
2.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers Purchasing Preferences Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies Disadvantages of Foreign Technologies
51 51 51 52
2.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market Perceptions of Environmental Technologies from Selected Countries Major Foreign Suppliers in the Market
52 52 53
2.8 List of Interviewed Experts/Companies
55
2.9 List of Publications
58
2.10 Other Useful Contacts
58
Chapter 3: Hungary
61
3.1 Summary of Findings
61
3.2 Methodology Sources of Information Used in the Survey Profile of Respondents
62 62 63
3.3 Overview of the Market Total Country Spending on Environmental Technology Priority Areas for Environmental Protection
63 63 65
3.4 Project Opportunities Major Environmental Problems Significant Environmental Projects in Progress Major Sources of Information on Business Opportunities Sources of Information on Available Environmental Technologies
69 69 69 69 72
3.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview Technologies in Demand by Sector Major End-users of Environmental Technologies
72 72 74 78
3.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers Purchasing Preferences Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies Barriers to Buying Environmental Technologies from Abroad
78 78 78 78
4
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market
78
Perceptions of Environmental Technologies from Selected Countries
78
Major Foreign Suppliers in the Market
81
3.8 List of Interviewees
82
3.9 List of Publications
83
3.10 Useful Contacts
83
Chapter 4: Poland
85
4.1 Summary of Findings
85
4.2 Methodology
87
Sources of Information Used in the Survey
87
Profile of Respondents
87
4.3 Overview of the Market
88
Total Country Spending on Environmental Protection
90
Priority Areas for Environmental Protection
92
4.4 Project Opportunities
96
Major Environmental Problems
96
Significant Environmental Projects in Progress
96
Major Sources of Information on Business Opportunities
98
Sources of Information on Available Environmental Technologies
106
Useful Contacts
107
4.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies
107
Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview
107
Technologies in Demand by Sector
107
Major End-users of Environmental Technologies
111
4.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers
111
Purchasing Preferences
111
Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies
112
Barriers to Buying Environmental Technologies from Abroad
112
4.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market
113
Perceptions of Environmental Technologies From Selected Countries
113
Major Foreign Suppliers in the Market
114
Recommendations for Companies Entering the Market
114
4.8 List of Interviewees
116
4.9 Overview of the Most Important Environmental Investments Initiated or Continued in Selected Voivodships in Poland in 1994
124
4.10 The List of 80 (Most Polluting Industrial Plants in Poland)
128
4.11 List of Publications and Other Literature Used in the Survey
130
4.12 List of Environment-Related Publications in Poland
131
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 5: Slovakia
133
5.1 Summary of Findings
133
5.2 Methodology Sources of Information Used in the Survey Profile of Respondents
135 135 135
5.3 Overview of the Market Total Country Spending on Environmental Protection Priority Areas for Environmental Protection
135 136 138
5.4 Project Opportunities Major Environmental Problems Significant Environmental Projects in Progress Major Sources of Information on Business Opportunities Sources of Information on Available Environmental Technologies
140 140 141 142 145
5.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview Demand for Environmental Technologies by Sector Major End-users of Environmental Technologies
145 145 146 148
5.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers Purchasing Preferences Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies Barriers to Buying Environmental Technologies from Abroad
149 149 149 149
5.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market Perceptions of Environmental Technologies from Selected Countries Major Foreign Suppliers in the Market
149 149 150
5.8 List of Interviewed Experts/Companies
153
5.9 List of Publications and Other Sources
154
5.10 List of Referenced Organizations
155
Chapter 6: Slovenia
157
6.1 Summary of Findings
157
6.2 Methodology
159
6.3 Overview of the Market Total Country Spending on Environmental Protection Priority Areas for Environmental Protection
160 161 162
6.4 Project Opportunities Major Environmental Problems Significant Environmental Projects in Progress Major Sources of Information on Business Opportunities Sources of Information on Available Environmental Technologies Important Contact Points for Environmental Project Opportunities
164 164 166 166 167 168
6.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview Demand for Environmental Technologies by Sector
168 168 169
6
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Major End-users of Environmental Technologies
172
6.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers Purchasing Preferences Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies Barriers to Buying Environmental Technologies from Abroad
172 172 172 173
6.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market Perceptions of Environmental Technologies from Selected Countries Major Foreign Suppliers in the Market
173 173 175
6.8 List of Interviewed Experts
176
6.9 Major R&D Institutions in Slovenia Specializing in Environmental Technologies
178
6.10 Bibliography
178
Appendix: Questionnaire for Interviews
179
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
7
ABBREVIATIONS
Czech Republic CEMC
Czech Environmental Management Center
CK
Czech Koruna
CR
Czech Republic
EMS
Environmental Management System
EU
European Union
IWTP
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant
MoE
Ministry of Environment
MPO
Ministry of Industry and Trade
MWTP
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant
WB
World Bank
WM
Water Management
Hungary BME
Budapest Technical University (Budapesti Muszaki Egyetem)
Bp.
Budapest
GATE
Godollô University of Agriculture (Godolloi Agrartudomanyi Egyetem)
HUF
Hungarian Forint
IKIM
Ministry for Industry, Trade and Tourism (Ipari, Kereskedelmi es Idegenforgalmi Miniszterium)
KHVM
Ministry of Transportation, Communication and Water Management (Kozlekedesi, Hírkozlesi es Vízugyi Miniszterium)
KKA
Central Environmental Fund (Kozponti Kornyezetvedelmi Alap)
KTM
Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy (Kornyezetvedelmi es Teruletfejlesztesi Miniszterium)
OKTK(T)
Nationally Prioritized Social Science Research [Secretariat] (Orszagos Kiemelesu Tarsadalom-tudomanyi Kutatasok [Titkarsaga])
OMFB
National Committee for Technological Development (Orszagos Muszaki Fejlesztesi Bizottsag)
OMIKK
National Technical Information Center and Library (Orszagos Muszaki Informacios Kozpont es Konyvtar)
OTKA
Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (Orszagos Tudomaynos Kutatasi Alap)
MTA
Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia)
NKP
National Environmental Program (Nemzeti Kornyezetvedelmi Program)
OECD, OCDE
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (Gazdasagi Egyuttmukodesi es Fejlesztesi Szervezet)
REC
The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
SZEVIKI
Research Institute of Organic Chemistry (Szerves Vegyipari Kutato Intezet)
TEFA
Regional Development Fund (Teruletfejlesztesi Alap)
Poland AGH
Academy of Mining and Metallurgy (Akademia Gorniczo-Hutnicza)
BAT
Best Available Technologies
BATNEEC
Best Available Technologies Not Entailing Excessive Costs
BITS
Swedish Agency for International Technical and Economic Cooperation
BOS
Environmental Protection Bank (Bank Ochrony Srodowiska)
CFC
Chloro-fluoro-carbons
CTBK
Technical Center for Communal Infrastructure (Centrum Techniki Budownictwa Komunalnego)
ERM
Environmental Resources Management
EU
European Union
GDP
Gross Domestic Product (Dochod Narodowy Brutto)
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GUS
Central Statistic Office (Glowny Urzad Statystyczny)
IMUZ
Institute for Land Reclamation and Grass Farming (Instytut Melioracji i Uzytkow Zielonych)
InE
Environmental Development Institute (Instytut na rzecz Ekorozwoju)
KBN
State Committee of Scientific Research (Komitet Badan Naukowych )
MOSZNiL
Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry (Ministerstwo Ochrony Srodowiska, Zasobow Naturalnych i Lesnictwa)
8
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
ABBREVIATIONS
NFOSiGW
National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej)
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PE
Person Equivalent (RLM - Rownowazna Liczba Mieszkancow)
PET
Politereftalan Etylenowy-packages material (material uzywany do opakowan - termoplastyczny poliester kwasu tereftalowego i glikolu)
PIOS
National Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (Panstwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska)
R&D
Research & Development ( Jednostki Naukowo-Badawcze)
RZGW
Regional Water Management Boards (Regionalny Zarzd Gospodarki Wodnej)
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
WIOS
Voivodship Environmental Protection Inspectorate (Wojewodzki Inspektorat Ochrony Srodowiska )
Slovakia CSSO
Compiled from data of the Slovak Statistical Office
CHTF/DE
Faculty of Chemical Technology and Environmental Department
ET
Environmental Technology
NB
National Budget
NEAP
National Environmental Action Plan
MES
Ministry of Education and Science
MoE
Ministry of the Environment
OHS
Occupational Health and Safety
OSDSST
Office for the Strategy of Development of Society, Science and Technology
OUZP
Regional Office of the Environment
R&D
Research and Development
SAZP
Slovak Agency of the Environment
SFZP
State Fund of the Environment (also SFE)
SK
Slovak Koruna
SOPK
Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry
SR
Slovak Republic
Slovenia CEE
Central and Eastern Europe
EAP
Environmental Action Plan
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EDF
Environmental Development Fund
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EU
European Union
FGD
Flue Gas Desulfurization
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
IPPC
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
MOE
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning
NEPP
National Environmental Protection Program
NGO
Non-governmental Organization
OHS
Occupational Health and Safety
R&D
Research and Development
RS
Republic of Slovenia
WWTP
Wastewater treatment plant
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
9
MAP OF THE REGION
Tallinn
Countries covered in this survey
ESTONIA
RUSSIA
Countries to be covered in the next volume Riga
L AT V I A
Bal ti c Sea LITHUANIA Vilnius
RUSSIA
BELARUS POLAND GERMANY
Warsaw
Prague
UKRAINE
CZECH REPUBLIC S L O VA K I A Bratislava
AUSTRIA
MOLDOVA
Budapest
HUNGARY SLOVENIA Ljubljana
Zagreb
ROMANIA C R O AT I A BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Bucharest
Belgrade
Sarajevo
FR YUGOSLAVIA
Black Sea
BULGARIA Sofia
I TA LY
Adri ati c S ea
Skopje Tirana
FYR MACEDONIA
ALBANIA
10
GREECE
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
TURKEY
PREFACE
Preface As the countries of Central and Eastern Europe continue their transition to a market economy and prepare for European Union accession, the market for environmental technologies and services will certainly experience strong growth. In fact, it is estimated that environmental investments totalling USD 100 billion to 150 billion will be needed in the ten accession countries over the coming years in order to comply with EU environmental requirements. Cost-effective technologies and strong environmental management skills will be needed in this enormous undertaking. This survey describes current market conditions and signals possible future directions. It is the most comprehensive report yet prepared, taking into account the viewpoints of technology providers, buyers, consultants, researchers, and policymakers. By understanding the environmental situation in each country, the relative demand for technologies, the main players, and the purchasing behavior of buyers, the reader will be better prepared to identify opportunities in the emerging market. A similar survey for the three Baltic States will be published in 1998. The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) supports this market development by matching technology needs with solutions and building the capacity of environmental professionals in the region to intro-
duce eco-efficient practices in industry. In addition, the REC’s Business Research Service is well-positioned to prepare specialized market studies of specific sectors, upon request. The five country surveys presented here were conducted using a standardized methodology to ensure comparability of information. Emil Dzuray and Pawel Kazmierczyk assisted in developing the survey questions, format and concept, while the following in-country consultants conducted the country surveys: ARDA (Czech Republic), Oko-Eco Bt., Mr. Gergely Toth and Ms. Valeria Lekics (Hungary), ERM Polska (Poland), PB Consulting (Slovakia), and the Josef Stefan Institute (Slovenia). Pawel Kazmierczyk developed the report concept, compiled and edited the five country surveys, and wrote the report. The following REC staff provided valuable content review and editorial support: Miroslav Chodak, Jiri Dusik, Emil Dzuray and Jernej Stritih. Reuben Stern and Sylvia Magyar designed the report layout. Special thanks go to Jerome Simpson for his invaluable assistance with updating and verifying the information presented in the survey, as well as copy editing the entire report. I would like to thank all the contributors to this report. Winston H. Bowman Deputy Director, Programs
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary Project Background The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) conducted the survey presented here of the environmental technology market in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The main objectives of the survey were to examine the environmental situations and policies in each country, to review the most pressing environmental problems, and to identify the demand for environmental technologies and the main end-users. The secondary objectives of the project were to examine the purchasing preferences of domestic buyers and to present the main competitors active on the local market in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The content of the report is largely based on formal personal interviews with a cross-section of senior-level actors in the environmental technology market, principally from environmental businesses. Additional interviews were held with selected government agencies and with major environmental technology R&D centers. Up to 50 professionals were interviewed in each country, with approximately two-thirds representing the business sector. The research was carried out between October 1996 and April 1997.
Overview of Environmental Problems and Priorities In all the surveyed countries, severe environmental damage has been sustained. The development of heavy industry and an energy sector based mainly on coal are among the key causes of pollution. Although there has been a decline in manufacturing activities and a corresponding reduction in environmental pollution, environmental degradation still continues. While air pollution and poor drinking water quality are the most frequently cited environmental problems, management of wastewater and solid waste, pollution from the transport sector, and environmental degradation related to the energy sector also represent major challenges. Environmental pollution is particularly heavy in industrialized areas. In practically all the surveyed countries, the two major environmental priorities set by the government are air pollution control and the protection of water resources and drinking water quality improvement. National environmental policies focus on emission sources, with the power generation sector and other large industrial emission sources (e.g. the chemical industry) being the main target of regulations. As regards the protection of water resources, the primary goals are to increase the percentage of the population connected to sewage disposal facilities, increase the proportion of wastewater treated by biological processes, and to provide treatment of wastewater from industrial sources. In the near future, air pollution control will continue to be a major priority area, although there is expected to be a gradual shift in focus towards small and medium-sized air pollution sources. Air pollution from traffic will grow in importance, and in general, environmental impacts of the transport sector are expected to be more vigorously addressed. Water management, particularly wastewater treatment, are likely to remain priority
areas. The construction of modern landfills is an expected longterm opportunity area. Accumulated hazardous waste that requires treatment and removal, and waste disposal sites that need remediation are also likely to remain significant priorities.
Environmental Expenditures The distribution of environmental expenditures corresponds well with the priorities outlined above. Total environmental spending from both the government and private sectors in the surveyed countries exceeded USD 3.2 billion in 1995. It is expected that, in actual numbers, environmental expenditures will grow at a rate of between 6 and 12 percent annually. A major change is expected in the financing of environmental protection. Currently, the main sources of funds for environmental projects include the state budget (including state environmental protection funds), municipal budgets, and investors’ own funds. In the coming years, the share of business contributions is expected to rise sharply, while contributions from the state budget are expected to decrease. The bulk of total environmental spending is allocated to air pollution activities and water and wastewater projects. Waste management activities are the third largest priority area. Most state financing tends to be allocated to the construction of wastewater treatment and sewage facilities, and public water supply projects, while the remainder is allocated to air protection and waste management projects. Costs of projects in the latter two categories are covered mainly by individual industrial plants and municipalities.
Demand for Environmental Technologies The major end-users of environmental technologies as indicated by the survey are municipalities, the energy and power generation sector, and the chemical industry. Other major end-user categories were media specific. Aside from the ever-present financial constraints, purchasing environmental technologies does not pose any significant problem because of the wide range of products available on the market. In the opinion of many survey respondents, the environmental technology market is in fact saturated. The demand for environmental technologies tends to be driven by current priorities in state environmental policy, and by applicable regulations. Overall, demand for technologies was identified to be moderate in most categories, although some areas were identified where demand was high. Technologies related to waste management were high in demand in all countries except for the Czech Republic. Energyrelated environmental technologies were found to be in high demand in Hungary and Poland, while technologies for water and wastewater treatment were in high demand in Poland and Slovakia. Demand in the noise, vibration and occupational health and safety sector was much lower. Technologies related to industrial wastewater and hazardous waste featured prominently among high-demand categories. Municipal wastewater related technologies were also in
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
high demand. It is expected that within the next few years, the focus will remain on end-of-pipe environmental technologies. There will be growing demand, however, for pollution prevention and waste minimization technologies.
Information Channels In the surveyed countries, there are no effective formal channels for information concerning project opportunities. Personal and professional contacts, participation in environmental fairs, and business and environmental publications are among the primary sources of information used. Ministries of environment and other governmental bodies tend not to be considered reliable sources for project opportunities. Each country has recently enacted public procurement legislation that requires the formal announcement of tenders for all planned acquisitions involving the use of public money. However, at this point, most experts were skeptical as to its usefulness in ensuring the availability of information on project opportunities.
Prospects for Exporters of Environmental Technologies The prevailing picture emerging from the survey is that the familiarity of local buyers with the foreign environmental technologies available in the surveyed countries is limited. The key factor, as indicated by the survey, behind a successful sale of environmental technologies is an in-country representative office and reliable after-sales services. It is almost essential to enter the market through an experienced local business partner. It was found that in most cases, the technical and environmental skills of local environmental professionals are well developed, and many firms are increasingly professional in their management and marketing approach. Further improvements in sales prospects can result from an attractive financing package, such as low-interest foreign credit lines, partial refinancing of foreign deliveries, etc. There clearly is room for improvement in the marketing and circulation of information on foreign environmental technologies and suppliers.
Conclusions Competitiveness of Foreign Technologies Most experts only rely on the use of best-technology or best-practice criteria when making purchasing decisions. The country of origin (domestic vs. foreign) of a particular environmental technology clearly is not a determining factor. There was a slight preference for buying foreign-manufactured environmental technology from domestic representatives compared with buying directly from the producer abroad. Product quality and reliability, warranty conditions, good value for money, lowest possible cost outlay in achieving the required standards, previous experience with a supplier and references are all significant factors affecting purchasing decisions. High quality, reliability and durability were the main advantages cited by respondents of foreign environmental technologies compared to domestic products. Other, albeit less significant, advantages included “user-friendly technology,” and “easy to customize and adapt for specific local needs.” The greatest barrier to buying environmental technologies from abroad was the high price. Many respondents were seriously concerned about the access to after-sales technical services, and where it lacked considered it a significant disadvantage of foreign technologies. Two marketing-related problems were indicated as significant barriers by respondents, namely: “too little information about suppliers”, and “the lack of reliable product information.” The environmental technology industry in the surveyed countries is clearly limited. A significant number of Western environmental technology firms are active in the given countries, through a permanent local presence, or by direct sales of their equipment. Foreign presence is particularly strong in the waste management sector, water supply and wastewater treatment. Firms from Austria and Germany are most active and best known across all major technology sectors. German and Austrian firms hold the lead in supplying environmental technologies in terms of both quantity and quality, according to survey respondents. Other major foreign competitors varied by country and sector. French and Danish companies showed strong local presence. French companies, along with American and Scandinavian, were well represented in the water and wastewater sector. Scandinavian (primarily Swedish) and American firms played an active role in the energy and air sectors. However, no single company dominates in any single country.
14
In conclusion, the environmental technology market in the surveyed countries is competitive, but opportunity exists for further foreign suppliers to become active in the region. The majority of purchases are based on the best-technology criteria and the country of origin is not deemed a critical factor. Suppliers can expect market success if their products are of high quality and reliability (including warranty conditions), and are accompanied by reliable after-sales technical services.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
BACKGROUND
Background Background
Scope and Methodology
In an effort to facilitate environmental investments in Central and Eastern Europe, the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) conducted a detailed survey of the environmental technology market in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The findings presented in this report are based on field and deskbased market research undertaken by the REC. This report is the first in a series to cover the entire CEE region. Currently, a study of the environmental technology market in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is being carried out and will be published in the spring of 1998.
The Regional Environmental Center developed the survey concept and detailed project scope, including the standard questionnaire to be used during interviews. In each of the surveyed countries, a local environmental expert was commissioned to conduct in-country research, based on the terms of reference and the format provided by the Regional Environmental Center. The Regional Environmental Center provided a standard questionnaire (included in the Appendix at the end of this report), which was translated into the local language and which served as the platform for interviews. Local language questionnaires were reviewed by REC staff before being used. The content of the report is largely based on formal personal interviews with a cross-section of senior-level actors in the environmental technology market, principally from environmental businesses. Additional interviews were held with selected government agencies and with major environmental technology R&D centers in order to ensure a broader perspective. Up to 50 professionals were interviewed in each country. In-country researchers selected a representative cross-section of interviewees based on size, area of expertise, and geographic location. In addition to the interviews, the report was supplemented by information from personal contacts, researchers’ experience, informal telephone interviews, news reports, trade journals and industry literature. Researchers from each country submitted a written report presenting the findings of the survey. Each chapter was edited and complemented by the staff of the Regional Environmental Center. The project was conducted between October 1996 and April 1997.
Objectives The main objectives of this research project were to examine the current state of the environment and current environmental policies in each country, to review the most pressing environmental problems, and to identify the demand for environmental technologies and main end-users. For the purpose of this survey, the key terms were defined as follows: ■
Environmental industry: a pool of all organizations providing products or services to measure, prevent, reduce or render harmless the pollution of the environment, including activities in relation to the introduction of cleaner technologies.
■
Environmental technology: any piece of equipment, process, or related service that is available to prevent, reduce, minimize, measure or render harmless the environmental impacts of industrial or municipal activities.
■
Environmental technology R&D: Basic, applied or developing research, related to or targeted at environmental technologies, including research activities related to cleaner technologies and renewable energy sources.
The secondary objectives of the project were to examine purchasing preferences of domestic buyers and presents the main competitors active on the local market in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The objectives of the survey were met by analyzing the following five critical areas:
Structure of the Report This report provides, for each surveyed country, qualitative information about the environmental technology market, describes project opportunities and related market conditions, discusses major information channels for project opportunities, and examines the demand for environmental technologies. The work also considers purchasing preferences of local customers, major strengths of foreign environmental technologies, barriers to their wider entry, and major players active in the market. A regional overview summarizes the five country-specific chapters, each of which is structured in the following way:
■
state of the environment (overview of environmental situation and the existing policy framework)
■
project opportunities (identifying specific environmental problems);
■
Summary of Findings.
■
technologies in demand (identifying the solutions);
■
■
major competitors within each environmental sector;
Methodology — an outline of the methodology and approach, including sources of information, and respondent profiles.
■
advantages and disadvantages of foreign suppliers.
■
Overview of the Market — a general picture of major environmental problems, information on country environmental expenditures, estimates of the size of the environmental technology market, activities of state environmental funds, and a discussion of priority areas in state environmental policy.
The report presents an analysis of the viewpoints of the users, distributors and manufacturers of environmental technologies in the following five categories: air; water and wastewater; waste; energy; and noise, vibration and occupational health and safety.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
15
BACKGROUND
■
Project Opportunities — overview of major environmental problems listed by interviewed experts, a review of major environmental projects currently in progress, discussion of sources of information for business opportunities and for available environmental technologies, overview of environmental fairs and public procurement practices, and a list of useful contacts.
■
Demand for Environmental Technology — survey of identified demand for environmental technologies in five categories: air, water and wastewater, waste, energy, and noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety; and an overview of major end-users of environmental technologies.
■
Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers — discussion of the purchasing preferences of domestic buyers, review of the strengths of foreign environmental technologies, and a survey of the barriers to their wider use.
■
Major Foreign Suppliers — overview of perceptions of environmental technologies from different countries, and a survey of the major foreign suppliers active on the market.
■
Appendices — List of interviewed experts, bibliography, and others as appropriate.
pany is active in regulatory projects as well as providing technical and management-related advice. The main researcher assigned to the project was Mrs. Magdalena Trybuch.
SLOVAKIA In-country research for the environmental technology survey in Slovakia was conducted by PB CONSULTING, Presov, an independent consulting company involved in cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary environmental projects. Established in 1993, the company co-operates with a network of independent professionals as well as with experts from other companies. On behalf of PB CONSULTING, the research was coordinated by Mr. Peter Burda, Director. His cooperating partner, Mr. Vladimir Urbanek, organized several interviews, especially in the vicinity of Bratislava, and also collected that data not based on formal interviews.
SLOVENIA In-country research in the Republic of Slovenia was performed by Dr. Mladen Franko and the staff of the Jozef Stefan Institute (IJS), University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. The project was carried out in cooperation with Dr. Douglas M. Brown and the staff of the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) of McLean, Virginia in the US.
About the Researchers CZECH REPUBLIC The survey in the Czech Republic was carried out by ARDA, a Czech-American firm active in environmental consulting. Since its inception in 1991, ARDA has conducted research for various industries and for different purposes. Previous projects have included regulatory overviews, market studies, and product promotion campaigns. Between 1992 and 1994, ARDA served as a liaison office between American environmental companies and local firms and other bodies, within the framework of the US AID program, CDI, focused on promoting US business presence in the CEE countries. Mr. Ludek Pravda and Mr. Jaromir Obdrzalek managed the project on behalf of ARDA.
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER The staff of the Regional Environmental Center prepared the detailed project scope, subcontracted local consultants, coordinated in-country research, and compiled and edited the final report. On behalf of the REC’s Business Information Service, the project was managed by Mr. Pawel Kazmierczyk.
HUNGARY The survey in Hungary was conducted by a team of four people. Ms. Eva Baka, an agricultural and environmental engineer by background, is currently employed as environmental manager at Tetra Pak Hungaria. Mr. Gyorgy Baka, an agricultural engineer with background in environmental engineering and computer programming currently manages his own environmental consulting company OKO-ECO. Ms. Valeria Lekics is an economist with the Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy, and is employed as program manager of the PHARE Regional Development Program Management Unit for Inter Communal Cooperation. Mr. Gergely Toth, an economist with marketing specialization, is the executive director of the Hungarian Association for Environmentally Aware Management (KOVET-INEM Hungaria).
POLAND The survey in Poland was carried out by ERM Polska Sp. z o.o., a member company of Environmental Resources Management international consulting group. ERM Polska has been active on the Polish market since 1993, and has since conducted environmental pre-acquisition and compliance audits and investigations of contaminated sites at over 100 industrial facilities across the country. Furthermore, the com-
16
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
Chapter 1: Regional Overview 1.1 Introduction
TABLE 1.1: TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES IN 1995
The surveyed countries, struggling with declining economies in the early nineties, have achieved significant success in introducing market reforms and transforming their economies. Much of the privatization process has already been completed. As a result of the changes, economic performance has improved markedly, with annual economic growth in most countries currently ranging between 4 and 7 percent. The political transition and reforms of the legislative and institutional framework have been successful as well. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland have joined the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), with Slovakia and Slovenia expected to follow in the near future. The above countries, with the exception of Slovakia, have also recently been invited to begin negotiations to join the European Union, with membership envisaged as early as 2002. Thus, the harmonization of domestic structures and legislation with those of the European Union is considered a high priority.
water supply projects, while the remainder is mainly allocated to air protection and waste management projects. Costs of projects in the latter two categories are covered mainly by individual industrial plants and municipalities.
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES
MARKET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
Even though environmental protection is not as high on the political agenda as it was in the early years of the transformation, the respective governments remain committed to improving environmental conditions. Despite other pressing problems (e.g. unemployment, restructuring of social security systems), the share of environmental expenditures in terms of Gross Domestic Product over the last few years has exceeded 1 percent in most countries. As shown in Table 1.1, total environmental spending from both the government and private sectors in the surveyed countries exceeded USD 3 billion in 1995. It is expected that, in actual numbers, environmental expenditures will grow at the rate of between 6 and 12 percent annually. Securing the necessary financing for environmental projects is one of the major problems facing those active in environmental protection in Central and Eastern Europe. The countries generally have six sources of funds on which to draw to support environmental investments:
The environmental products and services market is a rapidly developing sector of the economy, but accurate information on the size of the market for environmental technologies is still not available. Information relating to spending on environmental technologies is not tracked by national statistical offices, and there are no publicly available up-to-date market assessments for environmental technologies. Based on a review of secondary sources, the market for pollution control equipment in the Czech Republic is estimated at between USD 600 and 700 million per year, with an annual growth rate of some 6 percent. Two-thirds of the market is based on domestic production, and one-third on imports. The Hungarian market for environmental technologies was estimated at between USD 127 and 289 million in 1995. The estimated size of the Polish market for environmentally safe technologies for burning coal and generating power was USD 240 million in 1995; for pollution control equipment it was estimated at USD 330 million, and for industrial process controls USD 98 million. The size of the environmental technology market in Slovakia was estimated at USD 174 million in 1995. However, the figures above should be taken with care.
■
state, regional and municipal budgets
■
extra-budgetary funds (state environmental protection funds, other earmarked funds)
■
environmental investments of commercial enterprises, both state and privately owned
■
commercial credit, both domestic and foreign
■
foreign environmental investments
■
foreign assistance programs
A major change is expected in the financing of environmental protection. Currently, the main sources of funds for environmental projects include the state budget (including state environmental protection funds), municipal budgets, and investors’ own funds. In the coming years, the share of business contributions is expected to rise sharply, while the contributions from the state budget will decrease. The bulk of state financing is allocated to the construction of wastewater treatment and sewage facilities, and public
Country Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia Slovenia Total
Expenditures (USD mln)
Share of GDP
1,185 385 1,308 232 150 3,260
2.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% –
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDS All surveyed countries have established national environmental protection funds to provide non-budgetary revenue earmarked for environmental projects. The rationale behind the establishment of the funds was to ensure a steady flow of the significant amounts of money needed for environmental protection. The dominant share of these funds’ revenues comes from outside national budgets, so that the protection of the environment does not directly compete for limited resources with other social programs. The resources of state funds can account for a significant proportion of a country’s environmental spending. In Poland, for instance, its respective fund covered about one-fourth of the total outlays for environmental protection in 1995. The resources are generally used to finance national and regional
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
17
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.2: BREAKDOWN OF 1995 EXPENDITURES OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDS Country
1995 Expenditures
Number of Funded Projects
Czech Republic
USD 191 mln
364
Water protection (44%), Clean Air Program (34%), Other air protection (14%), Waste (5%), Nature protection (2%)
Hungary
USD 42 mln
267
Water protection (41%), Air protection (39%), Waste (12%), Nature protection (8%), Noise (1%)
Poland
USD 427 mln
970
Air (40%), Water protection (25%), Mining and geology (8%), Land protection (4%), Nature conservation (3%)
Slovakia
USD 34 mln
962
Wastewater (30%), Air protection (28%), Water supply (22%), Waste (10%), R&D (5%)
Slovenia*
USD 10 mln
1,257
Expenditures by Sector
Air protection (57%), Water protection (29%), Waste (14%)
Source: REC Bulletin, Autumn 1996 (based on information from the respective funds) * Data for Slovenia is for 1996, as no significant expenditures were made during 1995.
public infrastructure projects, local projects (such as the construction of wastewater treatment plants and potable water systems) whose costs exceed the capabilities of local budgets, and projects in priority areas. State environmental funds’ main activities are to provide financial support for investments, usually through loans offered with preferential conditions. Other forms of support are also used, and include grants, subsidies to bank credits, equity involvement and others. The form of financing available from these funds depend on the project type, the investor, and the financing institution. Table 1.2 presents the breakdown of expenditures from state environmental funds for 1995. As shown in Table 1.2, the bulk of funds’ expenditures was allocated to air and water protection projects, which is an indication of state environmental priorities. As noted already, the proportion of state funding is generally much larger in water related projects, where the most frequent investors are municipalities. In contrast, for air pollution control projects (mainly at stationary industrial sources), a high percentage of the project cost is covered by investors’ own funds, while waste management projects are mainly financed from municipal budgets. Slovenia is an exception, where almost half of all disbursed funding was loaned to private individuals to support conversion to cleaner domestic heating sources. State environmental funds generate revenues mainly from economic instruments for environmental protection, such as user fees, disposal charges, and non-compliance fines. Air emission fees and wastewater charges make up the major source of revenues, although actual solutions vary from country to country. In Hungary, for instance, taxes on fuel, car tires and batteries, and coolants are channeled to the respective fund. Additionally, since 1995, a waste packaging fee has been applied to any goods where packaging is required. In the Czech Republic, in addition to the revenues from air, water, and waste fees and fines, a third of the 1995 funding came from for the national Clean Air Program. Recently, significant income has started to come from loan repayments and servicing.
LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT Each of the countries have enacted comprehensive environmental legislation. The regulatory system is currently undergoing changes mainly related to improving the framework regulations (eliminating gaps and improving consistency), enacting specific pieces of legislation (e.g. waste management acts), and harmonizing domestic environmental legislation with that of the European Union. As regards the latter, there are approximately 200 pieces of EU legislation which will have to be
18
adopted in the domestic legislation of the accession countries. According to 1997 estimates, the cost to bring all ten accession countries into compliance with the EU’s environmental acquis is in the range of USD 100 and 130 billion. The level of enforcement is still inconsistent. Enforcement policies mainly rely on monetary penalties, but also include environmental standards, restrictions, and permitting systems. Additionally, enforcement policies are often implemented by local governments without coordination at the national level, which results in considerable differences in both requirements and levels of enforcement. Also, with the rapid growth in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises, compliance monitoring is often difficult. The main environmental policy instrument applied to industry is the permit system including fees and fines for noncompliance. Most of the collected environmental fees and fines are earmarked for environmental purposes, and make up a major part of the revenues of state environmental funds, or municipal budgets for environmental protection. The system for assessing environmental fees and fines is rather complex, and the scope of responsibilities of various authorities varies, depending on the environmental media and the nature of the payment (fee vs. fine). In general: ■
Environmental fees are payable for the emission of regulated substances into air and water; fees are also due for water extraction and waste disposal. Fees are due irrespective of the level of compliance with relevant permits.
■
Environmental fines are applied when a polluter exceeds the emission limits set in the relevant operation permit.
The effectiveness of monetary penalties as an incentive to improving compliance is limited. The polluter-pays-principle is employed, but levels of charges are not high enough as yet to be a major stimulus for polluters to introduce environmental improvements. Furthermore, fee collection rate is far from 100 percent. However, CEE countries are undertaking activities aimed at increasing base fee rates, indexing charges to inflation, and improving collection. Policy coordination, refinement of legislation, better enforcement of regulations, education and institutional strengthening, the development of clean technologies, and priority capital investments for air and water quality are the likely focal points for future environmental actions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATION The system of environmental administration has undergone major restructuring during the transition period.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
Decentralization of many environmental activities among regional and local bodies has taken place. Generally, all the surveyed countries have established three levels of environmental administration:
TABLE 1.3: BREAKDOWN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES BY MEDIA, 1995 Environmental Share of Expenditures Expenditures Air Water and Country (USD mln) Pollution Wastewater Waste
■
national level ministries (e.g. Ministry of Environment; other ministries with environment-related duties);
■
regional level (county, provincial) environmental departments of regional authorities, inspection bodies, water management boards, etc.;
Czech Republic
1185
58%
32%
9%
Hungary
385
16%
55%
12%
■
municipal level departments created by local authorities.
Poland
1308
53%
37%
9%
Ministries of environment are usually in charge of determining national environmental policy and implementation plans, maintaining pollution monitoring systems, coordinating environmental projects of national importance, and maintaining international cooperation. Additionally, each country has different administrative structures for various areas, such as health care, agriculture, forestry, water management, physical planning, and transport. Responsibility also varies by media (air, water, soil). Environmental compliance monitoring and enforcement is carried out by regional environmental inspectorates. Most environmental permitting is also administered at the regional level, in addition to developing local standards, collecting charges, imposing penalties and developing regional environmental policies. Physical planning and construction permits, as well as utility contracts, are generally issued at the municipal level. Municipalities are increasingly responsible for waste management and wastewater treatment, including operating the systems, and calculating and collecting charges. Governments collect environmental information, such as records of compliance or discharge monitoring, for processing, storage, and distribution, but often do not provide timely access to the public. National statistical offices are mainly responsible for processing and disseminating environmental information. State of environment reports are generally published by ministries of environment.
232
43%
44%
12%
147
71%
9%
18%
Source: 1996 Statistical Yearbooks of the surveyed countries (except for Slovenia, where data are from the 1995 Statistical Yearbook) Note: For Slovenia, data on expenditure by media are for 1994.
ulations to all branches of industry regardless of ownership, and the use of the “polluter pays principle.” Introduction of environmentally friendly, modern manufacturing techniques throughout all production processes is emphasized. In practically all the surveyed countries, the two major environmental priority areas are air pollution control, and protection of water resources and improvement of drinking water quality. Table 1.3 presents the breakdown of environmental expenditures (from both the public and private sectors) by media. As shown in Table 1.3, the bulk of environmental spending is allocated to air pollution activities, and water and wastewater projects. Waste management activities are the third largest priority area when spending is considered. The large share of water and wastewater treatment and air pollution control projects arises for two main reasons: ■
Protection of water resources, and supply of quality drinking water is the major priority in every country. New water protection regulations force municipalities to invest in water and wastewater treatment, and the sector has become the main recipient of municipal money invested in the environment. The trend is expected to continue in the near future.
■
Air pollution from large stationary sources is still considered the most important cause of environmental damage, and money is continuously allocated for air protection projects in the energy and power generation sector. The installation of desulfurization units and other equipment in the largest coal-burning power plants is under way, and accounts for a major portion of investments in air pollution control.
1.2 Environmental Priorities and Project Opportunities In all the surveyed countries, severe environmental damage has been sustained in the past. The development of heavy industry and an energy sector based mainly on coal are among the key causes of pollution. Although there has been a decline in manufacturing activities, and a corresponding reduction in environmental pollution, environmental degradation still frequently continues. While air pollution and poor drinking water quality are the most frequently cited environmental problems, management of wastewater and solid waste, pollution from the transport sector, and environmental degradation related to the energy sector also represent major challenges. Environmental pollution is particularly heavy in industrialized areas, where large polluting enterprises are located (e.g. chemical and petrochemical works, smelters, foundries and steel mills, cement and paper factories, coal mines, etc.). Additional environmental damage has been caused in some cases by forestry mismanagement, poor agricultural practices and intensive tourism. Environmental policies in most countries place high emphasis on restructuring the industrial sector in order to reduce the negative impact on the environment. The policies generally stress the preference for preventive measures instead of the end-of-pipe approach, application of environmental reg-
Slovakia Slovenia
Several universal issues were frequently noted by respondents that apply to most environmental sectors and will influence project opportunities. The most common problems include: lack of funds for environmental projects, incomplete or changing legislation and inconsistent enforcement, and lack of awareness of environmental issues. In general, however, significant project opportunities are expected in wastewater treatment and air quality protection, and in the energy sector. Air and Energy The energy and power generation sector is the main source of air pollution, especially with respect to SO2, NOx, solid particles, and CO emissions. As all the surveyed countries are signatories to international agreements on the reduction of long-range transboundary air pollution, and the emission of greenhouse gases and substances damaging the ozone layer,
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
19
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
major initiatives are underway to curb the emissions. Priority areas in the energy sector include the conversion of most of the current small and medium-sized heat generating stations from coal-burning to gas use; modernization of industrial boilers (e.g. use of fluidized bed boilers); reconstruction of larger heating stations for use also in electricity generation; and modernization and construction of new smaller energy generating sources. Construction of installations for reduction of dust and gaseous emissions (especially sulfur dioxide, dust particles, nitrogen monoxides, carbon oxides) is also a priority area. In the long term, energy saving measures will be a significant opportunity area. Another significant source of local air pollution in cities is domestic heating, largely based on individual fireplaces which are not fitted with any pollution control equipment. Construction of central (district) heating systems in urban areas is the most common way of addressing this problem, although gas heating is also gradually being introduced in individual family houses, and, in some areas, in businesses as well. With respect to modernizing the domestic heating systems in individual houses, Slovenia is probably most advanced among the surveyed countries. Emissions from the transport sector have also become a growing source of air pollution, especially in big cities. Trafficrelated air pollution in urban areas is among the most frequently cited environmental problems. Finally, control of process and fugitive air emissions at industrial plants is another area frequently cited as a priority. Most countries are preparing legislation aimed at reducing air emissions of volatile organic substances, hydrocarbons (including benzo-a-pyrene), heavy metals and other air pollutants. Water and Wastewater Currently, there exists a large gap between the percentage of the population with access to municipal water supply, and that connected to sewage systems. The most critical environmental problems are related to poor quality drinking water, and the pollution of water resources. Discharge of untreated industrial and municipal wastewater has led to contamination of surface and groundwater resources. Approximately half of all generated sewage is discharged untreated. A number of major cities do not have wastewater treatment facilities, or treat only a fraction of their sewage (e.g. Warsaw, Budapest). Uncontrolled runoff from agriculture further exacerbates the problem. Another frequently mentioned priority is the elimination of shortages in high-quality drinking water supply in urban areas, mainly through the construction of additional water treatment works, construction of wastewater treatment plants in cities located along major rivers, and the reduction of pollution loads discharged by industry and the municipalities into rivers. The main project opportunities in the water management sector are related to the construction of new, and modernization of existing water supply and wastewater treatment systems. Contamination of groundwater resources (especially by oil-based substances, organic solvents, and heavy metals) is also a significant problem. Another important field is the improvement of sanitary conditions in rural areas by supplementing village water supply systems with adequate sanitation. Interestingly, in practically all countries, the management of sludge from wastewater treatment was a major unresolved issue. Waste Management Municipal waste generation has increased sharply over the last decade, in some cases even two-fold. This growth, however, has not been accompanied by improvements in waste management practices. The bulk of municipal waste (between 80 and 95 percent) is landfilled, while most existing landfills do not meet required environmental standards. The problem is compounded by the illegal dumping of waste. The rate of
20
recycling and process waste utilization are low, with only a few firms active in the field. The disposal of hazardous waste is one of the most pressing problems. Frequently, significant amounts of hazardous waste are stored on-site at the source in so-called temporary storage facilities. There are few modern facilities for the disposal of hazardous waste. Incineration of hospital waste is generally carried out in small and obsolete facilities. For some bulk industrial waste (e.g. phosphogypsum, “red mud” from aluminum production), no feasible treatment technology is available. Other high volume industrial waste which needs to be better managed includes waste from coal mining and open pit excavation. Governments are undertaking a number of actions to address the problem of waste management. New waste legislation is being prepared (e.g. Waste Acts in Poland and Hungary) or has been adopted recently (hazardous waste regulations in Hungary). Product fees (“green taxes”) have been imposed on some products, such as fuels, tires, refrigerants, car batteries and packaging materials. To date, waste management projects have tended to focus on landfill construction. While this tendency will continue in the near future, (especially hazardous waste sites and sanitary landfills), other waste management activities are expected to grow in importance. Waste minimization and recycling of waste (e.g. reducing generation of industrial wastes, increasing the rate of their utilization) are high on the priority list in all countries. Construction of modern hazardous waste incinerators is another likely opportunity area. Composting of municipal waste is of interest in Poland, while a significant number of projects relating to site remediation and decontamination are under way, especially in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. In Hungary, the government intends to establish a nationwide waste collection and recycling system. In Slovakia, the government puts high emphasis on construction of regional incineration plants for hospital waste, and remediation and revitalization of old landfills. Other Areas A significant number of projects relating to site remediation and decontamination are under way. The area is a strong priority in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, mainly because of liability issues prominent in the privatization process. With time, the area is expected to grow in importance in Hungary and Poland. Revitalization of damaged soils and landscape is a priority, especially in heavily industrialized areas. Intensive reforestation programs, particularly in watershed areas and on land unsuitable for agricultural use, are underway in Poland and Slovakia. Comprehensive environmental programs have to be developed for some of the most contaminated or threatened areas in the CEE countries. North Bohemia in the Czech Republic, Dunaujvaros and Varpalota in Hungary, Silesia in Poland, and the Kosice region in Slovakia are examples of areas strongly polluted as a result of heavy industrialization. Noise and vibration affecting the general public does not seem to be a major area of interest in most countries, and was not perceived a significant project opportunity area. Generally, the required measures are costly, and there are other more pressing environmental priorities for cash-strapped investors. Noise-related problems play a significant role only on a local scale, for instance in the vicinity of major highways, and industrial plants with high noise levels. The latter, however, is a particularly significant issue in Poland, where legislation sets strict standards for acceptable noise levels. Occupational health and workplace safety (OHS) does not seem to be a major priority area at present, although it is likely that with the introduction of stricter OHS regulations comparable with those in the EU, and with the increased direct liability of
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.4: MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES Source of Information
Czech Republic
Personal contacts Professional contacts Trade shows and fairs Daily newspapers Conference attendance Business publications Environmental publications Mailing lists Professional associations Environmental ministry Local and regional governments Chambers of commerce
96% 64% 72% 61% 58% 59% 55% 68% 32% 34% 6% 11%
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Average
91% 92% 53% 62% 69% 59% 66% 34% 84% 42% 14% 32%
98% 85% 91% 84% 81% 77% 83% 65% 53% 31% 59% 24%
94% 88% 73% 76% 69% 69% 51% 70% 49% 51% 47% 34%
96% n.a. 61% 61% 57% 36% 49% 57% 36% 70% 54% 43%
95% 82% 70% 69% 67% 60% 61% 59% 51% 46% 36% 29%
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995 and 1997
employers for workers’ safety, demand will grow. Also, requirements related to risk management stipulated in the ISO certification process are likely to influence the situation in this field. Future Developments Air pollution control will continue to be a major priority area, although there is expected to be a gradual shift of focus towards small and medium-sized air pollution sources. Air pollution from traffic will grow in importance, and, in general, environmental impacts of the transport sector are expected to be more vigorously addressed. Water management, and particularly wastewater treatment, are likely to remain priority areas in the near future. Pollution of potable water sources from agriculture, and from contaminated sites is a likely target area in the future. Currently, end-of-pipe technologies are mostly used to address major environmental problems, but the significance of preventive solutions is expected to increase with time. In the long term, waste minimization and pollution prevention should become the prevailing approach. Increasing environmental fees, better enforcement of regulations, and growing costs of waste disposal are major driving factors. Price liberalization is also expected to stimulate demand for energy efficiency measures, resource recovery, and water reuse projects. The construction of modern landfills is an expected longterm opportunity area. Accumulated hazardous waste that needs treatment and removal, and waste disposal sites that need remediation are likely to remain a significant priority.
1.3 Information Channels for Business Opportunities One of the most critical factors behind successfully entering the environmental technology market in Eastern Europe is timely access to information for project opportunities. The findings of the survey indicate, however, that there are no effective formal channels for information about opportunities. Interviewed experts were not aware of any central body or organization collecting information on environmental business opportunities. Personal and professional contacts, participation in environmental fairs, and business and environmental publications are among the primary sources of information used. Governmental organizations, R&D institutes, and professional associations, etc. generally do not seem to be regarded
a useful source. There are no institutions or clearinghouses collecting information about environmental business opportunities. It was often noted that ministries of environment should play a more important role in providing information on project opportunities than they do at present. The majority of businesses expressed disappointment with the inefficiency and changing structure of ministries. Additional sources included sporadic assistance from governmental agencies and local authorities, annual environmental reports prepared by regional administrations, a “black list” of companies declared particularly damaging to the environment, and the media. For comparison, Table 1.4 presents the breakdown of major information sources for business opportunities, based on a 1995 survey of about 150 environmental businesses in each of the surveyed countries, carried out by the Regional Environmental Center. Personal and professional contacts are by far the major information channel, followed by participation in trade shows, fairs, and conferences. Daily press, and business and environmental publications were also frequently indicated as a useful source. Major Publications Based on the above survey, the main environmental and business publications read by environmental professionals include those listed in Table 1.5. Information about Available Environmental Technologies Purchasing environmental technologies does not pose any significant problem because of the wide range of products available on the market. In the opinion of many respondents, the environmental technology market is in fact saturated. The major ways of gathering information prior to buying environmental technologies include personal and professional relations, which are especially important where previous contacts with a supplier have been established. Another significant source was participation in fairs and exhibitions, brochures and leaflets distributed at trade shows, and catalogues and directories purchased during shows, fairs and conferences. Additionally, representatives of domestic and foreign companies often visit potential clients in person, or contact them by mail, offering products and services. Industry associations, and information from the foreign owner or a parent company appear another, albeit less common, way to obtain information prior to purchasing environ-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
21
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.5: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL OR BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS AND READERSHIP (%)
TABLE 1.6: MAJOR ENVIRONMENT-RELATED TRADE EVENTS
Czech Republic
Hospodarsky Noviny (69%) Ekonom (32%) Odpady (22%) EKO Journal (16%) Profit (15%)
Country
Name of Fair
Czech Republic
Envirbrno, Brno October/November International September Engineering Fair, Brno
Hungary
HVG (35%) Kornyezetvedelmi Fuzetek (34%) Napi Vilaggazdasag (28%) Cegvezetes (15%) Kornyezet es Fejlodes (13%)
Hungary
Budapest International Fair Kommunal Expo, Budapest
September June
Poland
Poleko, Poznan Wod-Kan, Bydgoszcz International Poznan Fair, Poznan
November April/May June
Slovakia
Komunal, Zilina Aqua, Trencin Racioenergia, Bratislava
Slovenia
EKO sejem, Celje Tehnika za Okolje, Ljubljana
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Gaz, Woda, and Technika Sanitarna, (43%) Ochrona Srodowiska (23%) Aura (20%) Ekopartner (18%) Ochrona Powietrza (13%) Hospodarsky Noviny (50%) Trend (38%) Ekonomicky a Prany Poradca (36%) Profit (19%) Odpady (14%) Gospodarski Vestnik (36%) Uradni List RS (19%) Okolje (16%) Gospodarjenje z Odpadki (13%) Manager (9%)
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995 and 1997
mental technologies. Some companies create their own rudimentary information databases. Finally, information provided in different specialized journals, or information obtained at fairs in other countries were sometimes used. Major Trade Fairs Environmental fairs play an important role as a source of information. Table 1.6 presents those major environment-related trade events held regularly. There is a general trend among environmental firms to reduce the number of exhibitions they participate in, and only to take part in the larger ones, which attract more visitors. In the future, the number of fairs, shows, and conferences is expected to decrease. For a potential participant, it is advisable to carefully review planned events with an experienced local advisor, and, having considered the costs and benefits of taking part, to focus on those events which offer the best return on the required effort and resources. Public Procurement Regulations and Tendering Each country has recently enacted public procurement legislation that requires the formal announcement of tenders for all planned acquisitions involving the use of public money. A tender announcement, including project specifications, selection criteria, and deadlines, must be published in an official public procurement bulletin. Table 1.7 lists these sources. The above sources of information will play an increasingly important role for news on upcoming projects. However, at this point, most experts were skeptical as to their usefulness as an information source. In practice, under the current rules, deadlines can be set too early after tender announcement, forcing potential bidders to abandon responses unless they have advance knowledge of the project. Many opportunities are missed because they are belatedly announced or not at all.
22
Approximate Date
April June May March (biannual) October (biannual)
Note: All events held annually unless otherwise specified
Access to Public Information and the Right-to-Know It is crucial for foreign companies entering the environmental technology market in Central and Eastern Europe to be aware of some specific factors restricting the flow of information. As discussed above, there is not an effective system in place in any of the countries to ensure wide and publicly available access to information. In fact, the very concept of “public information” is practically unknown. In general, the following key factors result in poor information flow: ■
Scarcity of quality information — often, environmental data from the past is not available as it was not tracked properly, or may have even been a state secret;
■
Poor channels for dissemination — in general, official channels for information dissemination either do not exist or do not function effectively;
■
Lack of a “traditional” information market. Client-based services have yet to develop, while existing state-run services are ineffective;
TABLE 1.7: PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BULLETINS Country
Year Procurement Law Adopted Official Tender Bulletin
Czech Republic
1996
Obchodni Vestnik (Commercial Bulletin)
Hungary
1995
Kozbeszerzesi Erteseto (Public Procurement Bulletin)
Poland
1994
Biuletyn Zamowien Publicznych (Bulletin of Public Procurement)
Slovakia
1996
Obchodny Vestnik (Commercial Bulletin of the Slovak Republic)
Slovenia
1996
Uradni list RS (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia)
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.8: SUMMARY OF DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Air
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
Water and Wastewater
moderate
moderate
high
high
moderate
Waste
moderate
high
high
high
high
Energy
moderate
high
high
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
moderate
low
low
Noise, Vibration and OHS ■
Organizational structures of state institutions are changing frequently, and it is difficult to keep track of current addresses, phones, or even responsibilities of state organizations;
■
Poorly paid officials often treat information as a commodity, offering to make data available at a fee, particularly to commercial clients (despite freedom of information legislation);
■
Strong legacy of the chain of command system, where no information is released without a formal approval from a superior;
■
“Liberal approach” to deadlines and commitments;
■
In some cases, information flow is hampered by poor telephone communications and language skills.
Reaching CEE Environmental Professionals Given the crucial role of personal contacts for a successful presence on the environmental technology market in the surveyed countries, the following facts concerning environmental professionals in CEE need to be underlined: ■
only half belong to any professional association;
■
even major associations do not have a membership body larger than about a fifth of the active professionals;
■
only one in four would refer to a business chamber;
■
no single environmental publication reaches the majority of respondents;
■
a few business publications are widely read (more than 50 percent of respondents);
■
two-thirds attend conferences to meet others in the field;
■
two-thirds participate in trade fairs and shows;
■
moderate. Technologies related to waste management were high in demand in all countries except for the Czech Republic. Energy-related environmental technologies were high in demand in Hungary and Poland, while technologies for water and wastewater treatment were high in demand in Poland and Slovakia. Demand for noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety technologies was low to moderate. Considering the priority assigned to air pollution control in environmental policy in all countries, it is surprising that only moderate demand was identified for technologies in this sector. The moderate demand can be partly explained by the significance of the energy sector as a major pollutant (high demand for energy-related technologies was identified in Hungary and Poland), and partly by the fact that many major air-quality related projects are already underway (in most cases, new and stricter air-quality regulations are either in place or are due in the next two years). Similarly, a high number of ongoing wastewater projects account for the generally moderate levels of demand in the water and wastewater sectors. In other words, when interpreting the results of the demand for environmental technologies, one has to be aware of the fact that some important environmental problems have already been dealt with or are currently being addressed. Table 1.9 presents an overview of sectors where high demand was identified. Environmental technologies related to industrial wastewater and hazardous waste featured prominently. Municipal wastewater related technologies were also in high demand. It
TABLE 1.9: OVERVIEW OF HIGH DEMAND SECTORS Czech Republic
■
personal contacts are crucial.
Overall, for a foreign firm to compete effectively, it is almost essential to enter the market through an experienced local business partner. In most cases, the technical and environmental skills of local environmental professionals are well developed, and many firms are increasingly professional in their management and marketing approach.
Air pollution control Municipal wastewater ■ Hazardous waste ■
Hungary
Industrial wastewater Hazardous waste ■ Radioactive waste ■ Energy ■ OHS ■ ■
Poland
Municipal wastewater Industrial wastewater ■ Hazardous waste ■ Energy ■ ■
1.4 Demand for Environmental Technologies
Slovakia
■
SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW The demand for environmental technologies is closely driven by current priorities in the environmental policy, and by applicable regulations. Table 1.8 presents an overview of the identified demand in the surveyed countries. Overall, demand for environmental technologies was
Municipal wastewater Industrial wastewater ■ Hazardous waste ■
Slovenia
Air and water monitoring Industrial wastewater ■ Radioactive waste ■ Hazardous waste ■ ■
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
23
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.10: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND – AIR Country
Technologies in demand
Czech Republic
Technologies in high demand: #1 air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions)
Hungary
Technologies in high demand: #1 instrumentation and process control/software Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions); #3 air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment
Poland
Technologies in high demand: #1 emission abatement/cleaner production (gaseous emissions) Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment; #3 instrumentation and process control (gaseous emissions)
Slovakia
Technologies in high demand: #1 instrumentation and process control/software (gaseous emissions) Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 emission abatement/cleaner production (gaseous emissions); #3 air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions and ambient air); #4 air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment
Slovenia
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 air sampling and laboratory analysis (ambient air and gaseous emissions); #2 emission abatement and cleaner production (gaseous emissions); and #3 air pollution control and flue gas purification equipment (gaseous emissions).
is expected that within the next several years, the focus will remain on end-of-pipe environmental technologies. There will be a growing demand, however, for pollution prevention and waste minimization technologies. The following sections provide an overview of the demand for specific environmental technologies in each sector.
AIR Table 1.10 presents those air-related technologies in high demand and technologies where demand is expected to rise. Respondents generally indicated higher demand for technologies related to gaseous emissions than for those related to ambient air. This seems to be a consequence of national environmental policies focusing on emission sources, with the power generation sector and other large industrial emitters (e.g. the chemical industry) being the main target of regulations. Technologies for air pollution control and flue gas purification ranked among the highest in most countries, followed by emission abatement and cleaner production. Demand for other technologies varied in individual countries. Air pollution control is represented by scrubbers, filters, and by large, technologically sophisticated systems used to reduce emissions of solid particles, sulfur dioxide, carbon oxides etc. Currently, the market in the sector is largely based on imports. Co-generation and combustion conversion technologies that reduce emissions (e.g. conversion to gas and oil fuel for small and medium boilers, or fluidized bed for large coal-fired units) are also in demand. Instrumentation and process control/software were in high demand in Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland. Technologies for cleaner production are less sought at present, partly because of the existing focus on end-of-pipe measures in industry, and partly because of current regulations oriented to treatment rather than prevention. Demand for cleaner production technologies should grow, however, since many countries are enacting legislation promoting preventive solutions and are introducing preferential financing, tax incentives, etc. Air sampling and laboratory analysis technologies were noted in several countries as well. While such technologies were primarily required by industry for assessing gaseous emissions, government sector and local authorities indicated a growing need for technologies for the monitoring and analysis
24
of ambient air. The demand for the latter category was high in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia.
WATER AND WASTEWATER Table 1.11 presents water and wastewater-related technologies high in demand, and technologies where demand is expected to rise. Protection of water resources, and improving the quality of drinking water are the major objectives in most countries’ national environmental policies. The primary goals are to: increase the percentage of the population connected to sewage disposal facilities, increase the proportion of wastewater treated in biological processes, and to provide treatment of wastewater from industrial sources. In general, demand in the water and wastewater sector was highest for technologies related to industrial and municipal wastewater treatment, followed by technologies for drinking water supply. Demand for water recycling and reuse, and pollution prevention equipment was ranked high by many respondents. The demand is expected to grow in the future, driven by tightening regulations, increases in fees for wastewater discharge, and growing prices for drinking water supply. As regards wastewater treatment technologies, it should be stressed that conventional treatment systems are generally readily available on local markets, largely based on domestic technologies. Therefore, advanced wastewater treatment technologies (tertiary treatment, specialized industrial wastewater treatment, etc.) were often ranked high by industrial users. Many industrial users also indicated their need in the category “instrumentation/process control/software” for industrial wastewater management. It is worth noting that technologies for the treatment and disposal of sludge also ranked high in several countries (e.g. Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland). Sludge dewatering equipment and comprehensive technologies for sludge treatment and disposal were most needed. Some experts also mentioned the need for upgrading existing treatment plants, e.g. by adding a biological stage. Technologies for the construction of wastewater collection systems were also mentioned, especially in the context of national programs focusing on smaller towns and rural areas. As regards potable water, there was a demonstrated need
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.11: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND – WATER AND WASTEWATER Country
Technologies in Demand
Czech Republic
Technologies in high demand: #1 pollution prevention/waste minimization (municipal wastewater); #2 spill control and containment/clean-up (surface and ground water); #3 sludge treatment and disposal (municipal wastewater). Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #4 quality restoration and decontamination (surface and ground water); #5 sludge treatment and disposal (industrial wastewater); #6 construction of municipal wastewater collection networks; #7 monitoring, sampling and analysis of drinking water; #8 water recycling and reuse (industrial wastewater)
Hungary
Technologies in high demand: #1 sludge treatment and disposal (industrial and municipal wastewater); Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 construction of collection networks-municipal and industrial wastewater; #3 water recycling and reuse (potable – drinking – water and industrial wastewater); #4 spill control and containment/clean-up (surface and groundwater); #5 instrumentation, process control, and software-industrial wastewater; #6 standard and advanced treatment (industrial wastewater); #7 inspection and reconditioning of existing wastewater collection networks
Poland
Technologies in high demand: #1 sludge treatment and disposal (municipal and industrial wastewater); #2 pollution prevention/waste minimization (municipal and industrial wastewater); #3 monitoring (municipal and industrial wastewater); #4 advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (municipal and industrial wastewater); #5 instrumentation/process control/software (municipal and industrial wastewater); #6 clean-up, quality restoration, and decontamination (surface and groundwater). Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #7 water recycling and reuse (municipal and industrial wastewater); #8 advanced (tertiary) drinking water treatment; #9 spill control and containment (municipal and industrial wastewater); #10 standard wastewater treatment processes (municipal and industrial wastewater); #11 inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply networks
Slovakia
Technologies in high demand: #1 inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply and municipal wastewater collection networks; #2 monitoring (industrial wastewater); #3 clean-up, decontamination, and quality restoration (surface and groundwater); #4 construction of municipal and industrial wastewater collection networks; Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #5 standard wastewater treatment processes for water and wastewater; #6 instrumentation, process control, and software (industrial wastewater); #7 sampling/laboratory analysis; #8 construction of water supply networks; #9 sludge treatment and disposal (municipal and industrial wastewater); #10 advanced (tertiary) treatment processes for water and wastewater.
Slovenia
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 monitoring; and sampling/laboratory analysis (industrial wastewater); #2 instrumentation, process control/software (industrial wastewater); #3 pollution prevention/waste minimization (industrial wastewater, and potable water).
for technologies used in the reconditioning and rehabilitation of existing water supply networks, particularly in Slovakia and Hungary. Demand was also notable for technologies used for the protection and decontamination of surface and groundwater water resources (e.g. spill clean-up, quality restoration). Finally, monitoring, sampling and laboratory analysis equipment was indicated as a growing demand area by several interviewees, most notably in Slovenia. The individual country chapters provide a more detailed picture of the demand in individual categories.
WASTE MANAGEMENT Table 1.12 presents waste-related technologies identified as high in demand, and technologies where demand is expected to rise. Overall, among waste-related technologies, those for hazardous waste and radioactive waste management were high in demand, followed by technologies for industrial and municipal waste management. Since waste incineration is quite marginal, high demand was indicated for technologies used for landfill disposal, both for municipal and hazardous waste. However, most landfills in the surveyed countries are reaching capacity, and there are problems with establishing new waste disposal sites. This is largely due to public opposition and funding shortages.
Aside from capacity problems, the cost of waste disposal is also rising sharply. Therefore, demand for pollution prevention and waste minimization technologies, and recycling/resource recovery technologies for industrial and hazardous waste was estimated as high and is expected to grow. The focus of governmental policies, and available support from state environmental funds are expected to reinforce this trend. Site remediation technologies, and decontamination and clean-up equipment were in high demand in some countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic), partly because of a policy which focuses on the protection of water resources, and partly because of the issue of environmental liabilities in state privatization programs. Also, site monitoring technologies were indicated as a growing demand area, particularly for landfill sites. Interestingly, waste-to-energy facilities were not in high demand. Public response to waste incineration is negative and, in general, governments seem to move away from this disposal method. For municipal waste, there was also interest in some countries in composting/biomass conversion technologies and recycling (Poland, Hungary). Disposal and waste minimization technologies for radioactive waste, along with technologies for monitoring, waste characterization and site clean-up for radioactive waste were identified as high demand areas in most countries. It is worth noting, however, that despite the high profile and political controversies, in terms of volume, radioactive waste disposal is not a major market sector in waste management.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
25
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.12: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND – WASTE MANAGEMENT Country
Technologies in Demand
Czech Republic
Technologies in high demand: #1 waste collection/transportation and storage (hazardous waste); Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land (municipal, hazardous, and industrial waste); #3 waste collection/transportation and storage (municipal and industrial waste); #4 incineration and landfill disposal (industrial waste); #5 pollution prevention/waste minimization (radioactive waste).
Hungary
Technologies in high demand: #1 site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land (hazardous waste); #2 sample analysis/waste characterization; site monitoring; waste collection/transportation and storage (radioactive waste) Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #3 pollution prevention/waste minimization (industrial and hazardous waste); #4 recycling/resource recovery (industrial waste) #5 waste collection/transportation and storage (hazardous waste); #6 hazardous waste site monitoring; #7 spillage control/decontamination (hazardous waste)
Poland
Technologies in high demand: #1 pollution prevention/waste minimization (all waste categories); #2 composting/biomass conversion (municipal solid waste); #3 recycling/resource recovery (all waste categories); #4 decontamination, site remediation, and clean-up of contaminated land for radioactive waste; #5 hazardous waste collection, transportation and storage. Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #6 hazardous waste site monitoring; #7 municipal waste collection, transportation, and storage; #8 site remediation/clean-up (hazardous and industrial waste); #10 landfill disposal of municipal waste.
Slovakia
Technologies in high demand: #1 landfill disposal (all waste categories); #2 site remediation/cleanup of contaminated land (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #3 waste collection/transportation and storage (all waste categories); #4 recycling and resource recovery (hazardous waste); #5 pollution prevention/waste minimization (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #6 site monitoring (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #7 sample analysis/waste characterization (radioactive waste); #8 hazardous waste incineration. Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #9 spillage control/decontamination (industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste); #10 recycling and resource recovery (industrial and municipal waste); #11 sample analysis/waste characterization (industrial and municipal waste); #12 industrial waste site monitoring, remediation, and clean-up.
Slovenia
Technologies in high demand: #1 landfill waste disposal, and pollution prevention/waste minimization - (radioactive waste); #2 recycling/resource recovery (industrial waste); #3 landfill disposal (hazardous waste). Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #4 recycling/resource recovery (municipal waste); #5 landfill disposal (industrial and municipal waste); #6 pollution prevention/waste minimization (hazardous and industrial waste); #7 spillage control and decontamination (radioactive waste); #8 waste collection/transportation and storage of (municipal waste); and #9 composting and biomass conversion (municipal waste).
TABLE 1.13: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND – ENERGY Country
Technologies in Demand
Czech Republic
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems (energy and power generation, other industrial sectors); #2 alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants (other industrial sectors).
Hungary
Technologies in high demand: #1 instrumentation; #2 retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems; Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #3 process management and control; #4 new and efficient energy and heat generation systems; #5 heat recovery and energy savings
Poland
Technologies in high demand: #1 new/efficient energy and heat generation systems; #2 retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems; #3 heat recovery and energy savings; #4 process management and control; #5 alternative/renewable energy systems for the energy sector.
Slovakia
Technologies in high demand: #1 new/efficient energy and heat generation systems; #2 alternative (non-cfc) refrigerants. Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #3 instrumentation; #4 process management and control; #5 retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems.
Slovenia
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 alternative refrigerants (non-cfc) (energy and power generation); #2 heat recovery and energy savings (energy and power generation); #3 new and efficient energy and heat generation systems;, and #4 retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems.
26
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.14: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – NOISE, VIBRATION AND OHS Country
Technologies in Demand
Czech Republic
Technologies in demand (moderate at best): #1 protection equipment (OHS); #2 abatement (OHS).
Hungary
Technologies in high demand: #1 abatement (OHS) ; #2 protection equipment (OHS) Technologies where demand is expected to rise: abatement (noise and vibration)
Poland
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: noise and vibration abatement (insulation, absorption), and instrumentation/measuring and control devices (noise and vibration)
Slovakia
none
Slovenia
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: protection equipment (OHS);
ENERGY Table 1.13 presents energy-related technologies identified as high in demand, and technologies where demand is expected to rise. Similar to the air pollution sector, demand in the energy sector is driven by national environmental policies focusing on reducing emissions from the power generation sector and from other large industrial emission sources. By far the most frequently mentioned areas where high demand was indicated were technologies for retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems, and new and/or efficient energy and heat generation systems. The trend was similar both in the power generation sector and in other branches of industry. Fuel conversion from coal to alternative sources (e.g. natural gas), introduction of modern furnaces (fluidized bed boiler), as well as the installation of low-emission equipment to reduce SO2, NOx, and particulate emission were often noted in this context. Another significant high-demand field was process management and control (e.g. boiler tuning, fuel efficiency optimization), where demand was driven by the increasing costs of resources and energy, and by efforts to reduce emissions. The growing cost of energy is also a factor likely to influence the demand for heat recovery and energy savings technologies, which, surprisingly, did not emerge as a significant high-demand area. Only insulation technologies were often noted in this category. Finally, in some countries (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia) there was demand for alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants for use in various industrial sectors. Interestingly, the use of alternative sources of energy was generally seen as a marginal issue.
NOISE, VIBRATION, AND OHS Demand in this sector was low to moderate. Table 1.14 presents those noise, vibration, and OHS-related technologies where demand is expected to rise. Clearly, little attention is given to the sector at present. Only in Hungary, two technology categories related to occupational health and safety were found to be in significant demand. Some prospects identified in the OHS sector included protection equipment, and abatement technologies. Both sectors recorded a degree of interest in instrumentation, measuring, and control devices. The construction industry, and the transport sector were sometimes mentioned as potential clients driving demand, but this has still to materialize. Some comments indicated that demand in the OHS category may grow, driven by greater attention being accorded to worker’s exposure and risk assessment procedures at industrial facilities as ISO 14000/EMAS procedures are gradually implemented throughout the region.
1.5 Major End-users of Environmental Technologies The rationale for the question concerning the major endusers of environmental technologies was to give an indication of who the major potential buyers of environmental technologies are. However, there was a clear tendency among the respondents not to point to the more lucrative sectors. Even within their own field of expertise, many respondents were either uncertain about the major end-users of environmental technologies, or were not willing to reveal the major customers. As a result, there were frequent references to very general and non-descriptive categories, such as “production” or “industry.” The major end-user of environmental technologies as indicated by the survey are municipalities, the energy and power generation sector, and the chemical industry. The energy and power generation sector, and the chemical industry are the major end-users of air pollution prevention technology. In the “Water and Wastewater,” “Waste Management,” and “Energy” sectors, municipal services, including municipal power generation, were indicated as major end-users of environmental technologies. In the sectors of “Water and Wastewater,” and “Waste Management,” municipal services were followed by various industries, such as mining, chemical, paper, wood, and food processing. As might be expected, the transport sector is the major end-user of air and noise and vibration pollution prevention technologies. Industry in general is also an important user of environmental technologies related to energy. Worth noting here is the trend for municipalities to be the major end-user of environmental technologies. This is largely because of the decrease in industrial production in most
TABLE 1.15: MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – AIR Country
Major End-user Groups
Czech Republic Power plants and heat generating stations; Industrial companies Hungary
Energy sector; Power plants; Chemical industry; Transport; Waste incinerators; Metallurgy
Poland
Energy and power generation sector; Chemical industry; Various types of manufacturing; Transport
Slovakia
Energy sector; Chemical industry; Transport
Slovenia
Municipal power generation; Transport; Chemical and Paper industry
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
27
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.16: MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – WATER AND WASTEWATER Country
Major End-user Groups
Czech Republic Municipalities; Municipal sewage treatment and drinking water suppliers; Remediation companies; Hospitals; Food processing. Hungary
Municipal water and wastewater service companies; Chemical industry; Energy sector; Mining; Food industry; Pharmaceutical industry; Textile industry, Agriculture (diluted manure)
Poland
Municipalities/municipal services; Chemical industry; Various types of manufacturing; Energy and power generation sector; Mining
Slovakia
Municipalities; Chemical industry; Manufacturing in general.
Slovenia
Municipal services; Chemical industry, Agriculture; Food industry; Heavy industry; Mining
Note: “Municipalities” are town administrations who order and purchase various technologies and services while “municipal services” are companies that are either controlled by municipalities or are contracted to provide town administrations with specific services (e.g. water supply, waste collection).
countries since the late 1980s, when several factories (otherwise the most likely user of environmental technologies) ceased production because of financial problems. In addition, some major environmental problems arising from industry have already been addressed. Therefore, the focus is shifting now on pollution from the municipal sector, which was neglected in the past. The rankings presented in Tables 1.15 to 1.19 give an indication of the major end-user groups in specific areas of environmental technology in individual countries. Air The major end-users of environmental technologies in air pollution prevention are operators of power plants and heating stations. Most power plants are owned by the state, through a majority share, while local heating stations have various forms of ownership — some are owned by former state enterprises that have become joint-stock companies. Other heating stations are private, or are owned by municipalities. The significance of the power and energy sector as clients is bound to increase in the next few years, as more stringent regulations on air pollution from stationary sources are introduced and enforced. Other significant end-users of air pollution control equipment included the chemical industry and transport, followed by various other industries — metallurgy, pharmaceutical, paper etc. Notably, neither small, stationary pollution sources (family housing), nor the automotive sector (private vehicles) are among the major end-users, as for the most part they are not affected by regulations. Water and Wastewater Municipalities (or operators of municipal systems) are the major end-users of both water and wastewater treatment systems. Considering the neglects of the past, this situation is
28
TABLE 1.18: MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – ENERGY Country
Major End-user Groups
Czech Republic Power plants, Heat generating stations; Municipalities; Municipal services; other industrial companies. Hungary
Energy sector (production and service), Raw material processing industry (steel, aluminum); Chemical industry; Municipalities
Poland
Energy and power generation sector; Chemical industry; Municipalities/ municipal services; Mining; Transport
Slovakia
Energy sector; Chemical industry; Mining and processing of mineral resources.
Slovenia
Municipal power generation; other industrial sectors
Note: The difference between “municipalities” and “municipal services”: “Municipalities“ are town administrations who order and purchase various technologies and services. On the other hand, “municipal services” are companies that are either controlled by municipalities, or are contracted to a private company provide town administrations with specific services (eg. water supply, waste collection).
expected to last well beyond the year 2000. With time, individual housing units, especially in more remote areas, may become a frequent buyer of compact wastewater treatment units, as prices for the removal of sewage increase. Other important customers for wastewater treatment technologies are the chemical industry, manufacturing, the food processing industry and mining. The mining sector is still dealing with the unresolved problem of saline water disposal, and treatment of wastewater from raw ore cleaning. The above groups are followed less frequently by other industrial groups and agriculture. Notably, the issue of nonpoint sources of water pollution is still uncharted territory in most countries, and can be expected to increase in the future. Waste Management Municipalities and municipal service providers are the major end-users of waste disposal technologies such as waste collection, landfilling, or incineration. The most frequent end-users of technologies for hazardous waste disposal (incineration, landfilling, re-use technologies) are the chemical industry, machinery, engineering, pulp and paper industries, and others. Other significant categories of end-users are the energy and mining sectors, including processors of raw materials. There is still an unresolved problem of the disposal of massive amounts of phosphogypsum, slag and ash from energy generation, and pit excavation materials. The mining and energy sectors are among significant endusers of technologies for site remediation and soil reclamation work. The state (e.g. privatization agencies) was also a frequent customer of remediation technologies. Energy As can be expected, the major end-user of energy-related environmental technologies is the power and energy generation sector. Retrofitting of existing systems, along with process management and control were the major areas of interest within this field. Energy saving technologies, or alternative energy sources are not currently in great demand, but may experience a boom
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.17: MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – WASTE MANAGEMENT Country
Major End-user Groups
Czech Republic Municipal services; Municipalities; Mining; Public cleansing services; Landfill operators and waste processing companies; Transportation Hungary
Municipal public utility companies; Mining; Energy sector; other industries (construction, textile, paper, food); aluminum industry (red mud); Agriculture
Poland
Municipalities/municipal services; Chemical industry; Energy and power generation sector; Manufacturing; Mining
Slovakia
Chemical industry; Municipalities, Mining; Energy sector.
Slovenia
Municipal waste management service; Chemical industry, Wood processing, Heavy industries; Mining
TABLE 1.19: MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – NOISE, VIBRATION AND OHS Country
reducing vibrations are of interest to heavy industries. There was no single dominant end-user for occupational health and safety equipment.
Major End-user Groups
Czech Republic Large industrial companies; Construction companies Hungary
Transportation, Manufacturing industry, industrial sites in residential areas, Energy sector, Textile industry, Airports
Poland
Manufacturing; Heavy industry; Mining; Transport; Energy and power generation sector; Chemical industry
Slovakia
Manufacturing in general; Construction; Chemical industry
Slovenia
Transport; Industry; Mining
within the next few years. At present, energy producing companies are not pressed to undertake any energy-saving measures, since they are paid for energy produced, not that saved. Alternative energy sources may become of interest to municipalities and private individuals if they become more affordable, and the price of energy rises as expected. Other industrial branches (e.g. chemical) may also become more significant end-users for heat recovery and energy savings technologies, as prices of energy go up and industrial activity increases. Noise, Vibration and OHS Technologies reducing noise and vibration generally were not in great demand, and specifying major end-users was most difficult for all categories. Noise protection technologies for indoor workplaces are important to the chemical, metallurgic, mining, and heavy machinery industries. Outside noise pollution was a burden in some municipalities, and in transport. The construction industry may be one of the best clients. Technologies
1.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers This chapter of the survey was intended to determine purchasing preferences prevalent on the domestic markets, to identify the strengths of foreign environmental technologies, and to examine the barriers to their wider entry to CEE markets. Please note that the term “foreign technologies” was widely interpreted to mean “Western technologies.” Technologies from other CEE countries (not surveyed here) are generally not considered very competitive — they usually fall in a similar price range, and have quality comparable to that of domestic products. Hence, local technologies are preferred.
PURCHASING PREFERENCES The country of origin (domestic vs. foreign) of a particular environmental technology clearly is not the key factor behind purchasing decisions made among CEE buyers. Most experts (about two-thirds) only rely on the use of best-technology or best-practice criteria when making purchasing decisions. Among some participants (between 10 and 20 percent), a preference for domestic products prevails. There was a slight preference (60-70 percent) for buying foreign-manufactured environmental technology from domestic representatives compared with buying directly from the producer abroad. An important factor behind the purchase from an in-country dealer was the availability of after-sales service. Customers buying directly from abroad generally tended to be either foreign-owned companies, or clients requiring very specialized and customized solutions. Product quality and reliability, warranty conditions, good value for money, lowest possible cost outlay in achieving the required standards, previous experience with a supplier, and references, are determining factors in purchasing choices. Additionally, in all countires except Slovenia preferential credit or financing from the supplier significantly increased the chances of selling products. In the case of R&D institutions, product quality and references clearly take priority over price. According to respondents, due to the pervasive lack of money, most environmental technology end-users (municipalities, business) select the cheapest technology available on the market that enables them to meet the required standards. Both municipalities, as well as businesses must meet environmental standards (and corresponding deadlines) set by environmental enforcement bodies. At the same time, they are coping with pressing economic issues which are usually perceived as more important. Thus, they try to find the cheapest environmental technology providing a minimum level of compliance. From this point of view, local manufacturers of environmental technologies enjoy the unparalleled advantages of cheaper products, lower installation costs, and availability of local technical service. It is important to also note that in many countries of the region, public tendering provisions give preference to domestic technologies if they are of similar quality and technological efficiency compared to the foreign competitors.
STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES When asked to comment on the advantages of foreign environmental technologies compared to domestic products, by far the highest proportion of respondents indicated the
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
29
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
high quality (50-80 percent), and the reliability and durability of products (50-70 percent). Somewhat puzzling is the fact that only between 15 percent and 30 percent of the interviewed parties indicated “good value for money” as a strength of foreign products (except for Slovenia, where this figure was higher). This is most likely an indication that price levels can be so high that the technological advantage of foreign products in comparison with domestic products is negated by the major increase in price. Other, albeit less significant advantages, included “userfriendly technology” (30-50 percent), and “easy to customize and adapt for specific local needs” (30- 50 percent). Frequently noted in the latter category was the advantage of equipment which could be used for a variety of purposes, e.g. measuring equipment, or waste transport trucks. “Available credit/funding” was a significant factor among a third of the respondents. Interestingly, some experts mentioned that, in practice, such financial support was often rather illusory, because no domestic financing institution would become a funding partner, or, when they did, the preferential foreign funding was made as expensive as a regular commercial credit.1 “Good after-sales service” was rarely indicated as a strength of foreign environmental technologies (20-30 percent). As a matter of fact, several environmental companies complained about the superficial and careless approach of foreign companies to after-sales service. Not a single expert mentioned low price as an advantage of foreign technologies compared to domestic products. There were comments, however, that some foreign suppliers had the low price advantage compared to other foreign technology providers. Some experts also believed that verification of a foreign technology by several users in other countries made the technology preferable to domestic products. An interesting comment was made regarding the advantage of foreign technologies which can use locally produced spare parts or substances (e.g. filters, chemical substances for water and wastewater treatment systems, lab chemicals). Such an approach reduces costs, delivery time and the service need. Another strength of foreign producers was that they provided specialized technologies that could not be manufactured locally due to the limited demand and size of the local market, e.g. equipment for the handling, transport, and storage of nuclear waste. Generally, local producers have the advantage of offering cheaper technologies. However, the major shortcomings of such local technologies were that they are not available in all categories, and their warranty period tends to be shorter. Many end-users solved this problem by importing only the crucial “hi-tech” components (e.g. pumps, aerators), with the bulk of construction work and low-tech technologies based on domestically-produced equipment. This approach was frequently used in wastewater treatment and water supply projects.
BARRIERS TO BUYING FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES In general, survey respondents perceived foreign products as expensive, and were concerned about the reliability of suppliers (too little information available), and about the access to professional technical services for products sold on the domestic market. Other important barriers included the lack of reliable product information, and poor suitability of products to the local conditions and technical culture. When asked to identify the greatest barriers to buying envi-
ronmental technology from abroad, between 70 percent and 100 percent of interviewees stated that foreign technologies are too expensive. In some sectors (e.g. municipal water supply, and wastewater treatment systems), the price is seen as uncompetitive in advance. On the other hand, many highly sophisticated foreign technologies (e.g. systems reducing air pollution from power plants, incinerators, technologies for waste reuse or recycling, instrumentation) have found a market niche. In some cases, the disadvantage of high price was offset by high product quality, life-span, or even good after-sales service (e.g. landfill liners, tap water purification systems, etc.). A single comment reflected the fact that state-controlled prices in the energy and water utilities sector do not really permit the repayment of effective, but expensive, foreign environmental technologies. However, as the prices do increasingly reflect actual production costs, and utilities become increasingly responsible for their own investments, this obstacle to purchasing will gradually diminish in the near future. Between 30 and 40 percent of respondents were seriously concerned about the access to technical services, and considered the lack of it a disadvantage to foreign technologies (note here that only between 20 and 35 percent of respondents indicated “good after-sales service” as a strength of foreign technologies). Some interviewees commented on the arrogant attitude of some foreign representatives. Clearly, the quality of customer service, and access to technical support will need improvement. Two marketing-related problems were indicated as significant barriers by respondents, namely: “too little information about suppliers” (15-45 percent of respondents), and “a lack of reliable product information” (20-60 percent of respondents). The remaining obstacles presented did not appear to be very important. Between 20 and 30 percent of experts indicated that products were not suited to the local conditions and technical culture, e.g. differing standards. About a quarter of respondents (15-25 percent, except for 40 percent in Slovakia) indicated “import restrictions/high customs duties” were a barrier to buying foreign technologies. In some countries the customs system was confusing, with different customs rates and border taxes being applied to similar products from different countries. It should be stressed, however, that the problem is expected to be eliminated (at least with respect to EU products) by the year 2000. “Changing environmental regulations” was identified as a problem by some 15 percent of respondents. The system of tax and customs exemptions for environmental products is still undergoing changes, and there are occasional problems with product certification. Changing environmental regulations have been an obstacle in the past, but the transition is proceeding rapidly, and regulatory change should pose little problem to technology purchases in the future. Import restrictions and associated high customs duties and communication problems with foreign suppliers are also expected to become less important in the future. “Communication problems with a foreign supplier” was indicated by between 10 and 15 percent of respondents. The specific problems raised included long transfer of payments, and the language barrier. In conclusion, the environmental technology market in the surveyed countries is quite open to foreign suppliers. The majority of purchases are based on the best-technology criteria, and the country of origin is not deemed a critical factor. Suppliers can expect market success if their products are of high quality and reliability (including warranty conditions). There clearly is room for improvement in marketing and circulating information on foreign environmental technologies and
1
Incidentally, state environmental protection funds in some of the countries can often provide investors with financial support by covering a part of the interest payments on commercial credit.
30
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
suppliers. This is directly related to opening an in-country representative office. An additional benefit from such an approach would be overcoming concerns about the availability of technical services, indicated as an important factor for buyers. However, by far the major problem with buying foreign environmental technologies was their high cost. Therefore, foreign suppliers should consider creating conditions that would offset the disadvantage of the high price. It may be possible to offer longer payment periods, better credit conditions, or even, in some cases, to enter “shared savings scheme” agreements.
1.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market This section of the work had two objectives. First, it examined in-country perceptions of foreign technologies depending on the country of origin. Secondly, it surveyed major foreign companies active in the region, presenting the actual situation in various market sectors.
PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES The environmental technology industry in the surveyed countries is clearly limited, and a common perception is that most high-quality products come from abroad. Generally, companies from Austria, Germany, the U.S. and the Scandinavian countries are considered to be quality producers. Table 1.20 provides an overview, by media and by country, of which are the major “quality” foreign environmental technologies. Austria and Germany enjoy good or excellent reputations for the quality of their products in almost all countries and technology categories. The reputation of German technologies was particularly high in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia,
the traditional CEE markets for German suppliers. A very similar situation existed with perceptions of Austrian technologies. Waste management, and water and wastewater were the sectors where Austrian technologies scored well. German products were ranked near the top in practically all categories. American technologies were also perceived well in most categories. Technologies from other countries enjoyed good reputations only in certain sectors (e.g. Japan in air protection, France in waste management, Holland in energy). Interestingly, technologies from some countries enjoyed good reputations despite their limited availability on the local markets. Notably, Holland, Japan and the United States are cases in point. Significantly, in most cases the perception of domestic technologies was considerably below that of Western products. Nonetheless, some experienced local customers did not always share this opinion. With the wide range of products available, local buyers have grown more experienced and selective. Also, increasingly sophisticated and still cheaper local competitors will play a larger role in the environmental technology market. It is worth noting many respondents were either unwilling or unable to address the perception issue, either because of a limited knowledge of the foreign technologies available, or because they regard the country of origin as insignificant, with the specific producer much more important. Many respondents favored particular countries, but had problems with naming specific firms from that country. This indicates that the judgment was based more on common wisdom than on personal experience. The following section examined in more detail those foreign firms active in the domestic market.
MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKET This section was to determine the major foreign companies active locally, rather than to elicit perceptions of environmental technologies. In general, however, perceptions corre-
TABLE 1.20: PERCEPTIONS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Air
1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) US
1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) Japan
1) Germany, 2) Scandinavia, 3) US, Japan
1) US, 2) Germany 3) Austria, Scandinavia
1) Germany, 2) US, 3) Japan
Water and Wastewater
1) Germany, 2) Austria, 3) UK
1) Germany, 2) Austria, 3) Holland, France, US
1) Japan, 2) Austria, 3) US, Germany
1) Germany, 2) US, 3) France, Holland, Scandinavia
1) Holland, 2) Germany, 3) Austria
Waste
1) Austria, 2) Denmark, 3) Netherlands
1) Austria, 2) Germany, 3) France, US
1) US, 2) Germany, 3) Austria, 4) Scandinavia
1) Germany, US, 2) France, Scandinavia 3) Japan
1) Germany, US, 2) France, 3) Holland
Energy
1) Germany, 2) Austria, 3) US
1) Germany, 2) Holland, 3) US
1) Austria, 2) Holland, 3) Germany, US
1) Scandinavia, 2) Germany, 3) US, Holland
1) Scandinavia, 2) Germany, 3) Austria, Holland
1) Scandinavia, 2) Germany, 3) Austria, Japan, US, Holland
1) Denmark, 2) US, 3) Germany, Scandinavia
Noise, Vibration and OHS
n.a.
1) Denmark, Sweden, 2) Japan, 3) US
n.a.
Note: The survey question appeared as follows: “rank how environmental professionals in your country perceive environmental technology from different countries, using the following scale: 5 = excellent reputation, 4 = good reputation, 3 = average reputation, 2 = poor reputation, 1 = very poor reputation, blank- no opinion”
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
31
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
TABLE 1.21: MAJOR FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Air
Germany
Germany
Germany, Austria, Switzerland
n/a
Germany, US, Austria, Switzerland
Water and Wastewater
Germany, Slovakia, France
Germany, Austria
Germany, France Austria, Sweden
Germany, Czech Republic, US
Germany, France, Austria
Waste
Germany, Austria, Denmark
Austria, Germany, US, France
Austria, Germany
Denmark Austria, France
Italy, Germany, Austria
Energy
US, Sweden
Germany, US, Austria, Sweden
Scandinavia, Austria, Germany
Germany, US
n.a.
Scandinavia, Germany
Denmark
Noise, Vibration and OHS
n/a
Denmark, Germany
n/a
Note: Many respondents had difficulties naming specific companies, which indicates poor knowledge of the foreign technologies available.
sponded well with the actual market situation, i.e., those countries whose technologies were perceived best, were also very active on the local environmental technology markets. A significant number of Western environmental technology firms are active in the surveyed countries, through a permanent local presence, or by direct sales of their equipment. The foreign presence is particularly strong in the waste management sector, water supply, and wastewater treatment. A smaller number of companies are active in the energy sector and air protection. One clear finding from the study was that no single company dominates in any single country — individual foreign firms usually hold a minimal share of the market. The presence of technologies from specific countries varies substantially according to the media, and according to the region. Even within a single environmental technology field, several companies serve the market, as demonstrated by the fact that most interviewed experts referred to several different companies as the major suppliers. Table 1.21 lists the major suppliers by country of origin, rather than by name (see the individual country chapters for specific company listings). The table is based on the number of foreign companies from a specific country active on the local market. The environmental technology market in all the countries is well penetrated by foreign suppliers, with firms from Austria and Germany most active and best known across all major technology sectors. German and Austrian firms hold the lead in supplying environmental technologies in terms of both quantity and quality. Other major foreign competitors varied depending on country and sector. French and Danish companies had a strong local presence, while in Slovenia, Italian firms were also active. French companies, along with American and Scandinavian, were well represented in the water and wastewater sector. Scandinavian (primarily Swedish) and American firms played an active role in the energy and air sectors. In the waste management sector, Austrian, German, French and Danish firms are strong, particularly in waste incineration. Waste recycling is primarily dominated by German firms. However, Italian companies had a notable presence on the Slovenian market. Wastewater systems are introduced by a large number of foreign firms including German, Austrian, French, Scandinavian, and a few American, British, and Dutch. Interestingly, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, each other’s companies were
32
actively present and well known on the market. The energy and air pollution sectors are primarily occupied by German firms, with Austrian firms following close behind. American, Japanese, and Scandinavian (notably Swedish) firms were also active, although not nearly as much as companies from the first two countries. The foreign presence in the noise, vibration and OHS sector is minimal. The leaders included Scandinavian companies (notably from Denmark) and German firms. Most of the big companies’ headquarters are located in capital cities or in other major centers. Joint-ventures and joint-stock companies are a common way for foreign suppliers to enter the local market. Some large foreign firms have established their subsidiaries as legal local entities, and are very active in the waste disposal sector, including recycling. Interestingly, some foreign firms in this sector established joint-stock companies with municipalities. The Danish firm Marius Pedersen, or Austrian A.S.A. in the Czech Republic serve as good examples. Aside from the quality and the range of the technological offer, two major factors seem to drive the current foreign presence. One is geographic proximity — Germany and Austria are best examples; the other is a long tradition of cooperation — e.g. French water supply systems in Poland. However, as no firm is considered dominant in any product line, there seem to be opportunities for any firm to provide quality products at competitive Western prices. In conclusion, there are many foreign companies either with a local presence in the surveyed countries, or who are entering the market through their products. The strengths of foreign companies (reliable and high quality technology), are diminished by the high price, and are sometimes further offset by the lack of patience, lack of knowledge of local conditions, or by communication problems with environmental bodies, municipalities, and local businesses. However, experience shows that those foreign firms which learn more about business practices in the region, and which think in the long-term, can find a solid basis for their future activities. ABB, Flygt, Danfoss, Grundfoss, or Marius Pedersen are cases in point.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOREIGN COMPANIES ENTERING THE MARKET Competition in the environmental technology market is high in all the surveyed countries. Foreign companies are most active in the water and wastewater, and waste management sectors,
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL OVERVIEW
followed by the energy and air protection sectors. The major competitive advantages of domestic suppliers are significantly lower costs of labor, combined with a high standard of technical knowledge, and better familiarity with the local market where most of the information flow is based on established personal and professional contacts. Based on the comments and observations presented in the preceding sections, the following should be considered by exporting environmental technology firms looking to improve their share of the local market. Increased Local Presence To better explore the market and take advantage of existing project opportunities, companies interested in exporting to CEE countires should increase their local presence in the country. The following present some of the major reasons why: ■
competition from major foreign suppliers (especially Austria, Germany, and Scandinavia) is strong;
■
two-thirds of the potential buyers of foreign environmental technologies prefer to buy from a local representative, and local buying is on the rise;
■
many buyers are concerned about the availability of aftersales technical service, and this issue is a significant factor affecting purchasing decisions;
■
up to a half of respondents indicated that there was limited information about foreign suppliers, which underlines the need for local presence and better product marketing;
■
access to information on environmental business opportunities is to a large degree based on personal contacts.
The most cost-effective method to enter the local market is through a joint-venture or other strategic partnership with an experienced local company specialising in a similar product line. Forming a joint-venture with a local partner would also provide assistance in following the basic procedures of the procurement process and in overcoming the language barrier. In some countries, it would also benefit the foreign company through the equal treatment of its price bid with that of purely domestic competitors when tendering for project opportunities. Another possibility might be for exporters of environmental technologies to take part in projects supported by their native country or international institutions, which are generally able to cover the project costs at standard Western prices. A number of technology demonstration programs have been implemented recently under such arrangements.
price bidding may greatly reduce the profit margin. Also, the time available for bid submission is often too short for an overseas exporter to calculate the offer thoroughly. Therefore, an alternative to the already prepared and announced public tenders may be the exporter’s own initiative in end-user identification, and effort in determining the enduser’s specific needs and requirements. This can be combined with an offer of technical assistance, assistance with a loan application, etc. With respect to the latter, cooperation between the exporter and an experienced local partner (e.g. through a joint-venture) is essential for domestic co-financing programs. Growth Sectors In each of the surveyed countries, certain priority areas have been identified where environmental technologies are in high demand. Good examples include hazardous waste management, industrial wastewater treatment, retrofitting of energy systems, etc. Major project opportunities are expected in water and wastewater treatment, and in the energy generation sector. Focusing on growth sectors where environmental technologies are most needed should be a priority for potential exporters, and some areas where technologies are in high demand are identified in individual country chapters. In cases where more product-specific market research is required, the Regional Environmental Center can provide further assistance. In conclusion, it is important to stress that, in many cases, environmental technologies which are competitive with other Western products in terms of price and quality can be successfully introduced on the local market, although these markets are very competitive. The key factor for a successful sale of an environmental technology is an in-country representative office, and a dependable technical service. Further improvements in sales prospects can result from an attractive financing package, such as low-interest foreign credit lines, partial refinancing of foreign deliveries, etc.
Competitive Financing Package High price was identified as the main barrier to purchasing foreign environmental technologies in all countries. Between 80 and 100 percent of respondents perceived foreign products as too expensive. At the same time, a third of respondents indicated that the availability of preferential credit or other attractive forms of financing can be a significant advantage of foreign products. Many potential end-users of environmental technologies have serious cash flow problems, and are looking for co-financing partners. Therefore, it is important to prepare an attractive and competitive financing package to increase the overall competitiveness of an offer. Possible options include low-interest credit lines, partial refinancing of foreign deliveries, etc. To this end, home country government assistance and export promotion programs are of importance. End-user Identification Public procurement regulations require that calls for tender be announced in advance for projects involving the use of public funds. However, the tenders are very competitive, and
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
33
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
Chapter 2: Czech Republic 2.1 Summary of Findings In 1995, spending on environmental protection in the Czech Republic amounted to USD 1.185 million, or 2.6 percent of the country’s GDP. Two major priority areas include air pollution control projects, accounting for more than a half of environmental expenditures, and water management projects, which account for more than a third of total environmental spending. The Czech State Environmental Fund is the most important source of state financing, while the role of other state bodies is diminishing. The market for pollution control equipment in the Czech Republic is estimated at between USD 600 and 700 million per year, with an annual growth rate of some 6 percent. Two-thirds of the market is based on domestic production, and one-third on imports. Air pollution control will continue to be a major priority area, although there is expected to be a gradual shift in focus towards small and medium-sized air pollution sources. Water management, and particularly wastewater treatment, are likely to remain priority areas in the coming years. Municipalities, as well as industrial wastewater producers must meet new wastewater discharge standards which will become stricter from Jan. 1, 2005. A significant number of projects relating to site remediation are also under way. Currently, air pollution control projects strongly focus on fuel conversion (switching from coal to natural gas) in local heating stations. Gas heating is gradually being introduced in individual family houses, and, in some areas, in businesses as well. The main project opportunities in the water management sector are related to the construction of new, and modernization of existing water supply and wastewater treatment systems throughout the country. Contamination of groundwater resources (especially by oil-based substances, organic solvents, and heavy metals) is a significant problem. Priority areas in the energy sector include the conversion of most of the current small and medium-sized heat generating stations from burning
GERMANY
POLAND
Prague Plzen
CZECH REPUBLIC
BOHEMIA
Ostrava
MORAVIA Brno
S L O VA K I A AUSTRIA 0
50
100
kilometers
HUNGARY
coal to gas use; reconstruction of larger heating stations for use also in electricity generation; and modernization and construction of new smaller energy generating sources. Future projects will include recycling, waste minimization, energy saving measures, use of alternative energy sources, and introduction of environmental management systems (ISO 14000 and EMAS). Personal and professional contacts, participation in environmental fairs, and business and environmental publications are primary sources of information for project opportunities and on the availability of environmental technologies in the Czech Republic. There are no effective formal information channels. The Czech Republic recently passed the Public Procurement Law (No. 229/1996), and the prescribed tender mechanism can be a source of information for business opportunities. In general, the demand for environmental technologies was estimated to be between moderate and high.
TABLE 2.1: BASIC COUNTRY INFORMATION Czech Republic Population (mln)
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
10.3
10.2
38.6
5.4
2.0
78,900
93,000
312,700
49,000
20,200
GDP (USD bln)
52.3
44.3
134.3
18.9
18.6
GDP growth (%)
1.3
1.2
7.7
6.0
3.1
Foreign Direct Investment (USD bln)
7.3
16.2
13.5
1.0
1.7
Unemployment rate (%)
4.8
10.3
10.6
13.0
14.4
Average monthly wages (USD)
302.0
319.0
329.0
257.9
890.0
Inflation rate (%)
10.3
18.4
14.5
6.0
9.6
Exchange rate to the USD
33.5
197.8
3.4
34.0
167.8
1,185.0
385.0
1,308.0
232.0
150.0
2.6
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
Area (sq.km)
Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (USD mln) Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (% of GDP)
Source: Business Central Europe, November 1997; 1996 Statistical Yearbooks of each surveyed country
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
35
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
Technologies for water and wastewater treatment were ranked among the most needed, followed by technologies for waste management, air, and energy. In the air sector, demand was found to be high for air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers). Growing demand is expected for continuous-basis monitoring equipment for ambient air; and air sampling/laboratory analysis equipment for gaseous emissions. Within the water and wastewater sector, high demand was identified for pollution prevention/waste minimization technologies for municipal wastewater; equipment for spill control and containment/clean-up of surface and ground water; and technologies for sludge treatment and disposal of municipal and industrial wastewater. Technologies in increasing demand included: quality restoration and decontamination equipment for surface and ground water; construction of municipal wastewater collection networks; monitoring, sampling and analytical equipment for drinking water; and technologies for water recycling in the area of industrial wastewater. Among the technologies available for waste management, high demand was identified for hazardous waste collection, transportation and storage equipment. Increasing demand is expected for site remediation and contaminated land clean-up technologies; waste collection/transportation and storage equipment for industrial and municipal waste; and technologies for incineration and landfill disposal of industrial waste. In the energy sector, increasing demand is expected for technologies that could be used for the retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing energy systems, followed by alternative (nonCFC) refrigerants. Demand in the noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety sector was found to be low. Municipalities are the main end-users of environmental technologies in all categories. The energy sector and the chemical industry are the other major end-users. Due to the pervasive lack of money, most environmental technology end-users select the cheapest technology that enables them to meet the required standards. Foreign technologies are generally viewed as more advanced, of better quality, and more reliable than local products. Recognition of brand names is an important factor as well. In discussing strengths of foreign environmental technologies, 70 percent of respondents pointed out high product quality, while 50-60 percent marked “reliable and durable product”, and “user-friendly technology”. 30-35 percent of respondents indicated “easy to customize and adapt for specific local needs,” while 15-20 percent noted “good value for money.” “Available credit” and “good after-sales service” were rarely mentioned as strengths of foreign products. Several respondents even mentioned a superficial and careless approach from foreign companies to after-sales service. High price was identified as the biggest disadvantage of foreign environmental technologies — practically all respondents regarded foreign environmental technologies as too expensive. “Ensuring authorized technical service and maintenance” was mentioned as a problem by 30-40 percent of the interviewed parties. Between 20 and 30 percent of respondents illustrated other disadvantages of foreign technologies, such as the “lack of reliable product information,” and “products not suitable for local conditions.” German, Austrian, Dutch, and Scandinavian companies are considered to be most active in the environmental technology market in the Czech Republic, followed by American, Danish, French and British firms. Perceptions of foreign technologies were good, with German, Austrian, Dutch and American products evaluated particularly high. The presence of foreign firms is most significant in the field of waste management. Foreign firms are also active in
36
wastewater treatment, and to a smaller degree in air pollution control. However, the familiarity of Czech environmental experts with the available foreign environmental technologies is rather limited.
2.2 Methodology SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN THE SURVEY The survey was primarily based on formal interviews with 49 respondents (environmental technology producers, suppliers, environmental service providers, R&D institutes, universities, government bodies, and municipalities) active in environmental protection. Additional sources included information gathered from professional literature, informal contacts, and the researcher’s five year experience in the field. Sources of information are referenced throughout the text, with numbers (e.g. /34/) referring to the list included at the end of this chapter (starting under Section 2.8).
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS The experts interviewed for the survey were chosen so as to ensure: ■
coverage of all environmental fields of activities (air, waste, water, etc.);
■
representative cross-section of companies of different size (more small and medium-sized, fewer large companies);
■
representative sample in terms of geographic distribution (more firms from Prague and other large cities, several companies from rural areas, several subsidiaries of foreign firms in the Czech Republic);
■
balance between technology producers, suppliers, and environmental service providers;
■
the major environmental technology R&D centers and universities were interviewed;
■
a range of different perspectives on the subject (interviews with businesses, municipalities, Ministry of Environment, the Environmental Protection Fund, other state bodies).
Forty nine formal interviews (based on the questionnaire, included in the Appendix) were carried out within the project. However, it is necessary to note that a few interviewed people changed their opinions during interviews, or canceled followup appointments. Additional interviews were carried out instead, with and without the use of questionnaires. A complete list of interviewed experts and a list of other information sources are included in Sections 2.8-2.10.
2.3 Overview of the Market The Czech Republic is a medium-sized Central European country. It has a population of 10.3 million and an area of 79,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles, or approximately equivalent to the size of Maine). Environmental policy is well developed in the Czech Republic. The ambitious 1993 national environmental policy was one of most advanced and comprehensive in Central Europe. However, some of the targets set under current legislation are too ambitious, and contain major inconsistencies. As a result, much of the legislation is being revised. Also, a 20 percent decline in GDP in recent years has pushed the environment lower on the political agenda.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
Significant environmental damage was sustained in the past, especially in the mining districts of northern Bohemia and the industrial areas of northern Moravia. The construction of a nuclear power plant at Temelin, and severe air pollution in industrial and urban areas are the most frequently cited environmental problems. A major source of air pollution is the energy and power generation sector, (currently, 60 percent of energy generation is based on coal-fired plants). The treatment of wastewater, and water supply are also problems that need to be addressed. Policy coordination, refinement of legislation and better enforcement, education and institutional strengthening, the development of clean technologies, and priority capital investments for air and water quality are the likely focal points for future environmental actions.
TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY protection2
Spending on environmental in the Czech Republic has been stable over recent years, at between 2 and 3 percent of GDP. Two major environmental priorities include air pollution control projects, accounting for more than a half of environmental expenditures, and water management projects, which account for more than a third of total environmental spending. Table 2.2 shows the breakdown of total spending on the environment for 1994 and 1995. The large share of water and wastewater treatment and air pollution control in environmental expenditures during the last several years is the result of two main factors: ■
New water protection regulations have forced municipalities to invest in water and wastewater treatment, and the sector has become the main recipient of municipal money invested in the environment. The trend is expected to continue in the near future (see Chapter 2.5 for more details). The construction of large wastewater treatment plants for cities takes several years to complete, and some of the largest projects were initiated before 1989, when the state began allocating money for such projects through direct grants or via municipalities. Even though state support has significantly decreased recently, investments started several years ago still receive state money necessary for project completion. Additionally, the construction of scores of new smaller wastewater treatment plants has been started recently.
■
Air pollution from large stationary sources is still considered the most important cause of environmental damage, and money is continuously allocated for air protection projects in the energy and power generation sector. Between 50 and 60 percent of electricity generation in the Czech Republic is still based on burning coal or lignite. The installation of desulfurization units and other equipment in the largest coal-burning power plants is under way, and this accounts for a major portion of investments in air pollution control. The state company CEZ, which still owns and operates all of the largest power plants in the Czech Republic, is planning to reduce solid particle emissions by a factor of ten by the year 2000 (compared with 1992 levels). Emissions of NO x are to be reduced by half, and for carbon monoxide, by a quarter. The estimated cost of the program to the year 2000 stands at about 126 billion crowns (USD 4.4 billion). In 1994, environmental expenditures accounted for 2.73
TABLE 2.2: TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON THE ENVIRONMENT (MILLIONS OF USD) Media
1994
1995*
Air
473
670
Water
380
363
Waste
110
100
Energy
-
-
Soil reclamation/remediation
6
15
Restriction of physical factors1) Total
23
n.a.
992
1148
Source: /52, 65/ * 1995 figures based on unofficial information from a source which has requested to remain anonymous 1)
23 mln USD were spent on so called “restriction of physical factors.“ This is a broad category, including noise and vibrations, radiation protection etc. Information for 1995 was not available Exchange rate used: for 1994 USD 1 = CzK 28.5; for 1995 USD 1 = CzK 27.5
percent of the GDP (USD 993 million), while in 1995, they amounted to USD 1.185 billion, or 2.6 percent of the GDP. Note that the difference between the above total and the total figure in Table 2.2 is caused by differences in the data collection method used by the Czech Statistics Board. /52, 72/ Table 2.3 shows how the major environmental investments during 1994 (projects above 5 million crowns, or approximately USD 175,000) were distributed and the sources of funding. Investors’ own funds covered about half the investments made, with state funding accounting for about a third of the total. The share of foreign financing was low, at about 4 percent. Table 2.4 gives further detail on the breakdown of environmental expenditures from the state budget during 1994. /52, 65/ Table 2.5 provides additional information on the market for pollution control equipment in the Czech Republic. The market is estimated at between 600 and 700 million USD per year, with an annual growth rate of some 6 percent. Twothirds of the market is based on domestic production, and onethird on imports.
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION State Environmental Fund Currently, the bulk of state financial support for environmental protection is allocated to air pollution control and water management projects. Table 2.6 examines the revenue and expenditure structure of the State Environmental Fund (SFZP), which is, and will continue to be in the future, the most important source of state financing for environmental protection. The financing role of other state bodies is diminishing. As shown in Table 2.6, more than half of the Fund’s expenditure during the period 1992-1994 was allocated to water protection projects, and about a third to air quality projects. Interestingly, the share of the two major groups in the Fund’s expenditures is exactly the reverse of their share in national environmental expenditures. As discussed in Section 3.1, air protection activities account for more than a half of national environmental expenditures, while water and wastewater projects account for about a third.
2 Collecting specific information regarding “Spending on Environmental Technologies” was not possible, for such a category is not traced by any statistical board or by the Ministry. Nonetheless, the above table presents a global view of the volume and distribution of spending for individual environmental media. /52, 53, 72/
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
37
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
TABLE 2.3: SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN 1994 (MLN USD) F I N A N C I A L Media
Invoiced
Investors’ Own Funds
Water
293.72
93.61
Air
203.17 77.16
Waste Remediation
Credit
S O U R C E S
State Subsidy
Foreign
Other
38.63
145.61
4.15
11.72
120.39
31.19
31.72
18.19
1.68
52.00
22.42
0.70
-
2.04
2.67
0.35
0.11
2.14
-
0.07
Other
27.33
26.07
-
1.26
-
-
Total
604.05
292.42
92.35
181.43
22.34
15.51
/Source: 52/Data based on recorded investments above 5 mln CzK (USD 175,000)
TABLE 2.4: 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES FROM THE STATE BUDGET (MLN USD) Subsidies for municipal environmental investments in damaged areas
40.05
Individual regional environmental investments
31.25
Environmental investments in mining Water management constructions
8.40 113.34
Radon protection
7.97
Water courses restoration
5.17
Svihov water dam protection
5.27
Jilov creek
0.75
Technical measures for sanitation/water protection 1.99 Environmental measures (MIT CR) Remediation of uranium mines Investment expenses — total
2.67 22.67 239.53
Environmental subsidies in Northern Bohemia, Sokolov
21.44
Fuel savings, alternative sources, thermal insulation
13.96
Subsidies in forestry
27.50
Environmental protection program, research (MOE CR)
5.57
Environmental damages — Russian military (MOE CR)
4.91
Food chain monitoring (MOE CR)
0.64
Accidents — water (MOA CR)
1.71
Agricultural subsidies Collection and transportation of radioactive waste
34.18 0.88
This apparent contradiction can be explained by the fact that the proportion of state funding is much larger in water related projects, where the most frequent investors are municipalities. In contrast, in air pollution control projects (mainly those undertaken for stationary industrial sources) a high percentage of the project costs are covered by investors’ own funds. For instance, in 1995, three quarters of the Fund’s resources were allocated to municipal projects, about a fourth to businesses, and between 1 and 2 percent to state institutions. As for disbursement policy, allocations (grants and subsidies) covering up to 40 percent of the project cost are available to non-profit applicants and municipalities. Loans, covering up to 50 percent of the expected project cost, are an option for commercial projects. /3/ As regards geographic distribution of funds, large sums are invested in air protection projects in north Bohemia, north Moravia, and in the Greater Prague area. Air pollution control programs in the three regions include several very large projects, followed by a high number of small and medium-sized ones. The Environmental Fund usually supports only the latter category, as large air pollution projects demand considerable investments, and are often funded or co-funded from multilateral sources. In contrast, the number of supported water management projects is much higher, and projects tend to be spread throughout the country rather than concentrated in a specific area /3/. Even though the Environmental Fund will remain the major source of state financing in the near future, it is worth noting that, in 1996, loans accounted for 45 percent of disbursements, while grants accounted for 55 percent. There are strong indications that the proportion will be moving towards a higher level of loans, so as to enable the Fund to reinvest money in other
TABLE 2.5: MARKET SIZE — POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT 1994-1995 (MLN USD) 1994
1995
1996
Total market size
598
640
668
Total local production
405
430
450
Total exports
7
10
12
Total imports
200
220
230
13
20
30
Non-investment expenses — total
110.78
Imports from the US
TOTAL
350.31
Note: The total market size also represents sales of material and equipment used in environmental construction. Of 567 environmental projects recorded for statistical purposes, 49 percent of allocated funds were spent on water, 34 percent on air, 5 percent on solid waste disposal, and 12 percent on recycling of waste. /Source: 65/
Note: The above table presents selected areas of investments from the state budget. /Source: 52/
38
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
TABLE 2.6: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND (MLN USD) 1992
Water
Air
Waste
Soil
Total
Income Expenditure
46.32 33.09
29.68 17.88
1.69 0.42
7.32 0.40
85.00 51.79
54.84 64.00
39.89 40.63
13.82 9.72
18.35 126.91 3.16 117.5
34.21 69.95
86.71 39.58
15.85 6.25
18.07 157.51 5.07 125.76
1993 Income Expenditure 1994 Income Expenditure /Source: 3, 52, 53/ Note: Income includes fees and fines, interest, and loan repayments.
environmental projects. As explained by Mr. Kuzel, an official at the Fund, the key reason behind this approach is to increase the amount of money available for environmental protection. It is also expected that the Funds’ activities will be more oriented towards the industrial sector. /3/ Table 2.7 presents the income structure of the State Environmental Fund. Environmental fees and non-compliance fines constitute a substantial revenue source for the Fund, accounting for about two-thirds of total revenues. In 1994, the ratio between fees and fines collected was approximately 9-to1, but, according to recent information, fines now account for only between 1 and 2 percent of Fund’s revenues /3/. It is worth noting here that the US EXIM Bank offered the Czech Environmental Fund a loan for local environmental projects. The offer was declined because ...“it was similar to other offers the Fund had received” and because “low-interest loans… are usually declined in the end as they are not as advantageous as they previously appeared.” (This information was obtained from an official at the Fund who wished to remain anonymous.) Generally, the Czech government is against foreign loans, so as to avoid being forced to meet the conditions set by a foreign party. This position has been consistent for the last five years, and the Czech government has reiterated this policy clearly during several international political and economic summits. Specific Priorities Air pollution control will continue to be a major priority area, although there is expected to be a gradual shift in focus towards small and medium-sized air pollution sources, as major problems at large plants will slowly be addressed. By Dec. 31, 1998, all existing power plants must meet stricter air emission limits, already applicable to new facilities. Water management, and particularly wastewater treatment, are likely to remain priority areas in the coming years. Municipalities, as well as industrial wastewater producers must meet new wastewater discharge standards which will become stricter on Jan. 1, 2005. It is important to note that, even though many municipalities do not have sufficient funding to invest in wastewater treatment, in the last five years, construction of some 150 wastewater treatment plants was completed, including 20 new plants during 1994. Overall, wastewater treatment is one of the most dynamically developing sectors of the environmental market in the Czech Republic /64, 65/. Currently, about 186 million tons of waste are produced annually in the Czech Republic; 11 percent of this amount is hazardous waste, 40.5 percent special waste, and 48.5 percent is classified as other waste /52/. During the past four years, many waste management and disposal facilities have
TABLE 2.7: BREAKDOWN OF INCOME FOR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND IN 1994 (MLN USD) Item
Loan Sum Repayment
Wastewater discharge fees Groundwater intake fees Fines Interest from loans Donations
29.16 1.51 0.39 0.59 0.05
Water — total
31.70
Fees for removing land from agriculture fund Interest from loans Fines
17.22
Land — total
17.31
0.76
Freons Clean Air Program payments Air pollution fees Fines Interest from loans Air — total
1.98 69.37 45.18 0.31 0.87 83.39
3.32
Waste disposal fees Fines Interest from loans
14.94 0.41 0.03
Waste — total
15.38
Other
2.53
0.01 0.09
0.47
2.65
Total Income
150.44
Total Income (including loan repayments)
157.51
7.08
Note: not all collected environmental fees are channeled to the Fund. For example, a large percentage of waste disposal fees remain with municipalities. According to the proposed Waste Act (currently under preparation), all waste disposal fees will remain with local municipalities.
been constructed throughout the country. Projects have tended to focus on landfill construction, production of waste containers, and on incinerators. The current level of recycling is low, with only a few firms active in the field. The use of economic instruments (tax breaks, subsidies, other incentives) in the sector is limited, although the situation is expected to improve with stricter environmental enforcement and new legislation, currently under preparation. Potential future priorities include package reuse/recycling, waste minimization processes, effective technologies for waste separation, and environment-friendly technologies for waste disposal /3, 69/. Waste incineration is no longer considered a preferred option in the Czech Republic. With very few exceptions, the Environmental Fund has stopped support for incineration facilities. The government is planning to build an incinerator for PCB disposal (see Section 2.5 for more details), but the project is to be financed from the state budget, not from the Fund. Interestingly, the Environmental Fund has also stopped support for landfill construction, and for environment-friendly conversion of vehicles from diesel to hydrocarbon gas (e.g. buses for public transport in the heavily polluted town of Usti
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
39
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
nad Labem in north Bohemia). The rationale behind discontinuing the support was that the activities are already marketdriven, and state support is no longer required /3/. A significant number of projects relating to site remediation and decontamination (connected with liability issues) are under way, although currently large expenditures are expected to decline around the year 2000 /74/. In 1995, as an exception, the Environmental Fund provided support for a one-time study of alternative energy sources such as small water turbines, windmills, energy recovery units, and heat pumps. This shows the importance placed upon alternative energy programs, as the Fund generally does not support project studies.
2.4 Project Opportunities MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Several universal issues applicable to most environmental sectors and which influence project opportunities were frequently cited by respondents. The most common problems interestingly include: lack of capital for environmental projects, incomplete or changing legislation and inconsistent enforcement, and lack of interest in environmental management systems and other environmental compliance programs. Table 2.8 presents the major environmental problems the survey respondents expect to face in the coming years. The information is based on answers to the question on major environmental problems in the Czech Republic. It is interesting to note many respondents interpreted the term “environmental problem” in a broad way, and included not only specific environmental issues (e.g. “contamination of groundwater and soil in refineries in Ostrava, Pardubice etc.”) but also mentioned system issues with an impact on solving environmental problems (e.g. low prices for landfill waste disposal, low financing of environmental activities etc.). It is important to note that both businesses and state bodies only responded according to the environmental fields they were active in. Overall, many respondents stated they were not familiar with the most serious environmental issues in the Czech Republic (or they considered them in very general terms). Respondents also did not want to indicate major environmental problems in order to limit potential competition in their fields of activity. This is also reflected by the fact that specific locations were indicated only occasionally. Air Currently, air pollution control projects focus on fuel conversion (switching to natural gas) in local heating stations. Gas heating is gradually being introduced in individual family houses, and, in some areas, in businesses as well. Overall, however, state initiatives to increase gas usage have until now had only a marginal effect due to the lack of funding (e.g. Prague, north Bohemia) /67, 75, other municipalities/. On-site measurement of air emissions is not yet a pressing issue, as legislation does not force polluters to install devices for continuous monitoring. Also, small stationary sources of pollution are not regulated at this time /69, 67/. Air emissions from mobile sources have a strong negative impact on air quality, and aggravate local air pollution problems, especially in large cities. For instance, Prague introduced a partial vehicle ban, and some towns in north Bohemia experience heavy pollution from traffic as well. Car service checks are not stringent, and the technical state of the country’s vehicle fleet is poor. Even if the Czech Republic were to introduce exhaust emissions controls and tried to ensure that fuels and regulations conformed with EU standards, enforcement would be difficult. During fall 1996, the
40
government extended the permit for the import of used cars that do not meet the strictest Euro-limits II emission standards /legislation, 67/. Water The main project opportunities in the water management sector are related to the construction of new, and modernization of existing water supply and wastewater treatment systems throughout the country. Upgrading current systems may be hampered by the limited capacity of existing plants, and financial problems. Nonetheless, construction and modernization of treatment plants will continue over the next few years. Contamination of groundwater resources (especially by oil-based substances, organic solvents, and heavy metals) is a potential threat that can, and should be, reduced in some areas (e.g. former military bases, gas stations). The Czech Republic is heavily industrialized, with a number of sites having already suffered from environmental negligence. Thus the danger of groundwater contamination is ever present. Problems with poor quality potable water are acute in some regions of the country, where up to 90 percent of the wells that provide water do not meet the potable water standards. However, country-wide, the quality of drinking water from public water supply systems (85.5 percent of population) is generally acceptable /67, 52, 76/. Waste Many of the waste management problems listed in Table 2.8 are caused by current legislation and/or its poor enforcement. Additionally, the sector lacks any significant state support (e.g. grants, tax relief, incentives) aimed at increasing waste minimization practices and environment-friendly ways of waste disposal. /69/ Waste management practices will be significantly affected by the new Waste Law which should be introduced in 1997. The new legislation will address the most critical issues in waste management, including waste categorization, waste recycling, disposal of packaging waste, distribution of waste disposal fees, and other issues. Energy Few project opportunities in the energy sector were mentioned by the interviewed parties. This is mainly because increasing energy efficiency and energy savings are not currently a high priority in the Czech Republic. For instance, energy consumption in 1996 is likely to exceed the forecasted energy consumption for the year 2000. Also, few environmental firms are accustomed to considering energy issues as a part of the environmental sector. Priority areas in the sector include the conversion of most of the current small and medium-sized heating stations from coal-burning to gas use; the reconstruction of larger heating stations in order to also use them for electricity generation; and modernization and construction of new small energy sources. The latter group includes the implementation of water hydroturbines, solar energy use (on a small scale), landfill gas utilization, wind mills, and other energy sources. As fees for energy (electricity, heat, gas, other fuels) steadily rise, energy saving issues should become more important within the forthcoming two or three years /67, 69, 3, 70/. Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration does not seem to be a major area of interest in the Czech Republic — not a single respondent mentioned possible project opportunities in this sector. Generally, control measures are costly, and there are other more pressing priorities for cash-strapped municipalities. Noise-related problems play a significant role only on a local scale (e.g. Greater Prague construction of highways and highspeed roads). Small municipalities around Prague (vicinity of
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
TABLE 2.8: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Category
Problem Description and Expected Duration
Air1
Meeting emission limits at industrial facilities, next 2 years.
CR
Conversion to natural gas, next 20 years.
CR
Air emission measurements and compliance monitoring, next 20 years.
CR
Air emissions from coal combustion, next 50 years.
CR
Obtaining modern technologies for new municipal wastewater treatment plants, next 15 years.
CR
Equipment supply for modernization of currently used municipal wastewater treatment plants, next 15 years.
CR
Obtaining modern technologies for new industrial wastewater treatment plants, next 10 years.
CR
Equipment supply for modernization of currently used industrial wastewater treatment plants, next 10 years.
CR
Contamination of groundwater and soil in refineries.
Ostrava, Pardubice, Kolin, Litvinov
Groundwater and soil contamination, next 14 years.
CR
New water law, next 2 years.
CR
Groundwater quality protection and restoration, next 10 years.
CR
Water2
Geographic Location
New drinking water well construction and old drinking well restoration, next 24 years. CR Groundwater and soil contamination caused by leakages from sewage systems
Industrial areas
New waste legislation, 1997
CR
Rapid rise in waste disposal costs, next few years.
CR
Violation of regulations in order to reduce fees, next few years
CR
Dumping policy of foreign firms, next few years
CR
Lobbying by waste disposal firms
CR
Unsuitable storage of hazardous waste
Ostrava, Pardubice, Usti nad Labem
Insufficient thickness of sealing liners in landfills.
CR
Waste law amendment, next 5 years.
CR
Implementation of waste minimization programs in industrial facilities, next 5 years.
CR
Unregistered landfills
Pilzen
Old landfill remediation
Ledce
Waste collection from small operations
Central Bohemia
Disposal of wastes containing PCBs.
CR
Low prices for waste disposal in landfills
CR
Used motor oil disposal (from population and small operations)
CR
High price of hazardous waste incineration — low cost of illegal disposal (poor enforcement)
CR
Financing of waste bins for industrial zones
CR
Low financial support for recycling plastic waste
CR
Industrial waste separation and recording, next 2 years
CR
Decreasing negative impact of hazardous waste on environment, next 2 years.
CR
Selection of suitable equipment for waste separation, next 3 years
CR
Optimization of waste transport equipment and techniques, next 3 years.
CR
Introducing separated waste collection systems, next 5 years.
CR
Energy4
Coke production, next 30 years.
Ostrava
Noise and Vibration
none identified
Waste3
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
41
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
TABLE 2.8 (CONT.): MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Category 5
Other
References:
Problem Description and Expected Duration
Geographic Location
Nature devastation by mining and chemical industries, next 24 years
CR
Efficient soil decontamination by dehtophenols.
Ostrava region
Implementation of the program for marking environmental friendly products.
CR
Harmonizing Czech environmental legislation with that of the EU, next 6 years.
CR
Risk monitoring of operations and sites, next 5 years
CR
Environmental Impact Assessment, evaluation of new investments, next 5-10 years.
CR
Financing environmental education, laboratory equipment at universities.
CR
Car traffic, transportation.
Pilzen
Stray animals
Pilzen
Low level of financing for environmental activities.
CR
Environmental and hydrogeological maps compilation, until 1998
Karnina
Remediation work at heat and energy producing facilities, and at steel works facilities, next 5 years.
Ostrava
Study of the impact of the new highway network, next 1-2 years
CR
Study of the impact of the new railroad network, next 1-2 years
CR
Past environmental damages — unsystematic approach of state authorities.
CR
Research financing — bioindication, biodiagnosis, environmental monitoring.
CR
Introducing legal recycling fees.
CR
Lining of mineral water wells, next 14 years
CR
Drainage system pilot projects for building foundations, next 9 years
CR
Engineering and geological surveys for landfills and wastewater treatment plants, next 14 years.
CR
Little interest in environmental management systems (EMS), no financial support available
CR
Implementing EMS in companies (ISO 14000, EMAS 1836), next 7-10 years.
CR
1) 13, 37
4) 37
2) 4, 19, 20, 22, 13, 34
5) 4, 13, 15, 17, 20, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, and others.
3) 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 38, 39, 42, 44, and others
highway D1, the outer belt, and the planned highway to the south) and Pilsen (D5 highway) may be the first to address traffic-related noise problems /67/. Noise and vibration issues in industrial companies are generally addressed on an individual basis, and were not perceived as a major project opportunity area.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN PROGRESS Respondents were clearly reluctant to reveal information about major environmental projects in progress. Generally, on-going projects mentioned by respondents and identified from other sources can be grouped as follows: Current projects, with a duration of three or more years:
respondents active in water management/; ■
remediation of contaminated sites (throughout the Czech Republic, mainly at large enterprises and former military bases) /74/.
Projects of longer duration, and introduced on a smaller scale: ■
waste recycling technologies;
■
waste minimization;
■
energy saving measures;
■
alternative energy sources;
■
introduction of environmental management systems (ISO 14000 and EMAS).
Most of the above activities are market-driven, with limited state support. A majority of interviewed parties who were willing to answer the question on current projects in progress gave examples that belonged to the above groups. Some concrete examples mentioned in interviews included:
■
conversion of coal-fired energy plants to gas-fired (medium-sized and small heating stations in major towns, especially in heavily polluted areas, and individual family houses in residential districts); and co-generation in large heating stations (big towns, some large industrial companies) /69, 70, other sources/;
■
■
construction of new and modernization of existing wastewater treatment plants throughout the country /2, 3, 49, all
remediation work at the former Soviet military base at Milovice — Jirice /20, 41/;
■
remediation work at the Trebovice power plant, and at the
42
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
Nova Hut steel works /4/; ■
site investigation for newly designed highways, and for an express railway corridor through the Czech Republic /40/;
■
investigation of ecosystem changes in the Krusne Hory mountains /43/;
TABLE 2.9. MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES Source of Information
Respondents
Personal contacts
96%
groundwater and soil clean-up at the large chemical plant Chemopetrol Litvinov /4, 14, 20/;
Trade shows and fairs
72%
Mailing lists
68%
construction and/or modernization of wastewater treatment plants on the Vltava and the Elbe rivers (Decin, Usti nad Labem, Melnik) /7, 22/;
Professional contacts
64%
Daily newspapers
61%
■
introduction of environmental management systems (rare, but throughout the country)/13, 30/;
Business publications
59%
Conference attendance
58%
■
waste minimization programs (rare, but throughout the country) /8, 32, 39/;
Environmental publications
55%
creation of a comprehensive solid waste management system in the town of Ostrava /21/.
Fax
53%
■
Environmental ministry
34%
It is important to note that, in answering the question on project opportunities, highly specialized firms and some state bodies and R&D institutions tended to stress the need for projects relating to their specific field of activities or interest, rather than to focus on major environmental problems in the Czech Republic which would better reflect actual market needs.
Professional associations
32%
Academic associations
17%
Ministry of industry/trade
13%
Chambers of commerce
11%
Other ministries
11%
Other
10%
MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Email
7%
Local and regional government
6%
■
■
Personal contacts were by far the most frequently cited source for information on business opportunities. With very few exceptions, respondents from both businesses and R&D institutes use personal contacts as the major source of information, to the extent that approximately two thirds of interviewed parties stated they obtain all their important information exclusively from personal contacts. Other sources included referrals from associates, and to a smaller extent, trade fairs and exhibitions, and information obtained from local authorities. Daily press and periodicals were not considered by respondents as an effective information channel. Interestingly, about a quarter of interviewed businesses expressed a strong need for a periodical presenting environmental business opportunities. The weekly Obchodni Vestnik, is supposed to announce public tenders; however, as many opportunities are missed announced late or not at all and don’t make it into the publication, the Vestnik is not considered useful. Other periodicals were considered helpful in presenting a general picture of the environment but do not include information on business opportunities. The periodicals mentioned included Planeta, Odpady, Eko-magazin, and Vestnik MOE. It was often noted that the Ministry of Environment should play a more important role in providing information on project opportunities than it does at present. The majority of businesses expressed frustration with the inefficiency and lack of clear structure within the Ministry (e.g. changes in departmental responsibilities, structure, changes of posts, etc.). For comparison, Table 2.9 presents the breakdown of major information sources based on a 1995 survey of 150 environmental businesses in the Czech Republic carried out by the Regional Environmental Center. The findings of the current survey correspond well with the results presented in Table 2.9, where personal and/or professional contacts (including conference and trade show attendance) are among the major cited sources of information, followed by trade shows and fairs, and business and environmental publications. Table 2.10 presents the main business
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
TABLE 2.10: MAIN BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS Publication
Respondents
Hospodarsky Noviny
69%
Ekonom
32%
Odpady
22%
EKO Journal
16%
Profit
15%
Vodni Hospodarstvi
14%
Planeta
9%
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
and environmental publications from the same survey. Interestingly, a quarter of respondents stated that they did not read any environment-related publications. The role of environmental and trade associations in the Czech Republic is very limited — half of the survey respondents were found not to belong to any association. Table 2.11 presents the most important environmental trade fairs in the Czech Republic. The majority of respondents commented that the number of environmental fairs and shows is excessive. In the past few years, many agencies organizing trade shows have increased the number and/or frequency of environment-related events, as they found it profitable. However, some exhibitors, both foreign and domestic, are currently re-evaluating their participation in fairs, because repeated presence may not be cost
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
43
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
TABLE 2.11: IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL FAIRS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Name of Fair
City
Approximate Date
Focus
HYDROTECH
Hradec Kralove
Annually in March
Water management
PROFUTURUM
Ostrava
Annually in March
Waste management
COMMA
Prague
Annually in March
Municipal technologies
RECYCLING
Prague
Annually in March
Environmental protection, waste recycling
INTERGAS
Prague
Annually in April
Gas techniques and equipment
Stavebni veletr
Brno
Annually in April
Construction
Dny nove techniky
Olomouc
Annually in April, November
Wastewater treatment
TEPLO
Ostrava
Annually in April
Heating materials, air systems, heating
ENERGO BRNO
Brno
Annually in May
Energy saving equipment
Vodarenska vystava
Pilzen
Annually in May/June
Water
Vodarenska vystava
Litomerice
Annually in May/June
Water
SOVAK
Pilzen
Annually in June
Water and wastewater treatment
EKOPRAHA
Prague
Annually in June
All environmental sectors
VODKA
Pilzen
Annually in June
Sewage systems
For Arch
Prague
Annually in September
Construction, design
MSVB
Brno
Annually in September
Technology in general
INVEX Brno
Brno
Annually in October
Computers, software
PRAGOTHERM
Prague
Annually in October
Heating and air-conditioning
ENVIBRNO
Brno
Annually in Oct./Nov.
All environmental sectors
AQUATHERM
Prague
Annually in November
Water, heating systems, ventilation
AQUA
Pribram
Annually in November
Water treatment
JOGA
Luhacovice
Annually in November
Municipal waste
Note: Those highlighted in bold are the most important fairs
effective. For instance, Envibrno, one of the biggest and most important fairs in the country, has experienced a decline in the number of exhibitors and visitors since it became an annual event. Before 1994, the Envibrno fair was held every two years, and numbers of visitors, references from participants, and the number of concluded contracts were higher. In 1995 and 1996, many exhibitors were reluctant to participate every year because the high cost of participation was not justified by the resulting gains /10, 16, 19, 27, 28/. There is a general trend among environmental firms to reduce the number of exhibitions participated in and to only take part in the larger events that attract more visitors. Several large environmental technology producers expressed interest in the International Engineering Fair at Brno, the largest fair in the Czech Republic, with a 39-year tradition. The Fair covers most industries and in fact, is one of the largest of its kind in Central Europe. The range of products presented is not limited to the environment /27, 28/. For the foreseeable future, the number of fairs, shows, and conferences is expected to decrease. Some exhibitions will be canceled as they are no longer found to be profitable. For a potential foreign participant, it is advisable to carefully review existing events in the Czech Republic with an experienced local advisor and to focus on those events which offer the best return on the required effort and resources. Public Procurement Law and the Tender Process The Czech Republic recently passed the Public Procurement Law, No. 229/1996, retroactively effective from Jan. 1, 1995. The tender mechanism prescribed by the Law can
44
be a source of information for business opportunities relating to projects based on the use of public finance. The law applies to the acquisition of goods, construction, and services by all government agencies, including local governments, associations, and other bodies which use state financial means. The law also applies to all private legal entities and individuals using state funds for the acquisition of goods, construction, and services. The law requires the formal announcement of tenders for all planned acquisitions, with the following exceptions: ■
financial support of R&D activities covered from the state budget;
■
tenders the subject of which is protected according to the Law on Authorship, and laws on industrial and intellectual property rights;
■
acquisitions undertaken by Czech embassies abroad;
■
acquisitions related to official visits of representatives of foreign states and governments in the Czech Republic.
A tender must be announced, if the price of a planned acquisition of technologies and/or of real estate (with the exception of property lease) is higher than 20 million crowns (USD 727,000). In all other cases the tender must be called if the price is higher than 5 million crowns (USD 182,000). All prices quoted are without the VAT tax of approx. 22 percent. If the price of a planned acquisition (technologies and/or real estate, with the exception of a property lease) is higher than 2.5 million crowns (USD 91,000), and in all other cases if
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
the price is higher than 500,000 crowns (USD 18,000), at least five competitors (bidding parties) must be approached. Where the price of a planned acquisition is higher than 100,000 crowns (USD 3,600) and lower than 2.5 million crowns (USD 91,000), and in all other cases with a value below 500,000 crowns (USD 18,000), at least three competitors must be approached. Finally, if the value of a planned acquisition is below 100,000 crowns (USD 3,600), the acquisition may be carried out directly without tender. Tender calls must be announced in Obchodni Vestnik (Official Weekly), and should include project specifications, selection criteria, and deadlines. Obchodni Vestnik is available from Economia a.s. /84/. Additionally, the most significant tenders are announced in the daily newspaper Hospodarsky Noviny. An annual overview of the major planned projects is published in the Catalogue of Municipal and Regional Projects for Tenders, published by the Ministry of Economics. Both local and foreign legal entities and individuals can generally participate in a tender. Sealed bids must be delivered either personally or by mail. No competitor may submit more than one bid. The deadline for submitting bids may vary but the time offered for proposal preparation should not be shorter than 36 calendar days from the date of the announcement in Obchodni Vestnik. The body that announces the tender may also specify other conditions, for example, that local, or foreign participation is restricted. Even if a tender is open to both local and foreign competitors, local bidders are preferred if the price offered is the same or up to 10 percent higher than the price offered by foreign competitors, when the products offered are of a similar technological quality. Interestingly, if a joint bid is submitted by a foreign and local entity, it is considered a foreign entity bid.
Note: The Public Procurement Law is long and complicated. For interested parties, it is recommended to obtain a professional translation of the whole document. Useful Contact Points Table 2.12 provides a list of useful contacts for environmental project opportunities. As already described, personal and professional contacts, environmental fairs, and business and environmental publications are primary sources of information for project opportunities in the Czech Republic. There are no formal information channels. As a result, the organizations listed in Table 2.12 cannot be classified as reliable, permanent sources of information. Nearly all the interviewed businesses did not consider them to be important sources, and many respondents stated that they did not use these sources at all. While the Ministry of Environment is not considered to be a major information provider, it may serve as a good source (although willingness to provide information varies from department to department). Some officials are very helpful, while others are only capable of referring an applicant to another department or state body (e.g. to the Czech Environmental Institute /72/). The assistance that can be expected from other ministries is more limited, although for instance the Ministry of Industry and Trade has a very helpful environmental department. In the first few years following the socio-political changes in the Czech Republic, most foreign environmental companies tried to approach ministries as the first source of information. In most cases, the businesses were not able to obtain the information they were looking for. Many ministerial officials stated they still take part in so many meetings with foreign firms that they cannot find time for their own work. Overall, relying on governmental contacts as the sole
TABLE 2.12: USEFUL CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES Ministry of Environment Vrsovicka 65, 100 10 Praha 10 Ms. Orlikova, Tel: (02) 6712-2218, Fax: (02) 6731-0490 State Environmental Fund (SFZP) K Moravine 7, 190 00 Praha 9 Mr. Chytil, Tel: (02) 6602-3111, Fax: (02) 684-2150 National Property Fund Rasinivo nabr. 42, 120 61 Praha 2 Mr. Zika, Tel: (02) 2491-1907, Fax: (02) 291-582 Czech Environmental Institute Udernicka 1931, 149 00 Praha 4 Mr. Zdenek Strnad, Tel: (02) 268-545, Fax: (02) 767-832 Engineering Testing Institute Hudcova 56b, 621 00 Brno Mr. Striz, Tel. (05) 4132-1204, Fax: (05) 4121-1225 Ministry of Industry and Trade Na Frantisku 32, 110 15 Praha 1, Ms. Christianova, Tel: (02) 2485-3175 Ministry of Economy Staromestske nam. 6, 110 01 Praha 1 Ms. Pisova, Tel: (02) 2489-7476, Fax: (02) 231-3227 Ministry of Transportation Nabr. L. Svobody 12, 110 00 Praha 1 Tel: (02) 2303-1111 Czech Institute for Environmental Protection (CIZP) Na brehu 267, 190 00 Praha 9 Ms. Seborova, Tel: (02) 683-4875, Fax: (02) 683-4847
Local administrations throughout the CR Czech Environment Management Center (CEMC) Jevanska 12, 100 00 Praha 10 Mr. Vyhnanek, Tel: (02) 6280-9578, Fax: (02) 775-869 Czech Business Council for Sustainable Development Jevanska 12, 100 00 Praha 10 Dr. Petr Horacek, Tel: (02) 6280-9579, Fax: (02) 775-869 Association of the Waste Industry Velfinova 4, 160 75 Praha 6 Ing. Jozef Vancura, Tel. (02) 2431-0368, Fax: (02) 324-692 Association of Producers of Environmental Systems, (APES) Kotkova ul. 6, 706 02 Ostrava Mr. Lubomir Latal, Tel: (069) 2926-1180, Fax: (069) 543-80 Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic Argentinska 39, 170 05 Praha 7 Tel: (02) 6671-1112 or 6671-0808, Fax: (02) 6671-0805 Confederation of Chemical Industries of CR Kodanska 46, 100 00 Praha 10 Mr. Pavel Karas, Tel: (02) 6715-4133, Fax: (02) 6715-4130 Environmental Experts Registry Ministry of Environment, Dept of EIA Ing. Vaclav Oblouk Tel: (02) 6712-2442, Fax: (02) 6731-0308 Note: On March 1, 1997, the international access code for the Czech Republic changed to from (42) to (420). When calling from outside the Czech Republic, the first zero of the local code should be dropped.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
45
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
information source for project opportunities is not a recommended method. While almost every ministry has a designated person responsible for environmental issues within the ministry’s scope of activity, in reality, they often do not offer any environmental projects. The Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Education are good examples of this situation. Listed below are the most relevant points of contact, with a short description. The number given in slashes refers to the full contact information provided in Sections 2.8-2.10. Useful Governmental Contacts: ■
Ministry of Defense; Mr. Bukva, Chief of the Environment; clean-up of former military bases, other environmental issues /78/Tel: (420-2) 2021-2503, (420-2) 2021-2505;
■
Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Fantys, Chief of the Dept. of Ecology; summaries, overall statistics on environmental issues /79/Tel: (420-2) 2181-2377 (Note: neither this Department nor the Ministry manage environmental projects, however, the Ministry may provide guarantees on environmental projects);
■
Ministry of Industry and Trade; Ms Sticha; environmental technology research projects; a list of projects for 1997 /77/Tel: (420-2) 2485-1111;
■
Ministry of Environment; Mr. Dlouhy, Economic Dept.; projects under the Program for Care of the Environment /2/Tel: (420-2) 672-853.
(Note: Projects under the Program for Care of the Environment for 1997 were to be announced in Hospodarsky Vestnik on Feb. 26, 1997). Additionally, information on some environmental projects may be available from specific departments of the Ministry of Environment. Contact points include: ■
Department of Water Protection; Mr. Redinger /80/ Tel: (420-2) 6712-2998
■
Department of Air Protection; Mr. Jilek /81/ Tel: (420-2) 6712-2671
■
Division of Air Emissions; Mr. Weiss, Chief of Division /81/ Tel: (420-2) 6712-2240
■
Department of Waste; Mr. Kopecky, Chief /82/ Tel: (420-2) 6712-2216
■
Department of Environmental Damages; Ms Tylova, Deputy-chief /83/ Tel: (420-2) 6712-2069
The departments listed above were responsible for preparing tenders for projects within the framework of the program “Care for the Environment” and the “R&D program.” A full list of approved projects is maintained by the Economics Department of the Ministry of Environment /2/. Since last year, individual departments at the Ministry of Environment have also prepared and coordinated small support projects. As grants for these projects are typically low, in most cases the departments are not obliged to announce a tender officially. Such projects are launched more or less at random throughout the year. For instance, in 1996 the Department of Air Protection announced support projects that included Long Distance Emission Transfer (administrative support to the international program), and Emission Data Collection and Monitoring. As mentioned, projects of this kind are new, few and far between, and the sums involved are low. Overall, to identify project opportunities in the Czech Republic, it is best to investigate the situation through personal contacts, and, to a lesser extent, by contacting directly industrial producers and local administrations. For a foreign firm to compete effectively, it is almost essential to enter the market through a Czech business partner.
46
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Buyers of environmental technologies can be grouped into the following categories: municipalities, businesses, environmental firms, and other bodies. Municipalities are obliged to announce open tenders if they intend to purchase technology worth 5 million crowns or more (or 20 million if a complex technology is to be considered). Tenders must be announced in the weekly Obchodni Vestnik at least 36 days before the tender deadline. In cases where the required technologies cost 500,000 crowns or more (or 2.5 million if a complex technology is to be considered), the municipality must announce the tender to at least 5 competitors. In cases where the technology is worth 100,000 crowns, three competitors must be approached. (All the prices above are without VAT, which is usually 22 percent) /38, 75, 2/. The short time offered for bidding means that foreign technology producers and/or suppliers are not always able to participate in a tender. Additionally, local suppliers have priority when their offer is of a similar technological level compared to foreign competitors, and the proposed price is equal, or up to 10 percent higher. Most municipalities, particularly if they announce smaller tenders, contact local firms which they already know (through personal and professional contacts), or approach well-known technology providers in the country. Less frequently, municipalities may also be influenced by information and promotional materials provided by technology producers/providers, either during a personal visit to a municipal office, or by mail. Some municipalities also visit relevant trade fairs and shows, especially if they expect to purchase environmental technologies in the near future (e.g. prior to the construction of a wastewater treatment plant). Businesses can be divided into two categories — state enterprises, and private firms. Acquisitions made by state enterprises are subject to the requirements of the Public Procurement Law and the tendering process (see above). Private firms purchasing environmental technology products usually use information they have gained from meetings with technology providers. Some firms have an appointed person responsible for environmental issues who has the knowledge (and sometimes the authority) to decide which technology is best for their company /24/. Businesses also learn about environmental technologies through personal contacts (very common in small and medium-sized enterprises), or through associates working in the same industry. Some businesses send their representatives to environmental fairs and conferences to investigate existing products available on the market. Environmental firms are most familiar with the available technologies. Their purchasing decisions are based on their knowledge of a given field (through colleagues, personal contacts, associates, and own experience). From survey interviews it appears that price is not the major factor determining what products environmental firms buy — the key determinant is their specific need. Main technology buyers in this category include environmental service providers, analytical labs, providers of remediation services, and firms investigating and/or measuring pollution etc. /36, 35, 29, 19/. Other bodies include universities, state R&D institutes, other state institutions, and interest groups. The common characteristic for all parties in this category is the lack of venture capital — many are uncertain whether they will be able to continue operations, and often do not even consider purchasing equipment. Universities generally possess a much better
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
knowledge of the market than other bodies thanks to their local and international contacts /37, 43, 49/. Conclusions In summary, one should highlight the importance of personal contacts as a source of information on environmental business project opportunities in the Czech Republic. The majority of respondents indicated that they learn of project opportunities, or about environmental technologies available on the market, through personal and professional contacts, referrals from associates, participation in fairs, and promotion materials from personal meetings and fairs. Many businesses, R&D centers, universities, and state bodies (ministries) collect information from professional magazines, including foreign periodicals. Obtaining information about project opportunities from official sources (the weekly Obchodni Vestnik, the Ministry of Environment, and other state bodies) is usually unsuccessful Collecting information for purchasing environmental technology is somewhat similar — the most common way to acquire information is through personal contacts at fairs, meetings with environmental specialists at firms, as well as meetings of municipal officials with company representatives. Interestingly, it emerged from the survey that many firms and municipalities have recently solved some of their most pressing environmental issues by introducing relevant equipment, and show little interest in new technologies, assuming the existing products are satisfactory.
2.5 Demand for Environmental Technology DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — OVERVIEW In the majority of sectors, the demand for environmental technologies was estimated to be between “moderate and slowly growing” and “high and likely to grow.” Generally, technologies for water and wastewater treatment were ranked among the most needed, followed by technologies for waste management, air, and energy. Demand for noise, vibration and occupational health and safety technologies was low. In the air sector, demand was high for air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers). Growing demand was expected for continuous-basis monitoring technologies for ambient air; and air sampling/laboratory analysis equipment for gaseous emissions. Within the water and wastewater sector, high demand was identified for pollution prevention/waste minimization technologies for municipal wastewater; equipment for spill control and containment/clean-up for surface and ground water; and sludge treatment and disposal equipment for municipal and industrial wastewater. Technologies in increasing demand included: quality restoration and decontamination equipment for surface and ground water; construction of municipal wastewater collection networks; monitoring, sampling and analytical equipment for drinking water; and technologies for water recycling in the area of industrial wastewater. Among the technologies available for waste management, high demand was identified for waste collection, transportation and storage equipment for hazardous waste. Increasing demand was expected for site remediation/clean-up equipment for contaminated land; waste collection/transportation and storage equipment for industrial and municipal waste; and technologies for incineration and landfill disposal of industrial waste. In the energy sector, by far the most needed technologies were those that could be used for the retrofitting/rehabilita-
tion of existing energy systems, followed by alternative (nonCFC) refrigerants. Demand for other technologies in this group was moderate. Demand for noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety technologies was low. Abatement technologies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion), and protective equipment related to occupational health and safety was, however, in some demand in this category.
TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND BY SECTOR The following tables present a summary of the responses received from interviewed parties. Additional information, based on sources other than interviews, is provided following the discussion and analysis of the tables. In some cases, it was difficult to elicit information, because the technology grid in the questionnaire was detailed, and because many parties would only express an opinion on the demand for environmental technologies within their own field of activities. Some interviewed bodies (R&D centers, municipalities, select number of businesses) refused to assess technology demand even in basic environmental categories, due to the lack of knowledge. The following scale was used for ranking demand : 5 – highest, and rapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, likely to grow, 3 – moderate, slowly growing demand, 2 – low demand, will not grow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion. Figures in cells show the average score, while those in brackets represent the number of responses. Air Demand for air-related technologies was moderate. In high demand were technologies for air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers). Growth in demand was expected for air sampling/laboratory analysis equipment for gaseous emissions; and continuous-basis monitoring equipment for ambient air. In the researcher’s opinion, additional comments are necessary to elaborate on the situation presented above. Air quality has a strong impact on the health of the general public and on the state of environment, and technologies reducing gaseous emissions occupy a significant part of the
TABLE 2.13: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — AIR Ambient air
Gaseous emissions
Air sampling/laboratory analysis
3.29 (7)
3.61 (9)
Continuous-basis monitoring
3.33 (6)
3.19 (8)
Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers)
3.06 (4)
4.00 (9)
Gas detection/warning devices
2.75 (4)
2.58 (6)
Emission abatement/ cleaner production (e.g. low emission burners)
2.50 (4)
3.00 (6)
Instrumentation and process control/software
3.10 (5)
3.08 (6)
Technologies in high demand: #1 air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers), Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions)
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
47
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
market at present. The current market demand for environmental technologies can be ranked as follows: 1) air pollution control technologies, 2) emissions/ambient air monitoring equipment, and air sampling, and 3) emission abatement/cleaner production technologies. Air pollution control technologies are represented by scrubbers, other flue gas purification units, and by large and sophisticated systems to reduce the emission of solid particles, sulfur dioxide, carbon oxide etc. By far the largest sums of money are being invested in this technology category, and the trend is expected to continue for several years to come. Technologies for combustion conversion from coal to natural gas, and/or cogeneration technologies that reduce emissions are in demand at present, and demand is expected to grow in the near future. In contrast, cleaner production technologies are not in high demand now, but may be of greater importance once the enforcement of air related legislation becomes more stringent. Water and Wastewater Generally, demand for water and wastewater technologies was moderate, with growth tendencies. High demand in the sector was identified for technologies for pollution prevention/waste minimization for municipal wastewater; equipment for spill control and containment/clean-up for surface and ground water; and sludge treatment and disposal equipment for municipal and industrial wastewater. Technologies in increasing demand included: quality restoration and decontamination equipment for surface and ground water; construction of municipal wastewater collection networks; monitoring, sampling and analytical equipment for drinking water; and technologies for water recycling and reuse for industrial wastewater. In the researcher’s opinion, demand in this category would be better discussed separately as two sub-categories: water and wastewater.
The most important technology categories in water management (i.e. those attracting the greatest attention of technology producers and potential customers) are : 1) standard and advanced water treatment processes, 2) quality restoration and decontamination of water resources, and 3) sampling and monitoring. Standard and advanced treatment technologies can be further separated into products for large public water supply systems, and equipment for individual consumers, such as tap water treatment units for homes, labs etc. Current interest in wastewater management concentrates on three technology categories: 1) wastewater treatment plant construction and modernization, using both standard and advanced treatment processes, 2) sampling and monitoring, and 3) pollution prevention. Demand is high for technologies for both municipal and industrial wastewater. Finally, sludge disposal is another major field where technologies are demanded. Waste Management Overall, demand for waste management technologies was moderate, with technologies related to industrial and hazardous waste in highest demand in this category. High demand was identified for equipment for hazardous waste collection/transportation and storage. Increasing demand was expected for site remediation/clean-up equipment for contaminated land; waste collection/transportation and storage equipment for industrial and municipal waste; and technologies for incineration and landfill disposal of industrial waste. Possible growth in demand was also identified for pollution prevention and waste minimization equipment in the area of radioactive waste. In the researcher’s opinion, by far the highest market demand is for those technologies employed in solid municipal waste disposal, followed by technologies for industrial waste (including hazardous waste) disposal. Site remediation and clean up of contaminated land is another area of high demand.
TABLE 2.14: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — WATER AND WASTEWATER Surface and Ground Water
Potable (Drinking) Water
Municipal Wastewater
Industrial Wastewater
Monitoring
3.36 (15)
3.50 (7)
3.43 (8)
3.63 (9)
Sampling/laboratory analysis
3.31 (14)
3.60 (6)
2.83 (7)
3.13 (9)
Construction of collection/supply networks
3.14 (8)
3.00 (7)
3.71 (8)
2.86 (8)
Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and collection network
2.50 (3)
3.25 (5)
3.25 (7)
3.00 (6)
Standard physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes
3.00 (4)
3.00 (6)
3.40 (6)
3.00 (7)
Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. UV/ozonation, activated carbon, phosphate removal, reverse osmosis)
3.33 (7)
3.17 (7)
3.00 (5)
3.20 (6)
Sludge treatment and disposal
3.67 (4)
3.33 (3)
4.00 (4)
3.83 (7)
Pollution prevention/waste minimization
3.60 (6)
3.33 (3)
4.17 (4)
3.25 (5)
Water recycling and reuse
3.40 (6)
2.33 (3)
3.00 (4)
3.58 (7)
Spill control and containment/clean-up
4.00 (6)
2.50 (2)
2.83 (4)
3.60 (6)
Quality restoration and decontamination
3.83 (7)
3.50 (4)
3.00 (5)
3.80 (6)
Instrumentation/process control/software
3.17 (7)
3.25 (4)
3.00 (4)
3.50 (5)
Technologies in high demand: #1 pollution prevention/waste minimization (municipal wastewater); #2 spill control and containment/clean-up (surface and ground water); #3 sludge treatment and disposal (municipal wastewater). Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #4 quality restoration and decontamination (surface and ground water); #5 sludge treatment and disposal (industrial wastewater); #6 construction of municipal wastewater collection networks; #7 monitoring, sampling and analysis of drinking water; #8 water recycling and reuse (industrial wastewater)
48
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
TABLE 2.15: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — WASTE MANAGEMENT Municipal Solid Waste
Industrial Waste
Hazardous Waste
Radioactive Waste
Waste collection/transportation and storage
3.57 (7)
3.61 (9)
4.06 (9)
2.00 (3)
Sample analysis/waste characterization
3.17 (6)
3.19 (8)
3.33 (9)
2.33 (3)
Site monitoring
3.17 (9)
3.00 (9)
3.25 (8)
2.00 (2)
Landfill disposal
3.13 (8)
3.45 (10)
3.39 (9)
2.00 (2)
Incineration
2.67 (6)
3.56 (9)
2.89 (9)
2.00 (2)
Composting/biomass conversion
2.33 (6)
1.83 (6)
1.80 (5)
2.00 (2)
Pollution prevention/waste minimization
2.70 (5)
3.00 (7)
3.08 (6)
4.00 (2)
Recycling/resource recovery
2.94 (8)
2.80 (10)
3.38 (8)
2.67 (3)
Spillage control/decontamination
3.30 (5)
3.38 (8)
3.44 (8)
3.00 (3)
Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land
3.90 (5)
3.63 (8)
3.67 (9)
3.00 (3)
Technologies in high demand: #1 waste collection/transportation and storage (hazardous waste); Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land (municipal, hazardous, and industrial waste); #3 waste collection/transportation and storage (municipal and industrial waste); #4 incineration and landfill disposal (industrial waste); #5 pollution prevention/waste minimization — radioactive waste.
The state is the most frequent customer for site remediation technologies. The most significant factors influencing growth in demand are the state of legislation and its enforcement, and the growing costs of waste disposal (see Chapter 3 for more details). Disposal of radioactive waste is an acute problem, and a detailed investigation of possible disposal sites is under way. However, although disposal of radioactive waste is a priority issue for the Czech government, on the whole, the field does not account for a major portion of the waste management sector. The Czech government has announced plans to build an incinerator for PCB disposal. The construction will be either financed, or co-financed from the state budget. The project should be initiated in 1997. Finally, all waste producers generating more than 100 tons of ordinary waste, or more than 50 kg of hazardous waste annually must prepare formal waste management programs to be approved by local administration. A waste management program must include detailed information on the methods of waste disposal. This means that waste producers must either present a contract with a firm that specializes in waste salvage and/or disposal, or they must manage the waste disposal
themselves (in incinerators, landfills, etc.). Whether these methods of disposal are efficient, cost-effective and environmentally friendly is questionable; therefore, there may be a growing niche for waste minimization technologies. Enterprises should become more receptive to innovative technologies as the enforcement of legislation improves, and the cost of waste disposal grows. Energy Overall, demand for energy-related environmental technologies was moderate. In no single technology class was demand found to be high. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to the retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems for both the energy sector and other industrial sectors, followed by alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants. Demand for other technologies in this sector was low to moderate. In the researcher’s opinion, the overall impression given in Table 2.16 reflects well the actual situation. Rehabilitation and retrofitting of existing energy systems, and the improvements in process management and control are currently under way, and can be expected to continue. New and efficient energy and heat generation systems are already being introduced on a
TABLE 2.16: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — ENERGY Energy and Power Generation
Other Industrial Sectors (e.g. Manufacturing, Chemical)
New/efficient energy and heat generation systems
3.00 (3)
2.25 (4)
Retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems
3.75 (4)
3.75 (4)
Process management and control (e.g. boiler tune-up, fuel efficiency optimization)
2.50 (2)
2.75 (4)
Heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation)
3.00 (1)
3.00 (2)
Alternative/renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, solar)
3.00 (2)
2.33 (3)
Alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants
3.00 (2)
3.33 (3)
Instrumentation
3.00 (2)
3.00 (3)
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems — energy and power generation, other industrial sectors; #2 alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants — other industrial sectors.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
49
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
TABLE 2.17: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — NOISE, VIBRATION AND OHS Noise Occupational and Health and Vibration Safety Instrumentation/measuring and control devices
1.00 (1)
2.33 (3)
Protection equipment
2.00 (1)
2.83 (3)
Abatement (e.g. insulation, absorbtion)
1.00 (1)
2.75 (2)
Electromagnetic field exposure
1.00 (1)
2.00 (1)
Technologies in demand (moderate at best): #1 Protection equipment — occupational health and safety; #2 Abatement — occupational health and safety.
small scale, and will become more important in the near future. Energy-saving technologies, and alternative energy sources are not currently in high demand, although demand is expected to grow within the next few years. At present, aside from meeting environmental compliance requirements, energy generating companies are not forced to implement any significant energy-saving measures, largely because they are paid for energy supplied and not that saved. However, within the next few years rising fees for energy use will increase the demand for energy efficient/saving technologies among industrial users. Alternative energy is a marginal area in the Czech Republic, particularly since the country does not have abundant sources of renewable energy. Those that do exist (e.g. solar, wind, geothermal energy) are to be found scattered across the country. Noise, Vibration and OHS Demand in the noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety sector was low (see Table 2.17). Abatement technologies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion), and protection equipment related to occupational health and safety were in some demand in this category. Overall, this sector is not given much attention. In the researcher’s opinion, technologies most demanded in this group are those used for measuring and controlling noise in the work place, followed by health and safety protection equipment.
MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY END-USERS Table 2.18 presents the main end-users of environmental technologies as identified by respondents. Overall, the main end-users are municipalities. It is worth noting here that a significant share of money spent by municipalities comes from the State Environmental Fund which is the principal source of support for municipalities (up to threefourths of the total cost of individual projects). The business sector is the second major end-user group (constituted by both private companies and large state enterprises). There still exist a few state enterprises in the Czech Republic where a substantial share is owned by the state, and they account for a large portion of environmental expenditures (e.g. technologies reducing air emissions from power plants, soil reclamation after mining operations, site remediation work). Presented below is an analysis of the major end-users in each environmental sector, based on respondents’ opinions. It is important to note that the ranking of end-users may vary depending on the value of investments, or the number of projects cases considered. Such research, however, was outside the scope of this project.
50
TABLE 2.18 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY END-USERS BY SECTOR Category
Major End-users by Group
Air
Industrial companies Power plants, heat generating stations
Water
Municipal sewerage operators Potable water suppliers Municipalities Remediation and consulting companies Hospitals Industrial companies Large waste producers Municipal services Food processing companies
Waste
Municipal services Large waste producers Municipalities Transportation companies Mining companies Cleaning services companies Landfill operators Waste processing companies
Energy
Power plants, heat generating stations Municipalities Municipal services Industrial companies
Noise and Vibration
Large industrial companies Construction companies
Note: The difference between „municipalities“ and „municipal services“: „Municipalities“ are town administrations that order and purchase various technologies and services. „Municipal services“ are companies, either private or controlled by municipalities, that provide town administrations with environmental services (e.g. water supply, waste collection).
Air The major end-users of environmental technologies for air pollution control are operators of heating stations and power plants. Most power plants are owned by CEZ, the largest enterprise in the Czech Republic, in which the state still retains a majority share. Ownership of local heating stations varies — some are owned by former state enterprises that have become joint-stock companies, while others are private, or are owned by municipalities. The second largest group of end-users includes various industries. Among the most significant sectors are metallurgy, chemical, pharmaceutical, engineering, glass, and other industrial branches. Neither small, stationary pollution sources (domestic family housing) nor mobile sources (vehicles) are among significant end-users of air pollution control equipment. This is mainly because they are not currently subject to targeted regulations. Water The major end-users in this category are municipalities (or operators of systems), both for water and wastewater treatment systems. This situation should last well beyond the year 2000. Other important customers for wastewater treatment systems are: chemical plants, engineering works, machinery manufacturing works, and agriculture. Family houses may become a significant customer for package wastewater treatment units, especially in more remote rural areas. Tap water treatment equipment is in high demand among individual consumers, especially in areas with poor quality potable water.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
Waste Municipalities are a major end-user of solid waste disposal technologies, for example those used for waste separation, salvage, landfilling, incineration. The most frequent end-users of technologies for hazardous waste disposal (incineration, landfilling, re-use technologies, solidification, etc.) are the chemical industry, machinery manufacturing, engineering, pulp and paper industries, and others. Soil reclamation and site remediation technologies are of primary interest to the mining industry, energy sector (CEZ), and the state. Energy The structure of major end-users in the energy sector is somewhat similar to that in the air pollution control sector — power plants and heat generating stations, followed by other industrial sectors with high energy consumption. This situation is mainly driven by the national environmental policy, focusing on large stationary sources of air pollution. Increasing interest in energy-saving measures is expected from various industrial users and from municipalities as energy prices increase. Noise and Vibration Noise abatement technologies for indoor workplaces are important in metallurgic, mining, and heavy machinery industries, while outside noise pollution is an interest area for some municipalities. The construction industry is also a significant client. Technologies reducing vibration, of some concern in heavy industries, are currently not in great demand. No major changes in end-users of environmental technologies is expected in any of the above categories. While some small changes may occur in the order, the principal customers are expected to remain the same.
2.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers PURCHASING PREFERENCES According to respondents, due to the pervasive lack of money, most environmental technology end-users (municipalities, business) select the cheapest technology available on the market that enables them to meet the required standards. Both municipalities, as well as businesses must meet environmental standards (and corresponding deadlines) set by environmental enforcement bodies. At the same time, they must cope with pressing economic issues which are usually perceived as more important. Thus, they try to find the cheapest environmental technology providing the minimum level of compliance. From this point of view, local manufacturers of environmental technologies enjoy the unparalleled advantage of cheaper products, lower installation costs, and local technical service. It is also worth to note that a clause in the Act on Public Competition (see Section 4.3) legislates that a purchase from a domestic technology supplier takes precedence over a foreign supplier, if the domestic technology is of the same or similar quality and efficiency, and the price is the same, or up to 10 percent higher. When foreign technology is preferred by end-users, it is because of its unique technical parameters, unmatched by comparable local products, or because a product is not manufactured locally. Foreign products are often viewed as technologically more advanced, of better quality, and more reliable than local technologies. Recognition of brand names is an important factor as well. Local environmental companies, driven by a wide variety of goals, buy the exact technology they need to provide envi-
ronmental services. The country of origin of the product is not a key decision factor, and, unlike in other respondent groups, the price is not the key factor, either. Such environmental firms provide, among other things, lab testing services, remediation work, field research, drilling, pollution measurements etc., and require reliable and sophisticated technology manufactured by renowned world producers. The criterion “quality and purpose first” was mentioned by 75-80 percent of interviewed environmental service providers. Local technology producers and suppliers determine which technologies to buy according to cost-benefit analysis and their clients’ preferences. For example, a domestic contractor for a wastewater treatment plant constructs the plant according to its own design, and bulk construction materials (structured steel, piping, cement) are bought at local sources, thus saving time and money. Critical technological parts, such as pumps, electric motors, process control systems, are either bought from local producers, or from abroad. According to customer’s preference, the contractor can install locally produced pumps (e.g. with a shorter term of warranty), or imported pumps of better quality (with a longer term of warranty). While this approach will slightly increase the total cost of a wastewater treatment plant, the increase due to installing foreign components may well be offset by better parameters and reliability. Overall, most local environmental technology producers try to find a balance between the quality and price of their products. It is extremely important to offer the client as low a price as possible, but product reliability and the length of the warranty period are considered by clients as well. Universities and R&D centers are often unable to make any purchase due to the pervasive lack of funds. However, when they do buy equipment, quality and purpose take precedence over price considerations.
STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES When asked what the advantages of imported environmental technologies were, about 70 percent of respondents pointed out high product quality, while 50-60 percent marked “reliable and durable product”, and “user-friendly technology”. 30-35 percent of respondents commenting on the advantages of foreign technologies indicated “easy to customize and adapt for specific local needs,” while 15-20 percent noted “good value for money.” “Available credit” and “good after-sales service” were rarely mentioned as strengths of foreign products, even though they are important in some projects (e.g. air pollution control, waste incineration). Several respondents even mentioned the superficial and careless approach of foreign companies to after-sales service. Low price of foreign technologies was not mentioned in any single case. Note that the term “foreign technologies” was interpreted to mean “Western technologies.” Technologies from other Central and Eastern European countries (mainly from Poland and Hungary) are not considered to be competitive with Czech products. The products generally fall in a similar price and quality range, and Czech buyers therefore choose domestic technologies. Foreign environmental technology suppliers enjoy a significant advantage over domestic competitors if they manufacture a unique product that is not manufactured in the target country (due to the limited size of the local market). Such specific technologies are intended for small and specialized numbers of clients, such as equipment for nuclear waste handling, transport, and storage. Additionally, multi-purpose technologies which can be a basis for a wide variety of product modifications may also give foreign technology suppliers a notable
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
51
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
advantage. Solid waste salvage trucks, loaders, and incinerators are a few examples of multi-purpose competitive equipment. Finally, several respondents noted that foreign environmental technology products which can use locally produced spare parts or replacements (e.g. filters, chemical substances for water and wastewater treatment systems, and lab chemicals) had a significant advantage over other foreign technologies. Adopting this approach will reduce costs, delivery time, and service requirements.
TABLE 2.19: PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS Sector
Country
Air
1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) US
Water and Wastewater
1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) UK;
Waste
1) Austria; 2) Denmark; 3) The Netherlands
Energy
1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) US
DISADVANTAGES OF FOREIGN TECHNOLOGIES In discussing the disadvantages of foreign technologies and the barriers to market entry, high price was given as the biggest disadvantage. Practically all respondents regarded foreign environmental technologies as too expensive. The price of some foreign technologies is so high (e.g. municipal water and wastewater treatment systems) that it is taken as uncompetitive in advance. On the other hand, highly sophisticated foreign technologies that have no match among domestic products can find their niches. For example, expensive and sophisticated high-efficiency systems for air pollution control in power plants and large heating stations are frequently of foreign origin. The same applies to incinerators and some technologies for waste reuse or recycling (tire recycling, plastics). In some cases, the disadvantage of high price is offset by characteristics such as product quality, life-span, aftersales service (e.g. landfill liners, municipal waste collection containers, tap water purification systems, etc.) “Ensuring authorized technical service and maintenance” was mentioned as a problem by 30-40 percent of the interviewed parties. Finally, between 20 and 30 percent of respondents pointed out other disadvantages of foreign technologies, such as “lack of reliable product information,” and “products not suitable for local conditions.” Some specific disadvantages listed by respondents included: ■
Problems with product certification.
■
Transfer of payments (problematic, long)
■
Arrogant behavior of foreign representatives
■
Export/import barriers (connected with legislation)
■
Low state support for such investments (imports)
■
Low bank support for technology imports.
It is interesting to note that varying customs duties and border taxes are often applied to products from different countries. Treaties with many countries removing double-taxation also play an important role. With respect to EU providers, the customs fee inconsistencies are expected to be eliminated in the near future.
2.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Generally, German, Austrian, Dutch, and Scandinavian companies are considered to be the most active in the environmental technology market in the Czech Republic, followed by American, Danish, French and British firms. The presence of environmental companies from Canada, Italy, Poland and Switzerland is also noticeable but not as significant as those mentioned above. Firms from other countries (Spain, Republic of Ireland, Hungary, Japan) are known by a few interviewed parties. Their participation in environmental
52
Noise, Vibration, Not specified and OHS Services
1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) The Netherlands
projects in the Czech Republic is limited. Table 2.19, based on interviewee responses, presents perceptions of environmental technologies from major foreign suppliers. Some three quarters of respondents were not able to address the question on perceptions of foreign technologies, because their knowledge of the subject was superficial; therefore, a detailed table classifying individual countries is not presented in the report. The attitudes towards individual countries is further discussed below. Germany, Austria, and other Western countries (Western Europe, the U.S., Canada and Japan) are regarded as producers of quality environmental technologies (although some experienced local customers do not always share this opinion). Generally, the presence of foreign firms is most significant in waste management. Foreign firms are also active in wastewater treatment, and, to a smaller degree, in air pollution control. In waste management, Dutch, Austrian, German, and Danish technologies were ranked highly. Firms from these countries are active in solid waste salvage, and in landfill construction. Austrian firm Hoval is the biggest foreign supplier of incinerators. Scandinavian (e.g. Norsk Hydro) and Dutch firms are also active in waste incineration. The presence of Italian firms, once marketing their technologies aggressively, is now limited. Waste recycling technologies are mainly dominated by German firms. Water and wastewater systems are introduced by a large number of foreign firms, including German, Austrian, French, Dutch, American, and British. It is difficult to determine the leader in this field, as the situation in the sector changes rapidly. Energy and air pollution sectors are primarily dominated by German technologies, followed by Austrian and American products. Respondents were not familiar with foreign suppliers in the noise and vibration sector. The most important conclusion from evaluating perceptions of environmental technology suppliers is that, in fact, the country of origin of a given technology or supplier is not important. An overwhelming majority of the interviewed parties (practically all environmental businesses and R&D centers) commented that the country of origin is insignificant. Instead, the reputation of the company producing a technology itself is much more important. To that end, it is also necessary to note that Czech users of environmental technologies are generally skilled and technically qualified specialists, who often have had experience with a wide range of environmental technologies. If offered outdated technology, or faced with problems with post-sale service, they have a range of other foreign competitors to negotiate with, regardless of the country of origin or the reputation of
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
TABLE 2.20: THE LARGEST FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES IN THE MARKET Sector
Name of the Company, City
Country of origin
Specialization
Air
Research-Cottrell Deutschland GmbH, Most
Germany
designers, air control equipment
BHA International GmbH, Ahlen
Germany
industrial filtration, emission control
Water
ATE Praha, Praha
France
soil and groundwater clean-up
Prominent Dosiertechnik CS, s.r.o., Olomouc
Germany
pumps, lab apparatus
Bayer s.r.o.
Germany
organic products and intermediate products for treatment of wastewaters with heavy metals
Nijhuis Water Technology, Dinxperlo
The Netherlands
water and wastewater treatment
Hydrotech, a.s., Bratislava
Slovakia
water and wastewater treatment
Trige s.r.o., Liptovsky Mikulas
Slovakia
sludge filters, presses
Severoceske vodovody a kanalizace, Teplice
UK
water supply and treatment
A.S.A., Praha, Brno
Austria
waste management, disposal, salvage, separation
Hoval, Praha
Austria
waste incinerators
Bijo s.r.o.
Czech/German
industrial and hazardous waste disposal, recycling
Marius Pedersen a.s., Hradec Kralove
Denmark
waste salvage, disposal, separation
Transform s.r.o., Pardubice
Germany
plastics recycling
SSI Schafer-Schafer Menk a.r.o., Praha
Germany
production of waste containers
REO-RWE Entsorgung s.r.o., Praha
Germany
waste management
Rumpold s.r.o. Praha
Germany
collection, disposal, and export of waste, own landfill
Rethmann Recycling s.r.o
Germany
collection and disposal of waste.
Honeywell
US
energy supply
ABB Prvni brnenska, Brno
Sweden
environmental-friendly energy generation
Ramboll, Hannemann a Hojlund A/S, Virum
Denmark
design and consultancy in air protection, water and waste management
OST-Consult GmbH, Gera
Germany
environmental audits, EIA
Waste
Energy Services
Note: The table includes both foreign companies active in the local market, and joint-ventures with local firms.
the company which made the original offer or sale. Finally, Table 2.19 presents a good overview of the major foreign players in the market, but the significance of the ranking should not be overestimated. The presence and level of activity of foreign technology suppliers varies depending on environmental sector and the region of the country. One large and successful project in a specific environmental field may result in publicity to a specific technology or service provider at the expense of other competitors, thus distorting the overall picture. This, for instance, may have been the case with the Austrian firm A.S.A., which constructed a hazardous waste landfill in south Moravia, and won a tender for the construction of a Prague municipal landfill in 1993. The Danish firm Marius Pedersen was a similar case in eastern Bohemia, where it constructed and is operating landfills and organizing waste management on a wide scale.
MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKET Table 2.20 presents the major foreign companies active in the Czech Republic, as identified by the interviewed parties. As the table demonstrates, the familiarity of Czech environ-
mental experts with foreign environmental technology providers is rather limited. Many interviewed experts were not able to list a single foreign supplier by name and country of origin. Overall, the presence of foreign environmental technology suppliers is most significant in the field of waste management, with a significant number of companies also active in water supply systems. However, no individual firm dominates any sector of the market. Their market share is small — individual companies may have, at most, between 2 and 5 percent of the market. Some large foreign companies have established Czech subsidiaries, and are very active in waste salvage and disposal practices. Some foreign firms have also established joint-stock companies with municipalities. The Danish firm Marius Pedersen, Austrian A.S.A., or many German firms may serve as good examples. British firms are active in water supply and wastewater treatment services in North Bohemia. Increased activity of French firms in the water supply and wastewater treatment sector has been observed recently, with companies setting up joint-ventures with municipalities. In many environmental sectors, foreign companies do not have an established presence in the Czech Republic. Some foreign firms rather actively pursue direct sales (e.g. Austrian Hoval). The system of licensed technology sales is satisfactory
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
53
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
and effective. Other notable cases include sales of environmentally-friendly fertilizers for agriculture, chemicals for wastewater treatment systems, tap water treatment systems, air filters, lab equipment etc. Interestingly, in several cases, formerly foreign co-owned firms have been bought out by the local partner after two or three years of collaboration. In some cases, joint-ventures collapsed as a result of unsuccessful collaboration — either a local counterpart used foreign financial assistance and support excessively while returning very little, or the expectations of a foreign partner were too high and the local partner was not able to meet them. Finally, it is important to stress again that foreign firms are most active in waste management and water-related sectors, but no single firm dominates the market.
54
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
2.8. List of Interviewed Experts/Companies Only those experts/companies considered most important are listed. The structure of information is as follows: Contact person, position Date of interview Tel. number Company name in English (if necessary) Company name in Czech Address 1) Mr. Immo Bellman Jan. 13, 1997 Tel: (420-2) 6712-2385 Ministry of Environment, Department of Statistics Ministerstvo zivotniho prostredi Vrsovicka 65, 100 00 Praha 10 2) Mr. Jiri Dlouhy Jan. 14, 1997 Tel: (420-2) 672-853 Ministry of Environment, Economic Department Ministerstvo zivotniho prostredi Vrsovicka 65, 100 00 Praha 10 3) Mr. Václav Chytil, vice-director Dec. 10, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 6602-3225 State Environmental Fund of the Czech Republic Fond zivotniho prostredi Ceske republiky K Moravine 7, 190 00 Praha 9 4) Mr. Petr Homolka, authorized person Nov. 19, 1996 Tel: (420-5) 4521-6811 TOPGEO, s.r.o. Olomoucka 75, 627 00 Brno 5) Mr. Kinkor, authorized person Nov. 13, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 316-4309 SEPA s.r.o. Na Petrinach 25, 162 00 Praha 6
8) Mr. Klaus Marijczuk, manager Nov. 26, 1996 Tel: (420-428) 311-039 ELBECO a.s. Podhorska 20, 466 01 Jablonec nad Nisou 9) Mr. Vaclav Hasek, chairman of the board Dec. 4, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 395-495 PREX, a.s. Csl. armady 16, 253 01 Hostivice 10) Ms. Jirina Klicova, assistent, head of the office Nov. 27, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 684-8376 OTTO, s.r.o. Vysocanske nam. 214/1, 190 00 Praha 9 11) Ms. Dagmar Doskova Dec. 11, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 6679-3665 Sealing Consulting Praha Delnicka 12, 170 04 Praha 7 12) Ms. Libuse Tomaskova, owner Dec. 18, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 687-1421 RETOM Tomasek Lubos Schoellerova 1281, 196 00 Praha 9 - Cakovice 13) Mr. Bohuslav Moucha, Program director Nov. 28, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 6280-9578 Czech Environmental Management Center (CEMC) Ceske ekologicke manazerske centrum Jevanska 12, 100 00 Praha 10 14) Mr. Ferdinand Voracek, authorized person Nov. 19, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 8101-7510 GSP, s.r.o. 28. pluku 36, 100 00 Praha 10
6) Mr. Koumar, chief of Marketing Dept. Nov. 12, 1996 Tel: (420-452) 626-022 KOWA s.r.o. Pod Septouchovem 510, 584 01 Ledec nad Sazavou
15) Mr. Petr Saifrid, head of the Dept. for Environment-Friendly Products Nov. 20, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 793-6692, 793-6636 Czech Environmental Institute Cesky ekologicky ustav Kaplanova 1931, 148 00 Praha 4 - Opatov
7) Ms. Marie Hlavicova, technical sales vice-manager Nov. 15, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 2431-1424 AQUA-CONTACT Praha, v.o.s. Buzulucka 6, 160 00 Praha 6
16) Mr. Zemek, specialist for sale of lab apparatus Nov. 11, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 423-962 PCS, s.r.o. Na dvorcich 18, 146 00 Praha 4
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
55
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
17) Mr. Martin Chromecka, manager Dec. 16, 1996 Tel: (420-69) 224-829, 224-911 BIODEGRADACE, s.r.o. Sokolská 23, 702 00 Ostrava 1
27) Mr. Milan Valis, general manager Jan. 13, 1997 Tel: (420-2) 683-8220, 684-1128 POLYTHERM Praha, s.r.o. U libenskeho pivovaru 10, 180 00 Praha 8,
18) Mr. Arnost Gross Nov. 29, 1996 Tel: (420-653) 541-305 MSA, a.s. Hlucinska 41, 747 22 Dolni Benesov
28) Mr. Karel Petioky, manager Jan. 13, 1997 Tel: (420-2) 6702-1486 EVECO Ltd. Pocernicka 96, 108 03 Praha 10
19) Mr. Jaroslav Zak, manager Nov. 19, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 302-5230, 301-32 12 OPV, s.r.o. Belohorska 131, 169 00 Praha 6
29) Mr. Pavel Kozisek, manager Jan. 13, 1997 Tel: (420-2) 779-844 KLIMAFIL, s.r.o. Slunecna 2, 100 00 Praha 10
20) Mr. R. Gurtler Nov. 13, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 2425-5419 GEONIKA, s.r.o. V Cibulkách 5, 150 00 Praha 5
30) Ludek Pravda, manager, co-owner Nov. 26, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 6126-1024, 6126-2024 ARDA, s.r.o. Nad obci I, c. 50, 146 00 Praha 4
21) Mr. Petr Chalupa, head of the branch Dec. 4, 1996 Tel: (420-69) 356-106, 352-700 OZO Ostrava, s.r.o. Frydecka 444, 719 00 Ostrava 2
31) Mr. Brus, technical manager Nov. 29, 1996 Tel: (420-5) 4521-5381 EZAMONT Brno, s.r.o. Puskinova 17, 616 00 Brno
22) Mr. Pokorny Nov. 18, 1996 Tel: (420-5) 4521-5932 FONTANA R, s.r.o. Prikop 8, 602 00 Brno
32) Ms. Anna Christianova, state official Dec. 10, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 2485-3175 Ministry of Industry and Trade - MPO Ministerstvo prumyslu a obchodu Na Frantisku 32, 110 15 Praha 1
23) Mr. Martin Ivan, technician Nov. 28, 1996 Tel: (420-5) 4521-5375 ECO-BUILDING Brno, s.r.o. Pricni 29, 635 00 Brno
33) Mr. Jaroslav Jakubes, project manager Dec. 9, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 6702-1842 SRC International CS, s.r.o. Pocernicka 96, 108 03 Praha 10
24) Mr. Kolanda, Mr. Tresnak, environmental specialists Dec. 15, 1996, Jan. 8, 1997 Tel: (420-324) 28-911 Stanley - TONA Pecky Chvalovicka 326, 289 11 Pecky
34) Mr. Zdenek Bures, authorized person Dec. 9, 1996 Tel: (420-363) 521-423 Sanace potrubi, STRABAG-RABMER, s.r.o. Na Svadlackach 478/II, 392 01 Sobeslav
25) Mr. Dostal, manager Dec. 9, 1996 Tel: (420-40) 631-0310 TRANSFORM, s.r.o. B. Nemcove 2625, 230 02 Pardubice
35) Mr. Karel Petrzelka, sales director Nov. 13, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 2431-3630 KAP, s.r.o. Skokanska 80, 169 00 Praha 6
26) Mr. Jiri Rott, manager, owner Jan. 7, 1997 Tel: (420-2) 701-051 CEVATECH Int., s.r.o. V Novych domcich 23, 102 00 Praha 10 - Hostivar
36) Mr. Daniel Svoboda, manager Nov. 15, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 258-259 AGSS, s.r.o. Machova 23, 120 00 Praha 2
56
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
37) Mr. P. Buryan, head of the Institute of Gas Manufacture, Coke Chemistry, and Air Protection Nov. 7, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 2431-0682 University of Chemical Technology (VSCHT) Vysoká skola chemicko-technologická (VSCHT) Technicka 5, 166 28 Praha 6 38) Mr. Viktor Bankovsky, head of the Environmental Dept. Nov. 12, 1996 Tel: (420-19) 723-6617 The Administration of the Town of Pilzen Magistrat mesta Plzne Kopeckeho sady 11, 306 32 Plzen
45) Mr. Latal, director Nov. 26, 1996 Tel: (420-69) 292-6180 APES - Association of Producers of Environmental Technology Kotkova 6, 706 02 Ostrava 6 46) Mr. Kukal, director Mr. Zoubek, vice-director Nov. 29, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 2400-2111 Czech Geologic Institute Cesky Geologicky ustav Klarov 131/3, 118 21 Klarov 47) Mr. Karel Rezek, director Nov. 28, 1996 Tel: (420-327) 704-1134 Institute of Natural Raw Materials Ustav nedrostnych surovin 284 03 Kutna Hora
39) Mr. Josef Vitek, owner Nov. 28, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 687-0389 Vítek Josef - SYRAEL Sluhy 195, 250 63 Mratin 40) Mr. Radan Smid, head of a division Nov. 12, 1996 (069) 611-4941, 611-4838 GHE, a.s. 28.rijna 84, 702 00 Ostrava 41) Mr. Jiri Tylcer, manager Nov. 20, 1996 Tel: (420-69) 611-5224, 236-522 AQ - Test, s.r.o. Mlynska 5, 702 00 Ostrava 42) Mr. Vit Mateju, head of the Biotechnological Division Nov. 28, 1996 Tel: (420-38) 23-027 ENVISAN - GEM, s.r.o. Dolni 2, 371 39 Ceske Budejovice
48) Mr. Hercik, professor, head of Dept. of the Environmental Protection in Industry Nov. 28, 1996 Tel: (420-69) 699-3464 Minining University, Faculty of Metallurgy Vysoka skola banska, Fakulta metalurgie Trida 17.listopadu 15, 708 33 Ostrava - Poruba 49) Mr. Bures Jan. 28, 1997 Tel: (420-2) 2019-7268 Research Institute of Water Management Vyzkumny ustav vodohospodarsky Podbabska 30/219, 160 62 Praha 6 - Podbaba
43) Mr. Karel Stastny, professor Nov. 27, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 2438-4871 University of Agriculture (CZU), Faculty of Forestry, Dept. of Environment Ceska zemedelska universita (CZU), fakulta lesnictvi, katedra ekologie Kamycka 129, 165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol 44) Mr. Petr Petak, manager Dec. 4, 1996 Tel: (420-2) 2166-1249 USU Praha, s.r.o. Stepanska 15, 120 00 Praha 2
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
57
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
2.9 List of Publications
2.10 Other Useful Contacts
Only the most important publications used in the report are listed below. The following information is provided:
Additional contacts are in listed Table 2.12: Useful Contact Points for Environmental Project Opportunities. The structure of the information is as follows:
Author: Title of publication (short description of the publication, where necessary), place of publishing, date of publishing 51) Envibrno ’96 (catalogue of the environmental fair BVV), Brno, October 1996 52) Czech Environmental Institute: The Environment of the CR - 1995 annual environmental statistics, Prague, 1996 53) Czech Environmental Institute: The Environment of the CR - 1993-94 annual environmental statistics, Prague, 1994 54) REC: The Environmental Business Directory — Environmental service and technology providers in the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, Budapest, October 1995 55) REC: The Emerging Environmental Market (survey of the CR, H, PL, SK), Budapest, June 1995 56) Center for Clean Air Policy: Seminar on Environmental Infrastructure Finance (proceedings of the seminar), Prague, June 1992 57) Czech Academy of Sciences: Summary of Professional Activities of the Institutes of the AV CR (description of individual institutes under the Czech Academy of Sciences), Prague, April 1995 58) Czech Academy of Sciences: List of Projects Supported by Competitive Research Grants in 1996, Prague, 1996 59) MOE: List of R&D Projects of the MOE supported in 1996, Prague, January 1997 60) MOE: List of Projects under the Program for Care of the Environment supported by the MOE in 1996, Prague, January 1997 61) MOE: Eco-Labeling in the CR (description and guidelines for eco-labelling), Prague, 1996 62) Ministry of Industry and Trade: Czech Foreign Trade in Statistics, Prague, August 1996 63) Czech Geological Institute, Annual Report, Prague, 1995 64) U.S. Embassy: Country Commercial Guide - the Czech Republic, Prague, August 1996 65) U.S. Department of Commerce: Guide for American Exporters: Environmental Technologies, May 1996 66) ARDA: Environmental Business Sector: Opportunities in the CR, Prague, December 1994 67) Hospodarske noviny (daily)
58
English name (if important) Czech name Telephone No., street Town 68) Institute of Applied Ecology and Environmental Technology Institut aplikovan ekologie a ekotechniky Tel: (420-203) 975-214 nám. Smirickych 1, 281 63 Kostelec nad Cernymi lesy 69) Ministry of Environment Ministerstvo zivotniho prostredi Tel: (420-2) 6712-1111 Vrsovicka 65, 100 00 Praha 10 70) Ministry of Industry and Trade Ministerstvo prumyslu a obchodu Tel: (420-2) 2485-1111 Na Frantisku 32, 110 15 Praha 1 71) Ministry of Finance Ministerstvo financi Tel: (420-2) 2454-1111 Letenska 15, 110 00 Praha 1 72) Czech Environmental Institute Cesky ekologicky ustav Tel: (420-2) 6799-4300 Kaplanova 1931/1, 149 00 Praha 4 73) Grant Agency of the Czech Republic Grantova agentura Ceske republiky Tel: (420-2) 2424-0533 Narodni 3, 110 00 Praha 1 74) National Property Fund Fond narodniho majetku Tel: (420-2) 2499-1111 Rasinovo nabr. 42, 120 61 Praha 2 75) City Administration of Prague Magistrat hl.m. Prahy Tel: (420-2) 2448-1111 Marianske nam. 2, 110 00 Praha 1 76) Ministry of Agriculture Ministerstvo zemedelstvi Tel: (420-2) 2181-1111 Tesnov 17, 110 00 Praha 1
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 2: CZECH REPUBLIC
77) Ministry of Industry and Trade Ministerstvo prumyslu a obchodu Ms. Hrncirova, deputy-minister Tel: (420-2) 2485-1111 Na Frantisku 32, 110 00 Praha 1 78) Ministry of Defense Ministerstvo obrany Mr. Bukva, chief of the Environment Tel: (420-2) 2021-2503, 2021-2505 Tychonova 1, 161 00 Praha 6 79) Ministry of Agriculture Ministerstvo zemedelstvi Mr. Fantys, chief of the Dept. of Ecology Tel: (420-2) 2181-2377 Tesnov 17, 110 00 Praha 21 80) Ministry of Environment Ministerstvo zivotniho prostredi Mr. Redinger Tel: (420-2) 6712-2998 Mr. Kinkor, chief of the Dept. of Water Protection Tel: (420-2) 6731-1590 Vrsovicka 65, 100 00 Praha 10 81) Mr. Jílek Tel: (420-2) 6712-2671 Mr. Weiss, chief of the Division of Air Emission Tel: (420-2) 6712-2240 Mr. Brix, chief of the Dept. of Air Protection Tel: (420-2) 6712-2835 82) Mr. Kopecky, chief of the Dept. of Waste Tel: (420-2) 6712-2216 83) Ms. Tylova, deputy-chief Dept. of Environmental Damages Tel: (420-2) 6712-2069 84) Economia a.s., Obchodni vestnik Tel: (420-2) 282-3754, 282-2216 Na Florenci 3, 115 43 Praha 1
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
59
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
Chapter 3: Hungary 3.1 Summary of Findings Annual environmental expenditures in Hungary amounted to USD 258 million in 1994 (0.76 percent of GDP), and USD 385 million in 1995 (1.1 percent of GDP). Today, expenditure on water protection accounts for 55 percent of the total, while spending on air protection accounts for 15-16 percent, and waste management for 12 percent. During the next six years, the share of air protection expenditures is expected to double, while the share of waste management is expected to rise to 19 percent. A major change is expected in the financing of environmental protection. Currently, some three quarters of environmental expenditures come from the state budget (including the Central Environmental Protection Fund), while businesses contribute only 9 percent. It is expected that in the forthcoming six years the share of the state budget will decrease to 55 percent, while the share of the business sector will grow to 40 percent. The energy sector is the main source of air pollution (SO2, NOx, solid particles, and CO), although emissions from transportation and vehicles have also become a growing source in Budapest and other cities. Municipal waste generation has doubled over the past 15 years. About 85 percent of municipal waste is landfilled. There are 602 official landfills operated in Hungary, with an estimated 2,000 more operating illegally. It is expected that most landfills will reach capacity in the near future. Many landfills do not meet required standards. The disposal of hazardous waste is one of the most pressing problems. A significant proportion of hazardous waste is stored on-site at the source in so-called temporary storage facilities. Currently, 96 percent of the Hungarian population has access to the water supply system, but only 53 percent are connected to sewage systems. Poor water quality is a frequent problem. 54 percent of wastewater is discharged untreated, while only 36 percent is treated mechanically and biologically. The government plans to treat 90 percent of all wastewater by the year 2010. The Hungarian market for environmental technologies was estimated to be worth between USD 164 and 192 million in 1994,
S L O VA K I A
UKRAINE Miskolc
AUSTRIA Szentendre
Gyor
Debrecen
Budapest
HUNGARY ROMANIA Szeged Pecs 0
FR YUGOS L AV I A
C R O AT I A
50
100
kilometers
and between USD 127 and 289 million in 1995. Significant project opportunities are expected in wastewater treatment, in the energy sector, and in air quality protection and waste management. Project opportunities will result from the major environmental problems such as catalogued and uncatalogued hazardous waste disposal sites; municipal and industrial wastewater pollution of surface and groundwater reserves; and emissions and noise from transportation. Demand for environmental technologies is also driven by national environmental priorities, environmental regulation, and available state funding and subsidies. Based on the above, demand for environmental technologies in the following areas is expected to grow in the near future: monitoring systems for water, air and noise; remediation work on hazardous waste dumps; treatment of municipal solid waste and wastewater; treatment of industrial solid waste and wastewater; energy efficiency improvements; and reducing emissions to air and noise from transportation. Currently, end-of-pipe technologies are mostly used to solve the above problems, but the significance of preventive solutions is expected to increase. There is no institution or clearinghouse in Hungary col-
TABLE 3.1: BASIC COUNTRY INFORMATION Czech Republic Population (mln)
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
10.3
10.2
38.6
5.4
2.0
78,900
93,000
312,700
49,000
20,200
GDP (USD bln)
52.3
44.3
134.3
18.9
18.6
GDP growth (%)
1.3
1.2
7.7
6.0
3.1
Foreign Direct Investment (USD bln)
7.3
16.2
13.5
1.0
1.7
Unemployment rate (%)
4.8
10.3
10.6
13.0
14.4
Average monthly wages (USD)
302.0
319.0
329.0
257.9
890.0
Inflation rate (%)
10.3
18.4
14.5
6.0
9.6
Exchange rate to the USD
33.5
197.8
3.4
34.0
167.8
1,185.0
385.0
1,308.0
232.0
150.0
2.6
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
Area (sq.km)
Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (USD mln) Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (% of GDP)
Source: Business Central Europe, November 1997; 1996 Statistical Yearbooks of each surveyed country
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
61
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
lecting information about environmental business opportunities. Personal and professional contacts are the main source of information. Business and environment-related publications, as well as participation in environmental trade fairs and conferences are other important sources. The public procurement procedure currently in force is a potentially important way to identify business opportunities. Purchasing environmental technologies does not pose any significant problem in Hungary because of the wide range of products available on the market. The major ways of gathering information when buying environmental technologies include: personal and professional relations; industry associations; fairs and exhibitions; journals and catalogues; the foreign owner or parent company; and references. In most categories, demand for environmental technologies in Hungary was estimated to be between moderate and high. Significant demand was identified for energy-related technologies, and for technologies related to industrial wastewater treatment and the treatment and disposal of hazardous and radioactive waste. High demand in the air sector was identified for instrumentation and process control/software, while growing demand was expected for technologies for air sampling/laboratory analysis of gaseous emissions, and for air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment. Demand for environmental technologies related to water and wastewater was moderate. The most needed technologies in this category were for industrial wastewater treatment. High demand was identified for sludge treatment and disposal technologies for industrial and municipal wastewater. Specific technologies where demand is expected to rise included those for the construction of collection networks for municipal and industrial wastewater; water recycling and reuse for potable water and industrial wastewater; spill control and containment/clean-up for surface and groundwater; instrumentation, process control, and software for industrial wastewater; standard and advanced treatment technologies for industrial wastewater; and inspection and reconditioning of existing wastewater collection networks. Waste management appears to be one of the most promising environmental market sectors in Hungary. Significant opportunities are expected in hazardous waste disposal, followed by radioactive and industrial waste management. High demand was identified for technologies for site remediation/ clean-up of contaminated land for hazardous waste; and for radioactive waste, equipment for sample analysis/waste characterization; site monitoring; and waste collection, transportation and storage. Demand was expected to rise for pollution prevention/waste minimization equipment for industrial and hazardous waste; technologies for recycling/resource recovery for industrial waste; technologies and equipment for waste collection, transportation and storage of hazardous waste and hazardous waste site monitoring; and technologies for spillage control/decontamination for hazardous waste. Demand for energy-related technologies was generally high, especially in comparison with other environmental sectors. High demand was identified for instrumentation and equipment for retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems. Demand was found to be increasing for equipment related to process management and control; new and efficient energy and heat generation systems; and technologies related to heat recovery and energy savings. Many experts noted that there were significant market opportunities in decreasing energy losses in production processes, transmission, and consumption. In the noise, vibration and occupational health and safety sector, high demand was identified for abatement technologies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion), and for protection equipment in the occupational health and safety sector. Increasing demand was also identified for noise and vibration abatement
62
technologies for the construction industry. The energy/power generation sector and municipalities are the main end-users of environmental technologies in all categories. The chemical industry, and other raw material extraction and processing industries are also significant end-user groups. Additionally, the transport sector was identified as a significant user of technologies for air pollution control, and noise and vibration abatement. Water and wastewater, and waste management technologies were widely used in the mining sector, agriculture and food processing, and textile industry. Five out of six respondents considered product quality and references major factors when making purchasing decisions. One interviewee in six preferred domestic technology whenever possible. Among those respondents buying foreign environmental technologies, about half buy directly from a foreign supplier, while the remainder buy from local representatives. With the growing number of local representatives, local buying is on the rise. About 50 percent of respondents specified high quality, and reliability and durability of products as advantages of foreign environmental technologies. A third of respondents thought that foreign environmental technology products offer good value for money, and are user-friendly and easy to operate. Also, a third of respondents regarded available credit or other forms of funding from a foreign supplier as a major advantage. Opinions were divided about the quality of after-sales service. The major barrier to buying foreign environmental technologies in Hungary is the price. 80 percent of respondents mentioned high prices as a major disadvantage of foreign products; about a quarter regarded foreign technologies as unsuitable for local conditions and technical culture. Other barriers cited (about 15 percent of respondents) included high customs duties, changing environmental regulations, difficulties to ensure local technical service, communication problems with foreign suppliers (mainly language), and the lack of information available about suppliers. Domestic environmental products and services are only available on a limited scale, and foreign environmental technologies are frequently used. Austrian and German environmental technologies enjoyed good to excellent reputation in air, water and wastewater, waste management, and energy sectors. The perception of American technologies was good in the water and wastewater, waste management, energy, and noise, vibration, and OHS sectors. Dutch technologies were rated highly in the water and wastewater and energy sectors. French products were evaluated highly in the water and wastewater, and waste management sectors. Austria and Germany are the major players on the environmental technology market in Hungary, followed by Holland, France, USA, Japan and Scandinavian countries. Foreign companies are most active in the energy, water and wastewater, and waste management sectors, followed by air protection. In air, and the related energy sector, German, Austrian, and American companies are most active. German firms dominate the water and wastewater sector, followed by Austrian, French and American suppliers. In the waste management sector, German, Austrian, French, and American companies seem to be represented quite evenly.
3.2 Methodology SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN THE SURVEY The information contained within this country report is based on 49 formal interviews with senior-level representatives
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
of environmental business, and a smaller number from authorities and R&D institutions. Interviews were based on the standard questionnaire adopted for the entire survey. Additional information sources included informal conversations, a desk study of the available literature and publications on the environmental market in Hungary, and a review of environmental technology-related governmental programs. The list of formal interviews, informal personal discussions, and literature is included in Sections 3.8-3.10.
respondent considered their organization to be large. Notably, only two thirds of companies responding revealed annual turnover figures. The summary breakdown of turnover is as follows: ■
below HUF 10 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23% (approx. USD 60,000)
■
between HUF 10 and 100 million. . . . . .41% (USD 60,000-600,000)
■
over HUF 100 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36% (over USD 600,000)
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS Senior representatives of 49 organizations were interviewed for the survey. The following criteria were used in selecting parties for interviews: ■
coverage of all environmental sectors, and energy, noise, occupational health and safety;
■
significant position on the market;
■
representative sample of different types of organizations (ownership, size, structure, expertise);
■
location in different regions of the country;
■
interviews with the most significant environmental technology R&D centers.
Distribution of the respondents by sector was as follows: ■ ■ ■
business sector . . . . . . . 64% government sector . . . . 18% R&D sector . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Eighty percent of the interviewed organizations were active in one, two, or three of the five target sectors. Half of the interviewed environmental businesses were active only in one field, usually waste management or water treatment. Covering all five target sectors equally was hard to implement in practice, because many companies had activities related to water, wastewater and sludge. In contrast, only a handful of businesses dealt with air, noise and vibration, or operational health and safety. The nature of business sector activity is as follows: ■ ■ ■ ■
services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58% consulting . . . . . . . . . . . 22% trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15% manufacturing. . . . . . . . 5%
Approximately two thirds of the businesses interviewed had a representative office, or were headquartered in Budapest, while a third operated in other locations. As for the geographic extent of activities, respondents indicated the following: ■
local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
■
national . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%
■
international . . . . . . . . . 33% Joint-ventures were generally international.
3.3 Overview of the Market With a population of 10.2 million, and an area of 93,000 sq.km. (36,000 sq.mi., slightly smaller than Indiana) Hungary is a medium-sized country by Central European standards. The environment does not receive the same attention now as it did in the early nineties. However, the country does have one of the most advanced systems of environmental management in Central Europe, and its environmental problems, while widespread, are not on the same scale as those of some other countries in the region. Hungary suffers from widespread and ongoing environmental degradation (e.g. poor water quality throughout the country) rather than from specific local environmental problems. The exception might be the Budapest area (with a fifth of the country’s population), where specific environmental problems are encountered, e.g. air pollution. The rapid growth of small and medium-sized enterprises is considered to be a contributing factor to the ongoing degradation of the environment, since enforcement of environmental regulations is poor. The most critical environmental problems are related to water quality. Uncontrolled runoff has led to the contamination of water resources, further exacerbated by discharge of untreated sewage. Half of the country’s sewage is discharged untreated. There are also increasing problems with air pollution from high-sulfur power production, industry, households and transport, and with the management of municipal and hazardous waste (Hungary has some 2000 illegal dump sites). The consolidation and refinement of the national environmental strategy is needed in the coming years, as well as the integration of environmental concerns with other areas of government. Major upcoming initiatives are likely to involve capital investments, awareness raising, institutional improvements, and environmental management.
Those companies with the highest turnover were generally involved in trade or were service providers (e.g. municipal service providers). Among smaller companies, a high proportion were consultancy firms. 53 percent of the interviewed companies were established before 1990 (or had a legal predecessor established prior to 1990). New ventures usually included small and medium-sized enterprises (Hungarian-owned or joint-ventures) while older parties tended to be larger companies. Overall, the market is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises. The distribution of business sector respondents by size (measured by number of employees) was as follows: ■ fewer than 10 . . . . . . . . 53% ■ between 10 and 100 . . . 37% ■ more than 100 . . . . . . . . 10%
TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
More than a half of the companies surveyed had fewer than 10 employees. Only one in ten employed more than 100 environment-related staff. Regarding turnover figures, 55 percent of the respondents classified their organization as medium-sized; the remaining 45 percent considered their companies small. Not a single
Total spending on environmental protection in Hungary was 0.76 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 1994, 1.1 percent in 1995, and 1.1 percent in 1996 (estimated). As shown in Table 3.2, annual environmental expenditures amounted to USD 258 million in 1994, and USD 385 million in 1995. The government has adopted its own National
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
63
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.2: ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES 1994-1996 Year
Environmental Expenditures
Share of GDP (%)
1994
$258.4 million
0.76%
1995
$385.0 million
1.1%
n.a.
1.1%
1996 (estimated)
Source: Ministry of Environment, National Environmental Program (NKP) — Draft, Budapest, 1996
TABLE 3.3: SOURCE OF REVENUES BY BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR IN HUNGARY Source of Revenue
Share in Total Revenue
Technical services
50%
Environmental products
22%
Testing and monitoring
15%
Other
13%
Source: REC: The Emerging Environmental Market, 1995
TABLE 3.4. SECTORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MARKET IN OECD COUNTRIES Sector
Share in Expenditures
Water and wastewater
30%
Waste management
20%
Air pollution control
15%
Other investment goods
11%
Services
24%
Source: OECD: The Environment Industry and Markets in Selected CEE Countries, Paris 1995
Environmental Plan (hereafter NKP), which determines the main environmental priorities over the coming six years. According to the NKP, environmental expenditures will reach 1.7-1.9 percent of the Hungarian GDP. The National Environmental Plan estimates the share of individual sectors in terms of the total environmental expenditures. According to the plan, expenditures on water protection account for 55 percent of the total, while spending on air protection accounts for 15-16 percent, and waste management for 12 percent. The share of air protection expenditures is expected to double within the next six years, as Hungary is to introduce a new law on air protection in 1997. During the same six-year period, the share of waste management expenditure is expected to rise to 19 percent from the current 12 percent. Detailed statistical information outlining annual expenditures on environmental technologies is not available, as it is not tracked by the National Statistical Office. Therefore, the figures provided below are estimates, as explained in the text. In 1995, the Regional Environmental Center (REC) conducted a survey of environmental businesses in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Table 3.3 shows the
64
distribution of income among Hungarian environmental businesses by business activity. Assuming that environmental technology expenditures account for 80 percent of technical services, for 100 percent of environmental products, and for 50 percent of the remaining two categories (the balance is spent on services), one can estimate that roughly 75 percent of total environmental expenditures is spent on environmental technologies. For comparison, a 1995 OECD survey gives similar results (Table 3.4). The survey analyzed sector trends in the global environmental market. The methodology used in the survey assumed that expenditures on water and wastewater treatment, waste disposal, and air quality related-activities were mainly related to investment goods (environmental technologies). As presented in Table 3.4, technology expenditures account for about 75 percent of all environmental spending, with services representing the remaining quarter. According to Hungarian statistics on annual environmental expenditures, and based on the assumption discussed above that spending on environmental technologies accounts for three quarters of total expenditures, total environmental technology spending in Hungary is estimated at HUF 31 billion (USD 192 million) in 1994, and HUF 45 billion (USD 289 million) in 1995. Statistical yearbooks for 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 provide data on spending by sector in Table 3.5. The first figure in each of the cells shows the value of investments in millions of Hungarian Forints. The second figure, in brackets, shows the value of investment in millions of US dollars. Those categories not highlighted in bold are not considered relevant to the survey. In analyzing the data above, the following factors relating to the nature of the statistical data collection system in Hungary have to be considered: ■
data on investments for each year are given in current Forint prices, i.e., figures are adjusted to account for inflation. The inflation rate was 23 percent in 1992, 22.5 percent in 1993, 18.8 percent in 1994, 28.2 percent in 1995, and estimated 2324 percent in 1996.
■
only expenditures of organizations with more than 50 employees are considered.
■
the figures do not include environmental technology investments which are made as an integral part of the modification of the technological process, or those which serve to improve occupational health and safety by reducing noise and vibration.
Considering the above, it is likely that actual investments were 10-30 percent higher than indicated. Assuming the 75 percent share of environmental technologies, excluding expenditures on nature protection and protection of biodiversity, and allowing an additional 20 percent to account for companies with less than 50 employees not captured by the above statistics, spending on environmental technologies can be estimated at USD 151 million in 1994, and USD 127 million in 1995. Comparing the two sets of figures, one can conclude that the Hungarian market for environmental technologies was between USD 164 and 192 million in 1994, and between 127 and 289 million in 1995. Substantial growth is expected in the coming years. Table 3.6 provides some additional insight into the distribution of environmental investments Finally, a major change is expected in the financing of environmental protection. Currently, about 75 percent of total environmental expenditures are made from the state budget (including the Central Environmental Protection Fund). At the same time, businesses only contribute 9 percent. At the end of the six-year National Environmental Plan, it is expected that
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.5: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY EXPENDITURES IN HUNGARY BY SECTOR IN MLN HUF (MLN USD) Category
1992
1993
1994
1995
Protection of soil
733 (9.3)
466 (5.1)
1,044 (9.9)
235 (1.9)
Water protection
7,414 (93.9)
7,929 (86.1)
13,063 (124.3)
10,164 (80.9)
Protection of air quality
5,379 (69.4)
1,356 (14.7)
1,376 (13.1)
1,184 (9.4)
Protection of biodiversity
201 (2.5)
205 (2.2)
57 (0.5)
2,230 (17.7)
Nature protection
557 (7.1)
583 (6.3)
1,965 (18.7)
included in previous category
Protection of human environment Protection against harmful effects of waste Noise and vibration protection
976 (12.4)
571 (6.2)
677 (6.4)
no data
1,221 (15.5)
1,974 (21.4)
2,898 (27.6)
4,668 (37.1)
104 (1.3)
147 (1.6)
230 (2.2)
941 (7.5)
-
-
-
513 (4.1)
16,585 (210.0)
13,231 (143.8)
21,310 (202.7)
19,935 (158.6)
Other Total Source: Statistical Yearbook, 1992-1995
Notes: Original data provided in Hungarian Forints. In converting to US dollars, the average HUF/USD exchange rate for the given year was used. Environmental technology investments in the energy sector are included in other categories (air, waste, etc.). Bold face type indicates categories considered relevant to the survey.
the former figure will decrease to 55 percent, while the share of the business sector will grow to 40 percent.
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION With respect to air pollution, the energy sector is most responsible for SO2, NOx, solid particles, and CO emissions. Although emissions decreased by between 10 and 40 percent from 1989 to 1992, this was largely due to a 32 percent decline in industrial activities. Gaseous emissions from the energy sector are still high, although solid particle emissions have decreased substantially since the early nineties as electrostatic precipitators have been installed in coal and lignite-fired power plants. Emissions from the transport sector are a growing source of air pollution. Transportation and vehicles are by far the main source in Budapest, where vehicles contribute more than 60 percent of local air pollution. Serious problems with traffic-related pollution occur in other Hungarian cities as well. The total volume of municipal solid waste generated in Hungary is currently estimated at 20 million cubic meters annually (approx. 2.5-3 million tons), which is twice the 1980 figure. Between 0.4 and 0.5 million tons (approx. 15 percent of the total) are used or treated (including incineration), while the remaining part is landfilled. Most municipal waste landfills (which also receive a major portion of industrial waste) will reach capacity in the near future. According to the list prepared by the Central Statistical Office, there are 602 landfills operated in Hungary, but some experts think the actual number could be as high as 3,000. Many landfills do not meet current technical
and environmental requirements, and will have to be modernized or will need to be closed. Since 1981, only Budapest has maintained a noteworthy incineration capacity. About half of the city’s waste is incinerated. As no suitable location is available to construct new landfills in the Budapest area, the construction of new incinerator(s) is a possibility. Approximately 3.3 million tons of hazardous waste is produced annually in Hungary. Forty percent of the total amount is red mud from aluminum processing and is stored in landfills as no viable recycling technology is currently available. The disposal of the remaining 2 million tons of hazardous waste is one of the most important environmental problems. Currently, one modern hazardous waste landfill is operated in Aszod (with a capacity of 5,000 tons per year), while one modern hazardous waste incinerator exists in Dorog (with a capacity of 25,000 tons per year). Smaller amounts of waste are incinerated in various ovens and kilns. A significant proportion of hazardous waste is stored on-site at the source (in so-called temporary storage facilities), because waste generators are not able (or are not willing) to pay the costs of proper disposal. Existing provisions in the law do allow this. The government is undertaking a number of measures to address the problem of waste management. Legislation on hazardous waste was adopted on Sept. 1, 1996 (102/1996. (VII.12) sz. Kormanyrendelet), while a new law on waste management, regulating municipal and non-hazardous industrial waste is under preparation and is expected to come into force in 1997. Product fees (“green taxes”) have been imposed on fuels, tires, refrigerants, car batteries and packaging materi-
TABLE 3.6: DISTRIBUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS, IN MLN HUF (AND MLN USD) Category
1992
1993
Construction
7,193 (91.1)
7,313 (79.5)
14,113 (134.2)
1994
12,049 (95.9)
1995
Machinery
6,763 (85.6)
4,467 (48.5)
5,776 (54.9)
6,133 (48.8)
Other
2,629 (33.3)
1,451 (15.7)
1,421 (13.5)
1,753 (13.9)
Total
16,585 (210.0)
13,231 (143.8)
21,310 (202.7)
19,935 (158.6)
Source: Statistical Yearbook, 1992-1995
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
65
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.7: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN HUNGARY Category
Problem Description and Expected Duration
Geographic Extent
Air
High emissions from obsolete industrial technologies, 10-20 years
national
SO2 emissions from coal power plants, 10 years
industrial areas, North-East Hungary, Middle Transdanubia
Emissions of solid particles from surface-mining
Borsod and Heves counties
Dust and particulate emissions from cement plants
Dorog, Beremend
Lack of or obsolete technologies for hospital waste incinerators, 30 years
national
High emissions of SO2, NOx and volatile organic compounds in the energy sector and chemical industry, 10-20 years
industrial areas
Air pollution from transportation: soot, lead, aromatic hydrocarbons
national, but mainly Budapest and other major cities
Lack of and/or low quality road system, improper cleaning and maintenance, dust pollution, 30 years
national, major cities
Insufficient legal framework, poor enforcement, 5 years
national
High number of concentrated pollution sources
national
Lack of treatment processes for agricultural NH3
national
Quality monitoring system only partially available, 5-10 years
national
Surface and Ground Water
Potable Water
Municipal Wastewater
Industrial Wastewater
66
Eutrophication in shallow lakes
Transdanubia
Infiltration of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, as a consequence of careless, unprofessional treatment
national
Hazardous waste dumps, 10-20 years
national, partly unexplored
Lack of modern abatement technologies to treat organic solvent pollution
national, southeast Hungary
Deep-level mines lowering the groundwater level
Borsod country
Oil pipeline system polluting soil and groundwater
national
Unexplored pollution caused by organic toxic materials
industrial areas
High content of Nitrates (sometimes NH4, Fe, Mn, methane) in potable water
differs by region
Unavailable mapping of the vulnerable water reserves, 10 years
national, northern karst water reserve
High arsenic content of drinking water
south Hungary
Lack of up-to-date water treatment technologies
national
Poor system maintenance; high proportion of water losses in the distribution network
national
Lack of proper sewerage systems and wastewater treatment plants, 20 years, (government program coordinated by the Ministry of Transportation, Communication and Water, KHVM)
national, especially Budapest and major cities
Pollution of sink-holes in private households, 20 years
national
Shortage of available land to dispose of wastewater sludge
national
Underutilization of wastewater treatment plants built in the last 5-10 years
national
Illegal dumping of wastewater
national
Obsolete treatment technologies
national
Pollution of groundwater or other recipient bodies by industrial wastewater discharges
national
Insufficient treatment of industrial (chemical industry) and municipal wastewater (partial sewage system), pollution of water resources
national
High organic content of industrial wastewater discharge (directed to the sewage plant)
national
Lack of a proper solution for the disposal of organic waste and diluted manure in agriculture (potential pollution for water resources)
national
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.7 (CONTINUED) : MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN HUNGARY Lack of proper solution to dispose of sewage sludge (industrial, municipal) national Waste
Lack of waste disposal act, inconsistent practice of inspectorates, 1-5 years
national
Cleaning up of municipal and hazardous waste dumps, 20-30 years national (government program to abate the 15 most critical hazardous waste dumps) Lack of environmentally acceptable landfills for municipal solid waste, 20-30 years
national
Lack of hazardous waste incinerators, 5-10 years
national
Illegal or improper dumping of municipal solid waste and hazardous waste national
Energy
Noise and Vibration, Occupational Health and Safety
Cleaning up temporary hazardous waste landfills, 10 years
north Hungary, south Transdanubia
Disposal of tires, car batteries, spent oil, 5-10 years
national
Lack of selective waste collection systems, 5 years
national
Undeveloped waste recycling industry, 1-3 years (large subsidies available from product fees to establish nationwide recycling system)
national
Little support from government to the environmental industry (Central Environmental Protection Fund preferences for infrastructure and end-of-pipe solutions), 1-5 years
national
Lack of correct records on waste stream both for businesses and authorities, 1-3 years
national
Excessive energy consumption in industry and population, 10-20 years
national
Lack of national concept to incinerate agricultural by-products for energy production
national
Low level use of renewable energy sources, 20-50 years
national
High SO2 emissions from burning coal, lignite, 10-20 years
national
Bad construction of houses and flats from a heating point of view, over 50 years
national
Organizational and financing problems of apartment block reconstruction
national
Obsolete vehicles, low technical level, 10-20 years
national
Waste rock areas polluting soil, groundwater and air
mining areas
Unelaborated energy plans for transportation, industrial production
national
Deficiencies in urban development policy: residential areas are established in the neighborhood of industrial sites
major cities
Excessive noise from transportation, 20-30 years
major cities
Lack of local noise protection plans (local governments), 1-3 years
national
Lack of frequent employee health checks, 5 years
national
Lack of emergency response plans (modeling of potential sources of danger, on-going training of employees), 5 years
national
als (e.g. paper, plastic, glass, metal and other products). The government also intends to establish a nationwide collection and recycling scheme, and is providing the means for the project through the Central Environmental Protection Fund (KKA). The application mechanism was initiated in 1996. In Hungary, water production (including potable, industrial and agricultural) has decreased from 5,513 million cubic meters in 1992 to 4,554 million cubic meters in 1995. The decrease in water consumption was particularly strong in mining, the energy sector, the processing industry, agriculture and in private consumption, and can be attributed to the decline in industrial activities, and to increasing water prices. Currently, 96 percent of the Hungarian population has access to the water supply system, but only 53 percent are connected to sewage systems. Wastewater treatment is a serious problem in Hungary,
and the lack of adequate sewerage systems in many municipalities is the key cause of the current situation. A number of major cities in Hungary lack proper wastewater treatment facilities. For instance, 80 percent of wastewater generated in Budapest is discharged into the Danube without any treatment. Overall, only 53 percent of Hungary’s population is served by sewer systems. Of the country’s 3,176 towns and villages, 454 have sewer networks and only 400 have wastewater treatment plants. Currently, 54 percent of generated wastewater is discharged untreated. About 8 percent of wastewater is treated mechanically, 36 percent is treated mechanically and biologically, and only 2 percent undergoes additional tertiary treatment. In all likelihood, actual proportions are probably even worse, because of the illegal dumping of wastewater. The objective of the government policy is to ensure that 90
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
67
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.8: MAJOR BILATERAL PROJECTS COORDINATED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT Country
Topic
Switzerland Wastewater treatment at Pecs Tannery
Japan
USA
Total Cost USD 400,000
Wastewater treatment at Vajna-Rohod
CHF 7 million (USD 4.8 mln)
Wastewater treatment at Jaszfenyszaru-Pusztamonostor
CHF 600 thousand (USD 410,000)
Sewage system at municipalities connected to rivers Tapio-Hajta
CHF 1.2 million (USD 820,000)
Environmental development of the city of Kecskemet
CHF 1.2 million (USD 820,000)
Environmental development of the city of Debrecen
CHF 7.7 million (USD 5.3 mln)
Sludge treatment in Debrecen
CHF 1.6 million (USD 1.1 mln)
Water quality protection at Lake Velence
CHF 1 million (USD 670,000)
JICA Study on modernization of the Borsod Power Plant
no data
Varpalota and region rehabilitation program, industrial subprogram
YEN 10 billion (USD 80 mln)
Varpalota and region rehabilitation program, municipal subprogram
YEN 5 billion (USD 40 mln)
Improving the environment of Lake Balaton
no data
LEMP, Local Environmental Management Project in Csepel
no data
Environmental Management Training Center
USD 200,000
EPA — Environmental Strategy Project
USD 50,000
Nitrokemia — wastewater treatment demonstration site
no data
Impact of agrochemicals on water quality
HUF 2.7 million (USD 15,000)
Glicin conjugation on pharmaceutical and environmental toxicology
HUF 3 million (USD 17,000)
Developing trees resistant to environmental damage
HUF 2.4 million (USD 12,000)
Sub-micron emissions from incinerators
HUF 2.5 million (USD 14,000)
Integrated biological dentrification system
HUF 2.4 million (USD 12,000)
Land use and cover changes in Szigetkoz
HUF 1.8 million (USD 10,000)
Aerosol particle characterization
HUF 2.8 million (USD 16,000)
Entomopatogene nematodes
HUF 3 million (USD 17,000)
Soil characteristics and forecasts on plant changes
HUF 3.2 million (USD 18,000)
Genetics of thrichoderms
HUF 3.3 million (USD 19,000)
Nitrogen and ozone cycle in forests
HUF 2.6 million (USD 15,000)
Measurement of CO2 fluctuation in the atmosphere
HUF 2.3 million (USD 13,000)
Hazardous weather forecasting and warning
HUF 2.4 million (USD 12,000)
Effect of sunspot activity on global changes
HUF 3.5 million (USD 20,000)
Active sludge bioreactor configuration
HUF 3.2 million (USD 18,000)
Air quality in Budapest
HUF 3.6 million (USD 20,000)
Impact of PCBs on the nervous system
HUF 3.6 million (USD 20,000)
Development of the Hungarian-Slovak-Romanian border water monitoring system
USD 6 million (for 3 countries)
Canada
Canada-Hungary National Parks Project
no data
France
Methods to slow down the eutrophication of Lake Balaton
no data
Germany
Developing methods for surface mining in an environmentally sound manner
no data
Environment-oriented know-how and technology transfer in Pest county
no data
Cataster for inherited damages
ECU 250,000 (USD 290,000)
Environmental assessment of industrial plants prior to privatization
no data
Promotion of the Hungarian environmental industry
no data
68
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.8 (CONT.): MAJOR BILATERAL PROJECTS COORDINATED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
Germany
Ecotourism
no data
Ecological corridors, wetlands, biodiversity, biomonitoring
DEM 850,000 (USD 500,000)
Surveying and evaluation of polluted soils
DEM 250,000 (USD 150,000)
Municipal environmental protection — training materials, workshops
no data
Assistance in developing Hungary’s air protection law
no data
Impact of Budapest’s wastewater on water quality in the Danube
DEM 90,000 (USD 50,000)
Assessment of past environmental pollution
no data
Air quality monitoring system
DEM 100,000 (USD 60,000)
percent of all wastewater is discharged into the sewage system and treated properly by the year 2010. Currently, some 50 percent of the Hungarian population is exposed to excessive noise levels from transportation. As regards occupational noise protection, all newly established industrial facilities have to keep noise levels below specified limits, while existing facilities must comply with these new limits by the year 2010.
legislation (monitoring of air quality, setting emission limits for emissions by power plants, etc.) Other ■
Varpalota region industrial sub-program for remediation of past environmental damages;
■
Asbestos program (a national asbestos register is to be established);
■
Pollution abatement program (action program to identify and address 10-20 local environmental pollution problems most detrimental to human health);
■
Development of Hungarian environmental industry to improve international competitiveness (government program will be suggested by IKIM, KTM and the Environmental Committee of the Parliament);
■
Promotion of environmental management systems (informal joint project of IKIM, OMFB, KTM).
3.4 Project Opportunities MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Table 3.7 presents the major environmental issues survey respondents currently face or expect to face in the coming years. Interestingly, only a few interviewees indicated a specific location, and were able to estimate the expected duration of the problems. The former may have been caused by an unwillingness to reveal potential areas where respondents were planning to start activities. The latter suggests that the environmental strategy of the government, (e.g. allocation of financial resources, regulations, action plans, etc.) is not transparent and does not clearly show the urgency and level of priorities. This comment was especially common among R&D sector respondents — business interviewees seemed to have a better knowledge of government priorities and the most urgent problems needing to be solved.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN PROGRESS Respondents from the business sector were not willing to reveal their on-going environmental projects, except for those coordinated by the government and which are therefore well publicized. Listed below are the most important projects in progress coordinated by various state bodies acronyms are explained at the beginning of this report). Water ■
Sewage water treatment program in Budapest and major cities;
■
Sewerage and sewage water treatment program to reduce the gap between water supply and access to sewage network (Government Program 20-21/1994, Resources: KKA, KHVM);
■
Improving the quality of Lake Balaton and Lake Velence (including dredging) and setting up a water quality monitoring system.
Air ■
Harmonization of Hungarian laws on air pollution with EU
For detailed information on current wastewater programs, please contact Mr. Istvan Sindel, Secretary at the Ministry of Environment, Main Department “Protection of Natural Elements”/”Water Protection” Department, Tel: (36-1) 201-2137. For more information on air-related projects, contact Mr. Istvan Csoknyai, Head of the Ministry of Environment Department of Protection of Natural Elements/Air Protection and Noise Control, Tel: (36-1) 201-4019. For more details on the Varpalota region industrial subprogram, the asbestos program, and the pollution abatement program, contact Mr. Lajos Csorba Nebb, Secretary at the Ministry of Environment Department of Environmental Development and Safety/Environmental Development, Tel: (36-1) 201-5180. For more information on the Hungarian environmental industry development project, contact Mr. Erno Wittek; for details on the environmental management system (EMS) promotion contact Mr. Istvan Danyi, at IKIM (Ministry for Industry, Trade and Tourism), Department of Technological Policy, Tel: (36-1) 118-5180. Additionally, a number of bilateral and multilateral projects are coordinated by the Ministry of Environment’s European and International Integration Department. The major projects currently in progress are listed in Table 3.8. More details on the programs listed in Table 3.8 can be obtained from the contact persons listed in Table 3.9.
MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES Almost all the interviewed respondents indicated personal and professional contacts as the main source of information concerning environmental project opportunities. Business and environment-related publications, as well as participation in environ-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
69
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.9: CONTACT POINTS FOR BILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS Donor Country
Contact Person
Switzerland, UK
Ms. Zsuzsa Arokhazi (36-1) 201-2243
Telephone
Japan, USA
Ms. Eszter Szovenyi (36-1) 201-3764
Canada, France, Germany
Ms. Csillag Deak
Denmark, Belgium, Holland
Ms. Katalin Schreier, (36-1) 201-2891 Ms. Marta Galambos
(36-1) 201-4782
TABLE 3.10: MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES Source of Information
Respondents
Professional contacts
92%
Personal contacts
91%
Professional associations
84%
Conference attendance
69%
Environmental publications
66%
Daily newspapers
62%
Business publications
59%
Trade shows and fairs
53%
Environmental ministry
42%
Mailing lists
34%
Chambers of commerce
32%
Other ministries
32%
Academic associations
27%
Ministry of industry/trade
27%
Fax
23%
Other
19%
Local and regional governments
14%
Email
7%
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
TABLE 3.11: MAIN BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS Publication
mental trade fairs and conferences were other important sources. The most frequently read environment-related magazines are Kornyezetvedelmi Fuzetek (Environmental Protection Booklets) (OMIKK), Kornyezet es Fejlodes’ (Environment and Development) and the ‘Kornyezetvedelmi es Vízugyi Ertesíto (Environment and Water Protection Bulletin). Most local authorities in Hungary receive the magazine Kornyezetvedelem (Environmental Protection). A much higher percentage of interviewed professionals read economic and business newspapers like Heti Vilaggazdasag (Weekly World Economy) and Napi Vilaggazdasag (Daily World Economy). However, environmental project opportunities are rarely mentioned in these publications. Fairs and exhibitions of environmental technologies are attended by 90 percent of the interviewed respondents from the business and government sectors, and by 50 percent of respondents from the R&D sector. Respondents from the latter group participate more often in non-commercial events, such as conferences and symposia. Half of the interviewed businesspeople attend one or two events each year, and one third visit at least three fairs. For comparison, Table 3.10 ranks information sources for business opportunities, based on a 1995 survey of 150 environmental businesses in Hungary carried out by the Regional Environmental Center. The findings of the current survey correspond well with the picture given from Table 3.10, where personal and/or professional contacts (including conference and trade show attendance) are the major source of information, followed by professional associations, trade shows and fairs, and business and environmental publications. Based on the same 1995 survey, Table 3.11 presents the main business and environmental publications read by Hungarian environmental professionals. The role of environmental and trade associations in Hungary is quite limited, as shown in Table 3.12. Interestingly, 61 percent of respondents stated they did not belong to any professional association. It is therefore surprising that at the same time 84 percent of respondents indicated professional associations as a source of information for environmental business project opportunities (see Table 3.10). One can only assume that, through personal contacts, information published by professional associations reaches a wide non-membership audience. From the limited information received concerning the focus and approximate date of major environmental fairs in Hungary, it appears that participation in environmental fairs and exhibitions is an important, albeit not the major, source of information. Many respondents noted that they are not aware of any central register or publication listing environmental events, even though such a register would be extremely useful for planning one’s attendance of the most important events.
Respondents (%)
TABLE 3.12: MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
HVG
35
Kornyezetvedelmifuzetek
34
Napi Vilaggazdasag
28
Association
Cegvezetes
15
Hydrology Society
23
Kornyezet es Fejlodes
13
METESZ
12
Figyelo
10
Chamber of Engineers
10
Respondents Enlisted (%)
6
Association of Chemists
7
Budapest Business Journal
8
Environmental Protection Association
6
Piac
6
Economic Chamber
3
Kornyezetvedelmi es Vizugyiertesito
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
70
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.13: MAJOR ENVIRONMENT-RELATED FAIRS IN HUNGARY Name of Fair
City
Approximate Date
Focus
MACH-TECH
Budapest
March, annually
machine manufacturing technologies
AGRO+MASHEXPO
Budapest
March, annually
agricultural equipment
AQUA-THERM BUDAPEST
Budapest
April, annually
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, bathroom fittings, env. technologies
CONSTRUMA
Budapest
April, annually
construction
Fair and Forum of ‘Koztisztasagi Egyesule (Communal Association)
Szombathely (location not set)
April-March, annually
municipal solid waste handling
INDUSTRIA OKO-TECH
Budapest
May, annually
different environmental fields
KOMMUNALEXPO
Budapest
June, annually
sewage, wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste handling
NATUREXPO
Budapest
August 1996 (one-time event)
environment protection, nature conservation
BNV Budapest (Budapest International Fair)
September, annually
general
International Conference and Fair on Energy Conservation and Environmental Technologies
Budapest
October, annually
energy efficiency and saving
BUDATRANSPACK
Budapest
October, annually
material handling, packaging
Note: Highlighted in bold are the major events
TABLE 3.14: OTHER FAIRS PARTLY FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
Table 3.13 presents the major environment-related fairs in Hungary. In addition, Table 3.14 lists a number of other fairs, mainly those with a regional focus and which have an environmental component. Table 3.15 presents the major environment-related conferences in Hungary. Public Procurement Act The public procurement procedure currently in force in Hungary is a potentially important way to identify environmental business opportunities. Local authorities and governmental agencies are obliged to announce a tender for most investments involving the use of public money. As the system develops, tender procedures are likely to play an increasing role as a source of information concerning upcoming projects. The area is regulated by Act XI. 1995 on Public Procurement. Partial regulations in the field in Hungary have been in force since November 1, 1995, with comprehensive regulations made effective from January 1, 1996. According to the Act, public investments above a specified value made by the national government and local authorities are subject to a tender procedure. The provisions apply to governmental bodies and local authorities, to associations created by these bodies, as well as to public institutions, public foundations and public utilities. Subject to the public procurement process are acquisitions of products and services, and construction investments. The specific investment values above which public procurement procedure and tendering become mandatory are determined annually. In 1996, the following limits were applicable: ■
HUF 10 million (approx. USD 60,000) for product purchases
■
HUF 20 million (approx. USD 120,000) for construction investments
Name of Fair
City
Approximate Date
CHEMEXPO
Budapest
March, annually
HUNGAROKORR
Budapest
April, biannually
VERTESEXPO
Tatabanya
Spring, annually
GYONGYOSEXPO Gyongyos
annually
EXPO EAST
November, annually
Nyíregyhaza
Note: Events listed above generally have a regional focus, and environmental protection is not necessarily the major field
■
HUF 5 million (approx. USD 30,000) for construction planning (blueprint)
Both tender announcements and the results of the bidding have to be published in the Kozbeszerzesi Erteseto (Public Procurement Bulletin). Regular media receive and can publish information concerning tenders only after they have been advertised in the Bulletin. The tender procedure can be open, closed, or negotiable. Generally, open tenders are the preferred method — the latter two can only be used in cases specified by the Act. Announcement of the project in the Public Procurement Bulletin is the first step in the open tender procedure. The content of the announcement is regulated by law, and should include: documentation required for application, detailed terms of reference, a technical description of the project, and bidding deadlines. After the contract has been awarded, the decision is published in the Public Procurement Bulletin. The Hungarian Parliament has enacted two additional
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
71
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.15: CONFERENCES WITH A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT Name of Conference
City
Approximate Date
Focus
National Environmental Days for Local Governments
Budapest
February, annually
municipal solid waste, water, wastewater, air
National Conference on Transportation and Environment
Budapest
May
transportation, fuels and lubricants, vehicle manufacturing
National Environmental Information Conference
Budapest
September, annually environment in general
DAT ‘9x (International Conference of Database Distributors)
Budapest
October, annually
National Conference on Agriculture and Environment
Budapest
November, annually environmental issues in agriculture
Conference of the Hungarian Biomass Association
Godollo
annually
pieces of legislation related to public procurement: ■
■
1/1996. (II.7.) KTM rendelet: detailed technical requirements for announcements of construction investments subject to public procurement; 125/1996. (VII.24.) KORM. rendelet: detailed rules of public procurement applicable to public institutions financed from the national budget.
Important Contact Points for Environmental Project Opportunities Almost all the institutions listed in Table 3.16 are active in a range of environmental sectors, and therefore specific sectors are not indicated. There is no “formal” institution or clearinghouse in Hungary collecting and disseminating information concerning environmental business opportunities. As indicated earlier, personal and professional contacts seem to be the most important and effective source of information for project opportunities. Two thirds of respondents indicated that information gathering via official/governmental channels (KTM, OMFB, MTA, OMIKK, EU Energy Center) is “very incidental.”
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES In general, aside from the ever-present financial constraints, purchasing environmental technologies does not pose any significant problems in Hungary because of the wide range of products available on the market. Representatives of domestic and foreign companies often visit potential clients in person, or contact them by mail, offering products and services. Survey respondents generally believe the market to be saturated. Based on the survey interviews, the most common means of gathering information prior to purchase of environmental technologies include, in order of significance: ■
personal and professional relations
■
industry associations
■
fairs and exhibitions
■
journals and catalogues
■
via the foreign owner or parent company
■
company contacts
■
professional meetings, discussions, and conferences
■
references
72
Special section on recycling
biomass, energetics
■
through chambers of commerce
■
assistance from environmental inspectorates
As with the situation with information about project opportunities, when purchasing environmental technologies, most domestic Hungarian firms strongly rely on personal contacts, which are the primary source of information. In contrast, foreign firms and joint-ventures mostly depend on information provided by the parent company or the foreign partner.
3.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — OVERVIEW In most categories, demand for environmental technologies in Hungary was estimated to be between moderate and high. Interestingly, respondents indicated a low level of demand in about a quarter of the technology sectors. Very few technologies were listed where demand was estimated “high and likely to grow.” In general, significant demand was identified for energy-related technologies, and technologies related to industrial wastewater treatment and the treatment and disposal of hazardous and radioactive waste. High demand in the air sector was identified for instrumentation and process control/software, while growing demand was expected for technologies for air sampling/laboratory analysis for gaseous emissions, and for air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment. Demand for environmental technologies in the water and wastewater sector was moderate. The most needed technologies in this category were those for industrial wastewater treatment. High demand was identified for industrial and municipal wastewater sludge treatment and disposal technologies. Technologies where demand is expected to rise included those for the construction of collection networks for municipal and industrial wastewater; water recycling and reuse for potable water and industrial wastewater; spill control and containment/clean-up for surface and groundwater; instrumentation, process control, and software for industrial wastewater; standard and advanced treatment technologies for industrial wastewater; and inspection and reconditioning of existing wastewater collection networks. Waste management appears to be one of the most promising environmental market sectors in Hungary. Significant opportunities are anticipated in hazardous waste
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.16: CONTACT POINTS FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS Organization Name and Address
Contact Information
Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy (KTM) 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 40-50 see also Table 3.9 for more contact details
Mr. Arpad Kovacs, Tel: (36-1) 201-2043, Fax: 201-3971 Mr. Tibor Farago, Tel/fax: (36-1) 201-4091 Mr. Gyorgy Erdey, Tel: (36-1) 201-1407, Fax: 201-2819
Secretariat of the Central Environmental Fund (KKA) 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50
Mr. Istvan Sindell Tel: (36-1) 457-3300, Fax: 457-3413
PHARE Office (KTM) 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50
Mr. Bela Donath Tel: (36-1) 201-1691, Fax: 201-5780
Environmental Inspectorate, Budapest 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50
Mr. Pal Varga Tel: (36-1) 201-4619, Fax: 201-4284
Environmental Service Providers Association (KSS) 1149 Budapest, Angol u. 42
Ms. Anna Szekely Tel/fax: (36-1) 220-2367, tel. 220-2369
Environmental Information Club (KVIK) 1148 Budapest, Limanova ter 25
Mr. Zoltan Szarvas Tel/fax: (36-1) 252-8452, Tel: (36-30) 514-520
Hungary-EU Energy Center
Ms.Doris Keszthelyi, Tel: (36-1) 269-9067, Fax: 269-9065
BAU DATA Project Information and Consulting Bureau 1142 Budapest, Dorozsmai u. 110
Tel: (36-1) 252-5454, Fax: 252-6518
Environmental Management Institute 1369 Budapest, 5 Pf.352, Budapest, V Alkotmany u. 29
Dr. Attila Kovacs Tel: (36-1) 332-9940, Fax: (36-1) 111-5826
National Association of Waste Recyclers 1066 Budapest, Dessewffy u. 3
Mr. Henrik Balatoni Tel: (36-1) 111-1477; Fax: (36-1) 131-1516
National Committee for Technological Development (OMFB) Ms. Ilona Szabo 1052 Budapest, Szervita ter 8 tel. (36-1) 117-5900, Fax: (36-1) 118-7998 Public Hygiene Society 2483 Gardony, Pf. 15, Gardony Bone K. u. 44
Mr. Gyorgy Nagy Tel: (36-22) 355-065, Fax: (36-22) 355-253
Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA) 1082 Budapest, Ulloi ut 66/b-I, VI-4
Dr. CsabaKiss Tel/fax: (36-1) 333-2931
Independent Ecology Center 1035 Budapest, Miklos ter 1
Ms. Judit Vasarhelyi Tel: (36-1) 180-3420, Fax: (36-1) 250-1546
Environmental Training Program 1112 Budapest, Budaorsi út 45
Ms. Vilma Eri Tel: (36-1) 185-0777
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) 2000 Szentendre, Ady Endre ut 9-11
Mr. Pawel Kazmierczyk Tel: (36-26) 311-199, fax: (36-26) 311-294
Hungarian Association for Environmentally Aware Management (KOVET-INEM Hungaria) 1063 Budapest, Munkacsy M. u. 16
Mr. Gergely Toth Tel: (36-1) 131-7578, Fax: (36-1) 332-0787
Foundation for Industry 1063 Budapest, Munkacsy M. u. 16
Dr. Tamas Kemeny Tel: (36-1) 312-2213, Fax: (36-1) 332-0787
Danube Circle 1026 Budapest, Gabor Aron u. 33
Mr. Janos Varga Tel: (20) 419-096
WWF Hungary 1124 Budapest, Nemethvolgyi u. 78/b
Mr. Ferenc Markus Tel/fax: (36-1) 175-4790
disposal, followed by radioactive and industrial waste management. High demand was identified for technologies used for hazardous waste site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land; for radioactive waste, equipment for sample analysis/waste characterization; site monitoring; and waste collection, transportation and storage. Demand was expected to rise for pollution prevention/waste minimization equipment for industrial and hazardous waste; technologies for recycling/resource recovery for industrial waste; technologies and equipment for waste collection, transportation and storage of hazardous waste and hazardous waste site monitoring; and technologies for spillage control/decontam-
ination for hazardous waste. Demand for energy-related technologies was generally high, especially in comparison with other environmental sectors. Technologies where high demand was identified included: instrumentation; and equipment for retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems. Demand was expected to increase for equipment related to process management and control; new and efficient energy and heat generation systems; and heat recovery and energy saving equipment. The recent privatization of energy utility companies in Hungary is likely to speed up the modernization of the sector, which, combined with stricter air pollution regulations, seems to be the major reason behind the antic-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
73
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.17: DEMAND FOR AIR QUALITY-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES Ambient Gaseous Air Emissions Air sampling/laboratory analysis
3.4 (8)
3.9 (7)
Continuous-basis monitoring
2.7 (9)
2.6 (5)
Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers)
3.1 (4)
3.6 (7)
Gas detection/warning devices
2.5 (4)
3.0 (4)
Best available technology for emission abatement at source/ cleaner production (e.g. low emission burners)
3.1 (5)
3.4 (5)
Instrumentation and process control/software
4.0 (6)
4.0 (6)
Technologies in demand: #1 instrumentation and process control/software Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions); #3 air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment
ipated high demand in the sector. Many experts noted that there were significant market opportunities in decreasing energy losses in production process, transmission, and consumption. In the noise, vibration and occupational health and safety sector, high demand was identified for abatement technologies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion), and for protection equipment in the occupational health and safety sector. Increasing demand was also identified for noise and vibration abatement technologies in the construction industry.
TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND BY SECTOR Tables 3.17-3.21 summarize the responses to the questions on demand for specific environmental technologies. The following scale was used in ranking: 5 – highest, and rapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, likely to grow, 3 – moderate, slowly growing demand, 2 – low demand, will not grow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion. Figures in cells show the average score, while those in brackets represent the number of responses. Air Most respondents indicated a greater level of demand for air-pollution related technologies for gaseous emissions from stationary sources compared to demand for products related to ambient air. High demand in this category was identified for instrumentation and process control/software. Growing demand was expected for technologies for air sampling/laboratory analysis for gaseous emissions, and for air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment. Business representatives and government officials seemed to agree that instrumentation and process control/software was an area in high demand. Respondents from the government sector also indicated growing demand was likely for air pollution control and flue gas purification equipment. The need is driven by Hungary’s commitment to cut SO2, NOx and freon emissions, according to international treaties (Geneva, Montreal), and by the harmonization of Hungarian environmental legislation with that of the European Union (a new law on air emissions is expected to come into force in 1997). Interestingly, respondents from
74
the business sector evaluated demand for air pollution control and flue gas purification equipment as moderate, frequently expressing an opinion that no significant growth in spending can be expected unless applicable regulations and the level of enforcement change. Currently, only new investments create demand for this kind of equipment. Local governments indicated a need for air quality monitoring systems in areas where air is heavily polluted by traffic and vehicles. However, respondents from the business sector did not indicate a high demand for air monitoring systems. Water and Wastewater Demand for environmental technologies for water and wastewater was moderate. Only in one technology class was demand identified as “high and likely to grow”. The most needed technologies in this sector were for industrial wastewater treatment. High demand was identified for sludge treatment and disposal technologies for industrial and municipal wastewater. Technologies where demand is expected to rise included those for: construction of collection networks for municipal and industrial wastewater; water recycling and reuse for potable water and industrial wastewater; spill control and containment/clean-up for surface and groundwater; instrumentation, process control, and software for industrial wastewater; standard and advanced treatment technologies for industrial wastewater; and inspection and reconditioning of existing wastewater collection networks. As regards technologies for surface and ground water, moderate growth in demand was expected for quality restoration and decontamination, and clean-up technologies. Respondents from the government sector generally gave higher rankings in this category than business representatives. The demand is driven by the threat to water resources from wastewater discharges and soil contamination (e.g. hazardous compounds and hydrocarbon contaminated areas identified in the course of privatization; oil contamination of the Soroksar arm of the Danube; dichloroethyl contamination of the water reserves in Szekszard, etc.). Both groups of respondents expressed similar opinions about the need for water quality monitoring systems, although demand is still only growing slowly. In the municipality of Budapest, however, some 600 monitoring points have already been established for the regular checking of water quality, while the levels of radioactivity in the Danube are also inspected regularly. Among technologies for potable water, increasing demand was identified for water reuse and recycling equipment, standard and advanced treatment process technologies, and equipment and technologies for the reconstruction of existing water supply networks. Some experts noted that there was a significant need for water loss and leakage control in water distribution networks, and suggested strong growth potential in this area. Respondents also expected a growing demand for advanced water treatment processes, as currently used equipment rapidly becomes outdated and will have to be replaced. Water-saving household appliances are also increasingly sought as water charges increase. Demand for technologies for the treatment of municipal wastewater is expected to grow in the near future. There is a large gap between the percentage of the population with water supply and those connected to a sewage system in Hungary. In response, a large governmental program has been prepared which specifies that wastewater treatment should be available in all communities with more than 2000 inhabitants by the year 2010. As a result, growing demand was identified for construction of wastewater collection networks, standard and advanced wastewater treatment processes, and instrumentation and process control. Several respondents indicated
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.18: DEMAND FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES Surface and Potable Municipal Ground Water (Drinking) Water Wastewater
Industrial Wastewater
Monitoring
3.3 (9)
2.5 (4)
2.7 (9)
3.3 (10)
Sampling/laboratory analysis
3.2 (9)
3.0 (8)
2.6 (11)
3.1 (11)
Construction of collection/supply networks
2.9 (4)
2.5 (5)
3.7 (13)
3.7 (10)
Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and collection networks
3.3 (4)
3.2 (6)
2.8 (9)
3.5 (10)
Standard physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes
3.0 (1)
3.5 (4)
3.4 (13)
3.5 (12)
Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. UV/ozonation, 2.8 (4) activated carbon, phosphate removal, reverse osmosis)
3.5 (4)
3.4 (10)
3.5 (12)
Sludge treatment and disposal
3.0 (2)
3.3 (2)
3.7 (11)
4.0 (10)
Best available technology for pollution prevention/ waste minimization
3.0 (3)
2.0 (1)
2.5 (2)
3.4 (5)
Water recycling and reuse
3.0 (3)
3.8 (3)
3.3 (7)
3.6 (10)
Spill control and containment/clean-up
3.8 (4)
3.0 (3)
2.8 (6)
2.9 (7)
Quality restoration and decontamination
3.5 (6)
3.4 (5)
3.2 (5)
3.2 (5)
Instrumentation/process control/software
3.0 (3)
3.0 (2)
3.4 (5)
3.7 (7)
Technologies in high demand: #1 sludge treatment and disposal — industrial and municipal wastewater; Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 construction of collection networks — municipal and industrial wastewater; #3 water recycling and reuse — potable (drinking) water and industrial wastewater; #4 spill control and containment/clean-up — surface and groundwater; #5 instrumentation, process control, and software — Industrial wastewater; #6 standard and advanced treatment — industrial wastewater; #7 inspection and reconditioning of existing wastewater collection networks
significant demand can be expected for sludge treatment and disposal technologies, although the major impediments in this field are the shortage of available areas for lagoons, and an unclear situation with respect to land ownership. Finally, although it is not evident from Table 3.18, some experts mentioned business opportunities related to upgrading existing wastewater treatment plants, e.g. by adding a biological treatment stage, deepening reservoirs, or introducing modern aeration systems. Significantly, many respondents indicated that suppliers’ ability to mobilize additional financing was a strong competitive advantage. Finally, increasing demand in industrial wastewater treatment was identified for sludge treatment and disposal, instrumentation and process control, construction and modernization of collection networks, water recycling and reuse, and standard and advanced treatment technologies. Opinions were divided on the need for the construction of new treatment plants and collection networks — some experts thought that the decline in industrial production has left existing facilities under-utilized. The demand for advanced (tertiary) treatment technologies is driven by stricter limits for pollutant discharges to receiving water bodies, and by on-going replacement of obsolete equipment, while the rising costs of water supply are expected to lead to growing demand for water reuse and recycling technologies. Finally, significant demand was identified for industrial wastewater sludge treatment technologies, similar to the situation decribed for municipal wastewater sludge. It should be noted that, strictly speaking, demand in the water and wastewater sector, as identified in Table 3.18, was moderate. This is surprizing, given the priority given in the state environmental policy to the protection of water resources and improvement of drinking water quality. Therefore, in the researcher’s opinion, the technologies in the sector where demand is expected to rise will be in increasingly high demand in a short span of time.
Waste Management Waste management, according to respondents, is one of the most promising environmental market sectors in Hungary. Significant opportunities are expected in hazardous waste disposal, followed by radioactive and industrial waste management. Technologies in high demand included: hazardous wastesite remediation/clean-up of contaminated land; and, for radioactive waste, equipment for sample analysis/waste characterization; site monitoring; and waste collection, transportation and storage. Demand was expected to rise for pollution prevention/ waste minimization equipment for industrial and hazardous waste; technologies for recycling/resource recovery for industrial waste; technologies and equipment for waste collection, transportation and storage of hazardous waste and hazardous waste site monitoring; and technologies for spillage control/decontamination for hazardous waste. Demand for technologies related to municipal solid waste management was low to moderate, although growing demand was expected by several interviewees for construction of landfills. The primary obstacle to the construction of new landfills is the objection made by the local population (“not in my backyard” attitude), and the lack of financing — local governments must provide two thirds of project financing (although establishment of regional landfills is supported financially by the government). In the vicinity of Budapest, there are also problems with the availability of land. It was noted that suppliers’ ability to attract additional financing was a strong advantage. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to waste collection, transportation and storage, since aging existing equipment must be modernized or replaced. With the introduction of selective waste collection systems, demand is likely to increase, and so is the need for temporary storage, sorting and bailing technologies. Respondents active in composting and biomass conversion usually specified higher
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
75
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.19: DEMAND FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES Municipal Solid Waste
Industrial Waste
Hazardous Waste
Radioactive Waste 4.0 (3)
Waste collection/transportation and storage
3.5 (17)
3.3 (17)
3.7 (14)
Sample analysis/waste characterization
3.0 (11)
3.5 (14)
3.5 (12)
4.5 (2)
Site monitoring
3.2 (14)
3.5 (12)
3.7 (9)
4.3 (3)
Landfill disposal
3.4 (17)
3.3 (12)
3.0 (11)
2.2 (3)
Incineration
2.4 (14)
2.5 (13)
3.4 (14)
1.0 (1)
Composting/biomass conversion
2.7 (17)
2.7 (10)
3.3 (3)
-
Best available technology for pollution prevention/waste minimization
2.9 (10)
3.8 (12)
3.8 (8)
4.0 (2)
Recycling/resource recovery
2.9 (13)
3.7 (15)
3.3 (10)
-
Spillage control/decontamination
2.7 (7)
3.0 (8)
3.6 (7)
4.0 (1)
Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land
2.6 (9)
3.4 (12)
4.3 (10)
-
Technologies in high demand: #1 site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land (hazardous waste); #2 sample analysis/waste characterization; site monitoring; waste collection/transportation and storage (radioactive waste) Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #3 pollution prevention/waste minimization (industrial and hazardous waste); #4 recycling/resource recovery (industrial waste) #5 waste collection/transportation and storage (hazardous waste); #6 hazardous waste site monitoring; #7 spillage control/decontamination (hazardous waste)
demand for their services than environmental technology experts in general. With respect to the treatment and disposal of industrial waste, increasing demand was identified for pollution prevention and waste minimization equipment, and resource recovery and recycling technologies. The major factor driving demand is the increasing price of landfill disposal, currently at HUF 500-800 (USD 3-5) per cubic meter of non-hazardous industrial waste. The price is expected to double or triple in the near future. Interesting examples of on-going waste minimization projects include the battery factory Perion, or chemical company Viscosa. The projects are implemented with the assistance of the World Environment Center/WEC/. High and increasing demand was identified for hazardous waste technologies. The new waste law is a key factor behind this, although it was noted that many companies are not willing to undertake sound waste management practices which are beyond the requirements specified by the law. The highest demand in the entire waste management category was identified for those technologies related to site remediation and clean-up of contaminated land, which often results from the current practice of “temporarily” storing hazardous waste on-site until a suitable disposal method is identified. For instance, the Budapest Chemical Works (Budapesti Vegyimuvek) has thousands of drums of hazardous chemicals stored in Gare, in southern Hungary. Finally, a high number of legal and illegal (uncatalogued) hazardous waste disposal sites will have to be remediated. Hazardous waste generation, currently stagnant because of the decline in industrial activities, is expected to increase as the economy expands. However, there is still no system in place for the proper management of hazardous waste. Only one major hazardous waste incinerator is currently operating in Hungary (in Dorog, with a capacity of 25,000 tons per year) while a few smaller incinerators, mostly outdated, are used at industrial sites or hospitals. Generally, the disposal of hazardous waste is based either on landfilling, or the use of “temporary” storage sites as discussed above. No decision has yet been made about the number and location of new hazardous waste incinerators (financing has not been secured yet, either), while the construction
76
of new landfill sites is hampered by the shortage of suitable locations. This situation, combined with rapidly growing waste disposal prices and stricter regulations, is the key factor behind the identified growth in demand for technologies relating to pollution prevention and waste minimization. It is worth noting that pollution prevention and waste minimization are two of the major priorities in the government’s current environmental policy. A growing demand was also identified for technologies for waste collection, transportation, and storage of hazardous waste, as well as for equipment providing for continuous monitoring of existing landfills. Finally, high and growing demand was indicated for most technologies related to radioactive waste management (especially for sample analysis and waste characterization, site monitoring, and waste collection and transport). However, it is necessary to stress that even though the few respondents who addressed the issue expected high and growing demand, in terms of market share, radioactive waste management makes up only a small proportion of the entire waste management market in Hungary. Energy Demand for energy-related technologies was generally high, especially in comparison with other environmental sectors. There were also remarkably few differences between the expected demand in the energy and power generation sector, and in other (energy-consuming) industrial sectors. Technologies where high demand was identified included: instrumentation; and equipment for retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems. Demand was increasing for equipment related to process management and control; new and efficient energy and heat generation systems; and technologies related to heat recovery and energy savings. The recent privatization of energy utility companies in Hungary is likely to speed up the modernization of the sector, which, combined with stricter air pollution regulations, seems to be the major reason driving the expected high demand in the sector. Although it is not immediately obvious from Table 3.20, many experts noted that there were significant market oppor-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.20: DEMAND FOR ENERGY-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES Energy and Power Generation
Other Industrial Sectors (e.g. manufacturing, chemical)
New/efficient energy and heat generation systems
3.6 (8)
3.8 (6)
Retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems
4.0 (6)
3.8 (6)
Process management and control (e.g. boiler tune-up, fuel efficiency optimization)
3.9 (7)
3.9 (7)
Heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation)
3.6 (8)
3.7 (7)
Alternative/renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, solar)
2.7 (6)
2.5 (4)
Alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants
3.4 (5)
3.5 (4)
Instrumentation
3.9 (7)
4.0 (5)
Technologies in high demand: #1 instrumentation; #2 retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems; Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #3 process management and control; #4 new and efficient energy and heat generation systems; #5 heat recovery and energy savings
tunities in decreasing energy losses in production processes, transmission, and consumption, and expected that demand for heat recovery and energy saving technologies will grow in the near future. According to several studies, it is possible to improve the efficiency of central heating systems and older gas heating installations in a cost-effective way, through changing obsolete equipment and modernizing distribution systems. The planned introduction of a billing system based on actual energy consumption is likely to further stimulate the demand for energy saving technologies. A governmental program is under preparation to help finance the modernization of about one fifth of all Hungarian flats (approx. 700 thousand) in concrete block apartments, via improved insulation and better heating systems. Similar to other market sectors, suppliers who are able to mobilize additional financing enjoy a competitive advantage, because the modernization of heating systems requires high investment, currently not available to potential investors. Interestingly, some foreign assistance to the sector is already available in Hungary (e.g. the above-mentioned German government-funded project to increase energy efficiency in prefabricated concrete blocks of flats). Noise, Vibration, and Occupational Health and Safety Noise, vibration and occupational health and safety is clearly the most neglected sector among all those surveyed during the research. High demand was identified for abatement technologies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion) and for protec-
TABLE 3.21: DEMAND FOR NOISE, VIBRATION, AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RELATED TECHNOLOGIES Noise Occupational and Health and vibration Safety Instrumentation/measuring and control devices
2.5 (6)
3.3 (4)
Protection equipment
3.0 (4)
4.0 (2)
Abatement (insulation, absorbtion) 3.7 (6)
4.0 (4)
Electromagnetic field exposure
3.0 (1)
2.5 (2)
Technologies in high demand: #1 abatement (OHS) ; #2 Protection equipment (OHS) Technologies where demand is expected to rise: abatement (noise and vibration)
tion equipment in the occupational health and safety sector. As workplace safety and liability issues become more significant in Hungary, demand is expected to grow. Increasing demand was also identified for noise abatement technologies in the construction industry (e.g. insulation and absorbtion materials for use at airports, along busy roads, and in the vicinity of industrial plants with excessive noise levels).
TABLE 3.22: END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Category
End-users by Sector
Air
Energy sector, power plants, chemical works, transportation, waste incinerators, metallurgy
Water and Wastewater
Municipal water and wastewater service companies, chemical industry, energy sector, mining, food processing industry, pharmaceutical industry, textile industry, agriculture (diluted manure)
Waste
Municipal service companies, mining, energy sector, other industries (construction, textile, paper, food), aluminum industry (red mud), agriculture
Energy
Municipal energy supply companies, energy and power generation sector (production and service), raw material processing industry (steel, aluminum), chemical industry
Noise, Vibration, and Occupational Health and Safety
Transportation, public transport, all manufacturing activities, industrial sites located in residential areas, energy sector, textile industry, airports
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
77
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Table 3.22 presents the major groups of end-users of environmental technologies, as identified by the respondents. According to respondents, the energy and power generation sector and municipalities are the main end-users of environmental technologies across all categories. The chemical industry, and other raw material extraction and processing industries are also significant end-user groups. Additionally, the transport sector was identified as a significant end-user of technologies for air pollution control, and noise and vibration abatement. Water and wastewater, and waste management technologies are widely used in the mining sector, agriculture and food processing, and textile industry. Interestingly, the ranking of end-users in each sector, and especially the high position of municipalities, reflects the decline in industrial production in the period since 1991, when many factories ceased operation owing to financial constraints. The closures resulted in a decrease in industrial pollution and discharges. This, combined with the fact that many significant environmental problems in industry have already been solved, has led to the municipal sector being one of the major end-users of environmental technologies.
3.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers PURCHASING PREFERENCES In discussing purchasing preferences with Hungarian experts, the country of origin of a particular environmental technology was indicated not to be a determining factor. Instead, 5 out of 6 respondents preferred to consider product quality and references. One interviewee in six opted for domestic technology wherever possible, although a major obstacle to buying domestic products cited was that they are not available in certain fields (e.g. water treatment technologies, flue gas purification). Among those respondents purchasing foreign environmental technologies, about half buy directly from a foreign supplier, while the remainder buy from local representatives. Buyers frequently opting for direct purchases included foreign-owned firms or joint-ventures, and clients requiring customized and very specialized technologies. In the latter category, it was noted that direct purchase is often the only option, because a local representative office often does not exist. In the respondents’ opinions, when a local representative office does exist, the foreign manufacturer usually does not carry out direct sales, directing clients to the local representative instead. With the growing number of in-country representatives, local purchase is expected to increase. Opinions of respondents from the R&D sector with respect to foreign suppliers were restricted to laboratory equipment, instruments, and pilot technologies. Similar to other respondents, product quality and references are considered first. Purchases are made, in roughly equal proportion, from local representatives and from producers abroad. In general, direct purchases were preferred where previous contacts with the supplier were established, or where higher quantity orders were made.
STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES About 50 percent of respondents specified the high quality, reliability and durability of products as advantages of foreign technologies. A third of respondents believed foreign environmental technology products offered good value for
78
money, and were user-friendly and easy to operate. A third of respondents regarded available credit or other forms of funding from a foreign supplier as a major advantage. Interestingly, several respondents noted that, in practice, foreign financial support often was not fully effective, either because no Hungarian financial institution would become a cofinancing partner in such schemes, or, when they did, the stipulated conditions would make borrowing (even with preferential foreign financing) as expensive as borrowing from a bank. Opinions were divided with respect to the quality of after sales service — some respondents believed it was good, while others stated service was poor, unpunctual and unreliable.
BARRIERS TO BUYING ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM ABROAD By far the major barrier to buying foreign environmental technologies in Hungary is price. Eighty percent of respondents mentioned high price was the major disadvantage of foreign products. About a quarter of the interviewees regarded foreign technologies as not being suited to local conditions and technical culture (e.g. measurement standards are different, the equipment is not of the proper size, etc.). Other obstacles (mentioned by about 15 percent of respondents) included high customs duties, changing environmental regulations, difficulties to ensure local technical service, communication problems with foreign suppliers (mainly with respect to language), and the lack of information concerning suppliers. Fifteen percent of the interviewed experts did not experience any problems with buying environmental technologies from abroad.
3.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Austria and Germany are by far the major players on the environmental technology market in Hungary, followed by Holland, France, USA, Japan and Scandinavian countries. In individual sectors, the perceived leaders in environmental technologies are as shown in Table 3.23. Austrian and German environmental technologies enjoyed good to excellent reputation in the air, water and wastewater, waste management, and energy sectors. Perception of American technologies was good in water and wastewater, waste management, energy, and noise, vibration, and OHS sectors. Dutch technologies were rated high in the water and wastewater and energy sectors, while French products were evaluated highly in the water and wastewater, and waste management
TABLE 3.23: PERCEIVED LEADING COUNTRIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Sector
Country
Air
Germany, Austria, Japan
Water and wastewater
Germany, Austria, Holland, France, US
Waste
Austria, Germany, France, US
Energy
Germany, Holland, US
Noise, vibration, and OHS
Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden), Japan, US
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.24: MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Company Name
Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
Country of Origin
Specialization
EROTERV-WAGNER-BIRO Kornyezetvedelmi Kft, Budapest
Austria-Hungary
pneumatic delivery systems, scrubbers, dust removal technologies
HUNGAROPANOL Legtechnikai Berendezeseket Gyarto Rt, Csongrad
France-Hungary
solid material filtering beds, air conditioning systems
major player
KGYV Rt, Budapest
Germany-Hungary
filters, flue gas purification
good references, modern technology, 30 years local experience
Dräger Hungaria Kft, Budapest
Germany
air emission measurement, soil examination
AGA Gaz Kft, Budapest
Sweden
recovery of solvents and chemicals from gaseous emissions and flue gas
CH2M Hill
USA
air related services and consulting
FREY Hungaria Kft, Budapest
Austria
oil-contaminated wastewater treatment/degreasing
Purator Hungaria Kft, Budapest
Austria
wastewater treatment
SADE Kft, Szeged
France
water supply systems, water treatment
OMS-Hungaria Kft, Tata
Germany
biological treatment process, aerobic stabilization of sludge
Multiproject Kft, Budapest
Germany-Hungary
municipal wastewater treatment plants
ABS/Komtech Ltd
Germany
pumps and mixers
Hansa-Plastic
Germany
PVC pipes
EMU
Germany
pumps
BIOGEIST Kft, Budapest
Germany
municipal wastewater treatment plants
ITT Flygt
Sweden
pumps and mixers
well experienced in Hungary, market leader
Elgoscar International Kft
USA, Hungary
Pannonpipe
PVC pipes
leading supplier
Wavin-Pemu
PVC pipes
AIR
50 year experience in the US, well established in Hungary
WATER
Envirotech Austria, Hungary permission for all areas, modern technology, full service significant share of the market high product quality
WASTE AKSD, Debrecen
Austria (ASA, Kropfel, Speizer)
municipal services
operates own landfill site
ASA Magyarorszag Kft, Budapest
Austria
municipal and industrial waste disposal
PYRUS-FOLDGEP Kft, Budapest
Austria
hazardous waste disposal
Mugu
Austria
waste paper and metal trade
Rumpold Hungaria Kft,
Austria
municipal waste
well-experienced
Dorog Waste Incinerator Kft, Dorog
France
incineration of hazardous wastes
the only haz. waste incinerator in Hungary
the only haz. waste landfill facility in Hungary
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
79
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.24 (CONTINUED): MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
Company Name
Country of Origin
Specialization
BIOKOM Kft, Pecs
France, Hungary
municipal services
responsible for the Transdanubian waste recycling program
ERECO Kelet-Europai France Hulladekfeldolgozo es Kornyezetvededelmi Rt, Budapest
collection and disposal of municipal and industrial waste
modern technology, market leader
Avermann-Hungaria Kft, Barcs, Budapest
Germany
production of compacting containers, waste collection
good connections at the local level
REM Kft, Budapest
Germany (RWE Entsorgung)
waste management
diverse background, including energy sector companies
OTTO Magyarorszag Kft, Budapest Germany
collection and transport of municipal waste
good connections at the local level, prices are determined in cooperation with local authorities
Becker-Pannonia Kft, Budapest
Germany
collection and delivery of municipal waste
good connections at the local level, prices are decided together with local government
Rethman Kft, Budapest
Germany
collection and delivery of municipal waste
good connections at the local level, prices are decided together with local government
Eszak Dunantuli MEH
Hungary/Italy
trade in metal waste and secondary raw materials
Comszolg Kft, Miskolc
USA-Hungary
collection and delivery of municipal waste
CEVA Hungary Kft
USA, Hungary
thermal soil cleaning
Jaycor
USA
site remediation, soil cleaning
CH2M Hill
USA
all waste related services and consulting
Energie und Gebaude GmbH
Austria
energy supply systems for buildings
Ganz-Rock Kazan es Eromuvi Berendezesek Rt, Budapest
Austria-Hungary
design and production of energyrelated equipment
good connections at the local level, prices are decided together with local government
well established in Hungary
ENERGY
Rockwool Hungaria Kft, Budapest Denmark
production and distribution of rockwool for insulation
EROTERV-IVO Power Engineering Rt, Budapest
Finland-Hungary
design of energy production and distribution systems
Prometheus Rt
France
full range of energy-related services
Energiagazdalkodasi RT, Budapest Germany-Hungary
pollution control in power plants
Mannesmann Anlagenbau Hungaria Kft, Budapest
Germany
heating and cooling systems, energetics
Matrai Eromu Rt, RWE-EVS consortium
Germany
energy production
VEW Energie Hungaria Kft, Budapest
Germany
energy efficient use of natural gas
80
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
full service, EBRD program participant on energy efficiency complete services for buildings
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
TABLE 3.24 (CONTINUED): MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Company Name
Country of Origin
Specialization
Magyar Bycosin Kft
Sweden
ABB Energy Kft, Budapest
Sweden
energy distribution, transport
Tiszai Eromu RT, AES Summit Generation Ltd.
USA
energy production
TUNSGRAM Rt, Budapest (General Electric)
USA
energy efficient lamps
CEVA Hungary Kft
USA, Hungary
energy recovery from oily wastes
KIPSZER Kazantechnologia Kft
boiler technology
Intertraverz Rt
not willing to disclose any information
Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
one of the largest R&D centers in Hungary
NOISE, VIBRATION, OHS KG-Filter Kft.
Austria-Hungary
noise control, noise absorbers, filtering technology
local manufacturing facilities
Bruel and Kjaer Kft
Denmark
noise measurement instruments, analyzers
advanced technology, excellent quality
MSA-AUER Hungaria Biztonsagtechnikai Kft, Budapest
Germany-USA
protection equipment for workers, respiratory protectors, protective clothing
sectors. Environmental technologies from Japan were rated well in air pollution, and the noise, vibration, and OHS sectors.
MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKET Table 3.24 presents the main foreign environmental technology suppliers active in Hungary. Respondents’ level of knowledge of foreign technologies was generally low, and few were able to describe in detail any foreign companies. As a result, the table is based to a large degree on a review of literature and environmental fair catalogues, as well as the researcher’s own knowledge. Overall, foreign companies were most active in the energy, water and wastewater, and waste management sectors, followed by air protection. Little activity was noted in the noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety sector. In air, and the related energy sector, German, Austrian, and American companies were most active. German firms dominated the water and wastewater sector, followed by Austrian, French and American suppliers. In the waste management sector, German, Austrian, French, and American companies were most active and seemed to be represented quite evenly. Interestingly, although Dutch and Japanese suppliers were generally well respected as foreign suppliers, not a single firm from these countries was listed by respondents when asked to name a specific company.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
81
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
3.8 List of Interviews R&D sector 1. Dr. Istvan Barotfi, Head of Department, GATE Dep. of Environmental Technology, Oct. 28, 1996 2. Mr. Attila Rab, Scientific coordinator, Paper Industry Research Institute Ltd., Nov. 1, 1996 3. Dr. Ivan Raisz, manager of environmental laboratory, Miskolc University, Nov. 5, 1996 4. Dr. Istvan Szabo, scientific deputy director, Dr. Gyenis, Janos. director, MTA Technological Chemical Research Institute, Nov. 6, 1996 5. Dr. Jozsef Hlavay, vice rector, Veszprem University, Nov. 6, 1996 Dr. Tibor Chovan, professor, Veszprem University, Department of Cybernetics, Nov. 6, 1996 6. Dr. Zsolt Csikar, chief engineer, BME Chemical Engineering Development Laboratory, Nov. 7, 1996 7. Dr. Katalin Zotter, deputy director, Vituki Consult Co., Nov. 7, 1996 8. Dr. Gyula Kortvelyesi, scientific director. SZEVIKI Co., Nov. 7, 1996 9. Dr. Laszlo Fenyvesi, scientific department leader, Ministry for Agriculture Technological Institute, Nov. 11, 1996 Government and Administration 10. Ms. Gara, Dr. Katalin Nagy, chief counselor. KTM Surface Water Protection Dept., Nov. 11, 1996 11. Mr. Robert Toth, chief counselor. KTM Air and Noise Protection Dept., Nov. 14, 1996 12. Mr. Lajos Nebb-Csorba, secretary, KTM-KVH Environmental Protection Development and Environmental Safety Dept., Nov. 18, 1996 13. Dr. Pal Varga, deputy director, KTM Cheif Environmental Inspectorate, Dec. 5, 1996 14. Mr. Zoltan Malyinko, environmental officer, Eger Local Government, Nov. 6, 1996 15. Mr. Zoltan Meleg, environmental officer. Budapest . Local Government. 22. Nov. 1996 16. Mr. Agoston Papa, environmental referent, Szekszard Local Government, Nov. 12, 1996 17. Mr. Istvan Rigo, chief counselor. Kaposvar Local Government, Nov. 19, 1996 18. Ms. Gabor Sandor, counselor. IKIM, Nov. 7, 1996 Business 19. Mr. Tibor Kiss, executive director, Biokom Kft., Nov. 21, 1996 20. Mr. Henrik Balatoni, president, Association of Waste Recyclers/Fegroup Invest executive director, Nov. 7, 1996 21. Mr. Janos Balog, technical director, Heliosz Kft., Nov. 4, 1996 22. Mr. Istvan Vamos, chief engineer, Szekom Kft., Nov. 14, 1996 23. Ms. Agnes Pintye, executive, Transdanubia-Waste Kft., Nov. 18, 1996 24. Mr. Jozsef Balint, executive, Waste Kft., Nov. 21, 1996 25. Mr. Mihaly Frisch, director, Biokor Kft., Nov. 22, 1996 26. Mr. Gyorgy Botond, executive, DHV Kft., Nov. 11, 1996 27. Mr. Miklos Perenyi, executive, Senex Kft., Nov. 21, 1996
82
28. Mr. Kalman Morvay, executive, Porr Kft., Nov. 18, 1996 29. Mr. Laszlo Voros, executive, Injektor Kft., Nov. 19, 1996 30. Mr. Peter Toth, office director, Purator Hungaria Kft., Nov. 20, 1996 31. Mr. Karoly Nagy, executive, Oko-Tech Bt., Nov. 5, 1996 32. Dr. Gaspar Paller, executive, Envirotech Kft., Nov. 21, 1996 33. Mr. Lajos Abraham, general manager, Zold-Lanc Logisztikai Rt., Nov. 5, 1996 34. Mr. Geza Berhidai, deputy director, Rumpold Hungaria Kft., Nov. 18, 1996 35. Mr. Lajos, Millei, executive director, Implantronik Kft., Nov. 19, 1996 36. Mr. Janos Soos, executive director, CEVA Magyarorszag Kft., Nov. 19, 1996 37. Ms. Ferenc Busa, executive director, Hungacorr Mernoki Iroda, Nov. 11, 1996 38. Dr. Istvan Szipner, department manager, GEA-EGI Energiahatekonysagi Iroda, Nov. 7, 1996 39. Ms. Judit Izsak, executive director, ITENVIRO Kornyezetvedelmi Kft., Nov. 8, 1996 40. Mr. Laszlo Zsuffa, executive director, Energetikai, Kornyezetvedelmi es Faipari Kft. (E.K.F.M), Nov. 13, 1996 41. Mr. Sandor Magyar, deputy director, Prometheusz Tuzelestechnikai Rt., Nov. 14, 1996 42. Ms. Eleonora Varga-Maklary, technical manager, Gyori Hulladekegeto Kft., Nov. 12, 1996 43. Mr. Janos Egerszegi, executive director, ERM Hungaria Kft., Nov. 12, 1996 44. Mr. Bela Demeter, executive director, TERRA-VITA Kft., Nov. 19, 1996 45. Ms. Laszlo Dobos, department leader, TUV-Rheinhland Hungaria Kft., Nov. 20, 1996 46. Mr. Zoltan Papp, chief engineer, Fovarosi Levegotisztasagi Kft., Nov. 19, 1996 47. Ms. Klara Sziraky, executive, S.P.Office Kft., Nov. 22, 1996 48. Dr. Pal Mihalffy, department director, Autoipari Kutato Rt., Dec. 11, 1996 49. Mr. Zoltan Gofarasy, executive, FOBA Kft, 11. Dec. 1996 Personal Discussions 1. Dr. Istvan Barotfi, Head of Department, GATE, Godollo, Oct. 24, 1996 2. Dr. Istvan Lang, MTA consultant to the president, Budapest, Nov. 1, 1996 3. Imre Szodi, MP Environmental Committee, Budapest, Oct. 29, 1996 4. Dr. Pal Tamas, director of MTA Research Institute of Social Conflicts, Budapest, Nov. 1, 1996 5. Sandor Kovacs, IKIM head of department, Budapest, Nov. 14, 1996 6. Gabor Sindelyes, KTM deputy head of chief department, Dept. of Research and Development, Nov. 28, 1996 7. Dr. Miklos Poos, IKIM head of Energy Management Dept., Nov. 15, 1996 8. Mr. Bela Mezo, executive, Durisol Hungaria Kft. Szekesfehervar, Nov. 28, 1996 9. Mr. Peter Olah, EHS European director, GE, Dec. 3, 1996
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
3.9 List of publications
3.10 Useful contacts
1. Catalogue of Research Institutions in the Fields of Environment Protection and Environmental Management, Budapest, 1990
Please note that environmental technology firms are not included in the following list. For contact information and a description of companies, see the database of Environmental Service Providers (KSZSZ) on the World Wide Web: http://www.c3.hu/~enviserv
2. Central Statistical Office (KSH), Yearbooks of 1993, 1994, 1995 3. Dr. Istvan Barotfi (ed.): Environmental Technology Handbook, Budapest, 1990 4. Dr. Attila Kovats: Protection Against Noise and Vibration, Veszprem, 1995 5. International Energy Agency: Energy Policy of Hungary, 1995 survey 6. MTA-KTM project:Environmental Future of Hungary, 1994 7. Environmental Industry Database (Internet: http://www.aszsz.eunet.hu) 8. Incomes and Expenditures of the National Environmental Protection Fund (Internet: http://www.meh.hu/egyeb/kvtv/1996/ kornyezetvedelmi_alap.htm 9. INEM: Case Studies in Environmental Management in SmaLl and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Wedel (Holstein), 1996 10. Investment Statistical Definitions, Terms, 1995 (KSH, Budapest, 1994) 11. KTM: National Environmental Program (NKP) — Draft, Budapest, 1996 12. OECD: The Environment Industry and Markets in Selected Central and Eastern European Countries, Paris, 1995 13. OMFB, KTM: R&D Program of Environment Protection for the Years 1996-2000 — Draft, Budapest, November 1996
Central Environmental Fund (KKA) 1054 Budapest, Alkotmany u. 29 Mr. Laszlo Danko, Tel: (36-1) 112-2067 Secretariat of the Central Environmental Fund (KKA) 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50 Mr. Istvan Sindell, Tel: (36-1) 457-3300 Ministry for Agriculture, Technological Institute 2101 Godollo, Tessedik Samuel u. 4 Dr. Laszlo Fenyvesi, Tel: (36-28) 320-960 Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy (KTM) 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 40-50 Mr. Arpad Kovacs, Tel: (36-1) 201-2043 Mr. Tibor Farago, Tel: (36-1) 201-4091 Mr. Gyorgy Erdey, Tel: (36-1) 201-1407 Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy (KTM), Dept. of R&D 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50 Mr. Gabor Sindelyes, Tel: (36-1) 201-2934 Ministry for Industry, Trade and Tourism (MIKI, Dep. of Technological Policy 1051 Budapest, Vigado u. 6 Mr. Erno Wittek, (36-1) 118-5180 National Association of Waste Recyclers 1066 Budapest, Dessewffy u. 3 Mr. Henrik Balatoni Tel: (36-1) 111-1477 or 131-1516
14. REC: The Emerging Environmental Market – A Survey of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and the Slovak Republic, Budapest, October 1995
MTA, Technological Chemical Research Institute 8200 Veszprem, Egyetem u. 2 Dr. Ivan Szabo, Tel: (36-88) 425-206
15. REC: The Environmental Business Directory – Environmental Service and Technology Providers in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and the Slovak Republic, Budapest, October 1995
National Committee for Technological Development (OMFB) 1052 Budapest, Szervita ter 8 Ms. Ilona Szabo, Tel: (36-1) 117-5900
16. Karoly Remenyi: Novel Technologies in Energetics, Budapest, Academic Publisher 17. KTM: Situation of Hazardous Waste Materials in Hungary, 1994
Organic Chemistry Research Institute (SZEVIKI) 1085 Bp, Stahly u. 13 Dr. Gyula Kortvelyessi, Tel: (36-1) 118-7741 PHARE Office (KTM) 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50 Mr. Bela Donath, Tel: (36-1) 201-4170 Environmental Management Institute 1369 Budapest, 5 Pf 352 Budapest, V Alkotmany u. 29 Dr. Endre Kovacs, Tel: (36-1) 132-9940 Environmental Service Providers Association (KSZSZ) 1149 Budapest, Angol u. 42 Ms. Anna Szekely, Tel: (36-1) 220-2367 VITUKI Consult Rt. 1095 Budapest, Kvassay J. út 1 Dr. Katalin Zotter, Tel: (36-1) 216-5810
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
83
CHAPTER 3: HUNGARY
Budapest Technical University (BME) 1521 Budapest, Muegyetem rkp. 9 Development Laboratory on Chemical Engineering Dr. Zsolt Csikar, Tel: (36-1) 463-3183
Public Hygiene Society 2483 Gardony Pf 15 Gardony, Bone K. u. 44 Mr. Gyorgy Nagy, Tel: (36-22) 355-065
Central European University 1051 Budapest, Nador u. 9 Prof. Diana Vorsatz (specialty: energy efficiency) Tel: (36-1) 327-3095
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) 2000 Szentendre, Ady Endre u. 9-11 Mr. Pawel Kazmierczyk, Tel: (36-26) 311-199
Danube Circle 1026 Budapest, Gabor Aron u. 33 Mr. Janos Vargha, Tel: (36-20) 419-096
Veszprem University 8201 Veszprem, Egyetem u. 10 Department of Cybernetics Dr. Tibor Chovan, Tel: (36-88) 422-022, ext. 276
Environmental Information Club (KVIK) 1148 Budapest, Ors Vezer ter 20 Mr. Zoltan Szarvas, Tel: (36-1) 222-9589
WWF Hungary 1124 Budapest, Nemethvolgyi u. 78/b Mr. Ferenc Markus, Tel: (36-1) 175-4790
Environmental Inspectorate 1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50 Mr. Pal Varga, Tel: (36-1) 201-4619 Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA) Dr. Csaba Kiss, Tel: (36-1) 133-2931 Environmental Training Program 1112 Budapest, Budaorsi út 45 Ms. Vilma Eri, Tel: (36-1) 185-0777 Godollo Agricultural University (GATE) 2100 Godollo, Pater K. u. 1 Dept. of Environmental Technology Dr. Istvan Barotfi, Tel: (36-28) 310-200 Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Committee on Environmental Sciences (MTA) 1051 Budapest, Roosevelt ter 9 Dr. Janos Kovacs, Tel: (36-1) 138-2344 ext. 310 Hungarian Association for Environmentally Aware Management (KOVET-INEM Hungaria) 1063 Budapest, Munkacsy M. u. 16 Mr. Gergely Toth, Tel: (36-1) 131-6763, 131-7578 Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) 1051 Budapest, Roosevelt ter 9 Ms. Ildiko Deak, Tel: (36-1) 117-2094 Independent Ecology Center 1035 Budapest, Miklos ter 1 Ms. Judit Vasarhelyi, Tel: (36-1) 180-3420 Measuring Technology and Informatics Research and Innovation Co. (MIKI) 1125 Budapest, Fogaskereku u. 4-6 Mr. Agoston Lorinc, Tel: (36-1) 155-3249 Miskolc University, Institute of Chemistry Dept. of Physical Chemistry 3515 Miskolc Egyetemvaros Dr. Ivan Raisz, Tel: (36-46) 366-111, ext. 1338 Public Foundation for Occupational Safety Research 1020 Budapest, Otvos J. u. 1-3 Dr. Janos Solt, Tel: (36-1) 176-2922
84
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
Chapter 4: Poland 4.1 Summary of Findings In 1995, environmental expenditures in Poland amounted to USD 1,308 million. Approximately 40 percent of environmental spending was financed from national and voivodship environmental protection funds; while about a third was made up by investors’ own funds; with less than a fifth coming from municipal budgets. The share of the state budget and foreign assistance programs was lower than 5 percent. Loans and subsidies from the National Environmental Protection Fund account for about a quarter of the environmental expenditures in Poland. The Fund’s financial resources were directed mainly toward air protection (45 percent of the total) and water protection projects, including wastewater treatment plants (40 percent of the total). Some environmental protection projects are partly financed by the Ekofundusz Foundation, administering the financial resources made available via the debt-for-environment swap scheme. Ekofundusz projects tend to give preference to environmental technologies imported from the United States, France and Switzerland, the fund’s three founding countries. Foreign assistance programs account for less than 5 percent of Polish environmental expenditures. The PHARE program is the main foreign source of assistance. Spending on air protection accounted for 53 percent of total expenditures (approx. USD 700 million), while water protection accounted for 37 percent (approx. USD 480 million), and waste management for 9 percent (approx. USD 124 million). The estimated size of the market for environmentally sound technologies for power generation was USD 240 million in 1995; the estimate for pollution control equipment 330 USD million, and for industrial process controls USD 98 million. The key regulatory and enforcement authorities responsible for environmental protection in Poland include: the Ministry of Environment; other ministries with environmentrelated duties; regional environmental offices in voivodships (provinces); and municipal authorities. Responsibility for the enforcement of regulations lies with the state and voivodship
Balt i c S ea
RUSSIA
LITHUANIA
Gdansk
Szczecin
Bialystok Bydgoszcz
POLAND
Poznan
GERMA NY
BE L AR US Warsaw
Lodz Lublin
Wroclaw
Katowice
CZECH REPUBLIC 0
50
Krakow
100
UKRAINE
kilometers
S L O VA K I A
environmental protection Inspectorates. Most environmental permitting is administered at the regional level in the country’s 49 voivodships. Physical planning and construction permits as well as utility contracts are issued at the local level in over 2,500 municipalities. The following environmental priorities have been set by the government: ■
Air protection: modernization of technological processes; modernization of industrial boilers; changing fuels to gas and oil, and wider use of coal gasification processes; installation of dust and gaseous emissions reduction mechanisms (especially for sulfur dioxide, dust particles, nitrogen monoxides, carbon oxides), construction of central (district) heating systems in urban areas; application of alternative sources of energy.
TABLE 4.1: BASIC COUNTRY INFORMATION Czech Republic Population (mln)
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
10.3
10.2
38.6
5.4
2.0
78,900
93,000
312,700
49,000
20,200
GDP (USD bln)
52.3
44.3
134.3
18.9
18.6
GDP growth (%)
1.3
1.2
7.7
6.0
3.1
Foreign Direct Investment (USD bln)
7.3
16.2
13.5
1.0
1.7
Unemployment rate (%)
4.8
10.3
10.6
13.0
14.4
Average monthly wages (USD)
302.0
319.0
329.0
257.9
890.0
Inflation rate (%)
10.3
18.4
14.5
6.0
9.6
Exchange rate to the USD
33.5
197.8
3.4
34.0
167.8
1,185.0
385.0
1,308.0
232.0
150.0
2.6
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
Area (sq.km)
Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (USD mln) Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (% of GDP)
Source: Business Central Europe, November 1997; 1996 Statistical Yearbooks of each surveyed country
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
85
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
■
Water resource protection and management: construction of wastewater collection networks and treatment plants (including systems for phosphorus and nitrogen removal, and sludge treatment); construction or modernization of drinking water treatment plants; construction of impounding reservoirs;
■
Land surface protection: implementation of modern technologies for waste treatment and management; introduction of state-of-the-art technologies for disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes generated by industrial and agricultural activities; construction of industrial and municipal waste landfills; re-cultivation of polluted soils (mainly former Russian military bases).
Respondents identified the following issues as the most important environmental problems needing to be addressed: control of process and fugitive air emissions at industrial plants; water resources management, including water conservation systems; wastewater treatment and sludge disposal, waste management, including waste collection systems, treatment and disposal; recycling and process waste utilization. The geographic distribution of the major environmental problems in Poland is uneven. Environmental expenditures in the 10 most polluted voivodships (from the total of 49) account for more than 60 percent of the total national figure. The most polluted voivodships are located in Silesia and in the Black Triangle region in the south and southwest of Poland. Others include the major industrial and economic centers located throughout the country (Plock, Warsaw, Szczecin, Lodz). There are no effective formal channels for information on environmental business opportunities in Poland. Governmental organizations, R&D institutes, and professional associations, etc. are not seen as useful sources. Most businesses obtain information through personal and professional contacts, and participation in major trade fairs. POLEKO, held in Poznan every November, is the largest fair for pollution control technologies in Poland and in the CEE region. Additional sources include annual environmental reports prepared by each of the 49 voivodships, and the Bulletin on Public Tendering, published regularly by the Public Tendering Office. Another potentially important source of information on potential business opportunities is the so-called List of 80, which includes industrial companies declared particularly damaging to the environment, and similar lists maintained in each voivodship. There is no clearinghouse or similar source gathering information on the environmental technologies available in Poland. The common sources used by buyers include: personal contacts and discussions; brochures and leaflets distributed at trade shows; catalogues and information books purchased during shows, fairs and conferences; office visits of manufacturer’s representatives; and design bureaus offering technical information. The demand for environmental technologies in Poland was identified to be between moderate and high. The highest demand was found to be for environmental technologies related to the energy sector and water and wastewater treatment, followed by waste management technologies. This is closely related to current Polish environmental policy and regulations, where the major priority areas are air pollution control and protection of water resources. Overall demand in the air sector was moderate. High demand was identified for technologies related to the abatement of air emissions and cleaner production. Increasing demand was expected for air pollution control and flue gas purification technologies. Most frequently noted were state-ofthe-art systems to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust and particulates, nitrogen monoxides, and hazardous chemicals. Growing demand was also identified for instrumentation and process control technologies.
86
High levels of demand were identified for energy-related technologies. Specific technologies in high demand included new/efficient energy and heat generation systems, equipment for retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems, technologies related to heat recovery and energy savings, and process management and control equipment. Technologies related to the use of alternative/renewable energy sources were in high demand in the power and energy generation sector. A whole range of opportunities relate to the ongoing program of restructuring in the energy sector, where a strong emphasis exists on reducing the share of coal as the primary energy source, currently standing at 70-80 percent. Among technologies in the municipal and industrial wastewater sector, high demand was identified for those technologies related to sludge treatment and disposal (very high demand); technologies for pollution prevention and waste minimization; monitoring equipment; advanced (tertiary) wastewater treatment technologies; and instrumentation, process control and software. Technologies for clean-up, quality restoration, and decontamination of surface and groundwater were also in high demand. Treatment of large amounts of saline water discharged from coal mining is still an unresolved problem. In the waste management sector, high demand in all waste categories was expected for technologies related to pollution prevention and waste minimization, and recycling and resource recovery. For municipal waste, composting and biomass conversion technologies were identified as a high demand area. Technologies for collection, transportation, and storage of hazardous waste, and equipment for decontamination, site remediation, and clean-up of contaminated land for radioactive waste were also in high demand. Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration and occupational health and safety was moderate. It is expected that within the next three to five years focus will remain on end-of-pipe environmental technologies. Growing demand is expected, however, for pollution prevention and waste minimization technologies. Major end-users of environmental technologies in Poland are municipalities and industrial plants. Industrial branches most commonly listed as main end-users included the power and energy generation sector, the chemical industry, and the mining sector. The majority of respondents tend to approach each purchasing decision on a case-by-case basis, usually applying best-technology and best-practice criteria. About a third of respondents expressed preference for domestic environmental technology products. The key criteria used in purchasing decisions are quality, reliability and durability of products. Respondents clearly prefer to buy foreign environmental technologies from local representative offices rather than purchase directly from the manufacturer. Key strengths of foreign environmental technology products are: high product quality, reliability and durability of products. Preferential credit or purchase terms from the supplier significantly increase the chances of selling environmental technologies in Poland. High price was identified as the main barrier to purchasing foreign environmental technologies. Problems with ensuring reliable technical service and maintenance by authorized representatives were also a significant barrier, followed by the lack of information about suppliers and available products. Perception of foreign environmental technologies was between good and excellent. Technologies from Austria, Germany, Japan, and the US were perceived particularly high, followed by Dutch and Scandinavian products. Notably, all foreign environmental technologies were ranked well above domestic products, which were evaluated as average. However, the overall level of knowledge of those
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
foreign environmental technologies available in Poland was found to be low. Foreign business activity in Poland is highest in the water and wastewater sector, followed by the waste management and air sectors. German, Austrian, American, Dutch and Scandinavian environmental technology firms are perceived as most active. In the air sector, German, American, and Scandinavian companies were evaluated favourably. These countries, and in addition, Austria and Holland, were seen to be most active in the water and wastewater sector. German, Scandinavian, Austrian and American suppliers were ranked high in the waste management sector, while in the energy sector, German, American and Dutch suppliers were most active.
TABLE 4.2: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS BASED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE Category
Contacted
Responses
End-users
25
9
Design/engineering/consulting
31
4
Business units
29
5
R&D, government, and financial institutions
23
11
108
29
Total
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
4.2 Methodology SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN THE SURVEY Three methods were used in the collection of information relevant to the project: ■
formal interviews based on the survey questionnaire;
■
supplementary phone and personal interviews/discussions;
■
literature review and desktop study of relevant official publications and technical papers.
The organisations and institutions included in the survey fall into several categories: ■
Central state institutions of the country, including the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry; the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management; Ekofundusz, etc.;
■
Research and Development institutes, referred to as the “R&D sector;”
■
Industrial plants (a cross-section of various sectors) and water and wastewater operation companies, referred to as “end-users”;
■
Design, engineering, and consulting firms;
■
Business Units3 (this category includes environmental technology suppliers, and turn-key project suppliers, such as engineering-construction companies, engineering-contracting companies, etc.; see footnote for more details)
A total of 108 businesses and institutions were selected as potential respondents to the questionnaire, and were contacted by telephone prior to the start of the project. A complete list (with full contact information) of those contacted is included in Section 4.8. Despite repeated telephone calls and facsimile communications to arrange interviews, only 29 formal interviews based on the questionnaire were confirmed. The distribution of respondents is presented in Table 4.2. In response to the situation, the researcher supplemented the work with non-formal telephone and in-person interviews with the remaining parties. Additional efforts were made to gather and analyse information from literature, technical papers, and official bulletins with regard to key areas of interest for the client (e.g. on-going environmental projects, project opportunities, contact points). There are three main categories of R&D institutions in Poland: academic centers; branch (or ministerial) R&D institutes; and central R&D institutes within the Polish Academy of Science. Leaders in the field of environmental protection are listed in Table 4.4. All of the listed environmental R&D institutes were contacted and/or interviewed during the survey, with the exception of the Institute for Agriculture, Fertilising and Pedology in Pulawy, and the Institute of Physical Planning and Municipal Economy. Additionally, the following institutions and bodies were interviewed for the survey : ■
Environmental Policy Department at the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. The Ministry of Environment is the main government body responsible for environmental management; its responsibilities cover environmental protection and pollution control, nature conservation, water management and flood protection, protection and management of forests, and mineral resources management including exploration and granting of mining concessions. The Ministry’s responsibilities include the development and implementation of national environmental policy, the formulation of regulations for environmental protection, and the supervision of subordinate environmental agencies;
■
Other environmental agencies: regional water management boards, voivodship departments of environmental protection. There are a number of institutions outside the structure of the Ministry of Environment which also play
The selection of interviewed organizations and institutions was carried out so as to ensure the best possible coverage of a cross-section of the market, and to provide information representative of each of the surveyed environmental issues. Specifically, the following criteria were used: ■
varied and diversified fields of activity, and multidisciplinary profile
■
high qualification of specialists;
■
familiarity with specific environmental issues;
■
widespread geographical distribution of organizations across Poland so as to identify specific local and regional environmental issues.
3 For the purpose of this survey, the term “business units” was used to refer to multi-sectoral, profit-oriented companies. Such units are often set up in response to calls for specific projects, since tendering authorities frequently give preference to companies registered within their adminstrative area so as to save on tax expenses. Two main types of companies can be distinguished within the “business units” category: ■ Equipment suppliers (generally, various environmental technology manufacturers); ■ Engineering, construction, contracting and trading companies specializing in capital goods for many industrial branches, including environmental protection systems (generally, turn-key projects suppliers)
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
87
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.3: PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS End-users
Number
Names of Plants
Metallurgical facilities
4
ISKRA, PREMA-MILMET, KETY, Huta Czestochowa
Chemical facilities
8
KONSTAL, Zaklady Papiernicze Jeziorna, Zaklady Azotowe Tarnow, Wizow, Organika-Zachem, Rokita, Boruta, Huta szkla Jaroslaw
Electrical facilities
4
APATOR, CENTRA, FAEL, LUCENT
Food processing industry
4
DANONE, DROBEX-HEINTZ, WINIARY, Sery ICC PASLEK
Wood processing industry
2
ALPEX, PROSPAN
Water and wastewater companies
2
MPWiK, Warsaw; MPWiK, Lublin
1
ATMOTERM
Design and Engineering Air pollution control Water/wastewater treatment, Waste management
15
BIPROWOD, CTBK, DIT, EKOLOG, DOR-EKO, ELIMP, INZYNIERIAPROEKO, EKOLOG System, HYDROPROJEKT-Warszawa, INSTALEXBIOOX, MSS Environmental Engineering, PROJPRZEM, PROSAN in Warsaw , PROSAN in Szczecin, SETO
Environmental technologies
7
ARKA Konsorcjum, EKOCOMP, EKOKONREM, ENERGOPOMIAR, PROCHEM, SALGEO, STOLICA
Noise and vibration control
1
DECYBEL
Energy-related technologies
1
Energoprojekt
Consulting companies
3
EKOEFEKT, WS Atkins, Narodowa Fundacja Ochrony Srodowiska
5
ABB, SEFAKO Sedziszow, RAFAKO, Fluid Corp. KOWENT
Business Units Air/energy sector Water and wastewater, Waste management
Engineering/construction services
16
6
AQUAMEX, AQUATECH, BIOX, ARCUS, CHEMADEX, EKOFINN, FLOOTEK AB, METEX-HUBER, NETZCH-Jaworski International, NIJHUIS WATER TECHNOLOGY, POWOGAZ, SANITGAZ, SPO MASZ, WIBEX, Geotex, Candela BUDEXPOL Wroclaw, HYDROBUDOWA Poznan, RPRI-Rzeszow, PolimexCekop, Exbud, Elektrim
an important role in environmental protection. The key agencies reporting to the Ministry include the State Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, State Sanitary Inspectorate, and seven regional water management boards. Created in 1991, these boards are responsible for developing programs for water resource management within the main river basins in Poland. According to government policy, they are responsible for collecting fees for water extraction and wastewater discharge, and for the financing of construction and maintenance of water management facilities. ■
National institutions administering environmental financing (National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, and Ekofundusz).
4.3 Overview of the Market With a population of over 38 million and an area of 312 thousand sq.km. (121 thousand sq.mi., slightly smaller than New Mexico) Poland is the largest country in the CEE region. Although there has been a decline in manufacturing activities, and a corresponding reduction in environmental pollution, Poland suffers from some of the most severe environmental problems in the region. Two of the most polluted areas in Europe — Upper Silesia and the Black Triangle — are located in the south and south west of Poland. Considerable environmen-
88
tal damage has occurred in the past, and continues to take place, e.g. the contamination of water resources and soil, deterioration of air quality, and inadequate storage and disposal of waste. The continuing development of heavy industry and an energy sector mainly based on coal are among the key causes of severe pollution. While poor air and water quality are the most frequently cited problems, solid waste and wastewater, transport pollution, and energy related environmental degradation also represent major challenges. Environmental legislation, generally quite developed, is currently being refined. Environmental skills among Polish technicians, policymakers and academics are well developed. Critical points for future environmental initiatives are major capital investments in improving the quality of water resources and air, institutional strengthening, awareness raising, training and clean technologies. Major support will be provided to enforcement agencies. The Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry (hereafter abbreviated to Ministry of Environment, or MoE) is the main governmental body responsible for environmental protection and management in Poland. Several other ministries play an important role in environmental protection. The Ministry of Industry and Commerce is involved in the preparation and implementation of environmental regulations, and in the implementation of environmental programs in industry. Spatial planning, construction, and investment localization, as well as some aspects related to
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
ed substances into air and water; fees are also due for water extraction and waste disposal. Fees are due irrespective of the level of compliance with relevant permits. 62 air emission parameters are covered by the fee system, including fuel combustion releases such as particulates (USD 30.8 per tonne), SO2 and NOx (USD 57.7 per tonne), CO (USD 15.4 per tonne), and CO2 (USD 0.04 per tonne). Groundwater extraction is subject to a fee of USD 0.03 per cubic meter; the fee is multiplied by 2.5 in groundwater sensitive regions (uplands and mountains). Effluent discharge fees are calculated depending on the pollutant load. For instance, fees are paid for BOD (USD 0.8-1.5 per kg load), COD (USD 0.41.1 per kg), suspended solids (USD 0.6 per kg), and heavy metals (USD 7.6 per kg). The fees are further differentiated depending on industry, e.g. reduced fees apply to the food processing industry. Waste disposal fees are assessed based on an extensive waste list (160 types of waste, grouped in four categories — I to IV, from extremely hazardous to non-hazardous wastes). The fees, paid on an annual basis, vary from USD 19.0 per tonne of hazardous waste (e.g. waste with high heavy metal content, used oils, PCB, asbestos) to USD 1.4 per tonne of non-hazardous waste (e.g. wastepaper, construction and building waste). Note that the cost of treatment and disposal has to be paid separately to a waste disposal company.
TABLE 4.4: MAJOR R&D INSTITUTIONS INTERVIEWED Academic R&D centers ■ Warsaw University of Technology ■ Warsaw Agriculture University ■ Wroclaw University of Technology ■ University of Warsaw R&D institutes supervised by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry ■ Institute for Ecology of Industrialized Areas in Katowice ■ Institute of Meteorology and Water Management in Warsaw ■ Institute of Environmental Protection in Warsaw ■ National Geological Institute in Warsaw ■ R&D Center for Mining Technology R&D institutes supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and Economy ■ Institute for Grass Farming and Land Reclamation in Falenty (near Warsaw) ■ Institute for Construction, Mechanization, Electrification of Rural Areas in Warsaw ■ Institute for Agriculture, Fertilizing and Pedology in Pulawy ■ Academy of Mining and Metallurgy in Krakow
■
R&D institutes supervised by the Ministry of Land Use Planning and Construction ■ Institute of Physical Planning and Municipal Economy Central R&D institutes (Polish Academy of Science) ■ The Center for Basic Issues of Mineral Resources and Energy Management, Krakow
municipal water supply, waste, and wastewater management are the responsibility of the Ministry of Physical Planning and Construction. The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare is the main central institution responsible for occupational health and environmental hygiene; it also oversees drugs and foodstuffs, while the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy is partially responsible for occupational health and safety issues. Most environmental permitting is administered at the regional level in the 49 provinces (voivodships, or wojewodztwa). Physical planning and construction permits, as well as utility contracts are issued at the local level in over 2,500 municipalities (gmina). Workplace health & safety management is traditionally separated from environmental protection in Poland. The State Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (Panstwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska or PIOS) is the main body responsible for the enforcement of environmental regulations. The Inspectorate reports to the Ministry of Environment. The structure of the Inspectorate consists of a Head Inspectorate in Warsaw, and 49 voivodship inspectorates (Wojewodzka Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska, WIOS) operating at the provincial level. The inspectorates monitor compliance with environmental regulations and impose environmental fines. The system for assessing environmental fees and fines is rather complex in Poland, and the scope of responsibilities of the various authorities varies depending on the environmental media and the nature of the payment (fee vs. fine). In general: ■
Environmental fees are payable for the emission of regulat-
Environmental fines are assessed when a company exceeds the emission limits set in the relevant operation permit. Air emission fines are 10 times higher than the respective emission fee. Excessive water extraction usually results in fines between two and three times the respective fee. Effluent discharge fines are determined by the level of violation in six pollution categories; fines are also due for excessive pH and temperature of discharged wastewater. For instance, fines for BOD and suspended solids are set at USD 0.3 per kg, while heavy metals and toxic substances are USD 5.4 per kg. Violation of a waste disposal permit leads to fines that are up to 18 times higher than the established fees. Interestingly, on a case-bycase basis, the payment of fines can be postponed or even canceled if the company significantly improves environmental performance in the problem area.
Regulations Poland has developed an extensive environmental legislation framework consisting of acts, executive orders and ordinances. The major pieces of legislation include: ■
1980 Environmental Protection and Management Act (amended and unified in 1993)
■
1974 amended Water Law
■
1994 new Physical Planning Act and Building Law
■
Other acts such as those on forests and farming land, nature conservation, highway planning, geology and mining.
It should be noted there is no framework legislation integrating all environmental regulations in Poland (although a new framework Environmental Protection Act is currently being prepared and is expected sometime in 1999). Based on the local environmental situation, each Voivodship has the right to impose stricter regional environmental standards and regulations than those set out at the national level. On the other hand, some environmental standards are not legally binding and are used only as guidelines by the authorities. The existing legal system poorly incorporates BAT/BATNEEC concepts (Best Available Technology and Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Costs) in environmental standard setting, which often leads to too stringent standards and a routine approach to permitting. There are few provi-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
89
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
■
TABLE 4.5: COUNTRY SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1993-1995 (MLN USD) 1993
1994
1995
Total expenditures on environmental protection (mln USD)
834
936
1308
Environmental expenditures as a % of GDP
1.0
1.0
1.1
Framework Act for Environmental Management, intended for the integration of environmental law.
The major factor driving these legislative changes is harmonization with EU environmental law. Also, refined legal procedures seem necessary to improve enforcement of existing environmental legislation. The government is focusing on the use of economic instruments in environmental protection. It is expected that environmental fees and fines will be increased by between 20 percent and 50 percent above the level of inflation by the year 2000.
Source: Statistical Year Book 1996
TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TABLE 4.6: STRUCTURE OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES USED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INVESTMENTS, 1991-1995 Source of Financing
Participation in Total Investment Costs (%) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
The share of environmental investments in terms of Gross National Product has increased from 0.5 percent in 1985 to 0.7 percent in 1990, 1.0 percent in 1994 and 1.1 percent in 1995. Table 4.5 presents information on recent spending in the field of environmental protection. It should be noted that the increase in environmental expenditures was recorded at a time of drastic reduction in the rate of investment in other branches of the economy. Environmental protection projects in Poland tend to be financed from the following sources:
Environmental funds*
40
58
47
41
40
Investors’ funds and banks’ credits
30
20
25
31
32
5
5
7
5
5
■
investors’ funds;
■
loans from the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management. The main forms of financing are preferential loans, subsidies to commercial credits, and equity stakes in commercial ventures engaged in activity within the environmental field;
* Environmental funds include the National Fund for Environmental Protection & Water Management, and voivodship(s) funds for environmental protection and water management financing
■
low interest loans or grants from voivodship environmental funds;
** includes funds adminstered by Ekofundusz
■
national and regional budgets;
Source: Zródla finansowania inwestycji ekologicznych w Polsce, 1996
■
various types of low interest loans from the Environmental Protection Bank (BOS S.A);
■
regular commercial credits;
■
foreign assistance funds (debt-for-environment swap — Ekofundusz, PHARE funds, Finnish Eco-conversion Fund, World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, etc.).
National budget Local budget (towns, municipalities) Foundations and foreign support **
20
13
16
19
18
5
4
5
4
5
sions for individual approaches to environmental improvements at industrial facilities, including such concepts as transitional temporary permits, stepwise upgrading, etc. Anticipated Regulatory Changes Significant progress has been made since 1989 in creating a comprehensive legal framework for environmental protection in Poland. It is widely expected that environmental enforcement will be strengthened in the coming years, which will result in the appropriate environmental protection measures (and investments) being taken by industry. In the mid-term (1997-2000) it is expected that the following major pieces legislation will be introduced : ■
amendments to the 1980 Environmental Protection and Management Act, including improved environmental procedures in air emission control, emergency planning and responses;
■
Waste Act, currently being completed within Parliament. The draft Act includes measures aimed at comprehensive waste management based on such principles as duty of care, and BATNEEC in waste recycling, treatment and disposal. A new system of waste classification based on the European Waste Classification Catalogue, and a new waste generation permitting system are expected to be incorporated in the new law.
■
a new Water Law. Currently, various drafts are still being debated, particularly with respect to institutional and financial aspects;
90
Table 4.6 presents a breakdown of the sources of environmental expenditures between 1991 and 1995. Between these years, approx. 40 percent of environmental expenditures in Poland were financed from national and voivodship environmental protection funds; about a third by investors’ own funds; and less than a fifth from municipal budgets. The share of state budget and foreign assistance programs was lower than 5 percent. There also exist some smaller financing sources, e.g. the Environmental Know-How Fund; the Agency for Agriculture Restructuring & Modernization (Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa); the Municipal Development Agency (Agencja Rozwoju Komunalnego); Foundation for the Support of Water Supply Development in Rural Areas (Fundacja Wspomagajaca Zaopatrzenie Wsi w Wode); the Small Grants Program of the Global Environmental Facility (Program Malych Dotacji GEF); Foundation for Polish-German Cooperation (Fundacja Wspolpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej); and the Umbrella Project. The above are foundations usually involved in consulting or training projects, or in low-budget investments. Overall, they are of minor importance as a financing source. Table 4.7 presents information on environmental spending by sector. In 1995, spending on air protection accounted for 53 percent of total expenditures (approx. USD 700 million), on
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.7: TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (MLN USD) 1993
1994
1995
Air
325.0
414.4
698.4
Water
428.6
440.8
478.8
(including spending on municipal wastewater treatment plants)
(287.3)
(292.9)
(455.3)
78.1
77.5
124.0
0.6
0.5
2.8
2.9
4.0
Soil protection Nature and biodiversity conservation Noise, vibration Total
1.4 833.6
936.0 1308.1
Note: Some environmental protection investments at industrial plants are connected with the modernization of processes and technological lines, and are not captured in statistics on environmental spending. Source: Statistical Year Book 1996
water protection for 37 percent (approx. USD 480 million), and on waste management for 9 percent (approx. USD 124 million). Information concerning spending on environmental technologies is not tracked by the Central Statistical Office, and there are no publicly available up-to-date market assessments for environmental technologies in Poland. As a guideline, the 1993 Environmental Technologies Export Market Plan, prepared by the Office of Environmental Technologies Exports, estimated that the size of the market for environmentally safe technologies for burning coal and generating power would reach USD 240 million in 1995; the estimate for pollution control equipment was USD 330 million, and for industrial process control USD 98 million. National Environmental Protection Fund Loans and subsidies from the National Environmental Protection Fund account for a significant proportion of environmental expenditures in Poland. It is estimated that during the period 1992-1995, financial resources provided by the Fund amounted to between 22 and 25 percent of national environmental spending. Most of the environmental fees and fines collected are earmarked for environmental purposes, and make up a major part of the revenues of the National and Regional Environmental Funds. An analysis of the Fund’s revenues for 1993 reveals that industry is effectively the main financier of environmental
investment. The main environmental policy instrument applied to industry is the permit system including fees and fines for non-compliance. Table 4.8 presents information on the National Fund’s expenditures. During the period 1990-1995, the Fund’s financial resources were directed mainly toward air protection (45 percent of the total) and water protection (mainly wastewater treatment) projects (40 percent of the total), which indicates the priority areas in national environmental policy. Ekofundusz and the Debt-for-Environment Swap In April 1991, creditor countries constituting the so-called “Paris Club”, agreed to write off 50 percent of the Polish foreign debt, provided that the balance would be paid by 2010. Several bilateral agreements were also reached regarding socalled debt-into-environmental protection swap, whereby an additional 10 percent of the Polish debt could be written off if the equivalent amount was spent on environmental protection. By 1997, Poland had signed bilateral agreements with the following countries: Finland (1990) USD 17 million (10% of the debt) US (1991) USD 370 million (10% of the debt) France (1993) USD 63 million (10% of the debt) Switzerland (1993) USD 66 million (10% of the debt) Sweden was also considering signing an swap agreement in mid-1997. Ekofundusz was established by the Minister of Finance in 1992, as an independent non-profit foundation charged with administering the financial resources made available via the debt-swap scheme courtesy of the US, Switzerland and France. A separate agreement with Finland was reached earlier, establishing a bilateral mechanism managed by a special PolishFinnish Task Force. The Finnish funds are managed by EkoEfekt, a company in Gliwice fully owned by the National Environmental Protection Fund. Expenditures of Ekofundusz are presented in Table 4.9. Foreign Assistance Programs Overall, foreign assistance programs account for less than 5 percent of Polish environmental expenditures. Information on foreign assistance for environmental projects is presented in Table 4.10. The PHARE program of the European Union is the main foreign source of environmental protection project financing in Poland. Financial participation of foreign countries is very limited in comparison with Poland’s total spending on envi-
TABLE 4.8: NATIONAL FUND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND WATER MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURES ACCORDING TO PROJECT TYPE 1990-1995 (IN MILLION USD) Specification
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Total
Air protection
2.9
54.1
69.2
82.3
75.3
175.4
459.2
Water protection & water management
4.8
44.1
102.2
60.3
84.7
111.6
407.7
Soil protection
0.2
8.2
11.4
10.6
15.2
18.5
64.1
Nature conservation
0.6
1.1
4.1
5.2
12.5
11.4
34.9
-
1.8
8.0
8.7
7.0
4.0
29.5
0.1
0.7
1.5
2.1
1.8
4.0
10.2
Monitoring Environmental education Emergency response issues & others Total
-
0.1
8.6
5.3
11.5
11.3
36.8
8.6
110.1
205.0
174.5
208.0
336.2
1042.4
Source: Statistical Year Book 1996, reprinted from National Fund’s reports
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
91
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.9: EKOFUNDUSZ SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN POLAND BETWEEN 1992 AND 1995 (MLN USD) Country
1992
1993
1994
6.5
6.5
6.5
24.2
43.7
-
0.4
1.2
1.2
2.8
USA France Switzerland Total
1995 Total
-
-
1.0
1.4
2.4
6.5
6.9
8.7
26.8
48.9
Source: Ekofundusz, Konwersja Polskiego Dlugu na Ochrone Srodowiska 1992-1995
TABLE 4.10: FOREIGN FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INVESTMENTS IN POLAND DURING THE PERIOD 1991-1995 Source of Financing
Number Total Sum of Projects (mln USD)
Percentage (%)
European Union (PHARE)
83
113.2
31.4
Denmark
118
56.6
15.7
Netherlands
34
51.5
14.3
Germany
2
45.4
12.6
USA
10
36.5
10.1
Sweden
25
23.4
6.5
Finland
63
14.1
3.9
Japan
3
5.6
1.6
Norway
21
5.1
1.4
Switzerland
4
4.5
1.2
Belgium
6
3.3
0.9
Great Britain TOTAL
13
1.6
0.4
382
360.8
100.0
Note: The figures quoted refer to public funds and do not include private investment. Data according to the Statistical Year Book 1996
TABLE 4.11: FOREIGN FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INVESTMENTS IN POLAND BY SECTOR, 1991-1995 Category
Number of Projects Mln USD 59
148.5
41.1
Water protection and water and wastewater management
146
94.1
26.1
Soil Protection
33
17.2
4.8
Nature conservation
27
30.3
8.5
Monitoring
20
21.9
6.1
Other
97
48.8
13.4
Total
382
360.8
100.0
92
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION National Environmental Policy Priorities Developed in the early 1990s, Polish National Environmental Policy is already bringing positive results in terms of environmental protection (even if the improvements achieved in the initial years of economic transformation were partly due to a decline in industrial activities). Poland has generally been successful in mobilising financial resources for environmental improvements. The major sources of funding are industrial enterprises themselves (up to a third of the total expenditures) and environmental fees & fines channelled through national and regional environmental funds (up to 50 percent of national expenditures). Considerably less is spent from the state budget and foreign assistance programs. In recent years, Poland has spent some USD 1 billion annually on environmental protection, about 1 percent of GDP, with both actual spending and the share in GDP growing. In 1991, the National Environmental Policy Statement, adopted by the Government and Parliament, underlined the commitment to clean up the environmental negligence of the past, and to introduce a policy based on the principles of sustainable development. Short, medium and long term objectives were developed in order to resolve the most important issues, to control the trends in environmental deterioration, and to integrate environmental aspects with economic and social issues. Presented below are the environmental priorities based on the National Environmental Policy Statement, and the Executive Program prepared by the Ministry of Environment. Short-term priorities (to be implemented during the midnineties, and which are still in progress): ■
change of manufacturing profiles, closure, or implementation of environmental protection measures in industrial facilities emitting dangerous substances into the air, disposal of toxic substances into wastewater, or storage of dangerous substances;
■
implementation of the coal quality improvement program (removal of sulfur, increasing the calorific value of pulverized coal); improvement of management efficiency; and air emission control installations (reduction of particulate and SO2 emissions into the air);
■
noticeable reduction in dust and gaseous emissions, particularly in Upper Silesia as well as in other regions; reduction of low-stack and diffuse emissions;
■
reduction of shortages in high-quality drinking water supply in urban areas, mainly through the construction of wastewater treatment plants in cities located along the tributaries of Vistula, Odra, and Pomeranian Rivers; simultaneous modern-
Percentage
Air protection
Source: Statistical Year Book 1996
ronmental projects. Major donor countries include Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and the US. Table 4.11 presents details of foreign financial participation by environmental sector. Foreign financing was mainly directed toward air protection projects, and the protection of water resources, which corresponds well with national environmental priorities. During the period 1991-1995, the largest proportion of foreign funds was spent on pollution control installations and construction of treatment plants; and deliveries of state-of-theart technical equipment. Another significant category included various technical and feasibility studies, as well as the preparation of master plans. However, it is expected that in the near future this category of services will be to a large degree provided by local companies.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.12: ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS WITH FOREIGN FINANCING IN THE PERIOD 1991-1995 Number of Projects
Mln USD
Percentage
Investments
160
204.3
56.6
Pollution control installation and treatment plant construction
23
98.0
27.1
Monitoring equipment supplies
16
19.9
5.5
Technical equipment supplies
102
69.6
19.3
Technical documentation and know-how supplies
19
16.8
4.7
Pre-investment studies
106
96.7
26.8
Technical studies
65
55.3
15.3
Feasibility studies
16
10.8
3.0
Master plans
25
30.6
8.5
Other projects
116
59.8
16.6
Management and finance
27
18.9
5.2
Training
34
9.6
2.7
Monitoring
5
4.4
1.2
Non-investment supplies
19
19.4
5.4
Other
31
7.5
2.1
Total
382
360.8
100.0
Type of Project
reduction of air emissions of volatile organic substances, hydrocarbons (including benzo-a-pyrene), heavy metals and other air pollutants;
■
actions to counteract global climate change (i.e. reduction in emissions of CO2 and other gases causing the greenhouse effect, and protection of the ozone layer);
Concerning the protection and rational use of water resources, the priorities are as follows: ■
50 percent reduction of pollution loads discharged by industry and municipalities into rivers. The goal is to be achieved through the decrease in the amount of untreated industrial and municipal wastewater from the current 0.5 billion, and 1.2 billion cubic meters respectively, to 0.1 billion and 0.6 billion cubic meters by the year 2000, as well as by increasing the rate of highly effective wastewater treatment systems (biological and chemical) in the overall wastewater treatment from the present 48 percent of total volume to 70 percent in the year 2000;
■
improvement of sanitary conditions in rural areas by supplementing village water supply systems with adequate sanitation;
■
alleviation of water shortages in urban areas, and the provision of water supply for drinking and production purposes in rural areas;
■
reduction of the negative impacts of saline water from mining discharged into the Upper Vistula and Odra Rivers;
■
use of deep groundwater aquifers for drinking water supply; termination of industrial use of these resources except for the food and pharmaceutical industries;
For the remaining issues regarding environmental protection, the following priorities have been identified for the medium term:
Source: Statistical Year Book 1996
ization of waterworks systems, and increasing water retention capacity as well as improved water resources management; ■
radical reduction of the solid waste burden through the implementation of adequate management systems for industrial and municipal solid wastes, and disposal of toxic wastes;
■
gradual elimination of food crop production on soils affected by toxic substances;
■
initiation of the reduction of adverse environmental effects caused by communication and transport;
■
improvement and extension of monitoring systems along Polish borders (air, water, solid waste);
■
intensive reforestation program, particularly in watershed areas and on land unsuitable for agricultural use;
■
environmental education of the public, with particular emphasis on the awareness of responsibility for the state of environment and respect for nature.
Medium-term priorities (to be implemented by the year 2000). With regard to air quality protection, the following priorities have been identified: ■
from 92 percent at present to 96 percent by the year 2000); ■
reduction of SO2 emissions to the air by 30 percent by the year 2000 compared with 1980 levels (i.e. from 4.2 million tons per year to 2.9 million tons);
■
reduction of NOx emissions to the air by 10 percent (i.e. from 1.5 million tons per year to 1.3-1.4 million tons);
■
reduction of dust emissions to the air by about 50 percent (i.e. an increase in the particulate removal efficiency of flue gases emitted by industrial and power generating plants
■
proper treatment or safe storage of all hazardous wastes;
■
20 percent reduction in the generation of all high-volume industrial wastes requiring storage or dumping, and increasing the rate of their utilization;
■
creation of a system of pre-selection and recycling of municipal wastes, and introducing technologies for composting, incineration, and biogas production;
■
reclamation of degraded and contaminated land;
■
implementing noise control measures so that less than 25 percent of the population will be temporarily exposed to noise levels exceeding legal standards;
■
creation of a system for the early identification of non-ionizing radiation, and counteracting the threats to the environment from ionizing radiation and catastrophic emissions of chemical substances.
Long-term priorities (until the year 2020) ■
introduction of environment-friendly, modern manufacturing techniques throughout all production processes; support for the implementation of clean technologies rather than for the use of “end-of-pipe” equipment;
■
remediation of environmental damages and the creation of a system preventing their repeated occurrence;
■
restructuring of the economic system to work in tune with environmental protection so that economic gains are linked with the state of the environment;
■
consolidation of environmental, cultural, and ethical values beneficial to the environment;
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
93
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
■
consolidation of the policy of sustainable development as the basis for economic and social policy of the state, local municipal self-governing bodies, enterprises, and institutions, as well as individual citizens.
The implementation of the long-term strategy for environmental protection requires expenditures estimated at USD 260 billion. The estimate also includes the costs of changing the structure of the economy and switching to environmentallysound technologies. The 1994 National Environmental Policy Programme to the Year 2000 has been developed as an ambitious plan to implement the medium-term policy objectives. Its main priorities are related to the reduction of environmental pressures on the air, water and soil, development of waste treatment and disposal facilities, water resources development, as well as the expansion/enlargement of nature conservation areas. The total budget required for the Programme to the year 2000 is estimated at USD 13 billion. Previous estimates of the overall cost of environmental improvements to the end of the 1990s ranged from USD 35 billion to 50 billion. Priorities of the National Environmental Protection Fund The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management plays a key role in environmental protection in Poland by providing low interest financing and grants. The Fund, reporting to the Minister of Environment (although operating independently from the Ministry), sets out its funding priorities in accordance with national environmental policy. The Fund is the largest financing institution in the field of environmental protection in Poland, and the only one of its size in the CEE region. About 25 percent of the total expenditures for environmental protection are covered by the Fund. Fund revenues in 1995 amounted to USD 416 million, and over its six years of operation, the Fund granted more than 3,000 loans and subsidies, totaling over USD 600 million. The Fund also manages resources from foreign assistance programs. The priority areas for environmental protection investments financed by the National Fund include: ■
Water resources protection, by providing financial support for the construction of water and wastewater treatment plants, water saving technologies, construction of closed water circulation and multiple-use systems;
■
Air quality protection by supporting modern technologies, particularly for the reduction of energy consumption and elimination of harmful air emissions; rationalization of heating systems; production and installation of pollution reducing equipment; the use of alternative sources of energy; and the encouragement of modern technological improvements to reduce the environmental impact of road transport;
■
■
■
94
Protection of land surface, and improvements in waste management by supporting low and non-waste technologies; utilization and treatment of industrial and municipal wastes, proper handling of hazardous wastes (including hospital wastes); waste re-use at source; reclamation and re-cultivation of degraded soils;
palace gardens registered as historical sites; ■
Environmental education by supporting training projects, radio and television programs; support for environmental education programs on a national scale;
■
Monitoring of the environment and financial support for the implementation of projects resulting from the National Environmental Monitoring Program.
The form of financing available from the Fund depends on the project type, the investor, and the financing institution. Possible options include: ■
grants, used for co-financing of priority projects, environmental education, and high-risk pilot projects;
■
preferential loans, covering up to 50 percent of project cost, except in those projects undertaken by local authorities, where up to 70 percent is available. The preferential interest rate is just above the discount rate of the National Bank of Poland;
■
subsidies to bank credits (e.g. from the Bank for Environmental Protection) to cover the difference between the commercial interest rate and the preferential rate (this mechanism is being phased out);
■
partial loan write-offs, whereby a part of the debt is cancelled for borrowers who meet the agreed criteria and Fund conditions;
■
equity involvement.
Ekofundusz Priorities Some environmental protection projects can be partly financed from the sources of Ekofundusz. The foundation, established in the fall of 1992, is responsible for administering the debt-for-environment swap funds. Currently, USA, France and Switzerland have approved the procedure of debt-for-environment swap arrangement and signed respective bilateral agreements. The Council of Ekofundusz, consisting of members from Poland and the creditor countries, sets the foundation’s priorities, evaluates its operation, and makes final funding decisions. Ekofundusz provides support in the following four areas: ■
long-range transboundary air pollution abatement (SO2 and NOx);
■
increased control of contamination and eutrophication of the Baltic Sea;
■
greenhouse gas abatement, mainly through promoting new energy-efficient technologies and CFC emission reduction;
■
protection of biological diversity.
Submitted projects need to fulfil at least one of the following technical criteria: ■
efficiency, i.e. high environmental benefit-to-cost ratio;
■
promotion of new technologies and organizational techniques, particularly through demonstration projects;
Geological and hydrogeological research; development of mining technologies and the processing of minerals; collection and purification of mining waters; re-cultivation of areas degraded by mining activities;
■
development of the environmental protection sector and environmentally sound manufacturing in Poland;
■
enhancement of professional expertise of Polish specialists and/or environmental awareness of Polish society.
Conservation of nature by providing financial assistance for projects implemented in regions under special care; projects focused on organization and management of teaching, training, and research centers (scientific facilities) in national parks; restitution and reintroduction of endangered species; complete protection of forest stands and biocenosis; restoration of natural heritage in parks and
The Ekofundusz grants up to 30 percent of the total project cost, except for municipal and nature conservation projects, where it may cover, respectively, a maximum of 50 percent and 80 percent of the total project cost. Funds are only available at the investment stage (except nature resource protection), and feasibility studies and project support are not eligible for assistance.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.13: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS LISTED BY RESPONDENTS Category
Problem Description and Expected Duration
Geographic Location
Air
Emission of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust, particularly in connection with coal-fired boilers
National
Defluorization of flue gases
Chemical industry, Wizow.
Lack of high-quality water-based paints
Entire market
Low-stack air emissions (especially in winter)
National, in urban areas
Air emissions from transport
National
Fugitive air emissions in industry
National
Air emissions of solvents in industrial plants
National
Evaluation of the effectiveness of air protection programs, including various air quality monitoring methods
National
High degree of surface water contamination, leading to the excessive exploitation of aquifers (ground water)
National
Lack of high-efficiency water treatment technologies;
National
Lack of closed loop water systems (water usage minimization), mainly at industrial plants
National
Poor quality drinking water
National
Excessive water consumption
National
Lack of integration of water monitoring data in comprehensive water management systems
National
Too stringent wastewater treatment and discharge standards (consuming excessive funds and limiting resources available for other investments)
National
High amounts of discharge wastewater
National
Insufficient wastewater treatment capacity
National
Lack of appropriate technologies for sludge treatment, dewatering and disposal; thus, wide use of land disposal.
National
Lack of technologies for cheap macro nutrients removal in municipal and industrial (mainly at chemical processing plants) wastewater plants
National
Lack of cost-effective solutions for removal of dissolved substances (chlorides, sulfates, etc.)
National, particularly saline waters from coal mining and the chemical industries
Lack of appropriate legal framework for development of waste processing companies
National
Lack of cost-effective methods for spent coolants and metal polishing waste treatment
National, specific to metal-processing industries
Poor selection of waste collection, separation, recycling, treatment and disposal methods
National
Lack of a database allowing timely access to information on companies offering waste management and disposal services
National
Lack of a policy framework for waste minimization and resource recovery
National
Phosphogypsum application/utilization methods
National
Lack of incinerators for thermal destruction of hazardous wastes
National
Lack of agricultural waste treatment
National
Air emissions from fossil fuel burning
National
Water
Wastewater
Waste
Energy
Disposal of gypsum waste from desulfurization systems in energy generation National Noise and Vibration
Lack of environment-friendly technologies for energy generation
National
High noise emission levels
Most industries
Work site (H&S issue) noise levels
Most industries
Excessive noise levels in urban areas
National
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
95
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.13 (CONTINUED): MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS LISTED BY RESPONDENTS
Other
Environmental impacts of highways and express roads
National
Significant local contamination of soil and ground water
Spread across the country, particularly former Russian bases in the west of Poland
Forest degradation
National
Environmental damages from mining activities
Mining areas
Excessive consumption of natural resources by industry
National
Environmental impact of non-ionizing radiation
Large municipalities, towns
It is worth noting that the debt-for-environment swap mechanism has become a useful tool for introducing and promoting businesses from the creditor countries to the Polish environmental market.
4.4 Project Opportunities
Entailing Excessive Cost) environmental technologies; ■
water resources management, including water conservation systems;
■
wastewater treatment, and sludge treatment and disposal, including development and application of BAT/BATNEEC environmental technologies;
■
waste management, including waste collection systems, treatment and disposal; special attention to recycling methods and development of technologies focused on process waste utilization.
MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS A summary of the responses from interviews with regard to the significant environmental problems and areas of opportunity is presented in Table 4.13. Practically none of the respondents defined the expected duration of environmental problems. Comments from the respondents show that they perceived “major environmental problems” in a variety of ways. Some respondents indicated the poor legal framework and enforcement of legislation as a major issue in Poland, while others concentrated on technical and technological problems encountered during day-to-day operations. Nevertheless, the following issues appeared the most important environmental problems needing to be addressed: organized and fugitive emission control (at industrial plants, but also in rural areas), including development and application of BATNEEC (Best Available Technology Not
■
TABLE 4.14: ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES IN THE MOST POLLUTED VOIVODSHIPS IN POLAND, 1995
Voivodship Katowice
Share in National Environmental Expenditures (%)
Environmental Expenditures (mln USD)
22.5%
294
Opole
8.8%
115
Plock
6.0%
78
Jelenia Gora
4.3%
56
Piotrkow
4.2%
55
Warsaw
4.1%
54
Legnica
3.7%
48
Wroclaw
2.9%
38
Szczecin
2.7%
35
Lodz
2.5%
33
Subtotal
61.7%
806
Poland
100%
1,308
Source: Environmental Protection Yearbook, 1996
96
Energy issues were addressed by respondents only from the air pollution point of view; hence very few comments were recieved regarding energy as a separate environmental problem. Noise & vibration, and soil contamination issues, as well as occupational health & safety aspects were not perceived by the respondents as priority environmental problems in Poland. Practically no respondents indicated the geographic location of specific problems. However, the 10 most polluted voivodships in the country account for over 60 percent of the total national environmental protection expenditures, so an insight into the regional distribution of environmental problems can be gained from examining environmental spending across voivodships. Table 4.14 presents voivodships where 1995 environmental expenditures exceeded USD 30 million. Most of the voivodships listed in Table 4.14 are located in the Silesia and Black Triangle regions in the south and south-west of Poland. Others represent major industrial and economic centers located throughout the country (Plock, Warsaw, Szczecin, Lodz).
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN PROGRESS In general, respondents were reluctant to discuss details of their current environmental projects. The following current projects in progress were listed (respondents listed in brackets): ■
Implementation of a national environmental monitoring system (PIOS — State Environmental Protection Inspectorate)
■
Construction of small wastewater treatment plants (5-500 PE) and installation of modern waste sludge dewatering units (EKOFIN-POL)
■
Wastewater treatment equipment deliveries to wastewater treatment plants in Zamosc, Debica, Jarocin, Walbrzych, Wroclaw, Malbork, Ciechanow (PHARE and Finnish ecoconversion projects carried out by Metex-Huber)
■
Replacement of the heating system for glass baths (70-80 percent reduction of NOx emissions) and closure of the cooling water loop (glass mill, Jaroslaw)
■
Conceptual design of phosphorus removal in wastewater treatment processes; agricultural application of phosphogypsum (chemical plant, Wizow)
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
■
Construction of a combined municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plant (chemical plant, “Boruta,” Zgierz)
■
Installation of dust removal equipment; monitoring of ground water quality (Centra Poznan, battery manufacturer)
■
Modernization of the existing wastewater treatment plant and sludge disposal process (ICC Paslek, diary/food processing)
■
Construction of a combined industrial/municipal wastewater treatment plant; modernization of production processes (Organika-Zachem chemical plant, Bydgoszcz)
■
Gas desulfurization in Konin power plant; dust removal and desulfurization process for Laziska power plant; desulfurization DRYPAC process for Lagisza power plant; dust removal system for Batory Foundry, Pokoj Foundry and Glogow Foundry; modernization of power plant Turow and Polaniec (ABB)
■
Modernization and expansion of existing Wastewater treatment plants (Biprowod)
■
Construction of a municipal watewater treatment plant for Ostrowiec Swietokrzyski, Lomza and Starachowice (CTBK Warsaw)
■
Construction of fluidized bed boilers for district heating systems in Morag and Gostynin (Fluid Corporation)
■
Waste management programs for seven voivodships located in south-eastern Poland (PROCHEM)
■
Waste monitoring and records management/coordination program for Poland (PROCHEM)
■
Air pollution control and modernization of power/heat generating installations (nitrogen compounds manufacturing, Zaklady Azotowe in Tarnów)
■
Construction of desulfurization installations in Opole, Belchatow power generating plant;
■
Construction of a wastewater treatment plants in Warsaw, Torun, Kalisz;
■
Construction of a waste incineration plant in Warsaw;
The projects above are a small sample of the environmental projects currently being implemented, but do indicate that water resource protection and wastewater treatment, as well as air pollution control are the sectors where most activity is taking place in the environmental market in Poland. Please note that the best and most comprehensive source of information on significant environmental projects recently completed or those currently under implementation are the annual reports issued by the respective voivodship environmental protection inspectorates (WIOS) in each of the 49 voivodships. The latest reports are available from local WIOS offices; a sample of the 1995 annual voivodship reports which were available during the survey is presented in Section 4.9. World Bank Assistance Program Several important projects with foreign co-financing were identified in the World Bank Financial Assistance Program (Program of Cooperation, Resident Mission, Warsaw 1996). The list of projects under preparation for the next several years includes the following. Support for continuing government efforts in the energy sector to increase energy efficiency and to minimize the environmental impact of power generating plants. Eight to 10 new projects were included: ■
Ozone Depleting Substances Phase-Out Project (USD 6.2 million grant funding under the Global Environmental Facility, GEF);
■
Power Generation Plants Modernization; two projects focused on rehabilitation and modernization of power generating facilities, including the installation of pollution abatement equipment at Dolna Odra and Rybnik power plants;
■
First Geothermal and Environment Project; the project aims at reducing environmental pollution from domestic heating and small boilers by modernizing the district heating systems of Zakopane and Nowy Targ, and the usage of geothermal energy resources. Project cost is estimated at USD 50 million; project preparation is currently on hold. Implementing agency: Geotermia Podhalanska, Olcza, Stachonie 2A, 30-502, Zakopane, Poland. Tel: (48-165) 11980. Fax: (48-165) 11-981.;
■
Support to the Hard Coal Sector Restructuring Program; the USD 150 million project which will provide: indirect financial assistance for closure/merger of coal mines; incentive packages; mining site reclamation; and implementation of a variety of training and other programs to minimize the social costs of restructuring;
■
Other possible projects in the energy sector include power transmission issues, continuation of geothermal/district heating projects, a gas project to diversify gas supply options, development of a new combined power/heat supply plant with private sector participation, heat supply and demand side management project.
The rehabilitation and modernization of municipal infrastructure: ■
Water and wastewater projects in Krakow, Wroclaw, and Bydgoszcz. Projects will finance institutional strengthening and investments for the rehabilitation and expansion of water supply and wastewater systems for the municipal water and wastewater utilities. This will include: upgrading and optimization of water treatment plants; construction of distribution mains and programs for water network rehabilitation and improvement; construction of sewage collectors; and programs for sewer network rehabilitation and improvements combined with technical assistance for institutional improvement and engineering services. Implementing agency contacts: in Krakow: Mr. Wojciech Studnicki, Director, MPWiK Krakow, ul. Senatorska 1, Krakow. Tel: (48-12) 212-011, Fax: (48-12) 214-412. In Wroclaw: Mr. Witold Sumislawski, Manager, MPWiK Wroclaw, ul. NA Grobli 14/16, 60-421 Wroclaw, Poland. Tel: (48-71) 447-121, Fax: (48-71) 446-515. In Bydgogszcz: Mr. Wojciech Pawlak, Director, MWiK Bydgoszcz, ul. Torunska 103, 86-817, Bydgoszcz, Poland. Tel: (48-52) 718-746, Fax: (48-52) 711-297.
■
A USD 50 million Solid Waste Management Privatization project in Wroclaw which will improve solid waste collection and disposal services in Wroclaw through the introduction of private sector financing, and building and operation of waste management facilities. Implementing agency: City of Wroclaw, Nowy Targ 1/8, 50-141 Wroclaw; Tel: (48-71) 407-112, Fax: (48-71) 443-750. A follow up project is planned for Warsaw, to support the efforts of the city to implement a comprehensive and integrated solid waste management program.
Project Preparation Committee The Project Preparation Committee (PPC) is a mechanism developed by potential donor governments and international financing institutions during the 1993 Environment for Europe Conference in Luzern, Switzerland. The purpose of the PPC is to coordinate fundraising for major environmental projects
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
97
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.15: PROJECT PREPARATION COMMITTEE MATCHED PROJECTS Total Project Cost (ECU mln)
Donors/ Financing Institutions
Short Description
Pyrzyce Geothermal Plant
15
Denmark, EU-Phare, Germany
Establishment of a new district heating plant based on natural gas and geothermal energy, converting 68 coal-fired boilerplants to cleaner energy sources
Integrated Nun-Moth Suppression
18
Denmark, EU-Phare, IBRD
Financing of a spraying program including new ecologically acceptable spraying solutions and equipment; control and monitoring program
Warsaw Sewage Treatment Plant
92
France, EIB
Construction of a new sewage treatment plant in south Warsaw
National Investment Funds (NIF) — Environmental Training Program
50
Norway, EBRD
Increasing the awareness of the NIFs on environmental issues associated with their investee companies
n.a.
USAID, IBRD
Air pollution abatement by replacing coal with geothermal energy. Support for feasibility studies and technical assistance in technical areas
Programs under Implementation
Matched Projects Geothermal Energy Zyrardow (district heating) Wastewater Treatment Plant for Jelenia Gora
15
Denmark, EU-Phare
Feasibility studies, including financial analysis and preliminary design have been completed. Plant rehabilitation to be implemented
Coal Restructuring and Environment Project
200-300
EU-Phare, Germany, IBRD
Financing of mine restructuring with emphasis on mine closures. Preparation support is sought for environmental audits of mines to be closed
Zakopane Geothermal Project
50
Denmark, Financing of a district heating network based on geothermal EU-Phare, energy. Preparation support is sought for geological feasibility Germany, studies and the development of management infrastructure Netherlands, Switzerland, IBRD
Szczecin Geothermal Project
60
Denmark, Germany
Switch from coal to geothermal energy of a district heating plant. Preparation support is sought for geological feasibility studies
Water Management Project
n.a.
Denmark, Financing of the development of water management and EU-Phare, construction of wastewater treatment plants. Preparation support Germany, is sought for feasibility studies Netherlands, Switzerland, IBRD
Solid Waste Management Privatization (Krakow, Warsaw, Wroclaw)
n.a.
Germany, IBRD
Note: 1 ECU = 1.17 USD (March 97)
Source: PPC — List of PPC Projects, February 97
n.a.
endorsed by individual governments. The funding request must originate from the borrowing government. The role of the PPC is to ensure that the submitted project matches certain business and formal criteria, and then to match the project with interested funders. As of February 1997, the projects listed in Table 4.15 were planned or under implementation in Poland.
MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES It is clear from the survey that the interviewed parties were not aware of any central body or organization collecting infor-
98
mation on environmental business opportunities. Most information flow is based on personal and professional contacts. To provide a more complete picture, this section presents the findings from the interviews, followed by a more in-depth discussion of selected issues, and supplementary information from sources other than survey interviews. Survey Findings In general, respondents were not willing to discuss their sources of information on business opportunities, and the majority did not indicate any single contact in response to the question. Potential sources mentioned by respondents are summarized in Table 4.16.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
■
TABLE 4.16: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ON SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES Number of Responses
Organization Name Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry
1
The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management
2
Voivodship departments of environmental protection
1
Voivodship environmental protection funds
1
National Environmental Protection Inspectorate
1
Institute of Patent Information
1
Institute of Chemical Industry Economics
1
Design offices
1
Consulting offices
1
Publications
1
Note: A comprehensive list of useful contacts is provided in Table 4.24
Respondents from the “business unit4” category mentioned the following sources of information on environmental business opportunities: ■
Personal contacts and discussions with others in the field;
■
Personal contacts with potential clients (industrial plants, municipalities);
■
Annual environmental reports prepared by each of the 49 Voivodships (see below for a detailed discussion);
Bulletin on Public Tendering, published by the Public Tendering Office. (Aaccording to Polish regulations, if a project involves financing from public sources, it must be announced in the Bulletin; see following sections for more details.)
An important source for technical information in Poland are annual environmental fairs. Table 4.17 summarizes the events listed by respondents; figures in brackets represent the number of respondents indicating the fair. Supplementary Information Overall, findings presented above indicate that there are few formal information flow channels on environmental business opportunities in Poland — most information dissemination is based on personal contacts. This picture corresponds well with the findings of a 1995 survey carried out by the Regional Environmental Center among 150 environmental technology and service providers in Poland. Table 4.18 summarizes the responses to the question posed in this survey: “How do you find out about new environmental business opportunities?” Personal contacts were by far the major channel of information. Trade shows and fairs, environmental and business publications, and professional associations are discussed below Based on the 1995 survey, the main business and environmental publications read by Polish environmental professionals included those listed in Table 4.19. Interestingly, 30 percent of respondents stated that they did not read any environment-related publications. Finally, the role of environmental and trade associations in Poland is quite limited, as shown in Table 4.20. Annual Regional Environmental Reports Several respondents from the business sector mentioned annual environmental reports as a potential source of information about business opportunities. Each of the 49 provinces or voivodships in Poland (regional levels of state administration) publish annual environmental reports, where among
TABLE 4.17: ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE FAIR LISTED BY RESPONDENTS Name of Fair
City
Approximate Date
Focus
BUDMA (1)
Poznan
January/February
Construction materials & technologies
Consumer Fair (2)
Poznan
March
Manufactured products exhibition
InterEko (2)
Katowice
March/April
Environmental protection
SalMed (1)
Poznan
March
Health & safety
Wod-Kan (2)
Bydgoszcz
May
Environmental protection
Ecological Fair (1)
Krakow
May
Environmental protection
International Fair of Poznan (1)
Poznan
June
Capital and industrial goods, engineering services
Polagra (2)
Poznan
September
Food products
Sawo (1)
Bydgoszcz
September
Health & safety
Interfashion (1)
Lodz
n.a.
Textile industry
Leather Industry Fair (1)
Radom
September
Leather industry
PolEko (9)
Poznan
November
Environmental protection technology and systems, measuring equipment
Note: A detailed list of environment-related fairs in Poland is provided in Table 4.23. Figures in brackets represents the number of responses
4
For the purpose of this survey, the term “business units” was used to refer to multi-sectoral, profit-oriented companies; two main types of companies can be distinguished: ■ equipment suppliers (generally, various environmental technology manufacturers); ■ engineering, construction, and contracting and trading companies specializing in capital goods for many industrial branches, including environmental protection systems (generally, turn-key projects suppliers)
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
99
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.18: SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES Source of Information
Respondents (%)
TABLE 4.19: MAIN BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENT PUBLICATIONS Publication
Respondents (%)
Personal contacts
98
Gaz, Woda, and Technika Sanitarna
43
Trade shows and fairs
91
Ochrona Srodowiska
23
Referrals from associates
85
Aura
20
Daily press
84
Ekopartner
18
Environmental publications
83
Ochrona Powietrza
13
Conference attendance
81
Gospodarka Wodna
11
Business publications
77
Srodowisko
9
Mailing lists
65
Instalator
8
Local government offices
59
Rzeczpospolita
6
Professional associations
53
6
Fax
42
Biuletyn Komisji d/s Ocen Oddzialywania na Sordowisko
Universities/Academy of Science
42
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
Environmental ministry
31
Chamber of commerce
24
Other ministries
19
Ministry of Industry/Trade
17
Other
13
E-mail
7
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
other things, the following information is provided:
TABLE 4.20: MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS Association
Respondents Enlisted (%)
Polish Sanitary Engineers and Technicians Associations (PZITS)
21
Chief Technical Organization (NOT)
11
description of key environmental issues in the province;
Associations of Polish Mechanical Engineers (SIMP)
9
■ ■
current monitoring data;
Chamber of Commerce (Izba Gospodarcza)
6
■
presentation of completed projects or projects under implementation;
Association of Polish Electrical Engineers (SEP)
5
Association of Land Melioration Engineers and Technicians (SITWM)
5
■
■
planned short-term and long-term environmental protection projects (including all environmental categories: water and wastewater projects, air pollution control, etc.); other information relevant to the region.
The voivodships’ annual reports are prepared at the beginning of each year. The most significant environmental protection projects, collected from reports which were available at the time of the survey, are presented in Table 4.22. Additionally, investments reports from nine selected voivodships are presented in Section 4.9. Public Procurement Act Another source of business information mentioned by several respondents was the Bulletin on Public Tendering (Biuletyn Zamowien Publicznych), published monthly by the Public Tendering Office. Table 4.21 provides further highlights. In 1995, expenditures regulated under the Act on Public Procurement exceeded the equivalent of USD 4 billion. The Act on Public Procurement is intended to enable investors to solicit and select the “best offer” when they spend public money on goods, services and construction. The act was enacted in 1994 and amended during mid-1995. The Act creates a uniform public procurement system and introduces a precisely described legal framework for competition among entities pursuing public contracts. The Act mandates fair, equal treatment, full open competition, and, clear, precise disclosure of information. It prescribes detailed record-
100
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
TABLE 4.21: PUBLIC PROCUREMENT IN POLAND – HIGHLIGHTS PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OFFICE ul. Litewska 2/4, 00-581 Warszawa, Tel: (48-22) 694-7206 or (48-22) 694-6810 Internet address: http://www.urm.gov.pl//uzp/iuzpa.html According to the Polish Public Procurement Act, if a project is financed, or partly financed, from public sources, a “Bid Invitation” must be published in the Bulletin on Public Tendering. Various types of projects, including environmental, are presented in the Bulletin; Contact details for further project information and tendering procedures is included in the Bulletin. Domestic companies or joint-ventures of Polish and foreign companies are given priority in bid evaluations. Note: The website includes current issues of the Bulletin on Public Tendering, in Polish
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.22: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS UNDER IMPLEMENTATION IN SELECTED VOIVODSHIPS IN POLAND Voivodship No. Name
Environmental Category
Type/Number of Projects
1
Water and wastewater
Industrial wastewater treatment plants: 6 projects
Gdansk
Municipal wastewater treatment plants: 14 projects Air
Implementation of low emission production technology : 6 projects Boiler house modernization focused on SO2 and NOx reduction: 20 projects Modernization of boiler house and ventilation installation: 8 projects
Waste management
Construction of various types of landfills: 4 projects
Water and wastewater
Industrial wastewater treatment plants: 4 projects
Hospital waste incineration plants: 3 projects 2
Wroclaw
Municipal wastewater treatment plants: 3 projects Air
Implementation of low emission production technology : 3 projects Boiler house modernization focused on SO2 and NOx reduction: 9 projects
3
Warsaw
Waste management
Landfill construction; 11 projects
Water and wastewater
Municipal wastewater treatment plants: 10 projects
Air
Implementation of low emission production technology : 1 project
Noise and vibration
Implementation of a noise monitoring system: 1 project
Industrial wastewater treatment plants: 10 projects Boiler house modernization focused on SO2 and NOx reduction: 7 projects Completion of acoustic screens and acoustic insulation systems: 3 projects
4 5
6
Skierniewice Lublin
Poznan
Waste management
Composting plants: 3 projects
Water and wastewater
Municipal wastewater treatment plants: 8 projects
Waste management
Landfill construction: 1 project
Water and wastewater
Municipal wastewater treatment construction: 11 projects
Air
Implementation of low emission production technology: 2 projects (large industrial plants)
Noise and vibration
Completion of acoustic screens and acoustic insulation systems: 3 projects
Waste management
Municipal landfill completion: 1 project
Water and wastewater
Water management projects: 4 projects
Other types of waste management plants: 4 projects
Wastewater treatment plants: 3 projects Air 7
Bydgoszcz
Modernization of energy/heat generating plants: 1 project
Waste management
Landfill construction: 5 projects
Water and wastewater
Wastewater treatment plants: 11 projects
Air
Boiler house modernization focused on SO2 and NOx reduction: 20 projects Implementation of low emission production technology : 4 projects (large industrial plants)
Waste management
Process waste utilization plants: 2 projects (chemical factory and food processing plant) Wastewater treatment plants: 11 projects
Sludge dewatering installation: 1 project 8
Slupsk
Water and wastewater Waste management
Landfill construction: 3 projects
9
Walbrzych
Water and wastewater
Wastewater treatment plants: 13 projects
Air
Boiler house modernization focused on SO2 and NOx reduction: 30 projects
Noise and vibration
Modernization of industrial installations: 3 projects
Waste management
Landfill construction: 3 projects
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
101
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.22 (CONTINUED): MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS UNDER IMPLEMENTATION IN SELECTED VOIVODSHIPS IN POLAND Voivodship No. Name
Environmental Category
Type/number of projects
10
Water and wastewater
Wastewater treatment plants: 14 projects
Air
Implementation of low emission production technology : 3 projects (huge industrial plants)
Krakow
Boiler house modernization focused on SO2 and NOx reduction: 50 projects
11
Katowice
Noise and vibration
Completion of acoustic screens and acoustic insulation systems: 24 projects (industrial plants of various size)
Waste management
Waste utilization plants and old landfill recultivation: 6 projects
Water and wastewater
Municipal wastewater treatment plants and sewerage systems: total spending approx. USD 54 mln
Air
Air pollution control installations: total spending approx. USD 106 mln
Industrial wastewater treatment plants : total spending approx. USD 30 mln Air pollution monitoring system: total spending approx. USD 1.3 mln Other projects: total spending approx. USD 20 mln Noise and vibration
Various types of projects: total spending approx. USD 1.1 mln
Waste management
Landfill construction: total spending for municipal waste landfills approx. USD 1.7 mln; for industrial waste landfills approx. USD 10.5 mln Recultivation of former landfill sites: total spending approx. USD 2.1 mln Other projects: total spending approx. USD 31,000
12
Lodz
Water and wastewater
Wastewater treatment plants: 6 projects Sewerage systems: 7 projects Water management investments: 3 projects
13
Bielsk
Air
Boiler house modernization focused on SO2 and NOx reduction: 10 projects
Waste management
Various types of waste utilization plants: 6 projects
Water and wastewater
Wastewater treatment plants: 3 projects
Air
Boiler house modernization focused on SO2 and NOx reduction: 3 projects
Waste management
Industrial waste utilization plants: 4 projects
Source: Annual voivodship reports for 1995
keeping and written documents, and mandates firm, binding offers and contracts. The Act creates a central information source, the Office of Public Procurement and establishes a national publication, the bulletin on public tendering, for the announcement of procurement opportunities and for the dissemination other procurement information. Specifically, the Act requires the formal announcement of procurement opportunities in the bulletin, and prescribes specific requirements for tender documents to ensure equal access to information about each investment. Tender documents must disclose the essential specifications of the purchase, the rules of the procurement proceeding and the terms and conditions of the proposed contract. Offers must be opened and announced at the same time, in the presence of the bidders. Records of the procurement proceedings must be maintained and disclosed (with few exceptions). The Act requires the disclosure to all interested competitors of communications between the procuring entity and any competitor and disclosure of the procuring entity’s response to requests for clarification of the procurement documents. Equal access to records of the proceeding is also guaranteed. The Act also creates an enforcement mechanism. The protest and appeal process provides competitors procedural recourse to
102
contest the conduct of a procurement proceeding and redress harm resulting from errors or unfair treatment In its intent, the Act encourages full and open competition. Unlimited tendering, a procedure open to all potential competitors, is declared the preferred process. Other procedures may be used only in limited circumstances and only with the approval of the Chairman of the Office of Public Procurement if the procurement is valued over 200,000 ECU. Conditions for using Limited Tendering, Two-stage Tendering, Negotiations-with-RetainingCompetition, Request-for-Quotations and Single-Source procedures are defined in the Act. Specific relevant excerpts include: Art. 15 1. In public procurements valued less than 20,000 ECU and in public procurements financed with less than 20,000 ECU from public funds, unlimited tendering procedures are not obligatory and the following requirements of this Act shall not apply: the requirements related to the publication of announcements in the Bulletin on Public Tenders, written procedures, official records of proceedings, specification of essential provision of the procurement, time periods and deadlines, tender security (wadium), and protests and appeals. 2. If the amount of the procurement exceeds 200,000 ECU,
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
the selection of a procurement procedure other than unlimited tendering requires approval by the Chairman of the Office. Art. 18 1. Domestic as well as foreign suppliers and contractors shall be able to participate in procurement proceedings on an equal basis according to the provisions of this Act. 2. If the value of the procurement does not exceed the amount referenced in Art. 15, paragraph 1, the procuring entity may limit participation in a procurement proceeding solely to domestic suppliers or contractors, and foreign suppliers or contractors that have a branch or representative office in Poland. 3. If the subject matter of the procurement is comprised of services or construction on the territory of Poland, the procuring entity may request that the entire work covered by the procurement be performed with domestic entities, raw materials and products. 4. When applying national preferences in a procurement proceeding, the procuring entity shall inform the suppliers and contractors about the national preference when starting the procurement procedure. The declaration regarding the national preference cannot be changed thereafter. (....) Note that 1 ECU = 1.12 USD, as of December 1997. Further information, including copies of the Bulletin of Public Procurement, are available via the Internet at the following address: http://www.urm.gov.pl//uzp/iuzpa.html The List of 80 Another important source of information on potential business opportunities is the so-called List of 80 (Lista 80). Prepared and maintained by the State Environmental Protection Inspectorate (PIOS) since January 1990, the list includes industrial companies declared to be particularly damaging to the envi-
ronment. Their compliance with environmental regulations and with the conditions stipulated in their operation permits is under a special scrutiny from PIOS and its regional offices (WIOS). Currently, the List of 80 includes some 70 companies. About half of the listed companies do not comply with air emission regulations. In 36 plants, excessive emissions result from energy generation, while in 42 plants they are caused by production processes. In all the plants exceeding air emission levels as a result of power and energy generation, control of SO2 and particulates emissions is the major problem. In the technological process-related problems, specific issues vary from plant to plant. Thirty-six plants discharge excessive pollution loads into wastewater. Two specific problem areas are the discharge of saline waters from mining activities, and excessive water consumption for production processes. In 53 plants, waste management violations have been identified, mainly related to improper waste storage sites (past and present), excessive waste generation, and the lack of proper waste treatment. The major problem with storage sites is leachate draining to surrounding soil. Another significant issue is the low degree of high-volume waste utilization, i.e. waste reuse. Finally, nine plants exceeded allowable noise levels. The four major industrial branches represented on the List of 80, and critical problems within each sector are presented below. ■
Chemical industry (about 20 plants) — gaseous emissions (fluorine compounds, H2S, NOx, ammonia, PVC), waste management (hazardous waste, phosphogypsum, improper incineration), wastewater
■
Power and heat generation plants (12 plants) — air emissions of particulates, SO2 and NOx
TABLE 4.23: LIST OF ENVIRONMENT-RELATED TRADE SHOWS AND FAIRS IN 1997 Name of Fair
City
Date of Event
Focus
CIEPLO
Gdansk
Feb. 5-8
Energy-saving and heating
INTERECO
Katowice
March 5-7
Environmental fair
ECOTECH
Kielce
March 13-15
Environmental protection technologies
SALMED
Poznan
March 18-21
International health & safety fairs
EKO-INSTAL
Bydgoszcz
April 3-5
Utility installations
EKO-ENERGY-EXPO
Bydgoszcz
April 3-5
International Fair of Devices and Systems Utilizing Renewable Energy Sources
TARG-EKO
Wroclaw
April 17-19
Ecology fairs
ECOENERGIA 97
Gdynia
April 22-24
Energy and environmental protection issues
ELTARG
Katowice
May 21-24
Electricity, power engineering
NURT 97
Torun
May 21-22
Waste management, environmental hazards
WOD-KAN
Bydgoszcz
May 21-23
Water supply and sewage systems
MTP (Poznan International Fair)
Poznan
June 15-20
Engineering industry, power, transport, construction
SIMMEX
Katowice
Sept. 8-12
Mining, power generation, and metallurgy
SAWO
Bydgoszcz
Sept. 23-26
Work safety equipment
EKO-ARMA
Bialystok
Oct. 9-11
Environmental protection technologies
TERM
Warsaw
Nov. 18-21
Heating systems
KOMEX
Poznan
Nov. 25-28
Municipal maintenance equipment
POLEKO
Poznan
Nov. 25-28
International environmental fairs
Those highlighted in bold indicate the main environment-related trade fairs in Poland. Contacts to the organizers are provided in Table 4.24.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
103
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.24: USEFUL CONTACTS Government institutions
Point of Contact
Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 250-001, 254-001
Stanislaw Zelichowski, Minister, Tel: (48-22) 253-355, 251-111 Andrzej Walewski, Chief Environmental Inspector, Tel: (48-22) 253-325 Czeslaw Wieckowski, Director, Dept. of Environmental Policy, Tel: (48-22) 254-784 Wojciech Jaworski, Director, Dept. of Air and Soil Protection, Tel: (48-22) 258-973 Mieczyslaw Ostojski, Director, Dept of International Cooperation, Tel: (48-22) 251-133 Leszek Baginski, Director, Dept of Water Resources Management, Tel: (48-22) 254-478
Ministry of Industry and Commerce ul. Wspolna 4, 00-926 Warsaw
Andrzej Pierzak, Director, Department of Fuels and Energy, Tel: (48-22) 628-0801, Fax: (48-22) 625-4842
Ministry of Privatization ul. Krucza 36, 00-525 Warsaw
Artur Wask, Director, Department of International Cooperation Tel: (48-22) 628-1190, Fax: (48-22) 628-1190
Ministry of Finance ul. Swietokrzyska 12, 00-915 Warsaw
Wieslaw Szczuka, Director, Foreign Department Tel: (48-22) 694-3879, Fax: (48-22) 266-544
Central Statistical Office (GUS) Al. Niepodleglosci 208, 00-925 Warsaw
Wieslawa Domanska, Tel: (48-22) 608-3562, Fax: (48-22) 608-3182
Central Office of Planning Pl. Trzech Krzyzy 3/5, 00-507 Warsaw
Andrzej Pyszkowski, General Manager, Department of Regional Politics and Spatial Policy, Tel: (48-22) 621-9518, Fax: (48-22) 693-5059
Funding Institutions National Environmental Protection Fund ul. Konstruktorska 3a, 02-673 Warsaw
Ms. Janina Zelazo, Tel: (48-22) 490-080 or 482-111, Fax: (48-22) 497-272
Ekofundusz ul. Belwederska 18A, 00-762 Warsaw
Mr. Jozef Dobija, Public Relations, Tel: (48-22) 400-901, Fax: (48-22) 400-942
Bank for Environmental Protection (BOS) ul. Przasnyska 6A, 01-756 Warszawa
Ms. Jolanta Bledowska, Foreign Department, Tel: (48-22) 633-3474, Fax: (48-22) 639-5249
World Bank resident mission INTRACO I Building, 17th Floor 2 Stawki Street, 00-913 Warsaw
Mr. Paul Knotter, Tel: (48-22) 635-0553, Fax: (48-22) 635-9857
International Finance Corporation (IFC) Warsaw Corporate Center, 8th Floor, ul. Emilii Plater 28, 00-688 Warsaw
Mr. John H. Stevenson, Tel: (48-22) 630-3444, Fax: (48-22) 630-3445
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Warsaw
Mr. Alain Pilloux, Tel: (48-22) 630-7275, Fax: (48-22) 630-6551
Monitoring and Enforcement State Environmental Protection Inspectorate Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-972 Warsaw
Andrzej Walewski, Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection, Tel: (48-22) 253-325, Fax: (48-22) 250-465, e-mail:
[email protected] Zbigniew Kamienski, Head, Control Team, Tel: (48-22) 251-424, Fax: (48-22) 250-466, e-mail: GIOS@warma
State Environmental Protection Inspectorate Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-972 Warsaw
Barbara Kuroczko, Director, Monitoring Department Tel: (48-22) 251-112, Fax: (48-22) 254-129
Institute of Environmental Protection Krucza str. 5/11, 00-548 Warsaw
Prof. Barbara Gworek, Director, Tel: (48-22) 621-3670, Fax: (48-22) 629-5263, e-mail:
[email protected] Grazyna Mitosek (Air), Tel: (48-22) 334-241 w. 43 Fax: (48-22) 336-928, Internet: http://ciuw.warman.net.pl/alf/ios
Institute of Environmental Protection — Basic Monitoring ul. Kolektorska 4, 01-692 Warsaw
104
Hanna Soszka (surface water quality) Tel: (48-22) 334-241 ext. 54, Fax: (48-22) 336-928
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.24 (CONTINUED): USEFUL CONTACTS Institute of Environmental Protection ul Kolektorska 4, 01-692 Warsaw,
Radoslaw Kucharski (Noise) Tel: (48-22) 334-242 ext. 25, Fax: (48-22) 336-928
Institute for Occupational Medicine ul. Teresy 8, 90-950 Lodz,
Janusz Swiatczak (indoor air), Tel: (48-42) 314-572, Fax: (48-42) 314-562, e-mail:
[email protected]
Central Laboratory of Radiological Protection ul. Konwaliowa 7, 03-194 Warsaw
Jan Jagielak (radioactive contamination) Tel/Fax: (48-22) 111-616, e-mail:
[email protected]
Institute of Soil Science and Cultivation of Plants, Osada Palacowa, 24-100 Pulawy
Henryk Terelak Tel: (48-81) 863-421, ext. 311, Fax: (48-81) 864-547
State Nuclear Agency ul. Krucza 36, 00-921 Warsaw,
Zofia Waclawek (radioactive waste) Tel: (48-22) 629-8152, 628-2722, Fax: (48-22) 629-0164
Institute of Meteorology and Water Wojciech Szczepanski (surface water quality) Management, ul. W. Stwosza 31, 40-032 Katowice Tel: (48-32) 518-462, Fax: (48-32) 511-815 Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Wroclaw Division ul. Parkowa 30, 56-616 Wroclaw
Rafalina Korol (rivers) Tel: (48-71) 216-606 ext. 21, 210-948, Fax: (48-71) 211-446
Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Poznan Division ul. Dabrowskiego 174/176, 60-594 Poznan
Jerzy Janczak (surface water quality) Tel: (48-61) 411-621 ext. 30, Fax: (48-61) 475-440
Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Marine Division in Gdynia, ul. Waszyngtona 42, 81-342 Gdynia
Zbigniew Dziadziuszko, Tel: (48-58) 203-194, Fax: (48-58) 207-101 e-mail:
[email protected]
Institut of Ecology of Industrial Areas ul. Kossutha 6, 40-833 Katowice
Ms. Ewa Marchwinska Tel: (48-32) 154-6031, Fax: (48-32) 154-1717
State Geological Institute ul. Rakowiecka 4, 00-911 Warsaw
Tadeusz Hordejuk (ground water) Tel: (48-22) 495-351 ext. 551, Fax: (48-22) 495-342
Other Organizations UNEP Infoterra National Focal Point Institute for Environmental Protection ul. Krucza 5./11, 00 548 Warsaw,
Janusz Radziejowski, Tel: (48-22) 629-5263, Fax: (48-22) 295-263, e-mail:
[email protected]
UNEP GRID Project (Global Resource Information Database) ul. Merliniego 9, 02-511 Warsaw
Marek Baranowski, Tel: (48-22) 488-561, 627-4623 Fax: (48-22) 488-561, e-mail:
[email protected]
PAKTO S.A. US partner: TRC Companies, Mass., (617) 356-2577
Mr. Marek Krysiak Tel/Fax: (48-22) 629-1481, e-mail:
[email protected]
National Energy Conservation Agency (KAPE) Tel: (48-22) 621-6521; 661-9116, Fax: (48-22) 661-9117 ul. Wspólna 4, 00-926 Warszawa Foundation for Promotion of Clean Technologies ul. Rewolucji 19O5 r. nr 29 m 19, 9O-214 Lodz
Mr. Piotr Pelka, Tel/Fax: (48-42) 325-3O7
Warsaw Technical University Dept. of Environmental Engineering ul. Nowowiejska 20, 00-653 Warsaw
Mr. Piotr Manczarski (waste management) Tel: (48-22) 660-5420, Fax: (48-22) 660-5305
Institute for Sustainable Development ul. Lowicka 31, 02-502 Warsaw
Mr. Andrzej Kassenberg Tel: (48-22) 451-055, Fax: (48-22) 253-461
PCBC (Polish Center for Testing and Certification), ul. Klobucka 23A, 02-699 Warsaw
Certification Department: Mr Andrzej Rostkowski, Director Tel: (48-22) 430-059, Fax: (48-22) 647-1222
Chambers of Commerce and Trade Associations Chamber of Commerce for the Power Generation Sector and Environment ul. Krucza 6/14, 00-950 Warszawa
Mr. Slawomir Krystek, Director Tel: (48-22) 621-6572, 621-0281 ext. 320, Fax: (48-22) 621-6572
Foreign Investor’s Chamber of Industry and Commerce Krakowskie Przedmiescie 47/51, 00-071 Warsaw
Tel: (48-22) 311-764; 272-234, Fax: (48-22) 268-593
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
105
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.24 (CONTINUED): USEFUL CONTACTS Chamber of Commerce of Exporters and Importers, ul. Bema 65, 01-244 Warsaw
Tel/Fax: (48-22) 632-6872
Chamber of the Chemical Industry (Izba Przemyslu Chemicznego) ul. Zurawia 6/12, 00-503 Warszawa
Tel: (48-22) 628-2051, (48-22) 628-2572, Fax: (48-22) 625-3178
Chamber of Commerce for the Energy Sector and Environmental Protection ul. Panska 85, 00-837 Warszawa
Tel: (48-22) 656-1288
Business Leaders Forum for Poland ul. Mokotowska 49 room 304, 00-542 Warsaw
Ms. Cynthia Barlow-Marrs Tel: (48-22) 660-0493, Fax: (48-22) 660-0495
Chief Technical Organizaton NOT ul. Czackiego 3/5, 00-043 Warszawa
Tel: (48-22) 267-421, Tel: (48-22) 268-456
Association of Engineers and Technicians of the Chemical Industry ul. Czackiego 3/5, pok. 301, 00-043 Warszawa
Tel: (48-22) 827-7896
Polish Sanitary Engineers and Technicians Association, ul. Czackiego 3/5 00-043, Warszawa
Tel: (48-22) 262-894, Tel: (48-22) 827-0263
Association of Land Melioration Engineers and Technicians ul. Czackiego 3/5, pok 128, 00-043 Warszawa
Tel: (48-22) 827-3878
Association of Polish Mechanical Engineers and Technicians SIMP ul. Swietokrzyska 14a, 00-049 Warszawa
Tel: (48-22) 827-1768
National Chamber of Commerce — Foreign Promotion Office ul. Trebacka 4, 00-074 Warszawa
Tel: (48-22) 260-123
Major Trade Fair Organizers Wod-Kan Trade Fair Izba Gospodarcza Wodociagi Polskie ul. Sielanka 18, 85-073 Bydgoszcz
Tel: (48-52) 287-828, Fax: (48-52) 226-294
Intereco Fair Miedzynarodowe Targi Katowickie Bytkowska 1b, 40-955 Katowice
Tel: (48-32) 596-061 to -7, Fax: (48-32) 588-919
PolEko and International Trade Fair Tel: (48-61) 692-592, Fax: (48-61) 665-827 Poznan (MTP), Miedzynarodowe Targi Poznanskie Glogowska 14, 60-734 Poznan
■
Metal smelters (5 plants) — waste storage, gas and particulate emissions
■
Cement industry (4 plants) — particulate emissions from rotary kilns.
The List of 80 is regularly updated, with some companies removed from the list, while others are added, based on the criteria specified in a May ‘94 regulation. In general, companies on the list are mainly large industrial plants, which are forced to invest significant amounts of money into improving their environmental performance, and thus can be a likely large-scale environmental technology buyer. The latest (as of mid-1996) List of 80 is included in Section 4.10. Regional environmental inspectorates (WIOS) also maintain their own lists of major polluters in the region. Currently, there are about 800 companies listed in voivodship lists.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Responding to the question on sources of information on environmental technologies when considering a purchase,
106
the vast majority of interviewees agreed that there is no central clearinghouse or similar source for gathering information on the subject in Poland. It is also clear from the responses that governmental organizations, R&D institutes, and professional associations, etc. are not seen as useful sources of potential information. The common sources listed and discussed by the respondents were: ■
personal contacts and discussions
■
brochures and leaflets distributed at trade shows
■
catalogues and information books purchased during the shows, fairs and conferences
■
office visits made by manufacturer’s representatives
■
design bureaus offering technical information
Two respondents mentioned voivodship authorities and environmental funds as assisting with technology information. Only one respondent indicated consulting companies as a potential source, which shows the limited degree of confidence in consulting services in Poland. Also, only one respon-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
dent mentioned an R&D institution specializing in his sector as a potential source of information. It should be noted that, in Poland, there are no effective commercial and professional associations which in many countries can be a cost-effective source of information on available environmental technologies. Not a single respondent listed trade or professional associations, or a local or national chamber of commerce. To the best knowledge of the researcher, neither an “Annual Buyers Guide” nor an equivalent of the US “Thomas Register” are published in Poland. As mentioned in the previous section, environmental trade fairs and professional conferences play a key role in the dissemination of information on the availability of environmental technologies. A comprehensive list of environment-related fairs planned for 1997 is provided in Table 4.23. POLEKO, the largest fair for pollution control technologies in Poland (and in the CEE region) is held in Poznan every November. The Fair, with some 570 exhibitors in 1996, presents the full range of environmental technologies. Representatives of major national organizations (e.g. the Ministry of Environment, the National Environmental Protection Fund, Ekofundusz, Bank for Environmental Protection) also participate. Finally, a number of environment-related conferences and seminars are also held during the Poleko fair. WOD-KAN Fair in Bydgoszcz (held annually in April/May) focuses on technologies and materials used in sewerage systems. ECOENERGIA is the major fair focusing on the power generation sector. SALMED is the main commercial event dealing with health & safety issues. Finally, Poznan International Fair (MTP, Miedzynarodowe Targi Poznanskie) is the largest annual international trade event in Poland. Even though its main focus is the engineering industry, and power, transport, and construction sectors (not specifically the environment), given its significance, the Fair was included in the table. Contacts to organizers of the above listed fairs are provided in Table 4.24.
USEFUL CONTACTS Table 4.24 provides a list of useful contacts for information on the state of environment, market situation, and project opportunities in Poland.
4.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies The objectives of this part of the survey were to examine the level of demand in Poland for specific environmental technologies, and to determine those technologies in highest demand. The second objective was to identify the major endusers of environmental technologies.
DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — OVERVIEW In the majority of technology and media categories, the expected demand for environmental technologies was ranked between moderate and high. However, several technologies were identified where rapid growth in demand is expected. Overall, high demand was identified for technologies related to the energy sector, and water and wastewater treatment, followed by waste management technologies. This is closely related to current Polish environmental policy and regulations,
where the major priority areas are air pollution control and protection of water resources (for more details, see the discussion in Section 4.3). Demand in the air sector was moderate. High demand was identified for technologies relating to abatement of air emissions and cleaner production. Growing demand was expected for air pollution control and flue gas purification technologies. Most frequently noted were state-of-the-art systems to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust and particulates, nitrogen monoxides, and hazardous chemicals. Growing demand was also identified for instrumentation and process control technologies. High demand was identified for energy-related technologies. Specific technologies included new/efficient energy and heat generation systems, equipment for retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems, technologies related to heat recovery and energy savings, and process management and control equipment. Technologies related to the use of alternative/renewable energy sources were in high demand in the power and energy generation sector. Among technologies in the municipal and industrial wastewater sector, high demand was identified for those technologies related to sludge treatment and disposal (very high demand); technologies for pollution prevention and waste minimization; monitoring equipment; advanced (tertiary) wastewater treatment technologies; and instrumentation, process control and software. Technologies for clean-up, quality restoration, and decontamination of surface and groundwater were also in high demand. In the waste management sector, high demand in all waste categories was expected for technologies related to pollution prevention and waste minimization, and recycling and resource recovery. For municipal waste, composting and biomass conversion technologies were identified as high demand areas. Technologies for collection, transportation, and storage of hazardous waste, and equipment for decontamination, site remediation, and clean-up of contaminated land for radioactive waste were also in high demand. Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration and occupational health and safety was moderate. The following section discusses the expected demand in more detail. The analysis of the responses in Tables 4.25-4.29 is followed by a short commentary comparing the conclusions with the objectives of national environmental policy.
TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND BY SECTOR The following tables summarize and discuss expert responses to the question on demand for specific environmental technologies. The following scale was used in ranking: 5 – highest, and with rapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, likely to grow, 3 – moderate, slowly growing demand, 2 – low demand, will not grow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion. Figures in cells show the average score, while those in brackets represent the number of responses. Air Demand for air-related technologies was identified as moderate. Table 4.25 presents details of the responses received. Overall, technologies related to gaseous emissions were in somewhat higher demand than technologies related to ambient air.5
5 Technologies related to gaseous emissions include technologies concentrating on emissions from pollution sources (focus on the emitter); ambient air related
technologies are designed for monitoring emissions into the atmosphere (focus on the receiving air). Therefore, conceptually, air pollution control and emission abatement technologies are not applicable in the “ambient air” category. However, about half of respondents still answered this question, which suggests that they either interpreted “ambient air” from the workplace safety point of view, or were just uncertain about the meaning of the term.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
107
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
mined by the national environmental policy, targeting two main types of air pollution:
TABLE 4.25: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — AIR Ambient Air
Gaseous Emissions
Air sampling/laboratory analysis
3.4 (10)
3.3 (12)
Continuous-basis monitoring
3.3 (12)
3.3 (13)
Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment
3.7 (7)
3.7 (14)
Gas detection/warning devices
3.2 (7)
3.5 (9)
Emission abatement/cleaner production (e.g. low emission burners)
3.8 (7)
4.2 (13)
Instrumentation and process control
3.4 (7)
3.5 (13)
Technologies in high demand: #1 Emission abatement/cleaner production (gaseous emissions) Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (gaseous emissions); #3 Instrumentation and process control (gaseous emissions)
High demand was expected for technologies related to the abatement of air emissions and cleaner production (such as low-emission burners, etc.). Growing demand was expected for air pollution control and flue gas purification technologies. Most frequently noted were state-of-the-art systems to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust and particulates, nitrogen monoxides, and hazardous chemicals. This situation is deter-
■
flue gases from coal-fired heat and energy generation plants;
■
process emissions from industrial plants, mainly from different types of chemical processing plants.
It is worth noting that many respondents from the targeted industrial sectors mentioned above, also indicated high demand for technologies in the energy category. Finally, growing demand was identified for instrumentation and process control technologies. This seems to result from the growing approach to reduce emissions by improving process control rather than by expensive retrofitting or changing technological lines. Finally, growing demand was also identified for gas detection and warning devices. Based on the priorities in national environmental policy, demand for some environmental technologies is expected to increase as the following planned projects are implemented across the country: ■ modernization of industrial technological processes; ■ modernization of coal-fired boilers, including switching to gas and oil in small and medium-sized plants, or implementation of fluidized bed boilers in large plants; ■ construction of installations for reduction of dust and gaseous emissions (currently, most demanded are technologies for sulfur dioxide removal). New air emission standards will be enforced in Poland from Jan. 1, 1998 (the Ordinance Act was issued in 1990). As the majority of large heat and energy generating plants (and most medium-sized boiler houses at industrial plants and municipalities) are coal-fired, reducing SO2 and NOx emissions is, and
TABLE 4.26: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — WATER AND WASTEWATER Surface and Ground Water
Potable (Drinking) Water
Municipal Wastewater
Industrial Wastewater
Monitoring
3.5 (14)
3.4 (10)
4.2 (9)
4.1 (15)
Sampling/laboratory analysis
3.2 (12)
3.0 (11)
3.7 (9)
3.3 (13)
Construction of collection/supply networks
3.1 (6)
3.5 (9)
3.4 (10)
3.3 (12)
Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and collection networks
3.2 (4)
3.7 (7)
3.4 (9)
3.5 (10)
3.4 (10)
3.2 (7)
3.7 (13)
3.7 (16)
Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. UV/ozonation, activated carbon, phosphate removal, reverse osmosis
3.6 (5)
3.8 (6)
4.2 (9)
4.0 (13)
Sludge treatment and disposal
3.6 (5)
3.6 (3)
4.7 (11)
4.3 (16)
Pollution prevention/waste minimization
3.5 (4)
3.2 (4)
4.3 (10)
4.2 (14)
Water recycling and reuse
3.0 (9)
3.6 (5)
3.8 (5)
3.9 (12)
Spill control and containment/clean-up
4.1 (7)
3.8 (5)
3.6 (6)
3.7 (14)
Quality restoration and decontamination
3.8 (9)
3.0 (1)
3.0 (2)
3.4 (5)
Instrumentation/process control/software
3.1 (7)
3.3 (6)
4.2 (4)
4.0 (8)
Standard physical, chemical and biological treatment processes
Technologies in high demand: #1 Sludge treatment and disposal (municipal and industrial wastewater); #2 Pollution prevention/waste minimization (municipal and industrial wastewater); #3 Monitoring (municipal and industrial wastewater); #4 Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (municipal and industrial wastewater); #5 Instrumentation/process control/software (municipal and industrial wastewater); #6 Clean-up, quality restoration, and decontamination (surface and groundwater). Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #7 Water recycling and re-use (municipal and industrial wastewater); #8 Advanced (tertiary) drinking water treatment; #9 Spill control and containment (municipal and industrial wastewater); #10 standard wastewater treatment processes (municipal and industrial wastewater); #11 Inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply networks
108
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.27: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — WASTE MANAGEMENT Municipal Waste Waste collection/transportation and storage
Industrial Waste
Hazardous Waste
Radioactive Waste
3.9 (10)
3.5 (14)
4.0 (12)
2.8 (7)
3.1 (9)
3.0 (12)
3.3 (11)
2.6 (5)
Site monitoring
3.3 (12)
3.4 (14)
3.9 (12)
3.1 (6)
Landfill disposal
3.7 (10)
3.4 (12)
2.6 (9)
3.2 (5)
Incineration
3.2 (9)
3.0 (11)
3.5 (8)
2.5 (2)
Composting/biomass conversion
4.4 (9)
3.1 (7)
2.6 (3)
4.0 (1)
Pollution prevention and waste minimization
3.9 (10)
4.5 (13)
4.3 (11)
4.2 (4)
Recycling/resource recovery
Sample analysis/waste characterization
4.3 (11)
4.3 (13)
4.1 (9)
4.0 (3)
Spillage control/decontamination
3.5 (7)
3.7 (11)
3.8 (11)
4.3 (3)
Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land
3.5 (7)
3.4 (11)
3.7 (10)
4.3 (3)
Technologies in high demand: #1 Pollution prevention and waste minimization (all waste categories); #2 Composting/biomass conversion (municipal solid waste); #3 Recycling/resource recovery (all waste categories); #4 Decontamination, site remediation, and clean-up of contaminated land for radioactive waste; #5 Hazardous waste collection, transportation and storage. Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #6 Hazardous waste site monitoring; #7 Municipal waste collection, transportation, and storage; #8 Site remediation/clean-up (hazardous and industrial waste); #10 Landfill disposal of municipal waste.
will remain, one of the most important project areas in Poland. According to the researcher’s best knowledge, highly effective technologies for SOx and NOx removal are not widely used in Poland, and generally, desulfurization installations are based on imported products. It was often noted by respondents that there are many foreign companies active on the Polish market which offer various air protection technologies, but the prices of the available systems are very often prohibitively high. Water and Wastewater Demand for water and wastewater technologies was high. Table 4.26 presents those responses to the question on technology demand in the water and wastewater sector. A comparison of responses across all the five surveyed media shows that the expected demand for technologies in the water and wastewater sector (and for energy-related technologies) was higher than in the air, waste management, and noise, vibration and OHS sectors. Overall, demand was higher for technologies related to municipal and industrial wastewater than for those used in drinking water treatment, and the protection of surface and groundwater resources. Among those technologies in the municipal and industrial wastewater sector, high demand was identified for those related to sludge treatment and disposal; pollution prevention and waste minimization; monitoring equipment; advanced (tertiary) wastewater treatment technologies; and instrumentation, process control and software. Technologies for clean-up, quality restoration, and decontamination of surface and groundwater were also in high demand. Increasing demand in the municipal and industrial wastewater sector was expected for technologies related to water recycling and reuse; spill control and containment equipment; and standard wastewater treatment technologies. Other areas where significant growth in demand is expected include equipment for inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply networks, and technologies related to advanced (tertiary) drinking water treatment. It should be noted that conventional wastewater treatment technologies are readily available on the Polish market, and, therefore, those most demanded are advanced and specialized wastewater treatment technologies (e.g. tertiary treatment,
industrial wastewater treatment, manure treatment etc.) High demand was frequently noted for technologies related to wastewater sludge management, which is still a major unresolved issue in Poland. Several respondents mentioned the need to provide adequate wastewater management in rural areas. Demand for drinking water technologies was generally moderate. Two areas in somewhat higher demand were identified in this group: inspection and reconditioning of existing supply networks, and advanced water treatment methods (e.g. UV/ozonation, activated carbon). The demand was driven by the generally poor technical state of the existing water distribution infrastructure, and by the widespread use of surface water for drinking water supply. Most of the municipal water supply in Poland is based on the use of water from heavily polluted rivers, and standard water treatment technologies are often unable to remove many of the pollutants. Finally, demand for technologies for the protection of surface and groundwater resources was high and expected to grow in spill control and containment/clean-up, and quality restoration and decontamination. Perhaps surprisingly, given the current technical condition of the existing infrastructure, expected demand was moderate for technologies for the construction of collection and supply networks and reconditioning of existing systems. Waste Management High demand was identified for waste-related technologies. Table 4.27 presents details of the responses received. Among those technologies for waste management, high demand in all waste categories was identified for pollution prevention and waste minimization, and recycling and resource recovery. The highest need was identified for technologies for industrial and hazardous waste, (with mining waste, phosphogypsum and PET waste indicated as severe problem areas). The preventive approach to waste management was also reflected by the lower level of demand for incineration and landfill disposal technologies (demand was moderate). It is also worth noting that, in Poland, public opinion towards waste incineration is generally negative, while the development of new landfill sites is hampered by frequent opposition from local communities. High demand was also identified for composting/biomass conversion equipment for municipal solid waste; equipment
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
109
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
for decontamination, site remediation, and clean-up of land contaminated with radioactive waste; and technologies related to hazardous waste collection, transportation and storage. Increasing demand was expected for hazardous waste site monitoring equipment; technologies related to municipal waste collection, transportation, and storage; hazardous and industrial waste site remediation/clean-up equipment, and technologies for landfill disposal of municipal waste. For municipal waste, technologies related to composting and biomass conversion, and recycling and resource recovery were expected to be in high demand, along with technologies for waste collection, transportation and storage. Currently, there are a number of pilot projects under implementation (e.g. Warsaw, Gdansk) to increase the amount of composted municipal waste. As regards hazardous waste, demand was high for site monitoring equipment, and for waste collection, transportation and storage technologies. Interestingly, hazardous waste was the only category where demand for incineration technologies was relatively high. This largely results from current problems with the disposal of hospital waste. High demand was also identified for technologies related to pollution prevention and waste minimization, and recycling/resource recovery for both hazardous and industrial waste. Finally, other areas where demand was increasing included technologies for spill control and decontamination, and site remediation and clean-up for industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste. As for radioactive waste, the identified demand was generally high, especially equipment for decontamination, and site remediation and clean-up technologies. The Forthcoming Waste Act A significant impact on waste management practices (and market opportunities) will result from the pending Waste Act (expected to be passed by Parliament during Spring 1997). The key provisions in the Act maintain that: ■
waste prevention will become the main priority in waste management, followed by waste utilization, treatment and disposal;
■
duty of care will be placed upon the producer or product distributor. Waste management priorities should be reflected in a company’s comprehensive waste management plan, which is subject to the approval of the environmental authorities;
■
waste registration requirements will be introduced in industrial companies. Waste monitoring will be based on a comprehensive waste classification system comparable with the European Waste Catalogue;
■
hazardous waste shall be, if technically and economically possible, treated and re-used at source. Detailed regulations on waste disposal will be introduced. Hazardous waste should be disposed of in special facilities or designated compartments of municipal landfills;
■
a chemical waste will be recycled/recovered where possible;
■
a progressive fee scale will be introduced. By the year 2000, waste disposal fees and fines may increase up to 30 percent above the inflation level.
The following significant changes in the management of waste packaging are also expected to result from the Waste Act: ■
paper, cardboard and plastic packaging will be included in the list of recyclable wastes preferred for reuse. Businesses will be required to use multiple-use packaging instead of one-way wrappings. The use of the latter will be allowed only if companies provide adequate waste treatment;
■
duty of care for packaging of hazardous substances will be placed on producers and distributing companies;
■
identification labels for plastics will be introduced to facilitate separation and recycling.
Energy Overall, demand for energy-related technologies was highest in Poland. Table 4.28 presents details of the responses received. The demand for energy-related technologies was evaluated between high and very high, with strong growth expected in the sector. Interestingly, the distribution of responses and high demand areas were similar in both categories applied: the “power generation sector” and “other industrial branches.” Specific technologies in high demand included: new/efficient energy and heat generation systems, equipment for retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems, technologies related to heat recovery and energy savings, and process management and control equipment. Technologies related to the use of alternative/renewable energy sources were in high demand in the power and energy generation sector. As discussed in the section on air protection technologies, national environmental policy currently targets two main categories of air pollution: flue gases from coal-fired heat and energy generation plants, and process emissions from industrial plants, mainly from different types of chemical processing plants. The most important issues which need be solved in the near future include: ■
application of new, low-emission energy/heat generation equipment;
and
efficient
■
optimization of energy/heat generation processes (includ-
TABLE 4.28: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — ENERGY Energy and Power Generation
Other Industrial Sectors
New/efficient energy and heat generation systems
4.5 (4)
4.6 (8)
Retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems
4.4 (5)
4.1 (11)
Process management and control (e.g. tune-ups, process optimization)
4.3 (3)
4.1 (10)
Heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation)
4.3 (3)
4.2 (10)
Alternative/renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, solar)
4.0 (3)
3.3 (8)
Alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants
2.6 (3)
3.1 (8)
Instrumentation
2.5 (2)
2.8 (8)
Technologies in high demand: #1 New/efficient energy and heat generation systems ; #2 Retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems; #3 Heat recovery and energy savings; #4 Process management and control; #5 alternative/renewable energy systems for the energy sector.
110
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.30: MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
TABLE 4.29: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — NOISE, VIBRATION, AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY Noise and Vibration
Occupational Health & Safety
Instrumentation/measuring and control devices
3.6 (9)
3.1 (12)
Protection equipment
3.0 (7)
3.2 (12)
3.6 (10)
3.4 (13)
—
—
Abatement (insulation, absorbtion) Electromagnetic field exposure and other
Category
End-users
Air
Energy and power generation sector (7); Chemical industry (3); Various types of manufacturing (3); Transport (2); Municipalities/municipal services (1)
Water and Wastewater
Municipalities/municipal services (6); Chemical industry (4); Various types of manufacturing (2); Energy and power generation sector (1); Mining (1)
Waste
Municipalities/municipal services (6); Chemical industry (3); Energy and power generation sector (2); Various types of manufacturing (2); Mining (2); Research institutes (1)
Energy
Energy and power generation sector (3); Chemical industry (3); Municipalities/ municipal services (2); Mining (2); Transport (2)
Noise and Vibration and OHS
Manufacturing (3); Heavy industry (2); Mining (2); Transport (2); Energy genera tion sector (2); Chemical industry (2)
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: Noise and vibration abatement (insulation, absorbtion), and Instrumentation/measuring and control devices (noise and vibration)
ing state-of-the-art process control equipment); ■
heat recovery and energy savings (including modern systems of insulation for building and heat distribution pipelines).
Technologies for heat recovery and energy savings were often indicated as a priority area by respondents from “other industrial sectors,” particularly by the chemical industry. The production of high-efficiency technologies for the energy sector, and technologies for energy and heat recovery are priority areas for funding from the National Environment Protection Fund. The use of alternative sources of energy was not perceived as a high demand area by respondents from “other industrial sectors.” Finally, demand was low for non-CFC refrigerants and instrumentation. It is worth noting that in April ‘97, the Polish Parliament passed the new Energy Law. The Act focuses mainly on power utilities and fuel and energy supplies, but incorporated also are provisions related to the protection of the environment, including development of conventional energy sources, and rationalization of fuel and energy use. The Energy Law also established a new central administration body — the so-called Energy Regulation Authority, charged with controlling the fuel and energy economy, and promoting market competitiveness. Noise, Vibration and Occupational Health and Safety Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration and occupational health and safety was moderate. Table 4.29 presents details of the responses received. Responses in the Noise, Vibration, and OHS category present a somewhat contradictory picture. On the one hand, the ratings in most individual technology categories indicate moderate demand. The only areas where demand was expected to grow were technologies for the reduction of noise and vibration at industrial facilities, and instrumentation/measuring and control devices. On the other hand, many respondents observed that occupational health and safety issues are treated seriously, and growing demand for modern OHS technologies can be expected. It appears likely that with the introduction of stricter OHS regulations comparable with those in the EU, and with the increased direct liability of employers for workers’ safety (replacing the key role of the Social Security Office), the demand for OHS equipment will indeed grow. Not a single interviewed expert commented on the level of demand for technologies related to electromagnetic field exposure. This indicates that the problem is practically an unknown issue in Poland.
Note: Figures in brackets represent number of responses
MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Table 4.30 presents a summary of those responses concerning the main end-users of environmental technologies. Based on interviewee responses, the major end-users in Poland are municipalities and industrial plants. Three industrial branches most commonly listed as main end-users included the power and energy sector, the chemical industry, and the mining sector. Municipalities (or privatized companies providing municipal services) are the main end-users of water, wastewater and waste management technologies. Notably, wastewater treatment is a field where a significant increase in spending is expected in the coming years. The energy and power generation sector is the main enduser of air quality protection technologies, and energy-related technologies. In addition, other industrial branches with high energy consumption, such as the chemical industry and various manufacturing industries, are significant end-users in this group. The current situation is expected to continue, partly due to the priorities of the national environmental policy, and partly due to stricter air emission standards effective from Jan. 1, 1998.
4.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers This part of the survey focused on examining the purchasing preferences of domestic buyers, determining the strengths of foreign environmental technologies, and identifying the major barriers to their wider entry into the Polish market.
PURCHASING PREFERENCES Table 4.31 presents a summary of the responses to the question on purchasing preferences.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
111
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
TABLE 4.31: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO PURCHASING PREFERENCES
TABLE 4.32: STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
When purchasing environmental technology, does your organization prefer to buy domestic or foreign products?
Within your area of expertise, what are the strengths of foreign environmental technologies compared with like domestic products?
Only use best-technology or best-practice criteria
63%
High product quality
58%
Reliability and durability of products
50%
Prefer domestic products
30%
Available credit/funding from the foreign country
38%
Prefer foreign products
4%
User-friendly and easy to operate technology
23%
Other — ABB prefers its own technologies
4%
Good after-sales service
23%
Easy to customize and adapt for the specific local needs
19%
Good value for money
19%
When buying foreign-manufactured environmental technologies, are purchases made from local representatives of foreign companies, or directly from the producer abroad? Purchase is made from a local representative in-country
68%
Purchase is made directly from the producer abroad
32%
Low price
—
Other
—
TABLE 4.33: BARRIERS TO BUYING FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Responses indicate that two-thirds of the respondents make purchasing decisions on a case-by-case basis, applying best-technology and best-practice approaches. The key selection criteria for these were quality, reliability and durability of products. About a third of the respondents expressed a preference for domestic environmental technology products — most notably, local authorities. Two thirds of the respondents clearly preferred to buy from local representative offices rather than directly from the manufacturer abroad. Concerns about the availability of an authorized/reliable after-sales service, and the necessary administration required in the case of direct import were major reasons given for preference to buying from in-country representative offices.
STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Table 4.32 presents a summary of the responses to the question concerning the strengths of foreign environmental technologies. The key strengths of foreign environmental technology products, as perceived by more than half of the respondents, were high product quality, and the reliability and durability of products. Interestingly, however, only one respondent in five indicated good value for money as a strength of foreign environmental technologies compared with domestic products. This situation indicates that price levels for foreign products are perceived as excessively high, and may also suggest that foreign purchases are considered a last resort option, i.e. when a domestic equivalent is not available. Importantly, preferential credit from the supplier seems to significantly increase the chances of selling environmental technology products in Poland — some 40 percent of respondents referred to preferential financing as a strength of foreign technologies. For foreign suppliers, this stance should underline the importance of preparing an attractive financing pack-
What do you perceive as the greatest barriers to buying environmental technologies from abroad? High cost
65%
Too little information about suppliers
35%
Difficulty to ensure authorized technical service and maintenance
31%
Products not suited to local conditions and technical culture
23%
Lack of reliable product information
19%
Import restrictions/high customs duty
19%
Communication problems with foreign suppliers
12%
Changing environmental regulations
12%
age for improving the sales of their products.6 Only a small proportion of respondents regarded foreign environmental technologies as user-friendly and easy to customize and adapt to specific local conditions. Perhaps most importantly, only one in five respondents thought that good after-sales service was a strength of foreign environmental technologies. Problems with ensuring prompt technical service and maintenance by authorized representatives were also ranked high among barriers to purchase. Prompt and reliable after-sales service was clearly identified as an area where foreign companies considering long-term presence on the Polish market should focus their attention.
BARRIERS TO BUYING ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM ABROAD Table 4.33 presents a summary of the responses to the question posed on the main barriers to buying environmental technologies from abroad. High price was identified as the most significant barrier to
6 It is noteworthy that the National Environmental Protection Fund can provide buyers of environmental technologies with financial support to cover the difference between commercial credit interest rates, and a preferential rate applied by the Fund in priority environmental projects.
112
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
purchasing foreign environmental technologies in Poland — two thirds of respondents perceived foreign products as too expensive. As a result, buyers often opted for domestically designed and produced technologies, with only the most critical components manufactured by a foreign supplier (e.g. water and sewage pumps, specialized air pollution control systems). It is interesting to note, however, that some environmental services (e.g. testing and laboratory services) can already be carried out more cheaply by foreign providers rather than local providers, and a number of users subcontract services outside of the country (e.g. the food industry). One field clearly identified by respondents as a problem area was the lack of access to authorized technical services and maintenance for foreign-manufactured products. In addition, one third of the respondents thought that too little information was available on foreign suppliers. Based on the above, and bearing in mind that two-thirds of respondents prefer to buy from a local representative, foreign companies should consider setting up local representative offices to increase the sales of their products. Finally, about a quarter of respondents thought that foreign products were not always suitable for local conditions and technical culture. Two specific cases mentioned by interviewees included compatibility problems with equipment based on metric and non-metric systems, and attempts to implement municipal waste incineration regardless of high moisture content and low calorific value of municipal waste in Poland. Some 20 percent of respondents indicated import restrictions and high customs duties as a barrier. While this difficulty is expected to be eliminated with respect to EU products by the year 2000, the same does not apply to technology suppliers from other countries. Finally, given the fact that the level of knowledge of foreign environmental technologies was found to be very low (see the following chapter), it is surprising that only one in five respondents indicated the lack of reliable product information as an impediment to foreign purchases.
4.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market This section of the survey had two objectives. First, it examined respondents’ perceptions of foreign technology suppliers based on the country of origin. Secondly, it surveyed the major foreign companies active in Poland, as known by respondents.
PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Table 4.34 presents respondents’ perceptions of foreign technologies from selected countries, based on the question
“How do environmental professionals in Poland perceive environmental technologies originating from different countries ?” The following scale was used in rating: 5 = excellent reputation, 4 = good reputation, 3 = average reputation, 2 = poor reputation, 1 = very poor reputation, blank = no opinion. Figures in cells show the average score, while those in brackets represent the number of responses. In general, perceptions of foreign environmental technologies were between good and excellent. Technologies from Japan, Austria, Germany, and the US were perceived particularly well, followed by Dutch and Scandinavian products. Notably, all foreign environmental technologies were ranked well above the perceptions of domestic products, which were rated average. Only in the water and wastewater sector was the gap between perceptions of foreign and domestic products relatively small. German, Scandinavian, and American technologies were ranked particularly high in the air sector. In the water and wastewater sector, technologies from Japan, Austria, the US, and Germany were ranked high, followed by products from France, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. American, German, and Austrian technologies were best rated in the waste sector, followed by technologies from Scandinavia, France, and the Netherlands. Dutch and German technologies were highly rated in the energy sector, followed by products from the US and Scandinavia. Aside from the average score, the number of responses in each category is also significant, since to some extent it reflects the availability of foreign technologies on the market (and the perceived level of foreign activity). The distribution of responses indicates that, in the opinion of survey respondents, foreign activity was highest in the water and wastewater sector, followed by waste management and air sectors. German, Scandinavian, American, and Dutch environmental technology firms were perceived as the most active in Poland. The appearance of Japan so high on the list is, in the researcher’s opinion, somewhat surprising, since Japanese environmental products are hardly visible on the Polish market. Not a single Japanese firm presented their products at the POLEKO ’96 environmental trade fair. The researcher may only surmise that perhaps some of the respondents have had experience with Japanese products such as motor drives, electric motors, or controls manufactured in Japan. The low rating of Italy, and high score of Great Britain are based on single data points, and thus the results should be disregarded as potentially non-representative. However, the fact that Italy and Great Britain were mentioned by only one or two respondents indicates that suppliers and firms from those two countries are not very active in Poland. It is important to note that the above question focused on perceptions of foreign suppliers depending on the country of origin, rather than on respondents’ actual familiarity and/or experience with specific foreign companies. Therefore, while the conclusions from Table 4.34 give a good indication of
TABLE 4.34: PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Poland
Austria
Germany
France
Japan
Netherlands
US
Air
3.0 (6)
4.0 (3)
4.6 (5)
3.0 (2)
5.0 (1)
4.0 (3)
4.3 (3)
4.4 (5)
-
-
Water and wastewater
3.6 (8)
4.4 (5)
4.2 (8)
4.1 (6)
4.5 (4)
4.1 (6)
4.2 (8)
4.0 (9)
3.0 (1)
5.0 (1)
Waste
2.3 (6)
4.3 (3)
4.4 (5)
4.0 (3)
4.0 (1)
4.0 (4)
5.0 (3)
4.2 (5)
3.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
Energy
3.0 (4)
5.0 (1)
4.3 (3)
3.0 (1)
-
4.5 (2)
4.0 (3)
4.0 (2)
-
-
3.0
4.43
4.4
3.53
4.50
4.15
4.38
4.15
3.00
4.50
(# of responses) (24)
(12)
(21)
(12)
(6)
(15)
(17)
(21)
(2)
(2)
Average Score
Scandinavia Italy
UK
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
113
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
POLEKO ‘96 are listed in Table 4.36.7 The distribution of foreign companies present at POLEKO ‘96 corresponds well with the observations of the previous sections. The water and wastewater sectors were generally well represented by foreign suppliers on the Polish market, followed by air and waste management. German, Austrian, and French companies were best represented at the Fair.
TABLE 4.35: FOREIGN COMPANIES LISTED BY RESPONDENTS Country
Companies
Austria
Vogel, Biogest, Messner
Germany
ABS, Klein, Netzsch, Bellmer, Huber Siemens, Steinmueller, Rethmann Danfoss, Schumacher
Scandinavia
Flygt, Sarlin, Nopon, Noxon, Nokia Larox, FLS Milio
Holland
Ama-Filter
Belgium
Prayon
Italy
Inter-Eco
France
Guinard, Degremont
Great Britain
Allied Colloids
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPANIES ENTERING THE MARKET Based on the comments and observations made in the preceding sections, the following recommendations should be considered by environmental technology firms looking to increase their share of the environmental technology market in Poland: Improved Local Presence To better explore the Polish environmental market and take advantage of existing project opportunities, companies interested in exporting to Poland should increase their direct presence in the country. The major reasons for this are:
commonly held opinions, and represent the perceived level of foreign activity, they do not necessarily depict the actual knowledge of the foreign products available. The following sections present the answers to a more specific question concerning interviewees’ knowledge of foreign companies and actual experience with imported environmental technologies.
■
strong competition from major foreign suppliers (especially Germany, Scandinavia, Austria);
■
two-thirds of the potential environmental technology buyers prefer to buy from a local representative;
■
many potential buyers are concerned with the availability of after-sales technical service. This clearly is a significant issue in purchasing decisions;
■
a third of the respondents indicated that there was limited information available on foreign suppliers. This underlines the need for establishing a local presence and better product marketing;
■
access to information on environmental business opportunities is to a large degree based on personal contacts;
■
local language/communication problems.
MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKET Answers received in response to the question: “list the major foreign suppliers of environmental technologies within your area of expertise in Poland,” demonstrated that while a high number of experts could express a general opinion on suppliers from a variety of countries, much fewer were able to list specific companies active in their field of expertise. Respondents cited a limited number of environmental technology providers active in Poland, and these are presented below. Table 4.35 generally reflects the poor knowledge among experts of the foreign products available on the market in Poland. Practically none of the respondents could offer comments regarding the competitive strengths and weaknesses of specific firms.
The most cost-effective method to enter the Polish market is through a joint-venture or other strategic partnership with an experienced local company specializing in a similar product line. Competitive Financing Package High prices were identified as the main barrier to purchasing foreign environmental technologies in Poland — twothirds of respondents perceived foreign products as too expensive. At the same time, 40 percent of respondents indicated that the availability of preferential credit schemes or
POLEKO ‘96 Environmental Fair Since POLEKO is the most representative annual environmental event in Poland, the major countries present at
TABLE 4.36: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS, LISTED BY COUNTRY, ATTENDING THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FAIR POLEKO ’96, NOV. 19-22, POZNAN Austria
Belgium
Air
3
–
Switzerland Germany France UK 3
5
–
3
Netherlands Sweden –
1
Finland Total –
15
Water & wastewater
9
3
6
26
10
1
1
5
4
65
Waste
5
1
–
4
2
1
1
–
–
14
Energy
3
–
–
2
–
2
–
2
2
11
TOTAL
20
4
9
37
12
7
2
8
6
105
Note: A total of 570 exhibitors participated in POLEKO ‘96.
7 The above data may be somewhat incomplete, as those foreign companies active on the Polish market for a longer period of time, and which have established Polish local branches, are frequently classifed by Poleko organizers as domestic companies.
114
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
other attractive forms of financing can be a significant advantage of foreign products. Finally, many potential end-users of environmental technologies have serious cash flow problems and look for co-financing partners. Therefore, it is important to prepare an attractive and competitive financing package in order to increase the overall competitiveness of a product. Possible options include low-interest credit lines, partial refinancing of foreign deliveires, etc. Growth Sectors Overall, the highest demand for environmental technologies was found to be in the energy sector, and in water and wastewater treatment. This situation is closely related to current national environmental policy and regulations, where the key priority areas are air pollution abatement and protection of water resources (for more details, see the discussion in Sections 4.3 and 4.5). High demand in the air category is expected for technologies related to the abatement of air emissions and cleaner production (such as low-emission burners, etc.). Increasing demand was identified for air pollution control and flue gas purification equipment. Most frequently noted were state-ofthe-art systems to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust and particulates, nitrogen monoxides, and hazardous chemicals. In the related energy category, technologies in high demand included: new/efficient energy and heat generation systems; retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems; process management and control; technologies for heat recovery and energy savings; and alternative/renewable energy systems. A whole range of opportunities exist related to the on-going program of restructuring of the energy sector (e.g. the introduction of coal cleaning or gasification, fluidized bed burners, district heating in municipal areas). High demand is expected for the following technologies in the municipal and industrial wastewater sector: sludge treatment and disposal (very high demand); pollution prevention and waste minimization; monitoring; advanced (tertiary) treatment methods; and instrumentation, process control and software. Treatment of large amounts of saline water discharged from coal mining is still an unresolved problem. In the category surface and groundwater, high demand was identified for technologies for spill control and containment, and clean-up. In the waste management category, high demand is expected for technologies for pollution prevention and waste minimization, and recycling and resource recovery. For municipal waste, composting and biomass conversion technologies were identified as a high demand area. Technologies for collection, transportation, and storage of hazardous waste are also in high demand. As regards hazardous waste, high growth is expected for site monitoring, and waste collection, transportation and storage technologies. Finally, other areas where demand was found to be relatively high included technologies for spill control and decontamination, and site remediation and clean-up for industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste. End-user identification Finally, exporters should show initiative in end-user identification, and make effort in determining the end-user’s specific needs and requirements. This could be combined with an offer of technical assistance, or assistance with a loan application. In concluding, it is important to stress that while environmental technologies which are competitive with other Western products in terms of price and quality can be successfully introduced on the Polish market, the market is very competitive, with many foreign and domestic companies actively seeking opportunities. The key factor for a successful sale is an in-country representative office, and a dependable technical service.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
115
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
4.8 List of Interviewees The structure of information is as follows: Name Address Telephone number Interviewed person Profile of respondent
R & D INSTITUTIONS 1) Akademia Gorniczo-Hutnicza ul. Mickiewicza 30 paw. D-1 80-059 Krakow Tel: (48-12) 172-000 Adam Engel Main R&D center for noise and vibration issues 2) Instytut Ekologii Terenow Uprzemyslowionych ul. Kossutha 6 40-833 Katowice Tel: (48-32) 154-0164 Ewa Marchwinska Piotr Poborski Institute was established in 1972 as the Environmental Protection Institute, Katowice branch and in 1992 was transformed into the independent Institute for Ecology of Industrialized Areas 3) Instytut Ochrony Srodowiska ul. Krucza 5/11 00-548 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 622-3867, Fax: (48-22) 629-5263 Urszula Rzeszotowna The Institute carries out research and laboratory work on air, water and land surface protection, waste utilization, nature conservation, anti-noise and anti-vibration protection as well as environmental impact assessment. 4) Instytut Melioracji i Uzytkow Zielonych 05-090 Raszyn/Falenty Tel: (48-22) 756-0941, 756-0531 Mikolaj Sikorski Responsible for environmental issues typical of rural areas, established in 1950. 5) Instytut Ochrony Srodowiska ul. Wystawowa 1 51-618 Wroclaw Tel: (48-71) 483-563, 728-821, Fax: (48-71) 481-140 Janusz Przewlocki The largest institute covering all environmental categories 6) Miedzywydzialowe Studia Ochrony Srodowiska, Uniwersytet Warszawski ul. Krakowskie Przedmiescie 30 00-927 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 620-0381 ext. 669 Ewelina Kantowicz Interfaculty Studies for Environmental Protection
116
7) Politechnika Czestochowska, Instytut Inzynierii Sanitarnej ul. Dabrowskiego 69 42-200 Czestochowa Tel: (48-34) 250-917 January Bien The Faculty was established in late 1980s. Water and wastewater treatment, including sludge treatment and disposal, are the main fields of activity 8) Politechnika Szczecinska, Wydzial Inzynierii Wodnej ul. Piastow 50 70-311 Szczecin Tel: (48-91) 494-407 Ryszard Rydzynski The University is active mainly in the Baltic Sea pollution control 9) Politechnika Warszawska Wydzial Inzynierii Srodowiska, Instytut Zaopatrzenia w Wode i Budownictwa Wodnego ul. Nowowiejska 20 00-653 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 660-5336, 621-5995 Fax: (48-22) 621-3370 Marian Kwietniewski The largest multi-faculty technical university, established in 1950. 10) Politechnika Wroclawska ul. Wybrzeze Wyspianskiego 27 50-370 Wroclaw Tel: (48-71) 320-3804, 320-3267, Fax: (48-71) 222-980 Marek Sozanski One of the largest, multi-faculty technical universities. 11) Polska Akademia Nauk Centrum Podstawowych Problemow Gospodarki Surowcami Mineralnymi i Energia ul. Jozefa Wybickiego 7 31-261 Krakow Tel: (48-12) 322-068 Tadeusz Smakowski The department was established in 1986 and is responsible for the majority of energy and mineral resources management issues in Poland 12) Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej Zaklad Gospodarki Wodnej IMGW ul. Podlesna 61 01-673 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 341-651, Fax: (48-22) 345-466 Marek Gromiec The institution is responsible for coordinating the majority of water and wastewater R&D projects 13) Instutut Medycyny Pracy w Lodzi ul. Sw. Teresy 8 91-348 Lodz Integrated occupational health issues, including exposure monitoring at working places
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
14) Glowny Instutut Gornictwa pl. Gwarkow 1 40-166 Katowice Monitoring Department, Leszek Drobek Tel: (48-32) 592-677 Waste Treatment and Environmental Protection Department, Slawomir Durczynski Tel: (48-32) 592-445 Water Protection Department, Krzysztof Filipek Tel: (48-32) 592-154 Energy and Air Protection Depatrment, Eugeniusz Orszulik Tel: (48-32) 592-274 Experts of the Ministry of Environmental Protection in the field of environmental protection; motorway impact assessment, cleaner production, energy saving and air protection, enviromnent monitoring, water and sewage management, waste management 15) Szkola Glowna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego (SGGW) ul. Nowoursynowska 166 02-787 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 439-041, 439-061, 439-081 Fax: (48-22) 471-562 Zbigniew Karaczun The Institution focuses on environmental problems typical for rural areas.
ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURES 1) Ekofundusz-Fundacja Ekofundusz ul. Belwederska 18A 02-762 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 400-901, 400-950 Fax: (48-22) 400-942 Jozef Dobija Wojciech Krolikowski Established for eco-conversion funds’ distribution 2) Ministerstwo Ochrony Srodowiska Zasobow Naturalnych i Lesnictwa ul. Wawelska 52/54 00-922 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 254-784 Czeslaw Wieckowski Krystyna Panek Environmental Policy Department 3) Narodowa Fundacja Ochrony Srodowiska ul. Krzywickiego 9 02-078 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 252-127, 251-018 Aleksandra Wiszniewska Consultacy service in areas relating to environmental protection, training and educational activities, environmental impact assessment, environmental audits for institutions, environmental research 4) Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej ul. Konstruktorska 3A 02-673 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 490-079, 490-080, Fax: (48-22) 497-272 Jan Zwolinski (spokesman) National Environmental Protection fund for project financing
5) RZGW w Gdansku ul. Uphagena 27 80-237 Gdansk Tel: (48-58) 452-266, Fax: (48-58) 452-262 Halina Burakowska Central administrative structure responsible for the northern part of the Vistula river basin 6) RZGW w Katowicach ul. Jesionowa 9a 40-158 Katowice Tel: (48-32) 598-843, Fax: (48-32) 599-642 Franciszek Tomiczek Central administrative structure responsible for water management issues in the Silesian region 7) RZGW w Krakowie ul. M.J. Pilsudskiego 22 31-109 Krakow Tel: (48-12) 230-559, Fax: (48-21) 212-909 Tomasz Walczykiewicz Central administrative structure responsible for the southern part of the Vistula river basin 8) RZGW w Poznaniu ul. Grunwaldzka 21 60-703 Poznan Tel: (48-61) 656-956 Tel/Fax: (48-61) 656-953 Janusz Wisniewski Central administrative structure responsible for the central part of the Oder river basin, including the Warta river basin 9) RZGW w Szczecinie ul. Pocztowa 12/12 70-360 Szczecin Tel: (48-91) 844-076, Tel/Fax: (48-91) 844-075 Waldemar Kowalczuk Central administrative structure responsible for the northern part of the Oder river basin 10) RZGW w Warszawie ul. Instalatorow 9 02-237 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 462-051, 466-775 Fax: (48-22) 466-197 Andrzej Badowski Central administrative structure responsible for the central part of the Vistula river basin 11) RZGW we Wroclawiu ul. Wybrzeze Wyspianskiego 39 50-370 Wroclaw Tel: (48-71) 212-888, 226-651 to 54 Andrzej Nalberczynski Central administrative structure responsible for the southern part of the Oder river basin 12) Urzad Wojewodzki w Lublinie Wydzial Ochrony Srodowiska ul. Spokojna 4 20-214 Lublin Tel: (48-81) 292-40, Fax: (48-81) 285-40 Halina Matyjaszek Voivodship environmental protection authorities
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
117
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
END-USERS 1) ALPEX Karlino S.A. ul. Kolobrzeska 17-19 78-230 Karlino Tel: (48-94) 117-728, 117-231 Anna Polanska Large company specializing in production of chipboards and hardboards 2) APATOR S.A. ul. Zolkiewskiego 13/29 87-100 Torun Tel: (48-56) 398-264, 391-242 Fax: (48-56) 391-295 Leon Malinowski Large company specializing in the production of electrical measuring equipment 3) CENTRA Spolka Akcyjna ul. Gdynska 31/33 61-016 Poznan Tel: (48-61) 786-323, 786-481 Maciej Gramowski Large battery manufacturing enterprise 4) DANONE ul. Redutowa 9/23 01-103 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 364-293, 379-030 Andrzej Kaczorowski Large milk processing plant 5) DROBEX-HEINTZ Sp. z o.o. ul. Kaniewska 8/10 70-876 Szczecin Tel: (48-91) 691-503, Fax: (48-91) 600-169 Krzysztof Niewiarowski Large poultry processing plant 6) Fabryka Aparatow Elektryczych “FAEL” Sp. z o.o. ul. Warynskiego 20 57-200 Zabkowice Sl. Tel: (48-72) 152-710 to 19 Ewa Borcz Large company specializing in the production of electrical equipment
10) Huta Czestochowa ul. Rejtana 6 42-207 Czestochowa Tel: (34) 238-782 Michal Krajewski One of the biggest metallurgical foundries in Poland well managed with implemented environmental management systems 11) Huta Szkla Jaroslaw ul. Morawska 1 37-500 Jaroslaw Janusz Franczyk Large, private glass processing company 12) Kaliskie Zaklady Koncentratow Spozywczych “WINIARY” S.A. ul. lodzka 149/153 62-800 Kalisz Tel: (48-61) 650-310, Fax: (48-62) 739-47 Pawel Kwasnik Large food processing plant 13) KONSTAL S.A. ul. Katowicka 104 41-500 Chorzow Tel: (48-32) 411-051 to 58 Fax: (48-32) 413-397 Henryk Lis Domestic products manufacturing company 14) Lucent Technologies ul. Pilicka 6 85-776 Kielce Tel: (48-52) 741-411 Tomasz Kiec Large telecommunication equipment manufacturing company 15) Miejskie Przedsiebiorstwo Wodociagow i Kanalizacji pl. Starynkiewicza 5 02-015 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 628-5567 Wojciech Charkiewicz Large company responsible for water/wastewater management in the Warsaw municipality
7) Fabryka Lin i Drutu DRUMET S.A. ul. Polna 26/74 87-800 Wloclawek Tel: (48-54) 33-3-221 to 29 Andrzej Domagalski Company responsible for the manufacture of metal wire
16) Miejskie Przedsiebiorstwo Wodociagow i Kanalizacji w Lublinie ul. Pilsudskiego 15 20-407 Lublin Tel: (48-81) 237-56, Fax: (48-81) 219-10 Tadeusz Fijalka Large company responsible for water/wastewater management
8) Fabryka Lozysk Tocznych “ISKRA” S.A. ul. Jagiellonska 109 25-743 Kielce Tel: (48-41) 666-111 Rudolf Martin Medium-sized bearings manufacturing plant
17) SERY ICC PASlÊK Sp. z o.o. ul. Dworcowa 9 14-400 Paslek Tel: (48-50) 482-085 Zbigniew Adamczyk Medium-sized milk processing plant
9) FlT “PREMA-MILMET” S.A. ul. Gen. Grota-Roweckiego 130 41-200 Sosnowiec Tel: (48-3) 191-8854 Mieczyslaw Binkiewicz Large roller-bearing processing plant
18) Warszawskie Zaklady Papiernicze S.A. ul. Mirkowska 45 05-520 Konstancin-Jeziorna Tel: (48-22) 756-4011 ext. 360 Renata Ziemska Large paper processing plant
118
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
19) Zaklady Azotowe S.A. ul. Kwiatkowskiego 8 33-101 Tarnow Tel: (48-14) 372-340 Leokadia Pawelec Large chemical plant 20) Zaklady Chemiczne “WIZOW” S.A. 59-700 Boleslawiec skr. pocz. 58 Tel: (48) 795-2020 to 24 Fax: (48) 795-2025 Krystyna Pasierb Large chemical company currently under privatization 21) Zaklady Chemiczne “Organika-Zachem” ul. Wojska Polskiego 65 85-825 Bydgoszcz Tel: (48-52) 611-820, 617-011 Fax: (48-52) 610-282 Roman Kasperczyk Przemyslaw Nawracala Large state owned chemical plant 22) Zaklady Chemiczne „ROKITA” S.A. ul. Sienkiewicza 4 56-100 Brzeg Dolny Tel: (48-71) 747-771 Michal Bednorz Large chemical plant 23) Zaklady Metali Lekkich “KETY” S.A. ul. Kosciuszki 111 32-650 Kety Tel: (48-38) 145-22 Jacek Chwistek Large aluminium processing plant 24) Zaklady Plyt Wiorowych PROSPAN ul. Boleslawicka 10 98-400 Wieruszow Tel: (48-647) 413-18 ext. 247 Stanislawa Kaczmarek Large chipboard and hardboard processing plant 25) Zaklady Przemyslu Barwnikow “BORUTA” S.A. ul. A. Struga 30 95-100 Zgierz Tel: (48-42) 162-034, Fax: (48-42) 164-886 Piotr Pietrzak Large manufacturer of dyes
DESIGN/ENGINEERING 1) ATMOTERM ul. Katowicka 35 45-061 Opole Tel: (48-77) 54 46 67, 54 39 84, 56 67 60 Ryszard Pazdan Large company specializing in air pollution issues 2) ARKA KONSORCJUM S.A. ul. Zmigrodzka 41/49 60-171 Poznan Tel: (48-61) 677-353, 677-400 Fax: (48-61) 678-432 Przemyslaw Wiznerowicz Large company responsible for water and wastewater issues
3) BIPROWOD Biuro Projektow Gospodarki Wodnej i Sciekowej ul. Rydygiera 8 01-793 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 633-9273, Fax: (48-22) 633-9373 Wlodzimierz Glamkowski Medium-sized state owned company specializing in water/wastewater management issues 4) Centrum Techniki Budownictwa Komunalnego ul. Krzywickiego 9 02-078 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 250-973 Waclaw Pajdzinski Medium-sized private design company specializing in water/wastewater and waste management issues 5) DECYBEL Sp. z o.o. ul. Mickiewicza 9 58-573 Piechowice Tel: (48-75) 535-20 Andrzej Szalej Design/consulting company responsible for noise and vibration issues 6) Dolnoslaski Instytut Technologiczny ul. Slezna 144 53-110 Wroclaw Tel: (48-71) 675-704 Miroslaw Szymanski Private consulting company responsible for wastewater management, especially manure utilization 7) DOR-EKO Przedsiebiorstwo KonsultingowoInzynieryjne Sp. z o.o. ul. Robotnicza 11/13 02-261 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 466-911, 467-885 Antoni Oleszczyk Private consulting company responsible for municipal environmental issues; cooperation with WS Atkins 8) ECOINSTAL-PROJEKT Pracownia Autorska ul. Ponikowskiego 3 07-707 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 651-0120, Tel/Fax: (48-22) 651-0121 Witold Olszewski Private design company specializing in wastewater collecting systems in samll and medium size settlements 9) EKOCOMP ul. Chocimska 28 00-791 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 498-010 Leszek Puchalski Company responsible for automation and control systems in water and wastewater treatment plants 10) EKO-EFEKT Sp. z o.o. Narodowego Funduszu Ochrony Srodowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej, Oddzial Gliwice ul. Konstytucji 11 44-100 Gliwice Tel: (48-32) 1307-725 Stanislaw Janusz Consulting company owned by the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, responsible for environmental protection projects, including supervision of Finnish eco-conversion funds utilization
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
119
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
11) EKOKONREM Sp. z o.o. ul. Tarnogajska 18 50-512 Warszawa Tel: (48-71) 671-104, 671-206, 670-021 Fax: (48-71) 671-104, 674-320 Wojciech Zielinski Consulting company specialized in various environmental categories
19) GEOTEX S.A. ul. Batalionow Chlopskich 49 70-770 Szczecin Tel: (48-91) 615-493, Fax: (48-91) 615-981 Piotr Jermalowicz Design company specializing in construction and sealing of waste dumps
12) EKOL Agencja Inwestycyjno-Handlowa S.C. ul. G. Zapolskiej 4 33-300 Nowy Sacz Jan Zabierzewski Small private design office specializing in wastewater treatment
20) INSTALEX-BIOOX Sp. z o.o. ul. Mazowiecka 12 00-050 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 826-6447, 826-7438 Lech Narbutt Design/engineering company specializing in completion of watewater treatment plants of the type BIOOXYBLOK
13) EKOLOG Przedsiebiorstwo Projektowo Inzynieryjne Al. Wojska Polskiego 43 64-920 Pila Tel: (48-67) 126-405, 123-328 Fax: (48-67) 126-405 Krzysztof Horodecki Large private design/engineering company specializing in various types of environmental protection services
21) INZYNIERIA PRO-EKO Sp. z o.o. ul. E. Ciolka 11A 01-445 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 377-750 Leslaw Dindorf Design/engineering company specialized in solid waste treatment and disposal projects
14) EKOLOG Systems ul. Ziebicka 35 60-164 Poznan Tel: (48-61) 684-527 Krzysztof Pachocki Branch office in Poznan
22) MSS environmental engineering ul. Kopcinskiego 9/23 02-777 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 644-3470 Andrzej Mroz Small private company specializing in utilization of hazardous/toxic wastes
15) ELIMP Sp. z o.o. Zaklad Rozwoju Nowych Technik Ochrony Srodowiska ul. Chlodna 52/54 00-872 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 249-173, 620-2671 Tel/Fax: (48-22) 243-578 Wlodzimierz Mozryn Consulting/engineering company specializing in water treatment technologies
23) PROEKO Ltd ul. Krzywickiego 34 02-078 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 625-7456, 625-7523 Tel/Fax: (48-22) 625-3648 Bronislaw Kaminski Consulting company of medium size specializing in environmental categories
16) ENERGOPOMIAR Sp. z o.o. Zaklady PomiarowoBadawcze Energetyki ul. Gen. Sowinskiego 3 44-101 Gliwice Tel: (48-32) 37 68 00, Fax: (48-32) 31 65 42 Zygmut Rozewicz Consulting/engineering company specializing in measurement equipment
24) PROJPRZEM S.A. ul. Bernardynska 13 85-029 Bydgoszcz Tel: (48-52) 229-001, Fax: (48-52) 286-157 Lukrecjan Marzec Engineering/manufacturing company specializing in container type wastewater treatment plants and water treatment plants
17) ENERGOPROJEKT Glowne Biuro Studiow i Projektow Energetycznych ul. Krucza 6/14, skr. poczt. 184 00-950 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 621-0281, Fax: (48-22) 629-3240 Tadeusz Sobolewski Main design engineering office specializing in completion of energy systems 18) HYDROPROJEKT WARSZAWA Sp. z o.o. ul. Dubois 9 00-182 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 635-3891, Fax: (48-22) 635-0020 Aleksander Laski Designing/engineering company specializing in water protection structures
120
25) PROSAN Sp. z o.o. ul. Baœniowa 3 02-349 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 221-200 Jan Mroczek Head design/engineering office specializing in water/wastewater management and treatment issues 26) PROSAN ul. Zubrow 1 71-716 Szczecin Tel: (48-91) 226-350, 226-245 Witold Dabek Branch office in the northern part of Poland
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
27) SALGEO ul. Basniowa 3/p.512 02-349 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 659-6889 Janusz Salyga Private geological company specializing in environmental issues 28) SEEN – Service for Engineering ul. Krzywickiego 34 02-078 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 625-1225, Fax: (48-22) 628-3336 Rafal Lipinski Consulting/engineering/design office, sole agent and distributor (water and chemical issues) 29) SETO-C.D & Office S.C. ul. Plac Zwyciestwa 2 90-312 lodz Tel/Fax: (48-42) 744-218, 307-110, 307-115 Tadeusz Sedzikowski Design/engineering office specializing in water/wastewater management 30) STOLICA Sp. z o.o. ul. Kredytowa 3 00-056 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 827-8797, 826-0632 Fax: (48-22) 264-291 Wojciech Grodecki Design/engineering office specializing in municipal environmental protection issues 31) WS Atkins-Polska ul. Marszalkowska 82 00-517 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 623-6340 Tel/Fax: (48-22) 623-6341 Aleksander Granowski Consulting/engineering company, part of the British WS Atkins Company
BUSINESS UNITS 1) ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd ul. Stachowicza 18 30-103 Krakow Tel: (48-12) 223-407, 221-693 Piotr Ciechanowski Large company specializing in air pollution control/energy generating instalations 2) AQAMEX S.A. ul. Fosa 3 02-768 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 433-453 Tel/Fax: (48-22) 431-932 Andrzej Rykowski Company responsible for wastewater treatment, equipment manufacturer and supplier 3) AQATECH Sp. z o.o. Przedsiebiorstwo BadawczoProdukcyjne ul. Czarny Dwor 4A 80-365 Gdansk Tel/Fax: (48-58) 534-199 Edward Ledwon Company responsible for water treatment equipment
4) ARCUS Sp. z o.o. Dzial Biotechnologii ul. Mila 2 00-180 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 635-0994, 6351282 Fax: (48-22) 317-043 Hanna Koziej Polish/British supplier of wastewater treatment, and process stimulating substances 5) BIOX Zaklad Urzadzen Natleniajacych ul. Bohaterow Westerplatte 24 11-500 Gizycko Jerzy Kiczynski Company specializing in aeration equipment manufacturing 6) BUDEXPOL Sp. z o.o. ul. Braniborska 38/40 53-680 Wroclaw Tel: (48-71) 555-029, 558-023 Fax: (48-71) 559-059, 552-207 Andrzej Medynski Design/manufacturing company; turn key projects supplier: sewage treatment plants including fermentation chambres, oxygen-free reactors, decanters, deposit procesing installations, etc. 7) CANDELA Sp. z o.o. ul. Kozietulskiego 6 01-571 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 394-315, 394-316 Fax: (48-22) 393-577 Michal Swiatek Company distributing analytical instruments; representative for a few foreign manufacturers 8) CHEMADEX Przedsiebiorstwo Projektowania i Dostaw Kompletnych Obiektow Przemyslowych ul. Koszykowa 6 00-564 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 621-6271, Fax: (48-22) 629-5003 Krzysztof Kaminski Engineering/construction company specializing in deliveries of turn-key wastewater treatment plants, including sugar processing wastewater treatment 90 EKOFINN-POL Sp. z o.o. ul. Belgradzka 89 80-287 Gdansk Tel: (48-58) 487-090, Fax: (48-58) 487-090 Krzysztof Tiunajtis Medium-sized private company specializing in production and installation of small wastewater treatment plants; Polish/Finnish company 10) ELEKTRIM ul. Chalubinskiego 8 00-950 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 302-199, 302-192 Fax: (48-22) 300-841, 300-842 Andrzej Skowronski One of the biggest trading-contracting companies specializing in the energy sector
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
121
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
11) EXBUD ul. Witosa 74 25-561 Kielce Tel: (48-41) 331-2833, Fax: (48-41) 331-9074 Witold Zaraska Construction company; turn-key projects supplier; projects are implemented in cooperation with Polish and foreign companies offering environmental protection know-how 12) FLOOTEK AB ul. Pytlasinskiego 13A 00-777 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 403-186, 826-9521, 620-3494 Leszek Zadura Supplier of industrial wastewater treatment plants (Scandinavian origin) 13) Fluid Corporation ul. Morawskiego 5 30-102 Krakow Tel: (48-12) 223-666 ext. 479 Jan Gladki Private company specializing in fluidized bed boilers construction 14) FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY FACOP, Fabryka Kotlow Przemyslowych ul. Staszica 31 41-200 Sosnowiec Tel: (48-32) 664-861 to 68 Wojciech R. Kowalski Boiler manufacturing factory specializing in energy/air protection issues 15) HYDROBUDOWA-9 Sp. z o.o. Przedsiebiorstwo Inzynieryjno-Budowlane ul. Sienkiewicza 22 60-900 Poznan Tel: (48-61) 650-011, 475-621 Fax: (48-61) 475-623 Wojciech Pawlaczyk Engineering/construction company specializing in building wastewater treatment plants 16) KOWENT S.A. ul. Warszawska 52 26-200 Konskie Tel: (48-41) 126-355 to 59, Fax: (48-41) 126-181 Jan Sipika Supplier of air pollution control equipment 17) METEX HUBER Sp. z o.o. ul. Kredytowa 3 00-056 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 826-9011, Fax: (48-22) 826-5819 Krystyna Kielbiewska Medium-sized private company specializing in the distribution of Finnish devices for wastewater treatment plants 18) NETZSCH Filtrationstechnik GmbH-Jaworski International ul. Nowogrodzka 38/19 00-691 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 629-0745 Fax: (48-22) 622-2689 Dariusz Jaworski Company responsible for supply of sludge dewatering equipment of German origin
122
19) NIJHUIS WATER TECHNOLOGY b.v ul. Wl. Reymonta 1 05-820 Piastow Tel: (mobile) (48-90) 224-818 Tel/Fax: (48-22) 723-5430 Tomasz Jagielski Company responsible for water treatment equipment supplies 20) POLIMEX-CEKOP ul. Czackiego 7/9 00-950 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 623-7537 Tel/Fax: (48-22) 623-7267 Marek Fyalkowski 21) POWOGAZ Osrodek Badawczo-Rozwojowy Aparatury i Urzadzen Komunalnych Sp. z o.o. ul. Szczepanowskiego 13 60-541 Poznan Tel: (48-61) 411-318 Marian Andrzejewski Water/wastewater equipment and installation supplier 22) PROCHEM S.A. ul. Ostrobramska 103 04-041 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 102-689 Fax: (48-22) 107-694, 102-918 Jaroslaw Stepniewski Large construction-engineering company; partly owned by the Fluor Daniel Company 23) Przedsiebiorstwo Wielobranzowe “SANITGAZ” S.C. ul. Buraski 18A 20-150 Lublin Tel: (48-81) 771-472, 771-506 Boguslaw Matyjaszek Small company and sanitary installation supplier 24) PWP, Przedsiebiorstwo Wdrozeniowo-Produkcyjne pl. Starynkiewicza 5 02-015 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 625-4795 Maria Danielewska Representative of a number of firms (water and sewage pumps and sanitary technology) 25) RAFAKO S.A., Fabryka Kotlow ul. Lakowa 33 47-400 Raciborz Tel: (48-36) 415-2171, Fax: (48-36) 415-2902 Tadeusz Ekiert Urszula Bednarczyk Jerzy Jedz Boiler manufacturer specializing in energy/air protection issues 26) SEFAKO S.A. Fabryka Kotlow ul. Przemyslowa 9 28-340 Sedziszow Tel: (48-498) 610-36, 110-73 Wojciech Biskup Boiler manufacturer factory specializing in energy/air protection issues
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
27) SPOMASZ Fabryka Maszyn i Urzadzen Przemyslu Spozywczego ul. Powstancow Wielkopolskich 23 64-510 Wronki Tel: (48-67) 540-561, Fax: (48-67) 553-108 Zbigniew Rebacz Company responsible for sludge dewatering equipment supplies 28) WIBEX S.C. ul. Batorego 9 07-300 Ostrow Mazowiecka Tel: (48-217) 53-852, Fax: (48-217) 51-857 Grzegorz Kubicki Company responsible for hydro-insulating materials and supplies (for sealing waste dumps, lagoons, overflows, etc.) NOTE : For the purpose of this survey, the term Business Units is used to refer to multi-sectoral, profit-oriented companies; two main types of companies were distinguised: ■
equipment suppliers (generally they represent various manufacturers);
■
engineering, construction, contracting and trading companies specializing in capital goods for many industrial branches, including environmental protection systems (generally those are projects suppliers)
Eleven companies were additionally interviewed: ■
Narodowa Fundacja Ochrony Srodowiska
■
FosterWheeler
■
Polimex-Cekop
■
Wibex
■
Glowny Instytut Gornictwa
■
Seen
■
PWP
■
Geotex
■
Exbud
■
Elektrim
■
Candela Two companies were not interviewed:
■
Mayfair Polska — the company was liquidated
■
Sanders — not well known among environmental protection specialists in Poland; the address and telephone/fax numbers were not available in any environmental business reference sources; according to unconfirmed information, Sanders International specializes in consulting services in various branches
The following parties completed the Questionnaire: RZGW in Gdansk; RZGW in Wroclaw; Warsaw University of Technology; Warsaw Agriculture University; Institute for Ecology of Industrialised Areas in Katowice; Institute of Environmental Protection, Branch office in Wroclaw; Institute for Grass Farming and Land Reclamation in Falenty (near Warsaw); Polish Academy of Science; Mineral Resources and Energy Management in Krakow; Glass Foundry in Jaroslaw; Chemical Plant WIZOW in Boleslawiec; Chemical Plant BORUTA; FLT “ISKRA” in Kielce; EXIDE-CENTRA in Poznan; ICC Paslek; Chemical Plant ORGANIKA-ZACHEM in Bydgoszcz; Municipal Water & Wastewater Company in Lublin; Water Management Designing Office BIPROWOD in Warsaw; PROEKO in Warsaw; Designing/Engineering Bureau CTBK in Warsaw; FLUID Corporation; EKOFINN-POL in Gdansk; METEX-HUBER in Warsaw; Asea Brown Boveri Ltd in Warsaw; Zaklady Azotowe S.A in Tarnow-Moœcice; PROCHEM S.A. in Warsaw; Ministry of Enivironmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, Environmental Policy Department; Polimex-Cekop The remaining parties listed above were interviewed without the use of questionnaire, either on the phone, or in person. Referring to the additional list of 20 organizations presented by the Client, ERM Polska would like to note the following: Seven companies/institutions were included in the survey from the project initiation: ■
The Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry
■
The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water management
■
Ekofundusz
■
PROCHEM/Fluor Daniel in Warsaw
■
Rafako
■
Ekolog
■
Elimp
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
123
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
4.9 Overview of the Most Important Environmental Investments Initiated or Continued in Selected Voivodships in Poland in 1994 Examples are presented of typical environmental projects characterizing current Polish environmental protection market (information based on annual voivodship environmental protection reports from 1995)
GDANSK VOIVODSHIP Water Protection Water & Wastewater Management at Production Facilities 1. Sugar plant “Pelplin” w Pelplinie: Modernization of screening installations, Modernization/improvement of biological treatment installation focused on land application of treated wastewater;
ment plant (with nutrient removal) municipal WWTP in Somonino, of 1,600m3/d capacity; 9. Completion and start-up of mechanical-biological treatment plant (with nutrient removal) municipal WWTP in Chmielno, of 1,040 m3/d capacity; 10. Construction of mechanical-biological (tracking filters) WWTP, with chemical nutrient removal in the municipality of Stezyca, of 740m3/d capacity; 11. Completion and start-up of mechanical-biological treatment plant (with nutrient removal) municipal WWTP in the municipality of Krokowa, of 770m3/d capacity; 12. Completion and start-up of mechanical-biological WWTP (with tertiary treatment in polishing lagoons) in the municipality of Wdzydze Kiszewskie; 13. Completion and start-up of the first stage of mechanicalbiological treatment plant, municipal WWTP Gdansk — Debogorze of 86,000 m3/d capacity;
w
14. Start-up of the mechanical-biological WWTP type “biosegmentblok”, with chemical nutrient removal, in the municipality of Przodkowo, planned capacity: 1 000m3/d.
3. Zaklady Przemyslu Tluszczowego “Olvit” Zaklad w Gdansku (Food Processing Plant): Closure of the cooling system, and modernization of sewage pretreatment systems;
Air Protection Investments completed in 1994. 1. ”Siarkopol” S.A. Gdansk (Chemical Processing Plant): Completion of modernized technological installation, in order to minimize sulfur emission;
2. Starogardzkie Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Starogardzie (Pharmaceuticals plant): Construction of water storage tank;
“Polfa”
4. “Kooperol ” w Zdunach Food Processing Plant): Start-up of the completed biological wastewater treatment plant (excluding biological ponds), of 50m3/d capacity; 5. Gospodarstwo Rolne Przemyslowa Ferma Tuczu Trzody Chlewnej — Ryszard Gorny w Grabowie Koscierskim (Pigs’ Farm): Completion of modernization of the manure, mechanicalbiological treatment plant; Completion of sludge treatment unit prior to land application of resulting sludge; 6. Przedsiebiorstwo Polowow i Uslug Rybackich “Szkuner ” we Wladyslawowie (Fishing company): Modernization of pretreatment installation and pumping stations construction for wastewater transportation to the Swarzewo wastewater treatment plant (not completed to date). Municipal Wastewater Management 1. Construction of the mechanical-biological treatment plant in Tczew, of 21,000m3/d capacity; 2. Construction of the mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant, type Biooxyblok in Koscierzyna, of 18,000m3/d capacity; 3. Construction of mechanical-biological treatment plant (with nutrient removal) in Starogard Gdanski; 4. Construction/modernization of mechanical-biological treatment plant (with nutrient removal) in Jastrzebia Gora, of 3,360m3/d capacity; 5. Modernization of WWTP in Skarszewy; 6. Reconstruction and modernization of mechanical-biological treatment plant (with nutrient removal) WWTP in Kartuzy, of 10,000m3/d capacity; 7. Construction of mechanical-biological treatment plant (with nutrient removal) municipal WWTP in Pelplin, of 3,200m3/d capacity; 8. Completion and start-up of mechanical-biological treat-
124
2. Goscicinska Fabryka Mebli “KLOSE” (Furniture Manufacturing Plant): Boiler house modernization; 3. Wytwornia Mas Bitumicznych w Rozynach (Par Based Material Production Plant): Installation of textile filters at production halls; 4. Okregowe Przedsiebiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej w Gdyni (Regional Heat Distribution Enterprise): Construction of central municipal heat distribution network and liquidation of the following low emission boiler houses: ■ ul. Bohaterow Starowki Warszawskiej 7 in Gdynia, ■ ul. Cylkowskiego in Gdynia, ■ ul. Gorna 23/27 in Gdynia, ■ ul. Grotgera 19 in Gdynia, ■ ul. Karlikowska in Sopot, ■ ul. Okrzei 5/7 in Sopot, ■ ul. Okrzei 15 in Sopot, Replacement of heating fuel (gas) in the following low emission boiler houses: Al. Niepodleglosci 710 in Sopot, Parkowa 27 st., in Sopot, Czyzewskiego 8/10 st., in Sopot; 5. Gdanskie Przedsiebiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej w Gdansku (Heat Distribution Company in Gdansk): Development of central/municipal heat distribution system; liquidation of the following old, local heat generation plants in Gdansk: ■ Zakopianska 29 st., ■ Skarpowa 23 st., ■ Zakopianska 14 st., ■ Rybaki Gorne 4 st., ■ Lisia Grobla 1st., ■ Wojska Polskiego Al. 6. Rafineria Gdanska S.A. (Refinery in Gdansk): Boiler house modernization;
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
7. Zaklady Produkcji Kruszywa Popioloporytowego w Gdansku (Construction Materials Production Plant: startup of the production line focused on reuse of waste manufactured by heat/energy generating plant in Gdansk (waste recycling) Investments Commenced in 1994 1. Heat/energy generating plant, equipped with air pollution control installations, in Zaklady Farmaceutyczne „ POLFA ” in Starogard; 2. Heat generating plant fed with gas in Stocznia Gdanskiej S.A.;
Waste Management 1. Completion of three municipal landfills in the following municipalities: Dziemiany, Osiek, Osow. 2. Completion of the incineration waste storage (after surplus sludge incineration at Gdynia Debogorz Wastewater Treatment Plant) 3. W Fabryce Kwasku Cytrynowego przy Cukrowni Pelplin completion of the process waste landfill in Ropuchy.
3. Modernization of process equipment which is the significant source of air emissions in Stocznia Gdanska S.A.;
4. Completion of three hospital waste incineration plants: ■ Szpital Morski im. PCK in Gdynia- Redlowo, ■ Panstwowy Szpital Kliniczny nr 2 in Gdansk, ■ Szpital Rejonowy ZOZ in Tczew;
4. Process devices modernization focused on air emission reduction in Rafineria Gdansk S.A.;
WROCLAW VOIVODSHIP
5. Implementation of the state-of-the-art, low emission painting devices in Stocznia Remontowej NAUTA in Gdynia. Noise Control Investments 1. MEAT Gdynia Przetwornia Eksportowa w Sopocie: ■ replacement of old noise generating boiler house installations with gas fed boilers, ■ modernization of the cooling installation; 2. PZZ STAMO w Starogardzie Gdanskim: Mlyn w Starogardzie Gdanskim: ■ implementation of low-noise ventilators, ■ implementation of the noise control equipment at the industrial ventilation system, ■ construction of noise screens, Mlyn w Skarszewach: ■ industrial ventilation system modernization, implementation of noise control equipment and low-noise ventilators; 3. Gdanskie Przedsiebiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej — Stacja Podnoszenia Cisnien Wilenska (Heat Disribution Company in Gdansk): ■ modernization of pump installations, including applyication of vibration control construction materials, ■ implementation of the noise reducing insulation of building structures; ■ implementation of acoustic screens; 4. Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ZENTEX w Gdansku: Implementation of noise reducing insulation of the cooling installation building; 5. Zaklad Kamieniarsko-Nagrobkowy w Gdyni: Implementation of the low-noise process machines; 6. Gdanskie Mlyny i Spichlerze PZZ w Sopocie Mlyn w Gdansku: ■ implementation of building construction insulation, ■ modernization of the industrial ventilation system; 7. Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie: ■ implementation of noise-reducing screens of pneumatic transport installation at production facilities; ■ replacement of noise generating ventilation equipment with low-noise emission ones; ■ implementation of noise control equipment at vacuum pumping station, ■ completion of acoustic screens of air pressure storage tanks;
Water Protection Wastewater Management at Industrial Facilities 1. CPN Wroclaw — mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant for Swojec site, 2. Szkola Podstawowa Chrzastawa — mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant; 3. Nadlesnictwo Oborniki Sl. — root type wastewater treatment plant for forester’s sheds of Pegow and Jary (completed by Nevexpol company); 4. Nadlesnictwo Olesnica — root type wastewater treatment plant for forester’s sheds of Szczodre, Grochowa, and Eda Wielka (completed by Nevexpol company); Municipal Wastewater Management 1. UMiG Sroda Slaska — mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant for the Sroda Slaska municipality, 6,000 m3/d; 2. UMiG Zmigrod — mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant for the Zmigrod municipality, 2,500 m3/d; 3. UMiG Katy Wroclawskie — mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant for the Katy Wroclawskie municipality, 2,700 m3/d. Air Protection 1. “Polifarb” S.A. Wroclaw — implementation of a new industrial ventilation system, installation of catalytic after-burners at production halls, modernization of the boiler house; 2. Farmaceutyczna Spoldzielnia Pracy “Galena,” Zaklad nr 2 — replacement of coal fed boiler house with gas fed boiler house; 3. Zaklady Chemiczne “Viscoplast” S.A. we Wroclawiu — completion of the desulfurization plant for one boiler; 4. Zaklad produkcyjny “Aida” w Olesnicy — Modernization of the boiler house NOLTING, dust removal cyclones of nearly 100 percent efficiency; 5. Zaklad Stolarki Budowlanej “Stolbut ” Wroclaw — two incineration units with fluidized beds; 6. Specjalistyczny Zespol Psychicznej Opieki Zdrowotnej Wroclaw — modernization of boilers focused on coal fuel replacement with gas; 7. Piekarnia przy ul. Barlickiego a we Wroclawiu — modernization of boiler house (replacement of coal with gas); 8. Huta „ Olawa” S.A. w Olawie — installation of suspended particles removal, pulsating filters;
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
125
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
10. Piekarnia przy ul. Partyzantow 43 we Wroclawiu — installation of low emission gas burner type EP-75; 11. Zaklady Odlewnicze “ALWRO” S.A. we Wroclawiu — installation of dust/suspended particles removal equipment; 12. Zaklady Tworzyw Sztucznych “Erg” w Olawie — implementation of catalytic after-burner installation in order to reduce process emission; Noise and Vibration Protection none Waste Management Process Waste Landfills PPZM „ Centrozlom ” we Wroclawiu, process waste landfill in the rural settlement of Gozdzikowice. Municipal Waste Landfills The following investments were completed: 1. Urzad Miasta i Gminy Jelcz-Laskowice, municipal landfill in the Brzezinki-Debina settlement 2. Urzad miasta i Gminy Katy Wroclawskie, municipal landfill in Sosnica settlement, The following investments are under construction: 1. Urzad Gminy Lagiewniki, municipal landfill in the Lagiewniki settlement; 2. Urzad Gminy Kondratowice, municipal landfill in the Kondratowice settlement; 3. Urzad Miasta Olesnica, municipal landfill in the BrzezinkiDebina town; 4. Urzad Gminy Oborniki Slaskie, municipal landfill; 5. Urzad Gminy Prusice, municipal landfill; 6. Urzad Miasta i Gminy Twardogora, municipal landfill; 7. Urzad Miasta i Gminy Milicz, municipal landfill; 8. Urzad Gminy Wisznia Mala, municipal landfill.
WARSAW VOIVODSHIP Water Protection Municipal Wastewater Management 1. Gora Kalwaria — wastewater treatment plant for “Rybie” housing estate; 2. Orzechowo — wastewater treatment plant, including tertiary treatment in polishing ponds, for housing estate located closed to PERN Pumping Station (Stacja Pomp PERN); 3. Nadarzyn — wastewater treatment plant for wastewater collected from the municipality of Nadarzyn and from surrounding settlements;
9. Otwock — wastewater treatment plant for the OtwockKarczew municipalities; 10. Grodzisk Mazowiecki — wastewater treatment plant for the Grodzisk Mazowiecki and Milanowek municipalities. Industrial Wastewater Management 1. Browar Mazowiecki w Okuniewie — wastewater treatment plant modernization; 2. Sanatorium Neuropsychiatrii Dzieciecej w Zagorzu — wastewater treatment plant for the Zagorz hospital; 3. EC “Siekierki” (large power/heat generating plant in Warsaw) — completion of the process & storm wastewater treatment plant; 4. Zaklad Specjalny dla Dzieci w Markach i Osrodek SzkolnoWychowawczy w Markach-Strudze — start-up of mechanical-biological treatment plant; 5. ZPT Reynolds Tobacco w Jozefoslawiu, Centrum Handlowe w Wolce Kosowskiej i Palarnia Kawy “Alvorado” w Kostowcu — construction of wastewater treatment plant; 6. OSM “Praga” Oddzial w Radzyminie — completion of mechanical-biological treatment plant; 7. BENCKISER S.A. w Nowym Dworze Mazowieckim — completion of mechanical-biological treatment plant; 8. Jednostka Wojskowa w Kazuniu — completion of mechanical-biological treatment plant; 9. Mazowieckie Zaklady Przemyslu Owocowo-Warzywnego w Tarczynie — completion of mechanical-biological treatment plant; 10. Centrum Rehabilitacji ZPZOZ-ZPS w Chylicach, Instytut Melioracji i Uzytkow Zielonych w Falentach, Dom Pomocy Spolecznej w Bramkach, Dom Pomocy Spolecznej w Derdach, Polski Zwiazek Gluchych w Smoszewie — wastewater treatment plants under construction (five plants for various institutions); Air Protection 1. EC “Zeran” (one of the biggest energy/heat generating plants in Warsaw) — construction of fluidized bed boilers; completion of low emission burners installation; 2. Thomson-Polkolor w Piasecznie — boiler house modernization; 3. Przedsiebiorstwo Spedycji Miedzynarodowej Hartwig — boiler house modernization; 4. Cementownia Warszawa — suspended particles removal equipment modernization; 5. Fabryka Narzedzi Chirurgicznych I Dentystycznych w Milanowku — boiler house modernization; 6. Zaklady Stolarki Budowlanej w Wolominie — completion of sulfur removal installation;
4. Brody Nowe, naer Pomiechowek — wastewater treatment plant for wastewater collected from the municipality of Pomiechowek and from surrounding settlements;
7. Warszawskie Zaklady “Stomil” — modernization of industrial ventilation system, including activated carbon adsorption equipment;
5. Radzymin — municipal wastewater treatment plant;
8. Tarchominskie Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” — completion of low emission burners installation;
6. Nowy Dwor Mazowiecki — municipal wastewater treatment plant; 7. Wolomin — municipal wastewater treatment plant “Krym”; 8. Piaseczno — completion of equalizing/storage wastewater tank for wastewater collection from surrounding rural areas;
126
Noise Protection Investment Focused on Noise Protection Generated by Transport Means and Industry Processes 1. Lotnisko Okecie (Warsaw airport) — completion of integrated monitoring system and acoustic screens construction;
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
2. Tarchominskie Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” acoustic screen construction;
4. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Naleczow;
3. Grodziskie Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” — completion of noise reducing insulation at the boiler house;
5. Process wastewater treatment plant in Michalow;
4. Spoldzielnia Mleczarska w Warszawie przy ul. Wielickiej — implementation of noise reducing structures (cooling equipment); Waste Management 1. Green waste composting plant at Marywilska st. in Warsaw; 2. Completion of the municipal waste composting plant, type DANO (Austrian technology) in Radiowo (Warsaw); 3. Completion of the municipal waste composting plant in Grodzisk Mazowiecki, 4. Completion of waste utilization plant in Brwinow; 5. Municipal waste utilization plant construction at Zabraniecka st. in Warsaw; 6. Construction of the hospital waste incineration plant at Woloska st.; 7. Landfill recultivation at the Marki municipality.
SKIERNIEWICE VOIVODSHIP Air Protection 1. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Bartniki; 2. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Hamernia; 3. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Rawa Mazowiecka; 4. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Bolimow; 5. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Sochaczew; 6. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Cieladz; 7. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Lowicz; 8. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Zyrardow. Air Protection none listed
6. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Milejow; 7. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Krzczonow; 8. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Puchaczow; 9. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Janowiec; 10. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Fajslawice; 11. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Chodel; Air Protection 1. ZA “Pulawy” w Pulawach (Large Chemical Plant) — modernization of coal fed installation; 2. Zaklad Energetyczny Lublin SA “LUBZEL” SA w Elektrocieplowni Lublin-Wrotkow — boiler house modernization, including low emission burners installation; Noise Protection 1. Lubelska Spoldzielnia Pracy Przemyslu Spozywczego “SOLIDARNOSC,” Zaklad w Krasniku — modernization of industrial ventilation systems; 2. Lubelska Spoldzielnia Pracy Przemyslu Spozywczego „ SOLIDARNOSC,” Zaklad w Lubartowie — modernization of industrial ventilation systems, including acoustic screens implementation; 3. Okregowa Spoldzielnia Mleczarska w Opolu Lubelskim — replacement noise generating coal fired boilers with gas fired ones Waste Management 1. Start-up of the biggest landfill in the region, in Rokitno, for the Lublin municipality waste disposal.
POZNAN VOIVODSHIP Water Protection Water Management 1. Construction of ground abstraction well in the Gruszczyn municipality and water supply network completion in the Poznan town and Murowana Goslina settlement; 2. Water treatment plant construction in the Zydowo and Czerniejewo municipalities;
Noise Protection none listed Waste Management 1. Municipal waste landfill construction in the Pukinin rural settlement, near Rawa Mazowiecka,
LUBLIN VOIVODESHIP Water Protection 1. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Leczna;
3. Completion of water distribution systems in the Otorowo and Imielno settlements, 4. Modernization of boiler water treatment plant in Wrzesnia; Wastewater Management 1. Fabryka Kosmetykow Pollena-Lechia w Poznaniu — wastewater treatment plant construction for the section No. 2;
2. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction in Ostrow Lubelski;
2. Przedsiebiorstwo Wodociagow i Kanalizacji w Poznaniu — Central Wastewater Treatment Plant modernization and new wastewater treatment plant construction in the Mosina municipality (boths WWTPs for the Poznan town needs);
3. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant construction (capacity extension) in Belzyce;
3. Centra SA w Poznaniu — wastewater neutralization plants modernization at industrial sections Nos. 3 & 4.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
127
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
Air Protection 1. Przedsiebiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej w Poznaniu -liquidation of two local, coal fed, boiler houses which were located in the old city of Poznan;
4.10 The List of 80 (Most Polluting Industrial Plants in Poland)
Noise Protection none listed
voivodship Warsaw 1. Pharmaceutical Works Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” w Grodzisku Mazowieckim 2. Power and Heat Generation Plant Elektrocieplownia “Siekierki” w Warszawie
Waste Management Municipal Waste 1. Municipal waste landfill completion for the Gniezno town in the Lulkowo rural settlement; 2. Municipal waste landfills completion in the following rural settlements: ■ Bialega, Murowana Goslina municipality ■ Uscikowiec, Oborniki municipality ■ Piotrkowek, Szamotuly municipality ■ Dopiewo, Dopiewo municipality
(as of June 6, 1996)
voivodship Bielsko-Biala 3. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Oswiecim” w Oswiecimiu voivodship Bydgoszcz 4. Sodium Processing Works Janikowskie Zaklady Sodowe “Janikosoda” S.A. w Janikowie 5. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Organika-Zachem” w Bydgoszczy 6. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Nitro-Chem” S.A. w Bydgoszczy voivodship Chelm 7. Cement Factory Cementownia “Chelm” w Chelmie voivodship Czestochowa 8. Cement Factory Cementownia “Rudniki” S.A. w Rudnikach 9. Smelter Huta “Czestochowa” w Czestochowie voivodship Gdansk 10. Phosphorus Fertilizer Works Gdanskie Zaklady Nawozow Fosforowych “Fosfory” Sp.z o.o. voivodship Jelenia Gora 11. Lignite mine Kopalnia Wegla Brunatnego “Turow” w Bogatyni 12. Power Plant Elektrownia “Turow” w Bogatyni 13. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Wizow” S.A. w Boleslawcu Slaskim voivodship Katowice 14. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Hajduki” S.A. w Chorzowie 15. Coke processing plant Kombinat Koksochemiczny “Zabrze” — Koksownia “Knurow” w Knurowie 16. Smelter Huta “Katowice” S.A. w Dabrowie Gorniczej 17. Cement Factory Cementownia “Wiek” w Ogrodziencu 18. Coke processing plant Kombinat Koksochemiczny “Zabrze” — Koksownia “Makoszowy” w Zabrzu — Mokoszowy 19. Coke processing plant Zaklady Koksownicze “Przyjazn” w Dabrowie Gorniczej 20. Power Plant Elektrownia “Rybnik” w Rybniku 21. Smelter Huta “Laziska” w Laziskach Gornych 22. Power Plant Elektrownia “Laziska” w Laziskach Gornych 23. Power Plant Elektrownia “Siersza” w Trzebini 24. Power Plant Elektrownia “Lagisza” S.A. w Bedzinie 25. Power Plant Elektrownia “Jaworzno III” S.A. w Jaworznie 26. Coal Mine Nadwislanska Spolka Weglowa S.A. w Tychach, Kopalnia Wegla Kamiennego “Czeczott” w Woli 27. Coal Mine Nadwislanska Spolka Weglowa S.A. w Tychach, Kopalnia Wegla Kamiennego “Piast” w Bieruniu 28. Coal Mine Nadwislanska Spolka Weglowa S.A. w Tychach, Kopalnia Wegla Kamiennego “Ziemowit” w Tychach 29. Metal Works Duo-Stal Sp. z o.o. w Bytomiu 30. Metal Works Zaklady Metalurgiczne Sp. z o.o. w Bytomiu 31. Huta Cynku “Miasteczko Slaskie” w Tarnowskich Gorach
128
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
32. Mining-Smelter Works Zaklady Gorniczo-Hutnicze “Boleslaw” w Bukownie 33. Mining-Smelter Works Zaklady Chemiczne “OrganikaAzot” S.A. w Jaworznie 34. Refinery Rafineria “Czechowice” S.A. w Czechowicach Dziedzicach 35. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Tarnowskie Gory” w likwidacji w Tarnowskich Gorach 36. Refinery Rafineria “Trzebinia” S.A. w Trzebini voivodship Kielce 37. Cement and Calcium Processing Works Zaklady Cementowo-Wapiennicze “Nowiny” w Sitkowce k/Kielc voivodship Konin 38. Aluminum smelter Huta Aluminium “Konin” S.A. w Koninie 39. Power Plant Elektrownia “Konin” w Koninie voivodship Krakow 40. Smelter Huta im. T. Sendzimira w Krakowie 41. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne S.A. w Alwerni voivodship Legnica 42. Copper Smelter KGHM “Polska Miedz” S.A. Oddzial — Huta Miedzi “Legnica” w Legnicy 43. Copper Smelter KGHM “Polska Miedz” S.A. Oddzial — Huta Miedzi “Glogow I” w Zukowicach 44. Hydrotechnical Plant Oddzial KGHM “Polska Miedz” S.A. Zaklad Hydrotechniczny voivodship Lublin 45. Car Factory DAEWOO MOTOR POLSKA Sp. z o.o. w Lublinie 46. Nitrogen Works Zaklady Azotowe “Pulawy” S.A. w Pulawach voivodship Lodz 47. Dyestuffs Works Zaklady Przemyslu Barwnikow “Boruta” S.A. w Zgierzu voivodship Opole 48. Coke Processing Works Huta “Katowice” S.A., Zaklady Koksownicze w Zdzieszowicach 49. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Blachownia” w Kedzierzynie-Kozlu 50. Chemical works Zaklady Azotowe “Kedzierzyn” w Kedzierzynie-Kozlu
voivodship Szczecin 58. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Police” w Policach k/Szczecina 59. Chemical Works “Wiskord” S.A. w Szczecinie voivodship Tarnobrzeg 60. Kopalnie i Zaklady Przetworstwa Siarki “Siarkopol” w Tarnobrzegu 61. Sulfur Mine Kopalnia Siarki “Machow” w Tarnobrzegu w likwidacji 62. Power Plant Elektrownia im. T. Kosciuszki w Polancu 63. Power Plant Elektrownia “Stalowa Wola” w Stalowej Woli 64. Sulfur Mining and Processing Plant “Siarkopol” w Grzybowie voivodship Tarnow 65. Nitrogen Works Zaklady Azotowe S.A. w Tarnowie 66. Synthetic Materials Plant Zaklady Tworzyw Sztucznych “Erg” S.A. w Pustkowie voivodship Torun 67. Inorganic Industry Works Torunskie Zaklady Przemyslu Nieorganicznego “Polchem” w Toruniu voivodship Walbrzych 68. Coke Processing Plant Zaklady Koksownicze “Walbrzych” w Walbrzychu w likwidacji 69. Power and Heat Generation Plant Kopalnia Wegla Kamiennego “Victoria” -w likwidacji- Elektrocieplownia w Walbrzychu voivodship Wloclawek 70. Paper Works Zaklady Papiernicze we Wloclawku 71. Nitrogen Works Zaklady Azotowe S.A. we Wloclawku voivodship Wroclaw 72. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Rokita” S.A. w Brzegu Dolnym 73. Non-ferrous metal processing Works “Hutmen” S.A. we Wroclawiu 74. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Viscoplast” S.A. we Wroclawiu
voivodship Ostroleka 51. Paper and Cellulose Works “Intercell” S.A. w Ostrolece voivodship Piotrkow 52. Power Plant Elektrownia “Belchatow” w Rogowcu 53. Lignite Mine Kopalnia Wegla Brunatnego “Belchatow” z/s w Rogowcu 54. Synthetic Fiber Works Zaklady Wlokien Chemicznych “Wistom” w Tomaszowie Mazowieckim voivodship Plock 55. Refinery Petrochemia Plock S.A. w Plocku voivodship Poznan 56. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Lubon” S.A. w Luboniu k/Poznania voivodship Rzeszow 57. Fluorsecent Lamp Factory Rzeszowskie Zaklady Lamp Wyladowczych “Polam-Rzeszow” w Pogwizdowie Nowym (w likwidacji )
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
129
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
4.11 List of Publications and Other Literature Used in the Survey 1. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. Fakty i Liczby ’95. Warsaw, Poland: MOSZNiL, in press, 1996. 2. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, Ecological Policy Department. Zasady finansowania dzialalnosci pozarzadowych organizacji ekologicznych. Warsaw, Poland: MOSZNiL, September 1996. 3. Fundacja EKOFUNDUSZ. Konwersja polskiego dlugu na ochrone Srodowiska 1992-1995. Warsaw, Poland: Ekofundusz 1996. 4. Fundacja EKOFUNDUSZ. The ECOFUND programme priorities, project selection criteria and procedures of operation. Warsaw, Ekofundusz 1996. 5. Biuro Studiow i Ekspertyz, Kancelaria Sejmu. Problemy ochrony srodowiska w procesie przeksztalcen wlasnosciowych. Warsaw, Poland: BSE Kancelaria Sejmu 1996. 6. Central and Eastern Europe Environmental Economics and Policy Project. Zrodla finansowania inwestycji ekologicznych w Polsce.Przewodnik. Warsaw, Poland: Chemonics International Inc., November 1996.
17. Komitet Badan Naukowych. Kryteria i tryb przyznawania srodkow z budzetu panstwa na finansowanie projektow badawczych. Warsaw, Poland: KBN, July 1995. 18. Glowny Urz1d Statystyczny. Ochrona Srodowiska 1994. Informacje i opracowania statystyczne. Warsaw, Poland: GUS, 1995. 19. Instytut na rzecz Ekorozwoju. Raport. Polityka ochrony powietrza atmosferycznego w Polsce. Warsaw, Poland: InE, 1994. 20. Krajowa Konferencja Naukowo-Techniczna. Problemy Gospodarki Osadowej w Oczyszczalniach Sciekow. Czestochowa, Poland: NFOSiGW, 1993. 21. The Baltic Sea Conference 1993. The Baltic Sea — our Common Environment. Background Paper of the State of the Baltic Sea. Helsinki, Finland: the Association of Finnish Local Authorities, 1993. 22. Narodowa Fundacja Ochrony Srodowiska. Krajowe Centrum Edukacji Ekologicznej. Eko Indeks ’93. Warsaw, Poland: NFOS, 1993. 23. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. National Enviromnental Policy of Poland. Warsaw, Poland: MOSZNiL, May 1991. 24. Regional Environmental Center, The Emerging Environmental Market: A Survey of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, June 1995
7. Glowny Urzad Statystyczny. Ochrona Srodowiska 1996. Informacje i opracowania statystyczne. Warsaw, Poland: 1996. 8. Glowny Urzad Statystyczny. Rocznik Statystyczny 1996. Warsaw, 1996. 9. Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej. A SUMMARY of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management Activities in 1995. Warsaw, Poland: NFOSiGW, 1996. 10. Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej. Seven Years of Activity of the National Protection and Water Management. Warsaw, Poland: NFOSiGW, 1996. 11. Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej. Selection criteria and financing rules of support from resources of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management in 1997. Warsaw, Poland: NFOSiGW, 1996. 12. ERM Polska, The 1996 Polish Investment Forum. 3rd Annual Conference. Investing in Poland: The Growing Importance of Environmental Issues. Warsaw, Poland: Euromoney Publications PLC, September 1996. 13. Panstwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska. Aneks do “Oceny wypelniania wymogow Ochrony Srodowiska przez Zaklady z ‘Listy 80’” wydanej w grudniu 1994r. Warsaw, Poland: PIOS, June 1996. 14. Panstwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska. Ocena funkcjonujacych instalacji redukcji SO2 oraz NOx. Raport z cyklu kontrolnego przeprowadzonego w 1995 roku. Warsaw, Poland: PIOS, April 1996. 15. POLEKO International Ecological Fair, Exhibitors’ Catalogue, Poznan, Poland, November 1996 16. Centre for Co-operation with the Economies in Transition. Environmental Performance Reviews. Poland. Paris, France: Head of Publications Service, OECD 1995.
130
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 4: POLAND
4.12 List of Environment-related Publications in Poland The structure of the information is as follows: TITLE, Editor or Contact person, Address and Telephone Weekly Magazine Biuletyn Zamowien Publicznych, ul. Powsinska 69/71 02-903 Warszawa, Tel: (48-22) 694-6750, 694-6752, Fax: (4822) 694-6206, Internet: http://www.urm.gov.pl//uzp/iuzpa.html Biweekly Magazines AGROSERWIS, Katarzyna Krol, Tel: (48-22) 827-2401 LAS POLSKI, Tel: (48-22) 220-334
PRZEMYSL I HANDEL, Mr Marek W. Remblinski, Tel: (48-22) 629-1140 PRZYRODA POLSKA, Mr Stanislaw Drewniak, Tel: (48-22) 635-8171 RAJ, Ms Barbara Templi, Tel: (48-71) 724-376 TEN SWIAT, Ms Ina Sobieraj, Tel: (48-61) 530-923 TRYBUNA LESNIKA, Tel: (48-32) 518-932 WEGETARIANSKI SWIAT, Ms Agnieszka Oledzka, Tel: (4822) 826-3250 ZIELONA ARKA, Mr Marek Osajda, Tel: (48-91) 501-708 ZIELONE BRYGADY, Tel: (48-12) 222-147 ZYJMY DLUZEJ, Tel: (48-22) 454-216
SRODOWISKO, Pawel Wojcik, Tel: (48-22) 620-7462, Jacek Zysk, Tel: (48-22) 757-0030
Bimonthly Magazines Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Ochrony Przyrody “SALAMANDRA”
Monthly Magazine AURA — Ochrona Srodowiska, Edward Garscia, ul. Florianska 37, 31-019 Krakow, Tel: (48-12) 226-376, Fax: (4812) 210-502
Biuletyn Ruchu Ekologicznego Sw. Franciszka z Asyzu, Tel: (48-12) 227-115
Biuletyn Ekologiczny, edit by PKE, Tel: (48-32) 59 43 15 Biuletyn FUNDACJI POSZANOWANIA ENERGII, Tel: (48-22) 255-285 Biuletyn Informacyjny EKOLANDU Biuletyn Informacyjny ZG PKE, Tel: (48-12) 218-852 Biuletyn Lubuskiego Klubu Przyrodnikow w SWIEBODZINIE Biuletyn NIECODZINNY (BORE), Tel: (48-22) 618-2894 CZYSTY SWIAT, Zbigniew Rossa, Tel: (48-22) 490-936 DZIKIE ZYCIE, Andrzej Janusz Korbel, Tel: (48-30) 183-153 ECHA LESNE, Slawomir Trzaskowski, Tel: (48-22) 258-556 ECHO BOROW TUCHOLSKICH
Biuletyn Zarzadu Polskiej Fundacji Lesnej “POL-FOREST,” Mr Boleslaw Spring, Tel: (48-71) 211-401 EKO— Krosno, Ms Malgorzata Madej, Tel: (48-131) 649 02 EKOLOGIA I ZDROWIE, Ms Grazyna Dziurdzik-Krasniewska, ul. Bernardynska 5/73a, 02-904 Warszawa, Tel: (48-22) 6427337, http://www.atm.com.pl/ecoheal TOK wydarzen w srodowisku naturalnym — Biuletyn Ekologiczny, Ms Agnieszka Nowak, Tel: (48-81) 25-867 Quarterly Magazines EKO FORUM — Kwartalnik Ekologiczny, Mr Piotr Girczys, ul. Dabrowki 16, 40-081 Katowice, Tel/Fax: (48-32) 153-8682 GAJA — WISLA FAX, Mr Wojciech Owczarz, Tel: (48-30) 23684
EKO BALTYK, Ms Joanna Maciejowska, Tel: (48-58) 567-495
ZDROWA ZYWNOSC — ZDROWY STYL ZYCIA, Mr Zygmunt Koper, Tel: (48-14) 330-994
EKOFINANSE, Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej, Mr Krzysztof Walczak, ul. Gedymina 13/32, 04-120 Warszawa, Tel/Fax: (48-22) 612-2694
Annual EKOBIULETYN
EKO i MY, Ms Maria Ciesielska, Tel: (48-91) 553-101
WEGETERIANIN, Mr Tomasz Nocun, Tel: (48-81) 27-132
EKOPARTNER, Ms Jadwiga Oleszkiewicz, ul. Krolowej Jadwigi 13a, 05-820 Piastow, Tel: (48-22) 625 -1210
ZWIERZETA I MY, Ms Alina Kasprowicz, Tel: (48-61) 476-285
EKOPROFIT, Ms Jolanta Matiakowska-Karmanska, Tel: (4832) 516-101, 517-332 FORUM EKOLOGICZNE GAZ, WODA, TECHNIKA SANITARNA, Tel: (48-22) 827-0249 GOSPODARKA PALIWAMI I ENRGIA, Tel: (48-22) 619-2187 GOSPODARKA WODNA, Ms Ewa Skupinska, Tel: (48-22) 826-8016 LOWIEC POLSKI, Tel: (48-22) 826-4613 PARKI NARODOWE, Ms Ewa Kwiecien, Tel: (48-22) 224-936 POLISH INVESTMENT MARKET, Ms Krystyna Wozniak, Tel: (48-22) 628-0955 POZNAJMY LAS, Ms Anna Potarska, Tel: (48-22) 224-936 PRZEGL¥D GEOLOGICZNY, Tel: (48-22) 495-342 PRZEMYSL CHEMICZNY, Tel: (48-22) 620-0589
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
131
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
Chapter 5: Slovakia 5.1 Summary of Findings In 1995, total country spending on environmental protection amounted to USD 232 million. The level of spending has declined slightly over the last three years. In the period 19921995, water protection accounted for 44 percent of total environmental spending, followed by air protection (43 percent) and waste management (12 percent). The government covers just over a half of total environmental expenditures. Two-thirds of the national budget contribution is allocated to the construction of wastewater treatment facilities and sewage collection systems, and to public water supply projects. The remaining third is mainly spent on air protection and waste management projects, where a large part of the project costs are covered by industrial plants and municipalities. Foreign assistance programs make up a minor source of financing for environmental investments. The PHARE program is the major foreign donor. The State Environmental Fund is the most important governmental source of finance for environmental projects. Between 1992 and 1995, expenditures on wastewater treatment plants and sewerage systems accounted for 41 percent of the Fund expenditures, followed by air protection (25 percent), water supply systems (20 percent), and waste management activities (8 percent). Draft government policy envisages that, by the year 2000, the national budget will cover just 10 percent of environmental expenditures, with bank sources, foreign investments, and resources of individual enterprises and municipalities each covering approximately 30 percent. The environmental products and services market is a rapidly developing sector of the economy, but accurate information on the market size is not available. The size of the environmental technology market in Slovakia in 1995 was estimated at USD 174 million. Air pollution is the most serious environmental problem in Slovakia, especially with respect to SO2, toxic substances and
POLAND CZECH REPUBLIC
Zilina
Kosice
S L O VA K I A UKRAI NE
Nitra
AUSTRIA
Bratislava
HUNGARY
0
50
100
kilometers
heavy metals, particulates, and carbon dioxide emissions. There are also major problems with water quality, waste management, and agricultural and forestry practices. Environmental priorities are outlined in the State Environmental Policy (policy statement), and in the related National Environmental Action Plan (implementation plan). The priority areas include: air protection against pollutants; sufficient supply of high quality drinking water; decreasing the pollution of water resources to acceptable levels; soil conservation; proper disposal or utilization of waste; reduction of waste generation; preservation of biodiversity; and the conservation and rational use of natural resources. The National Environmental Action Plan, developed in 1995, identifies 1,356 specific measures (projects of various nature). Of the total USD 3.4 billion required for the implementation of the Plan, measures related to air and ozone layer protection account for 41 percent of the required financing, followed by projects focusing on the protection of water resources, and promotion of rational use of water (20 percent), protection and rational use of natural resources, soil and forests (17 percent), nature conservation and landscape protection (12 percent), and waste management (8 percent).
TABLE 6.1: BASIC COUNTRY INFORMATION Czech Republic Population (mln)
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
10.3
10.2
38.6
5.4
2.0
78,900
93,000
312,700
49,000
20,200
GDP (USD bln)
52.3
44.3
134.3
18.9
18.6
GDP growth (%)
1.3
1.2
7.7
6.0
3.1
Foreign Direct Investment (USD bln)
7.3
16.2
13.5
1.0
1.7
Unemployment rate (%)
4.8
10.3
10.6
13.0
14.4
Average monthly wages (USD)
302.0
319.0
329.0
257.9
890.0
Inflation rate (%)
10.3
18.4
14.5
6.0
9.6
Exchange rate to the USD
33.5
197.8
3.4
34.0
167.8
1,185.0
385.0
1,308.0
232.0
150.0
2.6
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
Area (sq.km)
Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (USD mln) Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (% of GDP)
Source: Business Central Europe, November 1997; 1996 Statistical Yearbooks of each surveyed country
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
133
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
Major project opportunities identified in the Plan include : ■
Air and energy — installation of desulfurization equipment in coal-fired power plants; introduction of fluidized bed boilers and energy co-generation in power plants; switching from coal to natural gas as the primary energy source; introduction of low-sulfur fuels; and use of geothermal energy.
■
Water and wastewater — upgrading and expansion of existing water and wastewater treatment plants; construction of new sewage collection and treatment facilities; and reconstruction and extension of sewage collection networks.
■
Waste management — construction of landfills for solid and hazardous waste disposal; regional incineration plants for hospital waste; remediation and revitalization of old landfills.
■
Other fields — disposal of radioactive waste; environmental improvements in the nine most contaminated areas in the country; and elimination of factors damaging forests.
The main sources of information used by Slovak companies include personal contacts and participation in environmental fairs, followed by directories and governmental organizations. Companies often create their own rudimentary information databases. Awareness of official information sources was very limited. Environmental fairs play an important role, and the best known fairs in Slovakia include Komunal in Zilina, Aqua in Trencin, Racioenergia in Bratislava, and Enviro in Nitra. Tenders announced in the Commercial Bulletin of the Slovak Republic, are not considered a useful source for information on business opportunities. The major information sources used prior to purchasing environmental technologies include respondents’ own information databases, governmental organizations (e.g. Ministry of Environment), and catalogues of domestic and foreign environmental fairs. High demand was identified for technologies related to waste management, and the water and wastewater sector. Demand for environmental technologies in the energy and air quality sectors was moderate, and demand for noise, vibration and OHS technologies was low. In the air sector, high demand was identified for instrumentation and process control/software for gaseous emissions. Growting demand was expected for technologies related to emission abatement and cleaner production; equipment for air sampling/laboratory analysis for both ambient air and gaseous emisions; and air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment. Demand for water and wastewater technologies was high, specifically for technologies for inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply and municipal wastewater collection networks; monitoring equipment for industrial wastewater; equipment for clean-up, decontamination, and quality restoration of surface and ground water; and for technologies for the construction of municipal and industrial wastewater collection networks. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to standard wastewater treatment processes for water and wastewater; instrumentation, process control, and software for industrial wastewater; and sampling/laboratory analysis equipment. Growth in demand was also expected for technologies related to the construction of water supply networks; sludge treatment and disposal of municipal and industrial wastewater); and advanced (tertiary) treatment processes for water and wastewater. Demand for waste management technologies was high. Significant opportunities are expected in hazardous waste disposal, followed by radioactive and industrial waste manage-
134
ment. Very high demand was identified for technologies related to landfill disposal (all waste categories); equipment for hazardous and radioactive waste site remediation and contaminated land clean-up; equipment for waste collection/transportation and storage (all waste categories); and technologies related to recycling and resource recovery in the area of hazardous waste. Other technologies in high demand included pollution prevention/waste minimization equipment for hazardous and radioactive waste; equipment for hazardous and radioactive waste site monitoring, and radioactive waste sample analysis/waste characterization; and, finally, technologies for hazardous waste incineration. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to spillage control/decontamination for industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste; technologies for recycling and resource recovery for industrial and municipal waste; sample analysis/waste characterization equipment for industrial and municipal waste; and equipment related to industrial waste site monitoring, remediation, and clean-up. Demand for energy-related technologies was moderate. Specific technologies in high demand included new/efficient energy and heat generation systems, and alternative (nonCFC) refrigerants. Growth in demand was expected for instrumentation; process management and control equipment; and in “other industrial sectors” for technologies related to retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems. Surprisingly, only moderate demand was identified for heat recovery and energy saving technologies, and for retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems in the energy sector. Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety was low. Major end-users of environmental technologies in most sectors include the chemical industry and the energy sector. Local governments (municipalities) are a significant user of technologies related to water and wastewater, and waste management. The mineral mining and processing sector is an important end-user of waste management and energyrelated technologies. Eighty percent of respondents stated that they use only besttechnology or best-practice criteria when purchasing environmental technologies, although further discussion usually revealed that, in practice, they favored domestic products because of lower prices. Sixty percent of interviewees preferred to buy foreign products from a local representative, while 40 percent preferred to buy directly from the producer abroad. Major strengths of foreign environmental technologies in comparison with domestic products included reliability and durability of products (80 percent of respondents) and high product quality (70 percent). Good value for money, aftersales service, and user-friendly design were mentioned by 30 percent to 40 percent of respondents. The greatest barriers to buying foreign environmental technologies included high price (70 percent of respondents) and the lack of reliable product information (50 percent). About a third of the respondents specified other barriers such as import restrictions and high customs duty, limited information about suppliers, and problems with access to authorized technical services. The perception of foreign environmental technologies was ranked between good and excellent, well above the perception of domestic products. In the air sector, American, German, Austrian and Scandinavian technologies were ranked particularly high. German, American, French, Dutch and Scandinavian products were best perceived in the water and wastewater sector. German, American, French and Scandinavian technologies were ranked high in the waste management sector, while the energy sector seemed to be dominated by Scandinavian, German, American and Dutch products. Scandinavian and German products rated high in the
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
noise and vibration sector. Foreign companies are most active in the water and wastewater sector, followed by waste and energy. Air pollution control, and noise, vibration and OHS were represented to a lesser degree. Most active in the water and wastewater sector are German companies, followed by Czech, French, and American suppliers. Danish, Austrian, and French firms seem to dominate among foreign companies in the waste sector, while in the energy sector, German and American presence is notable.
5.2 Methodology SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN THE SURVEY Fifty-three formal interviews were conducted and these form the basis of this report. A full list of interviewed parties is provided in Section 5.8. Additionally, several informal discussions were held with governmental officials and professionals from areas not directly involved with environmental technologies. Finally, the researcher’s own internal information sources and publications specified in Section 5.9 were also used. Sources of information are referenced throughout the text wherever appropriate. The numbers in brackets refer to the publications listed in Section 5.9.
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS The organizations targeted for the survey were identified and selected using existing directories of environmental businesses and governmental bodies, and various other company databases (2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 21). The interviewed experts were chosen so as to ensure: ■
coverage of all environmental fields;
■
a variety of perspectives on the subject (in addition to interviews with businesses, some interviews were held with experts from the Ministry of Environment, the State Environmental Fund, universities, and other state bodies);
■
balance between technology producers, suppliers, and environmental service providers;
■
representative cross-section of companies of different size and geographic distribution;
■
input from major environmental technology related R&D centers and universities;
Four experts requested that their responses be considered as their personal views and not those of their organization or company. Overall, some 70 percent of the respondents were from environmental businesses, 10 percent from State authorities, and 10 percent from R&D organizations. The remaining 10 percent of interviewees specified another type of organization, especially budget-funded professional organizations, universities, etc. As regards business activity, 40 percent of respondents were producers of environmental technologies, 30 percent were dealers or distributors, 55 percent specified environmental consultancy, and up to 70 percent considered services as one of their main activities. The percentages do not add up to 100 percent because many organizations were classified in more than one category — on average, companies specified two fields of activity. With respect to environmental expertise, the highest proportion of respondents specialized in water and wastewater (50 percent) and in waste management (50 percent), followed by air (40 percent), energy (20 percent), and noise, vibration and industrial health and safety (10 percent). Again, the total
does not add up to 100 percent, as some companies worked in more than one area. The most frequent combinations included water and waste, and air and energy. More than 60 percent of the interviewed organizations were set up between 1990 and 1993. Approximately 20 percent were established before 1990, and more than 10 percent were new organizations, established after 1994. The majority of interviewed parties were small or medium in size — 55 percent of the companies had between 10 and 50 employees, and just under 30 percent had less then 10 employees. Organizations employing between 50 and 100 employees constituted 10 percent of respondents, while 5 percent were companies with more than 100 employees. These companies are considered large in the environmental market in Slovakia. The size distribution discussed above corresponds well with the respondents’ own subjective assessment of size. Only one organization rated itself to be very large, while 10 percent considered themselves large, 50 percent mediumsized, and 25 percent small. Only three out of five experts responded to the question on annual revenues from environmental activities. Among those who responded, 30 percent specified a sum above USD 1 million, 50 percent specified annual revenues between USD 100,000 and 1 million, and the remaining 20 percent indicated figures below USD 100,000. As for geographic distribution, 45 percent of respondents were located in Bratislava, 45 percent in other major cities, and 10 percent in small towns. The scope of operations was mixed — 90 percent of organizations stated that they carry out business activities on the national level, 50 percent on the international level, and 40 percent work on the local level. Common combinations included local and national, and national and international.
5.3 Overview of the Market Slovakia, with a population of 5.4 million, and an area of 49 thousand sq.km. (19 thousand sq.mi., approximately equivalent to the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined) is a small country by Eastern European standards. Following the break-up of Czechoslovakia, the environment has moved down the list of governmental priorities due to pressing economic problems. However, environmental legislation, based on that of the former Czecho-Slovak Federation, is in place, and new environmental policy and regulations have been adopted. Economic transition has had a largely negative impact on the environment, reducing its political importance and lowering the budget. Slovakia is rich in natural resources, with large national parks and conservation areas. However, extensive damage has been caused by mismanaged forests, intensive tourism, and waste and air emissions from the energy sector (including nuclear energy). Air pollution is the most serious environmental problem in Slovakia, especially with respect to SO2, toxic substances and heavy metals, particulates, and carbon dioxide emissions. There are also major problems with water quality, waste management, and agricultural and forestry practices. Environmental pollution is particularly severe in industrialized areas where chemical, petrochemical, metallurgical, steel, cement, paper, and aluminum enterprises are located. Major environmental initiatives in the future will include better enforcement of regulations, institutional improvements, environmental training and awareness raising, introduction of clean technologies, and priority capital investments in air emission controls, and the management of waste and treatment of wastewater.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
135
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.2: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURES, 1992-1995 (MLN USD) Area
1992 1993
1994 1995
Water protection
117
115
114
99
Air protection
115
120
87
101
Waste use and disposal
23
40
29
31
Agricultural recultivation
0.2
0.3
0.9
1
1.3
9
3.8
n.a.
256.5 284.3 234.7
232
Limitation of physical factors Total (mln USD) Share of GNP (%)
n.a.
0.94
0.8
n.a
Source: Statistical Office of the SR, Bratislava ‘96 “Environment in the SR (Selected indicators in 1990-1995)“
TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION In 1995, spending on environmental protection in Slovakia amounted to USD 232 million. Table 5.2 presents details of environmental expenditures during the period 1992-1995. As shown in Table 5.2, the level of environmental spending has declined slightly over the last three years. During the 1992-1995 period, water protection accounted for some 44 percent of total environmental spending, followed by air protection, amounting to 43 percent of the total. Expenditures on waste management totaled 12 percent of overall expenditures. The main sources of financing for environmental projects in Slovakia include the state budget (mainly Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Economy), the State Environmental Fund, individual enterprises’ resources, foreign assistance programs (e.g. PHARE, US AID, the World Bank, EBRD) and bilateral cooperative projects. The draft National Industrial Policy prepared by the Ministry of Economy estimates that, by the year 2000, the national budget will cover only 10 percent of environmental expenditures, while bank sources, foreign investments, and resources of individual enterprises and municipalities will cover approximately 30 percent each. Table 5.3 presents the breakdown of environmental investments from the national budget for the period 1993-1994.
TABLE 5.3: STRUCTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL BUDGET, 1993-1994 (MLN USD) Sector
Expenditures (mln USD) 1993 1994
Public water supply
17.1
9.4
Wastewater treatment and sewage facilities
51.7
14.1
Other water management activity Air pollution control Waste management
0.2
20.8
12.0
21.2
3.0
8.6
Other
n.d.
4.8
Total
84.0
78.9
Source: “The Environment in SR“, MOE SR, Bratislava, 1995
136
As can be seen, the bulk of environmental financing from the national budget was allocated to the construction of wastewater treatment and sewage facilities, and to public water supply projects (70 percent of the 1993-94 total), followed by air protection (20 percent), and waste management (7 percent). The low percentage in the latter two categories can be explained by the fact that air pollution control investments are largely financed by industrial enterprises (the major sources of air pollution) while waste management has been decentralized, and municipalities have become primarily responsible for financing in this field. Another source of financing for environmental projects and investments is various state funds. The State Environmental Fund is by far the most important in this respect, followed by the State Fund for Soil Protection, the State Forestry Fund, and the State Water Management Fund. In 1995, the State Environment Fund supported 962 projects, with a total value of about USD 34 million. While official statistics for 1996 are still not available, projects with an estimated value of USD 42.8 million were supported by the Fund during that year. Table 5.4 presents the breakdown of revenues of the State Environmental Fund for the period 1992-1995. During 1993-1995, the Fund’s revenues were relatively stableat between USD 32 and 35 million per year. The major sources of revenue included state fees, and collections for wastewater discharge and air pollution. A decline in revenues from collections for wastewater discharge, groundwater withdrawal, and the state fee is notable. Increasing revenue is collected from air pollution taxes, and taxes for waste landfills. Interestingly, the share of penalties is marginal, which suggests that enforcement of regulations is poor. It is necessary to note that the charges listed in Table 5.4 constitute only a part of environmental expenses in industry. Significant amounts are paid additionally as a direct expense for processing industrial waste, wastewater discharges, etc. Table 5.5 presents the breakdown of expenditures from the State Environmental Fund for the period between 1992 and 1995. During this period, expenditures on wastewater treatment plants and sewerage accounted for 41 percent of the total, followed by air protection (25 percent), water supply systems (20 percent), and waste management activities (8 percent). Support from the Fund has declined for wastewater treatment and sewerage, and air pollution, while it has increased for water supply systems and waste management. Foreign assistance programs make up another, albeit minor, source of financing for environmental investments. An estimated USD 6 million in foreign aid was available in 1993, or approximately 3 percent of the total environmental expenditure. The main source of foreign financing is the PHARE Program. Until 1993, thirteen environmental projects were implemented with a total value of ECU 13.6 million (approx. USD 16 million) Interestingly, significant PHARE support was made available for developing the Revolving Environmental Investment Fund, which will provide longterm credits with a low interest rate for the development of the environmental infrastructure and other projects. The Revolving Fund is expected to replace the State Environmental Fund in the future. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Fund was created to assist in the implementation of strategic environmental goals, and GEF grants are available for environmental projects. The Slovak Republic has received a grant for the conservation of biodiversity totaling USD 2.3 million. Part of this amount has been made available to private enterprises. Environmental Technology Market With respect to total expenditures on environmental technologies, the Slovak Statistical Office does not track spending in this sector as a separate category. Moreover, neither in
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.4: REVENUES OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND 1992-1995 (MLN USD) Source
1992
1993
1994
1995
13.5
9.8
7.4
6.9
Collections for ground water withdrawal
1.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
Penalties in the field of water management
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
Taxes for air pollution
3.2
7.9
12.0
12.9
Penalties in the field of air protection
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.1
Collections for discharging wastewater
Taxes for waste landfills
0.1
0.6
1.8
4.9
Penalties in the field of waste
0.01
0.2
0.6
0.6
Penalties in the field of nature protection
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.04
Taxes for EIA examination
-
-
-
0.01
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
30.9
12.0
9.0
8.3
4.6
-
-
0.02
Interest on funds and loans State fee Donations and other subsidies Other sources Total Revenues
0.6
0.1
0.01
0.03
52.7
32.6
32.6
35.3
Source: Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the Slovak Republic — Selected Indicators in the Years 1990-1995,“ Bratislava 1996
Slovak environmental nor economic policy is the term “environmental industry” defined. As a result, accurate estimates of the current environmental market in Slovakia do not exist. According to the Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the State Governmental Environmental Policy prepared by the Ministry of Environment in 1993: “...the accumulation of environmental problems has increased so-called environmental liability, which, in line with currently applicable legislation for remediation is estimated at SK 100-130 billion (approx. USD 4.3 billion) in industry alone. This comprises absolute environmental liabilities (so-called “old stress”) including old landfills, polluted water sources, damaged forests, contaminated soil and the like, and relative environmental liabilities, the latter including expenditures for replacing environmentally harmful methods of manufacturing with environmentally safe ones (e.g. elimination of pollution sources) and the construction of facilities (wastewater treatment plants, separators, fil-
TABLE 5.5: EXPENDITURES OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND 1992-1995 (MLN USD) Expenditure
1992
1993
Water supply systems
10.9
4.4
5.1
6.7
Wastewater treatment plants and sewerage
26.4
10.8
9.9
9.1
-
0.5
0.1
0.3
5.2
12.0
8.2
9.2
Wildlife protection
0.02
0.2
0.3
0.3
Waste management
1.1
2.3
3.7
3.3
Research and development
-
0.2
0.7
0.4
Other
-
0.3
1.8
4.6
43.6
30.8
Other activities in water management Air protection
Total Funds Used
1994 1995
29.9 34.1
Source: Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the Slovak Republic — Selected Indicators in theYears 1990-1995,” Bratislava 1996
ters, managed landfills, etc.) to reduce or eliminate the further release of undesirable, noxious substances into the environment. These liabilities themselves shall result in increased health care expenditures, losses resulting from high sickness rates, reduced durability of materials, erosion and contamination and the consequences of changes in the gene pool and disruption of stable ecosystems in the landscape.” With the current estimate of absolute environmental liability at SK 150 billion (approx. USD 5 billion), and relative environmental liability estimated at SK 72 billion (approx. USD 2.4 billion), total environmental liability in Slovakia amounts to approximately SK 220 billion, or USD 7.4 billion. To give at least some indication of the size of the environmental technology market in Slovakia, one can assume that about 75 percent of environmental expenditures are allocated for environmental technologies (see Section 3.1 in the Hungarian chapter for comparison). Therefore, in 1995, the environmental technology market in Slovakia can be estimated to be worth about USD 174 million. However, the significance of the figure should not be overestimated. Environmental products and services are a rapidly developing sector of the economy in Slovakia. Table 5.6 presents the growth in the number of environmental product and service providers since 1989. Since the socio-economic changes of the early ’90s, and the related economic recession, many Slovak firms collapsed or lost their markets in the former eastern bloc countries. The industrial framework, built up over the years, has collapsed, and many qualified engineers and scientists have become unemployed. Nonetheless, as shown in Table 5.6, after the initial adjustment period, business activity in the environmental market has increased significantly. The annual growth in the number of environmental companies since the early nineties averages some 50 percent. Some firms have been created through the entrepreneurial skills of individuals, others resulted from the fragmentation of larger enterprises and privatization, while many manufacturing companies completely changed their names and orientation. The competitiveness of Slovak companies is increasing, although it is largely based on lower price levels and the good knowledge of the domestic market and conditions. It should also be noted that the growth in the number of
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
137
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.6: GROWTH OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT AND SERVICE PROVIDERS Year Number of Businesses
1989 ’90 40
’91 ’92
’93
’94
’95
’96
100 160 240 350 450 690 1250*
Source: Internal materials of PB Consulting. * includes qualified (certified) individuals, companies, departments of universities, and R&D institutes
companies has occurred during the period of flat environmental expenditures (see Table 5.2).
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Environmental priorities in Slovakia are outlined in the State Environmental Policy, while the implementation plan is presented in the National Environmental Action Plan. The funding priorities of the State Environmental Fund are based on the Policy and the Action Plan. Priorities of the State Environmental Policy The environmental priorities in the Slovak Republic are based on a 1993 document entitled The Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the State Governmental Environmental Policy. Table 5.7 presents the five priorities identified in the Policy Statement. The Slovak Policy also specifies a set of guiding principles for its implementation. The rules are presented in Table 5.8. Policy guidelines referring to the preference for preventive measures instead of the end-of-pipe approach, the application of the State Environmental Policy to all branches of industry, and the “polluter pays principle” have a strong bearing on the environmental technology market. The National Environmental Action Plan The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) was developed in 1995 as an instrument for the implementation of the priorities of the State Environmental Policy. The NEAP defines the necessary legislative, organizational and educational measures, and investment priorities needed to achieve the adopted goals. The plan which was developed based on environmental information provided by relevant Ministries and regional administrative units, includes 38 regional programs prepared for the original administrative districts (note that the original districts were changed in 1996 during the reform of the regional administration system). The NEAP includes 1,356 approved measures (projects of various nature) to be implemented by the year 2010. Among those, 1236 measures (91 percent of the total number) require expenditures not exceeding SK 100 million (approx. USD 3.2 million). The key areas include: ■
Protection of water resources and rational use of water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 measures
■
Air and ozone layer protection . . . . . . . . . . 307 measures
■
Waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 measures
■
Nature conservation and landscape use . . . 187 measures
Some of the measures are to be implemented by 1998, others by the year 2000 or 2005. An update and revision of the activities is planned for the year 2000. The activities set out in the National Environmental Action Plan are divided into ten sectors. Table 5.9 presents the sectors and the estimates for required funding. More details regarding
138
TABLE 5.7: PRIORITIES OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY I
Air protection against pollutants; improving global environmental security
II Providing a sufficient amount of drinking water, and decreasing the pollution of water resources to acceptable levels III Soil conservation and protection against degradation, and securing the purity of foodstuffs and other products IV Proper disposal or utilization of waste, and minimization of waste generation V Preservation of biodiversity, conservation and rational use of natural resources, and optimization of land use. Source: “The Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the State Environmental Policy”, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava 1993
TABLE 5.8: GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 1. Preference to preventive measures instead of the endof-pipe approach. 2. Application of the state environmental policy to all branches of industry. 3. Understanding the solution to environmental problems as the solution to the problems of society. 4. Recognition of the responsibility of today’s society for the environment of future generations. 5. Approaching environmental problems in a comprehensive way, with systematic elimination of the synergystic effect of pollutants already introduced into the environment and those currently being discharged. 6. Paying for expenses related to the removal of pollution or the remediation of the damage of the environment by those who pollute or damage it (“polluter pays principle”). 7. Evaluation of the influence and impact of environmental degradation on the population’s health, various sectors of the environment, living organisms, natural and cultural heritage. Study on the gradual exhaustion of non-renewable resources, and the rational use of renewable natural resources. 8. Improving the state of the environment as one of the basic steps in reversing the adverse trend in the health of the population. 9. Recognizing that forests are the main environmentally stabilizing factor in the landscape, and that soil is a crucial element for the maintenance of the biodiversity of the environment, nutrition, and the existence of life. 10. Showing respect for life in all its forms and for all natural and cultural values. Source: “The Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the State Environmental Policy”, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava 1993
the sectors relevant to this survey are presented in Section 5.4 on project opportunities. As shown in Table 5.9, the National Environmental Action Plan identifies several key priority areas. Of the total of USD 3.4 billion required for the implementation of the Plan, mea-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.9: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PLAN — STRUCTURE AND ESTIMATED INVESTMENTS Sector
Focus
Mln USD % of Total
Sector A
Air and ozone layer protection
Sector B
1,410.7
41%
Protection and rational use of water
678.5
20%
265.6
8%
67.7
2%
Sector C
Waste management
Sector D
Risk factors and nuclear safety
Sector E
Nature conservation, landscape protection and use
399.3
12%
Sector F
Protection and rational use of geological and other natural resources, soil and forests
585.2
17%
Sector G
Economy of the environment
1.3
< 1%
Sector H
Environmental informatics and monitoring
0.5
< 1%
Sector E
Environmental education and promotion
1.2
< 1%
Sector J
Organization and management of environmental protection
n.a.
n.a.
3,410.3
100%
Total
Source: “The National Environmental Action Plan“, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava 1996 Note: The total funding requirement includes funding for measures that are already under way.
sures related to air and ozone layer protection account for 41 percent of the required financing, followed by projects focusing on the protection of water resources, and promotion of rational use of water (20 percent), protection and rational use of natural resources, soil and forests (17 percent), nature conservation and landscape protection (12 percent), and waste management (8 percent). As regards the source of financing, the NEAP envisages that 44.3 percent will be covered by individual companies, 42.5 percent by the national budget (various Ministries), and 13.2 percent by municipalities. This does not rule out the use of funding from the State Environmental Fund for individual projects. State Environmental Fund The Slovak State Environmental Fund was set up by Law No. 128/1991 Zb. The funding priorities of the Fund are based on the State Environmental Policy and the National Environmental Action Plan. The allocation of financial resources has to be approved by the Ministry of Environment after the evaluation and approval of proposals submitted to the Fund’s Council. The Fund’s support is available in the form of subsidies, grants, loans, and supplementary funding for the payment of interest. Applicants can request support for investment and non-investment projects related to the protection of the environment. Out of 22 applicable areas, grouped in nine categories (as of 1995), those specifically related to environmental technologies include the following: ■
construction of equipment that contributes to a decrease in the pollution of the environment;
■
reconstruction, modernization and extension of equipment for the protection of the environment, including increasing efficiency (e.g. switching to natural gas as fuel in energy generation);
■
changing production processes and production technologies, with the objective to decrease or eliminate of discharge of pollutants;
■
implementing measures for the protection of the quality of water resources (surface and underground water), including monitoring of industrial and municipal wastewater discharges, and water quality analysis;
■
construction of facilities for the safe disposal of pollutants;
■
construction of facilities for sorting, utilizing, and final disposal of waste, including safe landfills, selective waste treatment, and use of secondary resources;
■
measures for the protection of land, including decontamination of polluted soil and water resources;
■
improving water supply to remote settlements.
The key conditions for the provision and use of the resources of the Fund are specified by Regulation No. 176/1992 Zb. The specific requirements, harmonized with State Environmental Policy, are periodically updated and published by the administrator of the Fund. In principle, the applicant submits a request for support to the relevant District Office of the Environment. The application must contain all information and appendices specified by Regulation 176/1992. The District Office rates the applications according to the priorities and needs of their regional environmental policy, and forwards them to the State Environmental Fund (twice a year, by June 30 and Dec. 31). The Fund forwards the applications to the Ministry of Environment (i.e. the Fund’s Council), which is responsible for evaluating the applications according to the priorities of the State Environmental Policy. Based on the recommendation of the Fund’s Council, the Minister of Environment approves or rejects the application, or postpones the decision until any outstanding issues are clarified. In theory, it is possible to obtain financing for up to 100 percent of the total project cost, but in practice, the Fund covers only a part of the cost, with the remainder paid for by the investor (e.g. municipality, industrial plant). The share of the Fund contribution to the total project cost varies depending on the type of the project and the applicant. Tax Incentives Another insight into environmental priorities in Slovakia is provided by examining tax incentives and exemptions applicable in the field of environmental protection. The Ministry of Finance, charged with creating and enforcing tax regulations can provide tax exemptions or relief (e.g. on income from the facility operation) in projects involving the following environmental technologies: ■
small hydropower plants, up to an installed power output of 1 MW;
■
facilities with joint production of heat and energy;
■
windmill power plants;
■
heat pumps;
■
regeneration and recycling equipment for the processing of substances which deplete the ozone layer;
■
solar energy equipment;
■
equipment for the production of biogas;
■
technologies for the production of biologically degradable materials;
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
139
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
equipment for the use of geothermal energy.
■
Tax exemptions apply to the income generated in the first five years of facility operation (based on Law 347/1990 Zb). Additionally, the local tax administration (i.e. municipality where the stationary installation is located) can, depending on local conditions, provide tax incentives for new facilities which: improve the state of the environment, if such installations are not required by law (e.g. introduction of clean sources of energy, such as a small hydropower unit, windmill power plant, installations using biogas);
■
replace solid fuel (mainly coal) as an energy source for heating systems with gas, electrical energy, or systems using renewable sources of energy (solar or wind energy, biomass, etc.);
■
introduce other changes related to those listed above which substantially decrease energy consumption.
■
Finally, according to Regulation No. 261/1993 Zb. and related directives issued by the Ministry of Finance, foreign investors in the area of environmental technologies can be exempt from import duties and VAT. The non-financial contri-
bution of a foreign person for a production activity based in Slovakia (on behalf of a Slovak legal person) is free from import duties on environmental technology products if: ■
the participation of a foreign person in the basic property of a Slovak legal person is at least 35 percent, and the nonfinancial input is valued at at least SK 10 million (approx. USD 320,000);
■
imported goods are unused and not older than one year, and the Slovak legal person will use them for the specified purpose for at least two years.
5.4 Project Opportunities MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Table 5.10 presents the major environmental problems listed by respondents. As is shown, respondents interpreted the term “major environmental problems” differently. The major issues listed by the interviewees can be divided into three different categories:
TABLE 5.10: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS Category Air Water and Air Water
Problem Description and Expected Duration
Geographic Location
National continuous-basis monitoring, 10 years
National
Heavily polluted city of 250,000, 15 years
Kosice
Measurement of radioactivity, 5 years
National
High energy demand of old water treatment plants, 10 years
National
Sources of drinking water for Southeastern Slovakia, 5 years
Trebisov, Michalovce
Insufficient supply of drinking water, 20 years
Hornad river basin
High water losses in distribution
National
Obsolete regulations for water analysis, 3 years
National
New water law and ensuing regulations, 3 years
National
Water and Soil Contamination of railway stations and railways, 20 years
National
Waste
Separation and recycling of waste polyethylene bottles for engine oil, 2 years
Bratislava
Lack of economic tools for waste minimization, 5 years
National
Disposal of mixed plastic materials, 5 years
National
Biotechnological disposal of waste, 10 years
National
Reconstruction of boiler houses (municipal and industrial), 15 years
National
Low, state subsidized price of energy, 5 years
National
Limited use of low emission burners, high energy consumption, 15 years
Heavily polluted areas
Low use of solar energy, 20 years
National
Energy
Environment
OHS
Harmonization of old technologies with legislation
National
Impact of nuclear power plants, ongoing
National
Impact of the mining of magnetite, 20 years
Jelsava, Lubenik
Impact of the mining of brown coal, 25 years
Handlova, Prievidza
Risks of chemical pollutants, 15 years
Chemical industry
Decontamination of industrial floors, 10 years
Industry
Lab. Analyses
Development and sale of reference materials, 3 years
National
Miscellaneous
Insufficient information on ET and marketing, 10 years
National
Note: Indicated number of years represents approximate duration
140
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
1) Specific environmental problems, which include: heavily polluted sites; air pollution from coal and lignite-fired power stations; poor water quality and lack of wastewater treatment facilities (70 percent of the population is connected to drinking water supply, while only 50 percent of the population is connected to sewage treatment systems); groundwater contamination by industrial plants; improper storage of hazardous waste; existence of heavily polluted regions with compounded environmental problems. 2) Problems with the existing system for environmental protection, which include: lack of information about environmental projects, incomplete legislation, and poor dissemination of information. 3) Issues related to the financing of environmental projects, especially for high-quality and expensive environmental technologies. In this context, insufficient economic tools on the one hand, and the failure to use all the possibilities provided for in legislation on the other, were often mentioned. Problems listed in the last two of the above categories are not environmental issues which could be solved by the use of environmental technologies, but they do represent barriers to growth of the environmental market. As supplementary information, listed below are specific measures included in the National Environmental Action Plan (see Section 5.3):
■
Treatment and disposal of waste from PSB Brezova;
■
Landfill for ashes and sludge from VSZ Kosice;
■
Network of regional facilities for the disposal of waste from medical facilities;
■
Construction of a regional incineration plant for hospital waste in the districts of Zilina and Liptovsky Mikulas;
■
Waste management facilities in the leather processing plant in Liptovsky Mikulas;
■
Remediation of the landfill of Halna-Krompachy-Kovohuty Krompachy;
■
Recultivation of the industrial landfill at the ZSNP in Ziar nad Hronom;
■
Recultivation of a part of the landfill in Sered;
■
Remediation of a landfill at Petrochema Dubova.
Other ■
Measures for the disposal of radioactive waste;
■
Environmental improvements in the nine most contaminated or threatened areas in the country;
■
Elimination of factors damaging forest eco-systems.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN PROGRESS
Air and Energy ■
Installation of desulfurization equipment at the coal-fired power plant in Zemianske Kostolany;
■
Replacement of the boilers in the Zemianske Kostolany power plant with fluidized bed boilers;
■
specific projects, including location;
■
Co-generation power plants in Bratislava, Presov and Kosice;
■
■
Switching to natural gas as the energy source in the sugar factory at Rimavska Sobota;
general activities, without an exact location (mainly of national importance).
■
Introduction of heating oil with a sulfur content of less than 1 percent;
■
Use of geothermal energy in selected areas of Slovakia.
■
■
The listed projects represent a whole spectrum of environmental activities, and include : ■
Research into waste incineration and the measuring of emissions;
■
Waste and water analysis, ecotoxicological tests, tests for biodegradability;
■
State scientific and technological project “Collection and Regeneration of Organic Substances in the Consumer Industry”;
■
Modernization and extension of the water treatment plant at Zvolen;
PHARE project on machinery noise levels (noise labeling) in line with EU regulations; introduction of the “CE” mark;
■
Extension of the water treatment plant in Humenne; construction of a water treatment plant and a sewage collection and treatment system in Krompachy;
Accreditation of a calibration laboratory by the British National Accreditation body NAMAS, British KnowHow Fund;
■
Preparation and implementation of projects for transportation and storage of waste products by so-called stabilization (products of traditional incineration, fluidized bed incineration, and desulfurization) at the Slovak Electricity Company Power Plant in Novaky-Zemianske Kostolany;
Water ■
The projects listed in response to the question concerning on-going or upcoming environmental projects can be divided into two basic categories:
Upgrading of the water treatment plant, and disposal of phenols and cyanides, at VSZ Kosice; in the second phase, a new water treatment plant for the city of Kosice, and modernization of a wastewater neutralization/treatment plant at VSZ;
■
Construction of sewage collection and treatment systems for the towns and villages of the Zitny Ostrov area;
■
Construction of a water treatment plant and sewage collection and treatment system in the city of Trencin;
■
■
Reconstruction and extension of the sewage collection and treatment system in Banska Bystrica.
Regional landfill for solid waste for about 80,000 inhabitants in the town of Topolcany and villages of the region;
■
Recycling of PE bottles, compacting of mixed plastic waste;
■
Modernization of procedures and technologies in water purification and wastewater treatment;
■
Improvements in the water treatment plant at Zilina;
■
Improvements in the water treatment plant at Stribske Pleso;
Waste ■
Collection, processing and safe disposal of hazardous waste from VSZ Kosice;
■
Construction of a landfill for solid and hazardous waste from ZSNP in Ziar nad Hronom;
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
141
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
■
System for monitoring the quality of landfill lining at the landfills in Spisska Nova Ves and Ziar nad Hronom; monitoring the influence of a sludge field near Hlohovec on underground waters and the river Vah; risk studies for old landfills in the district of Lucenec and Poltar;
future they will continue projects similar to their current activities. About 60 percent of interviewed experts considered their future plans confidential, and 20 percent could not define their plans beyond present activities.
■
Water mains management information system in Bratislava;
■
Turcek water reservoir, water management information system;
MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
■
Water management scheme in Zilina, and water management and information system in Nova Dubnica; heating energy optimatization and management;
■
Chemosvit — modernization of production processes;
■
Bukoza — modernization of production processes;
■
Petrol stations — protection of the environment;
■
Duslo Sala — introduction of advanced environmental technologies;
■
National climate program;
■
Geochemical atlas of the Slovak Republic, and soil analysis;
■
Evaluation of environmental pollution in the Ziar valley (e.g. water, soils, sources of contamination);
■
Development of a new absorber for the solar panel; research into improvements of mechanical and chemical properties of a selective conversion surface layer of the solar panel absorber;
■
Cleaning up oil contamination of the soil at the location of the railway accident at Turna nad Bodvou;
■
Disposal of heavy oil at VSZ Kosice;
■
Processing of industrial rubber waste at Matador Puchov;
■
Production line for composite plastic materials, Nitra;
■
Management of the by-products of welding;
■
Assistance in the preparation of the new Water Law;
■
Pilot projects for monitoring and evaluation of water quality in border rivers;
■
Environmental improvements at the heat generation plant in Slovnaft (boiler K3, boilers K7 and K8)
■
Reconstruction and upgrading of the incineration plant in Bratislava; retrofitting of the energy source at Matador Bratislava; optimization of the heating system at Skloplast Trnava;
The main sources of information concerning business opportunities used by Slovak companies include personal contacts and participation in environmental fairs, followed by the use of directories and, sporadically, assistance from various organizations. Companies were found to often create their own rudimentary information databases based on promotional materials, newspaper articles, and professional magazines. Awareness of official sources of information was very limited, which reflects the fact that there indeed are few such sources in Slovakia. Respondents usually specified governmental organizations, such as the Ministry of the Environment (20 percent of respondents) and the Slovak Agency for the Environment (15 percent). About 10 percent of respondents listed organizations that are involved in information dissemination professionally, e.g. the Association of Industrial Ecology (ASPEK), the Slovak Inspectorate for Energy — Energy Agency, ALLDATA Slovakia Plus Ltd., and PB Consulting. Many organizations were mentioned only once. The most important sources are listed in Table 5.14. Several respondents stated that they do not use official sources of information, and instead, have their own channels for information about projects. While no specific details were offered, in most cases those “own channels” were based on
TABLE 5.11: MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES Source of Information
Respondents
Personal contacts
94%
Referrals from associates
88%
Daily press
76%
Trade shows and fairs
73%
Regular post
70%
Conference attendance
69%
Business publications
69%
Fax
53%
Local and regional governments
53%
Environmental publications
51%
■
Upgrading of aeration systems in municipal wastewater treatment plants;
■
Development of a new aeration system for wastewater treatment;
■
Treatment of oil-polluted industrial wastewater;
■
Risk assessment at Slovnaft;
Environmental ministry
51%
■
Environmental impact assesment at Slovnaft, Novaky Chemical Plant;
Professional associations
49%
Ministry of Industry/Trade
37%
■
Hotel Borik, Zvolen castle, Hotel Bystrina — reconstruction of boiler houses, introduction of modern process control systems, upgrading of the heat distribution network;
Chambers of commerce
34%
University/Academy of Science
31%
Other
17%
Email
10%
■
Decontamination of groundwater resources;
■
Noise reduction at the drinking water pump station at Hanusovce nad Toplou;
■
Post-closure revitalization of mining areas. Only 20 percent of respondents declared that in the
142
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.12: MAIN BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS Publication
Respondents (%)
Hospodarsky Noviny
50%
Trend
38%
Ekonomicky a Prany Poradca
36%
Profit
19%
Odpady
14%
Obchodny Vestnik
9%
Zivotne Prostredie
9%
Ekonom
7%
Planeta
6%
Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995
personal contacts. For comparison, Table 5.11 presents the breakdown of major information sources, based on a 1995 survey of 150 environmental businesses in Slovakia carried out by the Regional Environmental Center. The findings of this survey correspond well with the picture presented by Table 5.11, where personal and/or professional contacts are the major source of information, followed by trade shows and fairs, and business and environmental publications. Table 5.12 presents the main business and environmental publications in Slovakia read by environmental professionals, as identified in the same REC survey. Interestingly, almost half of the respondents stated that they did not read any environment-related publications. Finally, based on the 1995 survey, it can be said that the role
of environmental and trade associations in Slovakia is very limited — more than half the respondents did not belong to any association. Only 18 percent of respondents belonged to the Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and 14 percent were members of the Association of Industrial Ecology (ASPEK) Important Environmental Fairs Interviewed experts often mentioned environmental fairs as a source of information for environmental business opportunities and a place to establish business contacts. About half of the respondents listed up to three environmental fairs in Slovakia. Most respondents seemed to have a small number of fairs in which they participate regularly. Interestingly, fairs were ranked as an important information source even by those respondents who do not personally participate in them, which reflects the widespread importance of personal contacts among Slovak entrepreneurs. Table 5.13 lists the major environment-related fairs in Slovakia. Highlighted in bold are the events regarded by the respondents as those most important. Komunal, held annually in April in Zilina, is the best known environmental fair in Slovakia. The event, indicated by half of respondents, focuses on municipal environmental services and technologies. About a third of respondents listed Aqua in Trencin (water management), Racioenergia in Bratislava (energy) and Enviro in Nitra (environment in general). About 10 percent of interviewees specified smaller regional exhibitions, such as Interekotechnika in Bratislava, Ekotherm in Kosice, Ekoenergo in Kosice, Envirex in Banska Bystrica, and Ekostavby in Bratislava. Some respondents also mentioned that they visit or participate in non-environmental fairs because of potential clients from a specific industry. The fairs mentioned include Incheba in Bratislava (chemical industry), Coneco in Bratislava (construction technologies), Klimatherm in Kosice (heating, air conditioning), Agrokomplex in Nitra, and Weldtech in Bratislava (welding technologies).
TABLE 5.13: MAJOR ANNUAL ENVIRONMENT-RELATED FAIRS IN SLOVAKIA Name of Fair
City
Approx. Date
Focus
Ekostavby
Bratislava
March
Environmental technologies and construction
Komunal
Zilina
April
International exhibition of environmental technologies (municipal technologies, water, waste, energy)
Enviro
Nitra
April
Environmental technologies
Cleanservice
Trencin
April
Cleaning technologies
Sanprot
Bratislava
April
Occupational health and safety protection equipment
Racioenergia
Bratislava
May
International exhibition on rationalization of fuel and energy consumption
Aqua
Trencin
June
Focus on water (water resource management and environmental protection)
Interekotechnika (Ekotechnika)
Bratislava
June
International exhibition of equipment and technologies for environmental protection
Envirex
Banska Bystrica
June
International fair, focus on forestry, woodprocessing and environment
Chemorisk
Bratislava
Sept
Risk management, detection devices
Ekotherm
Kosice
Sept.
Regional exhibition, focus on energy efficiency
Ekoenergo
Kosice
Dec.
Emissions measuring and control instruments, technology for reducing energy consumption
Klimatherm
Kosice
Dec.
Regional exhibition for industrial air pollution controls, waste heat utilization, and air conditioning
Note: Highlighted in bold are those events most frequently mentioned by respondents
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
143
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.14: IMPORTANT CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES Name and Address of Organization
Contact Information
Ministry of the Enviroment nam. L. Stura 1, 812 35 Bratislava
Mr. Jaroslav Halas, Head Environmental Organization and Publicity Department Tel: (421-7) 516-1111 Mr. Karol Egyud, Director, Geological & Natural Resources Division, Tel: (421-7) 516-1111 Mrs. Anna Violova, Department of Air Protection Tel: (421-7) 516-1111 Mr. Alexander Dano, Head, Dept. of Environmental Impact Assessment, Tel: (421-7) 516-1111 Mr. Ivan Zavadsky, Director, Environmental Elements Protection & Environmental Risks Division, Tel: (421-7) 516-1111 Mr. Milan Matuska, Head of Department of Water, Tel: (421-7) 516-1111 Mr. Galovic, Advisor for Waste, Tel: (421-7) 516-1111
Ministry of Soil Management Dobrovicova 12, 812 66 Bratislava
Mr. Jozef Taric, Director, Water Management Division, Tel: (421-7) 364-276
Ministry of Transport, Communications and Public Mr. Vojtech Lieskovsky, Director, Department of Technological Works, Mileticova 19, 820 06 Bratislava Policy and Transport, Tel: (421-7) 204-0225 State Environmental Fund Karloveska 2, 842 18 Bratislava
Mr. Pavol Mertus, Tel: (421-7) 724-909
Ministry of Economy Mierova 19, 827 15 Bratislava
Mr. Juraj Pavlinec, Department of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry, Tel: (421-7) 299-8285
Slovak Environmental Agency (SAZP) Tajovskeho 28, 974 00 Banska Bystrica
Mr. Miroslav Toncik, Director, Tel: (421-88) 735-131
Slovak Environmental Agency (SAZP) Hanulova 9/A, 821 01 Bratislava
Mr. Miroslav Lacuska, Director, (Waste), Tel: (421-7) 765-552
Slovak Environmental Agency (SAZP) Zvonarska 23, 042 65 Kosice
Mr. Peter Bohus, Director, (Heavily Polluted Areas), Tel: (421-95) 622-4812
Slovak Environmental Agency (SAZP) Kollarova 8, 917 77 Trnava
Mr. Miroslav Rusko, Director, (Ecolabelling) Tel: (421-80) 520-406
Slovak Inspectorate of the Environment Karloveska 2, 842 22 Bratislava
Mr. Rudolf Otrusinik, Director, Tel: (421-7) 727-942 Mr. Ivan Rajnak, Head, Air Protection Tel: (421-7) 727-696; Fax: (421-7) 720-055 Mr. Hornak, Head, Waste Management, Tel: (421-7) 792-352 Mr. Daniel Geisbacher, Head, Water Protection Tel: (421-7) 726-950
Association of Industrial Ecology (ASPEK) Drienova 24, 826 03 Bratislava
Mr. Andrej Soltys, Tel: (421-7) 230-833, (421-7) 299-7327 Fax: (421-7) 579-7546
Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SOPK), Gorkeho ul. 9, 816 03 Bratislava
Mr. Anton Lisy, Tel: (421-7) 526-9670
Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SOPK), Namestie Legionarov 3, 080 01 Presov
Mr. Dusan Kovac, Working Group for the Environment, Tel: (421-91) 732-818
Cleaner Production Centre, Slovak Univ. of Technology, Radlinskeho 9, 812 37 Bratislava
Mr. Anton Blazej
Slovak Association of Engineering Geology Mlynska dolina G, 845 15 Bratislava
Mr. Rudolf Ondrasik, Associated Professor, Tel: (421-7) 328-981
Slovak Association of Hydrogeology Mlyn. Dolina 1, 812 37 Bratislava
Mr. Juraj Kralik, Director, Tel: (421-7) 328-003
Slovak Association of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industry, Drienova 24, 826 03 Bratislava
Mr. Jelencik, General Secretary Tel: (421-7) 235-226, Fax: (421-7) 233-542
144
Mr. Igor Surina, Tel: (421-7) 42-732-6021
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.14 (CONT.): IMPORTANT CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES National Committee Association of Water Quality Radlinskeho 11, 812 37 Bratislava
Tel: (421-7) 321-184
Water Management Research Institute Nabr.arm.gen.L.Svobodu 5, 800 00 Bratislava
Dept. of Technologies for Water Management Tel: (421-7) 343-345
Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (SHMU) Jeseniova 17, 833 15 Bratislava
Mr. Ivan Zuzula, Tel: (421-7) 384-052
Slovak Energy Inspectorate — Energy Agency Rudlovska cesta 53, 974 28 Banska Bystrica (also offices in Bratislava and Kosice)
Mr. Michal Klemanic, Tel: (421-88) 742-333, 742-353
Association of Secondary Raw Materials Economics, Drienova ul. 3, 826 28 Bratislava
Tel: (421-7) 522-9492, Fax: (421-7) 239-203
Slovak Association of Inventors and Innovators Kocelova 15, 812 37 Bratislava
Tel: (421-7) 526-2991
Slovak National Accreditation System (list of certified environmental experts) Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology, and Testing Tel: (421-7) 396-411, Fax: (421-7) 391-050 Stafanovicova 3, 814 39 Bratislava ALLDATA Slovakia plus Ltd. Keratsinske nam. 1, 080 01 Presov
Mr. Ladislav Dolza, Tel: (421-91) 701-267
PB Consulting Masarykova 10, 080 01 Presov
Mr. Peter Burda, Director Tel/Fax: (421-91) 734-751, 734-394
Interestingly, one in ten respondents participated in Envibrno, the most important Czech environmental fair. Public Procurement Procedures Investments which involve the use of public funds in Slovakia are subject to regulations specified in the Public Procurement Law of 1996. The regulations are applicable to expenditures from the central budget and investments made by municipalities. According to the current provisions, if the project value exceeds SK 100,000 (approx. USD 3,500) the investor is obliged to announce a project tender in the Commercial Bulletin of the Slovak Republic (Obchodny Vestnik). For projects with a value exceeding ECU 130,000 (approx. USD 150,000), the investor is required to publish a call for tender in foreign commercial periodicals. In practice, most experts agree that the Slovak purchasing law is rather vague. Under the current rules, deadlines can be set too prematurely, meaning that potential bidders cannot respond in time unless they have advance knowledge of the project. Another way in which the law is circumvented is that a major proportion of project financing is earmarked for the participation of budget-funded enterprises, which is then exempt from public competitive tendering. Overall, at this stage, the tenders announced in the Commercial Bulletin are not considered a useful source of information on business opportunities. Useful Contacts Table 5.14 lists useful contacts for information about environmental project opportunities.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES In answering the question on sources of information used in purchasing environmental technologies, a majority of respondents (60 percent) indicated that they maintain their own information databases, based on promotional materials, newspaper articles, and professional magazines.
Approximately 30 percent of respondents noted that environmental technologies are approved at the Ministry of Environment, and they therefore assumed that, when needed, information can be obtained from governmental organizations. Several interviewees considered catalogues of domestic and foreign environmental fairs to be an important source. Some also used specialized professional catalogues, available from the Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and from foreign embassies. Some respondents also mentioned professional magazines and conferences. Representatives of governmental organizations usually did not answer the question on sources of information used in purchasing environmental technologies.
5.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — OVERVIEW Demand for environmental technologies in Slovakia varied by sector. High and growing demand was identified for technologies related to waste management, and water and wastewater. Demand for environmental technologies related to energy and air quality was moderate and demand for noise, vibration and OHS technologies was low. Demand in the air sector was found to be moderate, with technologies related to gaseous emissions in higher demand than products related to ambient air. High demand was identified for instrumentation and process control/software for gaseous emissions. Growing demand was expected for technologies related to emission abatement and cleaner production; equipment for air sampling/laboratory analysis for both ambient air and gaseous emisions; and air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment. Demand for air pollution control equipment in the energy sector is likely to grow due to upcoming new and stricter regulations on air emissions. Demand for water and wastewater technologies was high. Technologies for industrial and municipal wastewater treat-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
145
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
ment tended to be in higher demand than those related to potable water and surface and ground water. High demand was identified for technologies for inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply and municipal wastewater collection networks; monitoring equipment for industrial wastewater; equipment for clean-up, decontamination, and quality restoration of surface and ground water; and for technologies for the construction of municipal and industrial wastewater collection networks. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to standard wastewater treatment processes for water and wastewater; instrumentation, process control, and software for industrial wastewater; and sampling/laboratory analysis equipment. A growth in demand was also expected for technologies related to the construction of water supply networks; sludge treatment and disposal of municipal and industrial wastewater); and advanced (tertiary) treatment processes for water and wastewater. Demand for waste management technologies was found to be highest among the five surveyed sectors. Significant opportunities are expected in hazardous waste disposal, followed by radioactive and industrial waste management. Very high demand was identified for technologies related to landfill disposal (all waste categories); equipment for hazardous and radioactive waste site remediation and contaminated land clean-up; equipment for waste collection/transportation and storage (all waste categories); and technologies related to recycling and resource recovery in the area of hazardous waste. Other technologies in high demand included pollution prevention/waste minimization equipment for hazardous and radioactive waste; equipment for hazardous and radioactive waste site monitoring, and radioactive waste sample analysis/waste characterization; and technologies for hazardous waste incineration. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to spillage control/decontamination for industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste; technologies for recycling and resource recovery for industrial and municipal waste; sample analysis/waste characterization equipment for industrial and municipal waste; and equipment related to industrial waste site monitoring, remediation, and clean-up. Demand for energy-related technologies was generally moderate. Specific technologies in high demand included: new/efficient energy and heat generation systems; and alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants. Growing demand was expected for instrumentation; process management and control equipment; and, in “other industrial sectors” for technologies related to retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems. Surprisingly, only moderate demand was identified for heat recovery and energy savings technologies, and for retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems in the energy sector. Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety was low.
DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES BY SECTOR Tables 5.15-5.19 summarize the responses to the survey question on demand for specific environmental technologies. The following scale was used in ranking: 5 – highest, and rapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, likely to grow, 3 – moderate, slowly growing demand, 2 – low demand, will not grow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion. The first figure in the tables show the average score, while those in brackets indicate the number of responses. Air Demand for air-related technologies was moderate — only one technology category was found to be in high demand. Most respondents indicated higher demand for technologies
146
TABLE 5.15: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — AIR Ambient Air
Gaseous Emissions
Air sampling/laboratory analysis
3.5 (13)
3.7 (11)
Continuous-basis monitoring
3.1 (15)
2.2 (12)
Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (filters/scrubbers)
3.2 (12)
3.6 (12)
Gas detection/warning devices
2.4 (9)
3.3 (9)
Emission abatement/cleaner production (e.g. low emission burners)
2.7 (11)
3.7 (12)
Instrumentation and process control/software
3.3 (13)
4.1 (6)
Technologies in high demand: #1 Instrumentation and process control/software (gaseous emissions) Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 Emission abatement/cleaner production (gaseous emissions); #3 Air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions and ambient air); #4 Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (gaseous emissions).
related to gaseous emissions from stationary sources than for products related to ambient air. High demand was identified for instrumentation, and process control/software for gaseous emissions. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to emission abatement and cleaner production; equipment for air sampling/laboratory analysis for both ambient air and gaseous emisions; and air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment. It is worth to note that demand for air pollution control in the energy sector is likely to grow due to upcoming new and stricter regulations on air emissions. Existing power plants (including those under construction and which will be operational before March 31, 1998) have to comply with new air emission standards for existing sources by Dec. 31, 1998. All new plants constructed after March 31, 1998 are subject to even stricter standards. Existing sources will then be required to meet the standards for new sources by Dec. 31, 2009. Water and Wastewater Demand for water and wastewater technologies was high. Not a single technology sector was found to be in low demand. Technologies for industrial and municipal wastewater treatment tended to be in higher demand than those related to potable water and surface and ground water. High demand was identified for technologies for inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply and municipal wastewater collection networks; monitoring equipment for industrial wastewater; equipment for clean-up, decontamination, and quality restoration of surface and ground water; and technologies for the construction of municipal and industrial wastewater collection networks. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to standard wastewater treatment processes for water and wastewater; instrumentation, process control, and software for industrial wastewater; and sampling/laboratory analysis equipment. A growth in demand was also expected for technologies related to the construction of water supply networks; sludge treatment and disposal (municipal and industrial wastewater); and advanced (tertiary) treatment processes for water and wastewater.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.16: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — WATER AND WASTEWATER Surface and Potable Municipal Ground water (Drinking) Water Wastewater
Industrial Wastewater
Monitoring
3.5 (20)
3.6 (17)
3.4 (13)
4.3 (15)
Sampling/laboratory analysis
3.4 (16)
3.8 (13)
3.8 (12)
3.6 (16)
Construction of collection/supply networks
3.2 (8)
3.8 (11)
4.0 (13)
4.0 (11)
Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and collection networks
3.0 (7)
4.4 (9)
4.1 (10)
3.7 (9)
Standard physical, chemical and biological treatment processes
3.0 (10)
3.6 (9)
3.9 (14)
3.9 (16)
Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. UV, ozonation, activated carbon phosphate removal , reverse osmosis)
3.7 (6)
3.6 (10)
3.7 (12)
3.6 (16)
Sludge treatment and disposal
3.5 (8)
3.8 (7)
3.7 (16)
3.6 (11)
Pollution prevention/waste minimization
3.3 (9)
3.5 (8)
3.6 (10)
3.4 (16)
Water recycling and reuse
3.1 (9)
3.3 (8)
3.0 (10)
3.4 (18)
Containment/clean-up
4.1 (19)
4.0 (18)
4.0 (12)
3.7 (21)
Quality restoration and decontamination
4.3 (14)
3.9 (12)
3.6 (9)
4.0 (13)
Instrumentation/process control/software
3.3 (12)
3.5 (11)
3.6 (13)
3.9 (16)
Technologies in high demand: #1 Inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply and municipal wastewater collection networks; #2 Monitoring (industrial wastewater); #3 Clean-up, decontamination, and quality restoration (surface and ground water); #4 Construction of municipal and industrial wastewater collection networks; Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #5 Standard wastewater treatment processes for water and wastewater; #6 Instrumentation, process control, and software (industrial wastewater); #7 Sampling/laboratory analysis; #8 Construction of water supply networks; #9 Sludge treatment and disposal (municipal and industrial wastewater); #10 Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes for water and wastewater.
Many respondents stressed the need for the reconditioning of existing networks for drinking water supply and collection of municipal wastewater. Water losses in distribution networks are estimated at 20 percent, and seepage of sewage into the ground is also a significant problem. Demand for spill control/containment/clean-up and decontamination in all sub-categories was high as well. Surprisingly, compared to other technologies in this category, demand ratings were relatively low for advanced treatment processes, and for water recycling and reuse technologies. However, several respondents expressed an opinion that the demand for waste minimization and water recycling and reuse technologies will increase as prices of water supply and fees for wastewater discharge rise. Waste Management Waste management, according to respondents, is one of the most promising environmental market sectors in Slovakia. There are over 8000 landfills in the country, but less than 10 percent are licensed. Of the 70 existing waste incinerators, 11 have no emission control equipment. Only two cities have municipal waste incinerators. The demand identified for waste management technologies was found to be high. Significant opportunities are expected in hazardous waste disposal (practically all technologies related to hazardous waste were in high demand), followed by radioactive and industrial waste management. Very high demand was identified for technologies related to landfill disposal (all waste categories); equipment for hazardous and radioactive waste site remediation and contaminated land clean-up; equipment for waste collection/transportation and storage (all waste categories); and technologies related to recycling and resource recovery in the area of hazardous waste. Other technologies in high demand included pollution prevention/waste minimization equipment for hazardous and radioactive waste; equipment for hazardous and
radioactive waste site monitoring, and radioactive waste sample analysis/waste characterization; and technologies for hazardous waste incineration. Increasing demand was expected for technologies related to spillage control/decontamination for industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste; technologies for recycling and resource recovery for industrial and municipal waste; sample analysis/waste characterization equipment for industrial and municipal waste; and equipment related to industrial waste site monitoring, remediation, and clean-up. Disposal of radioactive waste is an acute problem at present and technology demand was estimated to be between high and very high. However, although disposal of radioactive waste is a priority issue for the government, in general, the field does not account for a major portion of the waste management market. Energy Demand for energy-related technologies was moderate. Surprisingly, respondents indicated higher demand for energy-related technologies in “other industrial sectors” than in the energy and power generation sector itself. Specific technologies in high demand included: new/efficient energy and heat generation systems; and alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants. Growing demand was expected for instrumentation; process management and control equipment; and technologies related to retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems. Surprisingly, only moderate demand was identified for heat recovery and energy savings technologies. This area was usually ranked higher in the other surveyed countries. Technologies for the use of alternative energy sources were in low demand. As regards the relatively low demand identified for environmental technologies in the energy and power generation (especially compared to “other industrial sectors”), the findings most likely resulted from the fact that small and medi-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
147
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.17: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — WASTE MANAGEMENT Municipal Solid Waste
Industrial Waste
Hazardous Waste
Radioactive Waste
Waste collection/transportation and storage
4.0 (20)
4.0 (19)
4.6 (19)
4.6 (14)
Sample analysis/waste characterization
3.7 (17)
3.7 (20)
3.3 (22)
4.2 (11)
Site monitoring
3.4 (18)
3.7 (17)
4.0 (17)
4.1 (13)
Landfill disposal
4.0 (19)
4.1 (19)
4.9 (17)
4.2 (15)
Incineration
3.5 (17)
3.2 (20)
4.0 (18)
3.7 (6)
Composting/biomass conversion
3.0 (16)
2.6 (12)
3.2 (8)
3.0 (3)
Pollution prevention/waste minimization
3.6 (15)
3.6 (18)
4.1 (15)
4.3 (8)
Recycling/resource recovery
3.7 (18)
3.9 (22)
4.3 (16)
3.4 (10)
Spillage control/decontamination
3.2 (19)
3.9 (18)
3.8 (18)
3.9 (13)
Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land
3.5 (22)
3.8 (18)
4.3 (18)
4.7 (12)
Technologies in high demand: #1 Landfill disposal (all waste categories); #2 Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #3 Waste collection/ transportation and storage (all waste categories); #4 Recycling and resource recovery (hazardous waste); #5 Pollution prevention/ waste minimization (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #6 Site monitoring (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #7 Sample analysis/waste characterization (radioactive waste); #8 Hazardous waste incineration. Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #9 Spillage control/decontamination (industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste); #10 Recycling and resource recovery (industrial and municipal waste); #11 Sample analysis/waste characterization (industrial and municipal waste); #12 Industrial waste site monitoring, remediation, and clean-up.
um-sized companies (the majority of survey respondents) have little knowledge of the problems within the state-controlled energy sector, and do not expect to take part in multimillion Crown projects; hence, the lower ratings. In the researcher’s opinion, the received responses do not adequately reflect the high investment needs in the energy sector, as outlined in the National Environmental Action Plan (see Section 5.3 for more detail). Noise, Vibration and OHS Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety was low. In not a single category was demand found to be even moderate. The interviewees noted, however, that in the area of occupational health and safety, demand may grow in the near future because of requirements related to risk management in the ISO-related certification process. The respondents expected only minimum growth in demand in the area of measuring and control devices and pro-
tection equipment. Exposure to electromagnetic fields was not considered at all.
MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES The major end-users of environmental technologies identified by survey respondents are presented in Table 5.20. The chemical industry and the energy sector are the major end-users of environmental technologies in most categories. Local governments (municipalities) are an important user of technologies related to water and wastewater, and to waste management. The mineral mining and processing industry is a significant end-user of waste management and energy-related technologies. It is worth noting that the question related to major endusers of environmental technologies was among the least popular among the interviewed experts. Many respondents either did not answer at all, or used only vague categories, such as
TABLE 5.18: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — ENERGY Energy and Power Generation
Other Sectors (e.g. Chemical Manufacturing)
New/efficient energy and heat generation systems
3.4 (12)
5.0 (6)
Retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems
3.1 (13)
3.6 (6)
Process management and control (e.g. boiler tune-up, fuel efficiency optimization)
3.3 (14)
3.8 (9)
Heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation)
3.2 (12)
3.0 (8)
Alternative/renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, solar)
2.3 (10)
2.8 (7)
Alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants
3.4 (7)
4.2 (6)
Instrumentation
3.0 (10)
3.9 (9)
Technologies in high demand: #1 New/efficient energy and heat generation systems; #2 Alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants. Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #3 Instrumentation; #4 Process management and control; #5 Retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems.
148
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.19: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — NOISE, VIBRATION AND OHS Occupational Health and Safety
Noise and Vibration
Instrumentation devices
2.8 (5)
2.2 (5)
Protection equipment
2.0 (7)
2.5 (8)
Abatement (insulation, absorption)
2.1 (8)
2.2 (9)
Electromagnetic field exposure
1.5 (2)
1.6 (5)
TABLE 5.20: MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Sector
End-user
Air
1) Energy sector, 2) Chemical industry, 3) Transport
Water and Wastewater
1) Local governments, 2) Chemical industry, 3) Production in general
Waste
1) Chemical industry, 2) Local governments, 3) Mining, 4) Energy sector
Energy
1) Energy sector, 2) Chemical industry, 3) Mining and processing of mineral resources
Noise and Vibration
1) Production in general, 2) Construction, 3) Chemical industry
“production in general.” In the researcher’s opinion, this reflects the tendency among interviewees not to point out sectors with potentially lucrative contracts.
5.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers PURCHASING PREFERENCES An overwhelming majority of interviewed experts (80 percent) specified that they only use best-technology or best-practice criteria when purchasing environmental technologies. However, further discussion usually revealed that, in practice, many respondents favored domestic products because of lower prices. A small proportion of respondents (20 percent) said they had no preference for either domestic or foreign products. Sixty percent of interviewees preferred to buy foreign environmental technologies from a local in-country representative, while 40 percent would buy directly from the producer abroad.
STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES The major strengths of foreign environmental technologies in comparison with domestic products include reliability and durability of products (80 percent of respondents) and high product quality (70 percent).
Good value for money, good after-sales service, and userfriendly design were mentioned by 30 percent to 40 percent of respondents. Interestingly, several interviewees noted that an extended warranty period was a strength of foreign technologies in comparison with domestic products. Available credit or preferential financing was identified as a significant advantage by about a third of respondents. To that end, a comment was made that state-controlled prices in the energy and water utilities sectors do not allow for the repayment of effective, but expensive, foreign environmental technologies. However, price regulations are gradually being lifted, and utilites are expected to move towards market prices. Therefore, ideally, the preferential financing package should allow deferment of payments until the utility pricing policy is based on the actual production costs. Not a single respondent indicated low price as an advantage of foreign products.
BARRIERS TO BUYING ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM ABROAD According to 70 percent of respondents, the greatest barrier to buying foreign environmental technologies is high price. A relatively high portion of respondents (40 percent) specified import restrictions and high customs duty as another barrier. Some 30 percent of interviewees observed that little information is available about foreign suppliers, while 50 percent noted the lack of reliable product information as a barrier. These concerns should be relatively easy to solve through better marketing. One in three respondents specified difficulties with ensuring authorized technical service and maintenance as a significant barrier. Interestingly, a similar proportion of interviewees identified this area as a strength of foreign products compared to domestic competitors. At any rate, in the long term, ensuring a reliable technical service should be one of the priority areas for foreign suppliers. Other obstacles did not appear very important. 20 percent of experts indicated that products were not suitable for local conditions and technical culture. Other difficulties, identified by approximately 10 percent of the respondents, included communication problems with a foreign supplier and changing environmental regulations. In conclusion, since the high price of foreign technologies is the biggest barrier to purchase, to increase sales foreign suppliers should concentrate on providing an attractive financing package. One comment made frequently by respondents was that high prices would not be such a major hurdle if it were possible to pay for environmental technology, at least partially, during its effective use.
5.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Table 5.21 presents respondents’ perceptions of foreign suppliers from selected countries, based on answers to the question “How do environmental professionals in Slovakia perceive environmental technologies from different countries ?” The following scale was used in rating: 5 – excellent reputation, 4 – good reputation, 3 – average reputation, 2 – poor reputation, 1 – very poor reputation, blank – no opinion. Figures in cells show the average score, while those in brackets represent the number of responses. Perceptions of foreign environmental technologies were
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
149
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.21: PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPLIERS FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Slovakia
Austria Germany France
Japan Netherlands Scandinavia
Air
3.2 (20)
4.1 (17)
4.2 (18)
4.0 (9)
3.9 (7)
3.9 (7)
4.1 (10)
4.3 (11)
4.0 (1) Russia, 4.5 (2) Britain
Water and Wastewater
3.4 (25)
3.5 (16)
4.3 (21)
4.1 (20) 3.8 (10)
4.1 (17)
4.1 (13)
4.2 (16)
5.0 (1) Australia
Waste
2.9 (21)
3.8 (13)
4.2 (14)
4.1 (13)
3.9 (8)
3.8 (8)
4.1 (9)
4.2 (10)
Energy
3.4 (18)
4.0 (14)
4.4 (18)
3.9 (12)
4.0 (9)
4.1 (9)
4.6 (10)
4.1 (15)
Noise and 2.5 (8) Vibration, OHS
4.0 (2)
4.5 (5)
3.7 (2)
4.0 (2)
4.0 (2)
5.0 (3)
4.0 (2)
rated good to excellent. Domestic products were ranked average, well below the perceptions of foreign products. Table 5.22 presents the leading countries, with their rating in brackets, followed by Slovak technologies for comparison. Overall, environmental technologies from Scandinavian countries and from Germany were ranked high, ahead of American products. Technologies from the Netherlands, France, Japan and Austria followed suit. However, it should be noted that average ratings did not vary significantly. In the air sector, American, German, Austrian and Scandinavian technologies were ranked particularly high. German, American, French, Dutch and Scandinavian products were best perceived in the water and wastewater sector. German, American, French and Scandinavian technologies were ranked high in the waste management sector, while the energy sector seemed to be dominated by Scandinavian, German, American and Dutch products. Scandinavian and German products rated high in the noise and vibration sector. The number of respondents expressing an opinion about foreign environmental technologies was related to their availability on the market. When the distribution of responses is considered, foreign activity was highest in the water and wastewater sector, followed by energy, air and waste management. While no single country had a clear lead over competitors, suppliers from Germany, Austria, and France were considered to be most active in the environmental technology market in Slovakia, followed by American, Dutch and Scandinavian companies. It is important to note that the above question focused on perceptions of foreign environmental technologies depending on the country of origin, rather than on respondents’ actual familiarity and/or experience with specific foreign companies or products. Therefore, while the conclusions from Table 5.22 give a good indication of commonly held opinions about technologies and the perceived level of foreign activity, they do not necessarily depict the actual knowledge among Slovak experts of foreign suppliers. The following section presents the answers to
U.S.
Other
4.0 (1) Denmark 4.0 (2) Italy
a more specific question about foreign companies active in Slovakia, and the strengths and weaknesses of their products.
MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKET Table 5.23 presents the major foreign-owned environmental technology suppliers in Slovakia listed by survey respondents. Similar to the findings in the previous section, foreign companies in Slovakia seem to be most active in the water and wastewater sector, followed by waste and energy. Air pollution controls, and noise, vibration and OHS are represented to a lesser degree. German companies are most active in the water and wastewater sector, followed by Czech, American, and French suppliers. Danish, Austrian, and French firms seem to dominate among foreign companies in the waste sector, while in the energy sector, German and American presence is notable. In the remaining two categories, only a few foreign companies were identified. The majority of foreign companies are located in Bratislava, the national capital. Most of the comments on competitive strengths and weaknesses of suppliers focused on good product quality and reliability and high prices respectively. Interestingly, in only one case (Hewlett Packard) was good service listed as a strength, which confirms that more emphasis should be placed on this area. Generally, respondents noted that they were familiar mainly with large and well-known companies (especially in the energy and waste management sectors), or with their own suppliers or business partners. It was observed that, in the energy sector, several suppliers acting under their own name supply brand-name foreign technologies from several foreign manufacturers. Several interviewees mentioned the lack of information about foreign products as a problem, which is confirmed by
TABLE 5.22: PERCEPTION OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Sector
Leading Countries
Air
1) USA (4.3); 2) Germany (4.2); 3) Austria and Scandinavia (4.1); Slovakia (3.2)
Water
1) Germany (4.3); 2) USA (4.2); 3) France, The Netherlands, Scandinavia (4.1); Slovakia (3.4)
Waste
1) Germany and USA (4.2); 2) France, Scandinavia (4.1); 3) Japan (3.9); Slovakia (2.9)
Energy
1) Scandinavia (4.6); 2) Germany (4.4); 3) USA, The Netherlands (4.1); Slovakia (3.4)
Noise, Vibration, OHS
1) Scandinavia (5); 2) Germany (4.5); 3) Austria, Japan, The Netherlands, USA (4.0); Slovakia (2.5)
Note: The following scale was used: 5 = excellent reputation, 4 = good reputation, 3 = average reputation, 2 = poor reputation, 1 = very poor reputation
150
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.23: MAJOR SUPPLIERS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SLOVAKIA Sector Air
Company Name, City
Country of Origin
Specialization
Competitive Strength/Weaknesses
Nederman
Austria
filters
Rossemount
Britain
exhaust gas analyzers
quality/price
Gierch
Germany
low emission burners
stability of parameters after calibration/–
Horiba, Bratislava
Japan
air monitoring
quality/reliability
Air/Water
Rossemount
Sweden, Canada
paper industry
Waste, Water and Soil
VARIAN
Australia
analysis
Soil Water
excellent quality/reliability
PROLABO
France
analysis devices
CETAC
US
laboratory devices
quality/high prices
Eijkelkamp
Netherlands
monitoring devices
quality/price
Tractabel
Belgium
Lutos, Lubenec
Czech Rep.
fans for aeration
price/quality
Sigma, Olomouc
Czech Rep.
pumps
-/price
Aseko, Sumperk
Czech Rep.
fans for aeration
high quality/price
Geotest, Uhrinov
Czech Rep.
VKI, Horskolm
Denmark
water
traditional technology/-
Hydroenvironment France
analyzers for continuous processes
quality/price
Dv Lange
Germany
analyzers for continuous processes
quality/price
WTW Weilheim
Germany
devices
quality/price
Grundfloss
Germany
pumps
quality/price
Passavant
Gemany
wastewater treatment
Merch KGaA
Germany
chemistry
STIP
Germany
analyzers for continuous processes
Kowa, Czech R.
Germany
water treatment
ABS, Pumpen
Germany
pumps
quality/price high quality/high price
Aqualabo, Czech R. Germany
water treatment
UTEK
Switzerland
M&R
Culigan
US
HACH
US
laboratory devices
Hewlett Packard
US
automatic analyzers
Austria
waste management (collection, landfilling)
quality/price
quality, service/price
Carlo Erba Waste
ASA, Trnava
Brantner, Bratislava Austria
waste management
Austria Energy
Austria
incinerators
Alfa Laval Praha
Czech Rep., Sweden
separators
Marius Pedersen, Trencin
Denmark
waste management
GSE, Bratislava
Denmark
Nave Fasertechnik, Bratislava
Denmark
Lobbe, Bratislava/Nitra
Denmark
waste management
ONYX, Bratislava
France
waste management
excellent quality/high price
quality/price
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
151
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
TABLE 5.23 (CONT.): MAJOR SUPPLIERS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SLOVAKIA
Sector
Company Name, City
Country of Origin
Waste (cont.)
Zohor
France
National Seal Co.
Netherlands
Froling
Austria
Tedom
Czech Rep.
co-generation
Siemens
Germany
wide use boilers
-/big systems only
Viessman
Germany
measuring and control instruments
quality/-
Celtuss
Germany
construction of boilers
Froling
Germany
boilers
Rapido
Germany
segmented boilers
Landys & Gyr
Germany
measuring and control instruments
Johnson Cons.
US
measuring and control instruments
Honeywell
US
measuring and control instruments
Brall&Kiaev
Denmark
measurement devices
Kemppi
Finland
filters
First
France
technology of active separation
Schwetztechnik
Germany
Head Acustic
Germany
acoustic components
Norsonic
Norway
measurement devices
Riymonth
Sweden
filters
Energy
Noise, OHS
Specialization
Competitive Strength/Weaknesses
geomembrane, foils
quality/price
the fact that most experts were able to identify only a few specific companies active in Slovakia. Also, respondents were often uncertain of the country of origin of a foreign supplier (e.g. Austrian and German companies were often confused).
152
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
5.8 List of Interviewed Experts/Companies
29. Ladislav Straka, Manager, AEE-URAP, Trencin, Dec. 10, 1996
The structure of the information is as follows: Name of person interviewed, position, company name, location, date of interview
31. Dusan Kovac, Director, SOPK, Presov, Dec. 7, 1996
1. Magda Kurucova, Head of Ecotoxicology, VUCHT, Bratislava, Nov. 14, 1996
33. Karol Hrdina, Director, ENVITECH, Trencin, Dec. 10, 1996
2. Peter Jergus, Head of Envidivision, VUCHT-CHEMITEX, Zilina, Nov. 18, 1996
35. Zdena Kelnarova, environmental specialist, MZP SR, Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996
3. Ladislav Mihalcik, Head, Acoustic Department, TSU, Piestany, Nov. 18, 1996
36. Koloman Pronay, Project Manager, ENERGOPROJEKT, Bratislava, Dec. 4, 1996
4. Juraj Kralik, Director, HYCO, Bratislava, Nov. 14, 1996
37. Milan Porubsky, Assistant to the Director, HYDROVRT, Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996
5. Anezka Moncmanova, Associate Professor, STU, Faculty of ChT, Bratislava, Nov. 18, 1996 6. Viera Khunova, Senior Lecturer, STU, Faculty of ChT, Bratislava, Nov. 14, 1996
30. Peter Horvat, Manager, EKOKROK, Zilina, Dec. 10, 1996 32. Walter Scherfel, Director, G3, Trencin, Dec. 7, 1996 34. Dusan Lucansky, waste expert, Bratislava, Dec. 3, 1996
38. Ignac Kozej, Manager, EKO-TERM SERVIS, Kosice, Dec. 3, 1996 39. Milos Hlavacik, Director, PROX-TEC, Poprad, Dec. 5, 1996
7. Jan Derco, Associate Professor, STU, Faculty of ChT, Bratislava, Nov. 18, 1996
40. Jozef Madar, Head of Waste Department, DETOX, Banska Bystrica, Dec. 6, 1996
8. Tomas Andrezal, Manager, SENSOR, Bratislava, Nov. 25, 1996
41. Mikulas Janovsky, Director, EKOCONZULT, Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996
9. Juraj Gavora, Research Manager, ETC, Ivanka pri Dunaji, Nov. 27, 1996
42. Norbert Lyocsa, Manager, MERCK, Bratislava, Dec. 7, 1996
10. Sona Behava, Environmental Manager, TRANSMISIE, Martin, Nov. 15, 1996 11. Stefan Smrekovsky, Director, DATATHERM, Zilina, Nov. 15, 1996 12. Robert Brnak, Head of Department, MZP SR, Bratislava, Nov. 14, 1996 13. Miroslav Rusko, Director, SAZP, Trnava, Nov. 27, 1996
43. Ladislav Truchlik, Head of Technical Department, KKH, Bratislava, Dec. 3, 1996 44. Vladimir Krcho, energy expert, Bratislava, Dec. 3, 1996 45. Pavel Simonovic, Director, AQUIPUR, Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996 46. Tibor Urbanek, Manager, EKOTECHNA, Presov, Dec. 13, 1996
14. Ivan Chabal, Manager, COVSPOL, Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996
47. Oleg Leontiev, Director, KOVOPROJEKT-ES, Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996
15. Elena Lamackova, Environmental specialist, PIOCHEMPIK, Bratislava, Dec. 10, 1996
48. Alexander Zubac, senior expert, OU ZP, Spisska Nova Ves, Dec. 9, 1996
16. Pavel Stastny, Head, Climatology, S-HMU, Kosice, Dec. 3, 1996
49. Kamil Bucko, Director, PASTEL, Presov, Dec. 9, 1996
17. Rastislav Kral, Manager, KONZEKO, Levoca, Dec. 4, 1996 18. Vlastimil Potancok, Manager, EL, Spisska Nova Ves, Dec. 4, 1996 19. Marian Koval, Director, VILLA LABECO, Spisska Nova Ves, Dec. 4, 1996 20. Marian Zorkoczy, Manager, THERMOSOLAR, Ziar nad Hronom, Dec. 5, 1996
50. Jozef Kral, Director, KM SYSTEM, Presov, Nov. 30, 1996 51. Ivan Bielek, Manager, COMPAG, Bratislava, Dec. 12, 1996 52. Jan Baranovic, Manager, EKO KOVO PROJEKT, Rimavska Sobota, Nov. 30, 1996 53. Lubomir Bindas, senior expert, PB CONSULTING, Presov, Dec. 13, 1996
21. Johana Mesarozsova, Director, EKOTRANSLATION, Banska Bystrica, Dec. 5, 1996 22. Boris Lankey, Manager, BB AQUATEX, Banska Bystrica, Dec. 5, 1996 23. Miroslav Remeta, Director, DUHA, Presov, Dec. 3, 1996 24. Jan Hoppan, Director, H-EKO, Kosice, Dec. 3, 1996 25. Olga Pietruchova, Director, IPU, Bratislava, Dec. 10, 1996 26. Ivan Smidt, Director, USTAV RADIOEKOLOGIE, Kosice, Dec. 9, 1996 27. Anton Hrncar, Director, ENVIGEO, Banska Bystrica, Dec. 6, 1996 28. Pavol Soldan, Head of Department, KONSTRUKTA – INDUSTRY, Trencin, Dec. 10, 1996
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
153
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
5.9 List of Publications and Other Sources
20. Informal information discussions and telephone calls, PB CONSULTING, 1996
1. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, “The Emerging Environmental Market: A Survey of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic,” Budapest, Hungary: REC, June 1995
22. Slovak Statistical Office, Statistical Figures and Graphs, Bratislava, 1993
2. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, “The Environmental Business Directory: Environmental Service and Technology Providers in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovak Republic,” Budapest, Hungary: REC, June 1995
21. Internal Materials of PB CONSULTING
23. Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the SR in the Years 1986-1992,” Bratislava, 1992 24. Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the SR,” Bratislava, 1993 25. Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the SR, Selected Indicators in the years 1990-1995,” Bratislava, 1996
3. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, “Competing in the New Environmental Marketplace. Proceedings of Workshops for Environmental Professionals in the Slovak Republic,” Budapest, Hungary: REC, Nov. 1995 4. Macek J. Kenneth and Urbanek Vladimir, “The Environmental Industry and Markets in the Slovak Republic,” OECD Paris, France: Nov. 1994 5. Kaiser Helmut, “Environmental Technologies in the 19662015 Period in Connection to Energy, New Opportunities and Risks” (in German), Helmut Kaiser Unternehmensberatung, Thubingen, Germany, 1996 6. Suchanek Zdenek, “Environmental Industry,” (in Czech), CEMC Praha, Czech Republic, 1995 7. MOE SR, “The Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the State Governmental Environmental Policy” (in Slovak and English), MOE SR Bratislava, 1993 8. STUZ SR, “Sustainable Slovakia in the International Context,” papers from aconference (in Slovak), Bratislava, 1996 9. SANDERS “Slovakia, Business in Environment” (in Slovak and English), Bratislava, 1994 10. “Enviro-magazine for environmental protection,” SA ZP Banska Bystrica, 1996 11. “Environmental Guide,” ALLDATA Slovakia Plus Ltd., Ziar nad Hronom, 1995 12. TEUTOP, “Directory of Ecological Companies,” in cooperation with ASPEK, Bratislava, 1994 13. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, “Government and Environment: A Directory of Governmental Organizations with Environmental Responsibilities for CEE,” Budapest, Hungary, 1996 14. “Workshop on Building Capacity in the Environmental Goods and Services Industry in the Central and Eastern European Countries,” OECD and REC, Szentendre, Hungary, November 1996 15. “East-West Seminar on Business, Industry and Environment: Environmental protection and opportunity, responsibility and challenge for the business sector — possibilities of East-West cooperation by the business sector,” Berlin, December 1996 16. OECD, “The Environment Industry,” Papers from Expert Meeting, OECD Documents, Washington, 1994 17. “The National Environmental Action Plan,” MOE SR, Bratislava, 1996 18. “The Environment in SR,” MOE SR, Bratislava, 1995 19. Interviews from the Environmental Technology Survey (questonnaires, notes), PB CONSULTING, 1996
154
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
5.10 List of Referenced Organizations The structure of the information is as follows: Name of organization Address Contact, phone, fax, e-mail Background
MZP SR nam. L.Stura 1, 812 35 Bratislava Ing. Robert Brnak, Tel: (421-7) 516-2167, Fax: (421-7) 516-1111 Expert on ET SAZP Kollarova 8, P.O. Box 1, 917 02 Trnava RNDr.Miroslav Rusko, Tel: (421-805) 20-406, Fax: (421-805) 26-431, E-mail:
[email protected] Eco-labelling of technologies
R&D ORGANIZATIONS Vucht Nobelova 34, 836 03 Bratislava Magda Kurucova, Ph.D., Tel: (421-7) 525-9349, Fax: (421-7) 525-9349 ET for chemical industry Vucht-Chemitex Rybniky 10, 011 68 Zilina Ing. Peter Jergus, CSc., Tel: (421-89) 32-857, Fax: (421-89) 645-519 Textile and fiber technologies TSU Krajinska 9, 921 01 Piestany Ing. Ladislav Mihalcik, Head of the Acoustics Dept. Tel: (421-838) 57-160, Fax: (421-838) 72-3716 Noise and vibration abatement and monitoring Hyco Radlinskeho 37, 815 43 Bratislava Ing.Juraj Kralik, Tel: (421-7) 539-0360, 397-012 Fax: (421-7) 391-078, 397-678 Design and applied R&D in environmental construction STU Faculty of Chemical Technology Radlinskeho 9, 812 37 Bratislava ■ Asst. Prof. Dr. Ing. Anezka Moncmanova, Tel: (421-7) 56-021 Air pollutant abatement ■ Ing. Viera Khunova, CSc, Tel: (421-7) 326-021, Fax: (421-7) 393-198, E-mail:
[email protected] Recycling of plastics ■ Dr. Jan Derco, Ph.D, Associate Professor Tel: (421-7) 326-021, 495-243, Fax: (421-7) 493-198, E-mail:
[email protected] Wastewater treatment Sensor Nobelova 34, 831 02 Bratislava Tomas Andrezal, Tel: (421-7) 525-8021,525-8163 Fax: (421-7) 525-8004, E-mail:
[email protected] Landfill monitoring Ekotoxikologicke, centrum Bratislava s.r.o. Nadrazna 37, 900 28 Ivanka pri Dunaji Juraj Gavora, Tel: (421-7) 943-712, 945-223, Fax: (421-7) 945223 Monitoring, control, Risk assessment, textile and fiber technologies, environmental optimization Treansmisie P. Mudrona 10, 036 01 Martin Ing. Sona Behava, Tel: (421-842) 36-511, 34-668, Fax: (421842) 33-157 R&D in monitoring for ET Datatherm s.r.o. Hlinska 25, 010 01 Zilina Stefan Smrekovsky, Tel: (421-89) 45-781, 43-089, Fax: (42189) 48-754 Energy saving, water equipment for process control
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCED IN THE REPORT SAV Geologicky Ustav Dubravska cesta 9, 846 26 Bratislava Ing. Ivan Krizani, Tel: (421-7) 373-961, Fax: (421-7) 377-097 Optimisation of mining and processing of minerals SAV UMMS Letna 9, 04200 Kosice Tel. (421-95) 35-465, Fax. (421-95) 37-048 Active insulation of vibration VUP Nabrezna 4, 971 04 Prievidza Ing. Vladimir Hlavac,CSc, Tel: (421-862) 31-841-43, Fax: (421862) 32-261 ET for oil industry VUMA a.s. Piestanska 1202/44, 915 28 Nove mesta n/V Ing. Rudolf Kolnik, Tel: (421-834) 5551-56, Fax:(421-834) 4192 Ultrasound cleaning technologies VUVH Nabr. arm. gen. L. Svobodu 5, 800 00 Fax: (421-7) 315-743, 537-1342 Technologies for water management SHMU Jeseniova 17, 81105 Bratislava Tel: (421-7) 373-807, Fax: (421-7) 372-004 R&D in air and water pollution VURUP 824 12 Vlcie Hrdlo Tel: (421-7) 244-565,248824, Fax: (421-7) 248-622 ET in oil industry VUP s.p. Bojnicka cesta 86, 910 01 Prievidza Ing. Vladimir Hlavac, CSc, Tel: (421-862) 31-841, Fax: (421862) 32-261 ET in oil industry Vucht Nobelova 34, 836 03 Bratislava Magda Kurucova, Ph.D., Tel: (421-7) 525-9349, Fax: (421-7) 525-9349 ET in chemical industry SAZP Kollarova 8, P.O. Box 1, 917 02 Trnava RNDr. Miroslav Rusko, Director, Tel: (421-805) 20-406, Fax: (421-805) 26-431, E-mail:
[email protected] Ecolabelling STU CHTF Radlinskeho 9, 812 37 Bratislava Tel: (421-7) 326-021, 495-243, 56-021, Fax: (421-7) 493-198 Wastewater treatment, air protection technologies
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
155
C H A P T E R 5 : S L O VA K I A
VUSAPL Novozamocka cesta 179, 950 37 Nitra Ing.Mikulas Kiss, Tel: (421-87) 501-111, Fax:(421-87) 413-495 Recycling of plastics
Bio-Environ Hurbanovo nam. 9, 811 03 Bratislava Ing. Dr. Matus Povazaj, CSc, Tel: (421-7) 331-658, Fax: 332-468 Biotechnologies
Technical University, EF KEMT Letna 9, 040 01 Kosice Tel: (421-95) 622-4611, Fax: (421-95) 622-4611 Noise and vibration control and monitoring
ZTS VVU Juzna trieda 97, 04124 Kosice Tel: (421-95) 50-187, Fax: (421-95) 57-613 Hazardous waste transport equipment
EGU Bajkalska 27, 82701 Bratislava Tel: (421-7) 522-1267, Fax: (421-7) 522-1560 Energy saving alternative/renewable resources
WUSAM Buzulucka 3, 96150 Zvolen Ing. Jan Slancik, Tel: (421-855) 232-407, Fax: (421-855) 25-839 Environmental mechanical engineering technologies
VUCHV 05921 Svit Dr. Dusan Budzak, Tel: (421-92) 56-444, Fax: (421-92) 55-663 ET optimation in textile and fiber industry
Thermosolar Na Varticke, P.O. Box 45, 96503 Ziar n. H. Ing. Jozef Novak, CSc., Tel: (421-857) 862-4345, Fax: (421857) 86-244 Solar Energy
VSDS Faculty of Machinery Velky Diel, 01026 Zilina Doc. Ing. Peter Zvolensky, Tel: (421-89) 42-679, Fax: (421-89) 48-624 Energy recuperation, waste minimatization technologies, noise control Sensor Nobelova 34, 831 02 Bratislava Tomas Andrezal, Tel: (421-7) 525-8021, 525-8163, Fax: (4217) 525-8004 E-mail:
[email protected] Landfill monitoring Vucht-Chemitex Rybniky 10, 011 68 Zilina Ing. Peter Jergus, CSc., Tel: (421-89) 32857, Fax: (421-89) 645-519 Textile and fiber technologies
OTHER IMPORTANT ORGANIZATIONS VUR Ekologia s.r.o. Skladna 8, 040 00 Kosice Ondrej Lesko, Tel: (421-95) 52-757, Fax: (421-95) 52-757 Environmental optimization of processing technologies VUD Velky Diel, 011 39 Zilina Ing. Jozef Pinter, Tel: (421-89) 47-394, Fax: (421-89) 44-865 Environmental optimization of transport technologies VUEZ Tovarenska 210, 935 28 Tlmace Ing. Jan Murani, Tel: (421-813) 926-3145, Fax: (421-813) 921-617 Environmental optimisation ofenergetics technologies VUJE Okruzna 5, 918 64 Trnava Ing. Rudolf Burcl, Tel: (421-805) 213-01,-02,-03,-04, Fax: (421-805) 912-64 Nuclear safety technologies VUKI a.s. Tovarenska 14, 815 71 Bratislava Ing. Lubica Cveckova, Tel: (421-7) 383-366, Fax: (421-7) 67-201 Technologies of waste incineration VVNP Votrubova 11/a, 825 05 Bratislava Ing. Stefan Kosut, Tel/Fax: (421-7) 65-366 Liquid waste storage
156
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
Chapter 6: Slovenia 6.1 Summary of Findings Slovenia’s environment fares relatively well compared with many other CEE countries. Acid rain, transboundary air pollution from neighboring countries, and surface and groundwater contamination are the main environmental problems experienced. There are also growing problems related to poor waste management, and soil pollution caused by the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers. The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, responsible for regulatory measures and control, is the main body in charge of environmental protection. Within the Ministry there are several agencies with different tasks related to the environment. The administration of environmental regulations is carried out both at the national level and at the local level including 147 municipalities. The Inspectorate for Environment and Physical Planning supervises the implementation of environmental regulations, oversees water resources management, and regulates physical planning and construction activities. The levels of compliance are still below EU standards in many key areas, such as the industrial and energy sectors, or in the management of municipal and hazardous waste. The country’s efforts to enforce compliance have focused mainly on water quality. In 1996, total spending on environmental protection in Slovenia amounted to USD 150.4 million, or approximately 0.8 percent of GDP. In 1994, air protection projects accounted for the largest share of national expenditures (71 percent of the total). Waste management related projects accounted for 18 percent of the total spending, followed by water and wastewater activities (9 percent). Currently, the share of the latter two categories of projects is increasing. Reliable information on the spending on environmental technologies in Slovenia is not available. Environmental expenditures in Slovenia are financed mainly through the municipal budgets, the state budget, the Environmental Development Fund, and spending from the pri-
AUSTRIA Maribor Kranj
Celje
Ptuj
I TA LY Ljubljana
SLOVENIA Adriatic Sea
C R O AT I A Koper 0
50
100
kilometers
vate sector. State co-funding of environmental investments is common in Slovenia. An increase in environmental expenditures can be expected over the next few years as a result of efforts to harmonize local environmental legislation and policy with EU standards. The PHARE Programme is one of the biggest contributors of foreign funding for environment-related projects in Slovenia, with additional financial resources provided by the EBRD and the World Bank. Several Western governments provide bilateral assistance. The Slovenian Ministry of Environment currently gives priority to the protection of ground and surface waters by the appropriate treatment of wastewater, and protection of water resources. Waste management priorities include remediation of existing disposal sites, minimization and recycling of wastes, and the proper management of hazardous waste. Other priorities include coordinating environmental protection with existing practices in the European Union; introduc-
TABLE 6.1: BASIC COUNTRY INFORMATION Czech Republic Population (mln)
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
10.3
10.2
38.6
5.4
2.0
78,900
93,000
312,700
49,000
20,200
GDP (USD bln)
52.3
44.3
134.3
18.9
18.6
GDP growth (%)
1.3
1.2
7.7
6.0
3.1
Foreign Direct Investment (USD bln)
7.3
16.2
13.5
1.0
1.7
Unemployment rate (%)
4.8
10.3
10.6
13.0
14.4
Average monthly wages (USD)
302.0
319.0
329.0
257.9
890.0
Inflation rate (%)
10.3
18.4
14.5
6.0
9.6
Exchange rate to the USD
33.5
197.8
3.4
34.0
167.8
1,185.0
385.0
1,308.0
232.0
150.0
2.6
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
Area (sq.km)
Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (USD mln) Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (% of GDP)
Source: Business Central Europe, November 1997; 1996 Statistical Yearbooks of each surveyed country
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
157
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
ing sectoral legislation; improving the enforcement of legislation; and establishing an environmental information system. Based on interviews conducted with Slovenian environmental experts, the most important problems needing to be addressed included: waste disposal sites requiring remediation; a need for the construction of new waste disposal sites; pollution of surface and ground water by municipal and industrial wastewater; pollution of potable water sources from agriculture; air pollution from industrial boilers and household fireplaces, from industry due to the lack of flue gas cleaning facilities, and from traffic; and the accumulation of hazardous waste that needs treatment and removal. The areas likely to offer the most business opportunities in Slovenia are the protection of ground and surface waters by appropriate treatment of wastewater, protection of water resources, and waste management activities. Business opportunities related to environment-related projects in the energy sector will be significant in the mid term. In the coming years, about USD 400 million are expected to be invested in environmental protection programs in Slovenia as a result of the privatization process. There are few effective formal channels in Slovenia providing information on environmental business opportunities. The source most frequently used is the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia which announces tenders for projects co-funded by the government. Other significant sources include personal contacts, participation in fairs and exhibitions, and information from the media. Among the most important fairs in Slovenia dedicated to the environment and environmental technology are EKO sejem in Celje and Tehnika za okolje in Ljubljana. As for information on environmental technologies, the most reliable and frequently used sources include previously established contacts with suppliers, and information published in specialized journals or obtained at fairs in other countries. Representatives of technology suppliers are also a significant source of information. Overall, the demand for environmental technologies in Slovenia is moderate, with demand for technologies relating to air and water monitoring, industrial wastewater treatment, and management of radioactive and hazardous waste likely to grow. One should bear in mind, however, that the overall state of the environment in Slovenia is relatively good, and that some important environmental problems have already been solved in recent years. Demand for air-related technologies is moderate. Growth in demand is expected for technologies relating to air sampling and laboratory analysis equipment for gaseous emissions and ambient air, for emission abatement and cleaner production technologies, and for air pollution control and flue gas purification equipment. Demand for water and wastewater technologies is also moderate, with growth tendencies expected for technologies relating to the treatment of industrial wastewater. Technologies in increasing demand include equipment for the monitoring, sampling and laboratory analysis of industrial wastewater, and for instrumentation, process control and software for industrial wastewater treatment. Some growth in demand is also expected for those technologies relating to pollution prevention and waste minimization in industrial wastewater treatment and drinking water supply. Waste management is the only area where high demand for environmental technologies was identified, with technologies related to radioactive and hazardous waste in highest demand. High demand was identified for waste disposal, and waste prevention/minimization technologies for radioactive waste; technologies relating to recycling and resource recovery from industrial waste; and for equipment used in landfill disposal of hazardous waste. Increasing demand is expected
158
for technologies in the field of recycling and resource recovery (including those for composting and biomass conversion) for municipal waste management; equipment for landfill disposal of industrial and municipal waste; and technologies relating to pollution prevention/waste minimization of hazardous and industrial waste. Other technologies where demand is expected to rise include spillage control and decontamination of radioactive waste; and equipment for collection, transportation and storage of municipal waste. Demand for energy-related technologies was found to be moderate. Growing demand was noted for alternative (nonCFC) refrigerants, while other areas where demand is expected to increase include technologies for heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation) in the energy sector; new and efficient energy and heat generation systems; and retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing energy systems in both the power generation and other industrial sectors. Alternative or renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, and solar) are other possible growth areas. Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety was low to moderate, with some growth in demand expected for OHS protection equipment. In most technology categories, the municipal sector, including power generation, is the major end-user of environmental technologies. In the air, water and wastewater, and waste sectors, municipal users were followed by the respective industries such as chemical, mining, wood, and food processing. The transportation and mining sectors are the major end-users in the noise and vibration category. Industry is an important user of environmental technologies related to energy. The order of end-users was affected by the decline in industrial production after 1991, leading to a decrease in environmental pollution, and the current focus on pollution from the municipal sector, which had been neglected in the past. The privatization of public utilities has also led to increased spending in the municipal sector. Most Slovenian buyers (about two-thirds) rely on the use of best-technology or best-practice criteria when making purchasing decisions. However, a small proportion of buyers declared preference for domestic products. There was a slight preference for buying foreign-manufactured environmental technologies from domestic representatives compared with buying directly from the producer abroad. High product quality is considered the most important strength of foreign environmental technologies. Among other highly ranked qualities are their reliability, durability, and good value for money. Available credits and funding from the foreign provider, found to be of importance in other CEE countries, are deemed less important in Slovenia. When making purchasing decisions, some experts considered a foreign technology known to have been used and verified in other countries to be an advantage over domestic products. In spite of these positive comments, only a limited proportion of respondents regarded foreign environmental technologies as user-friendly and easy to customize and adapt to specific local conditions. Importantly, only one in three respondents considered the quality of after-sales service as a strength of imported environmental technologies. The lack of reliable product information, and the relatively high cost of foreign technology are the most significant barriers to buying environmental technologies from abroad. Other barriers include the difficulties in ensuring authorized after-sales technical service and maintenance, too little information about suppliers, and the non-suitability of products to the local conditions and technical culture. In general, perceptions of foreign environmental technologies were between average and good, somewhat higher than perceptions of domestic environmental technologies, which were evaluated as average. German, American, Japanese and
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
Austrian technologies were ranked highly in the air sector. In the water and wastewater sector, technologies from Holland and Germany were ranked high, followed by products from Austria and France. German and American technologies were best rated in the waste sector, while German and Scandinavian technologies were highly rated in the energy sector. Finally, American, German, and Scandinavian products were evaluated highly in the noise, vibration, and OHS sector. No single foreign company dominates on the Slovene environmental market. The highest number of foreign firms were active in the air, water and wastewater sectors, followed by the waste sector. German firms seem to hold the lead in supplying Slovenia’s environmental technologies in terms of both quantity and quality. However, Austrian and American suppliers are close behind, and considerably ahead of those firms from other countries (i.e., Switzerland, Italy and France). As no company is considered dominant in any product line, there are opportunities for any firm able to provide a quality product at competitive Western prices, moreso because a limited environmental technology industry exists in Slovenia.
6.2 Methodology The information presented in this report was obtained from interviews with the experts and senior staff from 37 Slovene environmental businesses, R&D institutions, governmental agencies, and other organizations. The interviews were held between Oct. 15 and Nov. 15, 1996. Experts were selected on the basis of information provided from the following sources: ■
INFOLINK—Center for Information System, Chamber of Commerce, Republic of Slovenia
■
PIRS—Business Directory of the Republic of Slovenia
■
List of environmental businesses in Slovenia provided by the Regional Environmental Center
■
Researchers’ own personal contacts.
Of the 70 organizations identified as potential candidates for this survey, only 37 were eventually interviewed, the main reason for this being that information on environmental businesses in Slovenia is not regularly updated and therefore a significant number of companies had already ceased to exist. Furthermore, another survey, also undertaken by the REC, was in progress at the same time. For this reason, many environmental professionals expressed reluctance to spend time on interviews that primarily served foreign companies interested in business opportunities and becoming active on the Slovenian market. The list of interviewed experts (with correspondence addresses) is provided in Section 6.8. The organizations were selected on the basis of their primary area of expertise in order to ensure that all areas of environmental technology were evenly represented within the survey. Several organizations were involved in different and multiple areas of environmental technology or R&D, thus resulting in a varying number of responses in different areas during the interviews. In addition, attention was also given to the proper balance of organizations from all major cities and regions of Slovenia, and to the participation of public institutions and private organizations involved in the environmental technology business or in R&D. Most of the organizations interviewed in this survey were established before 19918, with only seven being established
after Slovenia had declared independence. This is partly due to the fact that many of those established after 1991 provide environmental services rather than technology and, as such, did not fit into the profile of organizations desired for interview. In addition, many newly established organizations had already closed or had reoriented their activities. The types of organizations surveyed are as follows: ■
R&D institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
■
Environmental businesses . . . . . . . . 21%
■
Government bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
■
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
The number of environmental businesses included in the survey (eight) might seem relatively small. However, it was intended to include only those organizations that really provided environmental technologies to the marketplace — not just consulting services. In fact, there are very few such organizations in Slovenia. Under the “environmental business” classification, only seven firms were identified. The number of organizations classified as “other” is, however, relatively large. This is because many organizations whose environmental function is only a small part of the activities of the larger organization or is just an additional source of income were also included. A typical example of such an organization is the Institute of Public Health, which is practically the only organization dealing with problems related to noise, vibration, and industrial health and safety. The size of those organizations surveyed with respect to the number of employees was as follows: ■
fewer than 10 employees . . . . . . . . . . . .
35%
■
between 10 and 100 employees . . . . . . .
32%
■
between 100 and 400 employees . . . . . .
24%
■
between 700 and 1,500 employees . . . . .
9%
In terms of size, the distribution of organizations between the small, medium-size, and large categories was fairly even — there were 11-12 organizations in each category based on the number of employees: fewer than 10, between 10 and 100, and more than 100 employees, respectively. In the breakdown presented, the 11 largest organizations were divided into two groups to indicate the fraction of companies with over 700 employees. This can be considered particularly large for the Slovene business community. It should be pointed out that, in cases where subdivisions of organizations could be clearly identified as performing environmental activities, only the size of the subdivision was taken into account, and not the whole organization. Based on the size of income, as declared by the respondents, the organizations were distributed in the following way: ■
small . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%
■
medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%
■
large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Interestingly, on the basis of annual environmental revenues, most organizations with anywhere from 10 to 700 employees classified themselves as medium-sized. In actual numbers, the breakdown was as follows: ■
annual revenues below USD 500,000 . . . . . . . . 40%
■
annual revenues USD 500,000 to 1 million . . . . 44%
■
annual revenues above USD 1 million . . . . . . . . 16%
While some small organizations reported revenues of as much as USD 2.5 million, all but one of the medium-sized and
8 It is worth noting that it only became possible to establish private companies in Slovenia in 1989.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
159
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
large organizations reported an income from environmental activities of less than USD 1 million. This points to a relatively low percentage of revenue generation from environmental business activity within medium-sized and large organizations. It must be noted, however, that not all the organizations were willing to provide information concerning their income. Organizations from almost all regions of Slovenia were surveyed, including:
TABLE 6.2: GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF OPERATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONS SURVEYED Scope of Operations
Local
National International
Less than one-third of overall activities
9
7
19
6
2
capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
Between one-third and two-thirds
4
■ ■
major cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%
More than two-thirds
5
15
2
■
small towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
Rural or less developed areas are not included in the above table, since there are actually very few environmental business activities there. Any environmental activities in those areas tend to be run by companies from other major cities which were included in the survey. While the major cities and smaller towns are evenly represented, the relatively large number of organizations from the capital city of Ljubljana was due to the fact that all major research institutions and government agencies surveyed were located in the capital. As shown in Table 6.2, over two-thirds of the activities of the majority of organizations are conducted at a national level. Conversely, the share of international activities was below one third for most organizations. Smaller organizations and organizations from smaller towns were the ones primarily involved in local activities. Most organizations were involved in a mixture of operations — only three organizations operated just at the local level, while only two organizations were found to operate at the international level. Sectoral activities are well spread among the most significant environmental fields in Slovenia, as shown in the breakdown below: ■
Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
■
Water and wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
■
Waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%
■
Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
■
Noise, vibration and OHS . . . . . . . . 11%
■
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
The apparent balance among all areas is, however, distorted by the fact that some large companies are active in several areas. This is particularly the case for “other” activities, under which respondents most frequently included environmental risk assessment and consulting, which can be relevant to all areas and not to any specific environmental technology. Radiation protection related activities were also classified in this category.
6.3 Overview of the Market With a population of 2 million and an area of 20,200 sq.km (7,800 sq.mi., slightly larger than New Jersey), Slovenia is a small country by Central European standards. In general, Slovenia’s environment fares relatively well in comparison with many other CEE countries, and there are no particular environmental disaster areas. Surface and groundwater pollution, acid rain, and transboundary air pollution from neighboring countries are the main environmental problems experienced. The quality of surface and groundwater has deteriorated over the past few decades mainly due to discharges of untreated municipal and industrial wastewater, agricultural run-off, and pollution caused by the numerous industrial and municipal waste disposal sites. The quality of drinking water is generally poor, and only a small proportion of wastewater is treat-
160
Note: The breakdown presents the number of organizations indicating a given share of their overall activity at different levels (i.e., local, national, and international scope of operations)
ed. Improvements (and investments) in the sector are expected over the next few years. In the context of air pollution, the energy sector has been the main area of concern, and high priority has been given to flue gas desulfurization at power plants. In 1994, air pollution control programs accounted for more than 70 percent of national environmental spending. Although many improvement projects have since been successfully implemented, power plants and increasing urban traffic are still the main sources of air pollution, especially around Ljubljana. Pollution from the transport sector is a growing issue and acid rain has also become a problem. There are also growing problems related to poor waste management, and soil pollution caused by the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers. Waste management is an area of particular concern because of the growing amount of industrial and municipal waste generated, and because of the contamination caused by leaching from unregulated and illegal dump sites. Hazardous waste management, and management of radioactive wastes are high priority areas. There exists a high level of public awareness and a strong environmental NGO sector in Slovenia. However, most environmental decisions made in the past were based mainly on political grounds, without a comprehensive strategy or direction. The National Environmental Protection Program, currently under preparation, should help focus environmental efforts. Priority capital investments, the introduction of more comprehensive and viable environmental policies and legislation, and improved enforcement of regulations and institutional improvements are among those issues needing to be addressed in the near future. Environmental Administration The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, responsible for regulatory measures and control, is the main body in charge of environmental protection in Slovenia. Within the Ministry there are several agencies with different tasks related to the environment. The Nature Protection Authority is responsible for environmental policy implementation and permitting, with a range of duties including the handling of waste, water management, management of public services, provision of information services, technical assistance to the Environmental Development Fund, etc. The Authority’s Water Management Department consists of eight subdivisions, one for each major watershed, while its Nature Protection Department has seven regional offices which operate as technical supervisory bodies to local authorities. The Office for Physical Planning is responsible for land use and planning, including urban and regional development and the supervision of land-use development plans undertaken by local authorities. The Inspectorate for Environment and Physical Planning supervises the implementation of environmental regulations,
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
oversees water resources management, and regulates physical planning and house building activities. The Inspectorate has nine regional offices responsible for environmental inspection, and twelve offices responsible for physical planning. Within the structure of the Ministry of Environment there are also other institutions with environmental responsibilities, including: the Geophysics Administration, the Surveying and Mapping Authority, the Nuclear Safety Administration, and the Hydro-Meteorogical Institute. The administration of environmental regulations in Slovenia is carried out both at the national level and at the local level (through 147 municipalities). The main function of local authorities related to the environment include setting regulatory policy concerning the protection of air, soil, and water resources on the local level (local regulations can be more stringent than the national) and the provision of public services, including the regulation and maintenance of water and power supply facilities; the collection and disposal of municipal waste; protection against excessive noise, and the preservation of local natural and cultural monuments. No environmental administration takes place on the regional level, although there are 58 regional administrative units which operate between the national and the local authorities, and which perform some local administration tasks. Finally, there are several independent or semi-independent scientific institutes that play some role in environmental protection. These include the Josef Stefan Institute, the Water Management Institute, and the National Chemical Institute. Environmental Financing Environmental expenditures in Slovenia are financed mainly through the budget of local governments and municipalities, the state budget, the Environmental Development Fund (or EcoFund), and spending from the private sector. The annual expenditures can be roughly estimated as follows: ■
Budget of the Minstry of Environment — approx. USD 20 million (including approx. USD 5 million for co-funding, and USD 15 million for water management projects)
■
Budget of the Ministry of Economy — approx. USD 20 million (although investment in flue gas desulfurization projects worth some USD 100 million are being planned)
■
Municipal and private funds matching the contributions from the Ministry of Environment — approx. USD 5 million to 10 million.
■
Loans from the Environmental Development Fund — USD 10 million
An estimated USD 400 million is likely to be spent on environmental projects within the next three to seven years, based on the received and approved requests (“reservations”) for long-term funding support for environmental protection programs submitted (before July 4, 1995) to the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning by different companies during the process of privatization. Contributions from municipal budgets are also a significant source of environmental funding although rather difficult to estimate. Co-funding of environmental investments is a common scheme in Slovenia. Under the arrangement, the government supports environmental projects undertaken by businesses with up to 30 percent of the total investment. Projects are issued based on a public tender. Between 1991 and 1994, annual co-funding increased from USD 1.7 million to USD 4 million. The main condition for the co-funding of any project is that it must ensure the direct reduction of emissions. It is expected that environmental investments from the private sector will increase significantly due to provisions in the
privatization law that allows companies to reduce their asset value by reserving long-term funds for investment in environmental protection. The PHARE Programme is one of the biggest contributors of foreign funding in Slovenia, with more than USD 100 million in grants disbursed since 1992. However, only a part of this amount was related to environmental projects, such as the construction of wastewater treatment plants and sewerage networks, conversion of domestic heaters, industrial sanitation and coastal management programs. Additional sources of finance included loans from the EBRD (e.g. a wastewater treatment plant in Maribor, currently under preparation) and the World Bank, which co-financed the conversion of domestic and small commercial heaters from coal to natural gas. Further donors include the governments of Austria, France, the Netherlands, and the UK, all of which support various programs in the public and private sector. Environmental Legislation and Enforcement The fundamental legal instrument governing environmental protection in Slovenia is the 1993 Environmental Protection Act, covering most important environmental activities. The Act serves as a framework law for other legal instruments, such as directives, regulations, and standards which are prepared within different levels of government. The major state bodies involved in preparing environmental legislation are the Parliament, which passes basic legislation; the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning; the Environmental Protection Council; the Nature Protection Agency established within the Ministry of Environment, and local authorities, dealing with environmental protection issues at the local level. The general structure of environmental legislation reflects the pattern of the Slovenian legal system. Its hierarchy of legal sources begins with the Constitution, followed by basic environmental legislation (i.e., the 1993 Environmental Protection Act) and subordinate regulations and decrees covering individual sectors. The legislative framework related to air and water pollution is already in place. Although the government has recently adopted a waste strategy, the legislation covering waste management is still missing. Moreover, legislation concerning the implementation and enforcement of existing regulations is lagging behind. Although Slovenian officials are putting great effort into harmonizing national environmental legislation with EU standards, many gaps still exist, especially in sectoral and enforcement legislation. The levels of compliance are still below EU standards in many key areas, such as the industrial and energy sectors, or in the management of municipal and hazardous waste. The country’s efforts to enforce compliance have focused mainly on air pollution control and water quality protection, and have neglected many important areas. In the future, more attention will have to be paid to introducing air, waste and water regulations, to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) directive, and to establishing funding sources for environmental protection projects.
TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Table 6.3 presents national environmental expenditures in Slovenia over the period 1994-1996. Total spending on environmental protection in Slovenia was approximately 1.0 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 1994, and decreased to 0.8 percent of GDP in 1995 and 1996. In actual figures, annual environmental expenditures ranged between USD 146.6 and 150.4 million during the given period. The breakdown of environmental expenditures by media in 1994 is shown in Table 6.4. Air protection projects account-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
161
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.3: ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES IN SLOVENIA, 1994-1996 (MLN USD)
TABLE 6.4: BREAKDOWN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES BY MEDIA, 1994
Year
Environmental Expenditures
Share of GDP
Media
1994
146.6
1.0%
Water and wastewater
13.3
9%
1995
150.4
0.8%
Waste
26.6
18%
1996 (estimated)
147.6
0.8%
Other
3.0
2%
Total
147.6
100%
Source: IMAD Spring Report 1997, based on data collected from the Statistical Office of the RS, Ministry of Finance, EcoFund of the Republic of Slovenia, and IMAD estimates
ed for the largest share of national expenditures (71 percent of the total). In contrast to the other surveyed countries, waste management related projects accounted for a significant proportion of the total spending (18 percent), followed by water and wastewater activities (9 percent). Media-specific figures for 1995 and 1996 were not available because of ongoing reorganization at the Slovenian Statistical Office. However, a new system to track environmental spending has been devised, and is expected to be introduced in 1998. An increase in environmental expenditures can be expected over the next few years as a result of efforts to improve compliance with environmental legislation and policy which is increasingly being harmonized with EU standards. According to a 1997 study prepared for the EU “Assessing the Costs of CEE Approximation with EU Environmental Directives,” the annual costs of compliance in the major environmental sectors (air, wastewater and waste) are estimated to exceed USD 152 million in Slovenia. The bulk of this amount is expected to be spent on purchasing new environmental technologies and on upgrading old systems, and will come in part from improved enforcement of regulations and collection of fees and fines. Country Spending on Environmental Technologies Comprehensive and reliable information on total country spending on environmental technologies in Slovenia is not available, as it is not centrally tracked. However, spending on environmental technologies in projects co-financed by the Ministry of Environment in 1994 is shown in Table 6.5. The figures are obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning Report on the Status of Environment in 1995. It should be noted that the figure of USD 20 million presented in Table 6.5 only refers to projects co-financed by the Ministry of Environment. Spending from other sources (e.g. other ministries, municipal budgets, private companies, etc.) has not been included. The Environmental Business Sector Another relevant characteristic of the environmental market
TABLE 6.5: SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SLOVENIA (MLN USD) Category Air
Source: The Statistical Yearbook of Slovenia, 1995
is the turnover of environmental businesses. Based on the 1997 REC survey of the environmental business sector in Slovenia, there may be as many as 250 companies providing a wide range of environmental services and technologies. The REC survey included 121 environmental companies. The combined 1995 turnover of the 95 companies of the 121 which responded to the question on turnover amounted to USD 87 million. As shown in Table 6.6, the Slovenian environmental market is geared primarily toward providing technical services (40 percent of revenues). The next major source of income was manufacturing of environmental technologies (26 percent), followed by non media-specific “other” (19 percent), and testing, monitoring and laboratory services (15 percent).
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The 1993 Environmental Protection Act stipulated that a National Environmental Protection Program (NEPP) be developed, setting out the goals, guidelines, and strategies for environmental protection and the use of natural resources for the next ten years. While the NEPP has yet to be finalized and implemented, two distinct sets of activities have been identified which will be implemented over periods of five years each. The first period is to be dedicated to the preservation of nature and natural resources, as well as the reduction of the impacts of human activities. The focus during the second period will be on the implementation of sound environmental technologies. The NEPP should in particular cover: (i) environmental stress and its impact on the health of the population; (ii) the assessment of the state of the environment and natural resources, and the risks to which they are exposed; (iii) long term projections of environmental trends and conditions; (iv) attainable goals and methods for their realization; (v) the necessary financial means for achieving the goals set; (vi) priority tasks and projects; (vii) analysis of expected costs and benefits; and (viii) guidelines for the technical development of environmental protection activities and public services. The NEPP
TABLE 6.6: BREAKDOWN OF THE REVENUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESSES IN SLOVENIA BY ACTIVITY, 1995 Activity
% of Revenues
4.0
Environmental Technologies
26%
0.2
Testing, Monitoring, and Laboratory Services
15%
Other (non-media specific)
19%
Waste
162
71%
40%
12.5
Total
104.8
Technical Services
Water
Noise and vibration
Share of Total
1994 3.3
Energy
Air
Mln USD
0 20.0
Source: REC, The Emerging Environmental Market, 1997
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
should be divided into global, national, regional and local fields of activity, and is expected to include short, medium, and long-term policy targets together with a list of the major environmental problems facing the country. The NEPP also focuses attention on the conditions necessary for its effective implementation, including the expected costs, which are estimated to be about 1.5 percent of GDP annually (currently standing at approximately 0.8 percent of GDP). While it is not expected that the NEPP will be adopted before 1998, the following priority areas were identified in the Ministry of Environment 1995 Environmental Report as needing urgent attention: ■
protecting inland and ground water quality with appropriate wastewater treatment and discharge control, and water resource protection;
■
waste disposal and treatment, including the development of an integrated strategy, remediation and clean up of existing landfills, reducing waste generation and increasing the levels of recycling, and measures in the field of industrial and special waste management;
TABLE 6.7: BREAKDOWN OF REVENUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESSES IN SLOVENIA BY MEDIA, 1995 Media
% of Revenues
Water and wastewater
30%
Waste
30%
Air
9%
Energy
7%
Other (non-media specific)
24%
Source: REC, The Emerging Environmental Market, 1997
TABLE 6.8: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OF THE ECOFUND, 1994-1996 (USD MILLION)
■
coordinating environmental protection with existing practices in the European Union;
■
introducing environmental protection into individual sector policies and determining the measures for monitoring their enforcement; and
Total Revenues
establishing an information system for environmental protection and a coordinated system for collection of environmental data.
Source: The Slovenian Environmental Development Fund, 1997
■
Year
Total Expenditures
1994
1995
1996 (estimate)
1.2
10.5
13.9
-
0.6
10.3
It is interesting to note that the focus on water protection and waste management is well reflected in the breakdown of the environmental revenues of the environmental business sector in Slovenia. The breakdown by media, based on the REC survey, is presented in Table 6.7. According to the survey, water and wastewater related activities, and waste-related activities each generated 30 percent of total revenues. These were followed by air-related and energy-related activities, which generated nine percent and seven percent of revenues, respectively. Non-media specific revenues (e.g. EIA, environmental planning, industrial safety and noise control, introduction of Environmental Management Systems, etc.) amounted to 24 percent of the total.
TABLE 6.9: BREAKDOWN OF THE EXPENDITURES OF THE ECOFUND BY MEDIA
Priorities of the Environmental Development Fund (EcoFund) In 1993, under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Development Fund of Slovenia (hereafter, the EcoFund) was established, with an initial capital of USD 100,000. In 1994 the capital was increased to USD 15.5 million through the transfer of repayment and interest from 277 loans previously administered by the Ministry of Environment. Although the EcoFund has been fully operational since 1995, 1996 was the first year of significant financial turnover. Total revenues in 1996 amounted to USD 13.9 million, while expenditures amounted to USD 10.3 million. Table 6.8 presents information on the financial activities of the Fund. The revenues of the EcoFund include budgetary contributions, income from charges for the use of natural resources (including two-thirds of revenues from CO2 emission charges), the allocation of 8.5 percent of revenue generated from privatization programs, and loan repayments from projects previously awarded by the Ministry of Environment. The Slovenian EcoFund is generally regarded as one of the best funds of this type in Central and Eastern Europe. The Fund operates as a non-profit financial organization providing soft loans for environmental projects on preferential terms. The project funding opportunities are publicly announced,
and the funding is awarded through tendering procedures. The priorities of the Fund reflect the priorities outlined in the Environmental Protection Act, and include air pollution abatement, phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, municipal infrastructure development, and programs for the reduction of industrial pollution. Table 6.9 presents the breakdown of the Fund’s expenditures by media. As shown in Table 6.9, in 1996, 57 percent of the Fund’s expenditures were allocated to air pollution reduction programs, 29 percent to water-related activities, and 14 percent to waste management projects. As for the recipients, the largest proportion of the expenditures (46 percent) was awarded to private individuals in supporting conversion to cleaner domestic heating systems based on natural gas. Thirty-two percent of expenditures was given to municipalities and local authorities, and 22 percent went to private and state enterprises. During the period 1995-96, the Fund awarded loans worth USD 4.5 million to municipalities and municipal service companies for wastewater treatment, waste management, and construction of water, sewage, and gas pipelines. In 1996, the Fund awarded USD 7 million in loans to companies for air and water pollution reduction projects, and for programs to phase out ozone-depleting substances. In May 1996, the Fund obtained a USD 20 million loan from the World Bank for air
Year
1995
1996 (estimate)
Air
100%
57%
Water and wastewater
–
29%
Waste
–
14%
Source: The Slovenian Environmental Development Fund, 1997
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
163
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
pollution projects, and a further USD 3.5 million loan to set up the Geo Information Center. Currently, the PHARE programme is considering awarding the Slovenian Fund a grant of ECU 5 million for further environmental investments. The main problems still facing the Fund, however, are the lack of capital and high interest rates, pegged 6 percent above the rate of inflation. Another problem commonly noted by businesses is the large amount of time necessary to process a funding application.
■
■
■ ■
■
■
6.4 Project Opportunities MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS The major environmental problems in Slovenia noted by survey respondents are listed in Table 6.10. Within each category, the problems are shown in order of importance, as revealed by the survey. The seven most important environmental problems (based on the number of occasions each problem was listed) are as follows:
■
Inadequate waste disposal sites (now requiring remediation) and the need for new waste disposal sites Pollution of surface and groundwater by municipal and industrial wastewater Pollution of potable water sources from agriculture Air pollution from industrial furnaces and household fireplaces Air pollution from industry due to the lack of flue gas cleaning facilities Air pollution from traffic Accumulation of hazardous waste requiring treatment and removal.
Other environmental problems listed in Table 6.10 were attributed much less importance by the interviewed experts. It is necessary to stress that while using the number of citations as a measure of the importance of a particular problem might not accurately reflect the actual importance of problems, the seven major environmental problems in Slovenia that emerged from the survey are consistent with the priorities set by
TABLE 6.10: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN SLOVENIA Category Air
Water
Waste
Energy
Problem Description and Expected Duration
Geographic Location
Air pollution from industrial furnaces and household fireplaces (next 5-10 years)
National
Air pollution by industry due to the lack of flue gas cleaning facilities (next 5-10 years)
National
Air pollution by traffic (continuing)
Major cities
Inadequate flue gas-emission monitoring (continuing)
Major cities
Pollution of surface and groundwater by municipal and industrial wastewaters (construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants) (next 15-20 years)
Nova Gorica, Celje, Krsko, Ljubljana, Maribor, other cities
Protection and remediation of drinking water sources1 affected by agricultural activities (next 10 years)
Ljubljana, Maribor, Krsko, Ptuj, and Karst region
Inadequate municipal sewage systems (continuing)
National
Pollution of hydroelectric power plant retention lakes (10 years)
Drava, Sava, Soca
Polluted lakes and rivers and threatened water ecosystems (continuing)
Bled, Bohinj, Drava, Sava, Krka, Sotla
Inadequate waste disposal sites requiring remediation and/or need for new waste disposal sites (next 10 years)
National
Accumulation of hazardous waste requiring treatment and removal (continuing)
National
Lack of waste incineration facilities (next 5 years)
National
Inadequate industrial waste disposal sites (continuing)
Sostanj, Mezica, Idrija
Poor level of waste selection and recycling (continuing)
National
Disposal of radioactive waste from medical applications (continuing)
Ljubljana
Selection of sites for radioactive waste disposal (continuing)
National
Contamination in the area of Zirovski Vrh Mine (former uranium mine) (continuing)
Zirovski Vrh
Use of low-quality fuels for heating (coal, crude oil) (next 5 years)
National
Noise and Noise from industry and traffic (continuing) Vibration2 Occupational exposure (continuing)
Celje and Nova Gorica region Nova Gorica region
1 Environmental problems related to the protection and remediation of drinking water resources are primarily associated with pollution by nitrates and pesticides due to agriculture. 2 Organizations that identified this problem tended to refer only to the problems within their geographic area. However, problems of noise and vibration, as well as those of occupational exposure, are actually important in all urban and industrialized areas of Slovenia.
164
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.11: CURRENT OR PLANNED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS Organization
Projects in Progress or Foreseen
Institut “Jozef Stefan” (Jozef Stefan Institute)
■
Kemijski Institut (National Institute of Chemistry)
■
Elektroinstitut “Milan Vidmar”
■
Cleaning of flue gases Closing and decommissioning of Slovenia’s uranium mine ■ Reuse of solid waste generated in flue gas desulfurization projects ■
■
■
Treatment of municipal and industrial wastewater Restructuring of chemical factories Air quality control in thermal power plants Development of new air-monitoring systems
Limnos d.o.o.
■
Development and establishment of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment
Ministrstvo za Okolje in Prostor (Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning)
■
Improved waste management in Slovenia
Vodnogospodarski Institut
■
Construction of a wastewater treatment plant in Sezana Improvement of municipal sewage collection and treatment systems
■
Ames d.o.o.
Early warning system for radiation in Slovenia Monitoring stations at Iskrba and Krvavec (as part of an international network) ■ Emissions monitoring station at Sostanj power plant ■ ■
Erico Velenje
■
Remediation of surface waters and lakes in Saleska Valley Composting and reuse of municipal sewage sludge
Univerza Maribor, Fakulteta za Strojnistvo (University of Maribor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering)
■
Study of the impact of combustion processes on environmental pollution
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za Strojnistvo, Center za Energetske in Ekoloske Tehnologije (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Energy and Environmental Technologies)
■
Iskra Avtoelektrika d.d.
■
■
Exploitation of solar energy Reduction of noise in household appliances ■ Combustion of biomass ■
■
Treatment of hazardous waste Reconstruction of wastewater treatment plants
Komunalno Stanovanjska Druzba d.o.o.
■
Enlargement and upgrading of the wastewater treatment plant in Ajdovscina
Eko - Teh
■
Supervision of equipment and devices for hazardous waste treatment
Kem - Eko d.o.o.
■
Pre-treatment of waste paint before removal and final treatment (project carried out in a foreign country)
Slovenski Plinovodi
■
Construction of natural gas distribution systems in Zagorje, Lasko, Sentjur, Nova Gorica, and Ajdovscina
PREHOD d.o.o.
■
Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo Celje (Institute of Public Health Celje)
■
Sanitation program for wastewater in Celje
Klima Celja d.o.o.
■
Production of dust filters (for export) Ventilation and heating systems
Production of natural coverings for site remediation and protection against erosion ■ Humization of coconut waste
■
DEPS - Sistemi za Zascito Narave (Systems for Environmental Protection)
■
Raci d.o.o.
■
Development of software packages for wastewater monitoring Directory and mapping of unauthorized waste disposal sites in the Ruse municipality ■ Modeling of water streams at monitoring stations ■
■
Construction of a mobile emission monitoring station Adaptation of the emission-monitoring system
Kemis d.o.o.
■
Recycling of organic solvents
Komunala Radovljica
■
Construction of a municipal wastewater treatment plant in Radovljica Construction of a water supply system in Bohinj ■ Remediation and enlargement of a municipal waste disposal site in Radovljica municipality ■
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
165
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.11 (CONTINUED): CURRENT OR PLANNED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS Organization
Projects in Progress or Foreseen
Komunala Radovljica (continued)
■
Assistance in the establishment of a center for waste treatment in the Gorenjska region (preparation of the project)
Tki Pinus Race D.D.
■
Reconstruction/modernization of solid and liquid waste incinerators Reconstruction of biological wastewater treatment plants
■
Oikos d.o.o.
■
Waste management system in Domzale municipality Remediation and enlargement of municipal waste disposal sites
Bio Diskont d.o.o.
■
Incineration of used tires in a cement factory
PII d.o.o. Idrija
■
Rationalization of heat and electricity use
IBE
■
■
Remediation of waste disposal sites Remediation of the Moste hydroelectric power plant accumulation basin ■ Implementation of a regional waste management plan ■
Projekt Mr Inzeniring D.D.
■
Allocation of the waste management center site in the Maribor region
Note: Contact information to the organizations listed in this table are provided in Section 6.8.
TABLE 6.12: MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES Source of Information
Respondents (%)
Personal contacts
96%
Environmental Ministry
70%
Trade shows and fairs
61%
Daily press
61%
Direct mail
57%
Conference attendance
57%
Local authorities/municipalities
54%
Environmental publications
49%
Chambers of Commerce
43%
Business publications
36%
Professional associations
36%
International organizations
31%
Ministry of Economics
29%
Broadcast fax services
26%
University/Academy of Science
24%
E-mail
20%
Commercial banks
7%
Source: REC, Emerging Environmental Market, 1997
the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning9, namely the protection of ground and surface waters by appropriate treatment of wastewater, and protection of water resources. It also conforms to the Ministry’s waste management strategy, which includes remediation of existing disposal sites, minimization and recycling of wastes, and proper hazardous waste management.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN PROGRESS The most important environmental problems and priorities in Slovenia are well reflected in the involvement of various organizations in current or planned environmental projects. These are listed in Table 6.11. Based on the findings in the last two sections, it appears that the areas presenting the most business opportunities in Slovenia are the protection of ground and surface waters (e.g. appropriate treatment of wastewater) and waste management activities, including the remediation of existing disposal sites, minimization and recycling of wastes, and programs improving hazardous waste management. It should also be noted that while the share of air pollution control projects in overall environmental expenditures has been declining, in terms of actual figures the sector is still important. Also, while the energy-related part of the environmental market is not explored in great depth in this report, in the mid term the sector will account for a large amount of environmental expenditures. Overall, Slovenia offers a diverse range of opportunities for environmental technology businesses, however, few of those opportunities, it seems, will result in large projects.
TABLE 6.13: MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS
MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Publication
Generally, very few effective formal channels exist in Slovenia that offer information on environmental business opportunities. The most frequently mentioned source of information for business opportunities named by the interviewed experts was the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia (Uradni list RS) where all environmental and other projects
Readership (% of Respondents)
Okolje
16%
Gospodarjenje z Odpadki
13%
Environmental Science and Technology
6%
Gea
6%
Umwelt
5%
Source: REC, Emerging Environmental Market, 1997
9 “Report on the Status of the Environment in 1995” (Predlog porocila o stan-
ju okolja 1995-EPA 1378), Porocevalec drzavnega zbora RS, No.6/1, 1996.
166
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
financed fully or in part by governmental agencies and ministries are announced as calls for proposals (with full terms of reference). It is important to note that the great majority of investments in environmental technologies in Slovenia are partly financed by the government and therefore require announcement in the public media. Other significant sources listed by survey respondents included personal contacts, participation in fairs and exhibitions, and information from the media. For comparison, Table 6.12 presents the breakdown of major information sources, based on the REC’s 1997 survey of 121 environmental businesses in Slovenia. According to the survey, personal and professional contacts, the Ministry of Environment, and participation in fairs and trade shows are the primary sources of information on environmental business opportunities. Daily press, direct mail, information from local authorities, and participation in conferences are among other important sources listed. Interestingly, professional associations and chambers of commerce are not seen as major information sources or as effective lobbying groups for the environmental business sector. Tables 6.13 and 6.14 present the main environmental and business publications read by environmental professionals in Slovenia. As can be noted from the tables, environmental publications reach a very limited audience, with only two publications reaching more than one in seven environmental professionals. The situation is somewhat better with business publications and the daily press, where Delo and Gospodarski Vestnik reach a substantial proportion of environmental professionals. Although announcements of environmental projects are also made in daily newspapers, personal contacts frequently tend to be more reliable, and often faster, information sources. The role of environmental and trade associations in Slovenia is considered to be quite low, as shown in Table 6.15. The limited membership also reflects the fact that, as noted earlier, the associations are not seen as effective representatives or as a useful source of information for business opportunities. On the other hand, several fairs give the opportunity to the buyers of environmental technologies to obtain information on state-of-the-art products. The most important environmentrelated fairs in Slovenia are listed in Table 6.16.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Among the 37 interviewed experts, 19 had previous experience in buying environmental technologies. The information sources they used when looking to purchase technologies are listed below. The number in brackets represents the number of respondents indicating a particular source. ■ Previous contacts with a supplier (7)
TABLE 6.14: MAIN BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS AND NEWSPAPERS Publication
Readership (% of Respondents)
Delo
63%
Gospodarski Vestnik
36%
Uradni List RS
19%
Dnevnik
18%
Vecer
10%
Manager
9%
Republika
9%
Podjetnik
8%
Finance
7%
Obrtnik
6%
Source: REC, Emerging Environmental Market, 1997
TABLE 6.15: MOST IMPORTANT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Association
Respondents (%)
Chamber of Commerce and its associations (GZS)
28%
Association for the Protection of Waters
5%
International Association for Hydrogeology
4%
Association of Landscape Architects and Urban Planners
3%
Ecological Association of Slovenia
3%
Source: REC, Emerging Environmental Market, 1997
■
Specialized journals (7)
■
Foreign fairs (7)
■
Representatives of suppliers (6)
■
Domestic fairs (4)
■
Directories (4)
■
Conferences (2)
■
Internet (2)
■
Catalogues (2)
TABLE 6.16: IMPORTANT FAIRS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCERS AND BUYERS IN SLOVENIA Name of Fair
City
Approximate Date
Focus
EKO sejem*
Celje
1997: March 18-21; (Biannually in March) Waste treatment technologies
Alpe Adria
Ljubljana
Annually, in April
General fair
Energetika
Maribor
Annually, mid-May
Energy
Sejem gradbenistva
Gornja Radgona Annually, in May
Civil engineering
Sodobna elektronika Ljubljana
Annually, first week in October
Professional electronics and automatics
Tehnika za okolje*
Ljubljana
Biannually, in October
Environmental technologies — general
Medilab
Ljubljana
Annually, in October
Occupational safety
* EKO sejem in Celje and Tehnika za okolje in Ljubljana are the only fairs in Slovenia dedicated exclusively to the environment and environmental technology. The other fairs listed cover specialized areas of environmental technology.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
167
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.17: IMPORTANT CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES IN SLOVENIA Organization Name and Address
Contact Name and Telephone Number
AIR Hydrometeorological Institute of Slovenia, Vojkova, cesta 1b, 1000 Ljubljana
Roza Cigler, (386-61) 131-5268
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Dunajska 46, 1000 Ljubljana
Janko Zerjav, (386-61) 170-7400
WATER Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Dunajska 46, 1000 Ljubljana
Janko Zerjav, (386-61) 170-7400
Hydrometeorological Institute of Slovenia Vojkova cesta 1b, 1000 Ljubljana
Martina Zupan, (386-61) 178-4000
Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Food, Parmova ulica 33, 1000 Ljubljana
Marta Hrustelj, (386-61) 323-643
Chamber of Commerce, Slovenska cesta 41, 1000 Ljubljana
Janja Leban, (386-61) 218-380
WASTE Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Dunajska 46, 1000 Ljubljana
Janko Zerjav, (386-61) 170-7400
Chamber of Commerce, Slovenska cesta 41, 1000 Ljubljana
Andreja Jerina, (386-61) 125-0122
ENERGY Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Dunajska 46, 1000 Ljubljana
Janko Zerjav, (386-61) 170-7400
Centre of Civil Engineering, Dimiceva ulica 9, 1000 Ljubljana
(386-61) 168-2345
Ekolosko razvojni sklad RS, Trg republike 3, 1000 Ljubljana
(386-61) 125-5196
NOISE AND VIBRATION Ministry of Health, Rozna Dolina, IX/6, 1000 Ljubljana
(386-61) 178-6052
Regional Institute of Public Health, Ipavceva 18, 3000 Celje
Ivan Erzen, (386-63) 37-112
Regional Institute of Public Health, Kostanjeviska 16 a, 5000 Nova Gorica
Marko Vudrag, (386-65) 28-191
When the buyers needed information on available environmental technologies, they most frequently relied on previous contacts with suppliers, on information provided in different journals (e.g. Environmental Technology, and International Labmate) or on information obtained at fairs in other countries (e.g. ACHEMA in Frankfurt). The representatives of technology suppliers are also an important source of information in Slovenia. Due to the already described system of financing of environmental projects, including the purchase of environmental technologies, all organizations seeking financial support from governmental agencies must tender their need for a supplier of a particular equipment or technology in the public media. Information provided by suppliers in response to such announcements sometimes serves as a source of information on the available environmental technologies. Domestic fairs and various directories are used less frequently as sources of information. Other sources rarely used include the Internet, catalogues, and information provided at specialized conferences.
IMPORTANT CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES The most significant contact points for environmental project opportunities are listed in Table 6.17. The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning should serve as the most important point of contact for environmental project opportunities in Slovenia. However, the information provided to interested organizations often seems to be insufficient, serving large public institutions well but not small businesses. Many small organizations (which were unable to provide contact persons in the questionnaire) clearly therefore
168
rely on information obtained from the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, from the public media, or from other ministries that cover their particular area of interest.
6.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — OVERVIEW Overall, the demand for environmental technologies in Slovenia was moderate compared with the other surveyed countries, with only a handful of technologies in high demand. However, when interpreting the results, one should bear in mind that the overall state of the environment is not as poor as in other countries of the region, and that some important environmental problems have already been solved in recent years. Moreover, Slovenia was also open to modern Western technologies well before 1990. Demand for air-related technologies was moderate. Growth in demand was expected for technologies related to air sampling and laboratory analysis equipment for gaseous emissions and ambient air, for those technologies used in emission abatement and cleaner production, and for air pollution control and flue gas purification equipment. However, the sector still accounts for the largest share of environmental expenditures. Demand for water and wastewater technologies was also moderate, with growth tendencies expected for technologies relating to the treatment of industrial wastewater. Technologies likely to be in increasing demand included equipment for the monitoring, sampling and laboratory analy-
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.18: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — AIR Ambient Gaseous Air Emissions Air sampling/laboratory analysis
3.6 (9)
3.5 (8)
Continuous-basis monitoring
3.3 (10)
3.3 (9)
—
3.4 (11)
3.3 (5)
2.8 (5)
Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters and scrubbers) Gas-detection/warning devices
Emission abatement/cleaner — production (e.g. low-emission burners)
3.5 (9)
Instrumentation and process control/software
3.3 (9)
—
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 air sampling/ laboratory analysis (ambient air and gaseous emissions); #2 emission abatement/cleaner production (gaseous emissions); #3 Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (gaseous emissions). Note: The standard deviation for figures is 0.4 to 0.8.
sis of industrial wastewater, and for instrumentation, process control and software for industrial wastewater treatment. Some growth in demand was also expected for those technologies relating to pollution prevention and waste minimization in industrial wastewater treatment and drinking water supply. Waste management was the only area where high demand for environmental technologies was identified, with technologies related to radioactive and hazardous waste in highest demand. Specifically, high demand was identified for technologies for waste disposal, and waste prevention/minimization for radioactive waste; those technologies relating to recycling and resource recovery from industrial waste; and for equipment for landfill disposal of hazardous waste. Increasing
demand was expected for technologies which could be used for recycling and resource recovery (including those for composting and biomass conversion) for municipal waste management; equipment for landfill disposal of industrial and municipal waste; and technologies relating to pollution prevention and waste minimization for hazardous and industrial waste. Other technologies where demand was expected to rise included those for spillage control and decontamination from radioactive waste; and equipment for collection, transportation and storage of municipal waste. Demand for energy-related technologies was moderate. Higher demand for energy-related technologies was expected in the “energy and power generation sector” than in “other industrial sectors.” Growing demand was noted for alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants, while other areas where demand was expected to increase included technologies for heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation) in the energy sector; new and efficient energy and heat generation systems; and retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing energy systems in both power generation and other industrial sectors. Alternative or renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, and solar) were deemed other possible growth areas. Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, and occupational health and safety was low to moderate, with some growth in demand expected for OHS protection equipment. There was little demand for most other technologies. Limited but slow-growing demand does exist in Slovenia for a handful of technologies, including those for the inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and collection networks for drinking water, and water recycling and reuse for drinking water and municipal wastewater.
DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES BY SECTOR The following tables summarize the responses to the question on demand for specific environmental technologies. The following scale was used in ranking: 5 – highest, and with rapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, likely to grow,
TABLE 6.19: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — WATER AND WASTEWATER Surface and Groundwater
Potable Water
Municipal Wastewater
Industrial Wastewater
Monitoring
2.9 (14)
3.0 (12)
3.2 (14)
3.6 (14)
Sampling/laboratory analysis
2.8 (11)
3.1 (12)
3.3 (12)
3.6 (13)
Construction of collection/supply networks
—
2.3 (8)
2.9 (9)
2.8 (8)
Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and collection networks
—
2.8 (8)
3.0 (8)
2.8 (8)
Standard physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes
—
2.9 (7)
3.1 (11)
3.1 (12)
Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. ultraviolet/ozonation, activated carbon phosphate removal, and reverse osmosis)
—
—
2.9 (10)
3.0 (10)
Sludge treatment and disposal Pollution prevention/waste minimization Water recycling and reuse
—
—
3.1 (10)
2.9* (9)
2.8 (4)
3.3 (3)
3.0 (10)
3.5 (12)
—
2.3 (4)
2.2 (6)
3.0 (10)
Spill control, containment, and clean-up
2.6* (5)
—
2.7 (9)
3.0 (10)
Quality restoration and decontamination
2.8 (8)
3.4 (7)
—
—
Instrumentation, process control/software
—
3.3 (7)
3.0 (11)
3.6 (11)
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 monitoring; and sampling/laboratory analysis (industrial wastewater); #2 instrumentation, process control/software (industrial wastewater); #3 pollution prevention/waste minimization (industrial wastewater and potable water). * Standard deviations for indicated figures are 1 to 1.1, while for the remainder the standard deviation varies from 0.3 to 0.9.
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
169
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
3 – moderate slowly growing demand, 2 – low demand, will not grow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion. Figures in cells show the average score, while those in brackets represent the number of responses. Air Even though the sector still accounts for the largest share of national environmental expenditures, overall demand for airrelated technologies was moderate, as shown by Table 6.18. Growth in demand was expected for technologies related to air sampling and laboratory analysis equipment for both gaseous emissions and ambient air; those technologies for emission abatement and cleaner production (e.g. the use of natural gas as source of energy); and equipment for air pollution control and flue gas purification (e.g. filters, scrubbers, etc.). In the researcher’s opinion, demand for technology related to the monitoring and analysis of air can be associated with Slovenia’s recent revision of laws that now define the highest permitted values of emitted pollutants and which require constant monitoring of emissions into the environment. Also, when interpreting the apparent low demand for airrelated environmental technologies, one has to be aware of the fact that some important environmental problems related to air pollution have already been solved in Slovenia. For example, a flue gas desulfurization unit was installed at Sostanj thermoelectric power plant (another desulfurization unit is under preparation), and natural gas has been widely introduced as the domestic heating source. Water and Wastewater Generally, demand for water and wastewater technologies was moderate. As shown in Table 6.19, expected growth tendencies are mainly limited to technologies related to the treatment of industrial wastewater. Technologies in increasing demand included equipment for the monitoring, sampling and laboratory analysis of industrial wastewater, and for instrumentation, process control and software for industrial wastewater treatment. Some growth in
demand was also expected for those technologies relating to pollution prevention and waste minimization in industrial wastewater treatment and drinking water supply facilities. As with air related technologies, demand for equipment related to monitoring and analysis of wastewater is driven by the recent revision of laws that now define the highest permitted values of discharged pollutants, and which require constant monitoring of emissions into the environment. It is necessary to note that the ongoing privatization of utilities is based upon the Public Utility Services Act (Official Gazette 32/93). In the future the expected trend will be wastewater treatment plants to be established under the build-operate-transfer scheme, whereby the private investor constructs and operates the plant for a specified number of years, after which the ownership of the plant is transferred to the municipality. Waste Management Overall, waste management was the only area where high demand for environmental technologies was identified, with technologies related to radioactive and hazardous waste in highest demand in this sector. Waste minimization and pollution prevention, resource recovery, and landfill disposal appeared to be priority areas, as shown in Table 6.20. This corresponds well with the overview of major environmental problems in Slovenia, presented in the previous section (see Tables 6.10 and 6.11). High demand was identified for technologies related to waste disposal, and waste prevention minimization for radioactive waste; for those technologies relating to recycling and resource recovery from industrial waste; and for equipment for the landfill disposal of hazardous waste. Increasing demand was expected for technologies for recycling and resource recovery (including those for composting and biomass conversion) from municipal waste; equipment for landfill disposal of industrial and municipal waste; and technologies relating to pollution prevention and waste minimization for hazardous and industrial waste. Other technologies where demand was expected to rise included those for spillage control and decontamination from radioactive
TABLE 6.20: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — WASTE MANAGEMENT Municipal Solid Waste
Industrial Waste
Hazardous Waste
Radioactive Waste
Waste collection/transportation and storage
3.7 (9)
3.4 (8)
3.4 (8)
3.2a (5)
Sample analysis/waste characterization
2.8 (9)
3.1 (9)
2.9 (8)
3.2a (5)
3.0b
(8)
3.5b (6)
3.8 (9)
4.0 (8)
4.6 (7)
3.1b
Site monitoring
2.9 (9)
Landfill disposal
3.7b (9)
Incineration
3.4 (7)
3.2 (9)
3.8 (8)
—
Composting/biomass conversion
3.6 (9)
3.0b (5)
—
—
Pollution prevention/waste minimization
3.4 (10)
3.6 (10)
3.8 (8)
4.5 (4)
Recycling/resource recovery
3.9 (8)
4.0 (8)
3.2b (6)
3.0a (3)
2.7b (10)
3.2 (9)
3.4b (8)
3.8a (5)
3.4 (8)
3.4 (8)
3.4 (6)
3.4a (5)
Spillage control/decontamination Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land
(10)
Technologies in high demand: #1 landfill disposal; and pollution prevention/waste minimization (radioactive waste); #2 recycling and resource recovery (industrial waste); #3 landfill disposal (hazardous waste). Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #4 recycling/resource recovery (municipal waste); #5 landfill disposal (industrial and municipal waste); #6 pollution prevention/waste minimization (hazardous and industrial waste); #7 spillage control/decontamination (radioactive waste); #8 waste collection/transportation and storage (municipal waste); and #9 composting/biomass conversion (municipal waste). a) Indicated figures show standard deviations of 1.3 to 1.6. This is due to a relatively low number of answers for the category of radioactive waste and to the constant low ranking of the technology needs in this area given by one participant (OIKOS). b) The indicated figures show slightly higher standard deviation (1 to 1.2) compared to the majority of the figures where the standard deviation varies
from 0.5 to 0.9.
170
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.21: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — ENERGY Energy and Power Generation
Other Industrial Sectors
New/efficient energy and heat generation systems
3.5 (8)
3.4 (5)
Retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems
3.5 (7)
3.4 (5)
Process management and control (e.g. boiler tune-up and fuel efficiency optimization)
3.4 (6)
3.0a (3)
Heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation)
3.6 (7)
3.0 (4)
Alternative/renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, and solar)
3.5 (6)
3.0a (4)
Alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants
3.8 (4)
3.3 (4)
Instrumentation
3.2 (5)
2.7 (3)
Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 Alternative refrigerants (non-cfc) (energy and power generation); #2 heat recovery and energy savings (energy and power generation); #3 new and efficient energy and heat generation systems, and #4 retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems a) For indicated figures, the rating from all answers was equal. Typical standard deviations of other figures range from 0.4 to 0.8.
TABLE 6.22: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — NOISE, VIBRATION, AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Noise and Vibration
Occupational Health and Safety
Instrumentation, measurement, and control devices
3.3 (3)
3.3 (3)
Protection equipment
3.3 (4)
3.8 (4)
Abatement (insulation and absorption)
2.8 (5)
3.0a (5)
—
3.0b (4)
Electromagnetic field exposure Technologies where demand is expected to rise: Protection equipment (OHS);
a) Standard deviation for the indicated figure is 1.0, while for other figures (excluding b), the standard deviations range from 0.5 to 0.8. b) All four of the respondents for this question gave the same answer.
waste; and equipment for collection, transportation and storage of municipal waste. The high demand for technologies for disposal and minimization of radioactive waste can be attributed to the fact that Slovenia must find sites for the disposal of radioactive waste in the immediate future in order to maintain the operation of the Krsko Nuclear power plant. Since this has become something of a political issue, the results of the interviews are probably the partial result of the impact of public opinion concerning the problem of radioactive waste disposal in the country. The already mentioned Public Utility Services Act of 1993 has already had a strong impact on the waste management sector. There are a number of Western (primarily Austrian) companies already operating in Slovenia, and they mostly bring waste management technology from their home country. Finally, discussions are currently taking place at the Ministry of Environment concerning the construction of two large-scale incinerators for municipal waste. The issue is politically sensitive, but if the project is approved, there will be significant demand for incineration technologies. Energy Demand for energy-related technologies was moderate, as can be seen in Table 6.21. Overall, interviewed experts indicated higher demand for energy-related technologies in the “energy and power generation sector” than in “other industrial sectors.” However, high demand was not identified in any single technology class. Surprisingly, and in contrast to all the other surveyed countries in this publication, the most significant growth in demand in the energy sector was expected for alternative (non-CFC)
TABLE 6.23: MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Category
End-users by Sector
Air
Municipal power generators, transport, and the chemical and paper industry
Water
Municipal services, the chemical industry, agriculture, the food industry, heavy industry, and mining
Waste
Municipal waste management services, the chemical industry, the wood processing sector, heavy industry, and mining
Energy
Municipal power generators and industry in general
Noise and Transport, industry, and mining Vibration
refrigerants. This is most likely due to the fact that Slovenian industries have already undergone the restructuring of some production processes, such as the introduction of non-chlorofluorocarbon coolants in the Gorenje factory (which is the largest plant in the country) and at LTH Skofja Loka, the manufacturer of refrigerators in Slovenia. Other areas where demand was expected to increase included technologies for heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation); and new and efficient energy and heat generation systems, and retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
171
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
energy systems in both the power generation and other industrial sectors. Some growth in demand was also expected for alternative or renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, and solar). It is also interesting to note that only limited demand was identified for process management and control, and instrumentation. These two areas were usually ranked high in the other surveyed countries. Noise, Vibration and Occupational Health and Safety Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration and occupational health and safety was typically low to moderate. Table 6.22 presents details of the responses received. The respondents noted that in the area of occupational health and safety, the demand for protection equipment will likely grow in the near future. This will mainly be caused by the increased direct liability of employers for workers’ safety, and by the requirements related to health risk management in the ISO-related certification process, which is already at an advanced stage in Slovenia. Only limited growth in demand was expected for the other technologies in this category.
TABLE 6.24: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ON PURCHASING PREFERENCES When making purchasing decisions, does your organization prefer to buy domestic or foreign environmental technologies? Only use best-technology or best-practice criteria
70%
Prefer domestic products
21%
Prefer foreign products
When buying foreign-manufactured environmental technologies, do you buy from local representatives of foreign companies, or go directly to the producer abroad? Buy from local representative in-country
44%
Buy directly from the producer abroad
32%
Use both options
24%
Note: Some companies considered this information confidential.
MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES The major end-users of environmental technologies in Slovenia identified by survey respondents are listed in Table 6.23. In most technology categories, the municipal services, including municipal power generation, were indicated as major end-users of environmental technologies. In the air, water, and waste sectors, municipal services were followed by relevant types of industries such as chemical, mining, wood, and food processing. As might be expected, the transport industry and mining industry are the major users in the noise and vibration sector. Industry in general is also an important user of environmental technologies related to energy. The ranking of end-users by sector is affected by the decrease of industrial production after 1991. During this period, several factories ceased production owing to financial problems resulting in a decrease in environmental pollution. In addition, some major environmental problems with their origins in industry have already been solved. Therefore, the major focus is now on pollution from the municipal sector, which until now has largely been neglected.
6.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers The following section examines the strengths and weaknesses of foreign suppliers as revealed by the survey. Specifically, it presents Slovenian buyers’ preferences for domestic and foreign suppliers, means of purchasing environmental technologies, and their strengths and weaknesses as well as barriers to buying environmental technologies from abroad.
PURCHASING PREFERENCES Table 6.24 provides a summary of responses to the question on purchasing preferences. Most experts (about two-thirds) rely on the use of besttechnology or best-practice criteria when making purchasing decisions. Among most other participants in the survey, a preference for domestic products prevails. As indicated in Table 6.24, there is a slight preference for buying foreign-manufactured environmental technologies
172
9%
TABLE 6.25: STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Within your area of expertise, what are the strengths of foreign environmental technologies compared to domestic products? High product quality
80%
Reliability and durability of products
50%
Good value for money
38%
Good after-sales service
33%
User-friendly and easy to operate technology
29%
Available credit/funding from the foreign country
21%
Other
17%
Easy to customize and adapt to specific local needs Low price
4% -
Note: Some companies considered this information confidential. Only two-thirds of the interviewed experts answered the question on the strengths of foreign products.
from domestic representatives compared with buying directly from the producer abroad. A considerable number of organizations, however, combine both approaches. This depends to a great extent on the availability of domestic representatives for a particular technology and on the quality of their service.
STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Table 6.25 presents a summary of responses to the question about the strengths of foreign environmental technologies. It is worth noting that many respondents considered this information confidential. High product quality is considered the most important strength of foreign environmental technologies. Also among the most highly ranked qualities of foreign technologies are reliability and durability of products, and good value for money. Available credits and funding from the country of origin are obviously not very important. Also interesting is the
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.26: BARRIERS TO BUYING FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES What do you see as the greatest barriers to buying environmental technologies from abroad? Lack of reliable product information
58%
Too expensive
46%
Scarcity of information concerning suppliers
42%
Lack of authorized technical service and maintenance
38%
Products not suited to local conditions and technical culture
21%
Communication problems with foreign suppliers
17%
Import restrictions/high customs duties
13%
Changing environmental regulations
13%
Note: Some companies considered this information confidential. Only two-thirds of the interviewed experts answered the question on barriers to buying foreign technologies.
fact that low price was never referred to as one of the strengths of foreign environmental technologies. Some experts (“other” in Table 6.25) also noted that a foreign technology which had been verified by several users in other countries had an advantage over domestic products. Only a limited proportion of respondents regarded foreign environmental technologies as user-friendly, and easy to customize and adapt to specific local conditions. Perhaps most importantly, only one in three respondents considered the quality of after-sales service as a strength of imported environmental technologies. Problems with ensuring prompt technical services and maintenance by authorized representatives were also ranked high among barriers to purchase, and was found to be almost as important as the high price and lack of information on suppliers.
BARRIERS TO BUYING ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM ABROAD Table 6.26 presents a summary of responses to the question on the main barriers to buying environmental technologies from abroad.
The preference for buying the best available technology in many cases results in difficulties because of the relatively high cost of imported technologies. As evident from Table 6.25, this is the second most important barrier to buying environmental technologies from abroad, while the most important is the lack of reliable product information. Interestingly, Slovenia was the only surveyed country from the region where the high price of foreign products was not the most significant barrier. Other important barriers included the lack of authorized technical services and maintenance, the scarcity of information about suppliers, and non-suitability of products to the local conditions and technical culture. Changing environmental regulations have been an obstacle in the past during the transition of regulations from those established by the former Yugoslavia to those more modern introduced for independent Slovenia. That transition has now been largely completed and regulatory change should pose little problem to technology purchases in the future. Import restrictions and associated high customs duties and communication problems with foreign suppliers also are expected to become less important in the future.
6.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market This section of the survey had two objectives - it examined perceptions of foreign technologies specific to the country of origin, and surveyed respondents’ perceptions of the major foreign companies seen to be active in Slovenia.
PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Table 6.27 shows the ratings (i.e., the average values of all responses) of perceptions of environmental technologies from selected countries, based on the answer to the question “How do environmental professionals in your country rate environmental technologies from different countries ?” The following scale was used in rating: 5 = excellent reputation, 4 = good reputation, 3 = average reputation, 2 = poor reputation, 1 = very poor reputation, blank = no opinion. The figures in brackets indicate the number of responses received, which vary because respondents had differing levels of exposure to each environmental sector and to suppliers. In general, perceptions of foreign environmental technologies were between average and good, somewhat higher than perceptions of Slovenian environmental technologies,
TABLE 6.27: PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES Country
Air
Water
Waste
Energy
Noise, Vibration, and OHS
Slovenia
3.2 (9)
3.1 (10)
2.5 (7)
3.3 (6)
2.9 (8)
Austria
3.9 (8)
3.8 (10)
3.2 (4)
3.5 (4)
2.7 (3)
Germany
4.4 (12)
4.1 (12)
4.0 (6)
3.7 (5)
4.0 (5)
France
3.6 (5)
3.6 (6)
3.7 (4)
3.0 (1)
2.0 (1)
Japan
4.0 (3)
2.5 (3)
2.0 (2)
2.0 (1)
2.0 (1)
Netherlands
3.5 (2)
4.3 (8)
3.6 (6)
3.5 (1)
3.0 (3)
Scandinavia
3.5 (2)
3.3 (4)
3.4 (4)
4.0 (2)
4.0 (2)
United States
4.1 (7)
3.75 (4)
4.0 (4)
3.3 (1)
4.5 (2)
Great Britain
5.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
—
—
Canada
—
4.0 (1)
3.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
—
Denmark
—
—
—
—
5.0 (1)
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
173
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.28: LEADING FOREIGN COMPANIES ON THE SLOVENIAN MARKET Sector
Company Name
Country of Origin
Specialization
Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
Air
AE & E
Austria
Desulfurization technology
Complete service
MLU Vienna
Austria
Monitoring equipment
Complete service
Airmotec
Switzerland
Automatic measurement instrumentation
High product quality
Rotronic
Switzerland
Humidity detectors
Good quality
ANSYCO, Karlsruhe
Germany
On-line measurement instrumentation
Only producer of portable IR spectrometers
Bayer Diagnostic, Munchen
Germany
Flue gas monitoring equipment
High product quality
Bernath Atomic
Germany
Portable equipment for TOC measurement
No service or maintenance in Slovenia
Drager
Germany
Air sampling
Complete service
ENVTEC
Germany
O2 detectors
Leading producers
H&B
Germany
Gas-emission measurement
Long tradition
Hartman & Braun
Germany
Flue gas monitoring equipment
High product quality
SICK
Germany
Dust-emission measurement
No competition
Siemens
Germany
Gas-emission measurement
Complete service
TESTO
Germany
Emission measurement
Complete service
Koch Albano
Italy
Flue gas scrubbers
High product quality
Kipp & Zowen
Netherlands
Solar flux detectors
Good quality
Hewlett Packard
United States
Analytical instrumentation
Good product quality and complete service
Setra Water and Elin Wastewater Purator
Waste
174
United States
Atmospheric pressure detectors
Good quality
Austria
Potable water preparation
High product quality
Austria
Small water cleaning facilities
High product quality
ABS
Germany
Pumps
High product quality
Buhler
Germany
Wastewater treatment
High product quality and durability
EMU
Germany
Pumps
High product quality
Endres Hauser
Germany
Automatic sampling devices
Good quality, reliability reasonable pricing
Endres & Hauser
Germany
Wastewater cleaning
Good quality
GRUNDFOSS
Germany
Pumps
High product quality
Meier
Germany
Wastewater recycling equipment
Easy to customize
WTW
Germany
On-line measurement instrumentation
Good quality, reliability reasonable price
BIOCLERE
France
Wastewater treatment
Inexpensive
Degremont
France
Municipal wastewater treatment
Effectiveness
Montec
France
Wastewater treatment
High product quality and durability
EPIC/DETEC
Great Britain
Wastewater treatment
High product quality and durability
SKALAR
Netherlands
Automatic samplers
Quality, reliability
FLYGT
Sweden
Pumps
High product quality
Saubermacher
Austria
Waste management
Reliability
Rumpold
Austria
Waste management
-
LUWA
Switzerland
Recycling and distillation
High product quality, high prices
Pfaudler
Germany
Recycling and distillation
High product quality, high prices
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
TABLE 6.28 (CONTINUED): LEADING FOREIGN COMPANIES ON THE SLOVENIAN MARKET Sector
Company Name
Country of Origin
Specialization
Waste (cont.)
FARID
Italy
Transportation
Good value for money and high product quality
IVECO
Italy
Transportation
Good value for money and high product quality
Hoval & Vaduz
Liechtenstein
Hazardous waste incineration equipment
High product quality
Noise and Vibration
Bruel Kjaer
Denmark
Noise measurement
Complete service, good maintenance
Radioactivity
ALNOR
France
Radioactivity measurement
—
evaluated as average. It is worth noting that the perceptions of foreign products were significantly lower in Slovenia than in the other surveyed countries, which seems to indicate wider experience with foreign products in this economically advanced country. Overall, German technologies were the best rated among the foreign products on the environmental technology market. They were rated best in all areas. The next best rated products were technologies from Austria and the US, while in the water sector suppliers from The Netherlands, and in air sectors suppliers from Japan received high rating for technologies. High ratings for some other suppliers (i.e., Great Britain, Canada, and Denmark) cannot be given substantial consideration because they were all obtained on the basis of only one response. German, American, Japanese and Austrian technologies were ranked particularly high in the air sector. In the water and wastewater category, technologies from Holland and Germany were ranked high, followed by products from Austria and France. German and American technologies were best rated in the waste sector, while German and Scandinavian technologies were highly rated in the energy sector. Finally, American, German, and Scandinavian products were rated highly in the Noise, Vibration, and OHS sector. The number of responses in each category is also significant, since it indirectly reflects the availability of foreign technologies on the market (and the perceived level of foreign activity). The distribution of responses indicates that in the opinion of the interviewed experts, foreign activity was highest in the water and wastewater sector, followed by the air protection and waste management sectors. It is important to note that the above question focused on perceptions of foreign technologies depending on the country of origin, rather than on the respondents’ actual familiarity and/or experience with specific foreign companies and products. The following section presents the answers to a more specific question concerning familiarity and actual experience with specific foreign companies.
Competitive Strengths And Weaknesses
firms were active in the air, water and wastewater sectors, followed by the waste sector. The responses also indicate that German firms are by far the most active, followed by Austrian companies, and then by American, Swiss, Italian and French firms. It may be worth noting for comparison that according to the 1997 REC survey, 13 percent of surveyed Slovene environmental businesses operated joint ventures with foreign partners. The three most important countries in this respect were Austria, Germany, and Croatia. In conclusion, German firms seem to hold the lead in supplying Slovenia’s environmental technologies in terms of both quantity and quality. However, Austrian and American suppliers are close behind, and are considerably ahead of other countries. No firm is considered dominant in any product line; thus, there are opportunities for any firm able to provide a quality product at competitive Western prices.
MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKET There appears to be no single foreign company that could be considered more important than any other on the Slovene market. In fact, each interviewed expert referred to a different company as most likely to be the major supplier. This indicates that even within a single area of environmental technology, several companies are active on the market and there is no major supplier. For this reason, all the companies referred to during the interviews are listed in Table 6.28. As shown in the table, the highest number of foreign
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
175
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
6.8 List of Interviewed Experts The structure of information is as follows: Organization Name of person interviewed Address Telephone and fax numbers Areas of activity Institut Jozef Stefan Andrej Stergarsek Jamova 29, 000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 177-3900, Fax: (386-61) 219-385 air, waste, water, and energy Kemijski Institut (National Institute of Chemistry) Viktor Grilc, Vida Hudnik Hajdrihova 19, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 176-0200, Fax: (386-61) 125-7069 waste, water, and air Elektroinstitut Milan Vidmar (Electroinstitute “Milan Vidmar”) Igor Cuhalev, Hajdrihova 2, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 125-0333, Fax: (386-61) 125-3326 energy, air, and water Limnos d.o.o. Dani Vrhovsek Podlimbarskega ulica 31, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 557-472, Fax: (386-61) 557-386 water MOP-Ministrstvo za Okolje in Prostor (Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning) Janko Zerjav Dunajska 46, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 170-7400 waste, water, air, and energy MOP-Uprava RS za Jedrsko Varnost (Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration) Marjan Levstek Vojkova 59, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 172-1100, Fax: (386-61) 172-1199 nuclear safety Zavod za Varstvo Pri Delu (Institute of Occupational Safety) Maja Metelko Bohoriceva 22a, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 132-0253, Fax: (386-61) 312-562 air and NVOHS Vodnogospodarski Institut (Institute of Water Management) Alojz Ucman Hajdrihova 28, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 125-4333, Fax: (386-61) 126-4162 water and waste Inea d.o.o. Primoz Pirnat Ljubljanska 80, 1230 Domzale Tel: (386-61) 721-563, Fax: (386-61) 721-672 energy and water Ames d.o.o. Martin Lesjak Jamova 39, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 177-3900, Fax: (386-61) 125-7087 air
176
ZVD Maribor Institut za Varstvo Okolja (Institute of Environmental Protection) Stanko Brumen Prvomajska 1, 2000 Maribor Tel: (386-62) 413-978, Fax: (386-62) 413-709 air, water, waste, energy, and NVOHS Erico Velenje Boris Stropnik Partizanska 78, 3320 Velenje Tel: (386-63) 854-760, Fax: (386-63) 856-351 air, waste, water, and NVOHS Univerza Maribor Fakulteta Strojnistvo (University of Maribor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering) Leopold Skerget Smetanova 17, 2000 Maribor Tel: (386-62) 221-112, Fax: (386-62) 227-774 air, NVOHS, water, and energy Univerza v Ljubljani Fagg, Institut za zdravstveno hidrotehniko (Instititute of Sanitary Hydrotechnics) Mitja Rismal Hajdrihova 28, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 125-4333, Fax: (386-61) 219-897 water and waste Raci d.o.o. Jurij Cretnik Jamova 39, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 177-3211, Fax: (386-61) 219-385 air and energy Zavod za Gradbenistvo (Slovene National Building and Civil Engineering Inst.) Matjaz Zupan Dimiceva 12, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 1888-8100, Fax: (386-61) 1888-8484 energy and NVOHS Iskra Avtoelektrika d.d. Helena Vodopivec Vrtojbenska 62, 5290 Sempeter Pri Gorici Tel: (386-65) 31-211, Fax: (386-65) 32-513 waste, water, and air Komunalno Stanovanjska Druzba d.o.o. Anica Peternelj Goriska 23/b, 5270 Ajdovscina Tel: (386-65) 63-133, Fax: (386-65) 63-142 waste and water Eko–The Pavel Jankovec Polhov Gradec 46a, 1355 Polhov Gradec Tel: (386-61) 645-157, Fax: (386-61) 645-157 hazardous waste Kem–Eko d.o.o. Franc Kocar Steletova 8, 1241 Kamnik Tel: (386-61) 812-978, Fax: (386-61) 812-870 waste Slovenski Plinovodi Tomaz Vuga Ul. 25. junija 1/b, 5000 Nova Gorica Tel: (386-65) 131-180, Fax: (386-65) 131-191 air and energy
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
Prehod d.o.o. Anton Jenko Smledniska 64a, 4000 Kranj Tel: (386-64) 331-071, Fax: (386-64) 331-071 erosion
IBE Zoran Stojic Hajdrihova 4, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 125-0333, Fax: (386-61) 210-527 air, water, waste, and other
Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo, Celje (Institute of Public Health in Celje) Andrej Ursic Ipavceva 18, 3000 Celje Tel: (386-63) 37-112, Fax: (386-63) 33-407 air, water, waste, noise, and EIA
Projekt MR Inzeniring D.D. Stanislav Urek Svetozarevska 10, 2000 Maribor Tel: (386-62) 227-161, Fax: (386-62) 23-765 waste and energy
Klima Celje d.o.o. Norbert Verhovc Delavska 5, 3000 Celje Tel: (386-63) 34-511, Fax: (386-63) 411-762 air and noise Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo, Nova Gorica (Institute of Public Health in Nova Gorica) Marko Vudrag Kostanjeviska 16a, 5000 Nova Gorica Tel: (386-65) 28-191, and 28-193, Fax: (386-65) 28-188 water and other Deps – Sistemi za Zascito Narave Miran Prajnc Ruske cete 5, 2342 Ruse Tel: (386-62) 662-289, Fax: (386-62) 662-289 water
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za Strojnistvo, Center za Energetske in Ekoloske Tehnologije (Center for Energy and Environmental Technologies) Peter Novak Askerceva 6, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 177-1200, Fax: (386-61) 218-567 energy and noise Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo, Koper (Institute of Public Health in Koper) Jelka Zupan Vojkovo nabrezje 4a, 6000 Koper Tel: (386-66) 37-685, Fax: (386-66) 22-869 air, water, waste, and other
Kemis d.o.o. Franc Lipovsek Kajuhova 4, 1235 Radomlje Tel: (386-61) 728-007, Fax: (386-61) 728-005 waste Komunala Radovljica (Municipal service) Ljubljanska 27, 4260 Radovljica Tel: (386-64) 715-109, Fax: (386-64) 714-660 water and waste TKI Pinus Race D.D. Tone Berglez Grajski trg 21, 2327 Race Tel: (386-62) 608-240, Fax: (386-62) 611-768 water and waste Oikos d.o.o. Robert Spendl Ljubljanska 36, 1230 Domzale Tel: (386-61) 716-152, Fax: (386-61) 714-807 waste and other Bio Diskont d.o.o. Stojan Bizjak Trg svobode 12a, 5222 Kobarid Tel: (386-65) 85-332, Fax: (386-65) 85-332 waste and energy PII d.o.o. Idrija Rasto Reven Lapajnetova 9, 5280 Idrija Tel: (386-65) 72-308, Fax: (386-65) 72-348 energy Hidrometeoroloski Zavod RS (Hydrometeorological Institute of Slovenia) Martina Zupan Vojkova 1b, 1000 Ljubljana Tel: (386-61) 178-4000, Fax: (386-61) 178-4051 air, water, and waste
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
177
CHAPTER 6: SLOVENIA
6.9: Major R&D Institutions in Slovenia Specializing in Environmental Technologies AIR ZVD Maribor, Institut za varstvo okolja (Institute of Public Health Maribor, Department of Environmental Protection) Prvomajska 1, Maribor Air pollution monitoring Stanko Brumen, Tel: (386-62) 413-141 AMES d.o.o. Jamova 39, Ljubljana Measurement technologies, monitoring systems, and modeling Martin Lesjak, Tel: (386-61) 177-3900 Elektroinstitut “Milan Vidmar” (Institute of Electrical Engineering) Hajdrihova 2, Ljubljana Air pollution control Maks Babuder, Director, Tel: (386-61) 125-3326
AIR AND ENERGY RACI d.o.o. Jamova 39, Ljubljana Measurement technologies, combustion control, and optimization Jure Cretnik, Tel: (386-61) 177-3211
NVOHS Zavod za varstvo pri delu (National Institute of Occupational Safety) Bohoriceva 22a, Ljubljana Radiation protection Marko Mis, Director, Tel: (386-61) 132-0253
6.10: Bibliography “Report on the Status of the Environment in 1995” (“Predlog porocila o stanju okolja 1995-EPA 1378”), Porocevalec drzavnega zbora RS, No.6/1, 1996. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Slovenia, 1995, pp. 456-464. Zakon o varstvu okolja, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 32/93, 1993 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 73/94, 1994. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 35/96, 1996. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, The Emerging Environmental Market: A Survey in Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Slovenia, Szentendre, Hungary: REC, September 1997
AIR AND WASTEWATER Institut Jozef Stefan (Jozef Stefan Institute) Jamova 39, Ljubljana Flue gas desulfurization, waste incineration, measurement technologies, and modeling Nada Lavrac, Tel: (386-61) 177-3272
WASTEWATER AND WASTE Kemijski Institut Ljubljana (National Institute of Chemistry) Hajdrihova 19, Ljubljana Waste management, measurement technologies, and wastewater treatment Stane Pejovnik, Director, Tel: (386-61) 176-0200
ENERGY, NOISE Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za strojnistvo, Center za energetske in ekoloske tehnologije (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Energy and Environmental Technologies) Askerceva 6, Ljubljana Alternative energies and noise abatement Peter Novak, Tel: (386-61) 177-1200
178
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWS
Appendix: Questionnaire for Interviews Part 1: Respondent Profile 1. Name of organization : Street address: City and postal code: Phone: Fax: 2. Name of respondent: Position: 3. Type of organization (e.g. environmental business, government, expert):
❑ Environmental Business ❑ Government
❑ Research & Development Institution ❑ Other (specify):
4. When was your organization established (which year)? 5. How many employees work in your company? 6. Please indicate approximate annual revenues from your organization’s environmental activities (in thousands of USD): 7. Where is your main office located?
❑ Capital
❑ Other major city
❑ Small town
8. What is the geographic scope of your organization’s operations? If active in all areas, please indicate the distribution of operations:
❑ Local/provincial level ❑ Nationwide/whole country ❑ International
approx. approx. approx.
% % %
9. What is your area of environmental expertise or specialization (check all that apply)?
❑ Air ❑ Energy
❑ Water and Wastewater ❑ Waste Management
❑ Noise, Vibration, and Industrial Health and Safety ❑ Other (specify):
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
179
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWS
Part 2: Overview of the Market and Project Opportunities 1. What are five major environmental problems in your country in your area of environmental expertise? (Please be specific) Area of Expertise
Description of the Problem
Expected Duration
Geographic Location
2. What major environmental projects is your organization currently working on, or planning to work on in the near future? (please describe in as much detail as possible)
3. What are the major environmental technology fairs or exhibitions in your country? Name of the Fair or Exhibition
City
Approximate Date
Focus
4. Which organizations or agencies collect or provide information about environmental project opportunities (e.g. state agencies, local government offices, central environmental protection fund, commercial information centers, etc.)? Environmental Sector
Organization Name and Address
Contact Name, Phone and Fax
5. When purchasing environmental technologies, how do you learn about available products, and where do you find information about potential suppliers? (please describe in as much detail as possible)
180
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWS
Part 3: Demand for Environmental Technology 1. Within your area of expertise, rate in the attached table the demand for specific environmental technologies. Please use the following scale: 5 - highest, and rapidly growing demand 4 - high demand, likely to grow 3 - moderate slowly growing demand
2 - low demand, will not grow 1 - very low and decreasing demand blank - no opinion
AIR
Ambient Air
Gaseous Emissions
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Air sampling/laboratory analysis Continuous-basis monitoring Air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers) Gas detection/warning devices Emission abatement/cleaner production (e.g. low emission burners) Instrumentation and process control/software
WATER AND WASTEWATER
Surface and Potable Ground Water (Drinking) Water
Municipal Wastewater
Industrial Wastewater
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Standard physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes
❑
❑
❑
❑
Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. UV/ozonation, activated carbon, phosphate removal, reverse osmosis)
❑
❑
❑
❑
Sludge treatment and disposal
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Municipal Solid Waste
Industrial Waste
Hazardous Waste
Radioactive Waste
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Monitoring Sampling/laboratory analysis Construction of collection/supply networks Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and collection networks
Pollution prevention/waste minimization Water recycling and reuse Spill control and containment/clean-up Quality restoration and decontamination Instrumentation/process control/software
WATER MANAGEMENT Waste collection/transportation and storage Sample analysis/waste characterization Site monitoring Landfill disposal Incineration Composting/biomass conversion Pollution prevention/waste minimization Recycling/resource recovery Spillage control/decontamination Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
181
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWS
ENERGY New/efficient energy and heat generation systems Retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems Process management and control (e.g. boiler tune-up, fuel efficiency optimization) Heat recovery and energy savings (e.g. insulation) Alternative/renewable energy systems (e.g geothermal, biomass, solar) Alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants Instrumentation
NOISE, VIBRATION AND OHS Instrumentation/measuring and control devices Protection equipment Abatement (insulation, absorbing) Electromagnetic field exposure
Energy and Power Generation
Other Industrial Sectors (e.g. Manufacturing, Chemical)
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Noise and Vibration
Occupational Health and Safety
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
2. Based on your experience, who are the major end-users of environmental technology? (e.g. transport, mining, municipal services, research institutes, chemical industry, manufacturing, energy and the power generation sector, etc.) Category
End-user by Sector
Air: Water and Wastewater: Waste: Energy: Noise, Vibration, and OHS:
182
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWS
Part 4: Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers 1. In making purchasing decisions, does your organization prefer to buy domestic or foreign-manufactured environmental technology?
❑ prefer domestic products ❑ prefer foreign products
❑ only use best-technology or best-practice criteria ❑ other (specify):
2. If you buy foreign-manufactured environmental technology, do you buy from local representatives of foreign companies, or go directly to the producer abroad?
❑ buy from local representative in-country
❑ buy directly from the producer abroad
3. Within your area of expertise, what are the strengths of foreign environmental technologies compared to domestic products? (please check all that apply)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
high product quality low price good value for money available credit/funding from the foreign country user-friendly and easy to operate technology
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
reliability and durability of products easy to customize/adapt for the specific local needs good after-sales service other (specify):
4. What do you see in your country as the greatest barriers to buying environmental technologies from abroad? (please check all that apply)
❑ too expensive ❑ lack of reliable product information ❑ products not suitable for the local conditions and technical culture
❑ import restrictions/high customs duty ❑ communication problems with a foreign supplier ❑ difficult to ensure authorized technical service and maintenance
❑ too little information about suppliers ❑ changing environmental regulations
❑ other (specify): ❑ other (specify):
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
183
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWS
Part 5: Major Foreign Competitors in the Environmental Technology Market 1. Rank in the attached table how environmental professionals in your country perceive environmental technology from different countries: 5 - excellent reputation 4 - good reputation
3 - average reputation 2 - poor reputation
1 - very poor reputation blank- no opinion
Your Country Austria Germany France Japan Netherlands Scandinavia US Air Water Waste Energy Noise, Vibration, and OHS
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Other _____
Other _____
Other _____
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Note: For “Other,” add and rate other countries as appropriate
2. Who are the major foreign suppliers of environmental technologies in your country within your area of expertise? Environmental Sector
184
Name of the Company, City
Country of Origin
Specialization
T H E E N V I R O N M E N TA L T E C H N O L O G Y M A R K E T I N C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
T HE R EGIONAL E NVIRONMENTAL C ENTER EUROPE (REC)
FOR
C ENTRAL
E ASTERN
IS AN INDEPENDENT, NON-PROFIT, REGIONAL ORGANIZATION
DEVOTED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN ERN
AND
EUROPE. THE REC
WAS ESTABLISHED IN
1990
CENTRAL AND EAST-
BY THE
UNITED STATES,
HUNGARY AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. ADDITIONAL DONORS INCLUDE
AUSTRIA,
THE
CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, FINLAND,
FRANCE, GERMANY, JAPAN, THE NETHERLANDS, NORWAY AND SWITZERLAND. TODAY, THERE ARE 24 SIGNATORY GOVERNMENTS TO ITS CHARTER. THE REC’S LEMS IN
MISSION IS TO ASSIST IN SOLVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROB-
CENTRAL
AND
EASTERN EUROPE
BY ENCOURAGING COOPERATION
AMONG NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS , GOVERNMENTS , BUSINESSES , AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STAKEHOLDERS , BY SUPPORTING THE FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND BY PROMOTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONMAKING.
BENEFICIARY
COUNTRIES INCLUDE
ALBANIA , BOSNIA
AND
HERZEGOVINA ,
B ULGARIA , C ROATIA , C ZECH R EPUBLIC , E STONIA , H UNGARY , L ATVIA , LITHUANIA, FYR MACEDONIA, POLAND, ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA AND
FR YUGOSLAVIA.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY MARKET
