THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY MARKET IN CENTRAL …documents.rec.org/publications/EnvTechnology_Market_CEE_Dec199… · THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY MARKET IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERfor Central and Eastern Europe

THE ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGY MARKET IN CENTRAL

AND EASTERN EUROPEAN OVERVIEW OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HUNGARY,

POLAND, SLOVAKIA AND SLOVENIA

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.

e

Illus

tratio

n: E

rika

Var

sany

i

edited byPAWEL KAΩMIERCZYK

Szentendre, HungaryDECEMBER 1997

THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERfor Central and Eastern Europe

The Environmental Technology Market in Central and Eastern EuropeAn Overview of the Czech Republic, Hungary,

Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia

About the REC

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) is an independent, non-profit, regional organiza-tion devoted to the improvement of the environment in Central and Eastern Europe. The REC was established in 1990 by theUnited States, Hungary and the Commission of the European Communities. Additional donors include Austria, the Czech Repub-lic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Today, there are 24 signatory govern-ments to its charter.

The REC’s mission is to assist in solving the environmental problems in Central and Eastern Europe by encouraging coopera-tion among nongovernmental organizations, governments, businesses, and other environmental stakeholders, by supporting thefree 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, HungaryTel: (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

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 17Environmental Expenditures 17Market for Environmental Technologies 17State Environmental Funds 17Legislation and Enforcement 18Environmental Administration 18

1.2 Environmental Priorities and Project Opportunities 19

1.3 Information Channels for Business Opportunities 21

1.4 Demand for Environmental Technologies 23Summary and Overview 23Air 24Water and Wastewater 24Waste Management 25Energy 27Noise, Vibration, and OHS 27

1.5 Major End-users of Environmental Technologies 27

1.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers 29Purchasing Preferences 29Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies 29Barriers to Buying Foreign Environmental Technologies 30

1.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market 31Perceptions of Environmental Technologies from Selected Countries 31Major Foreign Suppliers in the Market 31Recommendations for Foreign Companies Entering the Market 32

Chapter 2: Czech Republic 35

2.1 Summary of Findings 35

2.2 Methodology 36Sources of Information Used in the Survey 36

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

T H E E N V I R O N M E N T A 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


T H E E N V I R O N M E N T A 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 E4

Profile of Respondents 36

2.3 Overview of the Market 36Total Country Spending on Environmental Technology 37Priority Areas for Environmental Protection 37

2.4 Project Opportunities 40Major Environmental Problems 40Significant Environmental Projects in Progress 42Major Sources of Information on Business Opportunities 43Sources of Information on Available Environmental Technologies 46

2.5 Demand for Environmental Technology 47Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview 47Technologies in Demand by Sector 47Major Environmental Technology End-users 50

2.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers 51Purchasing Preferences 51Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies 51Disadvantages of Foreign Technologies 52

2.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in the Environmental Technology Market 52Perceptions of Environmental Technologies from Selected Countries 52Major Foreign Suppliers in the Market 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


3.2 Methodology 62Sources of Information Used in the Survey 62Profile of Respondents 63

3.3 Overview of the Market 63Total Country Spending on Environmental Technology 63Priority Areas for Environmental Protection 65


3.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies 72Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview 72Technologies in Demand by Sector 74Major End-users of Environmental Technologies 78

3.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers 78Purchasing Preferences 78Strengths of Foreign Environmental Technologies 78Barriers to Buying Environmental Technologies from Abroad 78



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


4.2 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 124Initiated or Continued in Selected Voivodships in Poland in 1994

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



Chapter 5: Slovakia 133


5.2 Methodology 135Sources of Information Used in the Survey 135Profile of Respondents 135

5.3 Overview of the Market 135Total Country Spending on Environmental Protection 136Priority Areas for Environmental Protection 138


5.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies 145Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview 145Demand for Environmental Technologies by Sector 146Major End-users of Environmental Technologies 148



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


6.2 Methodology 159

6.3 Overview of the Market 160Total Country Spending on Environmental Protection 161Priority Areas for Environmental Protection 162

6.4 Project Opportunities 164Major Environmental Problems 164Significant Environmental Projects in Progress 166Major Sources of Information on Business Opportunities 166Sources of Information on Available Environmental Technologies 167Important Contact Points for Environmental Project Opportunities 168

6.5 Demand for Environmental Technologies 168Demand for Environmental Technologies - Overview 168Demand for Environmental Technologies by Sector 169



Major End-users of Environmental Technologies 172



6.8 List of Interviewed Experts 176

6.9 Major R&D Institutions in Slovenia Specializing in 178Environmental Technologies

6.10 Bibliography 178

Appendix: Questionnaire for Interviews 179

A B B R E V I A T I O N S


Czech RepublicCEMC 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

HungaryBME 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)

PolandAGH 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)

A B B R E V I A T I O N S


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 )

SlovakiaCSSO 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

SloveniaCEE 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

M A P O F T H E R E G I O N


BlackSea

ALBANIA

B U L G A R I A

C R O AT I A

BOSNIA ANDHERZEGOVINA

FRYUGOSLAVIA

C Z E C HR E P U B L I C

ESTONIA

L AT V I A

L I T H U A N I A

H U N G A R Y

R O M A N I A

FYRMACEDONIA

P O L A N D

S L O V A K I A

SLOVENIA

AdriaticSea

Balt icSea

LjubljanaZagreb

Budapest

Skopje

Tirana

Sarajevo

Belgrade

Sofia

Bratislava

Bucharest

Prague

Warsaw

Vilnius

Riga

Tallinn

Countries coveredin this survey

Countries to becovered in the nextvolume

B E L A R U S

U K R A I N E

MOLDOVA

G E R M A N Y

A U S T R I A

I TA LY

R U S S I A

R U S S I A

GREECE

TURKEY

P R E F A C E


As the countries of Central and Eastern Europe continuetheir transition to a market economy and prepare for Euro-pean Union accession, the market for environmental tech-nologies and services will certainly experience stronggrowth. In fact, it is estimated that environmental invest-ments totalling USD 100 billion to 150 billion will be neededin the ten accession countries over the coming years in orderto comply with EU environmental requirements. Cost-effec-tive technologies and strong environmental managementskills will be needed in this enormous undertaking.

This survey describes current market conditions and sig-nals possible future directions. It is the most comprehensivereport yet prepared, taking into account the viewpoints oftechnology providers, buyers, consultants, researchers, andpolicymakers. By understanding the environmental situationin each country, the relative demand for technologies, themain players, and the purchasing behavior of buyers, thereader will be better prepared to identify opportunities in theemerging market. A similar survey for the three Baltic Stateswill be published in 1998.

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and East-ern Europe (REC) supports this market development bymatching technology needs with solutions and building thecapacity of environmental professionals in the region to intro-

duce eco-efficient practices in industry. In addition, the REC’sBusiness Research Service is well-positioned to prepare spe-cialized market studies of specific sectors, upon request.

The five country surveys presented here were conductedusing a standardized methodology to ensure comparability ofinformation. Emil Dzuray and Pawel Kazmierczyk assisted indeveloping the survey questions, format and concept, while thefollowing 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, com-piled and edited the five country surveys, and wrote thereport. The following REC staff provided valuable contentreview and editorial support: Miroslav Chodak, Jiri Dusik,Emil Dzuray and Jernej Stritih. Reuben Stern and Sylvia Mag-yar designed the report layout.

Special thanks go to Jerome Simpson for his invaluableassistance with updating and verifying the information pre-sented in the survey, as well as copy editing the entire report.

I would like to thank all the contributors to this report.

Winston H. BowmanDeputy Director, Programs

Preface

Project BackgroundThe Regional Environmental Center for Central and

Eastern Europe (REC) conducted the survey presented here ofthe environmental technology market in the Czech Republic,Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

The main objectives of the survey were to examine theenvironmental situations and policies in each country, toreview the most pressing environmental problems, and toidentify the demand for environmental technologies and themain end-users. The secondary objectives of the project wereto examine the purchasing preferences of domestic buyers andto present the main competitors active on the local market inthe Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

The content of the report is largely based on formal per-sonal interviews with a cross-section of senior-level actors inthe environmental technology market, principally from envi-ronmental businesses. Additional interviews were held withselected government agencies and with major environmentaltechnology R&D centers. Up to 50 professionals were inter-viewed in each country, with approximately two-thirds repre-senting the business sector. The research was carried outbetween October 1996 and April 1997.

Overview of Environmental Problemsand Priorities

In all the surveyed countries, severe environmental damagehas been sustained. The development of heavy industry and anenergy sector based mainly on coal are among the key causesof pollution. Although there has been a decline in manufactur-ing activities and a corresponding reduction in environmentalpollution, environmental degradation still continues.

While air pollution and poor drinking water quality are themost frequently cited environmental problems, managementof wastewater and solid waste, pollution from the transportsector, and environmental degradation related to the energysector also represent major challenges. Environmental pollu-tion is particularly heavy in industrialized areas.

In practically all the surveyed countries, the two majorenvironmental priorities set by the government are air pollu-tion control and the protection of water resources and drink-ing water quality improvement. National environmental poli-cies focus on emission sources, with the power generationsector and other large industrial emission sources (e.g. thechemical industry) being the main target of regulations. Asregards the protection of water resources, the primary goalsare to increase the percentage of the population connected tosewage disposal facilities, increase the proportion of waste-water treated by biological processes, and to provide treat-ment of wastewater from industrial sources.

In the near future, air pollution control will continue to be amajor priority area, although there is expected to be a gradualshift in focus towards small and medium-sized air pollutionsources. Air pollution from traffic will grow in importance, andin general, environmental impacts of the transport sector areexpected to be more vigorously addressed. Water management,particularly wastewater treatment, are likely to remain priority

areas. The construction of modern landfills is an expected long-term opportunity area. Accumulated hazardous waste thatrequires treatment and removal, and waste disposal sites thatneed remediation are also likely to remain significant priorities.

Environmental ExpendituresThe distribution of environmental expenditures corre-

sponds well with the priorities outlined above. Total environ-mental spending from both the government and private sec-tors in the surveyed countries exceeded USD 3.2 billion in1995. It is expected that, in actual numbers, environmentalexpenditures will grow at a rate of between 6 and 12 percentannually. A major change is expected in the financing of envi-ronmental protection. Currently, the main sources of funds forenvironmental projects include the state budget (includingstate environmental protection funds), municipal budgets, andinvestors’ own funds. In the coming years, the share of busi-ness contributions is expected to rise sharply, while contribu-tions from the state budget are expected to decrease.

The bulk of total environmental spending is allocated to airpollution activities and water and wastewater projects. Wastemanagement activities are the third largest priority area. Moststate financing tends to be allocated to the construction ofwastewater treatment and sewage facilities, and public watersupply projects, while the remainder is allocated to air protec-tion and waste management projects. Costs of projects in thelatter two categories are covered mainly by individual indus-trial plants and municipalities.

Demand for EnvironmentalTechnologies

The major end-users of environmental technologies asindicated by the survey are municipalities, the energy andpower generation sector, and the chemical industry. Othermajor end-user categories were media specific. Aside from theever-present financial constraints, purchasing environmentaltechnologies does not pose any significant problem becauseof the wide range of products available on the market. In theopinion of many survey respondents, the environmental tech-nology market is in fact saturated.

The demand for environmental technologies tends to bedriven by current priorities in state environmental policy, andby applicable regulations. Overall, demand for technologieswas identified to be moderate in most categories, althoughsome areas were identified where demand was high.Technologies related to waste management were high indemand in all countries except for the Czech Republic. Energy-related environmental technologies were found to be in highdemand in Hungary and Poland, while technologies for waterand wastewater treatment were in high demand in Poland andSlovakia. Demand in the noise, vibration and occupationalhealth and safety sector was much lower.

Technologies related to industrial wastewater and haz-ardous waste featured prominently among high-demand cate-gories. Municipal wastewater related technologies were also in

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y


Executive Summary

high demand. It is expected that within the next few years, thefocus will remain on end-of-pipe environmental technologies.There will be growing demand, however, for pollution pre-vention and waste minimization technologies.

Information ChannelsIn the surveyed countries, there are no effective formal

channels for information concerning project opportunities.Personal and professional contacts, participation in environ-mental fairs, and business and environmental publications areamong the primary sources of information used. Ministries ofenvironment and other governmental bodies tend not to beconsidered reliable sources for project opportunities.

Each country has recently enacted public procurement leg-islation that requires the formal announcement of tenders forall planned acquisitions involving the use of public money.However, at this point, most experts were skeptical as to itsusefulness in ensuring the availability of information on pro-ject opportunities.

Competitiveness of ForeignTechnologies

Most experts only rely on the use of best-technology orbest-practice criteria when making purchasing decisions. Thecountry of origin (domestic vs. foreign) of a particular environ-mental technology clearly is not a determining factor. Therewas a slight preference for buying foreign-manufactured envi-ronmental technology from domestic representatives com-pared with buying directly from the producer abroad. Productquality and reliability, warranty conditions, good value formoney, lowest possible cost outlay in achieving the requiredstandards, previous experience with a supplier and referencesare all significant factors affecting purchasing decisions.

High quality, reliability and durability were the mainadvantages cited by respondents of foreign environmentaltechnologies compared to domestic products. Other, albeitless significant, advantages included “user-friendly technolo-gy,” and “easy to customize and adapt for specific local needs.”

The greatest barrier to buying environmental technologiesfrom abroad was the high price. Many respondents were seri-ously concerned about the access to after-sales technical ser-vices, and where it lacked considered it a significant disadvan-tage of foreign technologies. Two marketing-related problemswere indicated as significant barriers by respondents, namely:“too little information about suppliers”, and “the lack of reli-able product information.”

The environmental technology industry in the surveyedcountries is clearly limited. A significant number of Westernenvironmental technology firms are active in the givencountries, through a permanent local presence, or by directsales of their equipment. Foreign presence is particularlystrong in the waste management sector, water supply andwastewater treatment.

Firms from Austria and Germany are most active and bestknown across all major technology sectors. German and Austrianfirms hold the lead in supplying environmental technologies interms of both quantity and quality, according to survey respon-dents. Other major foreign competitors varied by country andsector. French and Danish companies showed strong local pres-ence. French companies, along with American andScandinavian, were well represented in the water and waste-water sector. Scandinavian (primarily Swedish) and Americanfirms played an active role in the energy and air sectors.However, no single company dominates in any single country.

Prospects for Exporters ofEnvironmental Technologies

The prevailing picture emerging from the survey is that thefamiliarity of local buyers with the foreign environmental tech-nologies available in the surveyed countries is limited.

The key factor, as indicated by the survey, behind a suc-cessful sale of environmental technologies is an in-countryrepresentative office and reliable after-sales services. It isalmost essential to enter the market through an experiencedlocal business partner. It was found that in most cases, thetechnical and environmental skills of local environmental pro-fessionals are well developed, and many firms are increasing-ly professional in their management and marketing approach.

Further improvements in sales prospects can result from anattractive financing package, such as low-interest foreign creditlines, partial refinancing of foreign deliveries, etc. There clearly isroom for improvement in the marketing and circulation of infor-mation on foreign environmental technologies and suppliers.

ConclusionsIn conclusion, the environmental technology market in the

surveyed countries is competitive, but opportunity exists forfurther foreign suppliers to become active in the region. Themajority of purchases are based on the best-technology crite-ria and the country of origin is not deemed a critical factor.Suppliers can expect market success if their products are ofhigh quality and reliability (including warranty conditions),and are accompanied by reliable after-sales technical services.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

14 T H E E N V I R O N M E N T A 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

BackgroundIn an effort to facilitate environmental investments in

Central and Eastern Europe, the Regional EnvironmentalCenter for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) conducted adetailed survey of the environmental technology market in theCzech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Thefindings presented in this report are based on field and desk-based market research undertaken by the REC.

This report is the first in a series to cover the entire CEEregion. Currently, a study of the environmental technologymarket in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is being carried outand will be published in the spring of 1998.

ObjectivesThe main objectives of this research project were to exam-

ine the current state of the environment and current environ-mental policies in each country, to review the most pressingenvironmental problems, and to identify the demand for envi-ronmental technologies and main end-users.

For the purpose of this survey, the key terms were definedas follows:

Environmental industry: a pool of all organizations pro-viding products or services to measure, prevent, reduce orrender harmless the pollution of the environment, includ-ing activities in relation to the introduction of cleaner tech-nologies.

Environmental technology: any piece of equipment,process, or related service that is available to prevent,reduce, minimize, measure or render harmless the envi-ronmental impacts of industrial or municipal activities.

Environmental technology R&D: Basic, applied or devel-oping research, related to or targeted at environmentaltechnologies, including research activities related to clean-er technologies and renewable energy sources.

The secondary objectives of the project were to examinepurchasing preferences of domestic buyers and presents themain competitors active on the local market in the CzechRepublic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

The objectives of the survey were met by analyzing the fol-lowing five critical areas:

state of the environment (overview of environmental situ-ation and the existing policy framework)

project opportunities (identifying specific environmentalproblems);

technologies in demand (identifying the solutions);

major competitors within each environmental sector;

advantages and disadvantages of foreign suppliers.

The report presents an analysis of the viewpoints of theusers, distributors and manufacturers of environmental tech-nologies in the following five categories: air; water and waste-water; waste; energy; and noise, vibration and occupationalhealth and safety.

Scope and MethodologyThe Regional Environmental Center developed the survey

concept and detailed project scope, including the standardquestionnaire to be used during interviews. In each of the sur-veyed countries, a local environmental expert was commis-sioned to conduct in-country research, based on the terms ofreference and the format provided by the RegionalEnvironmental Center.

The Regional Environmental Center provided a standardquestionnaire (included in the Appendix at the end of thisreport), which was translated into the local language andwhich served as the platform for interviews. Local languagequestionnaires were reviewed by REC staff before being used.

The content of the report is largely based on formal person-al interviews with a cross-section of senior-level actors in theenvironmental technology market, principally from environ-mental businesses. Additional interviews were held with select-ed government agencies and with major environmental tech-nology 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-sectionof interviewees based on size, area of expertise, and geo-graphic location. In addition to the interviews, the report wassupplemented by information from personal contacts,researchers’ experience, informal telephone interviews, newsreports, trade journals and industry literature.

Researchers from each country submitted a written reportpresenting the findings of the survey. Each chapter was edit-ed and complemented by the staff of the RegionalEnvironmental Center.

The project was conducted between October 1996 andApril 1997.

Structure of the ReportThis report provides, for each surveyed country, qualita-

tive information about the environmental technology market,describes project opportunities and related market conditions,discusses major information channels for project opportuni-ties, and examines the demand for environmental technolo-gies. The work also considers purchasing preferences of localcustomers, major strengths of foreign environmental technolo-gies, barriers to their wider entry, and major players active inthe market.

A regional overview summarizes the five country-specificchapters, each of which is structured in the following way:

Summary of Findings.

Methodology — an outline of the methodology andapproach, including sources of information, and respon-dent profiles.

Overview of the Market — a general picture of major envi-ronmental problems, information on country environmen-tal expenditures, estimates of the size of the environmen-tal technology market, activities of state environmentalfunds, and a discussion of priority areas in state environ-mental policy.

B A C K G R O U N D


Background

Project Opportunities — overview of major environmentalproblems listed by interviewed experts, a review of majorenvironmental projects currently in progress, discussion ofsources of information for business opportunities and foravailable environmental technologies, overview of envi-ronmental fairs and public procurement practices, and alist of useful contacts.

Demand for Environmental Technology — survey of iden-tified demand for environmental technologies in five cate-gories: air, water and wastewater, waste, energy, andnoise, vibration, and occupational health and safety; andan overview of major end-users of environmental tech-nologies.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers —discussion of the purchasing preferences of domestic buy-ers, review of the strengths of foreign environmental tech-nologies, and a survey of the barriers to their wider use.

Major Foreign Suppliers — overview of perceptions ofenvironmental technologies from different countries, and asurvey of the major foreign suppliers active on the market.

Appendices — List of interviewed experts, bibliography,and others as appropriate.

About the ResearchersCZECH REPUBLIC

The survey in the Czech Republic was carried out byARDA, a Czech-American firm active in environmental con-sulting. Since its inception in 1991, ARDA has conductedresearch for various industries and for different purposes.Previous projects have included regulatory overviews, marketstudies, and product promotion campaigns. Between 1992 and1994, ARDA served as a liaison office between American envi-ronmental companies and local firms and other bodies, withinthe framework of the US AID program, CDI, focused on pro-moting US business presence in the CEE countries. Mr. LudekPravda and Mr. Jaromir Obdrzalek managed the project onbehalf of ARDA.

HUNGARYThe survey in Hungary was conducted by a team of four

people. Ms. Eva Baka, an agricultural and environmental engi-neer by background, is currently employed as environmentalmanager at Tetra Pak Hungaria. Mr. Gyorgy Baka, an agricul-tural engineer with background in environmental engineeringand computer programming currently manages his own envi-ronmental consulting company OKO-ECO. Ms. Valeria Lekicsis an economist with the Ministry for Environment andRegional Policy, and is employed as program manager of thePHARE Regional Development Program Management Unit forInter Communal Cooperation. Mr. Gergely Toth, an economistwith marketing specialization, is the executive director of theHungarian Association for Environmentally AwareManagement (KOVET-INEM Hungaria).

POLANDThe survey in Poland was carried out by ERM Polska Sp.

z o.o., a member company of Environmental ResourcesManagement international consulting group. ERM Polska hasbeen active on the Polish market since 1993, and has sinceconducted environmental pre-acquisition and complianceaudits and investigations of contaminated sites at over 100industrial facilities across the country. Furthermore, the com-

pany is active in regulatory projects as well as providing tech-nical and management-related advice. The main researcherassigned to the project was Mrs. Magdalena Trybuch.

SLOVAKIAIn-country research for the environmental technology sur-

vey in Slovakia was conducted by PB CONSULTING, Presov,an independent consulting company involved in cross-sectoraland interdisciplinary environmental projects. Established in1993, the company co-operates with a network of indepen-dent professionals as well as with experts from other compa-nies. On behalf of PB CONSULTING, the research was coordi-nated by Mr. Peter Burda, Director. His cooperating partner,Mr. Vladimir Urbanek, organized several interviews, especial-ly in the vicinity of Bratislava, and also collected that data notbased on formal interviews.

SLOVENIAIn-country research in the Republic of Slovenia was per-

formed by Dr. Mladen Franko and the staff of the Jozef StefanInstitute (IJS), University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. The projectwas carried out in cooperation with Dr. Douglas M. Brown andthe staff of the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) ofMcLean, Virginia in the US.

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERThe staff of the Regional Environmental Center prepared

the detailed project scope, subcontracted local consultants,coordinated in-country research, and compiled and edited thefinal report. On behalf of the REC’s Business InformationService, the project was managed by Mr. Pawel Kazmierczyk.

B A C K G R O U N D


1.1 IntroductionThe surveyed countries, struggling with declining

economies in the early nineties, have achieved significant suc-cess in introducing market reforms and transforming theireconomies. Much of the privatization process has already beencompleted. As a result of the changes, economic performancehas improved markedly, with annual economic growth inmost countries currently ranging between 4 and 7 percent.

The political transition and reforms of the legislative andinstitutional framework have been successful as well. The CzechRepublic, Hungary, and Poland have joined the Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), withSlovakia and Slovenia expected to follow in the near future. Theabove countries, with the exception of Slovakia, have alsorecently been invited to begin negotiations to join the EuropeanUnion, with membership envisaged as early as 2002. Thus, theharmonization of domestic structures and legislation with thoseof the European Union is considered a high priority.

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURESEven though environmental protection is not as high on the

political agenda as it was in the early years of the transforma-tion, the respective governments remain committed to improv-ing environmental conditions. Despite other pressing problems(e.g. unemployment, restructuring of social security systems),the share of environmental expenditures in terms of GrossDomestic Product over the last few years has exceeded 1 per-cent in most countries.

As shown in Table 1.1, total environmental spending fromboth the government and private sectors in the surveyed coun-tries exceeded USD 3 billion in 1995. It is expected that, inactual numbers, environmental expenditures will grow at therate of between 6 and 12 percent annually.

Securing the necessary financing for environmental pro-jects is one of the major problems facing those active in envi-ronmental protection in Central and Eastern Europe. Thecountries generally have six sources of funds on which todraw to support environmental investments:

state, regional and municipal budgets

extra-budgetary funds (state environmental protectionfunds, 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 environ-mental protection. Currently, the main sources of funds forenvironmental projects include the state budget (includingstate environmental protection funds), municipal budgets, andinvestors’ own funds. In the coming years, the share of busi-ness contributions is expected to rise sharply, while the con-tributions from the state budget will decrease.

The bulk of state financing is allocated to the constructionof wastewater treatment and sewage facilities, and public

water supply projects, while the remainder is mainly allocatedto air protection and waste management projects. Costs of pro-jects in the latter two categories are covered mainly by indi-vidual industrial plants and municipalities.

MARKET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIESThe environmental products and services market is a

rapidly developing sector of the economy, but accurate infor-mation on the size of the market for environmental technolo-gies is still not available. Information relating to spending onenvironmental technologies is not tracked by national statisti-cal offices, and there are no publicly available up-to-date mar-ket assessments for environmental technologies.

Based on a review of secondary sources, the market forpollution control equipment in the Czech Republic is estimat-ed at between USD 600 and 700 million per year, with anannual growth rate of some 6 percent. Two-thirds of the mar-ket is based on domestic production, and one-third onimports. The Hungarian market for environmental technolo-gies was estimated at between USD 127 and 289 million in1995. The estimated size of the Polish market for environmen-tally safe technologies for burning coal and generating powerwas USD 240 million in 1995; for pollution control equipmentit was estimated at USD 330 million, and for industrial processcontrols USD 98 million. The size of the environmental tech-nology market in Slovakia was estimated at USD 174 million in1995. However, the figures above should be taken with care.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDSAll surveyed countries have established national environ-

mental protection funds to provide non-budgetary revenueearmarked for environmental projects. The rationale behindthe establishment of the funds was to ensure a steady flow ofthe significant amounts of money needed for environmentalprotection. The dominant share of these funds’ revenuescomes from outside national budgets, so that the protection ofthe environment does not directly compete for limitedresources with other social programs.

The resources of state funds can account for a significantproportion of a country’s environmental spending. In Poland,for instance, its respective fund covered about one-fourth ofthe total outlays for environmental protection in 1995. Theresources are generally used to finance national and regional

C H A P T E R 1 : R E G I O N A L O V E R V I E W


Chapter 1: Regional Overview

Expenditures Share of Country (USD mln) GDP

Czech Republic 1,185 2.6%Hungary 385 1.1%Poland 1,308 1.1%Slovakia 232 1.0%Slovenia 150 0.8%Total 3,260 –

TABLE 1.1: TOTAL ENVIRONMENTALEXPENDITURES IN 1995

public infrastructure projects, local projects (such as the con-struction of wastewater treatment plants and potable watersystems) whose costs exceed the capabilities of local budgets,and projects in priority areas.

State environmental funds’ main activities are to providefinancial support for investments, usually through loansoffered with preferential conditions. Other forms of supportare also used, and include grants, subsidies to bank credits,equity involvement and others. The form of financing avail-able from these funds depend on the project type, the investor,and the financing institution.

Table 1.2 presents the breakdown of expenditures fromstate environmental funds for 1995. As shown in Table 1.2, thebulk of funds’ expenditures was allocated to air and water pro-tection projects, which is an indication of state environmentalpriorities. As noted already, the proportion of state funding isgenerally much larger in water related projects, where the mostfrequent investors are municipalities. In contrast, for air pollu-tion control projects (mainly at stationary industrial sources), ahigh percentage of the project cost is covered by investors’ ownfunds, while waste management projects are mainly financedfrom municipal budgets. Slovenia is an exception, where almosthalf of all disbursed funding was loaned to private individuals tosupport conversion to cleaner domestic heating sources.

State environmental funds generate revenues mainly fromeconomic instruments for environmental protection, such asuser fees, disposal charges, and non-compliance fines. Airemission fees and wastewater charges make up the majorsource of revenues, although actual solutions vary from coun-try to country. In Hungary, for instance, taxes on fuel, car tiresand batteries, and coolants are channeled to the respectivefund. Additionally, since 1995, a waste packaging fee has beenapplied to any goods where packaging is required. In theCzech Republic, in addition to the revenues from air, water,and waste fees and fines, a third of the 1995 funding came fromfor the national Clean Air Program. Recently, significant incomehas started to come from loan repayments and servicing.

LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENTEach of the countries have enacted comprehensive envi-

ronmental legislation. The regulatory system is currently under-going changes mainly related to improving the framework reg-ulations (eliminating gaps and improving consistency), enact-ing specific pieces of legislation (e.g. waste management acts),and harmonizing domestic environmental legislation with thatof the European Union. As regards the latter, there are approx-imately 200 pieces of EU legislation which will have to be

adopted in the domestic legislation of the accession countries.According to 1997 estimates, the cost to bring all ten accessioncountries into compliance with the EU’s environmental acquisis in the range of USD 100 and 130 billion.

The level of enforcement is still inconsistent. Enforcementpolicies mainly rely on monetary penalties, but also includeenvironmental standards, restrictions, and permitting systems.Additionally, enforcement policies are often implemented bylocal governments without coordination at the national level,which results in considerable differences in both requirementsand levels of enforcement. Also, with the rapid growth in thenumber of small and medium-sized enterprises, compliancemonitoring is often difficult.

The main environmental policy instrument applied toindustry is the permit system including fees and fines for non-compliance. Most of the collected environmental fees andfines are earmarked for environmental purposes, and make upa major part of the revenues of state environmental funds, ormunicipal budgets for environmental protection.

The system for assessing environmental fees and fines israther complex, and the scope of responsibilities of variousauthorities varies, depending on the environmental media andthe nature of the payment (fee vs. fine). In general:

Environmental fees are payable for the emission of regu-lated substances into air and water; fees are also due forwater extraction and waste disposal. Fees are due irre-spective of the level of compliance with relevant permits.

Environmental fines are applied when a polluter exceedsthe emission limits set in the relevant operation permit.

The effectiveness of monetary penalties as an incentive toimproving compliance is limited. The polluter-pays-principleis employed, but levels of charges are not high enough as yetto be a major stimulus for polluters to introduce environmen-tal improvements. Furthermore, fee collection rate is far from100 percent. However, CEE countries are undertaking activi-ties aimed at increasing base fee rates, indexing charges toinflation, and improving collection.

Policy coordination, refinement of legislation, betterenforcement of regulations, education and institutionalstrengthening, the development of clean technologies, andpriority capital investments for air and water quality are thelikely focal points for future environmental actions.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIONThe system of environmental administration has under-

gone major restructuring during the transition period.



1995 Number of Country Expenditures Funded Projects Expenditures by Sector

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 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.

TABLE 1.2: BREAKDOWN OF 1995 EXPENDITURES OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDS

Decentralization of many environmental activities amongregional and local bodies has taken place. Generally, all thesurveyed countries have established three levels of environ-mental administration:

national level ministries (e.g. Ministry of Environment;other ministries with environment-related duties);

regional level (county, provincial) environmental depart-ments of regional authorities, inspection bodies, watermanagement boards, etc.;

municipal level departments created by local authorities.

Ministries of environment are usually in charge of deter-mining national environmental policy and implementationplans, maintaining pollution monitoring systems, coordinatingenvironmental projects of national importance, and maintain-ing international cooperation. Additionally, each country hasdifferent administrative structures for various areas, such ashealth care, agriculture, forestry, water management, physicalplanning, and transport. Responsibility also varies by media(air, water, soil).

Environmental compliance monitoring and enforcement iscarried out by regional environmental inspectorates. Mostenvironmental permitting is also administered at the regionallevel, in addition to developing local standards, collectingcharges, imposing penalties and developing regional environ-mental policies.

Physical planning and construction permits, as well as util-ity contracts, are generally issued at the municipal level.Municipalities are increasingly responsible for waste manage-ment and wastewater treatment, including operating the sys-tems, and calculating and collecting charges.

Governments collect environmental information, such asrecords of compliance or discharge monitoring, for process-ing, storage, and distribution, but often do not provide timelyaccess to the public. National statistical offices are mainlyresponsible for processing and disseminating environmentalinformation. State of environment reports are generally pub-lished by ministries of environment.

1.2 Environmental Priorities andProject Opportunities

In all the surveyed countries, severe environmental dam-age has been sustained in the past. The development of heavyindustry and an energy sector based mainly on coal are amongthe key causes of pollution. Although there has been a declinein manufacturing activities, and a corresponding reduction inenvironmental pollution, environmental degradation still fre-quently continues.

While air pollution and poor drinking water quality are themost frequently cited environmental problems, managementof wastewater and solid waste, pollution from the transportsector, and environmental degradation related to the energysector also represent major challenges. Environmental pollu-tion is particularly heavy in industrialized areas, where largepolluting enterprises are located (e.g. chemical and petro-chemical works, smelters, foundries and steel mills, cementand paper factories, coal mines, etc.).

Additional environmental damage has been caused insome cases by forestry mismanagement, poor agriculturalpractices and intensive tourism.

Environmental policies in most countries place highemphasis on restructuring the industrial sector in order toreduce the negative impact on the environment. The policiesgenerally stress the preference for preventive measures insteadof the end-of-pipe approach, application of environmental reg-

ulations to all branches of industry regardless of ownership,and the use of the “polluter pays principle.” Introduction ofenvironmentally friendly, modern manufacturing techniquesthroughout all production processes is emphasized.

In practically all the surveyed countries, the two major envi-ronmental priority areas are air pollution control, and protectionof water resources and improvement of drinking water quality.Table 1.3 presents the breakdown of environmental expendi-tures (from both the public and private sectors) by media.

As shown in Table 1.3, the bulk of environmental spend-ing is allocated to air pollution activities, and water and waste-water projects. Waste management activities are the thirdlargest priority area when spending is considered. The largeshare of water and wastewater treatment and air pollution con-trol projects arises for two main reasons:

Protection of water resources, and supply of quality drink-ing water is the major priority in every country. New waterprotection regulations force municipalities to invest inwater and wastewater treatment, and the sector hasbecome the main recipient of municipal money invested inthe environment. The trend is expected to continue in thenear future.

Air pollution from large stationary sources is still consideredthe most important cause of environmental damage, andmoney is continuously allocated for air protection projectsin the energy and power generation sector. The installationof desulfurization units and other equipment in the largestcoal-burning power plants is under way, and accounts for amajor portion of investments in air pollution control.

Several universal issues were frequently noted by respon-dents that apply to most environmental sectors and will influ-ence project opportunities. The most common problemsinclude: lack of funds for environmental projects, incompleteor changing legislation and inconsistent enforcement, and lackof awareness of environmental issues.

In general, however, significant project opportunities areexpected in wastewater treatment and air quality protection,and in the energy sector.

Air and EnergyThe 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 countriesare signatories to international agreements on the reduction oflong-range transboundary air pollution, and the emission ofgreenhouse gases and substances damaging the ozone layer,



Environmental Share of ExpendituresExpenditures Air Water and

Country (USD mln) Pollution Wastewater Waste

Czech 1185 58% 32% 9%Republic

Hungary 385 16% 55% 12%

Poland 1308 53% 37% 9%

Slovakia 232 43% 44% 12%

Slovenia 147 71% 9% 18%

Source: 1996 Statistical Yearbooks of the surveyed countries (except forSlovenia, where data are from the 1995 Statistical Yearbook)

Note: For Slovenia, data on expenditure by media are for 1994.

TABLE 1.3: BREAKDOWN OF ENVIRONMENTALEXPENDITURES BY MEDIA, 1995

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 generatingstations from coal-burning to gas use; modernization of indus-trial boilers (e.g. use of fluidized bed boilers); reconstructionof larger heating stations for use also in electricity generation;and modernization and construction of new smaller energygenerating sources. Construction of installations for reductionof dust and gaseous emissions (especially sulfur dioxide, dustparticles, nitrogen monoxides, carbon oxides) is also a priori-ty area. In the long term, energy saving measures will be a sig-nificant opportunity area.

Another significant source of local air pollution in cities isdomestic heating, largely based on individual fireplaces whichare not fitted with any pollution control equipment.Construction of central (district) heating systems in urban areasis the most common way of addressing this problem, althoughgas heating is also gradually being introduced in individualfamily houses, and, in some areas, in businesses as well. Withrespect to modernizing the domestic heating systems in indi-vidual houses, Slovenia is probably most advanced among thesurveyed countries.

Emissions from the transport sector have also become agrowing source of air pollution, especially in big cities. Traffic-related air pollution in urban areas is among the most fre-quently cited environmental problems.

Finally, control of process and fugitive air emissions atindustrial plants is another area frequently cited as a priority.Most countries are preparing legislation aimed at reducing airemissions of volatile organic substances, hydrocarbons (includ-ing benzo-a-pyrene), heavy metals and other air pollutants.

Water and WastewaterCurrently, there exists a large gap between the percentage

of the population with access to municipal water supply, andthat connected to sewage systems. The most critical environ-mental problems are related to poor quality drinking water, andthe pollution of water resources. Discharge of untreated indus-trial and municipal wastewater has led to contamination of sur-face and groundwater resources. Approximately half of all gen-erated sewage is discharged untreated. A number of major citiesdo not have wastewater treatment facilities, or treat only a frac-tion of their sewage (e.g. Warsaw, Budapest). Uncontrolledrunoff from agriculture further exacerbates the problem.

Another frequently mentioned priority is the elimination ofshortages in high-quality drinking water supply in urban areas,mainly through the construction of additional water treatmentworks, construction of wastewater treatment plants in citieslocated along major rivers, and the reduction of pollutionloads discharged by industry and the municipalities into rivers.

The main project opportunities in the water managementsector are related to the construction of new, and moderniza-tion of existing water supply and wastewater treatment sys-tems. Contamination of groundwater resources (especially byoil-based substances, organic solvents, and heavy metals) isalso a significant problem. Another important field is theimprovement of sanitary conditions in rural areas by supple-menting village water supply systems with adequate sanitation.

Interestingly, in practically all countries, the management ofsludge from wastewater treatment was a major unresolved issue.

Waste ManagementMunicipal waste generation has increased sharply over the

last decade, in some cases even two-fold. This growth, how-ever, has not been accompanied by improvements in wastemanagement practices. The bulk of municipal waste (between80 and 95 percent) is landfilled, while most existing landfillsdo not meet required environmental standards. The problem iscompounded by the illegal dumping of waste. The rate of

recycling and process waste utilization are low, with only afew firms active in the field.

The disposal of hazardous waste is one of the most press-ing problems. Frequently, significant amounts of hazardouswaste are stored on-site at the source in so-called temporarystorage facilities. There are few modern facilities for the dis-posal of hazardous waste. Incineration of hospital waste isgenerally carried out in small and obsolete facilities.

For some bulk industrial waste (e.g. phosphogypsum, “redmud” from aluminum production), no feasible treatment tech-nology is available. Other high volume industrial waste whichneeds to be better managed includes waste from coal miningand open pit excavation.

Governments are undertaking a number of actions toaddress the problem of waste management. New waste legis-lation is being prepared (e.g. Waste Acts in Poland andHungary) or has been adopted recently (hazardous waste reg-ulations in Hungary). Product fees (“green taxes”) have beenimposed on some products, such as fuels, tires, refrigerants,car batteries and packaging materials.

To date, waste management projects have tended to focuson landfill construction. While this tendency will continue inthe near future, (especially hazardous waste sites and sanitarylandfills), other waste management activities are expected togrow in importance. Waste minimization and recycling ofwaste (e.g. reducing generation of industrial wastes, increas-ing the rate of their utilization) are high on the priority list inall countries. Construction of modern hazardous waste incin-erators is another likely opportunity area. Composting ofmunicipal waste is of interest in Poland, while a significantnumber of projects relating to site remediation and decontam-ination are under way, especially in Slovakia and the CzechRepublic. In Hungary, the government intends to establish anationwide waste collection and recycling system. In Slovakia,the government puts high emphasis on construction of region-al incineration plants for hospital waste, and remediation andrevitalization of old landfills.

Other AreasA significant number of projects relating to site remedia-

tion and decontamination are under way. The area is a strongpriority in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, mainly because ofliability issues prominent in the privatization process. Withtime, the area is expected to grow in importance in Hungaryand Poland.

Revitalization of damaged soils and landscape is a priority,especially in heavily industrialized areas. Intensive reforestationprograms, particularly in watershed areas and on land unsuit-able for agricultural use, are underway in Poland and Slovakia.

Comprehensive environmental programs have to be devel-oped for some of the most contaminated or threatened areasin the CEE countries. North Bohemia in the Czech Republic,Dunaujvaros and Varpalota in Hungary, Silesia in Poland, andthe Kosice region in Slovakia are examples of areas stronglypolluted as a result of heavy industrialization.

Noise and vibration affecting the general public does notseem to be a major area of interest in most countries, and wasnot perceived a significant project opportunity area. Generally,the required measures are costly, and there are other morepressing environmental priorities for cash-strapped investors.Noise-related problems play a significant role only on a localscale, for instance in the vicinity of major highways, and indus-trial plants with high noise levels. The latter, however, is a par-ticularly significant issue in Poland, where legislation sets strictstandards for acceptable noise levels.

Occupational health and workplace safety (OHS) does notseem to be a major priority area at present, although it is likelythat with the introduction of stricter OHS regulations comparablewith those in the EU, and with the increased direct liability of



employers for workers’ safety, demand will grow. Also, require-ments related to risk management stipulated in the ISO certifica-tion process are likely to influence the situation in this field.

Future DevelopmentsAir pollution control will continue to be a major priority

area, although there is expected to be a gradual shift of focustowards small and medium-sized air pollution sources. Air pol-lution from traffic will grow in importance, and, in general,environmental impacts of the transport sector are expected tobe more vigorously addressed.

Water management, and particularly wastewater treat-ment, are likely to remain priority areas in the near future.Pollution of potable water sources from agriculture, and fromcontaminated sites is a likely target area in the future.

Currently, end-of-pipe technologies are mostly used toaddress major environmental problems, but the significanceof preventive solutions is expected to increase with time. Inthe long term, waste minimization and pollution preventionshould become the prevailing approach. Increasing environ-mental fees, better enforcement of regulations, and growingcosts of waste disposal are major driving factors. Price liberal-ization is also expected to stimulate demand for energy effi-ciency measures, resource recovery, and water reuse projects.

The construction of modern landfills is an expected long-term opportunity area. Accumulated hazardous waste thatneeds treatment and removal, and waste disposal sites thatneed remediation are likely to remain a significant priority.

1.3 Information Channels forBusiness Opportunities

One of the most critical factors behind successfully enteringthe environmental technology market in Eastern Europe istimely access to information for project opportunities. The find-ings of the survey indicate, however, that there are no effectiveformal channels for information about opportunities.Interviewed experts were not aware of any central body ororganization collecting information on environmental businessopportunities. Personal and professional contacts, participationin environmental fairs, and business and environmental publi-cations are among the primary sources of information used.

Governmental organizations, R&D institutes, and profes-sional associations, etc. generally do not seem to be regarded

a useful source. There are no institutions or clearinghousescollecting information about environmental business opportu-nities. It was often noted that ministries of environment shouldplay a more important role in providing information on projectopportunities than they do at present. The majority of busi-nesses expressed disappointment with the inefficiency andchanging structure of ministries.

Additional sources included sporadic assistance from gov-ernmental agencies and local authorities, annual environmen-tal reports prepared by regional administrations, a “black list”of companies declared particularly damaging to the environ-ment, and the media.

For comparison, Table 1.4 presents the breakdown ofmajor information sources for business opportunities, basedon a 1995 survey of about 150 environmental businesses ineach of the surveyed countries, carried out by the RegionalEnvironmental Center. Personal and professional contacts areby far the major information channel, followed by participa-tion in trade shows, fairs, and conferences. Daily press, andbusiness and environmental publications were also frequentlyindicated as a useful source.

Major PublicationsBased on the above survey, the main environmental and

business publications read by environmental professionalsinclude those listed in Table 1.5.

Information about Available EnvironmentalTechnologies

Purchasing environmental technologies does not pose anysignificant problem because of the wide range of productsavailable 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 buyingenvironmental technologies include personal and profession-al relations, which are especially important where previouscontacts with a supplier have been established. Another sig-nificant source was participation in fairs and exhibitions,brochures and leaflets distributed at trade shows, and cata-logues and directories purchased during shows, fairs and con-ferences. Additionally, representatives of domestic and foreigncompanies often visit potential clients in person, or contactthem by mail, offering products and services.

Industry associations, and information from the foreignowner or a parent company appear another, albeit less com-mon, way to obtain information prior to purchasing environ-



Source of Information Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia Slovenia Average

Personal contacts 96% 91% 98% 94% 96% 95%

Professional contacts 64% 92% 85% 88% n.a. 82%

Trade shows and fairs 72% 53% 91% 73% 61% 70%

Daily newspapers 61% 62% 84% 76% 61% 69%

Conference attendance 58% 69% 81% 69% 57% 67%

Business publications 59% 59% 77% 69% 36% 60%

Environmental publications 55% 66% 83% 51% 49% 61%

Mailing lists 68% 34% 65% 70% 57% 59%

Professional associations 32% 84% 53% 49% 36% 51%

Environmental ministry 34% 42% 31% 51% 70% 46%

Local and regional governments 6% 14% 59% 47% 54% 36%

Chambers of commerce 11% 32% 24% 34% 43% 29%

Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995 and 1997

TABLE 1.4: MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

mental technologies. Some companies create their own rudi-mentary information databases.

Finally, information provided in different specialized jour-nals, or information obtained at fairs in other countries weresometimes used.

Major Trade FairsEnvironmental fairs play an important role as a source of

information. Table 1.6 presents those major environment-relat-ed trade events held regularly. There is a general trend amongenvironmental firms to reduce the number of exhibitions theyparticipate in, and only to take part in the larger ones, whichattract more visitors. In the future, the number of fairs, shows,and conferences is expected to decrease.

For a potential participant, it is advisable to carefullyreview planned events with an experienced local advisor, and,having considered the costs and benefits of taking part, tofocus on those events which offer the best return on therequired effort and resources.

Public Procurement Regulations and TenderingEach country has recently enacted public procurement leg-

islation that requires the formal announcement of tenders forall planned acquisitions involving the use of public money. Atender announcement, including project specifications, selec-tion criteria, and deadlines, must be published in an officialpublic procurement bulletin. Table 1.7 lists these sources.

The above sources of information will play an increasing-ly important role for news on upcoming projects. However, atthis point, most experts were skeptical as to their usefulness asan information source. In practice, under the current rules,deadlines can be set too early after tender announcement,forcing potential bidders to abandon responses unless theyhave advance knowledge of the project. Many opportunitiesare missed because they are belatedly announced or not at all.

Access to Public Information and the Right-to-KnowIt is crucial for foreign companies entering the environ-

mental technology market in Central and Eastern Europe to beaware of some specific factors restricting the flow of informa-tion. As discussed above, there is not an effective system inplace in any of the countries to ensure wide and publicly avail-able access to information. In fact, the very concept of “publicinformation” is practically unknown.

In general, the following key factors result in poor infor-mation flow:

Scarcity of quality information — often, environmentaldata from the past is not available as it was not trackedproperly, or may have even been a state secret;

Poor channels for dissemination — in general, officialchannels for information dissemination either do not existor do not function effectively;

Lack of a “traditional” information market. Client-basedservices have yet to develop, while existing state-run ser-vices are ineffective;



Country Name of Fair Approximate Date

Czech Envirbrno, Brno October/NovemberRepublic International September

Engineering Fair, Brno

Hungary Budapest International Fair SeptemberKommunal Expo, Budapest June

Poland Poleko, Poznan NovemberWod-Kan, Bydgoszcz April/MayInternational Poznan JuneFair, Poznan

Slovakia Komunal, Zilina AprilAqua, Trencin JuneRacioenergia, Bratislava May

Slovenia EKO sejem, Celje March (biannual)Tehnika za October (biannual)Okolje, Ljubljana

Note: All events held annually unless otherwise specified

TABLE 1.6: MAJOR ENVIRONMENT-RELATEDTRADE EVENTS

Year ProcurementCountry Law Adopted Official Tender Bulletin

Czech 1996 Obchodni VestnikRepublic (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)

TABLE 1.7: PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BULLETINS

Czech Hospodarsky Noviny (69%)Republic Ekonom (32%)

Odpady (22%)EKO Journal (16%)Profit (15%)

Hungary HVG (35%)Kornyezetvedelmi Fuzetek (34%)Napi Vilaggazdasag (28%)Cegvezetes (15%)Kornyezet es Fejlodes (13%)

Poland Gaz, Woda, and Technika Sanitarna, (43%)Ochrona Srodowiska (23%)Aura (20%)Ekopartner (18%)Ochrona Powietrza (13%)

Slovakia Hospodarsky Noviny (50%)Trend (38%)Ekonomicky a Prany Poradca (36%)Profit (19%)Odpady (14%)

Slovenia Gospodarski Vestnik (36%)Uradni List RS (19%)Okolje (16%)Gospodarjenje z Odpadki (13%)Manager (9%)

Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995 and 1997

TABLE 1.5: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ORBUSINESS PUBLICATIONS AND READERSHIP (%)

Organizational structures of state institutions are changingfrequently, and it is difficult to keep track of current address-es, phones, or even responsibilities of state organizations;

Poorly paid officials often treat information as a com-modity, offering to make data available at a fee, particu-larly to commercial clients (despite freedom of informa-tion legislation);

Strong legacy of the chain of command system, whereno information is released without a formal approvalfrom a superior;

“Liberal approach” to deadlines and commitments;

In some cases, information flow is hampered by poor tele-phone communications and language skills.

Reaching CEE Environmental ProfessionalsGiven the crucial role of personal contacts for a successful

presence on the environmental technology market in the sur-veyed countries, the following facts concerning environmentalprofessionals in CEE need to be underlined:

only half belong to any professional association;

even major associations do not have a membership bodylarger than about a fifth of the active professionals;

only one in four would refer to a business chamber;

no single environmental publication reaches the majorityof respondents;

a few business publications are widely read (more than 50percent of respondents);

two-thirds attend conferences to meet others in the field;

two-thirds participate in trade fairs and shows;

personal contacts are crucial.

Overall, for a foreign firm to compete effectively, it isalmost essential to enter the market through an experiencedlocal business partner. In most cases, the technical and envi-ronmental skills of local environmental professionals are welldeveloped, and many firms are increasingly professional intheir management and marketing approach.

1.4 Demand for EnvironmentalTechnologiesSUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

The demand for environmental technologies is closely dri-ven by current priorities in the environmental policy, and byapplicable regulations. Table 1.8 presents an overview of theidentified demand in the surveyed countries.

Overall, demand for environmental technologies was

moderate. Technologies related to waste management werehigh in demand in all countries except for the Czech Republic.Energy-related environmental technologies were high indemand in Hungary and Poland, while technologies for waterand wastewater treatment were high in demand in Poland andSlovakia. Demand for noise, vibration, and occupationalhealth and safety technologies was low to moderate.

Considering the priority assigned to air pollution control inenvironmental policy in all countries, it is surprising that onlymoderate demand was identified for technologies in this sec-tor. The moderate demand can be partly explained by the sig-nificance of the energy sector as a major pollutant (highdemand for energy-related technologies was identified inHungary and Poland), and partly by the fact that many majorair-quality related projects are already underway (in mostcases, new and stricter air-quality regulations are either inplace or are due in the next two years).

Similarly, a high number of ongoing wastewater projectsaccount for the generally moderate levels of demand in thewater and wastewater sectors. In other words, when interpret-ing the results of the demand for environmental technologies,one has to be aware of the fact that some important environ-mental problems have already been dealt with or are current-ly being addressed.

Table 1.9 presents an overview of sectors where highdemand was identified.

Environmental technologies related to industrial waste-water and hazardous waste featured prominently. Municipalwastewater related technologies were also in high demand. It



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

Noise, Vibration and OHS low moderate moderate low low

TABLE 1.8: SUMMARY OF DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

Czech Republic Air pollution control Municipal wastewater Hazardous waste

Hungary Industrial wastewater Hazardous waste Radioactive waste Energy OHS

Poland Municipal wastewater Industrial wastewater Hazardous waste Energy

Slovakia Municipal wastewater Industrial wastewater Hazardous waste

Slovenia Air and water monitoring Industrial wastewater Radioactive waste Hazardous waste

TABLE 1.9: OVERVIEW OF HIGH DEMAND SECTORS

is expected that within the next several years, the focus willremain on end-of-pipe environmental technologies. There willbe a growing demand, however, for pollution prevention andwaste minimization technologies.

The following sections provide an overview of the demandfor 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 thoserelated to ambient air. This seems to be a consequence ofnational environmental policies focusing on emissionsources, with the power generation sector and other largeindustrial emitters (e.g. the chemical industry) being themain target of regulations.

Technologies for air pollution control and flue gas purifi-cation ranked among the highest in most countries, followedby emission abatement and cleaner production. Demand forother technologies varied in individual countries.

Air pollution control is represented by scrubbers, filters,and by large, technologically sophisticated systems used toreduce emissions of solid particles, sulfur dioxide, carbonoxides etc. Currently, the market in the sector is largelybased on imports.

Co-generation and combustion conversion technologies thatreduce emissions (e.g. conversion to gas and oil fuel for smalland medium boilers, or fluidized bed for large coal-fired units)are also in demand. Instrumentation and process control/soft-ware were in high demand in Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland.

Technologies for cleaner production are less sought at pre-sent, partly because of the existing focus on end-of-pipe mea-sures in industry, and partly because of current regulations ori-ented to treatment rather than prevention. Demand for cleanerproduction technologies should grow, however, since manycountries are enacting legislation promoting preventive solutionsand are introducing preferential financing, tax incentives, etc.

Air sampling and laboratory analysis technologies werenoted in several countries as well. While such technologieswere primarily required by industry for assessing gaseousemissions, government sector and local authorities indicated agrowing need for technologies for the monitoring and analysis

of ambient air. The demand for the latter category was high inthe Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia.

WATER AND WASTEWATER Table 1.11 presents water and wastewater-related tech-

nologies high in demand, and technologies where demand isexpected to rise.

Protection of water resources, and improving the quality ofdrinking water are the major objectives in most countries’national environmental policies. The primary goals are to:increase the percentage of the population connected tosewage disposal facilities, increase the proportion of waste-water treated in biological processes, and to provide treatmentof wastewater from industrial sources.

In general, demand in the water and wastewater sectorwas highest for technologies related to industrial and munici-pal wastewater treatment, followed by technologies for drink-ing water supply.

Demand for water recycling and reuse, and pollution pre-vention equipment was ranked high by many respondents.The demand is expected to grow in the future, driven by tight-ening regulations, increases in fees for wastewater discharge,and growing prices for drinking water supply.

As regards wastewater treatment technologies, it should bestressed that conventional treatment systems are generallyreadily available on local markets, largely based on domestictechnologies. Therefore, advanced wastewater treatment tech-nologies (tertiary treatment, specialized industrial wastewatertreatment, etc.) were often ranked high by industrial users.Many industrial users also indicated their need in the category“instrumentation/process control/software” for industrialwastewater management.

It is worth noting that technologies for the treatment anddisposal of sludge also ranked high in several countries (e.g.Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland). Sludge dewatering equip-ment and comprehensive technologies for sludge treatmentand disposal were most needed.

Some experts also mentioned the need for upgradingexisting treatment plants, e.g. by adding a biological stage.Technologies for the construction of wastewater collectionsystems were also mentioned, especially in the context ofnational programs focusing on smaller towns and rural areas.

As regards potable water, there was a demonstrated need



Country Technologies in demand

Czech Republic Technologies in high demand: #1 air pollution control/flue gas purification equipmentTechnologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseousemissions)

Hungary Technologies in high demand: #1 instrumentation and process control/software Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emis-sions); #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 purificationequipment; #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 (gaseousemissions); #3 air sampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions and ambient air); #4 air pollution con-trol/flue gas purification equipment

Slovenia Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 air sampling and laboratory analysis (ambient airand gaseous emissions); #2 emission abatement and cleaner production (gaseous emissions); and #3 airpollution control and flue gas purification equipment (gaseous emissions).

TABLE 1.10: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND – AIR

for technologies used in the reconditioning and rehabilitationof existing water supply networks, particularly in Slovakiaand Hungary.

Demand was also notable for technologies used for theprotection and decontamination of surface and groundwaterwater resources (e.g. spill clean-up, quality restoration).

Finally, monitoring, sampling and laboratory analysisequipment was indicated as a growing demand area by sever-al interviewees, most notably in Slovenia.

The individual country chapters provide a more detailedpicture of the demand in individual categories.

WASTE MANAGEMENTTable 1.12 presents waste-related technologies identi-

fied as high in demand, and technologies where demand isexpected to rise.

Overall, among waste-related technologies, those for haz-ardous waste and radioactive waste management were high indemand, followed by technologies for industrial and munici-pal waste management.

Since waste incineration is quite marginal, high demandwas indicated for technologies used for landfill disposal, bothfor municipal and hazardous waste. However, most landfills inthe surveyed countries are reaching capacity, and there areproblems with establishing new waste disposal sites. This islargely due to public opposition and funding shortages.

Aside from capacity problems, the cost of waste disposal isalso rising sharply. Therefore, demand for pollution preventionand waste minimization technologies, and recycling/resourcerecovery technologies for industrial and hazardous waste wasestimated as high and is expected to grow. The focus of gov-ernmental policies, and available support from state environ-mental funds are expected to reinforce this trend.

Site remediation technologies, and decontamination andclean-up equipment were in high demand in some countries(Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic), partly because of a policywhich focuses on the protection of water resources, and partlybecause of the issue of environmental liabilities in state privati-zation programs. Also, site monitoring technologies were indi-cated as a growing demand area, particularly for landfill sites.

Interestingly, waste-to-energy facilities were not in highdemand. Public response to waste incineration is negativeand, in general, governments seem to move away from thisdisposal method. For municipal waste, there was also interestin some countries in composting/biomass conversion tech-nologies and recycling (Poland, Hungary).

Disposal and waste minimization technologies for radioac-tive waste, along with technologies for monitoring, wastecharacterization and site clean-up for radioactive waste wereidentified as high demand areas in most countries. It is worthnoting, however, that despite the high profile and politicalcontroversies, in terms of volume, radioactive waste disposalis not a major market sector in waste management.



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 dispos-al (municipal wastewater). Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #4 quality restoration and decontamination (sur-face and ground water); #5 sludge treatment and disposal (industrial wastewater); #6 construction ofmunicipal wastewater collection networks; #7 monitoring, sampling and analysis of drinking water; #8water 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-municipaland industrial wastewater; #3 water recycling and reuse (potable – drinking – water and industrial waste-water); #4 spill control and containment/clean-up (surface and groundwater); #5 instrumentation, processcontrol, 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 waste-water); #2 pollution prevention/waste minimization (municipal and industrial wastewater); #3 monitor-ing (municipal and industrial wastewater); #4 advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (municipal andindustrial wastewater); #5 instrumentation/process control/software (municipal and industrial waste-water); #6 clean-up, quality restoration, and decontamination (surface and groundwater).Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #7 water recycling and reuse (municipal andindustrial wastewater); #8 advanced (tertiary) drinking water treatment; #9 spill control and containment(municipal and industrial wastewater); #10 standard wastewater treatment processes (municipal andindustrial wastewater); #11 inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply networks

Slovakia Technologies in high demand: #1 inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply and municipalwastewater collection networks; #2 monitoring (industrial wastewater); #3 clean-up, decontamination, andquality restoration (surface and groundwater); #4 construction of municipal and industrial wastewater col-lection networks; Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #5 standard wastewater treatment processes for waterand wastewater; #6 instrumentation, process control, and software (industrial wastewater); #7 sampling/lab-oratory analysis; #8 construction of water supply networks; #9 sludge treatment and disposal (municipal andindustrial 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 pollutionprevention/waste minimization (industrial wastewater, and potable water).

TABLE 1.11: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND – WATER AND WASTEWATER




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 (otherindustrial 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 andefficient 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 retro-fitting/rehabilitation of existing systems; #3 heat recovery and energy savings; #4 process managementand 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 andcontrol; #5 retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems.

Slovenia Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 alternative refrigerants (non-cfc) (energy andpower generation); #2 heat recovery and energy savings (energy and power generation); #3 new andefficient energy and heat generation systems;, and #4 retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems.

TABLE 1.13: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND – ENERGY


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 (municipaland industrial waste); #4 incineration and landfill disposal (industrial waste); #5 pollution preven-tion/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 collec-tion/transportation and storage (hazardous waste); #6 hazardous waste site monitoring; #7 spillage con-trol/decontamination (hazardous waste)

Poland Technologies in high demand: #1 pollution prevention/waste minimization (all waste categories); #2composting/biomass conversion (municipal solid waste); #3 recycling/resource recovery (all waste cat-egories); #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 municipalwaste collection, transportation, and storage; #8 site remediation/clean-up (hazardous and industrialwaste); #10 landfill disposal of municipal waste.

Slovakia 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/transportationand storage (all waste categories); #4 recycling and resource recovery (hazardous waste); #5 pollutionprevention/waste minimization (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #6 site monitoring (hazardouswaste and radioactive waste); #7 sample analysis/waste characterization (radioactive waste); #8 haz-ardous 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 municipalwaste); #11 sample analysis/waste characterization (industrial and municipal waste); #12 industrial wastesite monitoring, remediation, and clean-up.

Slovenia Technologies in high demand: #1 landfill waste disposal, and pollution prevention/waste minimiza-tion - (radioactive waste); #2 recycling/resource recovery (industrial waste); #3 landfill disposal (haz-ardous 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 (haz-ardous and industrial waste); #7 spillage control and decontamination (radioactive waste); #8 waste col-lection/transportation and storage of (municipal waste); and #9 composting and biomass conversion(municipal waste).

TABLE 1.12: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND – WASTE MANAGEMENT

ENERGYTable 1.13 presents energy-related technologies identified

as high in demand, and technologies where demand is expect-ed to rise.

Similar to the air pollution sector, demand in the energysector is driven by national environmental policies focusing onreducing emissions from the power generation sector andfrom other large industrial emission sources.

By far the most frequently mentioned areas where highdemand was indicated were technologies for retrofitting andrehabilitation of existing systems, and new and/or efficientenergy and heat generation systems. The trend was similarboth in the power generation sector and in other branches ofindustry. Fuel conversion from coal to alternative sources (e.g.natural gas), introduction of modern furnaces (fluidized bedboiler), as well as the installation of low-emission equipmentto reduce SO2, NOx, and particulate emission were often notedin this context.

Another significant high-demand field was process man-agement and control (e.g. boiler tuning, fuel efficiency opti-mization), where demand was driven by the increasing costsof resources and energy, and by efforts to reduce emissions.The growing cost of energy is also a factor likely to influencethe demand for heat recovery and energy savings technolo-gies, which, surprisingly, did not emerge as a significanthigh-demand area. Only insulation technologies were oftennoted in this category.

Finally, in some countries (the Czech Republic, Slovakia,Slovenia) there was demand for alternative (non-CFC) refrig-erants for use in various industrial sectors. Interestingly, theuse of alternative sources of energy was generally seen as amarginal issue.

NOISE, VIBRATION, AND OHSDemand in this sector was low to moderate. Table 1.14

presents those noise, vibration, and OHS-related technologieswhere demand is expected to rise.

Clearly, little attention is given to the sector at present. Onlyin Hungary, two technology categories related to occupationalhealth and safety were found to be in significant demand.

Some prospects identified in the OHS sector included pro-tection equipment, and abatement technologies. Both sectorsrecorded a degree of interest in instrumentation, measuring,and control devices. The construction industry, and the trans-port sector were sometimes mentioned as potential clients dri-ving demand, but this has still to materialize.

Some comments indicated that demand in the OHS cate-gory may grow, driven by greater attention being accorded toworker’s exposure and risk assessment procedures at industri-al facilities as ISO 14000/EMAS procedures are graduallyimplemented throughout the region.

1.5 Major End-users of EnvironmentalTechnologies

The rationale for the question concerning the major end-users of environmental technologies was to give an indicationof who the major potential buyers of environmental technolo-gies are. However, there was a clear tendency among therespondents not to point to the more lucrative sectors. Evenwithin their own field of expertise, many respondents wereeither uncertain about the major end-users of environmentaltechnologies, or were not willing to reveal the major customers.As a result, there were frequent references to very general andnon-descriptive categories, such as “production” or “industry.”

The major end-user of environmental technologies as indi-cated by the survey are municipalities, the energy and powergeneration sector, and the chemical industry. The energy andpower generation sector, and the chemical industry are themajor end-users of air pollution prevention technology. In the“Water and Wastewater,” “Waste Management,” and “Energy”sectors, municipal services, including municipal power genera-tion, were indicated as major end-users of environmental tech-nologies. In the sectors of “Water and Wastewater,” and “WasteManagement,” municipal services were followed by variousindustries, such as mining, chemical, paper, wood, and foodprocessing. As might be expected, the transport sector is themajor end-user of air and noise and vibration pollution pre-vention technologies. Industry in general is also an importantuser of environmental technologies related to energy.

Worth noting here is the trend for municipalities to be themajor end-user of environmental technologies. This is largelybecause of the decrease in industrial production in most



Country Major End-user Groups

Czech Republic Power plants and heat generating sta-tions; Industrial companies

Hungary Energy sector; Power plants; Chemicalindustry; Transport; Waste incinera-tors; Metallurgy

Poland Energy and power generation sector;Chemical industry; Various types ofmanufacturing; Transport

Slovakia Energy sector; Chemical industry;Transport

Slovenia Municipal power generation;Transport; Chemical and Paper industry

TABLE 1.15: MAJOR END-USERS OFENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – AIR


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);

TABLE 1.14: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – NOISE, VIBRATION AND OHS

countries since the late 1980s, when several factories (other-wise the most likely user of environmental technologies)ceased production because of financial problems. In addition,some major environmental problems arising from industryhave already been addressed. Therefore, the focus is shiftingnow on pollution from the municipal sector, which wasneglected in the past.

The rankings presented in Tables 1.15 to 1.19 give an indi-cation of the major end-user groups in specific areas of envi-ronmental technology in individual countries.

Air The major end-users of environmental technologies in air

pollution prevention are operators of power plants and heat-ing stations. Most power plants are owned by the state,through a majority share, while local heating stations have var-ious forms of ownership — some are owned by former stateenterprises that have become joint-stock companies. Otherheating stations are private, or are owned by municipalities.The significance of the power and energy sector as clients isbound to increase in the next few years, as more stringent reg-ulations on air pollution from stationary sources are intro-duced and enforced.

Other significant end-users of air pollution control equip-ment included the chemical industry and transport, followedby 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 arenot affected by regulations.

Water and Wastewater Municipalities (or operators of municipal systems) are the

major end-users of both water and wastewater treatment sys-tems. Considering the neglects of the past, this situation is

expected to last well beyond the year 2000. With time, indi-vidual housing units, especially in more remote areas, maybecome a frequent buyer of compact wastewater treatmentunits, as prices for the removal of sewage increase.

Other important customers for wastewater treatment tech-nologies are the chemical industry, manufacturing, the foodprocessing industry and mining. The mining sector is still deal-ing with the unresolved problem of saline water disposal, andtreatment of wastewater from raw ore cleaning.

The above groups are followed less frequently by otherindustrial groups and agriculture. Notably, the issue of non-point sources of water pollution is still uncharted territory inmost countries, and can be expected to increase in the future.

Waste ManagementMunicipalities and municipal service providers are the major

end-users of waste disposal technologies such as waste collec-tion, landfilling, or incineration. The most frequent end-users oftechnologies for hazardous waste disposal (incineration, land-filling, re-use technologies) are the chemical industry, machin-ery, engineering, pulp and paper industries, and others.

Other significant categories of end-users are the energyand mining sectors, including processors of raw materials.There is still an unresolved problem of the disposal of massiveamounts of phosphogypsum, slag and ash from energy gener-ation, and pit excavation materials.

The mining and energy sectors are among significant end-users of technologies for site remediation and soil reclamationwork. The state (e.g. privatization agencies) was also a fre-quent customer of remediation technologies.

EnergyAs can be expected, the major end-user of energy-related

environmental technologies is the power and energy genera-tion sector. Retrofitting of existing systems, along withprocess management and control were the major areas ofinterest within this field.

Energy saving technologies, or alternative energy sourcesare not currently in great demand, but may experience a boom




Czech Republic Power plants, Heat generating sta-tions; Municipalities; Municipal ser-vices; other industrial companies.

Hungary Energy sector (production and ser-vice), Raw material processing indus-try (steel, aluminum); Chemical indus-try; Municipalities

Poland Energy and power generation sector;Chemical industry; Municipalities/municipal services; Mining; Transport

Slovakia Energy sector; Chemical industry;Mining and processing of mineralresources.

Slovenia Municipal power generation; otherindustrial sectors

Note: The difference between “municipalities” and “municipal services”:“Municipalities“ are town administrations who order and purchase vari-ous technologies and services. On the other hand, “municipal services”are companies that are either controlled by municipalities, or are con-tracted to a private company provide town administrations with specificservices (eg. water supply, waste collection).

TABLE 1.18: MAJOR END-USERS OFENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – ENERGY


Czech Republic Municipalities; Municipal sewage treat-ment and drinking water suppliers;Remediation companies; Hospitals;Food processing.

Hungary Municipal water and wastewater ser-vice companies; Chemical industry;Energy sector; Mining; Food industry;Pharmaceutical industry; Textile indus-try, Agriculture (diluted manure)

Poland Municipalities/municipal services;Chemical industry; Various types ofmanufacturing; Energy and powergeneration sector; Mining

Slovakia Municipalities; Chemical industry;Manufacturing in general.

Slovenia Municipal services; Chemical industry,Agriculture; Food industry; Heavyindustry; Mining

Note: “Municipalities” are town administrations who order and pur-chase various technologies and services while “municipal services” arecompanies that are either controlled by municipalities or are contractedto provide town administrations with specific services (e.g. water sup-ply, waste collection).

TABLE 1.16: MAJOR END-USERS OFENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES –

WATER AND WASTEWATER

within the next few years. At present, energy producing com-panies are not pressed to undertake any energy-saving mea-sures, since they are paid for energy produced, not that saved.Alternative energy sources may become of interest to munici-palities and private individuals if they become more afford-able, and the price of energy rises as expected.

Other industrial branches (e.g. chemical) may also becomemore significant end-users for heat recovery and energy sav-ings technologies, as prices of energy go up and industrialactivity increases.

Noise, Vibration and OHSTechnologies reducing noise and vibration generally were

not in great demand, and specifying major end-users was mostdifficult for all categories. Noise protection technologies forindoor workplaces are important to the chemical, metallurgic,mining, and heavy machinery industries. Outside noise pollutionwas a burden in some municipalities, and in transport. The con-struction industry may be one of the best clients. Technologies

reducing vibrations are of interest to heavy industries.There was no single dominant end-user for occupational

health and safety equipment.

1.6 Advantages and Disadvantages ofForeign Suppliers

This chapter of the survey was intended to determine pur-chasing preferences prevalent on the domestic markets, toidentify 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 wide-ly interpreted to mean “Western technologies.” Technologiesfrom other CEE countries (not surveyed here) are generally notconsidered very competitive — they usually fall in a similarprice range, and have quality comparable to that of domesticproducts. Hence, local technologies are preferred.

PURCHASING PREFERENCESThe country of origin (domestic vs. foreign) of a particular

environmental technology clearly is not the key factor behindpurchasing decisions made among CEE buyers. Most experts(about two-thirds) only rely on the use of best-technology orbest-practice criteria when making purchasing decisions.Among some participants (between 10 and 20 percent), a pref-erence for domestic products prevails.

There was a slight preference (60-70 percent) for buyingforeign-manufactured environmental technology from domes-tic representatives compared with buying directly from theproducer abroad. An important factor behind the purchasefrom an in-country dealer was the availability of after-sales ser-vice. Customers buying directly from abroad generally tendedto be either foreign-owned companies, or clients requiringvery specialized and customized solutions.

Product quality and reliability, warranty conditions, goodvalue for money, lowest possible cost outlay in achieving therequired standards, previous experience with a supplier, andreferences, are determining factors in purchasing choices.Additionally, in all countires except Slovenia preferential cred-it or financing from the supplier significantly increased thechances 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 ofmoney, most environmental technology end-users (municipal-ities, business) select the cheapest technology available on themarket that enables them to meet the required standards. Bothmunicipalities, as well as businesses must meet environmentalstandards (and corresponding deadlines) set by environmentalenforcement bodies. At the same time, they are coping withpressing economic issues which are usually perceived as moreimportant. Thus, they try to find the cheapest environmentaltechnology providing a minimum level of compliance.

From this point of view, local manufacturers of environ-mental technologies enjoy the unparalleled advantages ofcheaper products, lower installation costs, and availability oflocal technical service. It is important to also note that in manycountries of the region, public tendering provisions give prefer-ence to domestic technologies if they are of similar quality andtechnological efficiency compared to the foreign competitors.

STRENGTHS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES

When asked to comment on the advantages of foreignenvironmental technologies compared to domestic products,by far the highest proportion of respondents indicated the




Czech Republic Large industrial companies;Construction companies

Hungary Transportation, Manufacturing indus-try, industrial sites in residential areas,Energy sector, Textile industry,Airports

Poland Manufacturing; Heavy industry;Mining; Transport; Energy and powergeneration sector; Chemical industry

Slovakia Manufacturing in general;Construction; Chemical industry

Slovenia Transport; Industry; Mining

TABLE 1.19: MAJOR END-USERS OFENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES – NOISE,

VIBRATION AND OHS


Czech Republic Municipal services; Municipalities;Mining; Public cleansing services;Landfill operators and waste process-ing companies; Transportation

Hungary Municipal public utility companies;Mining; Energy sector; other industries(construction, textile, paper, food); alu-minum industry (red mud); Agriculture

Poland Municipalities/municipal services;Chemical industry; Energy and powergeneration sector; Manufacturing;Mining

Slovakia Chemical industry; Municipalities,Mining; Energy sector.

Slovenia Municipal waste management service;Chemical industry, Wood processing,Heavy industries; Mining

TABLE 1.17: MAJOR END-USERS OFENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES –

WASTE MANAGEMENT

high quality (50-80 percent), and the reliability and durabilityof products (50-70 percent). Somewhat puzzling is the fact thatonly between 15 percent and 30 percent of the interviewedparties indicated “good value for money” as a strength of for-eign products (except for Slovenia, where this figure was high-er). This is most likely an indication that price levels can be sohigh that the technological advantage of foreign products incomparison with domestic products is negated by the majorincrease in price.

Other, albeit less significant advantages, included “user-friendly technology” (30-50 percent), and “easy to customizeand adapt for specific local needs” (30- 50 percent). Frequentlynoted in the latter category was the advantage of equipmentwhich could be used for a variety of purposes, e.g. measuringequipment, or waste transport trucks.

“Available credit/funding” was a significant factor among athird of the respondents. Interestingly, some experts mentionedthat, in practice, such financial support was often rather illusory,because no domestic financing institution would become a fund-ing partner, or, when they did, the preferential foreign fundingwas made as expensive as a regular commercial credit.1

“Good after-sales service” was rarely indicated as astrength of foreign environmental technologies (20-30 per-cent). As a matter of fact, several environmental companiescomplained about the superficial and careless approach of for-eign companies to after-sales service.

Not a single expert mentioned low price as an advantageof foreign technologies compared to domestic products.There were comments, however, that some foreign suppliershad the low price advantage compared to other foreign tech-nology providers.

Some experts also believed that verification of a foreigntechnology by several users in other countries made the tech-nology preferable to domestic products. An interesting com-ment was made regarding the advantage of foreign technolo-gies which can use locally produced spare parts or substances(e.g. filters, chemical substances for water and wastewatertreatment systems, lab chemicals). Such an approach reducescosts, delivery time and the service need.

Another strength of foreign producers was that they pro-vided specialized technologies that could not be manufacturedlocally due to the limited demand and size of the local market,e.g. equipment for the handling, transport, and storage ofnuclear waste.

Generally, local producers have the advantage of offeringcheaper technologies. However, the major shortcomings ofsuch local technologies were that they are not available in allcategories, and their warranty period tends to be shorter. Manyend-users solved this problem by importing only the crucial“hi-tech” components (e.g. pumps, aerators), with the bulk ofconstruction work and low-tech technologies based on domes-tically-produced equipment. This approach was frequentlyused in wastewater treatment and water supply projects.

BARRIERS TO BUYING FOREIGNENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

In general, survey respondents perceived foreign productsas expensive, and were concerned about the reliability of sup-pliers (too little information available), and about the access toprofessional technical services for products sold on thedomestic market. Other important barriers included the lack ofreliable product information, and poor suitability of productsto the local conditions and technical culture.

When asked to identify the greatest barriers to buying envi-

ronmental technology from abroad, between 70 percent and100 percent of interviewees stated that foreign technologies aretoo expensive. In some sectors (e.g. municipal water supply,and wastewater treatment systems), the price is seen as uncom-petitive in advance. On the other hand, many highly sophisti-cated foreign technologies (e.g. systems reducing air pollutionfrom power plants, incinerators, technologies for waste reuseor recycling, instrumentation) have found a market niche. Insome cases, the disadvantage of high price was offset by highproduct 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-controlledprices in the energy and water utilities sector do not really per-mit the repayment of effective, but expensive, foreign envi-ronmental technologies. However, as the prices do increasing-ly reflect actual production costs, and utilities become increas-ingly responsible for their own investments, this obstacle topurchasing will gradually diminish in the near future.

Between 30 and 40 percent of respondents were seriouslyconcerned about the access to technical services, and consideredthe lack of it a disadvantage to foreign technologies (note herethat 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 someforeign representatives. Clearly, the quality of customer service,and access to technical support will need improvement.

Two marketing-related problems were indicated as signif-icant barriers by respondents, namely: “too little informationabout suppliers” (15-45 percent of respondents), and “a lack ofreliable product information” (20-60 percent of respondents).

The remaining obstacles presented did not appear to bevery important. Between 20 and 30 percent of experts indicat-ed that products were not suited to the local conditions andtechnical culture, e.g. differing standards.

About a quarter of respondents (15-25 percent, except for40 percent in Slovakia) indicated “import restrictions/high cus-toms duties” were a barrier to buying foreign technologies. Insome countries the customs system was confusing, with differ-ent customs rates and border taxes being applied to similarproducts from different countries. It should be stressed, how-ever, that the problem is expected to be eliminated (at leastwith respect to EU products) by the year 2000.

“Changing environmental regulations” was identified as aproblem by some 15 percent of respondents. The system of taxand customs exemptions for environmental products is stillundergoing changes, and there are occasional problems withproduct certification. Changing environmental regulationshave been an obstacle in the past, but the transition is pro-ceeding rapidly, and regulatory change should pose littleproblem to technology purchases in the future. Import restric-tions and associated high customs duties and communicationproblems with foreign suppliers are also expected to becomeless important in the future.

“Communication problems with a foreign supplier” wasindicated by between 10 and 15 percent of respondents. Thespecific problems raised included long transfer of payments,and the language barrier.

In conclusion, the environmental technology market in thesurveyed countries is quite open to foreign suppliers. Themajority of purchases are based on the best-technology crite-ria, and the country of origin is not deemed a critical factor.Suppliers can expect market success if their products are ofhigh quality and reliability (including warranty conditions).

There clearly is room for improvement in marketing and cir-culating 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 interestpayments on commercial credit.

suppliers. This is directly related to opening an in-country rep-resentative office. An additional benefit from such an approachwould be overcoming concerns about the availability of techni-cal services, indicated as an important factor for buyers.

However, by far the major problem with buying foreignenvironmental technologies was their high cost. Therefore, for-eign suppliers should consider creating conditions that wouldoffset the disadvantage of the high price. It may be possible tooffer longer payment periods, better credit conditions, or even,in some cases, to enter “shared savings scheme” agreements.

1.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in theEnvironmental Technology Market

This section of the work had two objectives. First, it exam-ined in-country perceptions of foreign technologies dependingon the country of origin. Secondly, it surveyed major foreigncompanies active in the region, presenting the actual situation invarious market sectors.

PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES

The environmental technology industry in the surveyedcountries is clearly limited, and a common perception is thatmost high-quality products come from abroad.

Generally, companies from Austria, Germany, the U.S.and the Scandinavian countries are considered to be qualityproducers. Table 1.20 provides an overview, by media and bycountry, of which are the major “quality” foreign environ-mental technologies.

Austria and Germany enjoy good or excellent reputationsfor the quality of their products in almost all countries and tech-nology categories. The reputation of German technologies wasparticularly high in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia,

the traditional CEE markets for German suppliers. A very simi-lar situation existed with perceptions of Austrian technologies.

Waste management, and water and wastewater were thesectors where Austrian technologies scored well. Germanproducts were ranked near the top in practically all cate-gories. American technologies were also perceived well inmost categories.

Technologies from other countries enjoyed good reputa-tions only in certain sectors (e.g. Japan in air protection, Francein waste management, Holland in energy). Interestingly, tech-nologies from some countries enjoyed good reputationsdespite 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 tech-nologies was considerably below that of Western products.Nonetheless, some experienced local customers did not alwaysshare 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 willplay a larger role in the environmental technology market.

It is worth noting many respondents were either unwillingor unable to address the perception issue, either because of alimited knowledge of the foreign technologies available, orbecause they regard the country of origin as insignificant, withthe specific producer much more important. Many respon-dents favored particular countries, but had problems withnaming specific firms from that country. This indicates that thejudgment was based more on common wisdom than on per-sonal experience. The following section examined in moredetail those foreign firms active in the domestic market.

MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKETThis section was to determine the major foreign companies

active locally, rather than to elicit perceptions of environmen-tal technologies. In general, however, perceptions corre-




Air 1) Germany; 1) Germany; 1) Germany, 1) US, 1) Germany,2) Austria; 2) Austria; 2) Scandinavia, 2) Germany 2) US,3) US 3) Japan 3) US, Japan 3) Austria, Scandinavia 3) Japan

Water and 1) Germany, 1) Germany, 1) Japan, 1) Germany, 1) Holland,Wastewater 2) Austria, 2) Austria, 2) Austria, 2) US, 2) Germany,

3) UK 3) Holland, 3) US, Germany 3) France, Holland, 3) AustriaFrance, US Scandinavia

Waste 1) Austria, 1) Austria, 1) US, 1) Germany, US, 1) Germany, US,2) Denmark, 2) Germany, 2) Germany, 2) France, Scandinavia 2) France,3) Netherlands 3) France, US 3) Austria, 3) Japan 3) Holland

4) Scandinavia

Energy 1) Germany, 1) Germany, 1) Austria, 1) Scandinavia, 1) Scandinavia,2) Austria, 2) Holland, 2) Holland, 2) Germany, 2) Germany,3) US 3) US 3) Germany, US 3) US, Holland 3) Austria, Holland

Noise, Vibration n.a. 1) Denmark, n.a. 1) Scandinavia, 1) Denmark,and OHS Sweden, 2) Germany, 2) US,

2) Japan, 3) Austria, Japan, 3) Germany,3) US US, Holland Scandinavia

Note: The survey question appeared as follows: “rank how environmental professionals in your country perceive environmental technology from differentcountries, using the following scale: 5 = excellent reputation, 4 = good reputation, 3 = average reputation, 2 = poor reputation, 1 = very poor reputation,blank- no opinion”

TABLE 1.20: PERCEPTIONS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

sponded well with the actual market situation, i.e., those coun-tries whose technologies were perceived best, were also veryactive on the local environmental technology markets.

A significant number of Western environmental technolo-gy firms are active in the surveyed countries, through a per-manent local presence, or by direct sales of their equipment.The foreign presence is particularly strong in the waste man-agement sector, water supply, and wastewater treatment. Asmaller number of companies are active in the energy sectorand air protection.

One clear finding from the study was that no single com-pany dominates in any single country — individual foreignfirms usually hold a minimal share of the market. The presenceof technologies from specific countries varies substantiallyaccording to the media, and according to the region. Evenwithin a single environmental technology field, several com-panies serve the market, as demonstrated by the fact that mostinterviewed experts referred to several different companies asthe major suppliers.

Table 1.21 lists the major suppliers by country of origin,rather than by name (see the individual country chapters forspecific company listings). The table is based on the numberof foreign companies from a specific country active on thelocal market.

The environmental technology market in all the countriesis well penetrated by foreign suppliers, with firms from Austriaand Germany most active and best known across all majortechnology sectors. German and Austrian firms hold the leadin supplying environmental technologies in terms of bothquantity and quality.

Other major foreign competitors varied depending oncountry and sector. French and Danish companies had astrong local presence, while in Slovenia, Italian firms were alsoactive. French companies, along with American andScandinavian, were well represented in the water and waste-water sector. Scandinavian (primarily Swedish) and Americanfirms 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 incin-eration. Waste recycling is primarily dominated by Germanfirms. However, Italian companies had a notable presence onthe Slovenian market.

Wastewater systems are introduced by a large number offoreign firms including German, Austrian, French, Scandinavian,and a few American, British, and Dutch. Interestingly, in theCzech Republic and Slovakia, each other’s companies were

actively present and well known on the market.The energy and air pollution sectors are primarily occu-

pied by German firms, with Austrian firms following closebehind. American, Japanese, and Scandinavian (notablySwedish) firms were also active, although not nearly as muchas companies from the first two countries.

The foreign presence in the noise, vibration and OHS sec-tor is minimal. The leaders included Scandinavian companies(notably from Denmark) and German firms.

Most of the big companies’ headquarters are located in cap-ital cities or in other major centers. Joint-ventures and joint-stockcompanies are a common way for foreign suppliers to enter thelocal market. Some large foreign firms have established theirsubsidiaries as legal local entities, and are very active in thewaste disposal sector, including recycling. Interestingly, someforeign firms in this sector established joint-stock companieswith municipalities. The Danish firm Marius Pedersen, orAustrian A.S.A. in the Czech Republic serve as good examples.

Aside from the quality and the range of the technologicaloffer, two major factors seem to drive the current foreign pres-ence. One is geographic proximity — Germany and Austriaare best examples; the other is a long tradition of cooperation— e.g. French water supply systems in Poland. However, asno firm is considered dominant in any product line, there seemto be opportunities for any firm to provide quality products atcompetitive Western prices.

In conclusion, there are many foreign companies eitherwith a local presence in the surveyed countries, or who areentering the market through their products. The strengths offoreign companies (reliable and high quality technology), arediminished by the high price, and are sometimes further offsetby 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 whichlearn more about business practices in the region, and whichthink in the long-term, can find a solid basis for their futureactivities. ABB, Flygt, Danfoss, Grundfoss, or Marius Pedersenare cases in point.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOREIGN COMPANIESENTERING THE MARKET

Competition in the environmental technology market is highin all the surveyed countries. Foreign companies are most activein the water and wastewater, and waste management sectors,




Air Germany Germany Germany, Austria, n/a Germany, Switzerland US, Austria,

Switzerland

Water and Germany, Slovakia, Germany, Germany, France Germany, Czech Germany, Wastewater France Austria Austria, Sweden Republic, US France, Austria

Waste Germany, Austria, Austria, Germany, Austria, Germany Denmark Italy, Germany,Denmark US, France Austria, France Austria

Energy US, Sweden Germany, US, Scandinavia, Germany, US n.a.Austria, Sweden Austria, Germany

Noise, Vibration n/a Denmark, n/a Scandinavia, Denmarkand OHS Germany Germany

Note: Many respondents had difficulties naming specific companies, which indicates poor knowledge of the foreign technologies available.

TABLE 1.21: MAJOR FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS

followed by the energy and air protection sectors. The majorcompetitive advantages of domestic suppliers are significantlylower costs of labor, combined with a high standard of techni-cal knowledge, and better familiarity with the local marketwhere most of the information flow is based on establishedpersonal and professional contacts.

Based on the comments and observations presented in thepreceding sections, the following should be considered byexporting environmental technology firms looking to improvetheir share of the local market.

Increased Local PresenceTo better explore the market and take advantage of exist-

ing project opportunities, companies interested in exporting toCEE countires should increase their local presence in the coun-try. The following present some of the major reasons why:

competition from major foreign suppliers (especiallyAustria, Germany, and Scandinavia) is strong;

two-thirds of the potential buyers of foreign environmen-tal technologies prefer to buy from a local representative,and local buying is on the rise;

many buyers are concerned about the availability of after-sales technical service, and this issue is a significant factoraffecting purchasing decisions;

up to a half of respondents indicated that there was limit-ed information about foreign suppliers, which underlinesthe need for local presence and better product marketing;

access to information on environmental business opportu-nities is to a large degree based on personal contacts.

The most cost-effective method to enter the local market isthrough a joint-venture or other strategic partnership with anexperienced local company specialising in a similar product line.

Forming a joint-venture with a local partner would also pro-vide assistance in following the basic procedures of the pro-curement process and in overcoming the language barrier. Insome countries, it would also benefit the foreign companythrough the equal treatment of its price bid with that of purelydomestic competitors when tendering for project opportunities.

Another possibility might be for exporters of environmen-tal technologies to take part in projects supported by theirnative country or international institutions, which are general-ly able to cover the project costs at standard Western prices. Anumber of technology demonstration programs have beenimplemented recently under such arrangements.

Competitive Financing PackageHigh price was identified as the main barrier to purchasing

foreign environmental technologies in all countries. Between80 and 100 percent of respondents perceived foreign productsas too expensive. At the same time, a third of respondents indi-cated that the availability of preferential credit or other attrac-tive forms of financing can be a significant advantage of for-eign products. Many potential end-users of environmentaltechnologies have serious cash flow problems, and are look-ing for co-financing partners.

Therefore, it is important to prepare an attractive and com-petitive financing package to increase the overall competitive-ness of an offer. Possible options include low-interest creditlines, partial refinancing of foreign deliveries, etc. To this end,home country government assistance and export promotionprograms are of importance.

End-user IdentificationPublic procurement regulations require that calls for ten-

der be announced in advance for projects involving the use ofpublic funds. However, the tenders are very competitive, and

price bidding may greatly reduce the profit margin. Also, thetime available for bid submission is often too short for an over-seas exporter to calculate the offer thoroughly.

Therefore, an alternative to the already prepared andannounced public tenders may be the exporter’s own initiativein end-user identification, and effort in determining the end-user’s specific needs and requirements. This can be combinedwith an offer of technical assistance, assistance with a loanapplication, etc. With respect to the latter, cooperation betweenthe exporter and an experienced local partner (e.g. through ajoint-venture) is essential for domestic co-financing programs.

Growth SectorsIn each of the surveyed countries, certain priority areas

have been identified where environmental technologies are inhigh demand. Good examples include hazardous waste man-agement, industrial wastewater treatment, retrofitting of energysystems, etc. Major project opportunities are expected in waterand wastewater treatment, and in the energy generation sector.

Focusing on growth sectors where environmental tech-nologies are most needed should be a priority for potentialexporters, and some areas where technologies are in highdemand are identified in individual country chapters. In caseswhere more product-specific market research is required, theRegional Environmental Center can provide further assistance.

In conclusion, it is important to stress that, in many cases,environmental technologies which are competitive with otherWestern products in terms of price and quality can be suc-cessfully introduced on the local market, although these mar-kets are very competitive. The key factor for a successful saleof an environmental technology is an in-country representa-tive office, and a dependable technical service. Furtherimprovements in sales prospects can result from an attractivefinancing package, such as low-interest foreign credit lines,partial refinancing of foreign deliveries, etc.



2.1 Summary of FindingsIn 1995, spending on environmental protection in the

Czech Republic amounted to USD 1.185 million, or 2.6 per-cent of the country’s GDP. Two major priority areas includeair pollution control projects, accounting for more than a halfof environmental expenditures, and water management pro-jects, which account for more than a third of total environ-mental spending. The Czech State Environmental Fund is themost important source of state financing, while the role ofother state bodies is diminishing.

The market for pollution control equipment in the CzechRepublic is estimated at between USD 600 and 700 millionper 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 priorityarea, although there is expected to be a gradual shift in focustowards small and medium-sized air pollution sources. Watermanagement, and particularly wastewater treatment, are likelyto remain priority areas in the coming years. Municipalities, aswell as industrial wastewater producers must meet new waste-water discharge standards which will become stricter from Jan.1, 2005. A significant number of projects relating to site reme-diation are also under way.

Currently, air pollution control projects strongly focus onfuel conversion (switching from coal to natural gas) in localheating stations. Gas heating is gradually being introduced inindividual family houses, and, in some areas, in businesses aswell. The main project opportunities in the water managementsector are related to the construction of new, and moderniza-tion of existing water supply and wastewater treatment systemsthroughout the country. Contamination of groundwaterresources (especially by oil-based substances, organic solvents,and heavy metals) is a significant problem. Priority areas in theenergy sector include the conversion of most of the currentsmall and medium-sized heat generating stations from burning

coal to gas use; reconstruction of larger heating stations for usealso in electricity generation; and modernization and construc-tion of new smaller energy generating sources.

Future projects will include recycling, waste minimization,energy saving measures, use of alternative energy sources, andintroduction of environmental management systems (ISO14000 and EMAS).

Personal and professional contacts, participation in environ-mental fairs, and business and environmental publications areprimary sources of information for project opportunities and onthe availability of environmental technologies in the CzechRepublic. There are no effective formal information channels.The Czech Republic recently passed the Public ProcurementLaw (No. 229/1996), and the prescribed tender mechanism canbe a source of information for business opportunities.

In general, the demand for environmental technologieswas estimated to be between moderate and high.

C H A P T E R 2 : C Z E C H R E P U B L I C


Chapter 2: Czech Republic


Population (mln) 10.3 10.2 38.6 5.4 2.0

Area (sq.km) 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

Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (USD mln) 1,185.0 385.0 1,308.0 232.0 150.0

Environmental Expenditures in 1995 (% of GDP) 2.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8

Source: Business Central Europe, November 1997; 1996 Statistical Yearbooks of each surveyed country

TABLE 2.1: BASIC COUNTRY INFORMATION

C Z E C H R E P U B L I CBOHEMIA

Prague

Ostrava

H U N G A R Y

P O L A N D

S L O V A K I A

G E R M A N Y

A U S T R I A

MORAVIA

Brno

Plzen

0 50 100

kilometers

Technologies for water and wastewater treatment were rankedamong the most needed, followed by technologies for wastemanagement, air, and energy.

In the air sector, demand was found to be high for air pol-lution control/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters,scrubbers). Growing demand is expected for continuous-basismonitoring equipment for ambient air; and air sampling/labo-ratory analysis equipment for gaseous emissions.

Within the water and wastewater sector, high demand wasidentified for pollution prevention/waste minimization tech-nologies for municipal wastewater; equipment for spill controland containment/clean-up of surface and ground water; andtechnologies for sludge treatment and disposal of municipaland industrial wastewater. Technologies in increasing demandincluded: quality restoration and decontamination equipmentfor surface and ground water; construction of municipalwastewater collection networks; monitoring, sampling andanalytical equipment for drinking water; and technologies forwater 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 isexpected for site remediation and contaminated land clean-uptechnologies; waste collection/transportation and storageequipment for industrial and municipal waste; and technolo-gies for incineration and landfill disposal of industrial waste.

In the energy sector, increasing demand is expected fortechnologies that could be used for the retrofitting/rehabilita-tion of existing energy systems, followed by alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants.

Demand in the noise, vibration, and occupational healthand safety sector was found to be low.

Municipalities are the main end-users of environmentaltechnologies in all categories. The energy sector and thechemical industry are the other major end-users.

Due to the pervasive lack of money, most environmentaltechnology end-users select the cheapest technology thatenables them to meet the required standards. Foreign tech-nologies are generally viewed as more advanced, of betterquality, and more reliable than local products. Recognition ofbrand names is an important factor as well.

In discussing strengths of foreign environmental technolo-gies, 70 percent of respondents pointed out high product qual-ity, while 50-60 percent marked “reliable and durable prod-uct”, and “user-friendly technology”. 30-35 percent of respon-dents indicated “easy to customize and adapt for specific localneeds,” while 15-20 percent noted “good value for money.”“Available credit” and “good after-sales service” were rarelymentioned as strengths of foreign products. Several respon-dents even mentioned a superficial and careless approachfrom foreign companies to after-sales service.

High price was identified as the biggest disadvantage offoreign environmental technologies — practically all respon-dents regarded foreign environmental technologies as tooexpensive. “Ensuring authorized technical service and mainte-nance” was mentioned as a problem by 30-40 percent of theinterviewed parties. Between 20 and 30 percent of respon-dents illustrated other disadvantages of foreign technologies,such as the “lack of reliable product information,” and “prod-ucts not suitable for local conditions.”

German, Austrian, Dutch, and Scandinavian companiesare considered to be most active in the environmental tech-nology market in the Czech Republic, followed by American,Danish, French and British firms. Perceptions of foreign tech-nologies were good, with German, Austrian, Dutch andAmerican products evaluated particularly high.

The presence of foreign firms is most significant in thefield of waste management. Foreign firms are also active in

wastewater treatment, and to a smaller degree in air pollutioncontrol. However, the familiarity of Czech environmentalexperts with the available foreign environmental technolo-gies is rather limited.

2.2 MethodologySOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN THE SURVEY

The survey was primarily based on formal interviews with49 respondents (environmental technology producers, suppli-ers, environmental service providers, R&D institutes, universi-ties, government bodies, and municipalities) active in environ-mental protection. Additional sources included informationgathered from professional literature, informal contacts, andthe researcher’s five year experience in the field.

Sources of information are referenced throughout thetext, with numbers (e.g. /34/) referring to the list included atthe end of this chapter (starting under Section 2.8).

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTSThe 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, severalcompanies from rural areas, several subsidiaries of foreignfirms in the Czech Republic);

balance between technology producers, suppliers, andenvironmental service providers;

the major environmental technology R&D centers and uni-versities were interviewed;

a range of different perspectives on the subject (interviewswith 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 peoplechanged their opinions during interviews, or canceled follow-up appointments. Additional interviews were carried outinstead, with and without the use of questionnaires.

A complete list of interviewed experts and a list of otherinformation sources are included in Sections 2.8-2.10.

2.3 Overview of the MarketThe Czech Republic is a medium-sized Central European

country. It has a population of 10.3 million and an area of79,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles, or approxi-mately equivalent to the size of Maine).

Environmental policy is well developed in the CzechRepublic. The ambitious 1993 national environmental policywas one of most advanced and comprehensive in CentralEurope. However, some of the targets set under current legis-lation are too ambitious, and contain major inconsistencies. Asa result, much of the legislation is being revised. Also, a 20 per-cent decline in GDP in recent years has pushed the environ-ment lower on the political agenda.



Significant environmental damage was sustained in thepast, especially in the mining districts of northern Bohemiaand the industrial areas of northern Moravia. The construc-tion of a nuclear power plant at Temelin, and severe air pol-lution in industrial and urban areas are the most frequentlycited environmental problems. A major source of air pollu-tion is the energy and power generation sector, (currently, 60percent of energy generation is based on coal-fired plants).The treatment of wastewater, and water supply are also prob-lems that need to be addressed.

Policy coordination, refinement of legislation and betterenforcement, education and institutional strengthening, thedevelopment of clean technologies, and priority capital invest-ments for air and water quality are the likely focal points forfuture environmental actions.

TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ONENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY

Spending on environmental protection2 in the CzechRepublic has been stable over recent years, at between 2 and3 percent of GDP.

Two major environmental priorities include air pollutioncontrol projects, accounting for more than a half of environ-mental expenditures, and water management projects, whichaccount for more than a third of total environmental spending.Table 2.2 shows the breakdown of total spending on the envi-ronment for 1994 and 1995.

The large share of water and wastewater treatment and airpollution control in environmental expenditures during thelast several years is the result of two main factors:

New water protection regulations have forced municipalitiesto invest in water and wastewater treatment, and the sectorhas become the main recipient of municipal money investedin the environment. The trend is expected to continue in thenear future (see Chapter 2.5 for more details). The construc-tion of large wastewater treatment plants for cities takes sev-eral years to complete, and some of the largest projects wereinitiated before 1989, when the state began allocating moneyfor such projects through direct grants or via municipalities.Even though state support has significantly decreasedrecently, investments started several years ago still receivestate money necessary for project completion. Additionally,the construction of scores of new smaller wastewater treat-ment plants has been started recently.

Air pollution from large stationary sources is still consid-ered the most important cause of environmental damage,and money is continuously allocated for air protectionprojects in the energy and power generation sector.Between 50 and 60 percent of electricity generation in theCzech Republic is still based on burning coal or lignite.The installation of desulfurization units and other equip-ment in the largest coal-burning power plants is underway, and this accounts for a major portion of investmentsin air pollution control. The state company CEZ, whichstill owns and operates all of the largest power plants inthe Czech Republic, is planning to reduce solid particleemissions by a factor of ten by the year 2000 (comparedwith 1992 levels). Emissions of NOx are to be reduced byhalf, and for carbon monoxide, by a quarter. The estimat-ed cost of the program to the year 2000 stands at about126 billion crowns (USD 4.4 billion).

In 1994, environmental expenditures accounted for 2.73

percent of the GDP (USD 993 million), while in 1995, theyamounted to USD 1.185 billion, or 2.6 percent of the GDP.Note that the difference between the above total and the totalfigure in Table 2.2 is caused by differences in the data collec-tion method used by the Czech Statistics Board. /52, 72/

Table 2.3 shows how the major environmental invest-ments during 1994 (projects above 5 million crowns, orapproximately USD 175,000) were distributed and the sourcesof funding. Investors’ own funds covered about half theinvestments made, with state funding accounting for about athird of the total. The share of foreign financing was low, atabout 4 percent. Table 2.4 gives further detail on the break-down of environmental expenditures from the state budgetduring 1994. /52, 65/

Table 2.5 provides additional information on the marketfor pollution control equipment in the Czech Republic. Themarket is estimated at between 600 and 700 million USD peryear, with an annual growth rate of some 6 percent. Two-thirds of the market is based on domestic production, and one-third on imports.

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONState Environmental Fund

Currently, the bulk of state financial support for environ-mental protection is allocated to air pollution control and watermanagement projects. Table 2.6 examines the revenue andexpenditure structure of the State Environmental Fund (SFZP),which is, and will continue to be in the future, the most impor-tant source of state financing for environmental protection. Thefinancing role of other state bodies is diminishing.

As shown in Table 2.6, more than half of the Fund’s expen-diture during the period 1992-1994 was allocated to water pro-tection projects, and about a third to air quality projects.Interestingly, the share of the two major groups in the Fund’sexpenditures is exactly the reverse of their share in nationalenvironmental expenditures. As discussed in Section 3.1, airprotection activities account for more than a half of nationalenvironmental expenditures, while water and wastewater pro-jects account for about a third.



Media 1994 1995*

Air 473 670

Water 380 363

Waste 110 100

Energy - -

Soil reclamation/remediation 6 15

Restriction of physical factors1) 23 n.a.

Total 992 1148

Source: /52, 65/

* 1995 figures based on unofficial information from a source which hasrequested to remain anonymous1) 23 mln USD were spent on so called “restriction of physical factors.“This is a broad category, including noise and vibrations, radiation pro-tection etc. Information for 1995 was not available

Exchange rate used: for 1994 USD 1 = CzK 28.5; for 1995 USD 1 = CzK 27.5

TABLE 2.2: TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON THE ENVIRONMENT (MILLIONS OF USD)

2 Collecting specific information regarding “Spending on Environmental Technologies” was not possible, for such a category is not traced by any statistical board orby the Ministry. Nonetheless, the above table presents a global view of the volume and distribution of spending for individual environmental media. /52, 53, 72/

This apparent contradiction can be explained by the factthat the proportion of state funding is much larger in waterrelated projects, where the most frequent investors are munic-ipalities. In contrast, in air pollution control projects (mainlythose undertaken for stationary industrial sources) a high per-centage of the project costs are covered by investors’ ownfunds. For instance, in 1995, three quarters of the Fund’sresources were allocated to municipal projects, about a fourthto businesses, and between 1 and 2 percent to state institu-tions. As for disbursement policy, allocations (grants and sub-sidies) covering up to 40 percent of the project cost are avail-able to non-profit applicants and municipalities. Loans, cover-ing up to 50 percent of the expected project cost, are an optionfor commercial projects. /3/

As regards geographic distribution of funds, large sums areinvested in air protection projects in north Bohemia, northMoravia, and in the Greater Prague area. Air pollution controlprograms in the three regions include several very large pro-jects, followed by a high number of small and medium-sizedones. The Environmental Fund usually supports only the lattercategory, as large air pollution projects demand considerableinvestments, and are often funded or co-funded from multilat-eral sources. In contrast, the number of supported water man-agement projects is much higher, and projects tend to bespread throughout the country rather than concentrated in aspecific area /3/.

Even though the Environmental Fund will remain the majorsource of state financing in the near future, it is worth notingthat, in 1996, loans accounted for 45 percent of disbursements,while grants accounted for 55 percent. There are strong indica-tions that the proportion will be moving towards a higher levelof loans, so as to enable the Fund to reinvest money in other



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

Imports from the US 13 20 30

Note: The total market size also represents sales of material and equip-ment used in environmental construction. Of 567 environmental projectsrecorded for statistical purposes, 49 percent of allocated funds werespent on water, 34 percent on air, 5 percent on solid waste disposal, and12 percent on recycling of waste. /Source: 65/

TABLE 2.5: MARKET SIZE — POLLUTIONCONTROL EQUIPMENT 1994-1995 (MLN USD)

Subsidies for municipal environmental 40.05investments in damaged areas

Individual regional environmental investments 31.25

Environmental investments in mining 8.40

Water management constructions 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) 2.67

Remediation of uranium mines 22.67

Investment expenses — total 239.53

Environmental subsidies 21.44in Northern Bohemia, Sokolov

Fuel savings, alternative sources, 13.96thermal insulation

Subsidies in forestry 27.50

Environmental protection program, 5.57research (MOE CR)

Environmental damages — 4.91Russian military (MOE CR)

Food chain monitoring (MOE CR) 0.64

Accidents — water (MOA CR) 1.71

Agricultural subsidies 34.18

Collection and transportation 0.88of radioactive waste

Non-investment expenses — total 110.78

TOTAL 350.31

Note: The above table presents selected areas of investments from thestate budget. /Source: 52/

TABLE 2.4: 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES FROM THE STATE BUDGET

(MLN USD)

F I N A N C I A L S O U R C E S

Investors’ Media Invoiced Own Funds Credit State Subsidy Foreign Other

Water 293.72 93.61 38.63 145.61 4.15 11.72

Air 203.17 120.39 31.19 31.72 18.19 1.68

Waste 77.16 52.00 22.42 0.70 - 2.04

Remediation 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 2.3: SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN 1994 (MLN USD)

environmental projects. As explained by Mr. Kuzel, an officialat the Fund, the key reason behind this approach is to increasethe amount of money available for environmental protection. Itis also expected that the Funds’ activities will be more orientedtowards the industrial sector. /3/

Table 2.7 presents the income structure of the StateEnvironmental Fund. Environmental fees and non-compliancefines constitute a substantial revenue source for the Fund,accounting for about two-thirds of total revenues. In 1994, theratio between fees and fines collected was approximately 9-to-1, but, according to recent information, fines now account foronly between 1 and 2 percent of Fund’s revenues /3/.

It is worth noting here that the US EXIM Bank offered theCzech Environmental Fund a loan for local environmental pro-jects. The offer was declined because ...“it was similar to otheroffers the Fund had received” and because “low-interest loans…are usually declined in the end as they are not as advantageousas they previously appeared.” (This information was obtainedfrom an official at the Fund who wished to remain anonymous.)Generally, the Czech government is against foreign loans, so asto avoid being forced to meet the conditions set by a foreignparty. This position has been consistent for the last five years,and the Czech government has reiterated this policy clearly dur-ing several international political and economic summits.

Specific PrioritiesAir pollution control will continue to be a major priority

area, although there is expected to be a gradual shift in focustowards small and medium-sized air pollution sources, asmajor problems at large plants will slowly be addressed. ByDec. 31, 1998, all existing power plants must meet stricter airemission limits, already applicable to new facilities.

Water management, and particularly wastewater treat-ment, are likely to remain priority areas in the coming years.Municipalities, as well as industrial wastewater producers mustmeet new wastewater discharge standards which will becomestricter on Jan. 1, 2005. It is important to note that, even thoughmany municipalities do not have sufficient funding to invest inwastewater treatment, in the last five years, construction ofsome 150 wastewater treatment plants was completed, includ-ing 20 new plants during 1994. Overall, wastewater treatmentis one of the most dynamically developing sectors of the envi-ronmental market in the Czech Republic /64, 65/.

Currently, about 186 million tons of waste are producedannually in the Czech Republic; 11 percent of this amount ishazardous waste, 40.5 percent special waste, and 48.5 per-cent is classified as other waste /52/. During the past fouryears, many waste management and disposal facilities have

been constructed throughout the country. Projects havetended to focus on landfill construction, production of wastecontainers, and on incinerators. The current level of recy-cling is low, with only a few firms active in the field. The useof economic instruments (tax breaks, subsidies, other incen-tives) in the sector is limited, although the situation isexpected to improve with stricter environmental enforce-ment and new legislation, currently under preparation.Potential future priorities include package reuse/recycling,waste minimization processes, effective technologies forwaste separation, and environment-friendly technologies forwaste disposal /3, 69/.

Waste incineration is no longer considered a preferredoption in the Czech Republic. With very few exceptions, theEnvironmental Fund has stopped support for incinerationfacilities. The government is planning to build an incineratorfor PCB disposal (see Section 2.5 for more details), but the pro-ject is to be financed from the state budget, not from the Fund.

Interestingly, the Environmental Fund has also stoppedsupport for landfill construction, and for environment-friendlyconversion of vehicles from diesel to hydrocarbon gas (e.g.buses for public transport in the heavily polluted town of Usti



1992 Water Air Waste Soil Total

Income 46.32 29.68 1.69 7.32 85.00

Expenditure 33.09 17.88 0.42 0.40 51.79

1993

Income 54.84 39.89 13.82 18.35 126.91

Expenditure 64.00 40.63 9.72 3.16 117.5

1994

Income 34.21 86.71 15.85 18.07 157.51

Expenditure 69.95 39.58 6.25 5.07 125.76

/Source: 3, 52, 53/

Note: Income includes fees and fines, interest, and loan repayments.

TABLE 2.6: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OFTHE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND (MLN USD)

Loan Item Sum Repayment

Wastewater discharge fees 29.16

Groundwater intake fees 1.51

Fines 0.39

Interest from loans 0.59

Donations 0.05

Water — total 31.70 2.53

Fees for removing land 17.22from agriculture fund


Fines 0.09

Land — total 17.31 0.76

Freons 1.98

Clean Air Program payments 69.37

Air pollution fees 45.18

Fines 0.31


Air — total 83.39 3.32

Waste disposal fees 14.94

Fines 0.41


Waste — total 15.38 0.47

Other 2.65

Total Income 150.44 7.08

Total Income 157.51(including loan repayments)

Note: not all collected environmental fees are channeled to the Fund. Forexample, a large percentage of waste disposal fees remain with munici-palities. According to the proposed Waste Act (currently under prepara-tion), all waste disposal fees will remain with local municipalities.

TABLE 2.7: BREAKDOWN OF INCOME FOR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND

IN 1994 (MLN USD)

nad Labem in north Bohemia). The rationale behind discon-tinuing the support was that the activities are already market-driven, and state support is no longer required /3/.

A significant number of projects relating to site remedia-tion and decontamination (connected with liability issues) areunder way, although currently large expenditures are expect-ed to decline around the year 2000 /74/.

In 1995, as an exception, the Environmental Fund provid-ed support for a one-time study of alternative energy sourcessuch as small water turbines, windmills, energy recovery units,and heat pumps. This shows the importance placed uponalternative energy programs, as the Fund generally does notsupport project studies.

2.4 Project OpportunitiesMAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Several universal issues applicable to most environmentalsectors and which influence project opportunities were fre-quently cited by respondents. The most common problemsinterestingly include: lack of capital for environmental pro-jects, incomplete or changing legislation and inconsistentenforcement, and lack of interest in environmental manage-ment systems and other environmental compliance programs.

Table 2.8 presents the major environmental problems thesurvey respondents expect to face in the coming years. Theinformation is based on answers to the question on majorenvironmental problems in the Czech Republic. It is interest-ing to note many respondents interpreted the term “environ-mental problem” in a broad way, and included not only spe-cific environmental issues (e.g. “contamination of groundwa-ter and soil in refineries in Ostrava, Pardubice etc.”) but alsomentioned system issues with an impact on solving environ-mental problems (e.g. low prices for landfill waste disposal,low financing of environmental activities etc.). It is importantto note that both businesses and state bodies only respondedaccording to the environmental fields they were active in.

Overall, many respondents stated they were not familiarwith the most serious environmental issues in the CzechRepublic (or they considered them in very general terms).Respondents also did not want to indicate major environmen-tal problems in order to limit potential competition in theirfields of activity. This is also reflected by the fact that specificlocations were indicated only occasionally.

AirCurrently, air pollution control projects focus on fuel con-

version (switching to natural gas) in local heating stations. Gasheating is gradually being introduced in individual familyhouses, and, in some areas, in businesses as well. Overall,however, state initiatives to increase gas usage have until nowhad 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 pressingissue, as legislation does not force polluters to install devicesfor continuous monitoring. Also, small stationary sources ofpollution are not regulated at this time /69, 67/.

Air emissions from mobile sources have a strong negativeimpact on air quality, and aggravate local air pollution prob-lems, especially in large cities. For instance, Prague intro-duced a partial vehicle ban, and some towns in northBohemia experience heavy pollution from traffic as well. Carservice checks are not stringent, and the technical state of thecountry’s vehicle fleet is poor. Even if the Czech Republicwere to introduce exhaust emissions controls and tried toensure that fuels and regulations conformed with EU stan-dards, enforcement would be difficult. During fall 1996, the

government extended the permit for the import of used carsthat do not meet the strictest Euro-limits II emission standards/legislation, 67/.

WaterThe main project opportunities in the water management

sector are related to the construction of new, and moderniza-tion of existing water supply and wastewater treatment sys-tems throughout the country. Upgrading current systems maybe hampered by the limited capacity of existing plants, andfinancial problems. Nonetheless, construction and moderniza-tion of treatment plants will continue over the next few years.

Contamination of groundwater resources (especially byoil-based substances, organic solvents, and heavy metals) is apotential threat that can, and should be, reduced in some areas(e.g. former military bases, gas stations). The Czech Republicis heavily industrialized, with a number of sites having alreadysuffered from environmental negligence. Thus the danger ofgroundwater contamination is ever present.

Problems with poor quality potable water are acute insome regions of the country, where up to 90 percent of thewells that provide water do not meet the potable water stan-dards. However, country-wide, the quality of drinking waterfrom public water supply systems (85.5 percent of population)is generally acceptable /67, 52, 76/.

WasteMany of the waste management problems listed in Table

2.8 are caused by current legislation and/or its poor enforce-ment. Additionally, the sector lacks any significant state sup-port (e.g. grants, tax relief, incentives) aimed at increasingwaste minimization practices and environment-friendly waysof waste disposal. /69/

Waste management practices will be significantly affectedby the new Waste Law which should be introduced in 1997.The new legislation will address the most critical issues inwaste management, including waste categorization, wasterecycling, disposal of packaging waste, distribution of wastedisposal fees, and other issues.

EnergyFew project opportunities in the energy sector were men-

tioned by the interviewed parties. This is mainly because increas-ing energy efficiency and energy savings are not currently a highpriority in the Czech Republic. For instance, energy consumptionin 1996 is likely to exceed the forecasted energy consumption forthe year 2000. Also, few environmental firms are accustomed toconsidering energy issues as a part of the environmental sector.

Priority areas in the sector include the conversion of mostof the current small and medium-sized heating stations fromcoal-burning to gas use; the reconstruction of larger heatingstations in order to also use them for electricity generation; andmodernization and construction of new small energy sources.The latter group includes the implementation of water hydro-turbines, solar energy use (on a small scale), landfill gas uti-lization, wind mills, and other energy sources.

As fees for energy (electricity, heat, gas, other fuels) steadi-ly rise, energy saving issues should become more importantwithin the forthcoming two or three years /67, 69, 3, 70/.

Noise and VibrationNoise and vibration does not seem to be a major area of

interest in the Czech Republic — not a single respondentmentioned possible project opportunities in this sector.Generally, control measures are costly, and there are othermore pressing priorities for cash-strapped municipalities.Noise-related problems play a significant role only on a localscale (e.g. Greater Prague construction of highways and high-speed roads). Small municipalities around Prague (vicinity of





Category Problem Description and Expected Duration Geographic Location

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

Water2 Obtaining modern technologies for new municipal wastewater CRtreatment plants, next 15 years.

Equipment supply for modernization of currently used municipal CRwastewater treatment plants, next 15 years.

Obtaining modern technologies for new industrial CRwastewater treatment plants, next 10 years.

Equipment supply for modernization of currently used industrial CRwastewater treatment plants, next 10 years.

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

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

Waste3 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 CR(poor enforcement)

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 none identifiedVibration

TABLE 2.8: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

highway D1, the outer belt, and the planned highway to thesouth) and Pilsen (D5 highway) may be the first to addresstraffic-related noise problems /67/.

Noise and vibration issues in industrial companies are gen-erally addressed on an individual basis, and were not per-ceived as a major project opportunity area.

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN PROGRESS

Respondents were clearly reluctant to reveal informationabout major environmental projects in progress. Generally,on-going projects mentioned by respondents and identifiedfrom other sources can be grouped as follows:

Current projects, with a duration of three or more years:

conversion of coal-fired energy plants to gas-fired (medi-um-sized and small heating stations in major towns, espe-cially in heavily polluted areas, and individual family hous-es in residential districts); and co-generation in large heat-ing stations (big towns, some large industrial companies)/69, 70, other sources/;

construction of new and modernization of existing waste-water treatment plants throughout the country /2, 3, 49, all

respondents active in water management/;

remediation of contaminated sites (throughout the CzechRepublic, mainly at large enterprises and former militarybases) /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 (ISO14000 and EMAS).

Most of the above activities are market-driven, with limitedstate support. A majority of interviewed parties who were will-ing to answer the question on current projects in progress gaveexamples that belonged to the above groups. Some concreteexamples mentioned in interviews included:

remediation work at the former Soviet military base atMilovice — Jirice /20, 41/;

remediation work at the Trebovice power plant, and at the




Other5 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, Ostravaand at steel works facilities, next 5 years.

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 CRwastewater treatment plants, next 14 years.

Little interest in environmental management systems (EMS), CRno financial support available

Implementing EMS in companies (ISO 14000, EMAS 1836), next 7-10 years. CR

References: 1) 13, 37 4) 372) 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

TABLE 2.8 (CONT.): MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Nova Hut steel works /4/;

site investigation for newly designed highways, and for anexpress railway corridor through the Czech Republic /40/;

investigation of ecosystem changes in the Krusne Horymountains /43/;

groundwater and soil clean-up at the large chemical plantChemopetrol Litvinov /4, 14, 20/;

construction and/or modernization of wastewater treat-ment plants on the Vltava and the Elbe rivers (Decin, Ustinad Labem, Melnik) /7, 22/;

introduction of environmental management systems (rare,but throughout the country)/13, 30/;

waste minimization programs (rare, but throughout thecountry) /8, 32, 39/;

creation of a comprehensive solid waste management sys-tem in the town of Ostrava /21/.

It is important to note that, in answering the question onproject opportunities, highly specialized firms and somestate bodies and R&D institutions tended to stress the needfor projects relating to their specific field of activities orinterest, rather than to focus on major environmental prob-lems in the Czech Republic which would better reflect actu-al market needs.

MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION ONBUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

Personal contacts were by far the most frequently citedsource for information on business opportunities. With veryfew exceptions, respondents from both businesses and R&Dinstitutes use personal contacts as the major source of infor-mation, to the extent that approximately two thirds of inter-viewed parties stated they obtain all their important informa-tion exclusively from personal contacts.

Other sources included referrals from associates, and to asmaller extent, trade fairs and exhibitions, and informationobtained from local authorities. Daily press and periodicalswere not considered by respondents as an effective informa-tion channel.

Interestingly, about a quarter of interviewed businessesexpressed a strong need for a periodical presenting environ-mental business opportunities. The weekly Obchodni Vestnik,is supposed to announce public tenders; however, as manyopportunities are missed announced late or not at all and don’tmake it into the publication, the Vestnik is not considered use-ful. Other periodicals were considered helpful in presenting ageneral picture of the environment but do not include infor-mation on business opportunities. The periodicals mentionedincluded Planeta, Odpady, Eko-magazin, and Vestnik MOE.

It was often noted that the Ministry of Environment shouldplay a more important role in providing information on projectopportunities than it does at present. The majority of busi-nesses expressed frustration with the inefficiency and lack ofclear structure within the Ministry (e.g. changes in departmen-tal responsibilities, structure, changes of posts, etc.).

For comparison, Table 2.9 presents the breakdown ofmajor information sources based on a 1995 survey of 150 envi-ronmental businesses in the Czech Republic carried out by theRegional Environmental Center.

The findings of the current survey correspond well withthe results presented in Table 2.9, where personal and/or pro-fessional contacts (including conference and trade show atten-dance) are among the major cited sources of information, fol-lowed by trade shows and fairs, and business and environ-mental publications. Table 2.10 presents the main business

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 respon-dents were found not to belong to any association.

Table 2.11 presents the most important environmentaltrade fairs in the Czech Republic.

The majority of respondents commented that the numberof environmental fairs and shows is excessive. In the past fewyears, many agencies organizing trade shows have increasedthe number and/or frequency of environment-related events,as they found it profitable. However, some exhibitors, bothforeign and domestic, are currently re-evaluating their partic-ipation in fairs, because repeated presence may not be cost



Source of Information Respondents

Personal contacts 96%

Trade shows and fairs 72%

Mailing lists 68%

Professional contacts 64%

Daily newspapers 61%

Business publications 59%

Conference attendance 58%

Environmental publications 55%

Fax 53%

Environmental ministry 34%

Professional associations 32%

Academic associations 17%

Ministry of industry/trade 13%

Chambers of commerce 11%

Other ministries 11%

Other 10%

Email 7%

Local and regional government 6%

Source: REC Report “Emerging Environmental Market” 1995

TABLE 2.9. MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATIONON ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

Publication Respondents

Hospodarsky Noviny 69%

Ekonom 32%

Odpady 22%

EKO Journal 16%

Profit 15%

Vodni Hospodarstvi 14%

Planeta 9%


TABLE 2.10: MAIN BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS

effective. For instance, Envibrno, one of the biggest and mostimportant fairs in the country, has experienced a decline in thenumber of exhibitors and visitors since it became an annualevent. Before 1994, the Envibrno fair was held every twoyears, and numbers of visitors, references from participants,and the number of concluded contracts were higher. In 1995and 1996, many exhibitors were reluctant to participate everyyear because the high cost of participation was not justified bythe resulting gains /10, 16, 19, 27, 28/.

There is a general trend among environmental firms toreduce the number of exhibitions participated in and to onlytake part in the larger events that attract more visitors. Severallarge environmental technology producers expressed interestin the International Engineering Fair at Brno, the largest fair inthe Czech Republic, with a 39-year tradition. The Fair coversmost industries and in fact, is one of the largest of its kind inCentral Europe. The range of products presented is not limit-ed to the environment /27, 28/.

For the foreseeable future, the number of fairs, shows, andconferences is expected to decrease. Some exhibitions will becanceled as they are no longer found to be profitable. For apotential foreign participant, it is advisable to carefully reviewexisting events in the Czech Republic with an experiencedlocal advisor and to focus on those events which offer the bestreturn on the required effort and resources.

Public Procurement Law and the Tender ProcessThe Czech Republic recently passed the Public

Procurement Law, No. 229/1996, retroactively effective fromJan. 1, 1995. The tender mechanism prescribed by the Law can

be a source of information for business opportunities relatingto 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 gov-ernments, associations, and other bodies which use statefinancial means. The law also applies to all private legal enti-ties and individuals using state funds for the acquisition ofgoods, construction, and services.

The law requires the formal announcement of tenders forall planned acquisitions, with the following exceptions:

financial support of R&D activities covered from the statebudget;

tenders the subject of which is protected according to theLaw on Authorship, and laws on industrial and intellectualproperty rights;

acquisitions undertaken by Czech embassies abroad;

acquisitions related to official visits of representatives offoreign states and governments in the Czech Republic.

A tender must be announced, if the price of a plannedacquisition of technologies and/or of real estate (with theexception of property lease) is higher than 20 million crowns(USD 727,000). In all other cases the tender must be called ifthe price is higher than 5 million crowns (USD 182,000). Allprices quoted are without the VAT tax of approx. 22 percent.

If the price of a planned acquisition (technologies and/orreal estate, with the exception of a property lease) is higherthan 2.5 million crowns (USD 91,000), and in all other cases if



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

TABLE 2.11: IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL FAIRS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

the price is higher than 500,000 crowns (USD 18,000), at leastfive competitors (bidding parties) must be approached.

Where the price of a planned acquisition is higher than100,000 crowns (USD 3,600) and lower than 2.5 millioncrowns (USD 91,000), and in all other cases with a value below500,000 crowns (USD 18,000), at least three competitors mustbe approached. Finally, if the value of a planned acquisition isbelow 100,000 crowns (USD 3,600), the acquisition may becarried 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 availablefrom Economia a.s. /84/. Additionally, the most significant ten-ders are announced in the daily newspaper HospodarskyNoviny. An annual overview of the major planned projects ispublished in the Catalogue of Municipal and RegionalProjects for Tenders, published by the Ministry of Economics.

Both local and foreign legal entities and individuals cangenerally participate in a tender. Sealed bids must be deliveredeither personally or by mail. No competitor may submit morethan one bid. The deadline for submitting bids may vary butthe time offered for proposal preparation should not be short-er than 36 calendar days from the date of the announcementin Obchodni Vestnik.

The body that announces the tender may also specifyother conditions, for example, that local, or foreign participa-tion is restricted. Even if a tender is open to both local and for-eign competitors, local bidders are preferred if the priceoffered is the same or up to 10 percent higher than the priceoffered by foreign competitors, when the products offered areof a similar technological quality. Interestingly, if a joint bid issubmitted by a foreign and local entity, it is considered a for-eign entity bid.

Note: The Public Procurement Law is long and complicat-ed. For interested parties, it is recommended to obtain a pro-fessional translation of the whole document.

Useful Contact PointsTable 2.12 provides a list of useful contacts for environ-

mental project opportunities.As already described, personal and professional contacts,

environmental fairs, and business and environmental publica-tions are primary sources of information for project opportu-nities in the Czech Republic. There are no formal informationchannels. As a result, the organizations listed in Table 2.12cannot be classified as reliable, permanent sources of informa-tion. Nearly all the interviewed businesses did not considerthem to be important sources, and many respondents statedthat they did not use these sources at all.

While the Ministry of Environment is not considered to be amajor information provider, it may serve as a good source(although willingness to provide information varies from depart-ment to department). Some officials are very helpful, while oth-ers are only capable of referring an applicant to another depart-ment or state body (e.g. to the Czech Environmental Institute/72/). The assistance that can be expected from other ministriesis more limited, although for instance the Ministry of Industryand Trade has a very helpful environmental department.

In the first few years following the socio-political changesin the Czech Republic, most foreign environmental companiestried to approach ministries as the first source of information.In most cases, the businesses were not able to obtain the infor-mation they were looking for. Many ministerial officials statedthey still take part in so many meetings with foreign firms thatthey cannot find time for their own work.

Overall, relying on governmental contacts as the sole



Ministry of Environment Vrsovicka 65, 100 10 Praha 10Ms. Orlikova, Tel: (02) 6712-2218, Fax: (02) 6731-0490

State Environmental Fund (SFZP)K Moravine 7, 190 00 Praha 9Mr. Chytil, Tel: (02) 6602-3111, Fax: (02) 684-2150

National Property FundRasinivo nabr. 42, 120 61 Praha 2Mr. Zika, Tel: (02) 2491-1907, Fax: (02) 291-582

Czech Environmental InstituteUdernicka 1931, 149 00 Praha 4Mr. Zdenek Strnad, Tel: (02) 268-545, Fax: (02) 767-832

Engineering Testing InstituteHudcova 56b, 621 00 Brno Mr. Striz, Tel. (05) 4132-1204, Fax: (05) 4121-1225

Ministry of Industry and TradeNa Frantisku 32, 110 15 Praha 1, Ms. Christianova, Tel: (02) 2485-3175

Ministry of EconomyStaromestske nam. 6, 110 01 Praha 1Ms. Pisova, Tel: (02) 2489-7476, Fax: (02) 231-3227

Ministry of TransportationNabr. L. Svobody 12, 110 00 Praha 1Tel: (02) 2303-1111

Czech Institute for Environmental Protection (CIZP)Na brehu 267, 190 00 Praha 9Ms. Seborova, Tel: (02) 683-4875, Fax: (02) 683-4847

Local administrations throughout the CR

Czech Environment Management Center (CEMC)Jevanska 12, 100 00 Praha 10Mr. Vyhnanek, Tel: (02) 6280-9578, Fax: (02) 775-869

Czech Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentJevanska 12, 100 00 Praha 10Dr. Petr Horacek, Tel: (02) 6280-9579, Fax: (02) 775-869

Association of the Waste IndustryVelfinova 4, 160 75 Praha 6Ing. Jozef Vancura, Tel. (02) 2431-0368, Fax: (02) 324-692

Association of Producers of Environmental Systems,(APES)Kotkova ul. 6, 706 02 OstravaMr. Lubomir Latal, Tel: (069) 2926-1180, Fax: (069) 543-80

Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic Argentinska 39, 170 05 Praha 7Tel: (02) 6671-1112 or 6671-0808, Fax: (02) 6671-0805

Confederation of Chemical Industries of CRKodanska 46, 100 00 Praha 10Mr. Pavel Karas, Tel: (02) 6715-4133, Fax: (02) 6715-4130

Environmental Experts Registry Ministry of Environment, Dept of EIA Ing. Vaclav ObloukTel: (02) 6712-2442, Fax: (02) 6731-0308

Note: On March 1, 1997, the international access code for the CzechRepublic changed to from (42) to (420). When calling from outside theCzech Republic, the first zero of the local code should be dropped.

TABLE 2.12: USEFUL CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES

information source for project opportunities is not a recom-mended method. While almost every ministry has a designat-ed person responsible for environmental issues within theministry’s scope of activity, in reality, they often do not offerany environmental projects. The Ministry of Agriculture, andMinistry of Education are good examples of this situation.

Listed below are the most relevant points of contact, witha short description. The number given in slashes refers to thefull 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 environmentalissues /78/Tel: (420-2) 2021-2503, (420-2) 2021-2505;

Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Fantys, Chief of the Dept. ofEcology; summaries, overall statistics on environmentalissues /79/Tel: (420-2) 2181-2377 (Note: neither thisDepartment nor the Ministry manage environmental pro-jects, however, the Ministry may provide guarantees onenvironmental projects);

Ministry of Industry and Trade; Ms Sticha; environmentaltechnology 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 theEnvironment for 1997 were to be announced in HospodarskyVestnik on Feb. 26, 1997).

Additionally, information on some environmental projectsmay be available from specific departments of the Ministry ofEnvironment. 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 prepar-ing tenders for projects within the framework of the program“Care for the Environment” and the “R&D program.” A full listof approved projects is maintained by the EconomicsDepartment of the Ministry of Environment /2/.

Since last year, individual departments at the Ministry ofEnvironment have also prepared and coordinated small sup-port projects. As grants for these projects are typically low, inmost cases the departments are not obliged to announce a ten-der officially. Such projects are launched more or less at ran-dom throughout the year. For instance, in 1996 theDepartment of Air Protection announced support projects thatincluded Long Distance Emission Transfer (administrative sup-port to the international program), and Emission DataCollection and Monitoring. As mentioned, projects of this kindare new, few and far between, and the sums involved are low.

Overall, to identify project opportunities in the CzechRepublic, it is best to investigate the situation through person-al contacts, and, to a lesser extent, by contacting directlyindustrial producers and local administrations. For a foreignfirm to compete effectively, it is almost essential to enter themarket through a Czech business partner.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON AVAILABLEENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

Buyers of environmental technologies can be grouped intothe following categories: municipalities, businesses, environ-mental firms, and other bodies.

Municipalities are obliged to announce open tenders ifthey intend to purchase technology worth 5 million crowns ormore (or 20 million if a complex technology is to be consid-ered). Tenders must be announced in the weekly ObchodniVestnik at least 36 days before the tender deadline. In caseswhere the required technologies cost 500,000 crowns or more(or 2.5 million if a complex technology is to be considered), themunicipality must announce the tender to at least 5 competi-tors. In cases where the technology is worth 100,000 crowns,three competitors must be approached. (All the prices aboveare without VAT, which is usually 22 percent) /38, 75, 2/.

The short time offered for bidding means that foreigntechnology producers and/or suppliers are not always able toparticipate in a tender. Additionally, local suppliers have pri-ority when their offer is of a similar technological level com-pared to foreign competitors, and the proposed price is equal,or up to 10 percent higher.

Most municipalities, particularly if they announce smallertenders, contact local firms which they already know (throughpersonal and professional contacts), or approach well-knowntechnology providers in the country. Less frequently, munici-palities may also be influenced by information and promo-tional 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 technolo-gies in the near future (e.g. prior to the construction of a waste-water treatment plant).

Businesses can be divided into two categories — stateenterprises, and private firms. Acquisitions made by stateenterprises are subject to the requirements of the PublicProcurement Law and the tendering process (see above).

Private firms purchasing environmental technology prod-ucts usually use information they have gained from meetingswith technology providers. Some firms have an appointed per-son responsible for environmental issues who has the knowl-edge (and sometimes the authority) to decide which technol-ogy is best for their company /24/.

Businesses also learn about environmental technologiesthrough personal contacts (very common in small and medi-um-sized enterprises), or through associates working in thesame industry.

Some businesses send their representatives to environ-mental fairs and conferences to investigate existing productsavailable on the market.

Environmental firms are most familiar with the availabletechnologies. Their purchasing decisions are based on theirknowledge of a given field (through colleagues, personal con-tacts, associates, and own experience). From survey interviewsit appears that price is not the major factor determining whatproducts environmental firms buy — the key determinant istheir specific need. Main technology buyers in this categoryinclude environmental service providers, analytical labs,providers of remediation services, and firms investigatingand/or measuring pollution etc. /36, 35, 29, 19/.

Other bodies include universities, state R&D institutes,other state institutions, and interest groups. The common char-acteristic for all parties in this category is the lack of venturecapital — many are uncertain whether they will be able to con-tinue operations, and often do not even consider purchasingequipment. Universities generally possess a much better



knowledge of the market than other bodies thanks to theirlocal and international contacts /37, 43, 49/.

ConclusionsIn summary, one should highlight the importance of per-

sonal contacts as a source of information on environmentalbusiness project opportunities in the Czech Republic. Themajority of respondents indicated that they learn of projectopportunities, or about environmental technologies availableon the market, through personal and professional contacts,referrals from associates, participation in fairs, and promotionmaterials from personal meetings and fairs.

Many businesses, R&D centers, universities, and state bod-ies (ministries) collect information from professional maga-zines, including foreign periodicals. Obtaining informationabout project opportunities from official sources (the weeklyObchodni Vestnik, the Ministry of Environment, and otherstate bodies) is usually unsuccessful

Collecting information for purchasing environmental tech-nology is somewhat similar — the most common way toacquire information is through personal contacts at fairs, meet-ings with environmental specialists at firms, as well as meet-ings of municipal officials with company representatives.Interestingly, it emerged from the survey that many firms andmunicipalities have recently solved some of their most press-ing environmental issues by introducing relevant equipment,and show little interest in new technologies, assuming theexisting products are satisfactory.

2.5 Demand for EnvironmentalTechnologyDEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES— OVERVIEW

In the majority of sectors, the demand for environmentaltechnologies was estimated to be between “moderate andslowly growing” and “high and likely to grow.” Generally,technologies for water and wastewater treatment were rankedamong the most needed, followed by technologies for wastemanagement, air, and energy. Demand for noise, vibrationand occupational health and safety technologies was low.

In the air sector, demand was high for air pollution con-trol/flue gas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers).Growing demand was expected for continuous-basis monitor-ing technologies for ambient air; and air sampling/laboratoryanalysis equipment for gaseous emissions.

Within the water and wastewater sector, high demand wasidentified for pollution prevention/waste minimization tech-nologies for municipal wastewater; equipment for spill controland containment/clean-up for surface and ground water; andsludge treatment and disposal equipment for municipal andindustrial wastewater. Technologies in increasing demandincluded: quality restoration and decontamination equipmentfor surface and ground water; construction of municipal waste-water collection networks; monitoring, sampling and analyticalequipment for drinking water; and technologies for water recy-cling in the area of industrial wastewater.

Among the technologies available for waste management,high demand was identified for waste collection, transportationand storage equipment for hazardous waste. Increasing demandwas expected for site remediation/clean-up equipment for con-taminated land; waste collection/transportation and storageequipment for industrial and municipal waste; and technologiesfor incineration and landfill disposal of industrial waste.

In the energy sector, by far the most needed technologieswere those that could be used for the retrofitting/rehabilita-

tion of existing energy systems, followed by alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants. Demand for other technologies in thisgroup was moderate.

Demand for noise, vibration, and occupational health andsafety technologies was low. Abatement technologies (e.g.insulation, absorbtion), and protective equipment related tooccupational health and safety was, however, in somedemand in this category.

TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND BY SECTORThe following tables present a summary of the responses

received from interviewed parties. Additional information,based on sources other than interviews, is provided followingthe discussion and analysis of the tables.

In some cases, it was difficult to elicit information, becausethe technology grid in the questionnaire was detailed, andbecause many parties would only express an opinion on thedemand for environmental technologies within their own fieldof activities. Some interviewed bodies (R&D centers, munici-palities, select number of businesses) refused to assess tech-nology demand even in basic environmental categories, due tothe lack of knowledge.

The following scale was used for ranking demand : 5 –highest, and rapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, like-ly to grow, 3 – moderate, slowly growing demand, 2 – lowdemand, will not grow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand,blank – no opinion.

Figures in cells show the average score, while those inbrackets represent the number of responses.

AirDemand for air-related technologies was moderate. In

high demand were technologies for air pollution control/fluegas purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers). Growth indemand was expected for air sampling/laboratory analysisequipment for gaseous emissions; and continuous-basis mon-itoring equipment for ambient air. In the researcher’s opinion,additional comments are necessary to elaborate on the situa-tion presented above.

Air quality has a strong impact on the health of the gener-al public and on the state of environment, and technologiesreducing gaseous emissions occupy a significant part of the



Ambient Gaseousair 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 3.06 (4) 4.00 (9)purification equipment(e.g. filters, scrubbers)

Gas detection/warning devices 2.75 (4) 2.58 (6)

Emission abatement/ 2.50 (4) 3.00 (6)cleaner production (e.g. low emission burners)

Instrumentation and process 3.10 (5) 3.08 (6)control/software

Technologies in high demand: #1 air pollution control/flue gaspurification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers),

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 airsampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions)

TABLE 2.13: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — AIR

market at present. The current market demand for environ-mental technologies can be ranked as follows: 1) air pollutioncontrol technologies, 2) emissions/ambient air monitoringequipment, and air sampling, and 3) emissionabatement/cleaner production technologies. Air pollutioncontrol technologies are represented by scrubbers, other fluegas purification units, and by large and sophisticated systemsto reduce the emission of solid particles, sulfur dioxide, carbonoxide etc. By far the largest sums of money are being investedin this technology category, and the trend is expected to con-tinue for several years to come.

Technologies for combustion conversion from coal to nat-ural gas, and/or cogeneration technologies that reduce emis-sions are in demand at present, and demand is expected togrow in the near future. In contrast, cleaner production tech-nologies are not in high demand now, but may be of greaterimportance once the enforcement of air related legislationbecomes more stringent.

Water and WastewaterGenerally, demand for water and wastewater technologies

was moderate, with growth tendencies. High demand in thesector was identified for technologies for pollution preven-tion/waste minimization for municipal wastewater; equipmentfor spill control and containment/clean-up for surface andground water; and sludge treatment and disposal equipment formunicipal and industrial wastewater. Technologies in increas-ing demand included: quality restoration and decontaminationequipment for surface and ground water; construction ofmunicipal wastewater collection networks; monitoring, sam-pling and analytical equipment for drinking water; and tech-nologies for water recycling and reuse for industrial wastewater.

In the researcher’s opinion, demand in this category wouldbe better discussed separately as two sub-categories: waterand wastewater.

The most important technology categories in water man-agement (i.e. those attracting the greatest attention of technol-ogy producers and potential customers) are : 1) standard andadvanced water treatment processes, 2) quality restoration anddecontamination of water resources, and 3) sampling andmonitoring. Standard and advanced treatment technologiescan be further separated into products for large public watersupply systems, and equipment for individual consumers,such as tap water treatment units for homes, labs etc.

Current interest in wastewater management concentrates onthree technology categories: 1) wastewater treatment plant con-struction and modernization, using both standard and advancedtreatment processes, 2) sampling and monitoring, and 3) pollu-tion prevention. Demand is high for technologies for bothmunicipal and industrial wastewater. Finally, sludge disposal isanother major field where technologies are demanded.

Waste ManagementOverall, demand for waste management technologies was

moderate, with technologies related to industrial and haz-ardous waste in highest demand in this category.

High demand was identified for equipment for hazardouswaste collection/transportation and storage. Increasingdemand was expected for site remediation/clean-up equip-ment for contaminated land; waste collection/transportationand storage equipment for industrial and municipal waste; andtechnologies for incineration and landfill disposal of industrialwaste. Possible growth in demand was also identified for pol-lution prevention and waste minimization equipment in thearea of radioactive waste.

In the researcher’s opinion, by far the highest marketdemand is for those technologies employed in solid municipalwaste disposal, followed by technologies for industrial waste(including hazardous waste) disposal. Site remediation andclean up of contaminated land is another area of high demand.



Surface and Potable Municipal Industrial Ground Water (Drinking) Water Wastewater 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 2.50 (3) 3.25 (5) 3.25 (7) 3.00 (6)supply and collection network

Standard physical, chemical, and biological 3.00 (4) 3.00 (6) 3.40 (6) 3.00 (7)treatment processes

Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes 3.33 (7) 3.17 (7) 3.00 (5) 3.20 (6)(e.g. UV/ozonation, activated carbon,phosphate removal, reverse osmosis)

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 (surfaceand 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 dis-posal (industrial wastewater); #6 construction of municipal wastewater collection networks; #7 monitoring, sampling and analysis of drinking water; #8water recycling and reuse (industrial wastewater)

TABLE 2.14: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — WATER AND WASTEWATER

The state is the most frequent customer for site remediationtechnologies. The most significant factors influencing growth indemand are the state of legislation and its enforcement, and thegrowing costs of waste disposal (see Chapter 3 for more details).

Disposal of radioactive waste is an acute problem, and adetailed investigation of possible disposal sites is under way.However, although disposal of radioactive waste is a priorityissue for the Czech government, on the whole, the field does notaccount for a major portion of the waste management sector.

The Czech government has announced plans to build anincinerator for PCB disposal. The construction will be eitherfinanced, or co-financed from the state budget. The projectshould be initiated in 1997.

Finally, all waste producers generating more than 100 tonsof ordinary waste, or more than 50 kg of hazardous wasteannually must prepare formal waste management programs tobe approved by local administration. A waste managementprogram must include detailed information on the methods ofwaste disposal. This means that waste producers must eitherpresent a contract with a firm that specializes in waste salvageand/or disposal, or they must manage the waste disposal

themselves (in incinerators, landfills, etc.). Whether thesemethods of disposal are efficient, cost-effective and environ-mentally friendly is questionable; therefore, there may be agrowing niche for waste minimization technologies.Enterprises should become more receptive to innovative tech-nologies as the enforcement of legislation improves, and thecost of waste disposal grows.

EnergyOverall, demand for energy-related environmental tech-

nologies was moderate. In no single technology class wasdemand found to be high. Increasing demand was expected fortechnologies related to the retrofitting and rehabilitation ofexisting systems for both the energy sector and other industrialsectors, followed by alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants. Demandfor other technologies in this sector was low to moderate.

In the researcher’s opinion, the overall impression given inTable 2.16 reflects well the actual situation. Rehabilitation andretrofitting of existing energy systems, and the improvements inprocess management and control are currently under way, andcan be expected to continue. New and efficient energy andheat generation systems are already being introduced on a



Municipal Industrial Hazardous Radioactive Solid Waste Waste Waste 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)


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); #3waste collection/transportation and storage (municipal and industrial waste); #4 incineration and landfill disposal (industrial waste); #5 pollution preven-tion/waste minimization — radioactive waste.

TABLE 2.15: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — WASTE MANAGEMENT

Other Industrial Energy and Sectors (e.g.

Power Manufacturing, Generation 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 sec-tors; #2 alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants — other industrial sectors.

TABLE 2.16: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEMAND — ENERGY

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 expect-ed to grow within the next few years. At present, aside frommeeting environmental compliance requirements, energy gen-erating companies are not forced to implement any significantenergy-saving measures, largely because they are paid forenergy supplied and not that saved. However, within the nextfew years rising fees for energy use will increase the demandfor 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 sourcesof renewable energy. Those that do exist (e.g. solar, wind, geot-hermal energy) are to be found scattered across the country.

Noise, Vibration and OHSDemand in the noise, vibration, and occupational health

and safety sector was low (see Table 2.17). Abatement tech-nologies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion), and protection equip-ment related to occupational health and safety were in somedemand in this category.

Overall, this sector is not given much attention. In theresearcher’s opinion, technologies most demanded in this groupare those used for measuring and controlling noise in the workplace, followed by health and safety protection equipment.

MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGYEND-USERS

Table 2.18 presents the main end-users of environmentaltechnologies as identified by respondents.

Overall, the main end-users are municipalities. It is worthnoting here that a significant share of money spent by munici-palities comes from the State Environmental Fund which is theprincipal source of support for municipalities (up to three-fourths 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 enter-prises). There still exist a few state enterprises in the CzechRepublic where a substantial share is owned by the state, andthey 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 ineach environmental sector, based on respondents’ opinions. Itis important to note that the ranking of end-users may varydepending on the value of investments, or the number of pro-jects cases considered. Such research, however, was outsidethe scope of this project.

AirThe major end-users of environmental technologies for air

pollution control are operators of heating stations and powerplants. Most power plants are owned by CEZ, the largest enter-prise in the Czech Republic, in which the state still retains amajority share. Ownership of local heating stations varies —some are owned by former state enterprises that have becomejoint-stock companies, while others are private, or are ownedby municipalities.

The second largest group of end-users includes variousindustries. Among the most significant sectors are metallurgy,chemical, pharmaceutical, engineering, glass, and other indus-trial branches.

Neither small, stationary pollution sources (domestic fami-ly housing) nor mobile sources (vehicles) are among significantend-users of air pollution control equipment. This is mainlybecause they are not currently subject to targeted regulations.

WaterThe major end-users in this category are municipalities (or

operators of systems), both for water and wastewater treat-ment systems. This situation should last well beyond the year2000. Other important customers for wastewater treatment sys-tems are: chemical plants, engineering works, machinery man-ufacturing works, and agriculture.

Family houses may become a significant customer forpackage wastewater treatment units, especially in moreremote rural areas. Tap water treatment equipment is in highdemand among individual consumers, especially in areas withpoor quality potable water.



Noise Occupational and Health and

Vibration Safety

Instrumentation/measuring 1.00 (1) 2.33 (3)and control devices

Protection equipment 2.00 (1) 2.83 (3)

Abatement 1.00 (1) 2.75 (2)(e.g. insulation, absorbtion)

Electromagnetic field exposure 1.00 (1) 2.00 (1)

Technologies in demand (moderate at best): #1 Protection equip-ment — occupational health and safety; #2 Abatement — occupationalhealth and safety.

TABLE 2.17: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGYDEMAND — NOISE, VIBRATION AND OHS

Category Major End-users by Group

Air Industrial companiesPower plants, heat generating stations

Water Municipal sewerage operatorsPotable water suppliersMunicipalitiesRemediation and consulting companiesHospitalsIndustrial companiesLarge waste producersMunicipal servicesFood processing companies

Waste Municipal servicesLarge waste producersMunicipalitiesTransportation companiesMining companiesCleaning services companiesLandfill operatorsWaste processing companies

Energy Power plants, heat generating stationsMunicipalitiesMunicipal servicesIndustrial companies

Noise and Large industrial companiesVibration Construction companies

Note: The difference between „municipalities“ and „municipal services“:„Municipalities“ are town administrations that order and purchase varioustechnologies and services. „Municipal services“ are companies, either pri-vate or controlled by municipalities, that provide town administrationswith environmental services (e.g. water supply, waste collection).

TABLE 2.18 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGY END-USERS BY SECTOR

Waste Municipalities are a major end-user of solid waste disposal

technologies, for example those used for waste separation, sal-vage, landfilling, incineration. The most frequent end-users oftechnologies for hazardous waste disposal (incineration, land-filling, re-use technologies, solidification, etc.) are the chemi-cal industry, machinery manufacturing, engineering, pulp andpaper industries, and others.

Soil reclamation and site remediation technologies are ofprimary 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 otherindustrial sectors with high energy consumption. This situationis mainly driven by the national environmental policy, focusingon large stationary sources of air pollution. Increasing interestin energy-saving measures is expected from various industrialusers and from municipalities as energy prices increase.

Noise and VibrationNoise abatement technologies for indoor workplaces are

important in metallurgic, mining, and heavy machinery indus-tries, while outside noise pollution is an interest area for somemunicipalities. The construction industry is also a significantclient. Technologies reducing vibration, of some concern inheavy industries, are currently not in great demand.

No major changes in end-users of environmental tech-nologies is expected in any of the above categories. Whilesome small changes may occur in the order, the principal cus-tomers are expected to remain the same.

2.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign SuppliersPURCHASING PREFERENCES

According to respondents, due to the pervasive lack ofmoney, most environmental technology end-users (municipal-ities, business) select the cheapest technology available on themarket that enables them to meet the required standards. Bothmunicipalities, as well as businesses must meet environmentalstandards (and corresponding deadlines) set by environmentalenforcement bodies. At the same time, they must cope withpressing economic issues which are usually perceived as moreimportant. Thus, they try to find the cheapest environmentaltechnology providing the minimum level of compliance.

From this point of view, local manufacturers of environ-mental technologies enjoy the unparalleled advantage ofcheaper products, lower installation costs, and local technicalservice. It is also worth to note that a clause in the Act onPublic Competition (see Section 4.3) legislates that a purchasefrom a domestic technology supplier takes precedence over aforeign supplier, if the domestic technology is of the same orsimilar quality and efficiency, and the price is the same, or upto 10 percent higher.

When foreign technology is preferred by end-users, it isbecause of its unique technical parameters, unmatched bycomparable local products, or because a product is not manu-factured locally. Foreign products are often viewed as techno-logically more advanced, of better quality, and more reliablethan local technologies. Recognition of brand names is animportant factor as well.

Local environmental companies, driven by a wide varietyof goals, buy the exact technology they need to provide envi-

ronmental services. The country of origin of the product is nota key decision factor, and, unlike in other respondent groups,the price is not the key factor, either. Such environmental firmsprovide, among other things, lab testing services, remediationwork, field research, drilling, pollution measurements etc., andrequire reliable and sophisticated technology manufactured byrenowned world producers. The criterion “quality and pur-pose first” was mentioned by 75-80 percent of interviewedenvironmental service providers.

Local technology producers and suppliers determinewhich technologies to buy according to cost-benefit analysisand their clients’ preferences. For example, a domestic con-tractor for a wastewater treatment plant constructs the plantaccording 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, areeither bought from local producers, or from abroad.According to customer’s preference, the contractor can installlocally produced pumps (e.g. with a shorter term of warran-ty), or imported pumps of better quality (with a longer termof warranty). While this approach will slightly increase thetotal cost of a wastewater treatment plant, the increase due toinstalling foreign components may well be offset by betterparameters and reliability.

Overall, most local environmental technology producerstry to find a balance between the quality and price of theirproducts. It is extremely important to offer the client as low aprice as possible, but product reliability and the length of thewarranty period are considered by clients as well.

Universities and R&D centers are often unable to make anypurchase due to the pervasive lack of funds. However, whenthey do buy equipment, quality and purpose take precedenceover price considerations.


When asked what the advantages of imported environmen-tal technologies were, about 70 percent of respondents pointedout high product quality, while 50-60 percent marked “reliableand durable product”, and “user-friendly technology”. 30-35 per-cent of respondents commenting on the advantages of foreigntechnologies indicated “easy to customize and adapt for specificlocal needs,” while 15-20 percent noted “good value for money.”

“Available credit” and “good after-sales service” wererarely mentioned as strengths of foreign products, eventhough they are important in some projects (e.g. air pollutioncontrol, waste incineration). Several respondents even men-tioned the superficial and careless approach of foreign com-panies to after-sales service. Low price of foreign technologieswas not mentioned in any single case.

Note that the term “foreign technologies” was interpretedto mean “Western technologies.” Technologies from otherCentral and Eastern European countries (mainly from Polandand Hungary) are not considered to be competitive withCzech products. The products generally fall in a similar priceand quality range, and Czech buyers therefore choosedomestic technologies.

Foreign environmental technology suppliers enjoy a signif-icant advantage over domestic competitors if they manufacturea unique product that is not manufactured in the target country(due to the limited size of the local market). Such specific tech-nologies are intended for small and specialized numbers ofclients, such as equipment for nuclear waste handling, trans-port, and storage. Additionally, multi-purpose technologieswhich can be a basis for a wide variety of product modifica-tions may also give foreign technology suppliers a notable



advantage. Solid waste salvage trucks, loaders, and incineratorsare a few examples of multi-purpose competitive equipment.

Finally, several respondents noted that foreign environ-mental technology products which can use locally producedspare parts or replacements (e.g. filters, chemical substancesfor water and wastewater treatment systems, and lab chemi-cals) had a significant advantage over other foreign technolo-gies. Adopting this approach will reduce costs, delivery time,and service requirements.

DISADVANTAGES OF FOREIGN TECHNOLOGIESIn discussing the disadvantages of foreign technologies

and the barriers to market entry, high price was given as thebiggest disadvantage. Practically all respondents regarded for-eign environmental technologies as too expensive.

The price of some foreign technologies is so high (e.g.municipal water and wastewater treatment systems) that it istaken as uncompetitive in advance. On the other hand, highlysophisticated foreign technologies that have no match amongdomestic products can find their niches. For example, expen-sive and sophisticated high-efficiency systems for air pollutioncontrol in power plants and large heating stations are fre-quently of foreign origin. The same applies to incinerators andsome technologies for waste reuse or recycling (tire recycling,plastics). In some cases, the disadvantage of high price is off-set by characteristics such as product quality, life-span, after-sales service (e.g. landfill liners, municipal waste collectioncontainers, tap water purification systems, etc.)

“Ensuring authorized technical service and maintenance”was mentioned as a problem by 30-40 percent of the inter-viewed parties. Finally, between 20 and 30 percent of respon-dents pointed out other disadvantages of foreign technologies,such as “lack of reliable product information,” and “productsnot 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 andborder taxes are often applied to products from different coun-tries. Treaties with many countries removing double-taxationalso play an important role. With respect to EU providers, thecustoms fee inconsistencies are expected to be eliminated inthe near future.

2.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in theEnvironmental Technology MarketPERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES

Generally, German, Austrian, Dutch, and Scandinaviancompanies are considered to be the most active in the envi-ronmental technology market in the Czech Republic, followedby American, Danish, French and British firms.

The presence of environmental companies from Canada,Italy, Poland and Switzerland is also noticeable but not as sig-nificant as those mentioned above. Firms from other countries(Spain, Republic of Ireland, Hungary, Japan) are known by afew interviewed parties. Their participation in environmental

projects in the Czech Republic is limited.Table 2.19, based on interviewee responses, presents per-

ceptions of environmental technologies from major foreignsuppliers. Some three quarters of respondents were not able toaddress the question on perceptions of foreign technologies,because their knowledge of the subject was superficial; there-fore, a detailed table classifying individual countries is not pre-sented in the report. The attitudes towards individual countriesis further discussed below.

Germany, Austria, and other Western countries (WesternEurope, the U.S., Canada and Japan) are regarded as producersof quality environmental technologies (although some experi-enced local customers do not always share this opinion).Generally, the presence of foreign firms is most significant inwaste management. Foreign firms are also active in wastewatertreatment, and, to a smaller degree, in air pollution control.

In waste management, Dutch, Austrian, German, andDanish technologies were ranked highly. Firms from thesecountries are active in solid waste salvage, and in landfill con-struction. Austrian firm Hoval is the biggest foreign supplier ofincinerators. Scandinavian (e.g. Norsk Hydro) and Dutch firmsare also active in waste incineration. The presence of Italianfirms, once marketing their technologies aggressively, is nowlimited. Waste recycling technologies are mainly dominated byGerman firms.

Water and wastewater systems are introduced by a largenumber of foreign firms, including German, Austrian, French,Dutch, American, and British. It is difficult to determine theleader in this field, as the situation in the sector changes rapidly.

Energy and air pollution sectors are primarily dominatedby German technologies, followed by Austrian andAmerican products.

Respondents were not familiar with foreign suppliers inthe noise and vibration sector.

The most important conclusion from evaluating perceptionsof environmental technology suppliers is that, in fact, the coun-try of origin of a given technology or supplier is not important.An overwhelming majority of the interviewed parties (practical-ly all environmental businesses and R&D centers) commentedthat the country of origin is insignificant. Instead, the reputationof the company producing a technology itself is much moreimportant. To that end, it is also necessary to note that Czechusers of environmental technologies are generally skilled andtechnically qualified specialists, who often have had experiencewith a wide range of environmental technologies. If offered out-dated technology, or faced with problems with post-sale ser-vice, they have a range of other foreign competitors to negoti-ate with, regardless of the country of origin or the reputation of



Sector Country

Air 1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) US

Water and 1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) UK; Wastewater

Waste 1) Austria; 2) Denmark; 3) The Netherlands

Energy 1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) US

Noise, Vibration, Not specifiedand OHS

Services 1) Germany; 2) Austria; 3) The Netherlands

TABLE 2.19: PERCEPTIONS OFENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIESFROM MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS

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 rank-ing should not be overestimated. The presence and level ofactivity of foreign technology suppliers varies depending onenvironmental sector and the region of the country. One largeand successful project in a specific environmental field mayresult in publicity to a specific technology or service providerat the expense of other competitors, thus distorting the overallpicture. This, for instance, may have been the case with theAustrian firm A.S.A., which constructed a hazardous wastelandfill in south Moravia, and won a tender for the construc-tion of a Prague municipal landfill in 1993. The Danish firmMarius Pedersen was a similar case in eastern Bohemia, whereit constructed and is operating landfills and organizing wastemanagement on a wide scale.

MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKET

Table 2.20 presents the major foreign companies active inthe Czech Republic, as identified by the interviewed parties.

As the table demonstrates, the familiarity of Czech environ-

mental experts with foreign environmental technology providersis rather limited. Many interviewed experts were not able to lista single foreign supplier by name and country of origin.

Overall, the presence of foreign environmental technologysuppliers is most significant in the field of waste management,with a significant number of companies also active in water sup-ply systems. However, no individual firm dominates any sectorof the market. Their market share is small — individual compa-nies may have, at most, between 2 and 5 percent of the market.

Some large foreign companies have established Czechsubsidiaries, and are very active in waste salvage and disposalpractices. Some foreign firms have also established joint-stockcompanies with municipalities. The Danish firm MariusPedersen, Austrian A.S.A., or many German firms may serve asgood examples. British firms are active in water supply andwastewater treatment services in North Bohemia. Increasedactivity of French firms in the water supply and wastewatertreatment sector has been observed recently, with companiessetting up joint-ventures with municipalities.

In many environmental sectors, foreign companies do nothave an established presence in the Czech Republic. Some for-eign firms rather actively pursue direct sales (e.g. AustrianHoval). The system of licensed technology sales is satisfactory



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

Waste 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.

Energy Honeywell US energy supply

ABB Prvni brnenska, Brno Sweden environmental-friendly energy generation

Services 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

Note: The table includes both foreign companies active in the local market, and joint-ventures with local firms.

TABLE 2.20: THE LARGEST FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES IN THE MARKET

and effective. Other notable cases include sales of environ-mentally-friendly fertilizers for agriculture, chemicals forwastewater treatment systems, tap water treatment systems, airfilters, lab equipment etc.

Interestingly, in several cases, formerly foreign co-ownedfirms have been bought out by the local partner after two orthree years of collaboration. In some cases, joint-ventures col-lapsed as a result of unsuccessful collaboration — either alocal counterpart used foreign financial assistance and supportexcessively while returning very little, or the expectations of aforeign partner were too high and the local partner was notable to meet them.

Finally, it is important to stress again that foreign firms aremost active in waste management and water-related sectors,but no single firm dominates the market.



2.8. List of InterviewedExperts/CompaniesOnly those experts/companies considered most importantare listed. The structure of information is as follows:

Contact person, positionDate of interviewTel. numberCompany name in English (if necessary)Company name in CzechAddress

1) Mr. Immo BellmanJan. 13, 1997Tel: (420-2) 6712-2385Ministry of Environment, Department of Statistics Ministerstvo zivotniho prostrediVrsovicka 65,100 00 Praha 10

2) Mr. Jiri Dlouhy Jan. 14, 1997Tel: (420-2) 672-853Ministry of Environment, Economic DepartmentMinisterstvo zivotniho prostrediVrsovicka 65,100 00 Praha 10

3) Mr. Václav Chytil, vice-directorDec. 10, 1996Tel: (420-2) 6602-3225State Environmental Fund of the Czech RepublicFond zivotniho prostredi Ceske republikyK Moravine 7,190 00 Praha 9

4) Mr. Petr Homolka, authorized personNov. 19, 1996Tel: (420-5) 4521-6811TOPGEO, s.r.o.Olomoucka 75,627 00 Brno

5) Mr. Kinkor, authorized personNov. 13, 1996Tel: (420-2) 316-4309SEPA s.r.o.Na Petrinach 25,162 00 Praha 6

6) Mr. Koumar, chief of Marketing Dept.Nov. 12, 1996Tel: (420-452) 626-022KOWA s.r.o.Pod Septouchovem 510,584 01 Ledec nad Sazavou

7) Ms. Marie Hlavicova, technical sales vice-managerNov. 15, 1996Tel: (420-2) 2431-1424AQUA-CONTACT Praha, v.o.s.Buzulucka 6,160 00 Praha 6

8) Mr. Klaus Marijczuk, managerNov. 26, 1996Tel: (420-428) 311-039ELBECO a.s.Podhorska 20,466 01 Jablonec nad Nisou

9) Mr. Vaclav Hasek, chairman of the boardDec. 4, 1996Tel: (420-2) 395-495PREX, a.s.Csl. armady 16,253 01 Hostivice

10) Ms. Jirina Klicova, assistent, head of the officeNov. 27, 1996Tel: (420-2) 684-8376OTTO, s.r.o.Vysocanske nam. 214/1,190 00 Praha 9

11) Ms. Dagmar DoskovaDec. 11, 1996Tel: (420-2) 6679-3665Sealing Consulting PrahaDelnicka 12,170 04 Praha 7

12) Ms. Libuse Tomaskova, ownerDec. 18, 1996Tel: (420-2) 687-1421RETOM Tomasek LubosSchoellerova 1281,196 00 Praha 9 - Cakovice

13) Mr. Bohuslav Moucha, Program directorNov. 28, 1996Tel: (420-2) 6280-9578Czech Environmental Management Center (CEMC)Ceske ekologicke manazerske centrumJevanska 12,100 00 Praha 10

14) Mr. Ferdinand Voracek, authorized personNov. 19, 1996Tel: (420-2) 8101-7510GSP, s.r.o.28. pluku 36,100 00 Praha 10

15) Mr. Petr Saifrid, head of the Dept. forEnvironment-Friendly ProductsNov. 20, 1996Tel: (420-2) 793-6692, 793-6636Czech Environmental InstituteCesky ekologicky ustavKaplanova 1931,148 00 Praha 4 - Opatov

16) Mr. Zemek, specialist for sale of lab apparatusNov. 11, 1996Tel: (420-2) 423-962PCS, s.r.o.Na dvorcich 18,146 00 Praha 4



17) Mr. Martin Chromecka, managerDec. 16, 1996Tel: (420-69) 224-829, 224-911BIODEGRADACE, s.r.o.Sokolská 23,702 00 Ostrava 1

18) Mr. Arnost GrossNov. 29, 1996Tel: (420-653) 541-305MSA, a.s.Hlucinska 41,747 22 Dolni Benesov

19) Mr. Jaroslav Zak, managerNov. 19, 1996Tel: (420-2) 302-5230, 301-32 12OPV, s.r.o.Belohorska 131,169 00 Praha 6

20) Mr. R. GurtlerNov. 13, 1996Tel: (420-2) 2425-5419GEONIKA, s.r.o.V Cibulkách 5, 150 00 Praha 5

21) Mr. Petr Chalupa, head of the branchDec. 4, 1996Tel: (420-69) 356-106, 352-700OZO Ostrava, s.r.o.Frydecka 444,719 00 Ostrava 2

22) Mr. PokornyNov. 18, 1996Tel: (420-5) 4521-5932FONTANA R, s.r.o.Prikop 8,602 00 Brno

23) Mr. Martin Ivan, technicianNov. 28, 1996Tel: (420-5) 4521-5375ECO-BUILDING Brno, s.r.o.Pricni 29,635 00 Brno

24) Mr. Kolanda, Mr. Tresnak, environmental specialistsDec. 15, 1996, Jan. 8, 1997Tel: (420-324) 28-911Stanley - TONA PeckyChvalovicka 326,289 11 Pecky

25) Mr. Dostal, managerDec. 9, 1996Tel: (420-40) 631-0310TRANSFORM, s.r.o.B. Nemcove 2625,230 02 Pardubice

26) Mr. Jiri Rott, manager, ownerJan. 7, 1997Tel: (420-2) 701-051CEVATECH Int., s.r.o.V Novych domcich 23,102 00 Praha 10 - Hostivar

27) Mr. Milan Valis, general managerJan. 13, 1997Tel: (420-2) 683-8220, 684-1128POLYTHERM Praha, s.r.o.U libenskeho pivovaru 10,180 00 Praha 8,

28) Mr. Karel Petioky, managerJan. 13, 1997Tel: (420-2) 6702-1486EVECO Ltd.Pocernicka 96,108 03 Praha 10

29) Mr. Pavel Kozisek, managerJan. 13, 1997Tel: (420-2) 779-844KLIMAFIL, s.r.o.Slunecna 2,100 00 Praha 10

30) Ludek Pravda, manager, co-ownerNov. 26, 1996Tel: (420-2) 6126-1024, 6126-2024ARDA, s.r.o.Nad obci I, c. 50,146 00 Praha 4

31) Mr. Brus, technical managerNov. 29, 1996Tel: (420-5) 4521-5381EZAMONT Brno, s.r.o.Puskinova 17,616 00 Brno

32) Ms. Anna Christianova, state officialDec. 10, 1996Tel: (420-2) 2485-3175Ministry of Industry and Trade - MPOMinisterstvo prumyslu a obchoduNa Frantisku 32,110 15 Praha 1

33) Mr. Jaroslav Jakubes, project managerDec. 9, 1996Tel: (420-2) 6702-1842SRC International CS, s.r.o.Pocernicka 96,108 03 Praha 10

34) Mr. Zdenek Bures, authorized personDec. 9, 1996Tel: (420-363) 521-423Sanace potrubi, STRABAG-RABMER, s.r.o.Na Svadlackach 478/II,392 01 Sobeslav

35) Mr. Karel Petrzelka, sales directorNov. 13, 1996Tel: (420-2) 2431-3630KAP, s.r.o.Skokanska 80,169 00 Praha 6

36) Mr. Daniel Svoboda, managerNov. 15, 1996Tel: (420-2) 258-259AGSS, s.r.o.Machova 23,120 00 Praha 2



37) Mr. P. Buryan, head of the Institute of Gas Manufacture, Coke Chemistry, and Air ProtectionNov. 7, 1996Tel: (420-2) 2431-0682University 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, 1996Tel: (420-19) 723-6617The Administration of the Town of PilzenMagistrat mesta PlzneKopeckeho sady 11,306 32 Plzen

39) Mr. Josef Vitek, ownerNov. 28, 1996Tel: (420-2) 687-0389Vítek Josef - SYRAELSluhy 195,250 63 Mratin

40) Mr. Radan Smid, head of a divisionNov. 12, 1996(069) 611-4941, 611-4838GHE, a.s.28.rijna 84,702 00 Ostrava

41) Mr. Jiri Tylcer, managerNov. 20, 1996Tel: (420-69) 611-5224, 236-522AQ - Test, s.r.o.Mlynska 5,702 00 Ostrava

42) Mr. Vit Mateju, head of the BiotechnologicalDivisionNov. 28, 1996Tel: (420-38) 23-027ENVISAN - GEM, s.r.o.Dolni 2,371 39 Ceske Budejovice

43) Mr. Karel Stastny, professorNov. 27, 1996Tel: (420-2) 2438-4871University of Agriculture (CZU), Faculty of Forestry, Dept. ofEnvironmentCeska zemedelska universita (CZU), fakulta lesnictvi, katedraekologieKamycka 129,165 21 Praha 6 - Suchdol

44) Mr. Petr Petak, managerDec. 4, 1996Tel: (420-2) 2166-1249USU Praha, s.r.o.Stepanska 15,120 00 Praha 2

45) Mr. Latal, directorNov. 26, 1996Tel: (420-69) 292-6180APES - Association of Producers of Environmental TechnologyKotkova 6,706 02 Ostrava 6

46) Mr. Kukal, directorMr. Zoubek, vice-directorNov. 29, 1996Tel: (420-2) 2400-2111Czech Geologic InstituteCesky Geologicky ustavKlarov 131/3,118 21 Klarov

47) Mr. Karel Rezek, directorNov. 28, 1996Tel: (420-327) 704-1134Institute of Natural Raw MaterialsUstav nedrostnych surovin284 03 Kutna Hora

48) Mr. Hercik, professor, head of Dept. of the Environmental Protection in IndustryNov. 28, 1996Tel: (420-69) 699-3464Minining University, Faculty of MetallurgyVysoka skola banska, Fakulta metalurgie Trida 17.listopadu 15,708 33 Ostrava - Poruba

49) Mr. BuresJan. 28, 1997Tel: (420-2) 2019-7268Research Institute of Water ManagementVyzkumny ustav vodohospodarskyPodbabska 30/219,160 62 Praha 6 - Podbaba



2.9 List of PublicationsOnly the most important publications used in the report arelisted below. The following information is provided:

Author: Title of publication (short description of the publica-tion, 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 theCR - 1995 annual environmental statistics, Prague, 1996

53) Czech Environmental Institute: The Environment of theCR - 1993-94 annual environmental statistics, Prague,1994

54) REC: The Environmental Business Directory —Environmental service and technology providers in theCzech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia,Budapest, October 1995

55) REC: The Emerging Environmental Market (survey of theCR, H, PL, SK), Budapest, June 1995

56) Center for Clean Air Policy: Seminar on EnvironmentalInfrastructure Finance (proceedings of the seminar),Prague, June 1992

57) Czech Academy of Sciences: Summary of ProfessionalActivities of the Institutes of the AV CR (description ofindividual institutes under the Czech Academy ofSciences), Prague, April 1995

58) Czech Academy of Sciences: List of Projects Supported byCompetitive 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 theEnvironment supported by the MOE in 1996, Prague,January 1997

61) MOE: Eco-Labeling in the CR (description and guidelinesfor eco-labelling), Prague, 1996

62) Ministry of Industry and Trade: Czech Foreign Trade inStatistics, Prague, August 1996

63) Czech Geological Institute, Annual Report, Prague, 1995

64) U.S. Embassy: Country Commercial Guide - the CzechRepublic, Prague, August 1996

65) U.S. Department of Commerce: Guide for AmericanExporters: Environmental Technologies, May 1996

66) ARDA: Environmental Business Sector: Opportunitiesin the CR, Prague, December 1994

67) Hospodarske noviny (daily)

2.10 Other Useful ContactsAdditional contacts are in listed Table 2.12: Useful ContactPoints for Environmental Project Opportunities. The structureof the information is as follows:

English name (if important)Czech nameTelephoneNo., streetTown

68) Institute of Applied Ecology and EnvironmentalTechnologyInstitut aplikovan ekologie a ekotechnikyTel: (420-203) 975-214nám. Smirickych 1,281 63 Kostelec nad Cernymi lesy

69) Ministry of EnvironmentMinisterstvo zivotniho prostrediTel: (420-2) 6712-1111Vrsovicka 65,100 00 Praha 10

70) Ministry of Industry and TradeMinisterstvo prumyslu a obchoduTel: (420-2) 2485-1111Na Frantisku 32,110 15 Praha 1

71) Ministry of FinanceMinisterstvo financiTel: (420-2) 2454-1111Letenska 15,110 00 Praha 1

72) Czech Environmental InstituteCesky ekologicky ustavTel: (420-2) 6799-4300Kaplanova 1931/1,149 00 Praha 4

73) Grant Agency of the Czech RepublicGrantova agentura Ceske republikyTel: (420-2) 2424-0533Narodni 3,110 00 Praha 1

74) National Property FundFond narodniho majetkuTel: (420-2) 2499-1111Rasinovo nabr. 42,120 61 Praha 2

75) City Administration of PragueMagistrat hl.m. PrahyTel: (420-2) 2448-1111Marianske nam. 2,110 00 Praha 1

76) Ministry of AgricultureMinisterstvo zemedelstviTel: (420-2) 2181-1111Tesnov 17,110 00 Praha 1



77) Ministry of Industry and TradeMinisterstvo prumyslu a obchoduMs. Hrncirova, deputy-ministerTel: (420-2) 2485-1111Na Frantisku 32,110 00 Praha 1

78) Ministry of DefenseMinisterstvo obranyMr. Bukva, chief of the EnvironmentTel: (420-2) 2021-2503, 2021-2505Tychonova 1,161 00 Praha 6

79) Ministry of AgricultureMinisterstvo zemedelstviMr. Fantys, chief of the Dept. of EcologyTel: (420-2) 2181-2377Tesnov 17,110 00 Praha 21

80) Ministry of EnvironmentMinisterstvo zivotniho prostrediMr. RedingerTel: (420-2) 6712-2998Mr. Kinkor, chief of the Dept. of Water ProtectionTel: (420-2) 6731-1590Vrsovicka 65,100 00 Praha 10

81) Mr. JílekTel: (420-2) 6712-2671Mr. Weiss, chief of the Division of Air EmissionTel: (420-2) 6712-2240Mr. Brix, chief of the Dept. of Air ProtectionTel: (420-2) 6712-2835

82) Mr. Kopecky, chief of the Dept. of WasteTel: (420-2) 6712-2216

83) Ms. Tylova, deputy-chiefDept. of Environmental DamagesTel: (420-2) 6712-2069

84) Economia a.s., Obchodni vestnikTel: (420-2) 282-3754, 282-2216Na Florenci 3,115 43 Praha 1



C H A P T E R 3 : H U N G A R Y


3.1 Summary of FindingsAnnual environmental expenditures in Hungary amounted

to USD 258 million in 1994 (0.76 percent of GDP), and USD 385million in 1995 (1.1 percent of GDP). Today, expenditure onwater protection accounts for 55 percent of the total, whilespending on air protection accounts for 15-16 percent, and wastemanagement for 12 percent. During the next six years, the shareof air protection expenditures is expected to double, while theshare of waste management is expected to rise to 19 percent.

A major change is expected in the financing of environ-mental protection. Currently, some three quarters of environ-mental expenditures come from the state budget (including theCentral Environmental Protection Fund), while businesses con-tribute only 9 percent. It is expected that in the forthcoming sixyears 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 trans-portation and vehicles have also become a growing source inBudapest and other cities. Municipal waste generation has dou-bled over the past 15 years. About 85 percent of municipal wasteis landfilled. There are 602 official landfills operated in Hungary,with an estimated 2,000 more operating illegally. It is expectedthat most landfills will reach capacity in the near future. Manylandfills do not meet required standards. The disposal of haz-ardous waste is one of the most pressing problems. A significantproportion of hazardous waste is stored on-site at the source inso-called temporary storage facilities. Currently, 96 percent of theHungarian population has access to the water supply system, butonly 53 percent are connected to sewage systems. Poor waterquality is a frequent problem. 54 percent of wastewater is dis-charged untreated, while only 36 percent is treated mechanical-ly and biologically. The government plans to treat 90 percent ofall wastewater by the year 2010.

The Hungarian market for environmental technologies wasestimated to be worth between USD 164 and 192 million in 1994,

and between USD 127 and 289 million in 1995. Significant pro-ject opportunities are expected in wastewater treatment, in theenergy sector, and in air quality protection and waste manage-ment. Project opportunities will result from the major environ-mental problems such as catalogued and uncatalogued haz-ardous waste disposal sites; municipal and industrial wastewaterpollution of surface and groundwater reserves; and emissionsand noise from transportation. Demand for environmental tech-nologies is also driven by national environmental priorities, envi-ronmental regulation, and available state funding and subsidies.

Based on the above, demand for environmental technolo-gies in the following areas is expected to grow in the near future:monitoring systems for water, air and noise; remediation workon hazardous waste dumps; treatment of municipal solid wasteand wastewater; treatment of industrial solid waste and waste-water; energy efficiency improvements; and reducing emissionsto air and noise from transportation. Currently, end-of-pipe tech-nologies are mostly used to solve the above problems, but thesignificance of preventive solutions is expected to increase.

There is no institution or clearinghouse in Hungary col-

Chapter 3: Hungary


Population (mln) 10.3 10.2 38.6 5.4 2.0

Area (sq.km) 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




Inflation rate (%) 10.3 18.4 14.5 6.0 9.6






H U N G A R Y

Budapest

Debrecen

C R O AT I AFR

YUGOSLAVIA

R O M A N I A

S L O V A K I A

A U S T R I A

U K R A I N EMiskolc

SzegedPecs

GyorSzentendre

0 50 100

kilometers

lecting information about environmental business opportuni-ties. Personal and professional contacts are the main source ofinformation. Business and environment-related publications,as well as participation in environmental trade fairs and con-ferences are other important sources. The public procurementprocedure currently in force is a potentially important way toidentify business opportunities.

Purchasing environmental technologies does not pose anysignificant problem in Hungary because of the wide range ofproducts available on the market. The major ways of gatheringinformation when buying environmental technologiesinclude: personal and professional relations; industry associa-tions; fairs and exhibitions; journals and catalogues; the for-eign owner or parent company; and references.

In most categories, demand for environmental technolo-gies in Hungary was estimated to be between moderate andhigh. Significant demand was identified for energy-relatedtechnologies, and for technologies related to industrial waste-water treatment and the treatment and disposal of hazardousand radioactive waste.

High demand in the air sector was identified for instru-mentation and process control/software, while growingdemand was expected for technologies for air sampling/labo-ratory analysis of gaseous emissions, and for air pollution con-trol/flue gas purification equipment.

Demand for environmental technologies related to waterand wastewater was moderate. The most needed technologiesin this category were for industrial wastewater treatment. Highdemand was identified for sludge treatment and disposal tech-nologies for industrial and municipal wastewater. Specifictechnologies where demand is expected to rise included thosefor the construction of collection networks for municipal andindustrial wastewater; water recycling and reuse for potablewater and industrial wastewater; spill control and contain-ment/clean-up for surface and groundwater; instrumentation,process control, and software for industrial wastewater; stan-dard and advanced treatment technologies for industrialwastewater; and inspection and reconditioning of existingwastewater collection networks.

Waste management appears to be one of the most promis-ing environmental market sectors in Hungary. Significantopportunities are expected in hazardous waste disposal, fol-lowed by radioactive and industrial waste management. Highdemand was identified for technologies for site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land for hazardous waste; and forradioactive waste, equipment for sample analysis/waste char-acterization; site monitoring; and waste collection, transporta-tion and storage. Demand was expected to rise for pollutionprevention/waste minimization equipment for industrial andhazardous waste; technologies for recycling/resource recoveryfor industrial waste; technologies and equipment for wastecollection, transportation and storage of hazardous waste andhazardous waste site monitoring; and technologies for spillagecontrol/decontamination for hazardous waste.

Demand for energy-related technologies was generallyhigh, especially in comparison with other environmental sec-tors. High demand was identified for instrumentation andequipment for retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems.Demand was found to be increasing for equipment related toprocess management and control; new and efficient energy andheat generation systems; and technologies related to heat recov-ery and energy savings. Many experts noted that there were sig-nificant market opportunities in decreasing energy losses in pro-duction processes, transmission, and consumption.

In the noise, vibration and occupational health and safetysector, high demand was identified for abatement technolo-gies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion), and for protection equip-ment in the occupational health and safety sector. Increasingdemand was also identified for noise and vibration abatement

technologies for the construction industry.The energy/power generation sector and municipalities are

the main end-users of environmental technologies in all cate-gories. The chemical industry, and other raw material extractionand processing industries are also significant end-user groups.Additionally, the transport sector was identified as a significantuser of technologies for air pollution control, and noise andvibration abatement. Water and wastewater, and waste man-agement technologies were widely used in the mining sector,agriculture and food processing, and textile industry.

Five out of six respondents considered product quality andreferences major factors when making purchasing decisions.One interviewee in six preferred domestic technology when-ever possible. Among those respondents buying foreign envi-ronmental technologies, about half buy directly from a foreignsupplier, while the remainder buy from local representatives.With the growing number of local representatives, local buy-ing is on the rise.

About 50 percent of respondents specified high quality,and reliability and durability of products as advantages offoreign environmental technologies. A third of respondentsthought that foreign environmental technology productsoffer good value for money, and are user-friendly and easyto operate. Also, a third of respondents regarded availablecredit or other forms of funding from a foreign supplier as amajor advantage. Opinions were divided about the qualityof after-sales service.

The major barrier to buying foreign environmental tech-nologies in Hungary is the price. 80 percent of respondentsmentioned high prices as a major disadvantage of foreignproducts; about a quarter regarded foreign technologies asunsuitable for local conditions and technical culture. Otherbarriers cited (about 15 percent of respondents) included highcustoms duties, changing environmental regulations, difficul-ties to ensure local technical service, communication problemswith foreign suppliers (mainly language), and the lack of infor-mation available about suppliers.

Domestic environmental products and services are onlyavailable on a limited scale, and foreign environmental tech-nologies are frequently used. Austrian and German environ-mental technologies enjoyed good to excellent reputation inair, water and wastewater, waste management, and energysectors. The perception of American technologies was good inthe water and wastewater, waste management, energy, andnoise, vibration, and OHS sectors. Dutch technologies wererated highly in the water and wastewater and energy sectors.French products were evaluated highly in the water andwastewater, and waste management sectors.

Austria and Germany are the major players on the envi-ronmental technology market in Hungary, followed byHolland, France, USA, Japan and Scandinavian countries.Foreign companies are most active in the energy, water andwastewater, and waste management sectors, followed by airprotection. In air, and the related energy sector, German,Austrian, and American companies are most active. Germanfirms dominate the water and wastewater sector, followed byAustrian, French and American suppliers. In the waste man-agement sector, German, Austrian, French, and Americancompanies seem to be represented quite evenly.


The information contained within this country report isbased on 49 formal interviews with senior-level representatives



of environmental business, and a smaller number from authori-ties and R&D institutions. Interviews were based on the stan-dard questionnaire adopted for the entire survey. Additionalinformation sources included informal conversations, a deskstudy of the available literature and publications on the envi-ronmental market in Hungary, and a review of environmentaltechnology-related governmental programs.

The list of formal interviews, informal personal discus-sions, and literature is included in Sections 3.8-3.10.

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTSSenior representatives of 49 organizations were inter-

viewed for the survey. The following criteria were used inselecting 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 tech-nology 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 wereactive in one, two, or three of the five target sectors. Half of theinterviewed environmental businesses were active only in onefield, usually waste management or water treatment. Coveringall five target sectors equally was hard to implement in prac-tice, because many companies had activities related to water,wastewater and sludge. In contrast, only a handful of busi-nesses dealt with air, noise and vibration, or operational healthand safety. The nature of business sector activity is as follows:

services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%

consulting . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%

manufacturing. . . . . . . . 5%

Those companies with the highest turnover were general-ly involved in trade or were service providers (e.g. municipalservice providers). Among smaller companies, a high propor-tion were consultancy firms.

53 percent of the interviewed companies were establishedbefore 1990 (or had a legal predecessor established prior to1990). New ventures usually included small and medium-sizedenterprises (Hungarian-owned or joint-ventures) while olderparties tended to be larger companies.

Overall, the market is dominated by small and medium-sizedenterprises. The distribution of business sector respondents bysize (measured by number of employees) was as follows:

fewer than 10 . . . . . . . . 53%

between 10 and 100 . . . 37%

more than 100 . . . . . . . . 10%

More than a half of the companies surveyed had fewerthan 10 employees. Only one in ten employed more than 100environment-related staff.

Regarding turnover figures, 55 percent of the respondentsclassified their organization as medium-sized; the remaining45 percent considered their companies small. Not a single

respondent considered their organization to be large.Notably, only two thirds of companies responding revealedannual 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)

Approximately two thirds of the businesses interviewedhad a representative office, or were headquartered inBudapest, while a third operated in other locations.

As for the geographic extent of activities, respondents indi-cated the following:

local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

national . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%

international . . . . . . . . . 33%

Joint-ventures were generally international.

3.3 Overview of the MarketWith a population of 10.2 million, and an area of 93,000

sq.km. (36,000 sq.mi., slightly smaller than Indiana) Hungary is amedium-sized country by Central European standards.

The environment does not receive the same attention nowas it did in the early nineties. However, the country does haveone of the most advanced systems of environmental manage-ment in Central Europe, and its environmental problems,while widespread, are not on the same scale as those of someother countries in the region.

Hungary suffers from widespread and ongoing environ-mental degradation (e.g. poor water quality throughout thecountry) rather than from specific local environmental prob-lems. The exception might be the Budapest area (with a fifthof the country’s population), where specific environmentalproblems are encountered, e.g. air pollution. The rapid growthof small and medium-sized enterprises is considered to be acontributing factor to the ongoing degradation of the environ-ment, since enforcement of environmental regulations is poor.

The most critical environmental problems are related towater quality. Uncontrolled runoff has led to the contamina-tion of water resources, further exacerbated by discharge ofuntreated sewage. Half of the country’s sewage is dischargeduntreated. There are also increasing problems with air pollu-tion from high-sulfur power production, industry, householdsand transport, and with the management of municipal andhazardous waste (Hungary has some 2000 illegal dump sites).

The consolidation and refinement of the national environ-mental strategy is needed in the coming years, as well as theintegration of environmental concerns with other areas of gov-ernment. Major upcoming initiatives are likely to involve capi-tal investments, awareness raising, institutional improvements,and environmental management.

TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ONENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY

Total spending on environmental protection in Hungarywas 0.76 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 1994, 1.1percent in 1995, and 1.1 percent in 1996 (estimated). As shownin Table 3.2, annual environmental expenditures amounted toUSD 258 million in 1994, and USD 385 million in 1995.

The government has adopted its own National



Environmental Plan (hereafter NKP), which determines themain environmental priorities over the coming six years.According to the NKP, environmental expenditures will reach1.7-1.9 percent of the Hungarian GDP.

The National Environmental Plan estimates the share ofindividual sectors in terms of the total environmental expen-ditures. According to the plan, expenditures on water pro-tection account for 55 percent of the total, while spending onair protection accounts for 15-16 percent, and waste man-agement for 12 percent. The share of air protection expendi-tures is expected to double within the next six years, asHungary is to introduce a new law on air protection in 1997.During the same six-year period, the share of waste manage-ment expenditure is expected to rise to 19 percent from thecurrent 12 percent.

Detailed statistical information outlining annual expendi-tures on environmental technologies is not available, as it isnot tracked by the National Statistical Office. Therefore, thefigures provided below are estimates, as explained in the text.

In 1995, the Regional Environmental Center (REC) con-ducted a survey of environmental businesses in the CzechRepublic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Table 3.3 shows the

distribution of income among Hungarian environmental busi-nesses by business activity.

Assuming that environmental technology expendituresaccount for 80 percent of technical services, for 100 percent ofenvironmental products, and for 50 percent of the remainingtwo categories (the balance is spent on services), one can esti-mate that roughly 75 percent of total environmental expendi-tures is spent on environmental technologies.

For comparison, a 1995 OECD survey gives similar results(Table 3.4). The survey analyzed sector trends in the globalenvironmental market. The methodology used in the surveyassumed that expenditures on water and wastewater treatment,waste disposal, and air quality related-activities were mainlyrelated to investment goods (environmental technologies).

As presented in Table 3.4, technology expendituresaccount for about 75 percent of all environmental spending,with services representing the remaining quarter.

According to Hungarian statistics on annual environmen-tal expenditures, and based on the assumption discussedabove that spending on environmental technologies accountsfor three quarters of total expenditures, total environmentaltechnology spending in Hungary is estimated at HUF 31 bil-lion (USD 192 million) in 1994, and HUF 45 billion (USD289 million) in 1995.

Statistical yearbooks for 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 providedata on spending by sector in Table 3.5.

The first figure in each of the cells shows the value ofinvestments in millions of Hungarian Forints. The second fig-ure, in brackets, shows the value of investment in millions ofUS dollars. Those categories not highlighted in bold are notconsidered relevant to the survey.

In analyzing the data above, the following factors relatingto the nature of the statistical data collection system inHungary have to be considered:

data on investments for each year are given in current Forintprices, i.e., figures are adjusted to account for inflation. Theinflation rate was 23 percent in 1992, 22.5 percent in 1993,18.8 percent in 1994, 28.2 percent in 1995, and estimated 23-24 percent in 1996.

only expenditures of organizations with more than 50employees are considered.

the figures do not include environmental technologyinvestments which are made as an integral part of the mod-ification of the technological process, or those which serveto improve occupational health and safety by reducingnoise and vibration.

Considering the above, it is likely that actual investmentswere 10-30 percent higher than indicated.

Assuming the 75 percent share of environmental technolo-gies, excluding expenditures on nature protection and protec-tion of biodiversity, and allowing an additional 20 percent toaccount for companies with less than 50 employees not cap-tured by the above statistics, spending on environmental tech-nologies can be estimated at USD 151 million in 1994, and USD127 million in 1995.

Comparing the two sets of figures, one can conclude thatthe Hungarian market for environmental technologies wasbetween USD 164 and 192 million in 1994, and between 127and 289 million in 1995. Substantial growth is expected in thecoming years. Table 3.6 provides some additional insight intothe distribution of environmental investments

Finally, a major change is expected in the financing ofenvironmental protection. Currently, about 75 percent of totalenvironmental expenditures are made from the state budget(including the Central Environmental Protection Fund). At thesame time, businesses only contribute 9 percent. At the end ofthe six-year National Environmental Plan, it is expected that



Environmental Share of Year Expenditures GDP (%)

1994 $258.4 million 0.76%

1995 $385.0 million 1.1%

1996 (estimated) n.a. 1.1%

Source: Ministry of Environment, National Environmental Program(NKP) — Draft, Budapest, 1996

TABLE 3.2: ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES 1994-1996

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 CEECountries, Paris 1995

TABLE 3.4. SECTORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTALMARKET IN OECD COUNTRIES

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 3.3: SOURCE OF REVENUES BY BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE

ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR IN HUNGARY

the former figure will decrease to 55 percent, while the shareof the business sector will grow to 40 percent.

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION

With respect to air pollution, the energy sector is mostresponsible for SO2, NOx, solid particles, and CO emissions.Although emissions decreased by between 10 and 40 percentfrom 1989 to 1992, this was largely due to a 32 percent declinein industrial activities. Gaseous emissions from the energy sec-tor are still high, although solid particle emissions havedecreased substantially since the early nineties as electrostaticprecipitators have been installed in coal and lignite-fired powerplants. Emissions from the transport sector are a growingsource of air pollution. Transportation and vehicles are by farthe main source in Budapest, where vehicles contribute morethan 60 percent of local air pollution. Serious problems withtraffic-related pollution occur in other Hungarian cities as well.

The total volume of municipal solid waste generated inHungary is currently estimated at 20 million cubic meters annu-ally (approx. 2.5-3 million tons), which is twice the 1980 figure.Between 0.4 and 0.5 million tons (approx. 15 percent of thetotal) are used or treated (including incineration), while theremaining part is landfilled. Most municipal waste landfills(which also receive a major portion of industrial waste) willreach capacity in the near future. According to the list preparedby the Central Statistical Office, there are 602 landfills operatedin Hungary, but some experts think the actual number could beas high as 3,000. Many landfills do not meet current technical

and environmental requirements, and will have to be modern-ized or will need to be closed.

Since 1981, only Budapest has maintained a noteworthyincineration capacity. About half of the city’s waste is inciner-ated. As no suitable location is available to construct newlandfills in the Budapest area, the construction of new incin-erator(s) is a possibility.

Approximately 3.3 million tons of hazardous waste is pro-duced annually in Hungary. Forty percent of the total amountis red mud from aluminum processing and is stored in landfillsas no viable recycling technology is currently available. Thedisposal of the remaining 2 million tons of hazardous waste isone 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 modernhazardous waste incinerator exists in Dorog (with a capacity of25,000 tons per year). Smaller amounts of waste are incinerat-ed in various ovens and kilns. A significant proportion of haz-ardous waste is stored on-site at the source (in so-called tem-porary storage facilities), because waste generators are notable (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 toaddress the problem of waste management. Legislation onhazardous waste was adopted on Sept. 1, 1996 (102/1996.(VII.12) sz. Kormanyrendelet), while a new law on wastemanagement, regulating municipal and non-hazardous indus-trial waste is under preparation and is expected to come intoforce in 1997. Product fees (“green taxes”) have been imposedon fuels, tires, refrigerants, car batteries and packaging materi-



Category 1992 1993 1994 1995

Construction 7,193 (91.1) 7,313 (79.5) 14,113 (134.2) 12,049 (95.9)

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

TABLE 3.6: DISTRIBUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS, IN MLN HUF (AND 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 976 (12.4) 571 (6.2) 677 (6.4) no data

Protection against harmful effects of waste 1,221 (15.5) 1,974 (21.4) 2,898 (27.6) 4,668 (37.1)

Noise and vibration protection 104 (1.3) 147 (1.6) 230 (2.2) 941 (7.5)

Other - - - 513 (4.1)

Total 16,585 (210.0) 13,231 (143.8) 21,310 (202.7) 19,935 (158.6)

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 consideredrelevant to the survey.

TABLE 3.5: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY EXPENDITURES IN HUNGARY BY SECTORIN MLN HUF (MLN USD)



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 industrial areasenergy sector and chemical industry, 10-20 years

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 national, major citiesmaintenance, dust pollution, 30 years

Insufficient legal framework, poor enforcement, 5 years national

High number of concentrated pollution sources national

Lack of treatment processes for agricultural NH3 national

Surface Quality monitoring system only partially available, 5-10 years nationaland Eutrophication in shallow lakes TransdanubiaGround

Infiltration of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, as a consequence nationalWaterof careless, unprofessional treatment

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

Potable High content of Nitrates (sometimes NH4, Fe, Mn, methane) differs by regionWater in potable water

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 nationalin the distribution network

Municipal Lack of proper sewerage systems and wastewater treatment plants, national, especially BudapestWastewater 20 years, (government program coordinated by the Ministry of and major cities

Transportation, Communication and Water, KHVM)

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

Industrial Obsolete treatment technologies nationalWastewater Pollution of groundwater or other recipient bodies by industrial national

wastewater discharges

Insufficient treatment of industrial (chemical industry) and municipal nationalwastewater (partial sewage system), pollution of water resources

High organic content of industrial wastewater discharge national(directed to the sewage plant)

Lack of a proper solution for the disposal of organic waste and diluted nationalmanure in agriculture (potential pollution for water resources)

TABLE 3.7: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN HUNGARY

als (e.g. paper, plastic, glass, metal and other products). Thegovernment also intends to establish a nationwide collectionand recycling scheme, and is providing the means for the pro-ject through the Central Environmental Protection Fund(KKA). The application mechanism was initiated in 1996.

In Hungary, water production (including potable, industrialand agricultural) has decreased from 5,513 million cubic metersin 1992 to 4,554 million cubic meters in 1995. The decrease inwater consumption was particularly strong in mining, the ener-gy sector, the processing industry, agriculture and in privateconsumption, and can be attributed to the decline in industrialactivities, and to increasing water prices. Currently, 96 percentof the Hungarian population has access to the water supply sys-tem, 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 munici-palities is the key cause of the current situation. A number ofmajor cities in Hungary lack proper wastewater treatment facil-ities. For instance, 80 percent of wastewater generated inBudapest is discharged into the Danube without any treat-ment. Overall, only 53 percent of Hungary’s population isserved by sewer systems. Of the country’s 3,176 towns and vil-lages, 454 have sewer networks and only 400 have wastewatertreatment plants. Currently, 54 percent of generated waste-water is discharged untreated. About 8 percent of wastewateris treated mechanically, 36 percent is treated mechanically andbiologically, and only 2 percent undergoes additional tertiarytreatment. In all likelihood, actual proportions are probablyeven worse, because of the illegal dumping of wastewater.The objective of the government policy is to ensure that 90



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 nationalsolid waste, 20-30 years

Lack of hazardous waste incinerators, 5-10 years national

Illegal or improper dumping of municipal solid waste and hazardous waste national

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 nationalavailable from product fees to establish nationwide recycling system)

Little support from government to the environmental industry national(Central Environmental Protection Fund preferences for infrastructure and end-of-pipe solutions), 1-5 years

Lack of correct records on waste stream both for businesses nationaland authorities, 1-3 years

Energy Excessive energy consumption in industry and population, 10-20 years national

Lack of national concept to incinerate agricultural by-products nationalfor energy production

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, nationalover 50 years

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

Noise and Deficiencies in urban development policy: residential areas are major citiesVibration, established in the neighborhood of industrial sitesOccupational Excessive noise from transportation, 20-30 years major citiesHealth and

Lack of local noise protection plans (local governments), 1-3 years nationalSafety

Lack of frequent employee health checks, 5 years national

Lack of emergency response plans (modeling of potential sources nationalof danger, on-going training of employees), 5 years

TABLE 3.7 (CONTINUED) : MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN HUNGARY



Country Topic Total Cost

Switzerland Wastewater treatment at Pecs Tannery 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)

Japan 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

USA 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 USD 6 million (for 3 countries)water monitoring system

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 no datasound manner

Environment-oriented know-how and technology transfer in no dataPest county

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

TABLE 3.8: MAJOR BILATERAL PROJECTS COORDINATED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

percent of all wastewater is discharged into the sewage systemand treated properly by the year 2010.

Currently, some 50 percent of the Hungarian population isexposed to excessive noise levels from transportation. Asregards occupational noise protection, all newly establishedindustrial facilities have to keep noise levels below specifiedlimits, while existing facilities must comply with these newlimits by the year 2010.


Table 3.7 presents the major environmental issues surveyrespondents currently face or expect to face in the comingyears. Interestingly, only a few interviewees indicated a spe-cific location, and were able to estimate the expected durationof the problems. The former may have been caused by anunwillingness to reveal potential areas where respondentswere planning to start activities. The latter suggests that theenvironmental strategy of the government, (e.g. allocation offinancial resources, regulations, action plans, etc.) is not trans-parent and does not clearly show the urgency and level of pri-orities. This comment was especially common among R&Dsector respondents — business interviewees seemed to have abetter knowledge of government priorities and the mosturgent problems needing to be solved.


Respondents from the business sector were not willing toreveal their on-going environmental projects, except for thosecoordinated by the government and which are therefore wellpublicized. Listed below are the most important projects inprogress coordinated by various state bodies acronyms areexplained at the beginning of this report).

Water

Sewage water treatment program in Budapest and majorcities;

Sewerage and sewage water treatment program to reduce thegap 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 moni-toring system.

Air

Harmonization of Hungarian laws on air pollution with EU

legislation (monitoring of air quality, setting emission lim-its for emissions by power plants, etc.)

Other

Varpalota region industrial sub-program for remediation ofpast environmental damages;

Asbestos program (a national asbestos register is to beestablished);

Pollution abatement program (action program to identifyand address 10-20 local environmental pollution problemsmost detrimental to human health);

Development of Hungarian environmental industry toimprove international competitiveness (government pro-gram will be suggested by IKIM, KTM and theEnvironmental Committee of the Parliament);

Promotion of environmental management systems (infor-mal joint project of IKIM, OMFB, KTM).

For detailed information on current wastewater programs,please contact Mr. Istvan Sindel, Secretary at the Ministry ofEnvironment, Main Department “Protection of NaturalElements”/”Water Protection” Department, Tel: (36-1) 201-2137.

For more information on air-related projects, contact Mr.Istvan Csoknyai, Head of the Ministry of EnvironmentDepartment of Protection of Natural Elements/Air Protectionand Noise Control, Tel: (36-1) 201-4019.

For more details on the Varpalota region industrial subpro-gram, the asbestos program, and the pollution abatement pro-gram, contact Mr. Lajos Csorba Nebb, Secretary at the Ministryof Environment Department of Environmental Developmentand Safety/Environmental Development, Tel: (36-1) 201-5180.

For more information on the Hungarian environmentalindustry development project, contact Mr. Erno Wittek; fordetails on the environmental management system (EMS) pro-motion contact Mr. Istvan Danyi, at IKIM (Ministry forIndustry, Trade and Tourism), Department of TechnologicalPolicy, Tel: (36-1) 118-5180.

Additionally, a number of bilateral and multilateral projectsare coordinated by the Ministry of Environment’s Europeanand International Integration Department. The major projectscurrently in progress are listed in Table 3.8. More details on theprograms listed in Table 3.8 can be obtained from the contactpersons listed in Table 3.9.


Almost all the interviewed respondents indicated personaland professional contacts as the main source of information con-cerning environmental project opportunities. Business and envi-ronment-related publications, as well as participation in environ-



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)

Germany 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)

TABLE 3.8 (CONT.): MAJOR BILATERAL PROJECTS COORDINATED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

mental trade fairs and conferences were other important sources.The most frequently read environment-related magazines

are Kornyezetvedelmi Fuzetek (Environmental ProtectionBooklets) (OMIKK), Kornyezet es Fejlodes’ (Environment andDevelopment) and the ‘Kornyezetvedelmi es Vízugyi Ertesíto(Environment and Water Protection Bulletin). Most localauthorities in Hungary receive the magazine Kornyezet-vedelem (Environmental Protection).

A much higher percentage of interviewed professionals readeconomic and business newspapers like Heti Vilaggazdasag(Weekly World Economy) and Napi Vilaggazdasag (DailyWorld Economy). However, environmental project opportuni-ties are rarely mentioned in these publications.

Fairs and exhibitions of environmental technologies areattended by 90 percent of the interviewed respondents fromthe business and government sectors, and by 50 percent ofrespondents from the R&D sector. Respondents from the lattergroup participate more often in non-commercial events, suchas conferences and symposia. Half of the interviewed busi-nesspeople attend one or two events each year, and one thirdvisit at least three fairs.

For comparison, Table 3.10 ranks information sources forbusiness opportunities, based on a 1995 survey of 150 envi-ronmental businesses in Hungary carried out by the RegionalEnvironmental Center.

The findings of the current survey correspond well withthe picture given from Table 3.10, where personal and/or pro-fessional contacts (including conference and trade show atten-dance) are the major source of information, followed by pro-fessional associations, trade shows and fairs, and business andenvironmental publications.

Based on the same 1995 survey, Table 3.11 presents themain business and environmental publications read byHungarian environmental professionals.

The role of environmental and trade associations inHungary is quite limited, as shown in Table 3.12.

Interestingly, 61 percent of respondents stated they did notbelong to any professional association. It is therefore surpris-ing that at the same time 84 percent of respondents indicatedprofessional associations as a source of information for envi-ronmental business project opportunities (see Table 3.10).One can only assume that, through personal contacts, infor-mation published by professional associations reaches a widenon-membership audience.

From the limited information received concerning thefocus and approximate date of major environmental fairs inHungary, it appears that participation in environmental fairsand exhibitions is an important, albeit not the major, source ofinformation. Many respondents noted that they are not awareof any central register or publication listing environmentalevents, even though such a register would be extremely usefulfor planning one’s attendance of the most important events.



Donor Country Contact Person Telephone

Switzerland, UK Ms. Zsuzsa Arokhazi (36-1) 201-2243

Japan, USA Ms. Eszter Szovenyi (36-1) 201-3764

Canada, France, Ms. Csillag Deak (36-1) 201-4782Germany

Denmark, Ms. Katalin Schreier, (36-1) 201-2891Belgium, Holland Ms. Marta Galambos

TABLE 3.9: CONTACT POINTS FOR BILATERALENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

Publication Respondents (%)

HVG 35

Kornyezetvedelmifuzetek 34

Napi Vilaggazdasag 28

Cegvezetes 15

Kornyezet es Fejlodes 13

Figyelo 10

Kornyezetvedelmi es Vizugyiertesito 6

Budapest Business Journal 8

Piac 6


TABLE 3.11: MAIN BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS


Professional contacts 92%





Daily newspapers 62%




Mailing lists 34%


Other ministries 32%

Academic associations 27%

Ministry of industry/trade 27%

Fax 23%

Other 19%

Local and regional governments 14%

Email 7%


TABLE 3.10: MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATIONON ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

Association Respondents Enlisted (%)

Hydrology Society 23

METESZ 12

Chamber of Engineers 10

Association of Chemists 7

Environmental Protection Association 6

Economic Chamber 3


TABLE 3.12: MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS

Table 3.13 presents the major environment-related fairs inHungary. In addition, Table 3.14 lists a number of other fairs,mainly those with a regional focus and which have an envi-ronmental component.

Table 3.15 presents the major environment-related confer-ences in Hungary.

Public Procurement ActThe public procurement procedure currently in force in

Hungary is a potentially important way to identify environ-mental business opportunities. Local authorities and govern-mental agencies are obliged to announce a tender for mostinvestments involving the use of public money. As the systemdevelops, tender procedures are likely to play an increasingrole as a source of information concerning upcoming projects.

The area is regulated by Act XI. 1995 on PublicProcurement. Partial regulations in the field in Hungary havebeen in force since November 1, 1995, with comprehensiveregulations made effective from January 1, 1996. Accordingto the Act, public investments above a specified value madeby the national government and local authorities are subjectto a tender procedure. The provisions apply to governmentalbodies and local authorities, to associations created by thesebodies, as well as to public institutions, public foundationsand public utilities. Subject to the public procurementprocess are acquisitions of products and services, and con-struction investments.

The specific investment values above which public procure-ment procedure and tendering become mandatory are deter-mined annually. In 1996, the following limits were applicable:

HUF 10 million (approx. USD 60,000) for product pur-chases

HUF 20 million (approx. USD 120,000) for constructioninvestments

HUF 5 million (approx. USD 30,000) for construction plan-ning (blueprint)

Both tender announcements and the results of the biddinghave to be published in the Kozbeszerzesi Erteseto (PublicProcurement Bulletin). Regular media receive and can publishinformation concerning tenders only after they have beenadvertised in the Bulletin.

The tender procedure can be open, closed, or negotiable.Generally, open tenders are the preferred method — the lattertwo can only be used in cases specified by the Act.Announcement of the project in the Public ProcurementBulletin is the first step in the open tender procedure. The con-tent of the announcement is regulated by law, and shouldinclude: documentation required for application, detailedterms of reference, a technical description of the project, andbidding deadlines. After the contract has been awarded, thedecision is published in the Public Procurement Bulletin.

The Hungarian Parliament has enacted two additional



Name of Fair City Approximate Date

CHEMEXPO Budapest March, annually

HUNGAROKORR Budapest April, biannually

VERTESEXPO Tatabanya Spring, annually

GYONGYOSEXPO Gyongyos annually

EXPO EAST Nyíregyhaza November, annually

Note: Events listed above generally have a regional focus, and environ-mental protection is not necessarily the major field

TABLE 3.14: OTHER FAIRS PARTLY FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES


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 Szombathely April-March, annually municipal solid waste handling‘Koztisztasagi Egyesule (location not set)(Communal Association)

INDUSTRIA OKO-TECH Budapest May, annually different environmental fields

KOMMUNALEXPO Budapest June, annually sewage, wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste handling

NATUREXPO Budapest August 1996 environment protection, nature conservation(one-time event)

BNV Budapest September, annually general(Budapest International Fair)

International Conference and Budapest October, annually energy efficiency and savingFair on Energy Conservation and Environmental Technologies

BUDATRANSPACK Budapest October, annually material handling, packaging

Note: Highlighted in bold are the major events

TABLE 3.13: MAJOR ENVIRONMENT-RELATED FAIRS IN HUNGARY

pieces of legislation related to public procurement:

1/1996. (II.7.) KTM rendelet: detailed technical require-ments for announcements of construction investmentssubject to public procurement;

125/1996. (VII.24.) KORM. rendelet: detailed rules ofpublic procurement applicable to public institutionsfinanced from the national budget.

Important Contact Points for Environmental ProjectOpportunities

Almost all the institutions listed in Table 3.16 are active ina range of environmental sectors, and therefore specific sec-tors are not indicated.

There is no “formal” institution or clearinghouse inHungary collecting and disseminating information concerningenvironmental business opportunities. As indicated earlier,personal and professional contacts seem to be the most impor-tant and effective source of information for project opportuni-ties. Two thirds of respondents indicated that informationgathering via official/governmental channels (KTM, OMFB,MTA, OMIKK, EU Energy Center) is “very incidental.”


In general, aside from the ever-present financial con-straints, purchasing environmental technologies does not poseany significant problems in Hungary because of the wide rangeof products available on the market. Representatives of domes-tic and foreign companies often visit potential clients in person,or contact them by mail, offering products and services. Surveyrespondents generally believe the market to be saturated.

Based on the survey interviews, the most common meansof gathering information prior to purchase of environmentaltechnologies 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

through chambers of commerce

assistance from environmental inspectorates

As with the situation with information about projectopportunities, when purchasing environmental technologies,most domestic Hungarian firms strongly rely on personal con-tacts, which are the primary source of information. In contrast,foreign firms and joint-ventures mostly depend on informationprovided by the parent company or the foreign partner.

3.5 Demand for EnvironmentalTechnologiesDEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES— OVERVIEW

In most categories, demand for environmental technolo-gies in Hungary was estimated to be between moderate andhigh. Interestingly, respondents indicated a low level ofdemand in about a quarter of the technology sectors. Very fewtechnologies were listed where demand was estimated “highand likely to grow.” In general, significant demand was identi-fied for energy-related technologies, and technologies relatedto industrial wastewater treatment and the treatment and dis-posal of hazardous and radioactive waste.

High demand in the air sector was identified for instru-mentation and process control/software, while growingdemand was expected for technologies for air sampling/labo-ratory analysis for gaseous emissions, and for air pollutioncontrol/flue gas purification equipment.

Demand for environmental technologies in the water andwastewater sector was moderate. The most needed technolo-gies in this category were those for industrial wastewater treat-ment. High demand was identified for industrial and munici-pal wastewater sludge treatment and disposal technologies.Technologies where demand is expected to rise includedthose for the construction of collection networks for municipaland industrial wastewater; water recycling and reuse forpotable water and industrial wastewater; spill control and con-tainment/clean-up for surface and groundwater; instrumenta-tion, process control, and software for industrial wastewater;standard and advanced treatment technologies for industrialwastewater; and inspection and reconditioning of existingwastewater collection networks.

Waste management appears to be one of the mostpromising environmental market sectors in Hungary.Significant opportunities are anticipated in hazardous waste



Name of Conference City Approximate Date Focus

National Environmental Days Budapest February, annually municipal solid waste, water, for Local Governments wastewater, air

National Conference on Transportation Budapest May transportation, fuels and lubricants, and Environment vehicle manufacturing

National Environmental Budapest September, annually environment in generalInformation Conference

DAT ‘9x (International Conference Budapest October, annually Special section on recyclingof Database Distributors)

National Conference on Agriculture Budapest November, annually environmental issues in agricultureand Environment

Conference of the Hungarian Godollo annually biomass, energeticsBiomass Association

TABLE 3.15: CONFERENCES WITH A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT

disposal, followed by radioactive and industrial waste man-agement. High demand was identified for technologies usedfor hazardous waste site remediation/clean-up of contami-nated land; for radioactive waste, equipment for sampleanalysis/waste characterization; site monitoring; and wastecollection, transportation and storage. Demand was expect-ed to rise for pollution prevention/waste minimizationequipment for industrial and hazardous waste; technologiesfor recycling/resource recovery for industrial waste; tech-nologies and equipment for waste collection, transportationand storage of hazardous waste and hazardous waste sitemonitoring; and technologies for spillage control/decontam-

ination for hazardous waste.Demand for energy-related technologies was generally

high, especially in comparison with other environmental sec-tors. Technologies where high demand was identified included:instrumentation; and equipment for retrofitting/rehabilitation ofexisting systems. Demand was expected to increase for equip-ment related to process management and control; new and effi-cient energy and heat generation systems; and heat recoveryand energy saving equipment. The recent privatization of ener-gy utility companies in Hungary is likely to speed up the mod-ernization of the sector, which, combined with stricter air pollu-tion regulations, seems to be the major reason behind the antic-



Organization Name and Address Contact Information

Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy (KTM) Mr. Arpad Kovacs, Tel: (36-1) 201-2043, Fax: 201-39711011 Budapest, Fo u. 40-50 Mr. Tibor Farago, Tel/fax: (36-1) 201-4091see also Table 3.9 for more contact details Mr. Gyorgy Erdey, Tel: (36-1) 201-1407, Fax: 201-2819

Secretariat of the Central Environmental Fund (KKA) Mr. Istvan Sindell1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50 Tel: (36-1) 457-3300, Fax: 457-3413

PHARE Office (KTM) Mr. Bela Donath1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50 Tel: (36-1) 201-1691, Fax: 201-5780

Environmental Inspectorate, Budapest Mr. Pal Varga1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50 Tel: (36-1) 201-4619, Fax: 201-4284

Environmental Service Providers Association (KSS) Ms. Anna Szekely1149 Budapest, Angol u. 42 Tel/fax: (36-1) 220-2367, tel. 220-2369

Environmental Information Club (KVIK) Mr. Zoltan Szarvas1148 Budapest, Limanova ter 25 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 Tel: (36-1) 252-5454, Fax: 252-65181142 Budapest, Dorozsmai u. 110

Environmental Management Institute Dr. Attila Kovacs1369 Budapest, 5 Pf.352, Budapest, V Alkotmany u. 29 Tel: (36-1) 332-9940, Fax: (36-1) 111-5826

National Association of Waste Recyclers Mr. Henrik Balatoni1066 Budapest, Dessewffy u. 3 Tel: (36-1) 111-1477; Fax: (36-1) 131-1516

National Committee for Technological Development (OMFB) Ms. Ilona Szabo1052 Budapest, Szervita ter 8 tel. (36-1) 117-5900, Fax: (36-1) 118-7998

Public Hygiene Society Mr. Gyorgy Nagy2483 Gardony, Pf. 15, Gardony Bone K. u. 44 Tel: (36-22) 355-065, Fax: (36-22) 355-253

Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA) Dr. CsabaKiss1082 Budapest, Ulloi ut 66/b-I, VI-4 Tel/fax: (36-1) 333-2931

Independent Ecology Center Ms. Judit Vasarhelyi1035 Budapest, Miklos ter 1 Tel: (36-1) 180-3420, Fax: (36-1) 250-1546

Environmental Training Program Ms. Vilma Eri1112 Budapest, Budaorsi út 45 Tel: (36-1) 185-0777

Regional Environmental Center for Central and Mr. Pawel KazmierczykEastern Europe (REC) Tel: (36-26) 311-199, fax: (36-26) 311-2942000 Szentendre, Ady Endre ut 9-11

Hungarian Association for Environmentally Aware Mr. Gergely TothManagement (KOVET-INEM Hungaria) Tel: (36-1) 131-7578, Fax: (36-1) 332-07871063 Budapest, Munkacsy M. u. 16

Foundation for Industry Dr. Tamas Kemeny1063 Budapest, Munkacsy M. u. 16 Tel: (36-1) 312-2213, Fax: (36-1) 332-0787

Danube Circle Mr. Janos Varga1026 Budapest, Gabor Aron u. 33 Tel: (20) 419-096

WWF Hungary Mr. Ferenc Markus1124 Budapest, Nemethvolgyi u. 78/b Tel/fax: (36-1) 175-4790

TABLE 3.16: CONTACT POINTS FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

ipated high demand in the sector. Many experts noted that therewere significant market opportunities in decreasing energy loss-es in production process, transmission, and consumption.

In the noise, vibration and occupational health and safetysector, high demand was identified for abatement technolo-gies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion), and for protection equip-ment in the occupational health and safety sector. Increasingdemand was also identified for noise and vibration abatementtechnologies in the construction industry.

TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND BY SECTORTables 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 notgrow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion.


AirMost respondents indicated a greater level of demand for

air-pollution related technologies for gaseous emissions fromstationary sources compared to demand for products related toambient air. High demand in this category was identified forinstrumentation and process control/software. Growingdemand was expected for technologies for air sampling/labo-ratory analysis for gaseous emissions, and for air pollutioncontrol/flue gas purification equipment.

Business representatives and government officials seemedto agree that instrumentation and process control/softwarewas an area in high demand.

Respondents from the government sector also indicatedgrowing demand was likely for air pollution control and fluegas purification equipment. The need is driven by Hungary’scommitment to cut SO2, NOx and freon emissions, accordingto international treaties (Geneva, Montreal), and by the har-monization of Hungarian environmental legislation with thatof the European Union (a new law on air emissions is expect-ed to come into force in 1997). Interestingly, respondents from

the business sector evaluated demand for air pollution controland flue gas purification equipment as moderate, frequentlyexpressing an opinion that no significant growth in spendingcan be expected unless applicable regulations and the level ofenforcement change. Currently, only new investments createdemand for this kind of equipment.

Local governments indicated a need for air quality moni-toring systems in areas where air is heavily polluted by trafficand vehicles. However, respondents from the business sectordid not indicate a high demand for air monitoring systems.

Water and WastewaterDemand for environmental technologies for water and

wastewater was moderate. Only in one technology class wasdemand identified as “high and likely to grow”. The mostneeded technologies in this sector were for industrial waste-water treatment.

High demand was identified for sludge treatment and dis-posal technologies for industrial and municipal wastewater.Technologies where demand is expected to rise includedthose for: construction of collection networks for municipaland industrial wastewater; water recycling and reuse forpotable water and industrial wastewater; spill control and con-tainment/clean-up for surface and groundwater; instrumenta-tion, process control, and software for industrial wastewater;standard and advanced treatment technologies for industrialwastewater; and inspection and reconditioning of existingwastewater collection networks.

As regards technologies for surface and ground water,moderate growth in demand was expected for quality restora-tion and decontamination, and clean-up technologies.Respondents from the government sector generally gave high-er rankings in this category than business representatives. Thedemand is driven by the threat to water resources from waste-water discharges and soil contamination (e.g. hazardous com-pounds and hydrocarbon contaminated areas identified in thecourse of privatization; oil contamination of the Soroksar armof the Danube; dichloroethyl contamination of the waterreserves in Szekszard, etc.).

Both groups of respondents expressed similar opinionsabout the need for water quality monitoring systems,although demand is still only growing slowly. In the munici-pality of Budapest, however, some 600 monitoring pointshave already been established for the regular checking ofwater quality, while the levels of radioactivity in the Danubeare also inspected regularly.

Among technologies for potable water, increasing demandwas identified for water reuse and recycling equipment, stan-dard and advanced treatment process technologies, andequipment and technologies for the reconstruction of existingwater supply networks. Some experts noted that there was asignificant need for water loss and leakage control in waterdistribution networks, and suggested strong growth potentialin this area. Respondents also expected a growing demand foradvanced water treatment processes, as currently used equip-ment rapidly becomes outdated and will have to be replaced.Water-saving household appliances are also increasinglysought as water charges increase.

Demand for technologies for the treatment of municipalwastewater is expected to grow in the near future. There is alarge gap between the percentage of the population withwater supply and those connected to a sewage system inHungary. In response, a large governmental program has beenprepared which specifies that wastewater treatment should beavailable in all communities with more than 2000 inhabitantsby the year 2010. As a result, growing demand was identifiedfor construction of wastewater collection networks, standardand advanced wastewater treatment processes, and instru-mentation and process control. Several respondents indicated



Ambient Gaseous Air Emissions



Air pollution control/flue gas 3.1 (4) 3.6 (7)purification equipment (e.g. filters, scrubbers)


Best available technology for 3.1 (5) 3.4 (5)emission abatement at source/cleaner production (e.g. low emission burners)


Technologies in demand: #1 instrumentation and process control/soft-ware

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 airsampling/laboratory analysis (gaseous emissions); #3 air pollution con-trol/flue gas purification equipment

TABLE 3.17: DEMAND FOR AIR QUALITY-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

significant demand can be expected for sludge treatment anddisposal technologies, although the major impediments in thisfield are the shortage of available areas for lagoons, and anunclear situation with respect to land ownership. Finally,although it is not evident from Table 3.18, some experts men-tioned business opportunities related to upgrading existingwastewater treatment plants, e.g. by adding a biological treat-ment stage, deepening reservoirs, or introducing modern aer-ation systems. Significantly, many respondents indicated thatsuppliers’ ability to mobilize additional financing was a strongcompetitive advantage.

Finally, increasing demand in industrial wastewater treat-ment was identified for sludge treatment and disposal, instru-mentation and process control, construction and moderniza-tion of collection networks, water recycling and reuse, andstandard and advanced treatment technologies. Opinions weredivided on the need for the construction of new treatmentplants and collection networks — some experts thought thatthe decline in industrial production has left existing facilitiesunder-utilized. The demand for advanced (tertiary) treatmenttechnologies is driven by stricter limits for pollutant dischargesto receiving water bodies, and by on-going replacement ofobsolete equipment, while the rising costs of water supply areexpected to lead to growing demand for water reuse and recy-cling technologies. Finally, significant demand was identifiedfor industrial wastewater sludge treatment technologies, similarto the situation decribed for municipal wastewater sludge.

It should be noted that, strictly speaking, demand in thewater and wastewater sector, as identified in Table 3.18, wasmoderate. This is surprizing, given the priority given in thestate environmental policy to the protection of water resourcesand improvement of drinking water quality. Therefore, in theresearcher’s opinion, the technologies in the sector wheredemand is expected to rise will be in increasingly highdemand in a short span of time.

Waste ManagementWaste management, according to respondents, is one of the

most promising environmental market sectors in Hungary.Significant opportunities are expected in hazardous waste dis-posal, followed by radioactive and industrial waste management.

Technologies in high demand included: hazardous waste-site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land; and, forradioactive waste, equipment for sample analysis/waste char-acterization; site monitoring; and waste collection, transporta-tion and storage.

Demand was expected to rise for pollution prevention/waste minimization equipment for industrial and hazardouswaste; technologies for recycling/resource recovery for indus-trial waste; technologies and equipment for waste collection,transportation and storage of hazardous waste and hazardouswaste site monitoring; and technologies for spillagecontrol/decontamination for hazardous waste.

Demand for technologies related to municipal solid wastemanagement was low to moderate, although growing demandwas expected by several interviewees for construction of land-fills. The primary obstacle to the construction of new landfills isthe objection made by the local population (“not in my back-yard” attitude), and the lack of financing — local governmentsmust provide two thirds of project financing (although estab-lishment of regional landfills is supported financially by thegovernment). In the vicinity of Budapest, there are also prob-lems 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 relatedto waste collection, transportation and storage, since agingexisting equipment must be modernized or replaced. With theintroduction of selective waste collection systems, demand islikely to increase, and so is the need for temporary storage,sorting and bailing technologies. Respondents active in com-posting and biomass conversion usually specified higher




Monitoring 3.3 (9) 2.5 (4) 2.7 (9) 3.3 (10)



Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and 3.3 (4) 3.2 (6) 2.8 (9) 3.5 (10)collection networks

Standard physical, chemical, and biological 3.0 (1) 3.5 (4) 3.4 (13) 3.5 (12)treatment processes

Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. UV/ozonation, 2.8 (4) 3.5 (4) 3.4 (10) 3.5 (12)activated carbon, phosphate removal, reverse osmosis)


Best available technology for pollution prevention/ 3.0 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.5 (2) 3.4 (5)waste minimization





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 andreuse — 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 ofexisting wastewater collection networks

TABLE 3.18: DEMAND FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

demand for their services than environmental technologyexperts in general.

With respect to the treatment and disposal of industrialwaste, increasing demand was identified for pollution pre-vention and waste minimization equipment, and resourcerecovery and recycling technologies. The major factor drivingdemand is the increasing price of landfill disposal, currently atHUF 500-800 (USD 3-5) per cubic meter of non-hazardousindustrial waste. The price is expected to double or triple inthe near future. Interesting examples of on-going waste mini-mization projects include the battery factory Perion, or chem-ical company Viscosa. The projects are implemented with theassistance of the World Environment Center/WEC/.

High and increasing demand was identified for hazardouswaste technologies. The new waste law is a key factor behindthis, although it was noted that many companies are not will-ing to undertake sound waste management practices whichare beyond the requirements specified by the law. The high-est demand in the entire waste management category wasidentified for those technologies related to site remediationand clean-up of contaminated land, which often results fromthe current practice of “temporarily” storing hazardous wasteon-site until a suitable disposal method is identified. Forinstance, the Budapest Chemical Works (BudapestiVegyimuvek) has thousands of drums of hazardous chemicalsstored in Gare, in southern Hungary. Finally, a high numberof legal and illegal (uncatalogued) hazardous waste disposalsites will have to be remediated.

Hazardous waste generation, currently stagnant becauseof the decline in industrial activities, is expected to increaseas the economy expands. However, there is still no systemin place for the proper management of hazardous waste.Only one major hazardous waste incinerator is currentlyoperating in Hungary (in Dorog, with a capacity of 25,000tons per year) while a few smaller incinerators, mostly out-dated, are used at industrial sites or hospitals. Generally,the disposal of hazardous waste is based either on landfill-ing, or the use of “temporary” storage sites as discussedabove. No decision has yet been made about the numberand location of new hazardous waste incinerators (financ-ing has not been secured yet, either), while the construction

of new landfill sites is hampered by the shortage of suitablelocations. This situation, combined with rapidly growingwaste disposal prices and stricter regulations, is the key fac-tor behind the identified growth in demand for technologiesrelating to pollution prevention and waste minimization. Itis worth noting that pollution prevention and waste mini-mization are two of the major priorities in the government’scurrent environmental policy.

A growing demand was also identified for technologies forwaste collection, transportation, and storage of hazardouswaste, as well as for equipment providing for continuous mon-itoring of existing landfills.

Finally, high and growing demand was indicated for mosttechnologies related to radioactive waste management (espe-cially for sample analysis and waste characterization, sitemonitoring, and waste collection and transport). However, itis necessary to stress that even though the few respondentswho addressed the issue expected high and growing demand,in terms of market share, radioactive waste managementmakes up only a small proportion of the entire waste man-agement market in Hungary.

EnergyDemand for energy-related technologies was generally

high, especially in comparison with other environmental sec-tors. There were also remarkably few differences between theexpected 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/rehabilitationof existing systems. Demand was increasing for equipmentrelated to process management and control; new and efficientenergy and heat generation systems; and technologies relatedto heat recovery and energy savings.

The recent privatization of energy utility companies inHungary is likely to speed up the modernization of the sec-tor, which, combined with stricter air pollution regulations,seems to be the major reason driving the expected highdemand in the sector.

Although it is not immediately obvious from Table 3.20,many experts noted that there were significant market oppor-



Municipal Solid Industrial Hazardous Radioactive Waste Waste Waste Waste



Site monitoring 3.2 (14) 3.5 (12) 3.7 (9) 4.3 (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 2.9 (10) 3.8 (12) 3.8 (8) 4.0 (2)prevention/waste minimization

Recycling/resource recovery 2.9 (13) 3.7 (15) 3.3 (10) -


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 mon-itoring; 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/resourcerecovery (industrial waste) #5 waste collection/transportation and storage (hazardous waste); #6 hazardous waste site monitoring; #7 spillage control/decon-tamination (hazardous waste)

TABLE 3.19: DEMAND FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

tunities in decreasing energy losses in production processes,transmission, and consumption, and expected that demandfor heat recovery and energy saving technologies will grow inthe near future. According to several studies, it is possible toimprove the efficiency of central heating systems and oldergas heating installations in a cost-effective way, throughchanging obsolete equipment and modernizing distributionsystems. The planned introduction of a billing system basedon actual energy consumption is likely to further stimulate thedemand for energy saving technologies. A governmental pro-gram is under preparation to help finance the modernizationof about one fifth of all Hungarian flats (approx. 700 thou-sand) in concrete block apartments, via improved insulationand better heating systems.

Similar to other market sectors, suppliers who are able tomobilize additional financing enjoy a competitive advantage,because the modernization of heating systems requires highinvestment, currently not available to potential investors.Interestingly, some foreign assistance to the sector is alreadyavailable in Hungary (e.g. the above-mentioned German gov-ernment-funded project to increase energy efficiency in pre-fabricated concrete blocks of flats).

Noise, Vibration, and Occupational Health and SafetyNoise, vibration and occupational health and safety is

clearly the most neglected sector among all those surveyedduring the research. High demand was identified for abate-ment technologies (e.g. insulation, absorbtion) and for protec-

tion equipment in the occupational health and safety sector.As workplace safety and liability issues become more signifi-cant in Hungary, demand is expected to grow.

Increasing demand was also identified for noise abatementtechnologies in the construction industry (e.g. insulation andabsorbtion materials for use at airports, along busy roads, andin the vicinity of industrial plants with excessive noise levels).



Energy Other Industrial and Sectors

Power (e.g. manufacturing, Generation chemical)



Process management and control (e.g. boiler tune-up, fuel efficiency optimization) 3.9 (7) 3.9 (7)





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 heatrecovery and energy savings

TABLE 3.20: DEMAND FOR ENERGY-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

Noise Occupational and Health and

vibration Safety



Abatement (insulation, absorbtion) 3.7 (6) 4.0 (4)


Technologies in high demand: #1 abatement (OHS) ; #2 Protectionequipment (OHS)

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: abatement (noiseand vibration)

TABLE 3.21: DEMAND FOR NOISE, VIBRATION,AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

Category End-users by Sector

Air Energy sector, power plants, chemical works, transportation, waste incinerators, metallurgy

Water and Municipal water and wastewater service companies, chemical industry, energy sector, mining, food Wastewater 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, Transportation, public transport, all manufacturing activities, industrial sites located in residential and Occupational areas, energy sector, textile industry, airportsHealth and Safety

TABLE 3.22: END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

MAJOR END-USERS OF ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES

Table 3.22 presents the major groups of end-users of envi-ronmental technologies, as identified by the respondents.

According to respondents, the energy and power genera-tion sector and municipalities are the main end-users of envi-ronmental technologies across all categories. The chemicalindustry, and other raw material extraction and processingindustries are also significant end-user groups.

Additionally, the transport sector was identified as a signif-icant end-user of technologies for air pollution control, andnoise and vibration abatement. Water and wastewater, andwaste management technologies are widely used in the miningsector, agriculture and food processing, and textile industry.

Interestingly, the ranking of end-users in each sector, andespecially the high position of municipalities, reflects thedecline in industrial production in the period since 1991, whenmany factories ceased operation owing to financial con-straints. The closures resulted in a decrease in industrial pollu-tion and discharges. This, combined with the fact that manysignificant environmental problems in industry have alreadybeen solved, has led to the municipal sector being one of themajor end-users of environmental technologies.

3.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers PURCHASING PREFERENCES

In discussing purchasing preferences with Hungarianexperts, the country of origin of a particular environmental tech-nology was indicated not to be a determining factor. Instead, 5out of 6 respondents preferred to consider product quality andreferences. One interviewee in six opted for domestic technolo-gy wherever possible, although a major obstacle to buyingdomestic products cited was that they are not available in certainfields (e.g. water treatment technologies, flue gas purification).

Among those respondents purchasing foreign environ-mental technologies, about half buy directly from a foreignsupplier, while the remainder buy from local representatives.Buyers frequently opting for direct purchases included for-eign-owned firms or joint-ventures, and clients requiring cus-tomized and very specialized technologies. In the latter cate-gory, it was noted that direct purchase is often the only option,because a local representative office often does not exist. Inthe respondents’ opinions, when a local representative officedoes exist, the foreign manufacturer usually does not carry outdirect sales, directing clients to the local representative instead.With the growing number of in-country representatives, localpurchase is expected to increase.

Opinions of respondents from the R&D sector with respectto foreign suppliers were restricted to laboratory equipment,instruments, and pilot technologies. Similar to other respon-dents, product quality and references are considered first.Purchases are made, in roughly equal proportion, from local rep-resentatives and from producers abroad. In general, direct pur-chases were preferred where previous contacts with the suppli-er were established, or where higher quantity orders were made.


About 50 percent of respondents specified the high quali-ty, reliability and durability of products as advantages of for-eign technologies. A third of respondents believed foreignenvironmental technology products offered good value for

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, for-eign financial support often was not fully effective, eitherbecause no Hungarian financial institution would become a co-financing partner in such schemes, or, when they did, the stip-ulated conditions would make borrowing (even with preferen-tial foreign financing) as expensive as borrowing from a bank.

Opinions were divided with respect to the quality of aftersales service — some respondents believed it was good, whileothers stated service was poor, unpunctual and unreliable.

BARRIERS TO BUYING ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES FROM ABROAD

By far the major barrier to buying foreign environmentaltechnologies in Hungary is price. Eighty percent of respon-dents mentioned high price was the major disadvantage of for-eign products. About a quarter of the interviewees regardedforeign technologies as not being suited to local conditionsand technical culture (e.g. measurement standards are differ-ent, the equipment is not of the proper size, etc.).

Other obstacles (mentioned by about 15 percent of respon-dents) included high customs duties, changing environmentalregulations, difficulties to ensure local technical service, commu-nication problems with foreign suppliers (mainly with respect tolanguage), and the lack of information concerning suppliers.

Fifteen percent of the interviewed experts did not experi-ence any problems with buying environmental technologiesfrom abroad.

3.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in theEnvironmental Technology MarketPERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES

Austria and Germany are by far the major players on theenvironmental technology market in Hungary, followed byHolland, France, USA, Japan and Scandinavian countries. Inindividual sectors, the perceived leaders in environmentaltechnologies are as shown in Table 3.23.

Austrian and German environmental technologies enjoyedgood to excellent reputation in the air, water and wastewater,waste management, and energy sectors. Perception of Americantechnologies was good in water and wastewater, waste man-agement, energy, and noise, vibration, and OHS sectors.

Dutch technologies were rated high in the water and waste-water and energy sectors, while French products were evaluat-ed highly in the water and wastewater, and waste management



Sector Country

Air Germany, Austria, Japan

Water and Germany, Austria, Holland, wastewater France, US

Waste Austria, Germany, France, US

Energy Germany, Holland, US

Noise, vibration, Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden),and OHS Japan, US

TABLE 3.23: PERCEIVED LEADING COUNTRIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES



Competitive StrengthsCompany Name Country of Origin Specialization and Weaknesses

AIR

EROTERV-WAGNER-BIRO Austria-Hungary pneumatic delivery systems, scrubbers, Kornyezetvedelmi Kft, Budapest dust removal technologies

HUNGAROPANOL France-Hungary solid material filtering beds, major playerLegtechnikai Berendezeseket air conditioning systemsGyarto Rt, Csongrad

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 50 year experience in the US, well estab-lished in Hungary

WATER

FREY Hungaria Kft, Budapest Austria oil-contaminated wastewater treatment/degreasing

Purator Hungaria Kft, Budapest Austria wastewater treatment

Envirotech Austria, Hungary

SADE Kft, Szeged France water supply systems, water treatment

OMS-Hungaria Kft, Tata Germany biological treatment process, aerobic permission for all stabilization of sludge areas, modern technol-

ogy, full service

Multiproject Kft, Budapest Germany-Hungary municipal wastewater treatment plants

ABS/Komtech Ltd Germany pumps and mixers significant share of the market high product quality

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

WASTE

AKSD, Debrecen Austria (ASA, municipal services operates ownKropfel, Speizer) landfill site

ASA Magyarorszag Kft, Budapest Austria municipal and industrial waste disposal

PYRUS-FOLDGEP Kft, Budapest Austria hazardous waste disposal the only haz. waste landfill facility inHungary

Mugu Austria waste paper and metal trade

Rumpold Hungaria Kft, Austria municipal waste well-experienced

Dorog Waste Incinerator France incineration of hazardous wastes the only haz. waste Kft, Dorog incinerator in Hungary

TABLE 3.24: MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES




BIOKOM Kft, Pecs France, Hungary municipal services responsible for theTransdanubian waste recycling program

ERECO Kelet-Europai France collection and disposal of municipal modern technology,Hulladekfeldolgozo es and industrial waste market leaderKornyezetvededelmi Rt, Budapest

Avermann-Hungaria Kft, Barcs, Germany production of compacting good connections atBudapest containers, waste collection the local level

REM Kft, Budapest Germany waste management diverse background,(RWE Entsorgung) including energy

sector companies

OTTO Magyarorszag Kft, Budapest Germany collection and transport of good connections atmunicipal waste the local level, prices

are determined in cooperation with local authorities

Becker-Pannonia Kft, Budapest Germany collection and delivery of good connections atmunicipal waste the local level, prices

are decided together with local government

Rethman Kft, Budapest Germany collection and delivery of good connections atmunicipal waste the local level, prices


Eszak Dunantuli MEH Hungary/Italy trade in metal waste and secondary raw materials

Comszolg Kft, Miskolc USA-Hungary collection and delivery of good connections atmunicipal waste the local level, prices


CEVA Hungary Kft USA, Hungary thermal soil cleaning

Jaycor USA site remediation, soil cleaning

CH2M Hill USA all waste related services well established in and consulting Hungary

ENERGY

Energie und Gebaude GmbH Austria energy supply systems for buildings

Ganz-Rock Kazan es Eromuvi Austria-Hungary design and production of energy-Berendezesek Rt, Budapest related equipment

Rockwool Hungaria Kft, Budapest Denmark production and distribution of rockwool for insulation

EROTERV-IVO Power Finland-Hungary design of energy production and Engineering Rt, Budapest distribution systems

Prometheus Rt France full range of energy-related services full service, EBRD program participant on energy efficiency

Energiagazdalkodasi RT, Budapest Germany-Hungary pollution control in power plants

Mannesmann Anlagenbau Germany heating and cooling systems, complete servicesHungaria Kft, Budapest energetics for buildings

Matrai Eromu Rt, Germany energy productionRWE-EVS consortium

VEW Energie Hungaria Germany energy efficient use of natural gasKft, Budapest

TABLE 3.24 (CONTINUED): MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

sectors. Environmental technologies from Japan were ratedwell in air pollution, and the noise, vibration, and OHS sectors.


Table 3.24 presents the main foreign environmental tech-nology suppliers active in Hungary.

Respondents’ level of knowledge of foreign technologieswas generally low, and few were able to describe in detail anyforeign companies. As a result, the table is based to a largedegree on a review of literature and environmental fair cata-logues, as well as the researcher’s own knowledge.

Overall, foreign companies were most active in the ener-gy, water and wastewater, and waste management sectors, fol-lowed 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, andAmerican companies were most active. German firms dominat-ed the water and wastewater sector, followed by Austrian,French and American suppliers. In the waste management sec-tor, German, Austrian, French, and American companies weremost active and seemed to be represented quite evenly.

Interestingly, although Dutch and Japanese suppliers weregenerally well respected as foreign suppliers, not a single firmfrom these countries was listed by respondents when asked toname a specific company.




Magyar Bycosin Kft Sweden

ABB Energy Kft, Budapest Sweden energy distribution, transport

Tiszai Eromu RT, AES Summit USA energy productionGeneration Ltd.

TUNSGRAM Rt, Budapest USA energy efficient lamps one of the largest R&D (General Electric) centers in Hungary

CEVA Hungary Kft USA, Hungary energy recovery from oily wastes

KIPSZER Kazantechnologia Kft boiler technology

Intertraverz Rt not willing to disclose any information

NOISE, VIBRATION, OHS

KG-Filter Kft. Austria-Hungary noise control, noise absorbers, local manufacturingfiltering technology facilities

Bruel and Kjaer Kft Denmark noise measurement instruments, advanced technology,analyzers excellent quality

MSA-AUER Hungaria Germany-USA protection equipment for workers, Biztonsagtechnikai Kft, Budapest respiratory protectors, protective clothing

TABLE 3.24 (CONTINUED): MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

3.8 List of Interviews

R&D sector1. Dr. Istvan Barotfi, Head of Department, GATE Dep. of

Environmental Technology, Oct. 28, 1996

2. Mr. Attila Rab, Scientific coordinator, Paper IndustryResearch 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 ChemicalResearch 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 ChemicalEngineering 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, Ministryfor Agriculture Technological Institute, Nov. 11, 1996

Government and Administration10. Ms. Gara, Dr. Katalin Nagy, chief counselor. KTM Surface

Water Protection Dept., Nov. 11, 1996

11. Mr. Robert Toth, chief counselor. KTM Air and NoiseProtection Dept., Nov. 14, 1996

12. Mr. Lajos Nebb-Csorba, secretary, KTM-KVHEnvironmental Protection Development andEnvironmental Safety Dept., Nov. 18, 1996

13. Dr. Pal Varga, deputy director, KTM Cheif EnvironmentalInspectorate, Dec. 5, 1996

14. Mr. Zoltan Malyinko, environmental officer, Eger LocalGovernment, Nov. 6, 1996

15. Mr. Zoltan Meleg, environmental officer. Budapest . LocalGovernment. 22. Nov. 1996

16. Mr. Agoston Papa, environmental referent, SzekszardLocal Government, Nov. 12, 1996

17. Mr. Istvan Rigo, chief counselor. Kaposvar LocalGovernment, 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 WasteRecyclers/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

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-LancLogisztikai Rt., Nov. 5, 1996

34. Mr. Geza Berhidai, deputy director, Rumpold HungariaKft., Nov. 18, 1996

35. Mr. Lajos, Millei, executive director, Implantronik Kft.,Nov. 19, 1996

36. Mr. Janos Soos, executive director, CEVA MagyarorszagKft., Nov. 19, 1996

37. Ms. Ferenc Busa, executive director, Hungacorr MernokiIroda, Nov. 11, 1996

38. Dr. Istvan Szipner, department manager, GEA-EGIEnergiahatekonysagi Iroda, Nov. 7, 1996

39. Ms. Judit Izsak, executive director, ITENVIROKornyezetvedelmi 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, PrometheuszTuzelestechnikai Rt., Nov. 14, 1996

42. Ms. Eleonora Varga-Maklary, technical manager, GyoriHulladekegeto Kft., Nov. 12, 1996

43. Mr. Janos Egerszegi, executive director, ERM HungariaKft., Nov. 12, 1996

44. Mr. Bela Demeter, executive director, TERRA-VITA Kft.,Nov. 19, 1996

45. Ms. Laszlo Dobos, department leader, TUV-RheinhlandHungaria Kft., Nov. 20, 1996

46. Mr. Zoltan Papp, chief engineer, FovarosiLevegotisztasagi Kft., Nov. 19, 1996

47. Ms. Klara Sziraky, executive, S.P.Office Kft., Nov. 22, 1996

48. Dr. Pal Mihalffy, department director, Autoipari KutatoRt., 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 ofSocial 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 ManagementDept., 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



3.9 List of publications1. Catalogue of Research Institutions in the Fields of

Environment Protection and EnvironmentalManagement, Budapest, 1990

2. Central Statistical Office (KSH), Yearbooks of 1993, 1994,1995

3. Dr. Istvan Barotfi (ed.): Environmental TechnologyHandbook, 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 EnvironmentalProtection Fund (Internet: http://www.meh.hu/egyeb/kvtv/1996/kornyezetvedelmi_alap.htm

9. INEM: Case Studies in Environmental Management inSmaLl 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 inSelected Central and Eastern European Countries, Paris,1995

13. OMFB, KTM: R&D Program of Environment Protectionfor the Years 1996-2000 — Draft, Budapest, November1996

14. REC: The Emerging Environmental Market – A Survey ofthe Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and the SlovakRepublic, Budapest, October 1995

15. REC: The Environmental Business Directory –Environmental Service and Technology Providers in theCzech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and the SlovakRepublic, Budapest, October 1995

16. Karoly Remenyi: Novel Technologies in Energetics,Budapest, Academic Publisher

17. KTM: Situation of Hazardous Waste Materials inHungary, 1994

3.10 Useful contactsPlease note that environmental technology firms are notincluded in the following list. For contact information and adescription of companies, see the database of EnvironmentalService Providers (KSZSZ) on the World Wide Web:http://www.c3.hu/~enviserv

Central Environmental Fund (KKA)1054 Budapest, Alkotmany u. 29Mr. 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 Institute2101 Godollo, Tessedik Samuel u. 4Dr. Laszlo Fenyvesi, Tel: (36-28) 320-960

Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy (KTM)1011 Budapest, Fo u. 40-50Mr. Arpad Kovacs, Tel: (36-1) 201-2043Mr. Tibor Farago, Tel: (36-1) 201-4091Mr. Gyorgy Erdey, Tel: (36-1) 201-1407

Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy (KTM),Dept. of R&D1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50Mr. Gabor Sindelyes, Tel: (36-1) 201-2934

Ministry for Industry, Trade and Tourism (MIKI, Dep.of Technological Policy1051 Budapest, Vigado u. 6Mr. Erno Wittek, (36-1) 118-5180

National Association of Waste Recyclers1066 Budapest, Dessewffy u. 3Mr. Henrik BalatoniTel: (36-1) 111-1477 or 131-1516

MTA, Technological Chemical Research Institute8200 Veszprem, Egyetem u. 2Dr. Ivan Szabo, Tel: (36-88) 425-206

National Committee for Technological Development(OMFB)1052 Budapest, Szervita ter 8Ms. Ilona Szabo, Tel: (36-1) 117-5900

Organic Chemistry Research Institute (SZEVIKI) 1085 Bp, Stahly u. 13Dr. Gyula Kortvelyessi, Tel: (36-1) 118-7741

PHARE Office (KTM)1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50Mr. Bela Donath, Tel: (36-1) 201-4170

Environmental Management Institute1369 Budapest, 5 Pf 352Budapest, V Alkotmany u. 29Dr. 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 1Dr. Katalin Zotter, Tel: (36-1) 216-5810



Budapest Technical University (BME)1521 Budapest, Muegyetem rkp. 9Development Laboratory on Chemical EngineeringDr. Zsolt Csikar, Tel: (36-1) 463-3183

Central European University1051 Budapest, Nador u. 9Prof. Diana Vorsatz (specialty: energy efficiency)Tel: (36-1) 327-3095

Danube Circle1026 Budapest, Gabor Aron u. 33Mr. Janos Vargha, Tel: (36-20) 419-096

Environmental Information Club (KVIK)1148 Budapest, Ors Vezer ter 20 Mr. Zoltan Szarvas, Tel: (36-1) 222-9589

Environmental Inspectorate1011 Budapest, Fo u. 44-50Mr. Pal Varga, Tel: (36-1) 201-4619

Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA) Dr. Csaba Kiss, Tel: (36-1) 133-2931

Environmental Training Program1112 Budapest, Budaorsi út 45Ms. Vilma Eri, Tel: (36-1) 185-0777

Godollo Agricultural University (GATE)2100 Godollo, Pater K. u. 1Dept. of Environmental TechnologyDr. Istvan Barotfi, Tel: (36-28) 310-200

Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Committee onEnvironmental Sciences (MTA)1051 Budapest, Roosevelt ter 9Dr. Janos Kovacs, Tel: (36-1) 138-2344 ext. 310

Hungarian Association for Environmentally AwareManagement (KOVET-INEM Hungaria)1063 Budapest, Munkacsy M. u. 16Mr. Gergely Toth, Tel: (36-1) 131-6763, 131-7578

Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA)1051 Budapest, Roosevelt ter 9Ms. Ildiko Deak, Tel: (36-1) 117-2094

Independent Ecology Center1035 Budapest, Miklos ter 1Ms. Judit Vasarhelyi, Tel: (36-1) 180-3420

Measuring Technology and Informatics Research andInnovation Co. (MIKI)1125 Budapest, Fogaskereku u. 4-6Mr. Agoston Lorinc, Tel: (36-1) 155-3249

Miskolc University, Institute of Chemistry Dept. of Physical Chemistry3515 Miskolc EgyetemvarosDr. Ivan Raisz, Tel: (36-46) 366-111, ext. 1338

Public Foundation for Occupational Safety Research1020 Budapest, Otvos J. u. 1-3Dr. Janos Solt, Tel: (36-1) 176-2922

Public Hygiene Society2483 Gardony Pf 15Gardony, Bone K. u. 44Mr. Gyorgy Nagy, Tel: (36-22) 355-065

Regional Environmental Center for Central andEastern Europe (REC)2000 Szentendre, Ady Endre u. 9-11Mr. Pawel Kazmierczyk, Tel: (36-26) 311-199

Veszprem University8201 Veszprem, Egyetem u. 10Department of CyberneticsDr. Tibor Chovan, Tel: (36-88) 422-022, ext. 276

WWF Hungary1124 Budapest, Nemethvolgyi u. 78/bMr. Ferenc Markus, Tel: (36-1) 175-4790



4.1 Summary of FindingsIn 1995, environmental expenditures in Poland amounted

to USD 1,308 million. Approximately 40 percent of environ-mental spending was financed from national and voivodshipenvironmental protection funds; while about a third was madeup by investors’ own funds; with less than a fifth coming frommunicipal budgets. The share of the state budget and foreignassistance programs was lower than 5 percent.

Loans and subsidies from the National EnvironmentalProtection Fund account for about a quarter of the environmen-tal expenditures in Poland. The Fund’s financial resources weredirected mainly toward air protection (45 percent of the total)and water protection projects, including wastewater treatmentplants (40 percent of the total). Some environmental protectionprojects are partly financed by the Ekofundusz Foundation,administering the financial resources made available via thedebt-for-environment swap scheme. Ekofundusz projects tendto give preference to environmental technologies importedfrom the United States, France and Switzerland, the fund’s threefounding countries. Foreign assistance programs account forless than 5 percent of Polish environmental expenditures. ThePHARE program is the main foreign source of assistance.

Spending on air protection accounted for 53 percent oftotal expenditures (approx. USD 700 million), while water pro-tection accounted for 37 percent (approx. USD 480 million),and waste management for 9 percent (approx. USD 124 mil-lion). The estimated size of the market for environmentallysound technologies for power generation was USD 240 millionin 1995; the estimate for pollution control equipment 330 USDmillion, and for industrial process controls USD 98 million.

The key regulatory and enforcement authorities responsi-ble for environmental protection in Poland include: theMinistry of Environment; other ministries with environment-related duties; regional environmental offices in voivodships(provinces); and municipal authorities. Responsibility for theenforcement of regulations lies with the state and voivodship

environmental protection Inspectorates. Most environmentalpermitting is administered at the regional level in the country’s49 voivodships. Physical planning and construction permits aswell as utility contracts are issued at the local level in over2,500 municipalities.

The following environmental priorities have been set bythe government:

Air protection: modernization of technological processes;modernization of industrial boilers; changing fuels to gasand oil, and wider use of coal gasification processes; instal-lation of dust and gaseous emissions reduction mecha-nisms (especially for sulfur dioxide, dust particles, nitro-gen monoxides, carbon oxides), construction of central(district) heating systems in urban areas; application ofalternative sources of energy.

C H A P T E R 4 : P O L A N D


Chapter 4: Poland

P O L A N D

Warsaw

Bialystok

Balt ic Sea

C Z E C H R E P U B L I C

S L O V A K I A

GERMANY

R U S S I A

U K R A I N E

LITHUANIA

BELARUS

Lublin

Katowice

Krakow

Wroclaw

Lodz

Bydgoszcz

Poznan

Gdansk

Szczecin

0 50 100

kilometers


Population (mln) 10.3 10.2 38.6 5.4 2.0

Area (sq.km) 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




Inflation rate (%) 10.3 18.4 14.5 6.0 9.6






Water resource protection and management: constructionof wastewater collection networks and treatment plants(including systems for phosphorus and nitrogen removal,and sludge treatment); construction or modernization ofdrinking water treatment plants; construction of impound-ing reservoirs;

Land surface protection: implementation of modern tech-nologies for waste treatment and management; introduc-tion of state-of-the-art technologies for disposal of haz-ardous and toxic wastes generated by industrial and agri-cultural activities; construction of industrial and municipalwaste landfills; re-cultivation of polluted soils (mainly for-mer Russian military bases).

Respondents identified the following issues as the mostimportant environmental problems needing to be addressed:control of process and fugitive air emissions at industrialplants; water resources management, including water conser-vation systems; wastewater treatment and sludge disposal,waste management, including waste collection systems, treat-ment and disposal; recycling and process waste utilization.

The geographic distribution of the major environmentalproblems in Poland is uneven. Environmental expenditures inthe 10 most polluted voivodships (from the total of 49) accountfor more than 60 percent of the total national figure. The mostpolluted voivodships are located in Silesia and in the BlackTriangle region in the south and southwest of Poland. Othersinclude the major industrial and economic centers locatedthroughout the country (Plock, Warsaw, Szczecin, Lodz).

There are no effective formal channels for information onenvironmental business opportunities in Poland. Govern-mental organizations, R&D institutes, and professional associ-ations, etc. are not seen as useful sources. Most businessesobtain information through personal and professional con-tacts, and participation in major trade fairs. POLEKO, held inPoznan every November, is the largest fair for pollution con-trol technologies in Poland and in the CEE region.

Additional sources include annual environmental reportsprepared by each of the 49 voivodships, and the Bulletin onPublic Tendering, published regularly by the Public TenderingOffice. Another potentially important source of information onpotential business opportunities is the so-called List of 80, whichincludes industrial companies declared particularly damaging tothe environment, and similar lists maintained in each voivodship.

There is no clearinghouse or similar source gatheringinformation on the environmental technologies available inPoland. The common sources used by buyers include: per-sonal contacts and discussions; brochures and leaflets distrib-uted at trade shows; catalogues and information books pur-chased during shows, fairs and conferences; office visits ofmanufacturer’s representatives; and design bureaus offeringtechnical information.

The demand for environmental technologies in Polandwas identified to be between moderate and high. The highestdemand was found to be for environmental technologies relat-ed to the energy sector and water and wastewater treatment,followed by waste management technologies. This is closelyrelated to current Polish environmental policy and regulations,where the major priority areas are air pollution control andprotection of water resources.

Overall demand in the air sector was moderate. Highdemand was identified for technologies related to the abate-ment of air emissions and cleaner production. Increasingdemand was expected for air pollution control and flue gaspurification technologies. Most frequently noted were state-of-the-art systems to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust andparticulates, nitrogen monoxides, and hazardous chemicals.Growing demand was also identified for instrumentation andprocess control technologies.

High levels of demand were identified for energy-relatedtechnologies. Specific technologies in high demand includednew/efficient energy and heat generation systems, equipmentfor retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems, technologiesrelated to heat recovery and energy savings, and process man-agement and control equipment. Technologies related to theuse of alternative/renewable energy sources were in highdemand in the power and energy generation sector. A wholerange of opportunities relate to the ongoing program ofrestructuring in the energy sector, where a strong emphasisexists on reducing the share of coal as the primary energysource, currently standing at 70-80 percent.

Among technologies in the municipal and industrial waste-water sector, high demand was identified for those technolo-gies related to sludge treatment and disposal (very highdemand); technologies for pollution prevention and wasteminimization; monitoring equipment; advanced (tertiary)wastewater treatment technologies; and instrumentation,process control and software. Technologies for clean-up, qual-ity restoration, and decontamination of surface and ground-water were also in high demand. Treatment of large amountsof saline water discharged from coal mining is still an unre-solved problem.

In the waste management sector, high demand in all wastecategories was expected for technologies related to pollutionprevention and waste minimization, and recycling andresource recovery. For municipal waste, composting and bio-mass conversion technologies were identified as a highdemand area. Technologies for collection, transportation, andstorage of hazardous waste, and equipment for decontamina-tion, site remediation, and clean-up of contaminated land forradioactive waste were also in high demand.

Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration andoccupational health and safety was moderate.

It is expected that within the next three to five years focuswill remain on end-of-pipe environmental technologies.Growing demand is expected, however, for pollution preven-tion and waste minimization technologies.

Major end-users of environmental technologies in Polandare municipalities and industrial plants. Industrial branchesmost commonly listed as main end-users included the powerand energy generation sector, the chemical industry, and themining sector.

The majority of respondents tend to approach each pur-chasing decision on a case-by-case basis, usually applyingbest-technology and best-practice criteria. About a third ofrespondents expressed preference for domestic environmentaltechnology products. The key criteria used in purchasing deci-sions are quality, reliability and durability of products.Respondents clearly prefer to buy foreign environmental tech-nologies from local representative offices rather than purchasedirectly from the manufacturer.

Key strengths of foreign environmental technology prod-ucts are: high product quality, reliability and durability ofproducts. Preferential credit or purchase terms from the sup-plier significantly increase the chances of selling environmen-tal technologies in Poland.

High price was identified as the main barrier to purchasingforeign environmental technologies. Problems with ensuringreliable technical service and maintenance by authorized rep-resentatives were also a significant barrier, followed by thelack of information about suppliers and available products.

Perception of foreign environmental technologies wasbetween good and excellent. Technologies from Austria,Germany, Japan, and the US were perceived particularlyhigh, followed by Dutch and Scandinavian products.Notably, all foreign environmental technologies were rankedwell above domestic products, which were evaluated asaverage. However, the overall level of knowledge of those



foreign environmental technologies available in Poland wasfound to be low.

Foreign business activity in Poland is highest in the waterand wastewater sector, followed by the waste managementand air sectors. German, Austrian, American, Dutch andScandinavian environmental technology firms are perceived asmost active. In the air sector, German, American, andScandinavian companies were evaluated favourably. Thesecountries, and in addition, Austria and Holland, were seen tobe most active in the water and wastewater sector. German,Scandinavian, Austrian and American suppliers were rankedhigh in the waste management sector, while in the energy sec-tor, German, American and Dutch suppliers were most active.


Three methods were used in the collection of informationrelevant to the project:

formal interviews based on the survey questionnaire;

supplementary phone and personal interviews/discus-sions;

literature review and desktop study of relevant officialpublications and technical papers.

The organisations and institutions included in the surveyfall into several categories:

Central state institutions of the country, including theMinistry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resourcesand Forestry; the National Fund for EnvironmentalProtection and Water Management; Ekofundusz, etc.;

Research and Development institutes, referred to as the“R&D sector;”

Industrial plants (a cross-section of various sectors) andwater and wastewater operation companies, referred to as“end-users”;

Design, engineering, and consulting firms;

Business Units3 (this category includes environmentaltechnology suppliers, and turn-key project suppliers, suchas engineering-construction companies, engineering-con-tracting companies, etc.; see footnote for more details)

The selection of interviewed organizations and institutionswas carried out so as to ensure the best possible coverage of across-section of the market, and to provide information repre-sentative of each of the surveyed environmental issues.Specifically, the following criteria were used:

varied and diversified fields of activity, and multidiscipli-nary profile

high qualification of specialists;

familiarity with specific environmental issues;

widespread geographical distribution of organizationsacross Poland so as to identify specific local and regionalenvironmental issues.

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTSA total of 108 businesses and institutions were selected as

potential respondents to the questionnaire, and were contact-ed by telephone prior to the start of the project. A complete list(with full contact information) of those contacted is includedin Section 4.8.

Despite repeated telephone calls and facsimile communi-cations to arrange interviews, only 29 formal interviews basedon the questionnaire were confirmed. The distribution ofrespondents is presented in Table 4.2.

In response to the situation, the researcher supplementedthe work with non-formal telephone and in-person interviewswith the remaining parties. Additional efforts were made togather and analyse information from literature, technicalpapers, and official bulletins with regard to key areas of inter-est for the client (e.g. on-going environmental projects, projectopportunities, contact points).

There are three main categories of R&D institutions inPoland: academic centers; branch (or ministerial) R&D insti-tutes; and central R&D institutes within the Polish Academy ofScience. Leaders in the field of environmental protection arelisted in Table 4.4. All of the listed environmental R&D insti-tutes were contacted and/or interviewed during the survey,with the exception of the Institute for Agriculture, Fertilisingand Pedology in Pulawy, and the Institute of Physical Planningand Municipal Economy.

Additionally, the following institutions and bodies wereinterviewed for the survey :

Environmental Policy Department at the Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry.The Ministry of Environment is the main government bodyresponsible for environmental management; its responsi-bilities cover environmental protection and pollution con-trol, nature conservation, water management and floodprotection, protection and management of forests, andmineral resources management including exploration andgranting of mining concessions. The Ministry’s responsibil-ities include the development and implementation ofnational environmental policy, the formulation of regula-tions for environmental protection, and the supervision ofsubordinate environmental agencies;

Other environmental agencies: regional water manage-ment boards, voivodship departments of environmentalprotection. There are a number of institutions outside thestructure of the Ministry of Environment which also play



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 responseto calls for specific projects, since tendering authorities frequently give preference to companies registered within their adminstrative area so as to save on taxexpenses. 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 protec-tion systems (generally, turn-key projects suppliers)

Category Contacted Responses

End-users 25 9

Design/engineering/consulting 31 4

Business units 29 5

R&D, government, 23 11and financial institutions

Total 108 29

TABLE 4.2: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS BASED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE

an important role in environmental protection. The keyagencies reporting to the Ministry include the StateInspectorate for Environmental Protection, State SanitaryInspectorate, and seven regional water managementboards. Created in 1991, these boards are responsible fordeveloping programs for water resource managementwithin the main river basins in Poland. According to gov-ernment policy, they are responsible for collecting fees forwater extraction and wastewater discharge, and for thefinancing of construction and maintenance of water man-agement facilities.

National institutions administering environmental financ-ing (National Fund for Environmental Protection andWater Management, and Ekofundusz).

4.3 Overview of the MarketWith a population of over 38 million and an area of 312

thousand sq.km. (121 thousand sq.mi., slightly smaller thanNew Mexico) Poland is the largest country in the CEE region.

Although there has been a decline in manufacturing activi-ties, and a corresponding reduction in environmental pollution,Poland suffers from some of the most severe environmentalproblems in the region. Two of the most polluted areas inEurope — Upper Silesia and the Black Triangle — are located inthe south and south west of Poland. Considerable environmen-

tal damage has occurred in the past, and continues to take place,e.g. the contamination of water resources and soil, deteriorationof air quality, and inadequate storage and disposal of waste.

The continuing development of heavy industry and anenergy sector mainly based on coal are among the key causesof severe pollution. While poor air and water quality are themost frequently cited problems, solid waste and wastewater,transport pollution, and energy related environmental degra-dation also represent major challenges.

Environmental legislation, generally quite developed, iscurrently being refined. Environmental skills among Polishtechnicians, policymakers and academics are well developed.Critical points for future environmental initiatives are majorcapital investments in improving the quality of water resourcesand air, institutional strengthening, awareness raising, trainingand clean technologies. Major support will be provided toenforcement agencies.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection, NaturalResources and Forestry (hereafter abbreviated to Ministry ofEnvironment, or MoE) is the main governmental body respon-sible for environmental protection and management in Poland.

Several other ministries play an important role in environ-mental protection. The Ministry of Industry and Commerce isinvolved in the preparation and implementation of environ-mental regulations, and in the implementation of environmen-tal programs in industry. Spatial planning, construction, andinvestment localization, as well as some aspects related to



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

Design and Engineering

Air pollution control 1 ATMOTERM

Water/wastewater treatment, 15 BIPROWOD, CTBK, DIT, EKOLOG, DOR-EKO, ELIMP, INZYNIERIA-Waste management PROEKO, EKOLOG System, HYDROPROJEKT-Warszawa, INSTALEX-

BIOOX, 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

Business Units

Air/energy sector 5 ABB, SEFAKO Sedziszow, RAFAKO, Fluid Corp. KOWENT

Water and wastewater, 16 AQUAMEX, AQUATECH, BIOX, ARCUS, CHEMADEX, EKOFINN, Waste management FLOOTEK AB, METEX-HUBER, NETZCH-Jaworski International,

NIJHUIS WATER TECHNOLOGY, POWOGAZ, SANITGAZ, SPOMASZ, WIBEX, Geotex, Candela

Engineering/construction services 6 BUDEXPOL Wroclaw, HYDROBUDOWA Poznan, RPRI-Rzeszow, Polimex-Cekop, Exbud, Elektrim

TABLE 4.3: PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

municipal water supply, waste, and wastewater managementare the responsibility of the Ministry of Physical Planning andConstruction. The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare is themain central institution responsible for occupational healthand environmental hygiene; it also oversees drugs and food-stuffs, while the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy is partiallyresponsible for occupational health and safety issues.

Most environmental permitting is administered at theregional level in the 49 provinces (voivodships, or wojewodzt-wa). Physical planning and construction permits, as well asutility contracts are issued at the local level in over 2,500municipalities (gmina).

Workplace health & safety management is traditionallyseparated from environmental protection in Poland.

The State Inspectorate for Environmental Protection(Panstwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska or PIOS) is themain body responsible for the enforcement of environmentalregulations. The Inspectorate reports to the Ministry ofEnvironment. The structure of the Inspectorate consists of aHead Inspectorate in Warsaw, and 49 voivodship inspec-torates (Wojewodzka Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska, WIOS)operating at the provincial level. The inspectorates monitorcompliance with environmental regulations and impose envi-ronmental fines.

The system for assessing environmental fees and fines israther complex in Poland, and the scope of responsibilities ofthe various authorities varies depending on the environmentalmedia and the nature of the payment (fee vs. fine). In general:

Environmental fees are payable for the emission of regulat-

ed substances into air and water; fees are also due for waterextraction and waste disposal. Fees are due irrespective ofthe level of compliance with relevant permits. 62 air emis-sion parameters are covered by the fee system, includingfuel combustion releases such as particulates (USD 30.8 pertonne), SO2 and NOx (USD 57.7 per tonne), CO (USD 15.4per tonne), and CO2 (USD 0.04 per tonne). Groundwaterextraction 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 calcu-lated depending on the pollutant load. For instance, feesare paid for BOD (USD 0.8-1.5 per kg load), COD (USD 0.4-1.1 per kg), suspended solids (USD 0.6 per kg), and heavymetals (USD 7.6 per kg). The fees are further differentiateddepending on industry, e.g. reduced fees apply to the foodprocessing industry. Waste disposal fees are assessed basedon an extensive waste list (160 types of waste, grouped infour categories — I to IV, from extremely hazardous tonon-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). Notethat the cost of treatment and disposal has to be paid sepa-rately to a waste disposal company.

Environmental fines are assessed when a companyexceeds the emission limits set in the relevant operationpermit. Air emission fines are 10 times higher than therespective emission fee. Excessive water extraction usual-ly results in fines between two and three times the respec-tive fee. Effluent discharge fines are determined by thelevel of violation in six pollution categories; fines are alsodue for excessive pH and temperature of dischargedwastewater. For instance, fines for BOD and suspendedsolids are set at USD 0.3 per kg, while heavy metals andtoxic substances are USD 5.4 per kg. Violation of a wastedisposal permit leads to fines that are up to 18 times high-er than the established fees. Interestingly, on a case-by-case basis, the payment of fines can be postponed or evencanceled if the company significantly improves environ-mental performance in the problem area.

RegulationsPoland has developed an extensive environmental legisla-

tion framework consisting of acts, executive orders and ordi-nances. 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, natureconservation, highway planning, geology and mining.

It should be noted there is no framework legislation inte-grating all environmental regulations in Poland (although anew framework Environmental Protection Act is currentlybeing prepared and is expected sometime in 1999). Based onthe local environmental situation, each Voivodship has theright to impose stricter regional environmental standards andregulations than those set out at the national level. On theother hand, some environmental standards are not legallybinding and are used only as guidelines by the authorities.

The existing legal system poorly incorporates BAT/BAT-NEEC concepts (Best Available Technology and Best AvailableTechnology Not Entailing Excessive Costs) in environmentalstandard setting, which often leads to too stringent standardsand a routine approach to permitting. There are few provi-



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 Environ-mental 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 ofAgriculture 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 LandUse 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

TABLE 4.4: MAJOR R&D INSTITUTIONSINTERVIEWED

sions for individual approaches to environmental improve-ments at industrial facilities, including such concepts as transi-tional temporary permits, stepwise upgrading, etc.

Anticipated Regulatory ChangesSignificant progress has been made since 1989 in creating

a comprehensive legal framework for environmental protec-tion in Poland. It is widely expected that environmentalenforcement will be strengthened in the coming years, whichwill result in the appropriate environmental protection mea-sures (and investments) being taken by industry.

In the mid-term (1997-2000) it is expected that the follow-ing major pieces legislation will be introduced :

amendments to the 1980 Environmental Protection andManagement Act, including improved environmentalprocedures in air emission control, emergency planningand responses;

Waste Act, currently being completed within Parliament.The draft Act includes measures aimed at comprehensivewaste management based on such principles as duty ofcare, and BATNEEC in waste recycling, treatment and dis-posal. A new system of waste classification based on theEuropean Waste Classification Catalogue, and a new wastegeneration permitting system are expected to be incorpo-rated in the new law.

a new Water Law. Currently, various drafts are still beingdebated, particularly with respect to institutional andfinancial aspects;

Framework Act for Environmental Management, intendedfor the integration of environmental law.

The major factor driving these legislative changes is har-monization with EU environmental law. Also, refined legalprocedures seem necessary to improve enforcement of exist-ing environmental legislation. The government is focusing onthe use of economic instruments in environmental protection.It is expected that environmental fees and fines will beincreased by between 20 percent and 50 percent above thelevel of inflation by the year 2000.

TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The share of environmental investments in terms ofGross National Product has increased from 0.5 percent in1985 to 0.7 percent in 1990, 1.0 percent in 1994 and 1.1 per-cent in 1995. Table 4.5 presents information on recentspending in the field of environmental protection.

It should be noted that the increase in environmentalexpenditures was recorded at a time of drastic reduction in therate of investment in other branches of the economy.

Environmental protection projects in Poland tend to befinanced from the following sources:

investors’ funds;

loans from the National Fund for Environmental Protectionand Water Management. The main forms of financing arepreferential loans, subsidies to commercial credits, andequity stakes in commercial ventures engaged in activitywithin the environmental field;

low interest loans or grants from voivodship environmen-tal funds;

national and regional budgets;

various types of low interest loans from the EnvironmentalProtection 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 andDevelopment, etc.).

Table 4.6 presents a breakdown of the sources of envi-ronmental expenditures between 1991 and 1995. Betweenthese years, approx. 40 percent of environmental expendi-tures in Poland were financed from national and voivodshipenvironmental protection funds; about a third by investors’own funds; and less than a fifth from municipal budgets. Theshare of state budget and foreign assistance programs waslower than 5 percent.

There also exist some smaller financing sources, e.g. theEnvironmental Know-How Fund; the Agency for AgricultureRestructuring & Modernization (Agencja Restrukturyzacji iModernizacji Rolnictwa); the Municipal Development Agency(Agencja Rozwoju Komunalnego); Foundation for the Supportof Water Supply Development in Rural Areas (FundacjaWspomagajaca Zaopatrzenie Wsi w Wode); the Small GrantsProgram of the Global Environmental Facility (Program MalychDotacji GEF); Foundation for Polish-German Cooperation(Fundacja Wspolpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej); and the UmbrellaProject. The above are foundations usually involved in consult-ing 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 spendingby sector. In 1995, spending on air protection accounted for 53percent of total expenditures (approx. USD 700 million), on



1993 1994 1995

Total expenditures on environ- 834 936 1308mental protection (mln USD)

Environmental expenditures 1.0 1.0 1.1as a % of GDP

Source: Statistical Year Book 1996

TABLE 4.5: COUNTRY SPENDING ONENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

1993-1995 (MLN USD)

Participation in TotalSource of Investment Costs (%)Financing 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Environmental funds* 40 58 47 41 40

Investors’ funds and 30 20 25 31 32banks’ credits

National budget 5 5 7 5 5

Local budget 20 13 16 19 18(towns, municipalities)

Foundations and 5 4 5 4 5foreign support **

* Environmental funds include the National Fund for EnvironmentalProtection & Water Management, and voivodship(s) funds for environ-mental protection and water management financing

** includes funds adminstered by Ekofundusz

Source: Zródla finansowania inwestycji ekologicznych w Polsce, 1996

TABLE 4.6: STRUCTURE OF FINANCIALRESOURCES USED FOR ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION INVESTMENTS, 1991-1995

water protection for 37 percent (approx. USD 480 million), andon waste management for 9 percent (approx. USD 124 million).

Information concerning spending on environmental tech-nologies is not tracked by the Central Statistical Office, and thereare no publicly available up-to-date market assessments for envi-ronmental technologies in Poland. As a guideline, the 1993Environmental Technologies Export Market Plan, prepared bythe Office of Environmental Technologies Exports, estimated thatthe size of the market for environmentally safe technologies forburning coal and generating power would reach USD 240 millionin 1995; the estimate for pollution control equipment was USD330 million, and for industrial process control USD 98 million.

National Environmental Protection FundLoans and subsidies from the National Environmental

Protection Fund account for a significant proportion of envi-ronmental expenditures in Poland. It is estimated that duringthe period 1992-1995, financial resources provided by theFund amounted to between 22 and 25 percent of nationalenvironmental spending.

Most of the environmental fees and fines collected are ear-marked for environmental purposes, and make up a major partof the revenues of the National and Regional EnvironmentalFunds. An analysis of the Fund’s revenues for 1993 reveals thatindustry is effectively the main financier of environmental

investment. The main environmental policy instrumentapplied to industry is the permit system including fees andfines for non-compliance.

Table 4.8 presents information on the National Fund’sexpenditures. During the period 1990-1995, the Fund’s finan-cial resources were directed mainly toward air protection (45percent of the total) and water protection (mainly wastewatertreatment) projects (40 percent of the total), which indicatesthe priority areas in national environmental policy.

Ekofundusz and the Debt-for-Environment SwapIn April 1991, creditor countries constituting the so-called

“Paris Club”, agreed to write off 50 percent of the Polish for-eign debt, provided that the balance would be paid by 2010.Several bilateral agreements were also reached regarding so-called debt-into-environmental protection swap, whereby anadditional 10 percent of the Polish debt could be written off ifthe equivalent amount was spent on environmental protection.

By 1997, Poland had signed bilateral agreements with thefollowing 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 agreementin mid-1997.

Ekofundusz was established by the Minister of Finance in1992, as an independent non-profit foundation charged withadministering the financial resources made available via thedebt-swap scheme courtesy of the US, Switzerland and France.A separate agreement with Finland was reached earlier, estab-lishing a bilateral mechanism managed by a special Polish-Finnish Task Force. The Finnish funds are managed by Eko-Efekt, a company in Gliwice fully owned by the NationalEnvironmental Protection Fund.

Expenditures of Ekofundusz are presented in Table 4.9.

Foreign Assistance ProgramsOverall, foreign assistance programs account for less than

5 percent of Polish environmental expenditures. Informationon foreign assistance for environmental projects is presentedin Table 4.10.

The PHARE program of the European Union is the mainforeign source of environmental protection project financingin Poland. Financial participation of foreign countries is verylimited in comparison with Poland’s total spending on envi-



1993 1994 1995

Air 325.0 414.4 698.4

Water 428.6 440.8 478.8 (including spending on municipal (287.3) (292.9) (455.3)wastewater treatment plants)

Soil protection 78.1 77.5 124.0

Nature and biodiversity 0.6 0.5 2.8conservation

Noise, vibration 1.4 2.9 4.0

Total 833.6 936.0 1308.1

Note: Some environmental protection investments at industrial plants areconnected with the modernization of processes and technological lines,and are not captured in statistics on environmental spending.


TABLE 4.7: TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ONENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (MLN 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

Monitoring - 1.8 8.0 8.7 7.0 4.0 29.5

Environmental education 0.1 0.7 1.5 2.1 1.8 4.0 10.2

Emergency response issues & others - 0.1 8.6 5.3 11.5 11.3 36.8

Total 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

TABLE 4.8: NATIONAL FUND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND WATER MANAGEMENTEXPENDITURES ACCORDING TO PROJECT TYPE 1990-1995 (IN MILLION USD)

ronmental projects. Major donor countries include Denmark,Netherlands, Germany and the US.

Table 4.11 presents details of foreign financial participa-tion by environmental sector.

Foreign financing was mainly directed toward air protec-tion projects, and the protection of water resources, which cor-responds well with national environmental priorities.

During the period 1991-1995, the largest proportion of for-eign funds was spent on pollution control installations andconstruction of treatment plants; and deliveries of state-of-the-art technical equipment.

Another significant category included various technical andfeasibility studies, as well as the preparation of master plans.However, it is expected that in the near future this category ofservices will be to a large degree provided by local companies.

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION National Environmental Policy Priorities

Developed in the early 1990s, Polish National Environ-mental Policy is already bringing positive results in terms ofenvironmental protection (even if the improvements achievedin the initial years of economic transformation were partlydue to a decline in industrial activities). Poland has generallybeen successful in mobilising financial resources for environ-mental improvements.

The major sources of funding are industrial enterprisesthemselves (up to a third of the total expenditures) and envi-ronmental fees & fines channelled through national andregional environmental funds (up to 50 percent of nationalexpenditures). Considerably less is spent from the state budgetand foreign assistance programs. In recent years, Poland hasspent some USD 1 billion annually on environmental protec-tion, about 1 percent of GDP, with both actual spending andthe share in GDP growing.

In 1991, the National Environmental Policy Statement,adopted by the Government and Parliament, underlined thecommitment to clean up the environmental negligence of thepast, and to introduce a policy based on the principles of sus-tainable development. Short, medium and long term objectiveswere developed in order to resolve the most important issues,to control the trends in environmental deterioration, and tointegrate environmental aspects with economic and socialissues. Presented below are the environmental priorities basedon the National Environmental Policy Statement, and theExecutive Program prepared by the Ministry of Environment.

Short-term priorities (to be implemented during the mid-nineties, and which are still in progress):

change of manufacturing profiles, closure, or implementa-tion of environmental protection measures in industrialfacilities emitting dangerous substances into the air, dis-posal of toxic substances into wastewater, or storage ofdangerous substances;

implementation of the coal quality improvement program(removal of sulfur, increasing the calorific value of pulver-ized coal); improvement of management efficiency; andair emission control installations (reduction of particulateand SO2 emissions into the air);

noticeable reduction in dust and gaseous emissions, par-ticularly in Upper Silesia as well as in other regions; reduc-tion of low-stack and diffuse emissions;

reduction of shortages in high-quality drinking water supplyin urban areas, mainly through the construction of waste-water treatment plants in cities located along the tributaries ofVistula, Odra, and Pomeranian Rivers; simultaneous modern-



Country 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total

USA 6.5 6.5 6.5 24.2 43.7

France - 0.4 1.2 1.2 2.8

Switzerland - - 1.0 1.4 2.4

Total 6.5 6.9 8.7 26.8 48.9

Source: Ekofundusz, Konwersja Polskiego Dlugu na OchroneSrodowiska 1992-1995

TABLE 4.9: EKOFUNDUSZ SPENDING ONENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN POLAND

BETWEEN 1992 AND 1995 (MLN USD)

Source of Number Total Sum PercentageFinancing of Projects (mln USD) (%)

European Union 83 113.2 31.4(PHARE)

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 13 1.6 0.4

TOTAL 382 360.8 100.0

Note: The figures quoted refer to public funds and do not include privateinvestment. Data according to the Statistical Year Book 1996

TABLE 4.10: FOREIGN FINANCIAL PARTICIPATIONIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INVESTMENTS

IN POLAND DURING THE PERIOD 1991-1995

Number of Category Projects Mln USD Percentage

Air protection 59 148.5 41.1

Water protection and 146 94.1 26.1water and wastewater management

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


TABLE 4.11: FOREIGN FINANCIAL PARTICIPATIONIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INVESTMENTS

IN POLAND BY SECTOR, 1991-1995

ization of waterworks systems, and increasing water retentioncapacity as well as improved water resources management;

radical reduction of the solid waste burden through theimplementation of adequate management systems for indus-trial and municipal solid wastes, and disposal of toxic wastes;

gradual elimination of food crop production on soilsaffected by toxic substances;

initiation of the reduction of adverse environmental effectscaused by communication and transport;

improvement and extension of monitoring systems alongPolish borders (air, water, solid waste);

intensive reforestation program, particularly in watershedareas and on land unsuitable for agricultural use;

environmental education of the public, with particularemphasis on the awareness of responsibility for the state ofenvironment and respect for nature.

Medium-term priorities (to be implemented by the year 2000).With regard to air quality protection, the following priori-

ties have been identified:

reduction of SO2 emissions to the air by 30 percent by theyear 2000 compared with 1980 levels (i.e. from 4.2 milliontons 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 fluegases emitted by industrial and power generating plants

from 92 percent at present to 96 percent by the year 2000);

reduction of air emissions of volatile organic substances,hydrocarbons (including benzo-a-pyrene), heavy metalsand other air pollutants;

actions to counteract global climate change (i.e. reductionin emissions of CO2 and other gases causing the green-house effect, and protection of the ozone layer);

Concerning the protection and rational use of waterresources, the priorities are as follows:

50 percent reduction of pollution loads discharged byindustry and municipalities into rivers. The goal is to beachieved through the decrease in the amount of untreatedindustrial and municipal wastewater from the current 0.5billion, and 1.2 billion cubic meters respectively, to 0.1 bil-lion and 0.6 billion cubic meters by the year 2000, as wellas by increasing the rate of highly effective wastewatertreatment systems (biological and chemical) in the overallwastewater treatment from the present 48 percent of totalvolume to 70 percent in the year 2000;

improvement of sanitary conditions in rural areas bysupplementing village water supply systems with ade-quate sanitation;

alleviation of water shortages in urban areas, and the pro-vision of water supply for drinking and production pur-poses in rural areas;

reduction of the negative impacts of saline water from min-ing discharged into the Upper Vistula and Odra Rivers;

use of deep groundwater aquifers for drinking water sup-ply; termination of industrial use of these resources exceptfor the food and pharmaceutical industries;

For the remaining issues regarding environmental protec-tion, the following priorities have been identified for themedium term:

proper treatment or safe storage of all hazardous wastes;

20 percent reduction in the generation of all high-volumeindustrial wastes requiring storage or dumping, andincreasing the rate of their utilization;

creation of a system of pre-selection and recycling ofmunicipal wastes, and introducing technologies for com-posting, incineration, and biogas production;

reclamation of degraded and contaminated land;

implementing noise control measures so that less than 25percent of the population will be temporarily exposed tonoise levels exceeding legal standards;

creation of a system for the early identification of non-ion-izing radiation, and counteracting the threats to the envi-ronment from ionizing radiation and catastrophic emis-sions of chemical substances.

Long-term priorities (until the year 2020)

introduction of environment-friendly, modern manufactur-ing techniques throughout all production processes; sup-port for the implementation of clean technologies ratherthan for the use of “end-of-pipe” equipment;

remediation of environmental damages and the creation ofa system preventing their repeated occurrence;

restructuring of the economic system to work in tune withenvironmental protection so that economic gains arelinked with the state of the environment;

consolidation of environmental, cultural, and ethical val-ues beneficial to the environment;



Number of Mln Type of Project Projects USD Percentage

Investments 160 204.3 56.6

Pollution control 23 98.0 27.1installation and treatment plant construction

Monitoring equipment 16 19.9 5.5supplies

Technical equipment 102 69.6 19.3supplies

Technical documentation 19 16.8 4.7and know-how supplies

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


TABLE 4.12: ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS WITHFOREIGN FINANCING IN THE PERIOD 1991-1995

consolidation of the policy of sustainable development asthe basis for economic and social policy of the state, localmunicipal self-governing bodies, enterprises, and institu-tions, as well as individual citizens.

The implementation of the long-term strategy for environ-mental protection requires expenditures estimated at USD 260billion. The estimate also includes the costs of changing thestructure of the economy and switching to environmentally-sound technologies.

The 1994 National Environmental Policy Programme tothe Year 2000 has been developed as an ambitious plan toimplement the medium-term policy objectives. Its main prior-ities are related to the reduction of environmental pressures onthe air, water and soil, development of waste treatment anddisposal facilities, water resources development, as well as theexpansion/enlargement of nature conservation areas. Thetotal budget required for the Programme to the year 2000 isestimated at USD 13 billion. Previous estimates of the overallcost of environmental improvements to the end of the 1990sranged from USD 35 billion to 50 billion.

Priorities of the National Environmental Protection FundThe National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water

Management plays a key role in environmental protection inPoland by providing low interest financing and grants. TheFund, reporting to the Minister of Environment (although oper-ating independently from the Ministry), sets out its funding pri-orities in accordance with national environmental policy.

The Fund is the largest financing institution in the field ofenvironmental protection in Poland, and the only one of itssize in the CEE region. About 25 percent of the total expendi-tures for environmental protection are covered by the Fund.Fund revenues in 1995 amounted to USD 416 million, and overits six years of operation, the Fund granted more than 3,000loans and subsidies, totaling over USD 600 million. The Fundalso manages resources from foreign assistance programs.

The priority areas for environmental protection invest-ments financed by the National Fund include:

Water resources protection, by providing financial supportfor the construction of water and wastewater treatmentplants, water saving technologies, construction of closedwater circulation and multiple-use systems;

Air quality protection by supporting modern technologies,particularly for the reduction of energy consumption andelimination of harmful air emissions; rationalization of heat-ing systems; production and installation of pollution reduc-ing equipment; the use of alternative sources of energy; andthe encouragement of modern technological improvementsto reduce the environmental impact of road transport;

Protection of land surface, and improvements in wastemanagement by supporting low and non-waste technolo-gies; utilization and treatment of industrial and municipalwastes, proper handling of hazardous wastes (includinghospital wastes); waste re-use at source; reclamation andre-cultivation of degraded soils;

Geological and hydrogeological research; development ofmining technologies and the processing of minerals; col-lection and purification of mining waters; re-cultivation ofareas degraded by mining activities;

Conservation of nature by providing financial assistancefor projects implemented in regions under special care;projects focused on organization and management ofteaching, training, and research centers (scientific facili-ties) in national parks; restitution and reintroduction ofendangered species; complete protection of forest standsand biocenosis; restoration of natural heritage in parks and

palace gardens registered as historical sites;

Environmental education by supporting training projects,radio and television programs; support for environmentaleducation programs on a national scale;

Monitoring of the environment and financial support forthe implementation of projects resulting from the NationalEnvironmental Monitoring Program.

The form of financing available from the Fund depends onthe project type, the investor, and the financing institution.Possible options include:

grants, used for co-financing of priority projects, environ-mental education, and high-risk pilot projects;

preferential loans, covering up to 50 percent of projectcost, except in those projects undertaken by local authori-ties, where up to 70 percent is available. The preferentialinterest rate is just above the discount rate of the NationalBank of Poland;

subsidies to bank credits (e.g. from the Bank forEnvironmental Protection) to cover the difference betweenthe commercial interest rate and the preferential rate (thismechanism is being phased out);

partial loan write-offs, whereby a part of the debt is can-celled for borrowers who meet the agreed criteria andFund conditions;

equity involvement.

Ekofundusz PrioritiesSome environmental protection projects can be partly

financed from the sources of Ekofundusz. The foundation,established in the fall of 1992, is responsible for administer-ing the debt-for-environment swap funds. Currently, USA,France and Switzerland have approved the procedure ofdebt-for-environment swap arrangement and signed respec-tive bilateral agreements.

The Council of Ekofundusz, consisting of members fromPoland and the creditor countries, sets the foundation’s priori-ties, evaluates its operation, and makes final funding decisions.Ekofundusz provides support in the following four areas:

long-range transboundary air pollution abatement (SO2and NOx);

increased control of contamination and eutrophication ofthe Baltic Sea;

greenhouse gas abatement, mainly through promoting newenergy-efficient technologies and CFC emission reduction;

protection of biological diversity.

Submitted projects need to fulfil at least one of the follow-ing technical criteria:

efficiency, i.e. high environmental benefit-to-cost ratio;

promotion of new technologies and organizational tech-niques, particularly through demonstration projects;

development of the environmental protection sector andenvironmentally sound manufacturing in Poland;

enhancement of professional expertise of Polish specialistsand/or environmental awareness of Polish society.

The Ekofundusz grants up to 30 percent of the total projectcost, except for municipal and nature conservation projects,where it may cover, respectively, a maximum of 50 percentand 80 percent of the total project cost. Funds are only avail-able at the investment stage (except nature resource protec-tion), and feasibility studies and project support are not eligi-ble for assistance.






Air Emission of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust, particularly Nationalin connection with coal-fired boilers

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 Nationalvarious air quality monitoring methods

Water High degree of surface water contamination, leading to the excessive Nationalexploitation of aquifers (ground water)

Lack of high-efficiency water treatment technologies; National

Lack of closed loop water systems (water usage minimization), Nationalmainly at industrial plants

Poor quality drinking water National

Excessive water consumption National

Lack of integration of water monitoring data in comprehensive Nationalwater management systems

Wastewater Too stringent wastewater treatment and discharge standards (consuming Nationalexcessive funds and limiting resources available for other investments)

High amounts of discharge wastewater National

Insufficient wastewater treatment capacity National

Lack of appropriate technologies for sludge treatment, dewatering Nationaland disposal; thus, wide use of land disposal.

Lack of technologies for cheap macro nutrients removal in municipal Nationaland industrial (mainly at chemical processing plants) wastewater plants

Lack of cost-effective solutions for removal of dissolved National, particularly salinesubstances (chlorides, sulfates, etc.) waters from coal mining

and the chemical industries

Waste Lack of appropriate legal framework for development of Nationalwaste processing companies

Lack of cost-effective methods for spent coolants and National, specific to metal polishing waste treatment metal-processing industries

Poor selection of waste collection, separation, recycling, treatment Nationaland disposal methods

Lack of a database allowing timely access to information on companies Nationaloffering waste management and disposal services

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

Energy Air emissions from fossil fuel burning National

Disposal of gypsum waste from desulfurization systems in energy generation National

Lack of environment-friendly technologies for energy generation National

Noise and High noise emission levels Most industriesVibration Work site (H&S issue) noise levels Most industries

Excessive noise levels in urban areas National

TABLE 4.13: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS LISTED BY RESPONDENTS

It is worth noting that the debt-for-environment swapmechanism has become a useful tool for introducing and pro-moting businesses from the creditor countries to the Polishenvironmental market.


A summary of the responses from interviews with regard tothe significant environmental problems and areas of opportuni-ty is presented in Table 4.13. Practically none of the respondentsdefined the expected duration of environmental problems.

Comments from the respondents show that they perceived“major environmental problems” in a variety of ways. Somerespondents indicated the poor legal framework and enforce-ment of legislation as a major issue in Poland, while othersconcentrated on technical and technological problemsencountered during day-to-day operations.

Nevertheless, the following issues appeared the mostimportant environmental problems needing to be addressed:

organized and fugitive emission control (at industrialplants, but also in rural areas), including development andapplication of BATNEEC (Best Available Technology Not

Entailing Excessive Cost) environmental technologies;

water resources management, including water conserva-tion systems;

wastewater treatment, and sludge treatment and disposal,including development and application of BAT/BATNEECenvironmental technologies;

waste management, including waste collection systems,treatment and disposal; special attention to recycling meth-ods and development of technologies focused on processwaste utilization.

Energy issues were addressed by respondents only fromthe air pollution point of view; hence very few comments wererecieved regarding energy as a separate environmental prob-lem. Noise & vibration, and soil contamination issues, as wellas occupational health & safety aspects were not perceived bythe respondents as priority environmental problems in Poland.

Practically no respondents indicated the geographic loca-tion of specific problems. However, the 10 most pollutedvoivodships in the country account for over 60 percent of thetotal national environmental protection expenditures, so aninsight into the regional distribution of environmental prob-lems can be gained from examining environmental spendingacross voivodships. Table 4.14 presents voivodships where1995 environmental expenditures exceeded USD 30 million.

Most of the voivodships listed in Table 4.14 are located in theSilesia and Black Triangle regions in the south and south-west ofPoland. Others represent major industrial and economic centerslocated throughout the country (Plock, Warsaw, Szczecin, Lodz).


In general, respondents were reluctant to discuss details oftheir current environmental projects. The following current pro-jects in progress were listed (respondents listed in brackets):

Implementation of a national environmental monitoring sys-tem (PIOS — State Environmental Protection Inspectorate)

Construction of small wastewater treatment plants (5-500PE) and installation of modern waste sludge dewateringunits (EKOFIN-POL)

Wastewater treatment equipment deliveries to wastewatertreatment plants in Zamosc, Debica, Jarocin, Walbrzych,Wroclaw, Malbork, Ciechanow (PHARE and Finnish eco-conversion projects carried out by Metex-Huber)

Replacement of the heating system for glass baths (70-80percent reduction of NOx emissions) and closure of thecooling water loop (glass mill, Jaroslaw)

Conceptual design of phosphorus removal in wastewatertreatment processes; agricultural application of phospho-gypsum (chemical plant, Wizow)



Environmental impacts of highways and express roads National

Other 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

TABLE 4.13 (CONTINUED): MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS LISTED BY RESPONDENTS

Share in National Environmental Environmental Expenditures

Voivodship Expenditures (%) (mln USD)

Katowice 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

TABLE 4.14: ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES INTHE MOST POLLUTED VOIVODSHIPS IN

POLAND, 1995

Construction of a combined municipal and industrial waste-water treatment plant (chemical plant, “Boruta,” Zgierz)

Installation of dust removal equipment; monitoring ofground water quality (Centra Poznan, battery manufacturer)

Modernization of the existing wastewater treatment plantand sludge disposal process (ICC Paslek, diary/food processing)

Construction of a combined industrial/municipal waste-water treatment plant; modernization of productionprocesses (Organika-Zachem chemical plant, Bydgoszcz)

Gas desulfurization in Konin power plant; dust removaland desulfurization process for Laziska power plant; desul-furization DRYPAC process for Lagisza power plant; dustremoval system for Batory Foundry, Pokoj Foundry andGlogow Foundry; modernization of power plant Turowand Polaniec (ABB)

Modernization and expansion of existing Wastewatertreatment plants (Biprowod)

Construction of a municipal watewater treatment plantfor Ostrowiec Swietokrzyski, Lomza and Starachowice(CTBK Warsaw)

Construction of fluidized bed boilers for district heatingsystems in Morag and Gostynin (Fluid Corporation)

Waste management programs for seven voivodships locat-ed in south-eastern Poland (PROCHEM)

Waste monitoring and records management/coordinationprogram for Poland (PROCHEM)

Air pollution control and modernization of power/heatgenerating installations (nitrogen compounds manufactur-ing, 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 environmen-tal projects currently being implemented, but do indicate thatwater resource protection and wastewater treatment, as wellas air pollution control are the sectors where most activity istaking place in the environmental market in Poland.

Please note that the best and most comprehensive sourceof information on significant environmental projects recentlycompleted or those currently under implementation are theannual reports issued by the respective voivodship environ-mental protection inspectorates (WIOS) in each of the 49voivodships. The latest reports are available from local WIOSoffices; a sample of the 1995 annual voivodship reports whichwere available during the survey is presented in Section 4.9.

World Bank Assistance ProgramSeveral 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 severalyears includes the following.

Support for continuing government efforts in the energysector to increase energy efficiency and to minimize the envi-ronmental impact of power generating plants. Eight to 10 newprojects were included:

Ozone Depleting Substances Phase-Out Project(USD 6.2 million grant funding under the GlobalEnvironmental Facility, GEF);

Power Generation Plants Modernization; two projectsfocused on rehabilitation and modernization of powergenerating facilities, including the installation of pollu-tion abatement equipment at Dolna Odra and Rybnikpower plants;

First Geothermal and Environment Project; the projectaims at reducing environmental pollution from domesticheating and small boilers by modernizing the district heat-ing systems of Zakopane and Nowy Targ, and the usage ofgeothermal energy resources. Project cost is estimated atUSD 50 million; project preparation is currently on hold.Implementing agency: Geotermia Podhalanska, Olcza,Stachonie 2A, 30-502, Zakopane, Poland. Tel: (48-165) 11-980. Fax: (48-165) 11-981.;

Support to the Hard Coal Sector Restructuring Program;the USD 150 million project which will provide: indirectfinancial assistance for closure/merger of coal mines;incentive packages; mining site reclamation; and imple-mentation of a variety of training and other programs tominimize the social costs of restructuring;

Other possible projects in the energy sector include powertransmission issues, continuation of geothermal/districtheating projects, a gas project to diversify gas supplyoptions, development of a new combined power/heatsupply plant with private sector participation, heat supplyand demand side management project.

The rehabilitation and modernization of municipal infra-structure:

Water and wastewater projects in Krakow, Wroclaw, andBydgoszcz. Projects will finance institutional strengthen-ing and investments for the rehabilitation and expansionof water supply and wastewater systems for the munici-pal water and wastewater utilities. This will include:upgrading and optimization of water treatment plants;construction of distribution mains and programs forwater network rehabilitation and improvement; con-struction of sewage collectors; and programs for sewernetwork rehabilitation and improvements combinedwith technical assistance for institutional improvementand engineering services. Implementing agency con-tacts: 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. WitoldSumislawski, Manager, MPWiK Wroclaw, ul. NA Grobli14/16, 60-421 Wroclaw, Poland. Tel: (48-71) 447-121,Fax: (48-71) 446-515. In Bydgogszcz: Mr. WojciechPawlak, 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 Privatizationproject in Wroclaw which will improve solid waste collec-tion and disposal services in Wroclaw through the intro-duction of private sector financing, and building and oper-ation of waste management facilities. Implementingagency: City of Wroclaw, Nowy Targ 1/8, 50-141 Wroclaw;Tel: (48-71) 407-112, Fax: (48-71) 443-750. A follow upproject is planned for Warsaw, to support the efforts of thecity to implement a comprehensive and integrated solidwaste management program.

Project Preparation CommitteeThe Project Preparation Committee (PPC) is a mechanism

developed by potential donor governments and internationalfinancing institutions during the 1993 Environment for EuropeConference in Luzern, Switzerland. The purpose of the PPC isto coordinate fundraising for major environmental projects



endorsed by individual governments. The funding requestmust originate from the borrowing government.

The role of the PPC is to ensure that the submitted projectmatches certain business and formal criteria, and then tomatch the project with interested funders. As of February 1997,the projects listed in Table 4.15 were planned or under imple-mentation in Poland.


It is clear from the survey that the interviewed parties werenot aware of any central body or organization collecting infor-

mation on environmental business opportunities. Most infor-mation flow is based on personal and professional contacts.To provide a more complete picture, this section presents thefindings from the interviews, followed by a more in-depth dis-cussion of selected issues, and supplementary informationfrom sources other than survey interviews.

Survey FindingsIn general, respondents were not willing to discuss their

sources of information on business opportunities, and themajority did not indicate any single contact in response to thequestion. Potential sources mentioned by respondents aresummarized in Table 4.16.



Total Donors/ Programs under Project Cost FinancingImplementation (ECU mln) Institutions Short Description

Pyrzyce Geothermal Plant 15 Denmark, Establishment of a new district heating plant based on natural gas EU-Phare, and geothermal energy, converting 68 coal-fired boilerplants to Germany cleaner energy sources

Integrated Nun-Moth 18 Denmark, Financing of a spraying program including new ecologically Suppression EU-Phare, acceptable spraying solutions and equipment; control and

IBRD monitoring program

Warsaw Sewage 92 France, Construction of a new sewage treatment plant in south Warsaw Treatment Plant EIB

National Investment Funds 50 Norway, Increasing the awareness of the NIFs on environmental issues (NIF) — Environmental EBRD associated with their investee companies

Training Program

Matched Projects

Geothermal Energy n.a. USAID, Air pollution abatement by replacing coal with geothermal Zyrardow (district heating) IBRD energy. Support for feasibility studies and technical assistance

in technical areas

Wastewater Treatment 15 Denmark, Feasibility studies, including financial analysis and preliminary Plant for Jelenia Gora EU-Phare design have been completed. Plant rehabilitation to be implemented

Coal Restructuring and 200-300 EU-Phare, Financing of mine restructuring with emphasis on mine Environment Project Germany, closures. Preparation support is sought for environmental audits

IBRD of mines to be closed

Zakopane 50 Denmark, Financing of a district heating network based on geothermal Geothermal EU-Phare, energy. Preparation support is sought for geological feasibility Project Germany, studies and the development of management infrastructure

Netherlands, Switzerland,IBRD

Szczecin Geothermal Project 60 Denmark, Switch from coal to geothermal energy of a district heating plant. Germany Preparation support is sought for geological feasibility studies

Water Management n.a. Denmark, Financing of the development of water management andProject EU-Phare, construction of wastewater treatment plants. Preparation support

Germany, is sought for feasibility studiesNetherlands, Switzerland, IBRD

Solid Waste Management n.a. Germany, n.a.Privatization (Krakow, IBRDWarsaw, Wroclaw)

Note: 1 ECU = 1.17 USD (March 97) Source: PPC — List of PPC Projects, February 97

TABLE 4.15: PROJECT PREPARATION COMMITTEE MATCHED PROJECTS

Respondents from the “business unit4” category men-tioned the following sources of information on environmentalbusiness 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 49Voivodships (see below for a detailed discussion);

Bulletin on Public Tendering, published by the PublicTendering Office. (Aaccording to Polish regulations, if aproject involves financing from public sources, it must beannounced in the Bulletin; see following sections formore details.)

An important source for technical information in Polandare annual environmental fairs. Table 4.17 summarizes theevents listed by respondents; figures in brackets represent thenumber of respondents indicating the fair.

Supplementary InformationOverall, findings presented above indicate that there are few

formal information flow channels on environmental businessopportunities in Poland — most information dissemination isbased on personal contacts. This picture corresponds well withthe findings of a 1995 survey carried out by the RegionalEnvironmental Center among 150 environmental technologyand service providers in Poland. Table 4.18 summarizes theresponses to the question posed in this survey: “How do youfind out about new environmental business opportunities?”

Personal contacts were by far the major channel of informa-tion. Trade shows and fairs, environmental and business publi-cations, and professional associations are discussed below

Based on the 1995 survey, the main business and environ-mental publications read by Polish environmental profession-als included those listed in Table 4.19.

Interestingly, 30 percent of respondents stated that theydid not read any environment-related publications.

Finally, the role of environmental and trade associations inPoland 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 infor-mation about business opportunities. Each of the 49 provincesor voivodships in Poland (regional levels of state administra-tion) publish annual environmental reports, where among



Number of Organization Name Responses

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

TABLE 4.16: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ONSOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR BUSINESS

OPPORTUNITIES

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 bedistinguished: equipment suppliers (generally, various environmental technology manufacturers); engineering, construction, and contracting and trading companies specializing in capital goods for many industrial branches, including environmental pro-

tection systems (generally, turn-key projects suppliers)


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

TABLE 4.17: ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE FAIR LISTED BY RESPONDENTS

other things, the following information is provided:

description of key environmental issues in the province;

current monitoring data;

presentation of completed projects or projects underimplementation;

planned short-term and long-term environmental protec-tion projects (including all environmental categories: waterand wastewater projects, air pollution control, etc.);

other information relevant to the region.

The voivodships’ annual reports are prepared at the begin-ning of each year. The most significant environmental protec-tion projects, collected from reports which were available atthe time of the survey, are presented in Table 4.22.Additionally, investments reports from nine selected voivod-ships are presented in Section 4.9.

Public Procurement ActAnother source of business information mentioned by sev-

eral respondents was the Bulletin on Public Tendering(Biuletyn Zamowien Publicznych), published monthly by thePublic Tendering Office. Table 4.21 provides further highlights.

In 1995, expenditures regulated under the Act on PublicProcurement exceeded the equivalent of USD 4 billion. TheAct on Public Procurement is intended to enable investors tosolicit and select the “best offer” when they spend publicmoney on goods, services and construction. The act wasenacted in 1994 and amended during mid-1995.

The Act creates a uniform public procurement system andintroduces a precisely described legal framework for competi-tion among entities pursuing public contracts. The Act man-dates fair, equal treatment, full open competition, and, clear,precise disclosure of information. It prescribes detailed record-




Gaz, Woda, and Technika Sanitarna 43

Ochrona Srodowiska 23

Aura 20

Ekopartner 18

Ochrona Powietrza 13

Gospodarka Wodna 11

Srodowisko 9

Instalator 8

Rzeczpospolita 6

Biuletyn Komisji d/s Ocen 6Oddzialywania na Sordowisko


TABLE 4.19: MAIN BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENT PUBLICATIONS

Respondents Association Enlisted (%)

Polish Sanitary Engineers and 21Technicians Associations (PZITS)

Chief Technical Organization (NOT) 11

Associations of Polish Mechanical 9Engineers (SIMP)

Chamber of Commerce (Izba Gospodarcza) 6

Association of Polish Electrical Engineers (SEP) 5

Association of Land Melioration Engineers 5and Technicians (SITWM)


TABLE 4.20: MAIN ENVIRONMENTALASSOCIATIONS

Source of Information Respondents (%)

Personal contacts 98

Trade shows and fairs 91

Referrals from associates 85

Daily press 84

Environmental publications 83

Conference attendance 81

Business publications 77

Mailing lists 65

Local government offices 59

Professional associations 53

Fax 42

Universities/Academy of Science 42

Environmental ministry 31

Chamber of commerce 24

Other ministries 19

Ministry of Industry/Trade 17

Other 13

E-mail 7


TABLE 4.18: SOURCES OF INFORMATION ONENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OFFICEul. 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 pro-ject is financed, or partly financed, from public sources, a“Bid Invitation” must be published in the Bulletin onPublic Tendering. Various types of projects, includingenvironmental, are presented in the Bulletin; Contactdetails for further project information and tendering pro-cedures is included in the Bulletin. Domestic companiesor joint-ventures of Polish and foreign companies aregiven priority in bid evaluations.

Note: The website includes current issues of the Bulletin on PublicTendering, in Polish

TABLE 4.21: PUBLIC PROCUREMENT IN POLAND – HIGHLIGHTS



Voivodship Environmental No. Name Category Type/Number of Projects

1 Gdansk Water and wastewater Industrial wastewater treatment plants: 6 projects

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

Hospital waste incineration plants: 3 projects

2 Wroclaw Water and wastewater Industrial wastewater treatment plants: 4 projects

Municipal wastewater treatment plants: 3 projects

Air Implementation of low emission production technology : 3 projects


Waste management Landfill construction; 11 projects

3 Warsaw Water and wastewater Municipal wastewater treatment plants: 10 projects

Industrial 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

Completion of acoustic screens and acoustic insulation systems: 3 projects

Waste Composting plants: 3 projectsmanagement Other types of waste management plants: 4 projects

4 Skierniewice Water and wastewater Municipal wastewater treatment plants: 8 projects

Waste management Landfill construction: 1 project

5 Lublin 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

6 Poznan Water and wastewater Water management projects: 4 projects

Wastewater treatment plants: 3 projects

Air Modernization of energy/heat generating plants: 1 project

Waste management Landfill construction: 5 projects

7 Bydgoszcz 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)

Sludge dewatering installation: 1 project

8 Slupsk Water and wastewater Wastewater treatment plants: 11 projects


9 Walbrzych Water and wastewater Wastewater treatment plants: 13 projects


Noise and vibration Modernization of industrial installations: 3 projects


TABLE 4.22: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS UNDER IMPLEMENTATION IN SELECTED VOIVODSHIPS IN POLAND

keeping and written documents, and mandates firm, bindingoffers and contracts. The Act creates a central informationsource, the Office of Public Procurement and establishes anational publication, the bulletin on public tendering, for theannouncement of procurement opportunities and for the dis-semination other procurement information.

Specifically, the Act requires the formal announcement ofprocurement opportunities in the bulletin, and prescribes spe-cific requirements for tender documents to ensure equalaccess to information about each investment. Tender docu-ments must disclose the essential specifications of the pur-chase, the rules of the procurement proceeding and the termsand conditions of the proposed contract. Offers must beopened and announced at the same time, in the presence ofthe bidders. Records of the procurement proceedings must bemaintained and disclosed (with few exceptions).

The Act requires the disclosure to all interested competi-tors of communications between the procuring entity and anycompetitor and disclosure of the procuring entity’s response torequests for clarification of the procurement documents. Equalaccess to records of the proceeding is also guaranteed. The Actalso creates an enforcement mechanism. The protest andappeal process provides competitors procedural recourse to

contest the conduct of a procurement proceeding and redressharm resulting from errors or unfair treatment

In its intent, the Act encourages full and open competition.Unlimited tendering, a procedure open to all potential competi-tors, is declared the preferred process. Other procedures may beused only in limited circumstances and only with the approval ofthe Chairman of the Office of Public Procurement if the procure-ment is valued over 200,000 ECU. Conditions for using LimitedTendering, Two-stage Tendering, Negotiations-with-Retaining-Competition, Request-for-Quotations and Single-Source proce-dures are defined in the Act. Specific relevant excerpts include:

Art. 151. In public procurements valued less than 20,000 ECU and

in public procurements financed with less than 20,000 ECUfrom public funds, unlimited tendering procedures are notobligatory and the following requirements of this Act shall notapply: the requirements related to the publication of announce-ments in the Bulletin on Public Tenders, written procedures,official records of proceedings, specification of essential provi-sion of the procurement, time periods and deadlines, tendersecurity (wadium), and protests and appeals.

2. If the amount of the procurement exceeds 200,000 ECU,



Voivodship Environmental No. Name Category Type/number of projects

10 Krakow Water and wastewater Wastewater treatment plants: 14 projects

Air Implementation of low emission production technology : 3 projects(huge industrial plants)


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

11 Katowice Water and wastewater Municipal wastewater treatment plants and sewerage systems: total spending approx. USD 54 mln

Industrial wastewater treatment plants : total spending approx. USD 30 mln

Air Air pollution control installations: total spending approx. USD 106 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


Waste management Various types of waste utilization plants: 6 projects

13 Bielsk Water and wastewater Wastewater treatment plants: 3 projects


Waste management Industrial waste utilization plants: 4 projects

Source: Annual voivodship reports for 1995

TABLE 4.22 (CONTINUED): MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS UNDER IMPLEMENTATION IN SELECTED VOIVODSHIPS IN POLAND

the selection of a procurement procedure other than unlimitedtendering requires approval by the Chairman of the Office.

Art. 181. Domestic as well as foreign suppliers and contractors

shall be able to participate in procurement proceedings on anequal basis according to the provisions of this Act.

2. If the value of the procurement does not exceed theamount referenced in Art. 15, paragraph 1, the procuring entitymay limit participation in a procurement proceeding solely todomestic suppliers or contractors, and foreign suppliers or con-tractors that have a branch or representative office in Poland.

3. If the subject matter of the procurement is comprised ofservices or construction on the territory of Poland, the procur-ing entity may request that the entire work covered by the pro-curement be performed with domestic entities, raw materialsand products.

4. When applying national preferences in a procurementproceeding, the procuring entity shall inform the suppliers andcontractors about the national preference when starting theprocurement procedure. The declaration regarding the nation-al preference cannot be changed thereafter. (....)

Note that 1 ECU = 1.12 USD, as of December 1997. Furtherinformation, including copies of the Bulletin of PublicProcurement, are available via the Internet at the followingaddress: http://www.urm.gov.pl//uzp/iuzpa.html

The List of 80Another important source of information on potential busi-

ness opportunities is the so-called List of 80 (Lista 80). Preparedand maintained by the State Environmental ProtectionInspectorate (PIOS) since January 1990, the list includes industri-al companies declared to be particularly damaging to the envi-

ronment. Their compliance with environmental regulations andwith the conditions stipulated in their operation permits is undera 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 airemission regulations. In 36 plants, excessive emissions resultfrom energy generation, while in 42 plants they are caused byproduction processes. In all the plants exceeding air emissionlevels as a result of power and energy generation, control ofSO2 and particulates emissions is the major problem. In thetechnological process-related problems, specific issues varyfrom plant to plant.

Thirty-six plants discharge excessive pollution loads intowastewater. Two specific problem areas are the discharge ofsaline waters from mining activities, and excessive water con-sumption for production processes.

In 53 plants, waste management violations have beenidentified, mainly related to improper waste storage sites(past and present), excessive waste generation, and the lackof proper waste treatment. The major problem with storagesites is leachate draining to surrounding soil. Another signif-icant issue is the low degree of high-volume waste utiliza-tion, 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), wastemanagement (hazardous waste, phosphogypsum, improp-er incineration), wastewater

Power and heat generation plants (12 plants) — air emis-sions of particulates, SO2 and NOx



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 Poznan June 15-20 Engineering industry, power, transport, constructionInternational Fair)

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.

TABLE 4.23: LIST OF ENVIRONMENT-RELATED TRADE SHOWS AND FAIRS IN 1997



Government institutions Point of Contact

Ministry of Environmental Protection, Stanislaw Zelichowski, Minister, Tel: (48-22) 253-355, 251-111Natural Resources and Forestry Andrzej Walewski, Chief Environmental Inspector, Tel: (48-22) 253-325ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warsaw

Czeslaw Wieckowski, Director, Dept. of Environmental Policy,Tel: (48-22) 250-001, 254-001Tel: (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 Andrzej Pierzak, Director, Department of Fuels and Energy,ul. Wspolna 4, 00-926 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 628-0801, Fax: (48-22) 625-4842

Ministry of Privatization Artur Wask, Director, Department of International Cooperationul. Krucza 36, 00-525 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 628-1190, Fax: (48-22) 628-1190

Ministry of Finance Wieslaw Szczuka, Director, Foreign Departmentul. Swietokrzyska 12, 00-915 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 694-3879, Fax: (48-22) 266-544

Central Statistical Office (GUS) Wieslawa Domanska, Tel: (48-22) 608-3562, Fax: (48-22) 608-3182Al. Niepodleglosci 208, 00-925 Warsaw

Central Office of Planning Andrzej Pyszkowski, General Manager, Department of Regional Politics Pl. Trzech Krzyzy 3/5, 00-507 Warsaw and Spatial Policy, Tel: (48-22) 621-9518, Fax: (48-22) 693-5059

Funding Institutions

National Environmental Protection Fund Ms. Janina Zelazo, Tel: (48-22) 490-080 or 482-111, ul. Konstruktorska 3a, 02-673 Warsaw Fax: (48-22) 497-272

Ekofundusz Mr. Jozef Dobija, Public Relations, ul. Belwederska 18A, 00-762 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 400-901, Fax: (48-22) 400-942

Bank for Environmental Protection (BOS) Ms. Jolanta Bledowska, Foreign Department, ul. Przasnyska 6A, 01-756 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 633-3474, Fax: (48-22) 639-5249

World Bank resident mission Mr. Paul Knotter, Tel: (48-22) 635-0553, Fax: (48-22) 635-9857INTRACO I Building, 17th Floor2 Stawki Street, 00-913 Warsaw

International Finance Corporation (IFC) Mr. John H. Stevenson, Tel: (48-22) 630-3444, Fax: (48-22) 630-3445Warsaw Corporate Center, 8th Floor, ul. Emilii Plater 28, 00-688 Warsaw

European Bank for Reconstruction Mr. Alain Pilloux, Tel: (48-22) 630-7275, Fax: (48-22) 630-6551and Development (EBRD), Warsaw

Monitoring and Enforcement

State Environmental Protection Inspectorate Andrzej Walewski, Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection,Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection Tel: (48-22) 253-325, Fax: (48-22) 250-465, e-mail: [email protected]. Wawelska 52/54, 00-972 Warsaw Zbigniew Kamienski, Head, Control Team,

Tel: (48-22) 251-424, Fax: (48-22) 250-466, e-mail: GIOS@warma

State Environmental Protection Inspectorate Barbara Kuroczko, Director, Monitoring DepartmentChief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection Tel: (48-22) 251-112, Fax: (48-22) 254-129ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-972 Warsaw

Institute of Environmental Protection Prof. Barbara Gworek, Director, Tel: (48-22) 621-3670, Krucza str. 5/11, 00-548 Warsaw Fax: (48-22) 629-5263, e-mail: [email protected]

Grazyna Mitosek (Air), Tel: (48-22) 334-241 w. 43Fax: (48-22) 336-928, Internet: http://ciuw.warman.net.pl/alf/ios

Institute of Environmental Protection — Hanna Soszka (surface water quality)Basic Monitoring Tel: (48-22) 334-241 ext. 54, Fax: (48-22) 336-928ul. Kolektorska 4, 01-692 Warsaw

TABLE 4.24: USEFUL CONTACTS



Institute of Environmental Protection Radoslaw Kucharski (Noise)ul Kolektorska 4, 01-692 Warsaw, Tel: (48-22) 334-242 ext. 25, Fax: (48-22) 336-928

Institute for Occupational Medicine Janusz Swiatczak (indoor air), Tel: (48-42) 314-572, ul. Teresy 8, 90-950 Lodz, Fax: (48-42) 314-562, e-mail: [email protected]

Central Laboratory of Radiological Protection Jan Jagielak (radioactive contamination)ul. Konwaliowa 7, 03-194 Warsaw Tel/Fax: (48-22) 111-616, e-mail: [email protected]

Institute of Soil Science and Cultivation Henryk Terelakof Plants, Osada Palacowa, 24-100 Pulawy Tel: (48-81) 863-421, ext. 311, Fax: (48-81) 864-547

State Nuclear Agency Zofia Waclawek (radioactive waste)ul. Krucza 36, 00-921 Warsaw, 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 Rafalina Korol (rivers)Management, Wroclaw Division Tel: (48-71) 216-606 ext. 21, 210-948, Fax: (48-71) 211-446ul. Parkowa 30, 56-616 Wroclaw

Institute of Meteorology and Water Jerzy Janczak (surface water quality)Management, Poznan Division Tel: (48-61) 411-621 ext. 30, Fax: (48-61) 475-440ul. Dabrowskiego 174/176, 60-594 Poznan

Institute of Meteorology and Water Zbigniew Dziadziuszko, Tel: (48-58) 203-194, Fax: (48-58) 207-101Management, Marine Division in Gdynia, e-mail: [email protected]. Waszyngtona 42, 81-342 Gdynia

Institut of Ecology of Industrial Areas Ms. Ewa Marchwinskaul. Kossutha 6, 40-833 Katowice Tel: (48-32) 154-6031, Fax: (48-32) 154-1717

State Geological Institute Tadeusz Hordejuk (ground water)ul. Rakowiecka 4, 00-911 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 495-351 ext. 551, Fax: (48-22) 495-342

Other Organizations

UNEP Infoterra National Focal Point Janusz Radziejowski, Tel: (48-22) 629-5263, Institute for Environmental Protection Fax: (48-22) 295-263, e-mail: [email protected]. Krucza 5./11, 00 548 Warsaw,

UNEP GRID Project Marek Baranowski, Tel: (48-22) 488-561, 627-4623(Global Resource Information Database) Fax: (48-22) 488-561, e-mail: [email protected]. Merliniego 9, 02-511 Warsaw

PAKTO S.A. Mr. Marek KrysiakUS partner: TRC Companies, Mass., Tel/Fax: (48-22) 629-1481, e-mail: [email protected](617) 356-2577

National Energy Conservation Agency (KAPE) Tel: (48-22) 621-6521; 661-9116, Fax: (48-22) 661-9117ul. Wspólna 4, 00-926 Warszawa

Foundation for Promotion of Clean Technologies Mr. Piotr Pelka, Tel/Fax: (48-42) 325-3O7ul. Rewolucji 19O5 r. nr 29 m 19, 9O-214 Lodz

Warsaw Technical University Mr. Piotr Manczarski (waste management)Dept. of Environmental Engineering Tel: (48-22) 660-5420, Fax: (48-22) 660-5305ul. Nowowiejska 20, 00-653 Warsaw

Institute for Sustainable Development Mr. Andrzej Kassenbergul. Lowicka 31, 02-502 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 451-055, Fax: (48-22) 253-461

PCBC (Polish Center for Testing and Certification Department: Mr Andrzej Rostkowski, Director Certification), ul. Klobucka 23A, 02-699 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 430-059, Fax: (48-22) 647-1222

Chambers of Commerce and Trade Associations

Chamber of Commerce for the Power Mr. Slawomir Krystek, DirectorGeneration Sector and Environment Tel: (48-22) 621-6572, 621-0281 ext. 320, Fax: (48-22) 621-6572ul. Krucza 6/14, 00-950 Warszawa

Foreign Investor’s Chamber of Industry Tel: (48-22) 311-764; 272-234, Fax: (48-22) 268-593and CommerceKrakowskie Przedmiescie 47/51, 00-071 Warsaw

TABLE 4.24 (CONTINUED): USEFUL CONTACTS

Metal smelters (5 plants) — waste storage, gas and partic-ulate emissions

Cement industry (4 plants) — particulate emissions fromrotary kilns.

The List of 80 is regularly updated, with some companiesremoved from the list, while others are added, based on thecriteria specified in a May ‘94 regulation. In general, compa-nies on the list are mainly large industrial plants, which areforced to invest significant amounts of money into improvingtheir environmental performance, and thus can be a likelylarge-scale environmental technology buyer. The latest (as ofmid-1996) List of 80 is included in Section 4.10.

Regional environmental inspectorates (WIOS) also main-tain their own lists of major polluters in the region. Currently,there are about 800 companies listed in voivodship lists.


Responding to the question on sources of information onenvironmental technologies when considering a purchase,

the vast majority of interviewees agreed that there is no cen-tral clearinghouse or similar source for gathering informationon the subject in Poland. It is also clear from the responsesthat governmental organizations, R&D institutes, and profes-sional associations, etc. are not seen as useful sources ofpotential information.

The common sources listed and discussed by the respon-dents were:

personal contacts and discussions

brochures and leaflets distributed at trade shows

catalogues and information books purchased during theshows, fairs and conferences

office visits made by manufacturer’s representatives

design bureaus offering technical information

Two respondents mentioned voivodship authorities andenvironmental funds as assisting with technology information.Only one respondent indicated consulting companies as apotential source, which shows the limited degree of confi-dence in consulting services in Poland. Also, only one respon-



Chamber of Commerce of Exporters Tel/Fax: (48-22) 632-6872and Importers, ul. Bema 65, 01-244 Warsaw

Chamber of the Chemical Industry Tel: (48-22) 628-2051, (48-22) 628-2572, (Izba Przemyslu Chemicznego) Fax: (48-22) 625-3178ul. Zurawia 6/12, 00-503 Warszawa

Chamber of Commerce for the Energy Sector Tel: (48-22) 656-1288and Environmental Protectionul. Panska 85, 00-837 Warszawa

Business Leaders Forum for Poland Ms. Cynthia Barlow-Marrsul. Mokotowska 49 room 304, 00-542 Warsaw Tel: (48-22) 660-0493, Fax: (48-22) 660-0495

Chief Technical Organizaton NOT Tel: (48-22) 267-421, Tel: (48-22) 268-456ul. Czackiego 3/5, 00-043 Warszawa

Association of Engineers and Technicians Tel: (48-22) 827-7896of the Chemical Industryul. Czackiego 3/5, pok. 301, 00-043 Warszawa

Polish Sanitary Engineers and Technicians Tel: (48-22) 262-894, Tel: (48-22) 827-0263Association, ul. Czackiego 3/5 00-043, Warszawa

Association of Land Melioration Engineers Tel: (48-22) 827-3878and Techniciansul. Czackiego 3/5, pok 128, 00-043 Warszawa

Association of Polish Mechanical Engineers Tel: (48-22) 827-1768and Technicians SIMPul. Swietokrzyska 14a, 00-049 Warszawa

National Chamber of Commerce — Foreign Tel: (48-22) 260-123Promotion Officeul. Trebacka 4, 00-074 Warszawa

Major Trade Fair Organizers

Wod-Kan Trade Fair Tel: (48-52) 287-828, Fax: (48-52) 226-294Izba Gospodarcza Wodociagi Polskieul. Sielanka 18, 85-073 Bydgoszcz

Intereco Fair Tel: (48-32) 596-061 to -7, Fax: (48-32) 588-919Miedzynarodowe Targi KatowickieBytkowska 1b, 40-955 Katowice

PolEko and International Trade Fair Tel: (48-61) 692-592, Fax: (48-61) 665-827Poznan (MTP), Miedzynarodowe Targi PoznanskieGlogowska 14, 60-734 Poznan

TABLE 4.24 (CONTINUED): USEFUL CONTACTS

dent mentioned an R&D institution specializing in his sector asa potential source of information.

It should be noted that, in Poland, there are no effectivecommercial and professional associations which in manycountries can be a cost-effective source of information onavailable environmental technologies. Not a single respondentlisted trade or professional associations, or a local or nationalchamber of commerce. To the best knowledge of theresearcher, neither an “Annual Buyers Guide” nor an equiva-lent of the US “Thomas Register” are published in Poland.

As mentioned in the previous section, environmental tradefairs and professional conferences play a key role in the dis-semination of information on the availability of environmentaltechnologies. A comprehensive list of environment-relatedfairs planned for 1997 is provided in Table 4.23.

POLEKO, the largest fair for pollution control technologiesin Poland (and in the CEE region) is held in Poznan everyNovember. The Fair, with some 570 exhibitors in 1996, presentsthe full range of environmental technologies. Representatives ofmajor national organizations (e.g. the Ministry of Environment,the National Environmental Protection Fund, Ekofundusz, Bankfor Environmental Protection) also participate. Finally, a numberof environment-related conferences and seminars are also heldduring the Poleko fair.

WOD-KAN Fair in Bydgoszcz (held annually in April/May)focuses on technologies and materials used in sewerage sys-tems. ECOENERGIA is the major fair focusing on the powergeneration sector. SALMED is the main commercial event deal-ing with health & safety issues. Finally, Poznan International Fair(MTP, Miedzynarodowe Targi Poznanskie) is the largest annu-al international trade event in Poland. Even though its mainfocus is the engineering industry, and power, transport, andconstruction sectors (not specifically the environment), given itssignificance, the Fair was included in the table. Contacts to orga-nizers of the above listed fairs are provided in Table 4.24.

USEFUL CONTACTSTable 4.24 provides a list of useful contacts for information

on the state of environment, market situation, and projectopportunities in Poland.

4.5 Demand for EnvironmentalTechnologies

The objectives of this part of the survey were to examinethe level of demand in Poland for specific environmental tech-nologies, and to determine those technologies in highestdemand. The second objective was to identify the major end-users of environmental technologies.

DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES — OVERVIEW

In the majority of technology and media categories, theexpected demand for environmental technologies was rankedbetween moderate and high. However, several technologieswere identified where rapid growth in demand is expected.

Overall, high demand was identified for technologies relat-ed to the energy sector, and water and wastewater treatment,followed by waste management technologies. This is closelyrelated to current Polish environmental policy and regulations,

where the major priority areas are air pollution control andprotection of water resources (for more details, see the discus-sion in Section 4.3).

Demand in the air sector was moderate. High demandwas identified for technologies relating to abatement of airemissions and cleaner production. Growing demand wasexpected for air pollution control and flue gas purificationtechnologies. Most frequently noted were state-of-the-art sys-tems to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust and particu-lates, nitrogen monoxides, and hazardous chemicals.Growing demand was also identified for instrumentation andprocess control technologies.

High demand was identified for energy-related technolo-gies. Specific technologies included new/efficient energy andheat generation systems, equipment for retrofitting/rehabilita-tion of existing systems, technologies related to heat recoveryand energy savings, and process management and controlequipment. Technologies related to the use ofalternative/renewable energy sources were in high demand inthe power and energy generation sector.

Among technologies in the municipal and industrial waste-water sector, high demand was identified for those technolo-gies related to sludge treatment and disposal (very highdemand); technologies for pollution prevention and wasteminimization; monitoring equipment; advanced (tertiary)wastewater treatment technologies; and instrumentation,process control and software. Technologies for clean-up, qual-ity restoration, and decontamination of surface and ground-water were also in high demand.

In the waste management sector, high demand in all wastecategories was expected for technologies related to pollutionprevention and waste minimization, and recycling andresource recovery. For municipal waste, composting and bio-mass conversion technologies were identified as high demandareas. Technologies for collection, transportation, and storageof hazardous waste, and equipment for decontamination, siteremediation, and clean-up of contaminated land for radioac-tive waste were also in high demand.

Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration andoccupational health and safety was moderate.

The following section discusses the expected demand inmore detail. The analysis of the responses in Tables 4.25-4.29is followed by a short commentary comparing the conclusionswith the objectives of national environmental policy.

TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND BY SECTORThe following tables summarize and discuss expert

responses to the question on demand for specific environ-mental technologies.

The following scale was used in ranking: 5 – highest, andwith rapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, likely to grow,3 – moderate, slowly growing demand, 2 – low demand, will notgrow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion.


AirDemand for air-related technologies was identified as mod-

erate. Table 4.25 presents details of the responses received.Overall, technologies related to gaseous emissions were in

somewhat higher demand than technologies related to ambi-ent air.5



5 Technologies related to gaseous emissions include technologies concentrating on emissions from pollution sources (focus on the emitter); ambient air relatedtechnologies are designed for monitoring emissions into the atmosphere (focus on the receiving air). Therefore, conceptually, air pollution control and emissionabatement technologies are not applicable in the “ambient air” category. However, about half of respondents still answered this question, which suggests thatthey either interpreted “ambient air” from the workplace safety point of view, or were just uncertain about the meaning of the term.

High demand was expected for technologies related to theabatement of air emissions and cleaner production (such aslow-emission burners, etc.). Growing demand was expectedfor air pollution control and flue gas purification technologies.Most frequently noted were state-of-the-art systems to reduceemissions of sulfur dioxide, dust and particulates, nitrogenmonoxides, and hazardous chemicals. This situation is deter-

mined by the national environmental policy, targeting twomain types of air pollution:

flue gases from coal-fired heat and energy generation plants;

process emissions from industrial plants, mainly from dif-ferent types of chemical processing plants.

It is worth noting that many respondents from the targetedindustrial sectors mentioned above, also indicated highdemand for technologies in the energy category.

Finally, growing demand was identified for instrumenta-tion and process control technologies. This seems to resultfrom the growing approach to reduce emissions by improvingprocess control rather than by expensive retrofitting or chang-ing technological lines. Finally, growing demand was alsoidentified for gas detection and warning devices.

Based on the priorities in national environmental policy,demand for some environmental technologies is expected toincrease as the following planned projects are implementedacross the country:

modernization of industrial technological processes;

modernization of coal-fired boilers, including switching togas and oil in small and medium-sized plants, or imple-mentation of fluidized bed boilers in large plants;

construction of installations for reduction of dust andgaseous emissions (currently, most demanded are tech-nologies for sulfur dioxide removal).

New air emission standards will be enforced in Poland fromJan. 1, 1998 (the Ordinance Act was issued in 1990). As themajority of large heat and energy generating plants (and mostmedium-sized boiler houses at industrial plants and municipal-ities) are coal-fired, reducing SO2 and NOx emissions is, and




Monitoring 3.5 (14) 3.4 (10) 4.2 (9) 4.1 (15)




Standard physical, chemical and biological 3.4 (10) 3.2 (7) 3.7 (13) 3.7 (16)treatment processes

Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes 3.6 (5) 3.8 (6) 4.2 (9) 4.0 (13)(e.g. UV/ozonation, activated carbon, phosphate removal, reverse osmosis







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 andindustrial wastewater); #5 Instrumentation/process control/software (municipal and industrial wastewater); #6 Clean-up, quality restoration, and decontam-ination (surface and groundwater).

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #7 Water recycling and re-use (municipal and industrial wastewater); #8 Advanced (tertiary) drinkingwater treatment; #9 Spill control and containment (municipal and industrial wastewater); #10 standard wastewater treatment processes (municipal and indus-trial wastewater); #11 Inspection and reconditioning of existing water supply networks

TABLE 4.26: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — WATER AND WASTEWATER




Air pollution control/flue gas 3.7 (7) 3.7 (14)purification equipment


Emission abatement/cleaner 3.8 (7) 4.2 (13)production (e.g. low emission burners)

Instrumentation and 3.4 (7) 3.5 (13)process control

Technologies in high demand: #1 Emission abatement/cleaner pro-duction (gaseous emissions)

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 Air pollutioncontrol/flue gas purification equipment (gaseous emissions); #3 Instrumentation and process control (gaseous emissions)

TABLE 4.25: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES — AIR

will remain, one of the most important project areas in Poland. According to the researcher’s best knowledge, highly effec-

tive technologies for SOx and NOx removal are not widely usedin Poland, and generally, desulfurization installations are basedon imported products. It was often noted by respondents thatthere are many foreign companies active on the Polish marketwhich offer various air protection technologies, but the pricesof the available systems are very often prohibitively high.

Water and WastewaterDemand for water and wastewater technologies was high.

Table 4.26 presents those responses to the question on tech-nology demand in the water and wastewater sector.

A comparison of responses across all the five surveyedmedia shows that the expected demand for technologies in thewater and wastewater sector (and for energy-related technolo-gies) was higher than in the air, waste management, and noise,vibration and OHS sectors.

Overall, demand was higher for technologies related tomunicipal and industrial wastewater than for those used indrinking water treatment, and the protection of surface andgroundwater resources.

Among those technologies in the municipal and industrialwastewater sector, high demand was identified for those relat-ed to sludge treatment and disposal; pollution prevention andwaste minimization; monitoring equipment; advanced (ter-tiary) wastewater treatment technologies; and instrumentation,process control and software. Technologies for clean-up, qual-ity restoration, and decontamination of surface and ground-water were also in high demand.

Increasing demand in the municipal and industrial waste-water sector was expected for technologies related to waterrecycling and reuse; spill control and containment equipment;and standard wastewater treatment technologies. Other areaswhere significant growth in demand is expected includeequipment for inspection and reconditioning of existing watersupply networks, and technologies related to advanced (ter-tiary) drinking water treatment.

It should be noted that conventional wastewater treatmenttechnologies are readily available on the Polish market, and,therefore, those most demanded are advanced and specializedwastewater 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 unre-solved issue in Poland. Several respondents mentioned the needto provide adequate wastewater management in rural areas.

Demand for drinking water technologies was generallymoderate. Two areas in somewhat higher demand were iden-tified in this group: inspection and reconditioning of existingsupply networks, and advanced water treatment methods (e.g.UV/ozonation, activated carbon). The demand was driven bythe generally poor technical state of the existing water distrib-ution infrastructure, and by the widespread use of surfacewater for drinking water supply. Most of the municipal watersupply in Poland is based on the use of water from heavily pol-luted rivers, and standard water treatment technologies areoften unable to remove many of the pollutants.

Finally, demand for technologies for the protection of sur-face and groundwater resources was high and expected togrow in spill control and containment/clean-up, and qualityrestoration and decontamination.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the current technical conditionof the existing infrastructure, expected demand was moderatefor technologies for the construction of collection and supplynetworks and reconditioning of existing systems.

Waste ManagementHigh demand was identified for waste-related technolo-

gies. 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 pre-vention and waste minimization, and recycling and resourcerecovery. The highest need was identified for technologies forindustrial and hazardous waste, (with mining waste, phospho-gypsum and PET waste indicated as severe problem areas). Thepreventive approach to waste management was also reflectedby the lower level of demand for incineration and landfill dis-posal technologies (demand was moderate). It is also worth not-ing that, in Poland, public opinion towards waste incineration isgenerally negative, while the development of new landfill sitesis hampered by frequent opposition from local communities.

High demand was also identified for composting/biomassconversion equipment for municipal solid waste; equipment



Municipal Industrial Hazardous RadioactiveWaste Waste Waste Waste



Site monitoring 3.3 (12) 3.4 (14) 3.9 (12) 3.1 (6)


Incineration 3.2 (9) 3.0 (11) 3.5 (8) 2.5 (2)


Pollution prevention and waste minimization 3.9 (10) 4.5 (13) 4.3 (11) 4.2 (4)




Technologies in high demand: #1 Pollution prevention and waste minimization (all waste categories); #2 Composting/biomass conversion (municipalsolid waste); #3 Recycling/resource recovery (all waste categories); #4 Decontamination, site remediation, and clean-up of contaminated land for radioactivewaste; #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 Siteremediation/clean-up (hazardous and industrial waste); #10 Landfill disposal of municipal waste.

TABLE 4.27: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — WASTE MANAGEMENT

for decontamination, site remediation, and clean-up of landcontaminated with radioactive waste; and technologies relatedto hazardous waste collection, transportation and storage.

Increasing demand was expected for hazardous waste sitemonitoring equipment; technologies related to municipalwaste collection, transportation, and storage; hazardous andindustrial waste site remediation/clean-up equipment, andtechnologies for landfill disposal of municipal waste.

For municipal waste, technologies related to composting andbiomass conversion, and recycling and resource recovery wereexpected to be in high demand, along with technologies forwaste collection, transportation and storage. Currently, there area 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 sitemonitoring equipment, and for waste collection, transporta-tion and storage technologies. Interestingly, hazardous wastewas the only category where demand for incineration tech-nologies was relatively high. This largely results from currentproblems with the disposal of hospital waste. High demandwas also identified for technologies related to pollution pre-vention and waste minimization, and recycling/resourcerecovery for both hazardous and industrial waste.

Finally, other areas where demand was increasing includ-ed technologies for spill control and decontamination, and siteremediation and clean-up for industrial, hazardous, andradioactive waste.

As for radioactive waste, the identified demand was gen-erally high, especially equipment for decontamination, andsite remediation and clean-up technologies.

The Forthcoming Waste ActA 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 wastemanagement, followed by waste utilization, treatmentand disposal;

duty of care will be placed upon the producer or productdistributor. Waste management priorities should bereflected in a company’s comprehensive waste manage-ment plan, which is subject to the approval of the envi-ronmental authorities;

waste registration requirements will be introduced inindustrial companies. Waste monitoring will be based on acomprehensive waste classification system comparablewith the European Waste Catalogue;

hazardous waste shall be, if technically and economicallypossible, treated and re-used at source. Detailed regula-tions on waste disposal will be introduced. Hazardouswaste should be disposed of in special facilities or desig-nated compartments of municipal landfills;

a chemical waste will be recycled/recovered where possible;

a progressive fee scale will be introduced. By the year2000, waste disposal fees and fines may increase up to 30percent above the inflation level.

The following significant changes in the management ofwaste packaging are also expected to result from the Waste Act:

paper, cardboard and plastic packaging will be included inthe list of recyclable wastes preferred for reuse. Businesseswill be required to use multiple-use packaging instead ofone-way wrappings. The use of the latter will be allowedonly if companies provide adequate waste treatment;

duty of care for packaging of hazardous substances will beplaced on producers and distributing companies;

identification labels for plastics will be introduced to facil-itate 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 evaluat-

ed between high and very high, with strong growth expectedin the sector. Interestingly, the distribution of responses andhigh demand areas were similar in both categories applied: the“power generation sector” and “other industrial branches.”

Specific technologies in high demand included: new/effi-cient energy and heat generation systems, equipment for retro-fitting/rehabilitation of existing systems, technologies relatedto heat recovery and energy savings, and process managementand control equipment. Technologies related to the use ofalternative/renewable energy sources were in high demand inthe power and energy generation sector.

As discussed in the section on air protection technologies,national environmental policy currently targets two main cate-gories of air pollution: flue gases from coal-fired heat andenergy generation plants, and process emissions from indus-trial plants, mainly from different types of chemical processingplants. The most important issues which need be solved in thenear future include:

application of new, low-emission and efficientenergy/heat generation equipment;

optimization of energy/heat generation processes (includ-



Energy and Power Other Industrial Generation Sectors



Process management and control (e.g. tune-ups, process optimization) 4.3 (3) 4.1 (10)





Technologies in high demand: #1 New/efficient energy and heat generation systems ; #2 Retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems; #3 Heat recoveryand energy savings; #4 Process management and control; #5 alternative/renewable energy systems for the energy sector.

TABLE 4.28: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — ENERGY

ing state-of-the-art process control equipment);

heat recovery and energy savings (including modern sys-tems of insulation for building and heat distributionpipelines).

Technologies for heat recovery and energy savings wereoften indicated as a priority area by respondents from “otherindustrial sectors,” particularly by the chemical industry. Theproduction of high-efficiency technologies for the energy sector,and technologies for energy and heat recovery are priority areasfor funding from the National Environment Protection Fund.

The use of alternative sources of energy was not perceivedas a high demand area by respondents from “other industrialsectors.” Finally, demand was low for non-CFC refrigerantsand instrumentation.

It is worth noting that in April ‘97, the Polish Parliamentpassed the new Energy Law. The Act focuses mainly on powerutilities and fuel and energy supplies, but incorporated alsoare provisions related to the protection of the environment,including development of conventional energy sources, andrationalization of fuel and energy use. The Energy Law alsoestablished a new central administration body — the so-calledEnergy Regulation Authority, charged with controlling the fueland 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 pre-sents details of the responses received.

Responses in the Noise, Vibration, and OHS category pre-sent a somewhat contradictory picture. On the one hand, theratings in most individual technology categories indicate mod-erate demand. The only areas where demand was expected togrow were technologies for the reduction of noise and vibra-tion at industrial facilities, and instrumentation/measuring andcontrol devices.

On the other hand, many respondents observed that occu-pational health and safety issues are treated seriously, andgrowing demand for modern OHS technologies can beexpected. It appears likely that with the introduction of stricterOHS regulations comparable with those in the EU, and withthe increased direct liability of employers for workers’ safety(replacing the key role of the Social Security Office), thedemand for OHS equipment will indeed grow.

Not a single interviewed expert commented on the level ofdemand for technologies related to electromagnetic fieldexposure. This indicates that the problem is practically anunknown issue in Poland.


Table 4.30 presents a summary of those responses con-cerning the main end-users of environmental technologies.

Based on interviewee responses, the major end-users inPoland are municipalities and industrial plants. Three industri-al branches most commonly listed as main end-users includedthe power and energy sector, the chemical industry, and themining sector.

Municipalities (or privatized companies providing munici-pal services) are the main end-users of water, wastewater andwaste management technologies. Notably, wastewater treat-ment is a field where a significant increase in spending isexpected in the coming years.

The energy and power generation sector is the main end-user of air quality protection technologies, and energy-relat-ed technologies. In addition, other industrial branches withhigh energy consumption, such as the chemical industry andvarious manufacturing industries, are significant end-users inthis group. The current situation is expected to continue,partly due to the priorities of the national environmental pol-icy, and partly due to stricter air emission standards effectivefrom Jan. 1, 1998.

4.6 Advantages and Disadvantages ofForeign Suppliers

This part of the survey focused on examining the purchas-ing preferences of domestic buyers, determining the strengthsof foreign environmental technologies, and identifying themajor barriers to their wider entry into the Polish market.

PURCHASING PREFERENCESTable 4.31 presents a summary of the responses to the

question on purchasing preferences.



Noise and Occupational Vibration Health & Safety



Abatement 3.6 (10) 3.4 (13)(insulation, absorbtion)

Electromagnetic field — —exposure and other

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: Noise and vibra-tion abatement (insulation, absorbtion), and Instrumentation/measuringand control devices (noise and vibration)

TABLE 4.29: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES — NOISE, VIBRATION, AND

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETYCategory 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 Municipalities/municipal services (6); Wastewater 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 Manufacturing (3); Heavy industry (2); Vibration Mining (2); Transport (2); Energy generaand OHS tion sector (2); Chemical industry (2)

Note: Figures in brackets represent number of responses

TABLE 4.30: MAJOR END-USERS OFENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

Responses indicate that two-thirds of the respondentsmake purchasing decisions on a case-by-case basis, applyingbest-technology and best-practice approaches. The key selec-tion criteria for these were quality, reliability and durability ofproducts. About a third of the respondents expressed a prefer-ence for domestic environmental technology products — mostnotably, local authorities.

Two thirds of the respondents clearly preferred to buyfrom local representative offices rather than directly from themanufacturer abroad. Concerns about the availability of anauthorized/reliable after-sales service, and the necessaryadministration required in the case of direct import weremajor reasons given for preference to buying from in-countryrepresentative offices.


Table 4.32 presents a summary of the responses to thequestion concerning the strengths of foreign environmentaltechnologies.

The key strengths of foreign environmental technologyproducts, as perceived by more than half of the respondents,were high product quality, and the reliability and durability ofproducts. Interestingly, however, only one respondent in fiveindicated good value for money as a strength of foreign envi-ronmental technologies compared with domestic products.This situation indicates that price levels for foreign productsare perceived as excessively high, and may also suggest thatforeign purchases are considered a last resort option, i.e. whena domestic equivalent is not available.

Importantly, preferential credit from the supplier seems tosignificantly increase the chances of selling environmentaltechnology products in Poland — some 40 percent of respon-dents referred to preferential financing as a strength of foreigntechnologies. For foreign suppliers, this stance should under-line the importance of preparing an attractive financing pack-

age for improving the sales of their products.6Only a small proportion of respondents regarded foreign

environmental technologies as user-friendly and easy to cus-tomize and adapt to specific local conditions.

Perhaps most importantly, only one in five respondentsthought that good after-sales service was a strength of foreignenvironmental technologies. Problems with ensuring prompttechnical service and maintenance by authorized representa-tives were also ranked high among barriers to purchase.Prompt and reliable after-sales service was clearly identified asan area where foreign companies considering long-term pres-ence on the Polish market should focus their attention.


Table 4.33 presents a summary of the responses to thequestion posed on the main barriers to buying environmentaltechnologies from abroad.

High price was identified as the most significant barrier to



When purchasing environmental technology, doesyour organization prefer to buy domestic or for-eign products?

Only use best-technology 63%or best-practice criteria

Prefer domestic products 30%

Prefer foreign products 4%

Other — ABB prefers its own technologies 4%

When buying foreign-manufactured environmentaltechnologies, are purchases made from local repre-sentatives of foreign companies, or directly fromthe producer abroad?

Purchase is made from a local 68%representative in-country

Purchase is made directly 32%from the producer abroad

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding

TABLE 4.31: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TOPURCHASING PREFERENCES

Within your area of expertise, what are thestrengths of foreign environmental technologiescompared with like domestic products?

High product quality 58%

Reliability and durability of products 50%

Available credit/funding from the foreign country 38%

User-friendly and easy to operate technology 23%

Good after-sales service 23%

Easy to customize and adapt 19%for the specific local needs

Good value for money 19%

Low price —

Other —

TABLE 4.32: STRENGTHS OF FOREIGNENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

What do you perceive as the greatest barriers tobuying environmental technologies from abroad?

High cost 65%

Too little information about suppliers 35%

Difficulty to ensure authorized 31%technical service and maintenance

Products not suited to local conditions 23%and technical culture

Lack of reliable product information 19%

Import restrictions/high customs duty 19%

Communication problems with foreign suppliers 12%

Changing environmental regulations 12%

TABLE 4.33: BARRIERS TO BUYING FOREIGNENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

6 It is noteworthy that the National Environmental Protection Fund can provide buyers of environmental technologies with financial support to cover the differ-ence between commercial credit interest rates, and a preferential rate applied by the Fund in priority environmental projects.

purchasing foreign environmental technologies in Poland —two thirds of respondents perceived foreign products as tooexpensive. As a result, buyers often opted for domesticallydesigned and produced technologies, with only the most crit-ical components manufactured by a foreign supplier (e.g.water and sewage pumps, specialized air pollution control sys-tems). It is interesting to note, however, that some environ-mental services (e.g. testing and laboratory services) canalready be carried out more cheaply by foreign providersrather than local providers, and a number of users subcontractservices outside of the country (e.g. the food industry).

One field clearly identified by respondents as a problemarea was the lack of access to authorized technical servicesand maintenance for foreign-manufactured products. In addi-tion, one third of the respondents thought that too little infor-mation was available on foreign suppliers. Based on theabove, and bearing in mind that two-thirds of respondentsprefer to buy from a local representative, foreign companiesshould consider setting up local representative offices toincrease the sales of their products.

Finally, about a quarter of respondents thought that foreignproducts were not always suitable for local conditions andtechnical culture. Two specific cases mentioned by intervie-wees included compatibility problems with equipment basedon metric and non-metric systems, and attempts to implementmunicipal waste incineration regardless of high moisture con-tent and low calorific value of municipal waste in Poland.

Some 20 percent of respondents indicated import restric-tions and high customs duties as a barrier. While this difficultyis expected to be eliminated with respect to EU products bythe year 2000, the same does not apply to technology suppli-ers from other countries.

Finally, given the fact that the level of knowledge of for-eign environmental technologies was found to be very low(see the following chapter), it is surprising that only one in fiverespondents indicated the lack of reliable product informationas an impediment to foreign purchases.


This section of the survey had two objectives. First, itexamined respondents’ perceptions of foreign technologysuppliers based on the country of origin. Secondly, it surveyedthe major foreign companies active in Poland, as known byrespondents.


Table 4.34 presents respondents’ perceptions of foreigntechnologies from selected countries, based on the question

“How do environmental professionals in Poland perceive envi-ronmental technologies originating from different countries ?”

The following scale was used in rating: 5 = excellent rep-utation, 4 = good reputation, 3 = average reputation, 2 = poorreputation, 1 = very poor reputation, blank = no opinion.


In general, perceptions of foreign environmental technolo-gies were between good and excellent. Technologies fromJapan, Austria, Germany, and the US were perceived particular-ly well, followed by Dutch and Scandinavian products. Notably,all foreign environmental technologies were ranked well abovethe perceptions of domestic products, which were rated average.Only in the water and wastewater sector was the gap betweenperceptions of foreign and domestic products relatively small.

German, Scandinavian, and American technologies wereranked particularly high in the air sector. In the water andwastewater sector, technologies from Japan, Austria, the US,and Germany were ranked high, followed by products fromFrance, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. American, German,and Austrian technologies were best rated in the waste sector,followed by technologies from Scandinavia, France, and theNetherlands. Dutch and German technologies were highlyrated in the energy sector, followed by products from the USand Scandinavia.

Aside from the average score, the number of responses ineach category is also significant, since to some extent it reflectsthe availability of foreign technologies on the market (and theperceived level of foreign activity). The distribution ofresponses indicates that, in the opinion of survey respondents,foreign activity was highest in the water and wastewater sec-tor, followed by waste management and air sectors. German,Scandinavian, American, and Dutch environmental technolo-gy firms were perceived as the most active in Poland.

The appearance of Japan so high on the list is, in theresearcher’s opinion, somewhat surprising, since Japaneseenvironmental products are hardly visible on the Polish mar-ket. Not a single Japanese firm presented their products at thePOLEKO ’96 environmental trade fair. The researcher mayonly surmise that perhaps some of the respondents have hadexperience with Japanese products such as motor drives, elec-tric motors, or controls manufactured in Japan. The low ratingof Italy, and high score of Great Britain are based on singledata points, and thus the results should be disregarded aspotentially non-representative. However, the fact that Italy andGreat Britain were mentioned by only one or two respondentsindicates that suppliers and firms from those two countries arenot very active in Poland.

It is important to note that the above question focused onperceptions of foreign suppliers depending on the country oforigin, rather than on respondents’ actual familiarity and/orexperience with specific foreign companies. Therefore, whilethe conclusions from Table 4.34 give a good indication of



Poland Austria Germany France Japan Netherlands US Scandinavia Italy UK

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 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)wastewater

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) - -

Average Score 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)

TABLE 4.34: PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES

commonly held opinions, and represent the perceived level offoreign activity, they do not necessarily depict the actualknowledge of the foreign products available. The followingsections present the answers to a more specific question con-cerning interviewees’ knowledge of foreign companies andactual experience with imported environmental technologies.

MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKETAnswers received in response to the question: “list the

major foreign suppliers of environmental technologies withinyour area of expertise in Poland,” demonstrated that while ahigh number of experts could express a general opinion onsuppliers from a variety of countries, much fewer were able tolist specific companies active in their field of expertise.

Respondents cited a limited number of environmentaltechnology providers active in Poland, and these are present-ed below. Table 4.35 generally reflects the poor knowledgeamong experts of the foreign products available on the mar-ket in Poland.

Practically none of the respondents could offer com-ments regarding the competitive strengths and weaknessesof specific firms.

POLEKO ‘96 Environmental Fair Since POLEKO is the most representative annual environ-

mental event in Poland, the major countries present at

POLEKO ‘96 are listed in Table 4.36.7The distribution of foreign companies present at POLEKO

‘96 corresponds well with the observations of the previoussections. The water and wastewater sectors were generallywell 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.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPANIESENTERING THE MARKET

Based on the comments and observations made in thepreceding sections, the following recommendations shouldbe considered by environmental technology firms looking toincrease their share of the environmental technology marketin Poland:

Improved Local PresenceTo better explore the Polish environmental market and

take advantage of existing project opportunities, companiesinterested in exporting to Poland should increase their directpresence in the country. The major reasons for this are:

strong competition from major foreign suppliers (especial-ly Germany, Scandinavia, Austria);

two-thirds of the potential environmental technology buy-ers prefer to buy from a local representative;

many potential buyers are concerned with the availabilityof after-sales technical service. This clearly is a significantissue in purchasing decisions;

a third of the respondents indicated that there was limitedinformation available on foreign suppliers. This underlinesthe need for establishing a local presence and better prod-uct marketing;

access to information on environmental business opportu-nities is to a large degree based on personal contacts;

local language/communication problems.

The most cost-effective method to enter the Polish market isthrough a joint-venture or other strategic partnership with anexperienced local company specializing in a similar product line.

Competitive Financing PackageHigh prices were identified as the main barrier to pur-

chasing foreign environmental technologies in Poland — two-thirds of respondents perceived foreign products as tooexpensive. At the same time, 40 percent of respondents indi-cated that the availability of preferential credit schemes or



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 establishedPolish local branches, are frequently classifed by Poleko organizers as domestic companies.

Country Companies

Austria Vogel, Biogest, Messner

Germany ABS, Klein, Netzsch, Bellmer, HuberSiemens, Steinmueller, RethmannDanfoss, Schumacher

Scandinavia Flygt, Sarlin, Nopon, Noxon, NokiaLarox, FLS Milio

Holland Ama-Filter

Belgium Prayon

Italy Inter-Eco

France Guinard, Degremont

Great Britain Allied Colloids

TABLE 4.35: FOREIGN COMPANIES LISTED BY RESPONDENTS

Austria Belgium Switzerland Germany France UK Netherlands Sweden Finland Total

Air 3 – 3 5 – 3 – 1 – 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.

TABLE 4.36: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS, LISTED BY COUNTRY, ATTENDING THEINTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FAIR POLEKO ’96, NOV. 19-22, POZNAN

other attractive forms of financing can be a significant advan-tage of foreign products. Finally, many potential end-users ofenvironmental technologies have serious cash flow problemsand look for co-financing partners.

Therefore, it is important to prepare an attractive and com-petitive financing package in order to increase the overall com-petitiveness of a product. Possible options include low-interestcredit lines, partial refinancing of foreign deliveires, etc.

Growth SectorsOverall, the highest demand for environmental technolo-

gies was found to be in the energy sector, and in water andwastewater treatment. This situation is closely related to cur-rent national environmental policy and regulations, where thekey priority areas are air pollution abatement and protectionof water resources (for more details, see the discussion inSections 4.3 and 4.5).

High demand in the air category is expected for technolo-gies related to the abatement of air emissions and cleaner pro-duction (such as low-emission burners, etc.). Increasingdemand was identified for air pollution control and flue gaspurification equipment. Most frequently noted were state-of-the-art systems to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, dust andparticulates, nitrogen monoxides, and hazardous chemicals. Inthe related energy category, technologies in high demandincluded: new/efficient energy and heat generation systems;retrofitting/rehabilitation of existing systems; process manage-ment and control; technologies for heat recovery and energysavings; and alternative/renewable energy systems. A wholerange of opportunities exist related to the on-going program ofrestructuring of the energy sector (e.g. the introduction of coalcleaning or gasification, fluidized bed burners, district heatingin municipal areas).

High demand is expected for the following technologies inthe municipal and industrial wastewater sector: sludge treat-ment and disposal (very high demand); pollution preventionand waste minimization; monitoring; advanced (tertiary) treat-ment methods; and instrumentation, process control and soft-ware. Treatment of large amounts of saline water dischargedfrom coal mining is still an unresolved problem. In the catego-ry surface and groundwater, high demand was identified fortechnologies for spill control and containment, and clean-up.

In the waste management category, high demand isexpected for technologies for pollution prevention and wasteminimization, and recycling and resource recovery. Formunicipal waste, composting and biomass conversion tech-nologies were identified as a high demand area. Technologiesfor collection, transportation, and storage of hazardous wasteare also in high demand. As regards hazardous waste, highgrowth is expected for site monitoring, and waste collection,transportation and storage technologies.

Finally, other areas where demand was found to be rela-tively high included technologies for spill control and decont-amination, and site remediation and clean-up for industrial,hazardous, and radioactive waste.

End-user identificationFinally, exporters should show initiative in end-user identi-

fication, and make effort in determining the end-user’s specificneeds and requirements. This could be combined with an offerof technical assistance, or assistance with a loan application.

In concluding, it is important to stress that while environmentaltechnologies which are competitive with other Western prod-ucts in terms of price and quality can be successfully intro-duced on the Polish market, the market is very competitive,with many foreign and domestic companies actively seekingopportunities. The key factor for a successful sale is an in-coun-try representative office, and a dependable technical service.



4.8 List of IntervieweesThe structure of information is as follows:

NameAddressTelephone numberInterviewed personProfile of respondent

R & D INSTITUTIONS

1) Akademia Gorniczo-Hutniczaul. Mickiewicza 30 paw. D-180-059 KrakowTel: (48-12) 172-000Adam EngelMain R&D center for noise and vibration issues

2) Instytut Ekologii Terenow Uprzemyslowionychul. Kossutha 640-833 KatowiceTel: (48-32) 154-0164Ewa MarchwinskaPiotr PoborskiInstitute was established in 1972 as the EnvironmentalProtection Institute, Katowice branch and in 1992 was trans-formed into the independent Institute for Ecology ofIndustrialized Areas

3) Instytut Ochrony Srodowiska ul. Krucza 5/1100-548 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 622-3867, Fax: (48-22) 629-5263Urszula RzeszotownaThe Institute carries out research and laboratory work on air,water and land surface protection, waste utilization, natureconservation, anti-noise and anti-vibration protection as wellas environmental impact assessment.

4) Instytut Melioracji i Uzytkow Zielonych05-090 Raszyn/FalentyTel: (48-22) 756-0941, 756-0531Mikolaj SikorskiResponsible for environmental issues typical of rural areas,established in 1950.

5) Instytut Ochrony Srodowiskaul. Wystawowa 1 51-618 WroclawTel: (48-71) 483-563, 728-821, Fax: (48-71) 481-140Janusz PrzewlockiThe largest institute covering all environmental categories

6) Miedzywydzialowe Studia Ochrony Srodowiska,Uniwersytet Warszawskiul. Krakowskie Przedmiescie 3000-927 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 620-0381 ext. 669Ewelina KantowiczInterfaculty Studies for Environmental Protection

7) Politechnika Czestochowska, Instytut InzynieriiSanitarnejul. Dabrowskiego 6942-200 CzestochowaTel: (48-34) 250-917January BienThe Faculty was established in late 1980s. Water and waste-water treatment, including sludge treatment and disposal, arethe main fields of activity

8) Politechnika Szczecinska, Wydzial Inzynierii Wodnejul. Piastow 5070-311 SzczecinTel: (48-91) 494-407Ryszard RydzynskiThe University is active mainly in the Baltic Sea pollutioncontrol

9) Politechnika Warszawska Wydzial InzynieriiSrodowiska, Instytut Zaopatrzenia w Wode iBudownictwa Wodnegoul. Nowowiejska 2000-653 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 660-5336, 621-5995Fax: (48-22) 621-3370Marian KwietniewskiThe largest multi-faculty technical university, established in1950.

10) Politechnika Wroclawskaul. Wybrzeze Wyspianskiego 2750-370 WroclawTel: (48-71) 320-3804, 320-3267,Fax: (48-71) 222-980Marek SozanskiOne of the largest, multi-faculty technical universities.

11) Polska Akademia Nauk Centrum PodstawowychProblemow Gospodarki Surowcami Mineralnymi iEnergiaul. Jozefa Wybickiego 731-261 KrakowTel: (48-12) 322-068Tadeusz SmakowskiThe department was established in 1986 and is responsiblefor the majority of energy and mineral resources manage-ment issues in Poland

12) Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki WodnejZaklad Gospodarki Wodnej IMGWul. Podlesna 6101-673 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 341-651, Fax: (48-22) 345-466Marek GromiecThe institution is responsible for coordinating the majority ofwater and wastewater R&D projects

13) Instutut Medycyny Pracy w Lodziul. Sw. Teresy 891-348 LodzIntegrated occupational health issues, including exposuremonitoring at working places



14) Glowny Instutut Gornictwapl. Gwarkow 140-166 KatowiceMonitoring Department, Leszek DrobekTel: (48-32) 592-677Waste Treatment and Environmental Protection Department,Slawomir DurczynskiTel: (48-32) 592-445Water Protection Department, Krzysztof FilipekTel: (48-32) 592-154Energy and Air Protection Depatrment, Eugeniusz OrszulikTel: (48-32) 592-274Experts of the Ministry of Environmental Protection in thefield of environmental protection; motorway impact assess-ment, cleaner production, energy saving and air protection,enviromnent monitoring, water and sewage management,waste management

15) Szkola Glowna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego (SGGW)ul. Nowoursynowska 16602-787 WarsawTel: (48-22) 439-041, 439-061, 439-081Fax: (48-22) 471-562Zbigniew KaraczunThe Institution focuses on environmental problems typicalfor rural areas.

ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURES

1) Ekofundusz-Fundacja Ekofunduszul. Belwederska 18A02-762 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 400-901, 400-950Fax: (48-22) 400-942Jozef DobijaWojciech KrolikowskiEstablished for eco-conversion funds’ distribution

2) Ministerstwo Ochrony Srodowiska ZasobowNaturalnych i Lesnictwaul. Wawelska 52/5400-922 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 254-784Czeslaw WieckowskiKrystyna PanekEnvironmental Policy Department

3) Narodowa Fundacja Ochrony Srodowiskaul. Krzywickiego 902-078 WarszawaTel/Fax: (48-22) 252-127, 251-018Aleksandra WiszniewskaConsultacy service in areas relating to environmental protec-tion, training and educational activities, environmental impactassessment, environmental audits for institutions, environ-mental research

4) Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska iGospodarki Wodnejul. Konstruktorska 3A02-673 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 490-079, 490-080,Fax: (48-22) 497-272Jan Zwolinski (spokesman)National Environmental Protection fund for project financing

5) RZGW w Gdanskuul. Uphagena 2780-237 GdanskTel: (48-58) 452-266, Fax: (48-58) 452-262Halina BurakowskaCentral administrative structure responsible for the northernpart of the Vistula river basin

6) RZGW w Katowicachul. Jesionowa 9a40-158 KatowiceTel: (48-32) 598-843, Fax: (48-32) 599-642Franciszek TomiczekCentral administrative structure responsible for water man-agement issues in the Silesian region

7) RZGW w Krakowieul. M.J. Pilsudskiego 2231-109 KrakowTel: (48-12) 230-559, Fax: (48-21) 212-909Tomasz WalczykiewiczCentral administrative structure responsible for the southernpart of the Vistula river basin

8) RZGW w Poznaniuul. Grunwaldzka 2160-703 PoznanTel: (48-61) 656-956Tel/Fax: (48-61) 656-953Janusz WisniewskiCentral administrative structure responsible for the centralpart of the Oder river basin, including the Warta river basin

9) RZGW w Szczecinieul. Pocztowa 12/1270-360 SzczecinTel: (48-91) 844-076, Tel/Fax: (48-91) 844-075Waldemar KowalczukCentral administrative structure responsible for the northernpart of the Oder river basin

10) RZGW w Warszawieul. Instalatorow 9 02-237 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 462-051, 466-775Fax: (48-22) 466-197Andrzej BadowskiCentral administrative structure responsible for the centralpart of the Vistula river basin

11) RZGW we Wroclawiu ul. Wybrzeze Wyspianskiego 3950-370 WroclawTel: (48-71) 212-888, 226-651 to 54Andrzej NalberczynskiCentral administrative structure responsible for the southernpart of the Oder river basin

12) Urzad Wojewodzki w LublinieWydzial Ochrony Srodowiskaul. Spokojna 420-214 LublinTel: (48-81) 292-40, Fax: (48-81) 285-40Halina MatyjaszekVoivodship environmental protection authorities



END-USERS

1) ALPEX Karlino S.A.ul. Kolobrzeska 17-1978-230 KarlinoTel: (48-94) 117-728, 117-231Anna PolanskaLarge company specializing in production of chipboards andhardboards

2) APATOR S.A.ul. Zolkiewskiego 13/2987-100 TorunTel: (48-56) 398-264, 391-242Fax: (48-56) 391-295Leon MalinowskiLarge company specializing in the production of electricalmeasuring equipment

3) CENTRA Spolka Akcyjnaul. Gdynska 31/3361-016 PoznanTel: (48-61) 786-323, 786-481Maciej GramowskiLarge battery manufacturing enterprise

4) DANONEul. Redutowa 9/23 01-103 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 364-293, 379-030Andrzej KaczorowskiLarge milk processing plant

5) DROBEX-HEINTZ Sp. z o.o.ul. Kaniewska 8/1070-876 SzczecinTel: (48-91) 691-503, Fax: (48-91) 600-169Krzysztof NiewiarowskiLarge poultry processing plant

6) Fabryka Aparatow Elektryczych “FAEL” Sp. z o.o.ul. Warynskiego 2057-200 Zabkowice Sl.Tel: (48-72) 152-710 to 19Ewa BorczLarge company specializing in the production of electricalequipment

7) Fabryka Lin i Drutu DRUMET S.A.ul. Polna 26/7487-800 WloclawekTel: (48-54) 33-3-221 to 29Andrzej DomagalskiCompany responsible for the manufacture of metal wire

8) Fabryka Lozysk Tocznych “ISKRA” S.A.ul. Jagiellonska 10925-743 KielceTel: (48-41) 666-111Rudolf MartinMedium-sized bearings manufacturing plant

9) FlT “PREMA-MILMET” S.A.ul. Gen. Grota-Roweckiego 13041-200 SosnowiecTel: (48-3) 191-8854Mieczyslaw BinkiewiczLarge roller-bearing processing plant

10) Huta Czestochowaul. Rejtana 6 42-207 CzestochowaTel: (34) 238-782Michal KrajewskiOne of the biggest metallurgical foundries in Poland well man-aged with implemented environmental management systems

11) Huta Szkla Jaroslawul. Morawska 1 37-500 JaroslawJanusz FranczykLarge, private glass processing company

12) Kaliskie Zaklady Koncentratow Spozywczych“WINIARY” S.A.ul. lodzka 149/15362-800 KaliszTel: (48-61) 650-310, Fax: (48-62) 739-47Pawel KwasnikLarge food processing plant

13) KONSTAL S.A.ul. Katowicka 10441-500 ChorzowTel: (48-32) 411-051 to 58Fax: (48-32) 413-397Henryk LisDomestic products manufacturing company

14) Lucent Technologies ul. Pilicka 685-776 KielceTel: (48-52) 741-411Tomasz KiecLarge telecommunication equipment manufacturing company

15) Miejskie Przedsiebiorstwo Wodociagow iKanalizacjipl. Starynkiewicza 502-015 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 628-5567Wojciech CharkiewiczLarge company responsible for water/wastewater manage-ment in the Warsaw municipality

16) Miejskie Przedsiebiorstwo Wodociagow iKanalizacji w Lublinieul. Pilsudskiego 1520-407 LublinTel: (48-81) 237-56, Fax: (48-81) 219-10Tadeusz FijalkaLarge company responsible for water/wastewater manage-ment

17) SERY ICC PASlÊK Sp. z o.o.ul. Dworcowa 914-400 PaslekTel: (48-50) 482-085Zbigniew AdamczykMedium-sized milk processing plant

18) Warszawskie Zaklady Papiernicze S.A.ul. Mirkowska 4505-520 Konstancin-JeziornaTel: (48-22) 756-4011 ext. 360Renata ZiemskaLarge paper processing plant



19) Zaklady Azotowe S.A.ul. Kwiatkowskiego 8 33-101 TarnowTel: (48-14) 372-340Leokadia PawelecLarge chemical plant

20) Zaklady Chemiczne “WIZOW” S.A.59-700 Boleslawiec skr. pocz. 58Tel: (48) 795-2020 to 24Fax: (48) 795-2025Krystyna PasierbLarge chemical company currently under privatization

21) Zaklady Chemiczne “Organika-Zachem”ul. Wojska Polskiego 6585-825 BydgoszczTel: (48-52) 611-820, 617-011Fax: (48-52) 610-282Roman KasperczykPrzemyslaw NawracalaLarge state owned chemical plant

22) Zaklady Chemiczne „ROKITA” S.A.ul. Sienkiewicza 456-100 Brzeg DolnyTel: (48-71) 747-771Michal BednorzLarge chemical plant

23) Zaklady Metali Lekkich “KETY” S.A.ul. Kosciuszki 11132-650 KetyTel: (48-38) 145-22Jacek ChwistekLarge aluminium processing plant

24) Zaklady Plyt Wiorowych PROSPANul. Boleslawicka 10 98-400 WieruszowTel: (48-647) 413-18 ext. 247Stanislawa KaczmarekLarge chipboard and hardboard processing plant

25) Zaklady Przemyslu Barwnikow “BORUTA” S.A.ul. A. Struga 3095-100 ZgierzTel: (48-42) 162-034, Fax: (48-42) 164-886Piotr PietrzakLarge manufacturer of dyes

DESIGN/ENGINEERING

1) ATMOTERMul. Katowicka 3545-061 OpoleTel: (48-77) 54 46 67, 54 39 84, 56 67 60Ryszard PazdanLarge company specializing in air pollution issues

2) ARKA KONSORCJUM S.A.ul. Zmigrodzka 41/4960-171 PoznanTel: (48-61) 677-353, 677-400Fax: (48-61) 678-432Przemyslaw WiznerowiczLarge company responsible for water and wastewater issues

3) BIPROWOD Biuro Projektow Gospodarki Wodnej iSciekowejul. Rydygiera 801-793 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 633-9273, Fax: (48-22) 633-9373Wlodzimierz GlamkowskiMedium-sized state owned company specializing inwater/wastewater management issues

4) Centrum Techniki Budownictwa Komunalnegoul. Krzywickiego 902-078 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 250-973Waclaw PajdzinskiMedium-sized private design company specializing inwater/wastewater and waste management issues

5) DECYBEL Sp. z o.o.ul. Mickiewicza 958-573 PiechowiceTel: (48-75) 535-20Andrzej SzalejDesign/consulting company responsible for noise and vibra-tion issues

6) Dolnoslaski Instytut Technologicznyul. Slezna 14453-110 WroclawTel: (48-71) 675-704Miroslaw SzymanskiPrivate consulting company responsible for wastewater man-agement, especially manure utilization

7) DOR-EKO Przedsiebiorstwo Konsultingowo-Inzynieryjne Sp. z o.o.ul. Robotnicza 11/1302-261 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 466-911, 467-885Antoni OleszczykPrivate consulting company responsible for municipal envi-ronmental issues; cooperation with WS Atkins

8) ECOINSTAL-PROJEKT Pracownia Autorskaul. Ponikowskiego 307-707 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 651-0120, Tel/Fax: (48-22) 651-0121Witold OlszewskiPrivate design company specializing in wastewater collectingsystems in samll and medium size settlements

9) EKOCOMPul. Chocimska 2800-791 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 498-010Leszek PuchalskiCompany responsible for automation and control systems inwater and wastewater treatment plants

10) EKO-EFEKT Sp. z o.o. Narodowego FunduszuOchrony Srodowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej, OddzialGliwiceul. Konstytucji 1144-100 GliwiceTel: (48-32) 1307-725Stanislaw JanuszConsulting company owned by the National Fund forEnvironmental Protection and Water Management, responsi-ble for environmental protection projects, including supervi-sion of Finnish eco-conversion funds utilization



11) EKOKONREM Sp. z o.o.ul. Tarnogajska 1850-512 WarszawaTel: (48-71) 671-104, 671-206, 670-021Fax: (48-71) 671-104, 674-320Wojciech ZielinskiConsulting company specialized in various environmentalcategories

12) EKOL Agencja Inwestycyjno-Handlowa S.C.ul. G. Zapolskiej 433-300 Nowy SaczJan ZabierzewskiSmall private design office specializing in wastewater treat-ment

13) EKOLOG Przedsiebiorstwo ProjektowoInzynieryjneAl. Wojska Polskiego 4364-920 PilaTel: (48-67) 126-405, 123-328Fax: (48-67) 126-405Krzysztof HorodeckiLarge private design/engineering company specializing invarious types of environmental protection services

14) EKOLOG Systemsul. Ziebicka 3560-164 PoznanTel: (48-61) 684-527Krzysztof PachockiBranch office in Poznan

15) ELIMP Sp. z o.o. Zaklad Rozwoju Nowych TechnikOchrony Srodowiskaul. Chlodna 52/5400-872 Warszawa Tel: (48-22) 249-173, 620-2671Tel/Fax: (48-22) 243-578Wlodzimierz MozrynConsulting/engineering company specializing in water treat-ment technologies

16) ENERGOPOMIAR Sp. z o.o. Zaklady Pomiarowo-Badawcze Energetykiul. Gen. Sowinskiego 344-101 GliwiceTel: (48-32) 37 68 00, Fax: (48-32) 31 65 42Zygmut RozewiczConsulting/engineering company specializing in measure-ment equipment

17) ENERGOPROJEKT Glowne Biuro Studiow iProjektow Energetycznychul. Krucza 6/14, skr. poczt. 18400-950 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 621-0281, Fax: (48-22) 629-3240Tadeusz SobolewskiMain design engineering office specializing in completion ofenergy systems

18) HYDROPROJEKT WARSZAWA Sp. z o.o.ul. Dubois 9 00-182 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 635-3891, Fax: (48-22) 635-0020Aleksander LaskiDesigning/engineering company specializing in water protec-tion structures

19) GEOTEX S.A.ul. Batalionow Chlopskich 4970-770 SzczecinTel: (48-91) 615-493, Fax: (48-91) 615-981Piotr JermalowiczDesign company specializing in construction and sealing ofwaste dumps

20) INSTALEX-BIOOX Sp. z o.o.ul. Mazowiecka 1200-050 WarszawaTel/Fax: (48-22) 826-6447, 826-7438Lech NarbuttDesign/engineering company specializing in completion ofwatewater treatment plants of the type BIOOXYBLOK

21) INZYNIERIA PRO-EKO Sp. z o.o.ul. E. Ciolka 11A01-445 Warszawa Tel/Fax: (48-22) 377-750Leslaw DindorfDesign/engineering company specialized in solid waste treat-ment and disposal projects

22) MSS environmental engineeringul. Kopcinskiego 9/2302-777 WarszawaTel/Fax: (48-22) 644-3470Andrzej MrozSmall private company specializing in utilization of haz-ardous/toxic wastes

23) PROEKO Ltdul. Krzywickiego 3402-078 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 625-7456, 625-7523Tel/Fax: (48-22) 625-3648Bronislaw KaminskiConsulting company of medium size specializing in environ-mental categories

24) PROJPRZEM S.A.ul. Bernardynska 13 85-029 BydgoszczTel: (48-52) 229-001, Fax: (48-52) 286-157Lukrecjan MarzecEngineering/manufacturing company specializing in containertype wastewater treatment plants and water treatment plants

25) PROSAN Sp. z o.o.ul. Baœniowa 3 02-349 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 221-200Jan MroczekHead design/engineering office specializing in water/waste-water management and treatment issues

26) PROSANul. Zubrow 171-716 SzczecinTel: (48-91) 226-350, 226-245Witold DabekBranch office in the northern part of Poland



27) SALGEOul. Basniowa 3/p.51202-349 WarszawaTel/Fax: (48-22) 659-6889Janusz SalygaPrivate geological company specializing in environmentalissues

28) SEEN – Service for Engineeringul. Krzywickiego 3402-078 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 625-1225, Fax: (48-22) 628-3336Rafal LipinskiConsulting/engineering/design office, sole agent and distrib-utor (water and chemical issues)

29) SETO-C.D & Office S.C.ul. Plac Zwyciestwa 2 90-312 lodzTel/Fax: (48-42) 744-218, 307-110, 307-115Tadeusz SedzikowskiDesign/engineering office specializing in water/wastewatermanagement

30) STOLICA Sp. z o.o.ul. Kredytowa 3 00-056 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 827-8797, 826-0632Fax: (48-22) 264-291Wojciech GrodeckiDesign/engineering office specializing in municipal environ-mental protection issues

31) WS Atkins-Polskaul. Marszalkowska 82 00-517 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 623-6340Tel/Fax: (48-22) 623-6341Aleksander GranowskiConsulting/engineering company, part of the British WSAtkins Company

BUSINESS UNITS

1) ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltdul. Stachowicza 18 30-103 KrakowTel: (48-12) 223-407, 221-693Piotr CiechanowskiLarge company specializing in air pollution control/energygenerating instalations

2) AQAMEX S.A.ul. Fosa 302-768 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 433-453Tel/Fax: (48-22) 431-932Andrzej RykowskiCompany responsible for wastewater treatment, equipmentmanufacturer and supplier

3) AQATECH Sp. z o.o. Przedsiebiorstwo Badawczo-Produkcyjneul. Czarny Dwor 4A80-365 GdanskTel/Fax: (48-58) 534-199Edward LedwonCompany responsible for water treatment equipment

4) ARCUS Sp. z o.o. Dzial Biotechnologiiul. Mila 200-180 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 635-0994, 6351282Fax: (48-22) 317-043Hanna KoziejPolish/British supplier of wastewater treatment, and processstimulating substances

5) BIOX Zaklad Urzadzen Natleniajacychul. Bohaterow Westerplatte 2411-500 GizyckoJerzy KiczynskiCompany specializing in aeration equipment manufacturing

6) BUDEXPOL Sp. z o.o.ul. Braniborska 38/4053-680 WroclawTel: (48-71) 555-029, 558-023Fax: (48-71) 559-059, 552-207Andrzej MedynskiDesign/manufacturing company; turn key projects supplier:sewage treatment plants including fermentation chambres,oxygen-free reactors, decanters, deposit procesing installa-tions, etc.

7) CANDELA Sp. z o.o.ul. Kozietulskiego 601-571 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 394-315, 394-316Fax: (48-22) 393-577Michal SwiatekCompany distributing analytical instruments; representativefor a few foreign manufacturers

8) CHEMADEX Przedsiebiorstwo Projektowania iDostaw Kompletnych Obiektow Przemyslowychul. Koszykowa 600-564 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 621-6271, Fax: (48-22) 629-5003Krzysztof KaminskiEngineering/construction company specializing in deliveriesof turn-key wastewater treatment plants, including sugar pro-cessing wastewater treatment

90 EKOFINN-POL Sp. z o.o.ul. Belgradzka 8980-287 Gdansk Tel: (48-58) 487-090, Fax: (48-58) 487-090Krzysztof TiunajtisMedium-sized private company specializing in productionand installation of small wastewater treatment plants;Polish/Finnish company

10) ELEKTRIMul. Chalubinskiego 800-950 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 302-199, 302-192Fax: (48-22) 300-841, 300-842Andrzej SkowronskiOne of the biggest trading-contracting companies specializ-ing in the energy sector



11) EXBUDul. Witosa 7425-561 KielceTel: (48-41) 331-2833, Fax: (48-41) 331-9074Witold ZaraskaConstruction company; turn-key projects supplier; projectsare implemented in cooperation with Polish and foreigncompanies offering environmental protection know-how

12) FLOOTEK ABul. Pytlasinskiego 13A00-777 WarszawaTel/Fax: (48-22) 403-186, 826-9521, 620-3494Leszek ZaduraSupplier of industrial wastewater treatment plants(Scandinavian origin)

13) Fluid Corporationul. Morawskiego 530-102 KrakowTel: (48-12) 223-666 ext. 479Jan GladkiPrivate company specializing in fluidized bed boilers con-struction

14) FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY FACOP, FabrykaKotlow Przemyslowychul. Staszica 3141-200 SosnowiecTel: (48-32) 664-861 to 68 Wojciech R. KowalskiBoiler manufacturing factory specializing in energy/air pro-tection issues

15) HYDROBUDOWA-9 Sp. z o.o. PrzedsiebiorstwoInzynieryjno-Budowlaneul. Sienkiewicza 2260-900 PoznanTel: (48-61) 650-011, 475-621Fax: (48-61) 475-623Wojciech PawlaczykEngineering/construction company specializing in buildingwastewater treatment plants

16) KOWENT S.A.ul. Warszawska 5226-200 KonskieTel: (48-41) 126-355 to 59, Fax: (48-41) 126-181Jan SipikaSupplier of air pollution control equipment

17) METEX HUBER Sp. z o.o.ul. Kredytowa 300-056 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 826-9011, Fax: (48-22) 826-5819Krystyna KielbiewskaMedium-sized private company specializing in the distribu-tion of Finnish devices for wastewater treatment plants

18) NETZSCH Filtrationstechnik GmbH-JaworskiInternationalul. Nowogrodzka 38/1900-691 WarszawaTel/Fax: (48-22) 629-0745Fax: (48-22) 622-2689Dariusz JaworskiCompany responsible for supply of sludge dewatering equip-ment of German origin

19) NIJHUIS WATER TECHNOLOGY b.vul. Wl. Reymonta 105-820 PiastowTel: (mobile) (48-90) 224-818Tel/Fax: (48-22) 723-5430Tomasz JagielskiCompany responsible for water treatment equipment sup-plies

20) POLIMEX-CEKOPul. Czackiego 7/900-950 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 623-7537Tel/Fax: (48-22) 623-7267Marek Fyalkowski

21) POWOGAZ Osrodek Badawczo-RozwojowyAparatury i Urzadzen Komunalnych Sp. z o.o.ul. Szczepanowskiego 1360-541 PoznanTel: (48-61) 411-318Marian AndrzejewskiWater/wastewater equipment and installation supplier

22) PROCHEM S.A.ul. Ostrobramska 10304-041 WarszawaTel: (48-22) 102-689Fax: (48-22) 107-694, 102-918Jaroslaw StepniewskiLarge construction-engineering company; partly owned bythe Fluor Daniel Company

23) Przedsiebiorstwo Wielobranzowe “SANITGAZ” S.C.ul. Buraski 18A20-150 LublinTel: (48-81) 771-472, 771-506Boguslaw MatyjaszekSmall company and sanitary installation supplier

24) PWP, Przedsiebiorstwo Wdrozeniowo-Produkcyjnepl. Starynkiewicza 502-015 WarszawaTel/Fax: (48-22) 625-4795Maria DanielewskaRepresentative of a number of firms (water and sewagepumps and sanitary technology)

25) RAFAKO S.A., Fabryka Kotlowul. Lakowa 3347-400 RaciborzTel: (48-36) 415-2171, Fax: (48-36) 415-2902Tadeusz EkiertUrszula BednarczykJerzy JedzBoiler manufacturer specializing in energy/air protectionissues

26) SEFAKO S.A. Fabryka Kotlowul. Przemyslowa 928-340 SedziszowTel: (48-498) 610-36, 110-73Wojciech BiskupBoiler manufacturer factory specializing in energy/air protec-tion issues



27) SPOMASZ Fabryka Maszyn i Urzadzen PrzemysluSpozywczegoul. Powstancow Wielkopolskich 2364-510 WronkiTel: (48-67) 540-561, Fax: (48-67) 553-108Zbigniew RebaczCompany responsible for sludge dewatering equipmentsupplies

28) WIBEX S.C.ul. Batorego 907-300 Ostrow MazowieckaTel: (48-217) 53-852, Fax: (48-217) 51-857Grzegorz KubickiCompany responsible for hydro-insulating materials and sup-plies (for sealing waste dumps, lagoons, overflows, etc.)

NOTE : For the purpose of this survey, the term BusinessUnits is used to refer to multi-sectoral, profit-oriented compa-nies; two main types of companies were distinguised:

equipment suppliers (generally they represent variousmanufacturers);

engineering, construction, contracting and trading compa-nies specializing in capital goods for many industrialbranches, including environmental protection systems(generally those are projects suppliers)

The following parties completed the Questionnaire:RZGW in Gdansk; RZGW in Wroclaw; Warsaw University ofTechnology; Warsaw Agriculture University; Institute forEcology of Industrialised Areas in Katowice; Institute ofEnvironmental Protection, Branch office in Wroclaw; Institutefor Grass Farming and Land Reclamation in Falenty (nearWarsaw); Polish Academy of Science; Mineral Resources andEnergy Management in Krakow; Glass Foundry in Jaroslaw;Chemical Plant WIZOW in Boleslawiec; Chemical PlantBORUTA; FLT “ISKRA” in Kielce; EXIDE-CENTRA in Poznan;ICC Paslek; Chemical Plant ORGANIKA-ZACHEM inBydgoszcz; Municipal Water & Wastewater Company inLublin; Water Management Designing Office BIPROWOD inWarsaw; PROEKO in Warsaw; Designing/Engineering BureauCTBK in Warsaw; FLUID Corporation; EKOFINN-POL inGdansk; METEX-HUBER in Warsaw; Asea Brown Boveri Ltd inWarsaw; Zaklady Azotowe S.A in Tarnow-Moœcice;PROCHEM S.A. in Warsaw; Ministry of EnivironmentalProtection, Natural Resources and Forestry, EnvironmentalPolicy Department; Polimex-Cekop

The remaining parties listed above were interviewed with-out the use of questionnaire, either on the phone, or in person.

Referring to the additional list of 20 organizations present-ed by the Client, ERM Polska would like to note the following:

Seven companies/institutions were included in the surveyfrom the project initiation:

The Ministry of Environmental Protection, NaturalResources and Forestry

The National Fund for Environmental Protection andWater management

Ekofundusz

PROCHEM/Fluor Daniel in Warsaw

Rafako

Ekolog

Elimp

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 protec-tion specialists in Poland; the address and telephone/faxnumbers were not available in any environmental businessreference sources; according to unconfirmed information,Sanders International specializes in consulting services invarious branches



4.9 Overview of the Most ImportantEnvironmental Investments Initiatedor Continued in Selected Voivodshipsin Poland in 1994Examples are presented of typical environmental projectscharacterizing current Polish environmental protection mar-ket (information based on annual voivodship environmentalprotection reports from 1995)

GDANSK VOIVODSHIPWater Protection

Water & Wastewater Management at Production Facilities1. Sugar plant “Pelplin” w Pelplinie:

Modernization of screening installations,Modernization/improvement of biological treatment instal-lation focused on land application of treated wastewater;

2. Starogardzkie Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” wStarogardzie (Pharmaceuticals plant):Construction of water storage tank;

3. Zaklady Przemyslu Tluszczowego “Olvit” Zaklad wGdansku (Food Processing Plant):Closure of the cooling system, and modernization ofsewage pretreatment systems;

4. “Kooperol ” w Zdunach Food Processing Plant):Start-up of the completed biological wastewater treatmentplant (excluding biological ponds), of 50m3/d capacity;

5. Gospodarstwo Rolne Przemyslowa Ferma Tuczu TrzodyChlewnej — Ryszard Gorny w Grabowie Koscierskim(Pigs’ Farm):Completion of modernization of the manure, mechanical-biological treatment plant;Completion of sludge treatment unit prior to land appli-cation of resulting sludge;

6. Przedsiebiorstwo Polowow i Uslug Rybackich “Szkuner ”we Wladyslawowie (Fishing company):Modernization of pretreatment installation and pumpingstations construction for wastewater transportation to theSwarzewo wastewater treatment plant (not completed todate).

Municipal Wastewater Management1. Construction of the mechanical-biological treatment plant

in Tczew, of 21,000m3/d capacity;

2. Construction of the mechanical-biological wastewatertreatment plant, type Biooxyblok in Koscierzyna, of18,000m3/d capacity;

3. Construction of mechanical-biological treatment plant(with nutrient removal) in Starogard Gdanski;

4. Construction/modernization of mechanical-biologicaltreatment plant (with nutrient removal) in Jastrzebia Gora,of 3,360m3/d capacity;

5. Modernization of WWTP in Skarszewy;

6. Reconstruction and modernization of mechanical-biologi-cal treatment plant (with nutrient removal) WWTP inKartuzy, of 10,000m3/d capacity;

7. Construction of mechanical-biological treatment plant(with nutrient removal) municipal WWTP in Pelplin, of3,200m3/d capacity;

8. Completion and start-up of mechanical-biological treat-

ment plant (with nutrient removal) municipal WWTP inSomonino, of 1,600m3/d capacity;

9. Completion and start-up of mechanical-biological treat-ment plant (with nutrient removal) municipal WWTP inChmielno, of 1,040 m3/d capacity;

10. Construction of mechanical-biological (tracking filters)WWTP, with chemical nutrient removal in the municipali-ty of Stezyca, of 740m3/d capacity;

11. Completion and start-up of mechanical-biological treat-ment plant (with nutrient removal) municipal WWTP inthe municipality of Krokowa, of 770m3/d capacity;

12. Completion and start-up of mechanical-biological WWTP(with tertiary treatment in polishing lagoons) in the munic-ipality of Wdzydze Kiszewskie;

13. Completion and start-up of the first stage of mechanical-biological treatment plant, municipal WWTP Gdansk —Debogorze of 86,000 m3/d capacity;

14. Start-up of the mechanical-biological WWTP type “bioseg-mentblok”, with chemical nutrient removal, in the munici-pality of Przodkowo, planned capacity: 1 000m3/d.

Air Protection

Investments completed in 1994.1. ”Siarkopol” S.A. Gdansk (Chemical Processing Plant):

Completion of modernized technological installation, inorder to minimize sulfur emission;

2. Goscicinska Fabryka Mebli “KLOSE” (Furniture Manufac-turing Plant):Boiler house modernization;

3. Wytwornia Mas Bitumicznych w Rozynach (Par BasedMaterial 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 networkand 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 lowemission boiler houses:Al. Niepodleglosci 710 in Sopot,Parkowa 27 st., in Sopot,Czyzewskiego 8/10 st., in Sopot;

5. Gdanskie Przedsiebiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej wGdansku (Heat Distribution Company in Gdansk):Development of central/municipal heat distribution sys-tem; liquidation of the following old, local heat generationplants 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;



7. Zaklady Produkcji Kruszywa Popioloporytowego wGdansku (Construction Materials Production Plant: start-up of the production line focused on reuse of waste man-ufactured by heat/energy generating plant in Gdansk(waste recycling)

Investments Commenced in 19941. 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 GdanskiejS.A.;

3. Modernization of process equipment which is the signifi-cant source of air emissions in Stocznia Gdanska S.A.;

4. Process devices modernization focused on air emissionreduction in Rafineria Gdansk S.A.;

5. Implementation of the state-of-the-art, low emission paint-ing devices in Stocznia Remontowej NAUTA in Gdynia.

Noise Control Investments1. MEAT Gdynia Przetwornia Eksportowa w Sopocie:

replacement of old noise generating boiler houseinstallations 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, implementa-tion of noise control equipment and low-noise ventilators;

3. Gdanskie Przedsiebiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej —Stacja Podnoszenia Cisnien Wilenska (Heat DisributionCompany 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 wGdansku:Implementation of noise reducing insulation of the coolinginstallation building;

5. Zaklad Kamieniarsko-Nagrobkowy w Gdyni:Implementation of the low-noise process machines;

6. Gdanskie Mlyny i Spichlerze PZZ w SopocieMlyn 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 pneu-

matic 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;

Waste Management1. Completion of three municipal landfills in the following

municipalities: Dziemiany, Osiek, Osow.

2. Completion of the incineration waste storage (after surplussludge incineration at Gdynia Debogorz WastewaterTreatment Plant)

3. W Fabryce Kwasku Cytrynowego przy CukrowniPelplin completion of the process waste landfill inRopuchy.

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;

WROCLAW VOIVODSHIPWater Protection

Wastewater Management at Industrial Facilities1. CPN Wroclaw — mechanical-biological wastewater treat-

ment plant for Swojec site,

2. Szkola Podstawowa Chrzastawa — mechanical-biologicalwastewater treatment plant;

3. Nadlesnictwo Oborniki Sl. — root type wastewater treat-ment plant for forester’s sheds of Pegow and Jary (com-pleted by Nevexpol company);

4. Nadlesnictwo Olesnica — root type wastewater treatmentplant for forester’s sheds of Szczodre, Grochowa, and EdaWielka (completed by Nevexpol company);

Municipal Wastewater Management1. UMiG Sroda Slaska — mechanical-biological wastewater

treatment plant for the Sroda Slaska municipality, 6,000m3/d;

2. UMiG Zmigrod — mechanical-biological wastewater treat-ment plant for the Zmigrod municipality, 2,500 m3/d;

3. UMiG Katy Wroclawskie — mechanical-biological waste-water treatment plant for the Katy Wroclawskie municipal-ity, 2,700 m3/d.

Air Protection1. “Polifarb” S.A. Wroclaw — implementation of a new indus-

trial ventilation system, installation of catalytic after-burnersat production halls, modernization of the boiler house;

2. Farmaceutyczna Spoldzielnia Pracy “Galena,”Zaklad nr 2 — replacement of coal fed boiler house withgas fed boiler house;

3. Zaklady Chemiczne “Viscoplast” S.A. weWroclawiu — completion of the desulfurization plant forone boiler;

4. Zaklad produkcyjny “Aida” w Olesnicy — Modernization of the boiler house NOLTING, dust removalcyclones 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 focusedon coal fuel replacement with gas;

7. Piekarnia przy ul. Barlickiego a we Wroclawiu — modern-ization of boiler house (replacement of coal with gas);

8. Huta „ Olawa” S.A. w Olawie — installation of suspendedparticles removal, pulsating filters;



10. Piekarnia przy ul. Partyzantow 43 we Wroclawiu — installation of low emission gas burner typeEP-75;

11. Zaklady Odlewnicze “ALWRO” S.A. we Wroclawiu —installation of dust/suspended particles removal equip-ment;

12. Zaklady Tworzyw Sztucznych “Erg” w Olawie — implementation of catalytic after-burner installation inorder to reduce process emission;

Noise and Vibration Protectionnone

Waste Management

Process Waste LandfillsPPZM „ Centrozlom ” we Wroclawiu, process waste landfill in

the rural settlement of Gozdzikowice.

Municipal Waste LandfillsThe following investments were completed:

1. Urzad Miasta i Gminy Jelcz-Laskowice, municipal landfillin the Brzezinki-Debina settlement

2. Urzad miasta i Gminy Katy Wroclawskie, municipal land-fill in Sosnica settlement,

The following investments are under construction:

1. Urzad Gminy Lagiewniki, municipal landfill in theLagiewniki settlement;

2. Urzad Gminy Kondratowice, municipal landfill in theKondratowice settlement;

3. Urzad Miasta Olesnica, municipal landfill in the Brzezinki-Debina 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 VOIVODSHIPWater Protection

Municipal Wastewater Management1. Gora Kalwaria — wastewater treatment plant for “Rybie”

housing estate;

2. Orzechowo — wastewater treatment plant, including ter-tiary treatment in polishing ponds, for housing estate locat-ed closed to PERN Pumping Station (Stacja Pomp PERN);

3. Nadarzyn — wastewater treatment plant for wastewatercollected from the municipality of Nadarzyn and from sur-rounding settlements;

4. Brody Nowe, naer Pomiechowek — wastewater treatmentplant for wastewater collected from the municipality ofPomiechowek and from surrounding settlements;

5. Radzymin — municipal wastewater treatment plant;

6. Nowy Dwor Mazowiecki — municipal wastewater treat-ment plant;

7. Wolomin — municipal wastewater treatment plant “Krym”;

8. Piaseczno — completion of equalizing/storage waste-water tank for wastewater collection from surroundingrural areas;

9. Otwock — wastewater treatment plant for the Otwock-Karczew municipalities;

10. Grodzisk Mazowiecki — wastewater treatment plant forthe Grodzisk Mazowiecki and Milanowek municipalities.

Industrial Wastewater Management1. Browar Mazowiecki w Okuniewie — wastewater treat-

ment plant modernization;

2. Sanatorium Neuropsychiatrii Dzieciecej w Zagorzu —wastewater treatment plant for the Zagorz hospital;

3. EC “Siekierki” (large power/heat generating plant inWarsaw) — completion of the process & storm wastewatertreatment plant;

4. Zaklad Specjalny dla Dzieci w Markach i Osrodek Szkolno-Wychowawczy w Markach-Strudze — start-up of mechan-ical-biological treatment plant;

5. ZPT Reynolds Tobacco w Jozefoslawiu, CentrumHandlowe w Wolce Kosowskiej i Palarnia Kawy“Alvorado” w Kostowcu — construction of wastewatertreatment plant;

6. OSM “Praga” Oddzial w Radzyminie — completion ofmechanical-biological treatment plant;

7. BENCKISER S.A. w Nowym Dworze Mazowieckim —completion of mechanical-biological treatment plant;

8. Jednostka Wojskowa w Kazuniu — completion ofmechanical-biological treatment plant;

9. Mazowieckie Zaklady Przemyslu Owocowo-Warzywnegow Tarczynie — completion of mechanical-biological treat-ment plant;

10. Centrum Rehabilitacji ZPZOZ-ZPS w Chylicach, InstytutMelioracji i Uzytkow Zielonych w Falentach, Dom PomocySpolecznej w Bramkach, Dom Pomocy Spolecznej wDerdach, Polski Zwiazek Gluchych w Smoszewie —wastewater treatment plants under construction (fiveplants for various institutions);

Air Protection1. 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 modern-ization;

3. Przedsiebiorstwo Spedycji Miedzynarodowej Hartwig —boiler house modernization;

4. Cementownia Warszawa — suspended particles removalequipment modernization;

5. Fabryka Narzedzi Chirurgicznych I Dentystycznych wMilanowku — boiler house modernization;

6. Zaklady Stolarki Budowlanej w Wolominie — completionof sulfur removal installation;

7. Warszawskie Zaklady “Stomil” — modernization of indus-trial ventilation system, including activated carbon adsorp-tion equipment;

8. Tarchominskie Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” — com-pletion of low emission burners installation;

Noise Protection

Investment Focused on Noise Protection Generated byTransport Means and Industry Processes 1. Lotnisko Okecie (Warsaw airport) — completion of inte-

grated monitoring system and acoustic screens construction;



2. Tarchominskie Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” acousticscreen construction;

3. Grodziskie Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” — completionof noise reducing insulation at the boiler house;

4. Spoldzielnia Mleczarska w Warszawie przy ul. Wielickiej— implementation of noise reducing structures (coolingequipment);

Waste Management1. Green waste composting plant at Marywilska st. in

Warsaw;

2. Completion of the municipal waste composting plant, typeDANO (Austrian technology) in Radiowo (Warsaw);

3. Completion of the municipal waste composting plant inGrodzisk 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 atWoloska st.;

7. Landfill recultivation at the Marki municipality.

SKIERNIEWICE VOIVODSHIPAir Protection1. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-

struction in Bartniki;

2. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Hamernia;

3. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Rawa Mazowiecka;

4. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Bolimow;

5. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Sochaczew;

6. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Cieladz;

7. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Lowicz;

8. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Zyrardow.

Air Protectionnone listed

Noise Protectionnone listed

Waste Management1. Municipal waste landfill construction in the Pukinin rural

settlement, near Rawa Mazowiecka,

LUBLIN VOIVODESHIPWater Protection1. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-

struction in Leczna;

2. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Ostrow Lubelski;

3. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction (capacity extension) in Belzyce;

4. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Naleczow;

5. Process wastewater treatment plant in Michalow;

6. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Milejow;

7. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Krzczonow;

8. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Puchaczow;

9. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Janowiec;

10. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Fajslawice;

11. Mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant con-struction in Chodel;

Air Protection1. ZA “Pulawy” w Pulawach (Large Chemical Plant) — mod-

ernization of coal fed installation;

2. Zaklad Energetyczny Lublin SA “LUBZEL” SA wElektrocieplowni Lublin-Wrotkow — boiler house mod-ernization, including low emission burners installation;

Noise Protection1. Lubelska Spoldzielnia Pracy Przemyslu

Spozywczego “SOLIDARNOSC,” Zaklad w Krasniku — modernization of industrial ventilation systems;

2. Lubelska Spoldzielnia Pracy Przemyslu Spozywczego „SOLIDARNOSC,” Zaklad w Lubartowie — modernizationof industrial ventilation systems, including acoustic screensimplementation;

3. Okregowa Spoldzielnia Mleczarska w Opolu Lubelskim — replacement noise generating coal fired boil-ers with gas fired ones

Waste Management1. Start-up of the biggest landfill in the region, in Rokitno, for

the Lublin municipality waste disposal.

POZNAN VOIVODSHIPWater ProtectionWater Management1. Construction of ground abstraction well in the Gruszczyn

municipality and water supply network completion in thePoznan town and Murowana Goslina settlement;

2. Water treatment plant construction in the Zydowo andCzerniejewo municipalities;

3. Completion of water distribution systems in the Otorowoand Imielno settlements,

4. Modernization of boiler water treatment plant in Wrzesnia;

Wastewater Management1. Fabryka Kosmetykow Pollena-Lechia w Poznaniu —

wastewater treatment plant construction for the sectionNo. 2;

2. Przedsiebiorstwo Wodociagow i Kanalizacji w Poznaniu —Central Wastewater Treatment Plant modernization andnew wastewater treatment plant construction in the Mosinamunicipality (boths WWTPs for the Poznan town needs);

3. Centra SA w Poznaniu — wastewater neutralization plantsmodernization at industrial sections Nos. 3 & 4.



Air Protection1. Przedsiebiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej w Poznaniu -liqui-

dation of two local, coal fed, boiler houses which werelocated in the old city of Poznan;

Noise Protectionnone listed

Waste ManagementMunicipal Waste1. Municipal waste landfill completion for the Gniezno town

in the Lulkowo rural settlement;

2. Municipal waste landfills completion in the following ruralsettlements: Bialega, Murowana Goslina municipality Uscikowiec, Oborniki municipality Piotrkowek, Szamotuly municipality Dopiewo, Dopiewo municipality

4.10 The List of 80 (Most PollutingIndustrial Plants in Poland)(as of June 6, 1996)

voivodship Warsaw1. Pharmaceutical Works Zaklady Farmaceutyczne “Polfa” w

Grodzisku Mazowieckim2. Power and Heat Generation Plant Elektrocieplownia

“Siekierki” w Warszawie

voivodship Bielsko-Biala3. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Oswiecim” w

Oswiecimiu

voivodship Bydgoszcz4. Sodium Processing Works Janikowskie Zaklady Sodowe

“Janikosoda” S.A. w Janikowie5. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Organika-Zachem”

w Bydgoszczy6. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Nitro-Chem” S.A.

w Bydgoszczy

voivodship Chelm7. Cement Factory Cementownia “Chelm” w Chelmie

voivodship Czestochowa8. Cement Factory Cementownia “Rudniki” S.A. w Rudnikach9. Smelter Huta “Czestochowa” w Czestochowie

voivodship Gdansk10. Phosphorus Fertilizer Works Gdanskie Zaklady Nawozow

Fosforowych “Fosfory” Sp.z o.o.

voivodship Jelenia Gora11. Lignite mine Kopalnia Wegla Brunatnego “Turow” w

Bogatyni12. Power Plant Elektrownia “Turow” w Bogatyni13. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Wizow” S.A. w

Boleslawcu Slaskim

voivodship Katowice14. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Hajduki” S.A. w

Chorzowie15. Coke processing plant Kombinat Koksochemiczny

“Zabrze” — Koksownia “Knurow” w Knurowie16. Smelter Huta “Katowice” S.A. w Dabrowie Gorniczej17. Cement Factory Cementownia “Wiek” w Ogrodziencu18. 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 Rybniku21. Smelter Huta “Laziska” w Laziskach Gornych22. Power Plant Elektrownia “Laziska” w Laziskach Gornych23. Power Plant Elektrownia “Siersza” w Trzebini24. Power Plant Elektrownia “Lagisza” S.A. w Bedzinie25. Power Plant Elektrownia “Jaworzno III” S.A. w Jaworznie26. Coal Mine Nadwislanska Spolka Weglowa S.A. w

Tychach, Kopalnia Wegla Kamiennego “Czeczott” w Woli27. Coal Mine Nadwislanska Spolka Weglowa S.A. w

Tychach, Kopalnia Wegla Kamiennego “Piast” w Bieruniu28. Coal Mine Nadwislanska Spolka Weglowa S.A. w

Tychach, Kopalnia Wegla Kamiennego “Ziemowit” wTychach

29. Metal Works Duo-Stal Sp. z o.o. w Bytomiu30. Metal Works Zaklady Metalurgiczne Sp. z o.o. w Bytomiu31. Huta Cynku “Miasteczko Slaskie” w Tarnowskich Gorach



32. Mining-Smelter Works Zaklady Gorniczo-Hutnicze“Boleslaw” w Bukownie

33. Mining-Smelter Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Organika-Azot” S.A. w Jaworznie

34. Refinery Rafineria “Czechowice” S.A. w CzechowicachDziedzicach

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 Konin38. Aluminum smelter Huta Aluminium “Konin” S.A. w

Koninie39. Power Plant Elektrownia “Konin” w Koninie

voivodship Krakow 40. Smelter Huta im. T. Sendzimira w Krakowie41. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne S.A. w Alwerni

voivodship Legnica42. Copper Smelter KGHM “Polska Miedz” S.A. Oddzial —

Huta Miedzi “Legnica” w Legnicy43. Copper Smelter KGHM “Polska Miedz” S.A. Oddzial —

Huta Miedzi “Glogow I” w Zukowicach44. Hydrotechnical Plant Oddzial KGHM “Polska Miedz” S.A.

Zaklad Hydrotechniczny

voivodship Lublin45. Car Factory DAEWOO MOTOR POLSKA Sp. z o.o. w

Lublinie46. Nitrogen Works Zaklady Azotowe “Pulawy” S.A. w

Pulawach

voivodship Lodz47. Dyestuffs Works Zaklady Przemyslu Barwnikow “Boruta”

S.A. w Zgierzu

voivodship Opole48. Coke Processing Works Huta “Katowice” S.A., Zaklady

Koksownicze w Zdzieszowicach49. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Blachownia” w

Kedzierzynie-Kozlu50. Chemical works Zaklady Azotowe “Kedzierzyn” w

Kedzierzynie-Kozlu

voivodship Ostroleka51. Paper and Cellulose Works “Intercell” S.A. w Ostrolece

voivodship Piotrkow52. Power Plant Elektrownia “Belchatow” w Rogowcu53. Lignite Mine Kopalnia Wegla Brunatnego “Belchatow” z/s

w Rogowcu54. Synthetic Fiber Works Zaklady Wlokien Chemicznych

“Wistom” w Tomaszowie Mazowieckim

voivodship Plock55. Refinery Petrochemia Plock S.A. w Plocku

voivodship Poznan56. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Lubon” S.A. w

Luboniu k/Poznania

voivodship Rzeszow57. Fluorsecent Lamp Factory Rzeszowskie Zaklady Lamp

Wyladowczych “Polam-Rzeszow” w PogwizdowieNowym (w likwidacji )

voivodship Szczecin58. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Police” w Policach

k/Szczecina59. Chemical Works “Wiskord” S.A. w Szczecinie

voivodship Tarnobrzeg60. Kopalnie i Zaklady Przetworstwa Siarki “Siarkopol” w

Tarnobrzegu61. Sulfur Mine Kopalnia Siarki “Machow” w Tarnobrzegu w

likwidacji62. Power Plant Elektrownia im. T. Kosciuszki w Polancu63. Power Plant Elektrownia “Stalowa Wola” w Stalowej Woli64. Sulfur Mining and Processing Plant “Siarkopol” w

Grzybowie

voivodship Tarnow65. Nitrogen Works Zaklady Azotowe S.A. w Tarnowie66. Synthetic Materials Plant Zaklady Tworzyw Sztucznych

“Erg” S.A. w Pustkowie

voivodship Torun67. Inorganic Industry Works Torunskie Zaklady Przemyslu

Nieorganicznego “Polchem” w Toruniu

voivodship Walbrzych68. Coke Processing Plant Zaklady Koksownicze “Walbrzych”

w Walbrzychu w likwidacji69. Power and Heat Generation Plant Kopalnia Wegla

Kamiennego “Victoria” -w likwidacji- Elektrocieplowniaw Walbrzychu

voivodship Wloclawek70. Paper Works Zaklady Papiernicze we Wloclawku71. Nitrogen Works Zaklady Azotowe S.A. we Wloclawku

voivodship Wroclaw72. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Rokita” S.A. w

Brzegu Dolnym73. Non-ferrous metal processing Works “Hutmen” S.A. we

Wroclawiu74. Chemical Works Zaklady Chemiczne “Viscoplast” S.A. we

Wroclawiu



4.11 List of Publications and OtherLiterature Used in the Survey

1. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resourcesand Forestry. Fakty i Liczby ’95. Warsaw, Poland:MOSZNiL, in press, 1996.

2. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resourcesand Forestry, Ecological Policy Department. Zasadyfinansowania dzialalnosci pozarzadowych organizacjiekologicznych. Warsaw, Poland: MOSZNiL, September1996.

3. Fundacja EKOFUNDUSZ. Konwersja polskiego dlugu naochrone Srodowiska 1992-1995. Warsaw, Poland:Ekofundusz 1996.

4. Fundacja EKOFUNDUSZ. The ECOFUND programme pri-orities, project selection criteria and procedures of opera-tion. Warsaw, Ekofundusz 1996.

5. Biuro Studiow i Ekspertyz, Kancelaria Sejmu. Problemyochrony srodowiska w procesie przeksztalcenwlasnosciowych. Warsaw, Poland: BSE Kancelaria Sejmu1996.

6. Central and Eastern Europe Environmental Economicsand Policy Project. Zrodla finansowania inwestycji eko-logicznych w Polsce.Przewodnik. Warsaw, Poland:Chemonics International Inc., November 1996.

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 GospodarkiWodnej. A SUMMARY of the National Fund forEnvironmental Protection and Water ManagementActivities in 1995. Warsaw, Poland: NFOSiGW, 1996.

10. Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska i GospodarkiWodnej. Seven Years of Activity of the NationalProtection and Water Management. Warsaw, Poland:NFOSiGW, 1996.

11. Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska i GospodarkiWodnej. Selection criteria and financing rules of supportfrom resources of the National Fund for EnvironmentalProtection and Water Management in 1997. Warsaw,Poland: NFOSiGW, 1996.

12. ERM Polska, The 1996 Polish Investment Forum. 3rdAnnual Conference. Investing in Poland: The GrowingImportance of Environmental Issues. Warsaw, Poland:Euromoney Publications PLC, September 1996.

13. Panstwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska. Aneks do“Oceny wypelniania wymogow Ochrony Srodowiskaprzez Zaklady z ‘Listy 80’” wydanej w grudniu 1994r.Warsaw, Poland: PIOS, June 1996.

14. Panstwowa Inspekcja Ochrony Srodowiska. Ocenafunkcjonujacych instalacji redukcji SO2 oraz NOx.Raport z cyklu kontrolnego przeprowadzonego w 1995roku. Warsaw, Poland: PIOS, April 1996.

15. POLEKO International Ecological Fair, Exhibitors’Catalogue, Poznan, Poland, November 1996

16. Centre for Co-operation with the Economies inTransition. Environmental Performance Reviews. Poland.Paris, France: Head of Publications Service, OECD 1995.

17. Komitet Badan Naukowych. Kryteria i tryb przyznawa-nia srodkow z budzetu panstwa na finansowanie projek-tow 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 ochronypowietrza atmosferycznego w Polsce. Warsaw, Poland:InE, 1994.

20. Krajowa Konferencja Naukowo-Techniczna. ProblemyGospodarki Osadowej w Oczyszczalniach Sciekow.Czestochowa, Poland: NFOSiGW, 1993.

21. The Baltic Sea Conference 1993. The Baltic Sea — ourCommon Environment. Background Paper of the State ofthe Baltic Sea. Helsinki, Finland: the Association ofFinnish Local Authorities, 1993.

22. Narodowa Fundacja Ochrony Srodowiska. KrajoweCentrum Edukacji Ekologicznej. Eko Indeks ’93. Warsaw,Poland: NFOS, 1993.

23. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resourcesand Forestry. National Enviromnental Policy of Poland.Warsaw, Poland: MOSZNiL, May 1991.

24. Regional Environmental Center, The EmergingEnvironmental Market: A Survey of the Czech Republic,Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, June 1995



4.12 List of Environment-relatedPublications in Poland

The structure of the information is as follows:TITLE, Editor or Contact person, Address and Telephone

Weekly MagazineBiuletyn Zamowien Publicznych, ul. Powsinska 69/7102-903 Warszawa, Tel: (48-22) 694-6750, 694-6752, Fax: (48-22) 694-6206, Internet:http://www.urm.gov.pl//uzp/iuzpa.html

Biweekly MagazinesAGROSERWIS, Katarzyna Krol, Tel: (48-22) 827-2401

LAS POLSKI, Tel: (48-22) 220-334

SRODOWISKO, Pawel Wojcik, Tel: (48-22) 620-7462, JacekZysk, Tel: (48-22) 757-0030

Monthly Magazine AURA — Ochrona Srodowiska, Edward Garscia, ul.Florianska 37, 31-019 Krakow, Tel: (48-12) 226-376, Fax: (48-12) 210-502

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

EKO BALTYK, Ms Joanna Maciejowska, Tel: (48-58) 567-495

EKOFINANSE, Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Srodowiska iGospodarki Wodnej, Mr Krzysztof Walczak, ul. Gedymina13/32, 04-120 Warszawa, Tel/Fax: (48-22) 612-2694

EKO i MY, Ms Maria Ciesielska, Tel: (48-91) 553-101

EKOPARTNER, Ms Jadwiga Oleszkiewicz, ul. KrolowejJadwigi 13a, 05-820 Piastow, Tel: (48-22) 625 -1210

EKOPROFIT, Ms Jolanta Matiakowska-Karmanska, Tel: (48-32) 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

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: (48-22) 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

Bimonthly MagazinesBiuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Ochrony Przyrody “SALA-MANDRA”

Biuletyn Ruchu Ekologicznego Sw. Franciszka z Asyzu, Tel:(48-12) 227-115

Biuletyn Zarzadu Polskiej Fundacji Lesnej “POL-FOREST,” MrBoleslaw 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) 642-7337, http://www.atm.com.pl/ecoheal

TOK wydarzen w srodowisku naturalnym — BiuletynEkologiczny, Ms Agnieszka Nowak, Tel: (48-81) 25-867

Quarterly MagazinesEKO 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) 23-684

ZDROWA ZYWNOSC — ZDROWY STYL ZYCIA, MrZygmunt Koper, Tel: (48-14) 330-994

AnnualEKOBIULETYN

WEGETERIANIN, Mr Tomasz Nocun, Tel: (48-81) 27-132

ZWIERZETA I MY, Ms Alina Kasprowicz, Tel: (48-61) 476-285



5.1 Summary of FindingsIn 1995, total country spending on environmental protec-

tion amounted to USD 232 million. The level of spending hasdeclined slightly over the last three years. In the period 1992-1995, water protection accounted for 44 percent of total envi-ronmental spending, followed by air protection (43 percent)and waste management (12 percent).

The government covers just over a half of total environ-mental expenditures. Two-thirds of the national budget contri-bution is allocated to the construction of wastewater treatmentfacilities and sewage collection systems, and to public watersupply projects. The remaining third is mainly spent on airprotection and waste management projects, where a large partof the project costs are covered by industrial plants and munic-ipalities. Foreign assistance programs make up a minor sourceof financing for environmental investments. The PHARE pro-gram is the major foreign donor.

The State Environmental Fund is the most important gov-ernmental source of finance for environmental projects.Between 1992 and 1995, expenditures on wastewater treat-ment plants and sewerage systems accounted for 41 percent ofthe Fund expenditures, followed by air protection (25 per-cent), water supply systems (20 percent), and waste manage-ment activities (8 percent).

Draft government policy envisages that, by the year 2000,the national budget will cover just 10 percent of environmen-tal expenditures, with bank sources, foreign investments, andresources of individual enterprises and municipalities eachcovering approximately 30 percent.

The environmental products and services market is arapidly developing sector of the economy, but accurate infor-mation on the market size is not available. The size of the envi-ronmental technology market in Slovakia in 1995 was estimat-ed at USD 174 million.

Air pollution is the most serious environmental problem inSlovakia, especially with respect to SO2, toxic substances and

heavy metals, particulates, and carbon dioxide emissions.There are also major problems with water quality, waste man-agement, and agricultural and forestry practices.Environmental priorities are outlined in the StateEnvironmental Policy (policy statement), and in the relatedNational Environmental Action Plan (implementation plan).The priority areas include: air protection against pollutants;sufficient supply of high quality drinking water; decreasing thepollution of water resources to acceptable levels; soil conser-vation; proper disposal or utilization of waste; reduction ofwaste generation; preservation of biodiversity; and the conser-vation and rational use of natural resources.

The National Environmental Action Plan, developed in1995, identifies 1,356 specific measures (projects of variousnature). Of the total USD 3.4 billion required for the imple-mentation of the Plan, measures related to air and ozone layerprotection account for 41 percent of the required financing,followed by projects focusing on the protection of waterresources, and promotion of rational use of water (20 percent),protection and rational use of natural resources, soil andforests (17 percent), nature conservation and landscape pro-tection (12 percent), and waste management (8 percent).

C H A P T E R 5 : S L O V A K I A


Chapter 5: Slovakia


Population (mln) 10.3 10.2 38.6 5.4 2.0

Area (sq.km) 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




Inflation rate (%) 10.3 18.4 14.5 6.0 9.6






S L O VA K I A

Bratislava

Kosice

C Z E C H R E P U B L I C

H U N G A R Y

P O L A N D

Zilina

NitraUKRAINE

A U S T R I A 0 50 100

kilometers

Major project opportunities identified in the Plan include :

Air and energy — installation of desulfurization equip-ment in coal-fired power plants; introduction of fluidizedbed boilers and energy co-generation in power plants;switching from coal to natural gas as the primary energysource; introduction of low-sulfur fuels; and use of geot-hermal energy.

Water and wastewater — upgrading and expansion ofexisting water and wastewater treatment plants; con-struction of new sewage collection and treatment facili-ties; and reconstruction and extension of sewage collec-tion networks.

Waste management — construction of landfills for solidand hazardous waste disposal; regional incinerationplants for hospital waste; remediation and revitalization ofold landfills.

Other fields — disposal of radioactive waste; environmen-tal improvements in the nine most contaminated areas inthe country; and elimination of factors damaging forests.

The main sources of information used by Slovak compa-nies include personal contacts and participation in environ-mental fairs, followed by directories and governmental organi-zations. Companies often create their own rudimentary infor-mation databases. Awareness of official information sourceswas very limited. Environmental fairs play an important role,and the best known fairs in Slovakia include Komunal inZilina, Aqua in Trencin, Racioenergia in Bratislava, and Enviroin Nitra. Tenders announced in the Commercial Bulletin of theSlovak Republic, are not considered a useful source for infor-mation on business opportunities.

The major information sources used prior to purchasingenvironmental technologies include respondents’ own infor-mation databases, governmental organizations (e.g. Ministry ofEnvironment), and catalogues of domestic and foreign envi-ronmental fairs.

High demand was identified for technologies related towaste management, and the water and wastewater sector.Demand for environmental technologies in the energy and airquality sectors was moderate, and demand for noise, vibrationand OHS technologies was low.

In the air sector, high demand was identified for instru-mentation and process control/software for gaseous emis-sions. Growting demand was expected for technologies relat-ed to emission abatement and cleaner production; equipmentfor air sampling/laboratory analysis for both ambient air andgaseous emisions; and air pollution control/flue gas purifica-tion equipment.

Demand for water and wastewater technologies was high,specifically for technologies for inspection and reconditioningof existing water supply and municipal wastewater collectionnetworks; monitoring equipment for industrial wastewater;equipment for clean-up, decontamination, and quality restora-tion of surface and ground water; and for technologies for theconstruction of municipal and industrial wastewater collectionnetworks. Increasing demand was expected for technologiesrelated to standard wastewater treatment processes for waterand wastewater; instrumentation, process control, and soft-ware for industrial wastewater; and sampling/laboratoryanalysis equipment. Growth in demand was also expected fortechnologies related to the construction of water supply net-works; sludge treatment and disposal of municipal and indus-trial wastewater); and advanced (tertiary) treatment processesfor water and wastewater.

Demand for waste management technologies was high.Significant opportunities are expected in hazardous waste dis-posal, followed by radioactive and industrial waste manage-

ment. Very high demand was identified for technologiesrelated to landfill disposal (all waste categories); equipmentfor hazardous and radioactive waste site remediation and con-taminated land clean-up; equipment for wastecollection/transportation and storage (all waste categories);and technologies related to recycling and resource recoveryin the area of hazardous waste. Other technologies in highdemand included pollution prevention/waste minimizationequipment for hazardous and radioactive waste; equipmentfor hazardous and radioactive waste site monitoring, andradioactive waste sample analysis/waste characterization;and, finally, technologies for hazardous waste incineration.Increasing demand was expected for technologies related tospillage control/decontamination for industrial, hazardous,and radioactive waste; technologies for recycling andresource recovery for industrial and municipal waste; sampleanalysis/waste characterization equipment for industrial andmunicipal waste; and equipment related to industrial wastesite monitoring, remediation, and clean-up.

Demand for energy-related technologies was moderate.Specific technologies in high demand included new/efficientenergy and heat generation systems, and alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants. Growth in demand was expected for instru-mentation; process management and control equipment; andin “other industrial sectors” for technologies related to retro-fitting and rehabilitation of existing systems. Surprisingly, onlymoderate demand was identified for heat recovery and energysaving technologies, and for retrofitting and rehabilitation ofexisting systems in the energy sector.

Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, andoccupational health and safety was low.

Major end-users of environmental technologies in mostsectors include the chemical industry and the energy sector.Local governments (municipalities) are a significant user oftechnologies related to water and wastewater, and wastemanagement. The mineral mining and processing sector isan important end-user of waste management and energy-related technologies.

Eighty percent of respondents stated that they use only best-technology or best-practice criteria when purchasing environ-mental technologies, although further discussion usuallyrevealed that, in practice, they favored domestic productsbecause of lower prices. Sixty percent of interviewees preferredto buy foreign products from a local representative, while 40percent preferred to buy directly from the producer abroad.

Major strengths of foreign environmental technologies incomparison with domestic products included reliability anddurability of products (80 percent of respondents) and highproduct quality (70 percent). Good value for money, after-sales service, and user-friendly design were mentioned by 30percent to 40 percent of respondents.

The greatest barriers to buying foreign environmentaltechnologies 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 suchas import restrictions and high customs duty, limited informa-tion about suppliers, and problems with access to authorizedtechnical services.

The perception of foreign environmental technologies wasranked between good and excellent, well above the percep-tion of domestic products. In the air sector, American,German, Austrian and Scandinavian technologies were rankedparticularly high. German, American, French, Dutch andScandinavian products were best perceived in the water andwastewater sector. German, American, French andScandinavian technologies were ranked high in the wastemanagement sector, while the energy sector seemed to bedominated by Scandinavian, German, American and Dutchproducts. Scandinavian and German products rated high in the



noise and vibration sector.Foreign companies are most active in the water and waste-

water sector, followed by waste and energy. Air pollution con-trol, and noise, vibration and OHS were represented to a less-er degree. Most active in the water and wastewater sector areGerman companies, followed by Czech, French, and Americansuppliers. Danish, Austrian, and French firms seem to domi-nate among foreign companies in the waste sector, while inthe energy sector, German and American presence is notable.


Fifty-three formal interviews were conducted and theseform the basis of this report. A full list of interviewed parties isprovided in Section 5.8. Additionally, several informal discus-sions were held with governmental officials and professionalsfrom areas not directly involved with environmental technolo-gies. Finally, the researcher’s own internal information sourcesand publications specified in Section 5.9 were also used.

Sources of information are referenced throughout the textwherever appropriate. The numbers in brackets refer to thepublications listed in Section 5.9.

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTSThe organizations targeted for the survey were identified

and selected using existing directories of environmental busi-nesses and governmental bodies, and various other companydatabases (2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 21). The interviewed expertswere chosen so as to ensure:

coverage of all environmental fields;

a variety of perspectives on the subject (in addition tointerviews with businesses, some interviews were heldwith experts from the Ministry of Environment, the StateEnvironmental Fund, universities, and other state bodies);

balance between technology producers, suppliers, andenvironmental service providers;

representative cross-section of companies of different sizeand geographic distribution;

input from major environmental technology related R&Dcenters and universities;

Four experts requested that their responses be consid-ered as their personal views and not those of their organiza-tion or company.

Overall, some 70 percent of the respondents were from envi-ronmental businesses, 10 percent from State authorities, and 10percent from R&D organizations. The remaining 10 percent ofinterviewees specified another type of organization, especiallybudget-funded professional organizations, universities, etc.

As regards business activity, 40 percent of respondentswere producers of environmental technologies, 30 percentwere dealers or distributors, 55 percent specified environmen-tal consultancy, and up to 70 percent considered services asone of their main activities. The percentages do not add up to100 percent because many organizations were classified inmore than one category — on average, companies specifiedtwo fields of activity.

With respect to environmental expertise, the highest pro-portion of respondents specialized in water and wastewater(50 percent) and in waste management (50 percent), followedby air (40 percent), energy (20 percent), and noise, vibrationand industrial health and safety (10 percent). Again, the total

does not add up to 100 percent, as some companies worked inmore than one area. The most frequent combinations includ-ed water and waste, and air and energy.

More than 60 percent of the interviewed organizationswere set up between 1990 and 1993. Approximately 20 per-cent were established before 1990, and more than 10 percentwere new organizations, established after 1994.

The majority of interviewed parties were small or mediumin size — 55 percent of the companies had between 10 and 50employees, and just under 30 percent had less then 10employees. Organizations employing between 50 and 100employees constituted 10 percent of respondents, while 5 per-cent were companies with more than 100 employees. Thesecompanies are considered large in the environmental marketin Slovakia. The size distribution discussed above correspondswell with the respondents’ own subjective assessment of size.Only one organization rated itself to be very large, while 10percent considered themselves large, 50 percent medium-sized, and 25 percent small.

Only three out of five experts responded to the questionon annual revenues from environmental activities. Amongthose who responded, 30 percent specified a sum above USD1 million, 50 percent specified annual revenues between USD100,000 and 1 million, and the remaining 20 percent indicatedfigures below USD 100,000.

As for geographic distribution, 45 percent of respondentswere located in Bratislava, 45 percent in other major cities,and 10 percent in small towns. The scope of operations wasmixed — 90 percent of organizations stated that they carry outbusiness activities on the national level, 50 percent on theinternational level, and 40 percent work on the local level.Common combinations included local and national, andnational and international.

5.3 Overview of the MarketSlovakia, with a population of 5.4 million, and an area of

49 thousand sq.km. (19 thousand sq.mi., approximately equiv-alent to the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined) isa small country by Eastern European standards.

Following the break-up of Czechoslovakia, the environ-ment has moved down the list of governmental priorities dueto pressing economic problems. However, environmental leg-islation, based on that of the former Czecho-SlovakFederation, is in place, and new environmental policy and reg-ulations have been adopted. Economic transition has had alargely negative impact on the environment, reducing its polit-ical importance and lowering the budget.

Slovakia is rich in natural resources, with large nationalparks and conservation areas. However, extensive damage hasbeen caused by mismanaged forests, intensive tourism, andwaste and air emissions from the energy sector (includingnuclear energy). Air pollution is the most serious environmen-tal problem in Slovakia, especially with respect to SO2, toxicsubstances and heavy metals, particulates, and carbon dioxideemissions. There are also major problems with water quality,waste management, and agricultural and forestry practices.Environmental pollution is particularly severe in industrializedareas where chemical, petrochemical, metallurgical, steel,cement, paper, and aluminum enterprises are located.

Major environmental initiatives in the future will includebetter enforcement of regulations, institutional improvements,environmental training and awareness raising, introduction ofclean technologies, and priority capital investments in airemission controls, and the management of waste and treat-ment of wastewater.



TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ONENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In 1995, spending on environmental protection in Slovakiaamounted to USD 232 million. Table 5.2 presents details ofenvironmental expenditures during the period 1992-1995.

As shown in Table 5.2, the level of environmental spend-ing has declined slightly over the last three years. During the1992-1995 period, water protection accounted for some 44percent of total environmental spending, followed by air pro-tection, amounting to 43 percent of the total. Expenditures onwaste management totaled 12 percent of overall expenditures.

The main sources of financing for environmental projectsin Slovakia include the state budget (mainly Ministry ofEnvironment, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry ofEconomy), the State Environmental Fund, individual enterpris-es’ resources, foreign assistance programs (e.g. PHARE, USAID, the World Bank, EBRD) and bilateral cooperative pro-jects. The draft National Industrial Policy prepared by theMinistry of Economy estimates that, by the year 2000, thenational budget will cover only 10 percent of environmentalexpenditures, while bank sources, foreign investments, andresources of individual enterprises and municipalities willcover approximately 30 percent each.

Table 5.3 presents the breakdown of environmental invest-ments from the national budget for the period 1993-1994.

As can be seen, the bulk of environmental financing fromthe national budget was allocated to the construction of waste-water treatment and sewage facilities, and to public water sup-ply projects (70 percent of the 1993-94 total), followed by airprotection (20 percent), and waste management (7 percent).The low percentage in the latter two categories can beexplained by the fact that air pollution control investments arelargely financed by industrial enterprises (the major sources ofair pollution) while waste management has been decentral-ized, and municipalities have become primarily responsiblefor financing in this field.

Another source of financing for environmental projects andinvestments is various state funds. The State EnvironmentalFund is by far the most important in this respect, followed bythe State Fund for Soil Protection, the State Forestry Fund, andthe State Water Management Fund. In 1995, the StateEnvironment Fund supported 962 projects, with a total value ofabout USD 34 million. While official statistics for 1996 are stillnot available, projects with an estimated value of USD 42.8 mil-lion were supported by the Fund during that year.

Table 5.4 presents the breakdown of revenues of the StateEnvironmental Fund for the period 1992-1995.

During 1993-1995, the Fund’s revenues were relatively sta-bleat between USD 32 and 35 million per year. The majorsources of revenue included state fees, and collections forwastewater discharge and air pollution. A decline in revenuesfrom collections for wastewater discharge, groundwater with-drawal, and the state fee is notable. Increasing revenue is col-lected from air pollution taxes, and taxes for waste landfills.Interestingly, the share of penalties is marginal, which suggeststhat enforcement of regulations is poor.

It is necessary to note that the charges listed in Table 5.4constitute only a part of environmental expenses in industry.Significant amounts are paid additionally as a direct expensefor processing industrial waste, wastewater discharges, etc.

Table 5.5 presents the breakdown of expenditures from theState Environmental Fund for the period between 1992 and 1995.

During this period, expenditures on wastewater treatmentplants and sewerage accounted for 41 percent of the total, fol-lowed by air protection (25 percent), water supply systems (20percent), and waste management activities (8 percent).Support from the Fund has declined for wastewater treatmentand sewerage, and air pollution, while it has increased forwater supply systems and waste management.

Foreign assistance programs make up another, albeitminor, source of financing for environmental investments. Anestimated USD 6 million in foreign aid was available in 1993,or approximately 3 percent of the total environmental expen-diture. The main source of foreign financing is the PHAREProgram. Until 1993, thirteen environmental projects wereimplemented with a total value of ECU 13.6 million(approx. USD 16 million) Interestingly, significant PHAREsupport was made available for developing the RevolvingEnvironmental Investment Fund, which will provide long-term credits with a low interest rate for the development ofthe environmental infrastructure and other projects. TheRevolving Fund is expected to replace the StateEnvironmental Fund in the future.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Fund was createdto assist in the implementation of strategic environmentalgoals, and GEF grants are available for environmental projects.The Slovak Republic has received a grant for the conservationof biodiversity totaling USD 2.3 million. Part of this amount hasbeen made available to private enterprises.

Environmental Technology MarketWith respect to total expenditures on environmental tech-

nologies, the Slovak Statistical Office does not track spendingin this sector as a separate category. Moreover, neither in



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

Limitation of physical factors 1.3 9 3.8 n.a.

Total (mln USD) 256.5 284.3 234.7 232

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)“

TABLE 5.2: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION EXPENDITURES,

1992-1995 (MLN USD)

Expenditures (mln USD)Sector 1993 1994

Public water supply 17.1 9.4

Wastewater treatment and 51.7 14.1sewage facilities

Other water management activity 0.2 20.8

Air pollution control 12.0 21.2

Waste management 3.0 8.6

Other n.d. 4.8

Total 84.0 78.9

Source: “The Environment in SR“, MOE SR, Bratislava, 1995

TABLE 5.3: STRUCTURE OF ENVIRONMENTALINVESTMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL BUDGET,

1993-1994 (MLN USD)

Slovak environmental nor economic policy is the term “envi-ronmental industry” defined. As a result, accurate estimates ofthe current environmental market in Slovakia do not exist.

According to the Strategy, Principles and Priorities of theState Governmental Environmental Policy prepared by theMinistry of Environment in 1993: “...the accumulation of envi-ronmental problems has increased so-called environmentalliability, which, in line with currently applicable legislation forremediation is estimated at SK 100-130 billion (approx. USD4.3 billion) in industry alone. This comprises absolute envi-ronmental liabilities (so-called “old stress”) including old land-fills, polluted water sources, damaged forests, contaminatedsoil and the like, and relative environmental liabilities, the lat-ter including expenditures for replacing environmentallyharmful methods of manufacturing with environmentally safeones (e.g. elimination of pollution sources) and the construc-tion of facilities (wastewater treatment plants, separators, fil-

ters, managed landfills, etc.) to reduce or eliminate the furtherrelease of undesirable, noxious substances into the environ-ment. These liabilities themselves shall result in increasedhealth care expenditures, losses resulting from high sicknessrates, reduced durability of materials, erosion and contamina-tion and the consequences of changes in the gene pool anddisruption of stable ecosystems in the landscape.”

With the current estimate of absolute environmental liabil-ity at SK 150 billion (approx. USD 5 billion), and relative envi-ronmental liability estimated at SK 72 billion (approx. USD2.4 billion), total environmental liability in Slovakia amounts toapproximately SK 220 billion, or USD 7.4 billion.

To give at least some indication of the size of the environ-mental technology market in Slovakia, one can assume thatabout 75 percent of environmental expenditures are allocatedfor environmental technologies (see Section 3.1 in theHungarian chapter for comparison). Therefore, in 1995, theenvironmental technology market in Slovakia can be estimat-ed to be worth about USD 174 million. However, the signifi-cance of the figure should not be overestimated.

Environmental products and services are a rapidly devel-oping sector of the economy in Slovakia. Table 5.6 presentsthe growth in the number of environmental product and ser-vice providers since 1989.

Since the socio-economic changes of the early ’90s, and therelated economic recession, many Slovak firms collapsed or losttheir markets in the former eastern bloc countries. The industri-al framework, built up over the years, has collapsed, and manyqualified engineers and scientists have become unemployed.

Nonetheless, as shown in Table 5.6, after the initial adjust-ment period, business activity in the environmental market hasincreased significantly. The annual growth in the number ofenvironmental companies since the early nineties averages some50 percent. Some firms have been created through the entrepre-neurial skills of individuals, others resulted from the fragmenta-tion of larger enterprises and privatization, while many manu-facturing companies completely changed their names and orien-tation. The competitiveness of Slovak companies is increasing,although it is largely based on lower price levels and the goodknowledge of the domestic market and conditions.

It should also be noted that the growth in the number of



Expenditure 1992 1993 1994 1995

Water supply systems 10.9 4.4 5.1 6.7

Wastewater treatment 26.4 10.8 9.9 9.1plants and sewerage

Other activities in water - 0.5 0.1 0.3management

Air protection 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

Total Funds Used 43.6 30.8 29.9 34.1

Source: Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the Slovak Republic —Selected Indicators in theYears 1990-1995,” Bratislava 1996

TABLE 5.5: EXPENDITURES OF THE STATEENVIRONMENTAL FUND 1992-1995 (MLN USD)

Source 1992 1993 1994 1995

Collections for discharging wastewater 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

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

Interest on funds and loans 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5

State fee 30.9 12.0 9.0 8.3

Donations and other subsidies 4.6 - - 0.02

Other sources 0.6 0.1 0.01 0.03

Total Revenues 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

TABLE 5.4: REVENUES OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND 1992-1995 (MLN USD)

companies has occurred during the period of flat environmen-tal expenditures (see Table 5.2).

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION

Environmental priorities in Slovakia are outlined in theState Environmental Policy, while the implementation plan ispresented in the National Environmental Action Plan. Thefunding priorities of the State Environmental Fund are basedon the Policy and the Action Plan.

Priorities of the State Environmental PolicyThe environmental priorities in the Slovak Republic are

based on a 1993 document entitled The Strategy, Principlesand Priorities of the State Governmental EnvironmentalPolicy. Table 5.7 presents the five priorities identified in thePolicy Statement.

The Slovak Policy also specifies a set of guiding principlesfor its implementation. The rules are presented in Table 5.8.

Policy guidelines referring to the preference for preventivemeasures instead of the end-of-pipe approach, the applicationof the State Environmental Policy to all branches of industry,and the “polluter pays principle” have a strong bearing on theenvironmental technology market.

The National Environmental Action PlanThe National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) was

developed in 1995 as an instrument for the implementation ofthe priorities of the State Environmental Policy. The NEAPdefines the necessary legislative, organizational and educa-tional measures, and investment priorities needed to achievethe adopted goals. The plan which was developed based onenvironmental information provided by relevant Ministriesand regional administrative units, includes 38 regional pro-grams prepared for the original administrative districts (notethat the original districts were changed in 1996 during thereform of the regional administration system).

The NEAP includes 1,356 approved measures (projects ofvarious nature) to be implemented by the year 2010. Amongthose, 1236 measures (91 percent of the total number) requireexpenditures not exceeding SK 100 million (approx. USD3.2 million). The key areas include:

Protection of water resourcesand 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, oth-ers by the year 2000 or 2005. An update and revision of theactivities is planned for the year 2000.

The activities set out in the National Environmental ActionPlan are divided into ten sectors. Table 5.9 presents the sectorsand the estimates for required funding. More details regarding

the sectors relevant to this survey are presented in Section 5.4on project opportunities.

As shown in Table 5.9, the National Environmental ActionPlan identifies several key priority areas. Of the total of USD3.4 billion required for the implementation of the Plan, mea-



Year 1989 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96

Number of 40 100 160 240 350 450 690 1250*Businesses

Source: Internal materials of PB Consulting.

* includes qualified (certified) individuals, companies, departments ofuniversities, and R&D institutes

TABLE 5.6: GROWTH OF ENVIRONMENTALPRODUCT AND SERVICE PROVIDERS

I Air protection against pollutants; improving globalenvironmental security

II Providing a sufficient amount of drinking water, anddecreasing the pollution of water resources to accept-able 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 minimiza-tion of waste generation

V Preservation of biodiversity, conservation and rationaluse of natural resources, and optimization of land use.

Source: “The Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the StateEnvironmental Policy”, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava 1993

TABLE 5.7: PRIORITIES OF THE STATEENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

1. Preference to preventive measures instead of the end-of-pipe approach.

2. Application of the state environmental policy to allbranches of industry.

3. Understanding the solution to environmental prob-lems as the solution to the problems of society.

4. Recognition of the responsibility of today’s society forthe environment of future generations.

5. Approaching environmental problems in a compre-hensive way, with systematic elimination of the syner-gystic effect of pollutants already introduced into theenvironment and those currently being discharged.

6. Paying for expenses related to the removal of pollu-tion or the remediation of the damage of the environ-ment by those who pollute or damage it (“polluterpays principle”).

7. Evaluation of the influence and impact of environ-mental degradation on the population’s health, vari-ous sectors of the environment, living organisms, nat-ural and cultural heritage. Study on the gradualexhaustion of non-renewable resources, and therational use of renewable natural resources.

8. Improving the state of the environment as one of thebasic steps in reversing the adverse trend in thehealth of the population.

9. Recognizing that forests are the main environmentallystabilizing factor in the landscape, and that soil is acrucial element for the maintenance of the biodiversityof the environment, nutrition, and the existence of life.

10. Showing respect for life in all its forms and for all nat-ural and cultural values.

Source: “The Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the StateEnvironmental Policy”, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava 1993

TABLE 5.8: GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR STATEENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

sures related to air and ozone layer protection account for 41percent of the required financing, followed by projects focus-ing on the protection of water resources, and promotion ofrational use of water (20 percent), protection and rational useof natural resources, soil and forests (17 percent), nature con-servation and landscape protection (12 percent), and wastemanagement (8 percent).

As regards the source of financing, the NEAP envisages that44.3 percent will be covered by individual companies, 42.5 per-cent by the national budget (various Ministries), and 13.2 per-cent by municipalities. This does not rule out the use of fund-ing from the State Environmental Fund for individual projects.

State Environmental FundThe Slovak State Environmental Fund was set up by Law No.

128/1991 Zb. The funding priorities of the Fund are based on theState Environmental Policy and the National EnvironmentalAction Plan. The allocation of financial resources has to beapproved by the Ministry of Environment after the evaluationand 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 ofinterest. Applicants can request support for investment andnon-investment projects related to the protection of the envi-ronment. Out of 22 applicable areas, grouped in nine cate-gories (as of 1995), those specifically related to environmentaltechnologies include the following:

construction of equipment that contributes to a decrease inthe pollution of the environment;

reconstruction, modernization and extension of equip-ment for the protection of the environment, includingincreasing efficiency (e.g. switching to natural gas as fuelin energy generation);

changing production processes and production technolo-gies, with the objective to decrease or eliminate of dis-charge of pollutants;

implementing measures for the protection of the quality ofwater resources (surface and underground water), includ-ing monitoring of industrial and municipal wastewater dis-charges, and water quality analysis;

construction of facilities for the safe disposal of pollutants;

construction of facilities for sorting, utilizing, and final dis-posal of waste, including safe landfills, selective wastetreatment, and use of secondary resources;

measures for the protection of land, including decontami-nation of polluted soil and water resources;

improving water supply to remote settlements.

The key conditions for the provision and use of theresources of the Fund are specified by Regulation No.176/1992 Zb. The specific requirements, harmonized withState Environmental Policy, are periodically updated and pub-lished by the administrator of the Fund.

In principle, the applicant submits a request for support tothe relevant District Office of the Environment. The applicationmust contain all information and appendices specified byRegulation 176/1992. The District Office rates the applicationsaccording to the priorities and needs of their regional environ-mental policy, and forwards them to the State EnvironmentalFund (twice a year, by June 30 and Dec. 31). The Fund forwardsthe applications to the Ministry of Environment (i.e. the Fund’sCouncil), which is responsible for evaluating the applicationsaccording to the priorities of the State Environmental Policy.Based on the recommendation of the Fund’s Council, theMinister of Environment approves or rejects the application, orpostpones the decision until any outstanding issues are clarified.

In theory, it is possible to obtain financing for up to 100percent of the total project cost, but in practice, the Fund cov-ers only a part of the cost, with the remainder paid for by theinvestor (e.g. municipality, industrial plant). The share of theFund contribution to the total project cost varies depending onthe type of the project and the applicant.

Tax IncentivesAnother insight into environmental priorities in Slovakia is

provided by examining tax incentives and exemptions applic-able in the field of environmental protection. The Ministry ofFinance, charged with creating and enforcing tax regulationscan provide tax exemptions or relief (e.g. on income from thefacility operation) in projects involving the following environ-mental technologies:

small hydropower plants, up to an installed power outputof 1 MW;

facilities with joint production of heat and energy;

windmill power plants;

heat pumps;

regeneration and recycling equipment for the processingof substances which deplete the ozone layer;

solar energy equipment;

equipment for the production of biogas;

technologies for the production of biologically degrad-able materials;



Sector Focus Mln USD % of Total

Sector A Air and ozone layer 1,410.7 41%protection

Sector B Protection and rational 678.5 20%use of water

Sector C Waste management 265.6 8%

Sector D Risk factors and 67.7 2%nuclear safety

Sector E Nature conservation, land- 399.3 12%scape protection and use

Sector F Protection and rational use 585.2 17%of geological and other natural resources, soil and forests

Sector G Economy of the environment 1.3 < 1%

Sector H Environmental informatics 0.5 < 1%and monitoring

Sector E Environmental education 1.2 < 1%and promotion

Sector J Organization and n.a. n.a.management of environmental protection

Total 3,410.3 100%

Source: “The National Environmental Action Plan“, Ministry of Environ-ment, Bratislava 1996

Note: The total funding requirement includes funding for measures thatare already under way.

TABLE 5.9: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PLAN — STRUCTURE AND

ESTIMATED INVESTMENTS

equipment for the use of geothermal energy.

Tax exemptions apply to the income generated in the firstfive years of facility operation (based on Law 347/1990 Zb).

Additionally, the local tax administration (i.e. municipalitywhere the stationary installation is located) can, depending onlocal conditions, provide tax incentives for new facilities which:

improve the state of the environment, if such installationsare not required by law (e.g. introduction of clean sourcesof energy, such as a small hydropower unit, windmillpower plant, installations using biogas);

replace solid fuel (mainly coal) as an energy source forheating systems with gas, electrical energy, or systemsusing renewable sources of energy (solar or wind energy,biomass, etc.);

introduce other changes related to those listed abovewhich substantially decrease energy consumption.

Finally, according to Regulation No. 261/1993 Zb. andrelated directives issued by the Ministry of Finance, foreigninvestors in the area of environmental technologies can beexempt from import duties and VAT. The non-financial contri-

bution of a foreign person for a production activity based inSlovakia (on behalf of a Slovak legal person) is free fromimport duties on environmental technology products if:

the participation of a foreign person in the basic propertyof a Slovak legal person is at least 35 percent, and the non-financial 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 specifiedpurpose for at least two years.


Table 5.10 presents the major environmental problems list-ed by respondents. As is shown, respondents interpreted theterm “major environmental problems” differently. The majorissues listed by the interviewees can be divided into three dif-ferent categories:




Air National continuous-basis monitoring, 10 years National

Heavily polluted city of 250,000, 15 years Kosice

Water and Air Measurement of radioactivity, 5 years National

Water 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

Energy 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

Environment 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

OHS 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

TABLE 5.10: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS

1) Specific environmental problems, which include: heavilypolluted sites; air pollution from coal and lignite-firedpower stations; poor water quality and lack of wastewatertreatment facilities (70 percent of the population is con-nected to drinking water supply, while only 50 percent ofthe population is connected to sewage treatment systems);groundwater contamination by industrial plants; improperstorage of hazardous waste; existence of heavily pollutedregions with compounded environmental problems.

2) Problems with the existing system for environmental pro-tection, which include: lack of information about environ-mental projects, incomplete legislation, and poor dissemi-nation of information.

3) Issues related to the financing of environmental projects,especially for high-quality and expensive environmentaltechnologies. In this context, insufficient economic tools onthe one hand, and the failure to use all the possibilities pro-vided for in legislation on the other, were often mentioned.

Problems listed in the last two of the above categories arenot environmental issues which could be solved by the use ofenvironmental technologies, but they do represent barriers togrowth of the environmental market.

As supplementary information, listed below are specificmeasures included in the National Environmental Action Plan(see Section 5.3):

Air and Energy

Installation of desulfurization equipment at the coal-firedpower plant in Zemianske Kostolany;

Replacement of the boilers in the Zemianske Kostolanypower plant with fluidized bed boilers;

Co-generation power plants in Bratislava, Presov and Kosice;

Switching to natural gas as the energy source in the sugarfactory at Rimavska Sobota;

Introduction of heating oil with a sulfur content of lessthan 1 percent;

Use of geothermal energy in selected areas of Slovakia.

Water

Upgrading of the water treatment plant, and disposal ofphenols and cyanides, at VSZ Kosice; in the secondphase, a new water treatment plant for the city of Kosice,and modernization of a wastewater neutralization/treat-ment plant at VSZ;

Modernization and extension of the water treatment plantat Zvolen;

Extension of the water treatment plant in Humenne; con-struction of a water treatment plant and a sewage collec-tion and treatment system in Krompachy;

Construction of sewage collection and treatment systemsfor the towns and villages of the Zitny Ostrov area;

Construction of a water treatment plant and sewage col-lection and treatment system in the city of Trencin;

Reconstruction and extension of the sewage collection andtreatment system in Banska Bystrica.

Waste

Collection, processing and safe disposal of hazardouswaste from VSZ Kosice;

Construction of a landfill for solid and hazardous wastefrom ZSNP in Ziar nad Hronom;

Treatment and disposal of waste from PSB Brezova;

Landfill for ashes and sludge from VSZ Kosice;

Network of regional facilities for the disposal of wastefrom medical facilities;

Construction of a regional incineration plant for hospitalwaste in the districts of Zilina and Liptovsky Mikulas;

Waste management facilities in the leather processingplant in Liptovsky Mikulas;

Remediation of the landfill of Halna-Krompachy-KovohutyKrompachy;

Recultivation of the industrial landfill at the ZSNP in Ziarnad 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 contami-nated or threatened areas in the country;

Elimination of factors damaging forest eco-systems.


The projects listed in response to the question concerningon-going or upcoming environmental projects can be dividedinto two basic categories:

specific projects, including location;

general activities, without an exact location (mainly ofnational importance).

The listed projects represent a whole spectrum of environ-mental activities, and include :

Research into waste incineration and the measuring of emissions;

Waste and water analysis, ecotoxicological tests, tests forbiodegradability;

State scientific and technological project “Collection andRegeneration of Organic Substances in the ConsumerIndustry”;

PHARE project on machinery noise levels (noise labeling)in line with EU regulations; introduction of the “CE” mark;

Accreditation of a calibration laboratory by the BritishNational Accreditation body NAMAS, British Know-How Fund;

Preparation and implementation of projects for transporta-tion and storage of waste products by so-called stabiliza-tion (products of traditional incineration, fluidized bedincineration, and desulfurization) at the Slovak ElectricityCompany Power Plant in Novaky-Zemianske Kostolany;

Regional landfill for solid waste for about 80,000 inhabi-tants 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 waterpurification and wastewater treatment;

Improvements in the water treatment plant at Zilina;

Improvements in the water treatment plant at StribskePleso;



System for monitoring the quality of landfill lining at thelandfills in Spisska Nova Ves and Ziar nad Hronom; moni-toring the influence of a sludge field near Hlohovec onunderground waters and the river Vah; risk studies for oldlandfills in the district of Lucenec and Poltar;

Water mains management information system in Bratislava;

Turcek water reservoir, water management informationsystem;

Water management scheme in Zilina, and water manage-ment and information system in Nova Dubnica; heatingenergy optimatization and management;

Chemosvit — modernization of production processes;

Bukoza — modernization of production processes;

Petrol stations — protection of the environment;

Duslo Sala — introduction of advanced environmentaltechnologies;

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 chemicalproperties of a selective conversion surface layer of thesolar panel absorber;

Cleaning up oil contamination of the soil at the location ofthe 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 qual-ity in border rivers;

Environmental improvements at the heat generation plantin Slovnaft (boiler K3, boilers K7 and K8)

Reconstruction and upgrading of the incineration plantin Bratislava; retrofitting of the energy source at MatadorBratislava; optimization of the heating system atSkloplast Trnava;

Upgrading of aeration systems in municipal wastewatertreatment plants;

Development of a new aeration system for wastewatertreatment;

Treatment of oil-polluted industrial wastewater;

Risk assessment at Slovnaft;

Environmental impact assesment at Slovnaft, NovakyChemical Plant;

Hotel Borik, Zvolen castle, Hotel Bystrina — reconstruc-tion of boiler houses, introduction of modern process con-trol systems, upgrading of the heat distribution network;

Decontamination of groundwater resources;

Noise reduction at the drinking water pump station atHanusovce nad Toplou;

Post-closure revitalization of mining areas.

Only 20 percent of respondents declared that in the

future they will continue projects similar to their currentactivities. About 60 percent of interviewed experts consid-ered their future plans confidential, and 20 percent could notdefine their plans beyond present activities.


The main sources of information concerning businessopportunities used by Slovak companies include personalcontacts and participation in environmental fairs, followed bythe use of directories and, sporadically, assistance from vari-ous organizations. Companies were found to often create theirown rudimentary information databases based on promotion-al materials, newspaper articles, and professional magazines.

Awareness of official sources of information was very lim-ited, which reflects the fact that there indeed are few suchsources in Slovakia. Respondents usually specified govern-mental organizations, such as the Ministry of the Environment(20 percent of respondents) and the Slovak Agency for theEnvironment (15 percent). About 10 percent of respondentslisted organizations that are involved in information dissemi-nation professionally, e.g. the Association of IndustrialEcology (ASPEK), the Slovak Inspectorate for Energy —Energy Agency, ALLDATA Slovakia Plus Ltd., and PBConsulting. Many organizations were mentioned only once.The most important sources are listed in Table 5.14.

Several respondents stated that they do not use officialsources of information, and instead, have their own channelsfor information about projects. While no specific details wereoffered, in most cases those “own channels” were based on





Referrals from associates 88%

Daily press 76%


Regular post 70%



Fax 53%

Local and regional governments 53%




Ministry of Industry/Trade 37%


University/Academy of Science 31%

Other 17%

Email 10%



personal contacts.For comparison, Table 5.11 presents the breakdown of

major information sources, based on a 1995 survey of 150environmental businesses in Slovakia carried out by theRegional Environmental Center.

The findings of this survey correspond well with the picturepresented by Table 5.11, where personal and/or professionalcontacts are the major source of information, followed by tradeshows and fairs, and business and environmental publications.

Table 5.12 presents the main business and environmentalpublications in Slovakia read by environmental professionals,as identified in the same REC survey.

Interestingly, almost half of the respondents stated thatthey 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 lim-ited — more than half the respondents did not belong to anyassociation. Only 18 percent of respondents belonged to theSlovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and 14 percentwere members of the Association of Industrial Ecology (ASPEK)

Important Environmental FairsInterviewed experts often mentioned environmental fairs

as a source of information for environmental business oppor-tunities and a place to establish business contacts. About halfof the respondents listed up to three environmental fairs inSlovakia. Most respondents seemed to have a small number offairs in which they participate regularly. Interestingly, fairswere ranked as an important information source even by thoserespondents who do not personally participate in them, whichreflects the widespread importance of personal contactsamong Slovak entrepreneurs.

Table 5.13 lists the major environment-related fairs inSlovakia. Highlighted in bold are the events regarded by therespondents as those most important.

Komunal, held annually in April in Zilina, is the best knownenvironmental fair in Slovakia. The event, indicated by half ofrespondents, focuses on municipal environmental services andtechnologies. About a third of respondents listed Aqua inTrencin (water management), Racioenergia in Bratislava (ener-gy) and Enviro in Nitra (environment in general).

About 10 percent of interviewees specified smaller region-al exhibitions, such as Interekotechnika in Bratislava,Ekotherm in Kosice, Ekoenergo in Kosice, Envirex in BanskaBystrica, and Ekostavby in Bratislava.

Some respondents also mentioned that they visit or partic-ipate in non-environmental fairs because of potential clientsfrom a specific industry. The fairs mentioned include Inchebain Bratislava (chemical industry), Coneco in Bratislava (con-struction technologies), Klimatherm in Kosice (heating, airconditioning), Agrokomplex in Nitra, and Weldtech inBratislava (welding technologies).




Hospodarsky Noviny 50%

Trend 38%

Ekonomicky a Prany Poradca 36%

Profit 19%

Odpady 14%

Obchodny Vestnik 9%

Zivotne Prostredie 9%

Ekonom 7%

Planeta 6%


TABLE 5.12: MAIN BUSINESS ANDENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS

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 Bratislava June International exhibition of equipment and technologies for(Ekotechnika) 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, technologyfor reducing energy consumption

Klimatherm Kosice Dec. Regional exhibition for industrial air pollution controls, waste heatutilization, and air conditioning

Note: Highlighted in bold are those events most frequently mentioned by respondents

TABLE 5.13: MAJOR ANNUAL ENVIRONMENT-RELATED FAIRS IN SLOVAKIA



Name and Address of Organization Contact Information

Ministry of the Enviroment Mr. Jaroslav Halas, Headnam. L. Stura 1, 812 35 Bratislava Environmental Organization and Publicity Department

Tel: (421-7) 516-1111

Mr. Karol Egyud, Director, Geological & Natural ResourcesDivision, Tel: (421-7) 516-1111

Mrs. Anna Violova, Department of Air ProtectionTel: (421-7) 516-1111

Mr. Alexander Dano, Head, Dept. of Environmental ImpactAssessment, 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 Mr. Jozef Taric, Director, Water Management Division,Dobrovicova 12, 812 66 Bratislava 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 Mr. Pavol Mertus, Tel: (421-7) 724-909Karloveska 2, 842 18 Bratislava

Ministry of Economy Mr. Juraj Pavlinec, Department of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Mierova 19, 827 15 Bratislava Industry, Tel: (421-7) 299-8285

Slovak Environmental Agency (SAZP) Mr. Miroslav Toncik, Director, Tajovskeho 28, 974 00 Banska Bystrica Tel: (421-88) 735-131

Slovak Environmental Agency (SAZP) Mr. Miroslav Lacuska, Director, (Waste),Hanulova 9/A, 821 01 Bratislava Tel: (421-7) 765-552

Slovak Environmental Agency (SAZP) Mr. Peter Bohus, Director, (Heavily Polluted Areas), Zvonarska 23, 042 65 Kosice Tel: (421-95) 622-4812

Slovak Environmental Agency (SAZP) Mr. Miroslav Rusko, Director, (Ecolabelling) Kollarova 8, 917 77 Trnava Tel: (421-80) 520-406

Slovak Inspectorate of the Environment Mr. Rudolf Otrusinik, Director, Tel: (421-7) 727-942Karloveska 2, 842 22 Bratislava 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 ProtectionTel: (421-7) 726-950

Association of Industrial Ecology (ASPEK) Mr. Andrej Soltys, Tel: (421-7) 230-833, (421-7) 299-7327Drienova 24, 826 03 Bratislava Fax: (421-7) 579-7546

Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mr. Anton Lisy, Tel: (421-7) 526-9670(SOPK), Gorkeho ul. 9, 816 03 Bratislava

Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mr. Dusan Kovac, Working Group for the Environment, (SOPK), Namestie Legionarov 3, 080 01 Presov Tel: (421-91) 732-818

Cleaner Production Centre, Slovak Univ. of Mr. Anton BlazejTechnology, Radlinskeho 9, 812 37 Bratislava Mr. Igor Surina, Tel: (421-7) 42-732-6021

Slovak Association of Engineering Geology Mr. Rudolf Ondrasik, Associated Professor, Tel: (421-7) 328-981Mlynska dolina G, 845 15 Bratislava

Slovak Association of Hydrogeology Mr. Juraj Kralik, Director, Tel: (421-7) 328-003Mlyn. Dolina 1, 812 37 Bratislava

Slovak Association of the Chemical and Pharma- Mr. Jelencik, General Secretary ceutical Industry, Drienova 24, 826 03 Bratislava Tel: (421-7) 235-226, Fax: (421-7) 233-542

TABLE 5.14: IMPORTANT CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES

Interestingly, one in ten respondents participated inEnvibrno, the most important Czech environmental fair.

Public Procurement ProceduresInvestments which involve the use of public funds in

Slovakia are subject to regulations specified in the PublicProcurement Law of 1996. The regulations are applicable toexpenditures from the central budget and investments madeby municipalities.

According to the current provisions, if the project valueexceeds SK 100,000 (approx. USD 3,500) the investor isobliged to announce a project tender in the CommercialBulletin of the Slovak Republic (Obchodny Vestnik). For pro-jects with a value exceeding ECU 130,000 (approx. USD150,000), the investor is required to publish a call for tenderin foreign commercial periodicals.

In practice, most experts agree that the Slovak purchasinglaw is rather vague. Under the current rules, deadlines can beset too prematurely, meaning that potential bidders cannotrespond in time unless they have advance knowledge of theproject. Another way in which the law is circumvented is thata major proportion of project financing is earmarked for theparticipation of budget-funded enterprises, which is thenexempt from public competitive tendering.

Overall, at this stage, the tenders announced in theCommercial Bulletin are not considered a useful source ofinformation on business opportunities.

Useful ContactsTable 5.14 lists useful contacts for information about envi-

ronmental project opportunities.


In answering the question on sources of information usedin purchasing environmental technologies, a majority ofrespondents (60 percent) indicated that they maintain theirown information databases, based on promotional materials,newspaper articles, and professional magazines.

Approximately 30 percent of respondents noted that envi-ronmental technologies are approved at the Ministry ofEnvironment, and they therefore assumed that, when needed,information can be obtained from governmental organizations.

Several interviewees considered catalogues of domesticand foreign environmental fairs to be an important source.Some also used specialized professional catalogues, availablefrom the Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry, andfrom foreign embassies. Some respondents also mentionedprofessional magazines and conferences.

Representatives of governmental organizations usually didnot answer the question on sources of information used inpurchasing environmental technologies.

5.5 Demand for EnvironmentalTechnologiesDEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES — OVERVIEW

Demand for environmental technologies in Slovakia variedby sector. High and growing demand was identified for tech-nologies related to waste management, and water and waste-water. Demand for environmental technologies related toenergy 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, withtechnologies related to gaseous emissions in higher demandthan products related to ambient air. High demand was identi-fied for instrumentation and process control/software forgaseous emissions. Growing demand was expected for tech-nologies related to emission abatement and cleaner produc-tion; equipment for air sampling/laboratory analysis for bothambient air and gaseous emisions; and air pollutioncontrol/flue gas purification equipment. Demand for air pollu-tion control equipment in the energy sector is likely to growdue to upcoming new and stricter regulations on air emissions.

Demand for water and wastewater technologies was high.Technologies for industrial and municipal wastewater treat-



National Committee Association of Water Quality Tel: (421-7) 321-184Radlinskeho 11, 812 37 Bratislava

Water Management Research Institute Dept. of Technologies for Water Management Nabr.arm.gen.L.Svobodu 5, 800 00 Bratislava Tel: (421-7) 343-345

Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (SHMU) Mr. Ivan Zuzula, Tel: (421-7) 384-052Jeseniova 17, 833 15 Bratislava

Slovak Energy Inspectorate — Energy Agency Mr. Michal Klemanic, Rudlovska cesta 53, 974 28 Banska Bystrica Tel: (421-88) 742-333, 742-353(also offices in Bratislava and Kosice)

Association of Secondary Raw Materials Tel: (421-7) 522-9492, Fax: (421-7) 239-203Economics, Drienova ul. 3, 826 28 Bratislava

Slovak Association of Inventors and Innovators Tel: (421-7) 526-2991Kocelova 15, 812 37 Bratislava

Slovak National Accreditation System (list of certified environmental experts)Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology, and Testing Tel: (421-7) 396-411, Fax: (421-7) 391-050Stafanovicova 3, 814 39 Bratislava

ALLDATA Slovakia plus Ltd. Mr. Ladislav Dolza, Tel: (421-91) 701-267Keratsinske nam. 1, 080 01 Presov

PB Consulting Mr. Peter Burda, DirectorMasarykova 10, 080 01 Presov Tel/Fax: (421-91) 734-751, 734-394

TABLE 5.14 (CONT.): IMPORTANT CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES

ment tended to be in higher demand than those related topotable water and surface and ground water. High demandwas identified for technologies for inspection and recondition-ing of existing water supply and municipal wastewater collec-tion networks; monitoring equipment for industrial waste-water; equipment for clean-up, decontamination, and qualityrestoration of surface and ground water; and for technologiesfor the construction of municipal and industrial wastewatercollection networks. Increasing demand was expected fortechnologies related to standard wastewater treatmentprocesses for water and wastewater; instrumentation, processcontrol, and software for industrial wastewater; and sam-pling/laboratory analysis equipment. A growth in demand wasalso expected for technologies related to the construction ofwater supply networks; sludge treatment and disposal ofmunicipal and industrial wastewater); and advanced (tertiary)treatment processes for water and wastewater.

Demand for waste management technologies was found tobe highest among the five surveyed sectors. Significant oppor-tunities are expected in hazardous waste disposal, followed byradioactive and industrial waste management. Very highdemand was identified for technologies related to landfill dis-posal (all waste categories); equipment for hazardous andradioactive waste site remediation and contaminated landclean-up; equipment for waste collection/transportation andstorage (all waste categories); and technologies related torecycling and resource recovery in the area of hazardouswaste. Other technologies in high demand included pollutionprevention/waste minimization equipment for hazardous andradioactive waste; equipment for hazardous and radioactivewaste site monitoring, and radioactive waste sample analy-sis/waste characterization; and technologies for hazardouswaste incineration.

Increasing demand was expected for technologies relatedto spillage control/decontamination for industrial, hazardous,and radioactive waste; technologies for recycling and resourcerecovery for industrial and municipal waste; sample analy-sis/waste characterization equipment for industrial and munic-ipal waste; and equipment related to industrial waste site mon-itoring, remediation, and clean-up.

Demand for energy-related technologies was generallymoderate. Specific technologies in high demand included:new/efficient energy and heat generation systems; and alter-native (non-CFC) refrigerants. Growing demand was expectedfor instrumentation; process management and control equip-ment; and, in “other industrial sectors” for technologies relatedto retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing systems.Surprisingly, only moderate demand was identified for heatrecovery and energy savings technologies, and for retrofittingand rehabilitation of existing systems in the energy sector.

Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, andoccupational health and safety was low.

DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIESBY SECTOR

Tables 5.15-5.19 summarize the responses to the surveyquestion on demand for specific environmental technologies.

The following scale was used in ranking: 5 – highest, andrapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, likely to grow, 3 –moderate, slowly growing demand, 2 – low demand, will notgrow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion.

The first figure in the tables show the average score, whilethose in brackets indicate the number of responses.

AirDemand for air-related technologies was moderate — only

one technology category was found to be in high demand.Most respondents indicated higher demand for technologies

related to gaseous emissions from stationary sources than forproducts related to ambient air.

High demand was identified for instrumentation, andprocess control/software for gaseous emissions. Increasingdemand was expected for technologies related to emissionabatement and cleaner production; equipment for air sam-pling/laboratory analysis for both ambient air and gaseous emi-sions; and air pollution control/flue gas purification equipment.

It is worth to note that demand for air pollution control inthe energy sector is likely to grow due to upcoming new andstricter regulations on air emissions. Existing power plants(including those under construction and which will be opera-tional before March 31, 1998) have to comply with new airemission standards for existing sources by Dec. 31, 1998. Allnew plants constructed after March 31, 1998 are subject toeven stricter standards. Existing sources will then be requiredto meet the standards for new sources by Dec. 31, 2009.

Water and WastewaterDemand for water and wastewater technologies was high.

Not a single technology sector was found to be in lowdemand. Technologies for industrial and municipal waste-water treatment tended to be in higher demand than thoserelated to potable water and surface and ground water.

High demand was identified for technologies for inspec-tion and reconditioning of existing water supply and munici-pal wastewater collection networks; monitoring equipment forindustrial wastewater; equipment for clean-up, decontamina-tion, and quality restoration of surface and ground water; andtechnologies for the construction of municipal and industrialwastewater collection networks.

Increasing demand was expected for technologies relatedto standard wastewater treatment processes for water andwastewater; instrumentation, process control, and software forindustrial wastewater; and sampling/laboratory analysisequipment. A growth in demand was also expected for tech-nologies related to the construction of water supply networks;sludge treatment and disposal (municipal and industrial waste-water); and advanced (tertiary) treatment processes for waterand wastewater.






Air pollution control/flue gas 3.2 (12) 3.6 (12)purification equipment (filters/scrubbers)


Emission abatement/cleaner 2.7 (11) 3.7 (12)production (e.g. low emission burners)


Technologies in high demand: #1 Instrumentation and process con-trol/software (gaseous emissions)

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #2 Emission abate-ment/cleaner production (gaseous emissions); #3 Air sampling/laborato-ry analysis (gaseous emissions and ambient air); #4 Air pollution con-trol/flue gas purification equipment (gaseous emissions).

TABLE 5.15: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES — AIR

Many respondents stressed the need for the reconditioningof existing networks for drinking water supply and collectionof municipal wastewater. Water losses in distribution networksare estimated at 20 percent, and seepage of sewage into theground is also a significant problem. Demand for spill con-trol/containment/clean-up and decontamination in all sub-cat-egories was high as well.

Surprisingly, compared to other technologies in this cate-gory, demand ratings were relatively low for advanced treat-ment processes, and for water recycling and reuse technolo-gies. However, several respondents expressed an opinion thatthe demand for waste minimization and water recycling andreuse technologies will increase as prices of water supply andfees for wastewater discharge rise.

Waste ManagementWaste 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 10percent are licensed. Of the 70 existing waste incinerators, 11have no emission control equipment. Only two cities havemunicipal waste incinerators.

The demand identified for waste management technolo-gies was found to be high. Significant opportunities areexpected in hazardous waste disposal (practically all tech-nologies related to hazardous waste were in high demand),followed by radioactive and industrial waste management.

Very high demand was identified for technologies relatedto landfill disposal (all waste categories); equipment for haz-ardous and radioactive waste site remediation and contami-nated land clean-up; equipment for waste collection/trans-portation and storage (all waste categories); and technologiesrelated to recycling and resource recovery in the area of haz-ardous waste. Other technologies in high demand includedpollution prevention/waste minimization equipment for haz-ardous and radioactive waste; equipment for hazardous and

radioactive waste site monitoring, and radioactive waste sam-ple analysis/waste characterization; and technologies for haz-ardous waste incineration.

Increasing demand was expected for technologies relatedto spillage control/decontamination for industrial, hazardous,and radioactive waste; technologies for recycling and resourcerecovery for industrial and municipal waste; sample analy-sis/waste characterization equipment for industrial and munic-ipal waste; and equipment related to industrial waste site mon-itoring, remediation, and clean-up.

Disposal of radioactive waste is an acute problem at pre-sent and technology demand was estimated to be betweenhigh and very high. However, although disposal of radioactivewaste is a priority issue for the government, in general, thefield does not account for a major portion of the waste man-agement market.

EnergyDemand for energy-related technologies was moderate.

Surprisingly, respondents indicated higher demand for ener-gy-related technologies in “other industrial sectors” than in theenergy and power generation sector itself.

Specific technologies in high demand included: new/effi-cient energy and heat generation systems; and alternative(non-CFC) refrigerants. Growing demand was expected forinstrumentation; process management and control equipment;and technologies related to retrofitting and rehabilitation ofexisting systems.

Surprisingly, only moderate demand was identified for heatrecovery and energy savings technologies. This area was usual-ly ranked higher in the other surveyed countries. Technologiesfor the use of alternative energy sources were in low demand.

As regards the relatively low demand identified for envi-ronmental technologies in the energy and power generation(especially compared to “other industrial sectors”), the find-ings most likely resulted from the fact that small and medi-



Surface and Potable Municipal Industrial Ground water (Drinking) Water Wastewater Wastewater

Monitoring 3.5 (20) 3.6 (17) 3.4 (13) 4.3 (15)




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, 3.7 (6) 3.6 (10) 3.7 (12) 3.6 (16)activated carbon phosphate removal , reverse osmosis)




Containment/clean-up 4.1 (19) 4.0 (18) 4.0 (12) 3.7 (21)



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 industrialwastewater collection networks;

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #5 Standard wastewater treatment processes for water and wastewater; #6 Instrumentation, processcontrol, 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.

TABLE 5.16: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — WATER AND WASTEWATER

um-sized companies (the majority of survey respondents)have little knowledge of the problems within the state-con-trolled energy sector, and do not expect to take part in multi-million Crown projects; hence, the lower ratings. In theresearcher’s opinion, the received responses do not ade-quately reflect the high investment needs in the energy sec-tor, as outlined in the National Environmental Action Plan(see Section 5.3 for more detail).

Noise, Vibration and OHSDemand for technologies related to noise, vibration, and

occupational health and safety was low. In not a single cate-gory was demand found to be even moderate. The intervie-wees noted, however, that in the area of occupational healthand safety, demand may grow in the near future because ofrequirements related to risk management in the ISO-relatedcertification process.

The respondents expected only minimum growth indemand in the area of measuring and control devices and pro-

tection equipment. Exposure to electromagnetic fields was notconsidered at all.


The major end-users of environmental technologies iden-tified by survey respondents are presented in Table 5.20.

The chemical industry and the energy sector are the majorend-users of environmental technologies in most categories.Local governments (municipalities) are an important user oftechnologies related to water and wastewater, and to wastemanagement. The mineral mining and processing industry is asignificant end-user of waste management and energy-relatedtechnologies.

It is worth noting that the question related to major end-users of environmental technologies was among the least pop-ular among the interviewed experts. Many respondents eitherdid not answer at all, or used only vague categories, such as



Energy and Other Sectors (e.g.Power Generation Chemical Manufacturing)



Process management and control (e.g. boiler tune-up, 3.3 (14) 3.8 (9)fuel efficiency optimization)





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.

TABLE 5.18: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — ENERGY




Site monitoring 3.4 (18) 3.7 (17) 4.0 (17) 4.1 (13)


Incineration 3.5 (17) 3.2 (20) 4.0 (18) 3.7 (6)






Technologies in high demand: #1 Landfill disposal (all waste categories); #2 Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land (hazardous waste andradioactive waste); #3 Waste collection/ transportation and storage (all waste categories); #4 Recycling and resource recovery (hazardous waste); #5 Pollutionprevention/ waste minimization (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #6 Site monitoring (hazardous waste and radioactive waste); #7 Sample analy-sis/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 andresource recovery (industrial and municipal waste); #11 Sample analysis/waste characterization (industrial and municipal waste); #12 Industrial waste sitemonitoring, remediation, and clean-up.

TABLE 5.17: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES — WASTE MANAGEMENT

“production in general.” In the researcher’s opinion, thisreflects the tendency among interviewees not to point out sec-tors with potentially lucrative contracts.

5.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign SuppliersPURCHASING PREFERENCES

An overwhelming majority of interviewed experts (80 per-cent) specified that they only use best-technology or best-prac-tice criteria when purchasing environmental technologies.However, further discussion usually revealed that, in practice,many respondents favored domestic products because of lowerprices. A small proportion of respondents (20 percent) saidthey had no preference for either domestic or foreign products.

Sixty percent of interviewees preferred to buy foreign envi-ronmental technologies from a local in-country representative,while 40 percent would buy directly from the producer abroad.


The major strengths of foreign environmental technolo-gies in comparison with domestic products include reliabilityand durability of products (80 percent of respondents) andhigh product quality (70 percent).

Good value for money, good after-sales service, and user-friendly design were mentioned by 30 percent to 40 percent ofrespondents. Interestingly, several interviewees noted that anextended warranty period was a strength of foreign technolo-gies in comparison with domestic products.

Available credit or preferential financing was identified asa significant advantage by about a third of respondents. Tothat end, a comment was made that state-controlled prices inthe energy and water utilities sectors do not allow for therepayment of effective, but expensive, foreign environmentaltechnologies. However, price regulations are gradually beinglifted, and utilites are expected to move towards market prices.Therefore, ideally, the preferential financing package shouldallow deferment of payments until the utility pricing policy isbased on the actual production costs.

Not a single respondent indicated low price as an advan-tage of foreign products.


According to 70 percent of respondents, the greatest barri-er to buying foreign environmental technologies is high price.A relatively high portion of respondents (40 percent) specifiedimport restrictions and high customs duty as another barrier.

Some 30 percent of interviewees observed that little infor-mation is available about foreign suppliers, while 50 percentnoted the lack of reliable product information as a barrier.These concerns should be relatively easy to solve through bet-ter marketing.

One in three respondents specified difficulties with ensur-ing authorized technical service and maintenance as a signifi-cant barrier. Interestingly, a similar proportion of intervieweesidentified this area as a strength of foreign products comparedto domestic competitors. At any rate, in the long term, ensur-ing a reliable technical service should be one of the priorityareas for foreign suppliers.

Other obstacles did not appear very important. 20 per-cent of experts indicated that products were not suitable forlocal conditions and technical culture. Other difficulties,identified by approximately 10 percent of the respondents,included communication problems with a foreign supplierand changing environmental regulations.

In conclusion, since the high price of foreign technologiesis the biggest barrier to purchase, to increase sales foreign sup-pliers should concentrate on providing an attractive financingpackage. One comment made frequently by respondents wasthat high prices would not be such a major hurdle if it werepossible to pay for environmental technology, at least partial-ly, during its effective use.

5.7 Major Foreign Suppliers in theEnvironmental Technology MarketPERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES

Table 5.21 presents respondents’ perceptions of foreignsuppliers from selected countries, based on answers to thequestion “How do environmental professionals in Slovakia per-ceive environmental technologies from different countries ?”

The following scale was used in rating: 5 – excellent repu-tation, 4 – good reputation, 3 – average reputation, 2 – poorreputation, 1 – very poor reputation, blank – no opinion.


Perceptions of foreign environmental technologies were



Occupational Noise Health and

and Safety Vibration

Instrumentation devices 2.8 (5) 2.2 (5)


Abatement 2.1 (8) 2.2 (9)(insulation, absorption)


TABLE 5.19: DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES — NOISE, VIBRATION AND OHS

Sector End-user

Air 1) Energy sector, 2) Chemical industry, 3) Transport

Water and 1) Local governments, 2) Chemical Wastewater industry, 3) Production in general

Waste 1) Chemical industry, 2) Localgovernments, 3) Mining, 4) Energy sector

Energy 1) Energy sector, 2) Chemical industry, 3) Mining and processing of mineral resources

Noise and 1) Production in general, 2) Construction, Vibration 3) Chemical industry


rated good to excellent. Domestic products were ranked aver-age, well below the perceptions of foreign products. Table5.22 presents the leading countries, with their rating in brack-ets, followed by Slovak technologies for comparison.

Overall, environmental technologies from Scandinaviancountries and from Germany were ranked high, ahead ofAmerican products. Technologies from the Netherlands,France, Japan and Austria followed suit. However, it should benoted that average ratings did not vary significantly.

In the air sector, American, German, Austrian andScandinavian technologies were ranked particularly high.German, American, French, Dutch and Scandinavian productswere best perceived in the water and wastewater sector.German, American, French and Scandinavian technologieswere ranked high in the waste management sector, while theenergy sector seemed to be dominated by Scandinavian,German, American and Dutch products. Scandinavian andGerman products rated high in the noise and vibration sector.

The number of respondents expressing an opinion aboutforeign environmental technologies was related to their avail-ability on the market. When the distribution of responses is con-sidered, foreign activity was highest in the water and waste-water sector, followed by energy, air and waste management.While no single country had a clear lead over competitors, sup-pliers from Germany, Austria, and France were considered to bemost 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 onperceptions of foreign environmental technologies dependingon the country of origin, rather than on respondents’ actualfamiliarity and/or experience with specific foreign companies orproducts. Therefore, while the conclusions from Table 5.22 givea good indication of commonly held opinions about technolo-gies and the perceived level of foreign activity, they do not nec-essarily depict the actual knowledge among Slovak experts offoreign suppliers. The following section presents the answers to

a more specific question about foreign companies active inSlovakia, and the strengths and weaknesses of their products.


Table 5.23 presents the major foreign-owned environmentaltechnology suppliers in Slovakia listed by survey respondents.

Similar to the findings in the previous section, foreign com-panies in Slovakia seem to be most active in the water andwastewater sector, followed by waste and energy. Air pollu-tion controls, and noise, vibration and OHS are represented toa lesser degree.

German companies are most active in the water andwastewater sector, followed by Czech, American, and Frenchsuppliers. Danish, Austrian, and French firms seem to domi-nate among foreign companies in the waste sector, while inthe energy sector, German and American presence is notable.In the remaining two categories, only a few foreign compa-nies were identified. The majority of foreign companies arelocated in Bratislava, the national capital.

Most of the comments on competitive strengths andweaknesses of suppliers focused on good product quality andreliability and high prices respectively. Interestingly, in onlyone case (Hewlett Packard) was good service listed as astrength, which confirms that more emphasis should beplaced on this area.

Generally, respondents noted that they were familiarmainly with large and well-known companies (especially inthe energy and waste management sectors), or with theirown suppliers or business partners. It was observed that, inthe energy sector, several suppliers acting under their ownname supply brand-name foreign technologies from severalforeign manufacturers.

Several interviewees mentioned the lack of informationabout foreign products as a problem, which is confirmed by



Slovakia Austria Germany France Japan Netherlands Scandinavia U.S. Other

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 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) AustraliaWastewater

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) 4.0 (1) Denmark4.0 (2) Italy

Noise and 2.5 (8) 4.0 (2) 4.5 (5) 3.7 (2) 4.0 (2) 4.0 (2) 5.0 (3) 4.0 (2)Vibration, OHS

TABLE 5.21: PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPLIERS 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

TABLE 5.22: PERCEPTION OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES



Company Name, CountrySector City of Origin Specialization Competitive Strength/Weaknesses

Air 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, paper industryCanada

Waste, Water VARIAN Australia analysis excellent quality/reliabilityand Soil PROLABO France analysis devices

CETAC US laboratory devices quality/high prices

Soil Eijkelkamp Netherlands monitoring devices quality/price

Water 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 quality/price

Kowa, Czech R. Germany water treatment

ABS, Pumpen Germany pumps high quality/high price

Aqualabo, Czech R. Germany water treatment

UTEK Switzerland M&R quality/price

Culigan US

HACH US laboratory devices

Hewlett Packard US automatic analyzers quality, service/price

Carlo Erba

Waste ASA, Trnava Austria waste management (collection, landfilling)

Brantner, Bratislava Austria waste management

Austria Energy Austria incinerators

Alfa Laval Praha Czech Rep., separators excellent quality/high priceSweden

Marius Pedersen, Denmark waste managementTrencin

GSE, Bratislava Denmark

Nave Fasertechnik, DenmarkBratislava

Lobbe, Denmark waste management quality/priceBratislava/Nitra

ONYX, Bratislava France waste management

TABLE 5.23: MAJOR SUPPLIERS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SLOVAKIA

the fact that most experts were able to identify only a few spe-cific companies active in Slovakia. Also, respondents wereoften uncertain of the country of origin of a foreign supplier(e.g. Austrian and German companies were often confused).



Company Name, CountrySector City of Origin Specialization Competitive Strength/Weaknesses

Waste (cont.) Zohor France

National Seal Co. Netherlands geomembrane, foils

Energy 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 quality/price

Noise, OHS 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

TABLE 5.23 (CONT.): MAJOR SUPPLIERS OF FOREIGN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN SLOVAKIA

5.8 List of InterviewedExperts/CompaniesThe structure of the information is as follows: Name of per-son interviewed, position, company name, location, date ofinterview

1. Magda Kurucova, Head of Ecotoxicology, VUCHT,Bratislava, Nov. 14, 1996

2. Peter Jergus, Head of Envidivision, VUCHT-CHEMITEX,Zilina, Nov. 18, 1996

3. Ladislav Mihalcik, Head, Acoustic Department, TSU,Piestany, Nov. 18, 1996

4. Juraj Kralik, Director, HYCO, Bratislava, Nov. 14, 1996

5. Anezka Moncmanova, Associate Professor, STU, Facultyof ChT, Bratislava, Nov. 18, 1996

6. Viera Khunova, Senior Lecturer, STU, Faculty of ChT,Bratislava, Nov. 14, 1996

7. Jan Derco, Associate Professor, STU, Faculty of ChT,Bratislava, Nov. 18, 1996

8. Tomas Andrezal, Manager, SENSOR, Bratislava, Nov. 25, 1996

9. Juraj Gavora, Research Manager, ETC, Ivanka pri Dunaji,Nov. 27, 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

14. Ivan Chabal, Manager, COVSPOL, Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996

15. Elena Lamackova, Environmental specialist, PIO-CHEMPIK, Bratislava, Dec. 10, 1996

16. Pavel Stastny, Head, Climatology, S-HMU, Kosice, Dec. 3, 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 NovaVes, Dec. 4, 1996

20. Marian Zorkoczy, Manager, THERMOSOLAR, Ziar nadHronom, Dec. 5, 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

29. Ladislav Straka, Manager, AEE-URAP, Trencin, Dec. 10, 1996

30. Peter Horvat, Manager, EKOKROK, Zilina, Dec. 10, 1996

31. Dusan Kovac, Director, SOPK, Presov, Dec. 7, 1996

32. Walter Scherfel, Director, G3, Trencin, Dec. 7, 1996

33. Karol Hrdina, Director, ENVITECH, Trencin, Dec. 10, 1996

34. Dusan Lucansky, waste expert, Bratislava, Dec. 3, 1996

35. Zdena Kelnarova, environmental specialist, MZP SR,Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996

36. Koloman Pronay, Project Manager, ENERGOPROJEKT,Bratislava, Dec. 4, 1996

37. Milan Porubsky, Assistant to the Director, HYDROVRT,Bratislava, Dec. 11, 1996

38. Ignac Kozej, Manager, EKO-TERM SERVIS, Kosice, Dec. 3, 1996

39. Milos Hlavacik, Director, PROX-TEC, Poprad, Dec. 5, 1996

40. Jozef Madar, Head of Waste Department, DETOX, BanskaBystrica, Dec. 6, 1996

41. Mikulas Janovsky, Director, EKOCONZULT, Bratislava,Dec. 11, 1996

42. Norbert Lyocsa, Manager, MERCK, Bratislava, Dec. 7, 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

47. Oleg Leontiev, Director, KOVOPROJEKT-ES, Bratislava,Dec. 11, 1996

48. Alexander Zubac, senior expert, OU ZP, Spisska NovaVes, Dec. 9, 1996

49. Kamil Bucko, Director, PASTEL, Presov, Dec. 9, 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, RimavskaSobota, Nov. 30, 1996

53. Lubomir Bindas, senior expert, PB CONSULTING, Presov,Dec. 13, 1996



5.9 List of Publications and OtherSources1. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern

Europe, “The Emerging Environmental Market: A Survey ofthe Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the SlovakRepublic,” Budapest, Hungary: REC, June 1995

2. Regional Environmental Center for Central and EasternEurope, “The Environmental Business Directory:Environmental Service and Technology Providers in theCzech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovak Republic,”Budapest, Hungary: REC, June 1995

3. Regional Environmental Center for Central and EasternEurope, “Competing in the New EnvironmentalMarketplace. Proceedings of Workshops forEnvironmental Professionals in the Slovak Republic,”Budapest, Hungary: REC, Nov. 1995

4. Macek J. Kenneth and Urbanek Vladimir, “TheEnvironmental Industry and Markets in the SlovakRepublic,” OECD Paris, France: Nov. 1994

5. Kaiser Helmut, “Environmental Technologies in the 1966-2015 Period in Connection to Energy, New Opportunitiesand Risks” (in German), Helmut KaiserUnternehmensberatung, Thubingen, Germany, 1996

6. Suchanek Zdenek, “Environmental Industry,” (in Czech),CEMC Praha, Czech Republic, 1995

7. MOE SR, “The Strategy, Principles and Priorities of theState Governmental Environmental Policy” (in Slovak andEnglish), MOE SR Bratislava, 1993

8. STUZ SR, “Sustainable Slovakia in the InternationalContext,” papers from aconference (in Slovak), Bratislava,1996

9. SANDERS “Slovakia, Business in Environment” (in Slovakand English), Bratislava, 1994

10. “Enviro-magazine for environmental protection,” SA ZPBanska Bystrica, 1996

11. “Environmental Guide,” ALLDATA Slovakia Plus Ltd., Ziarnad Hronom, 1995

12. TEUTOP, “Directory of Ecological Companies,” in cooper-ation with ASPEK, Bratislava, 1994

13. Regional Environmental Center for Central and EasternEurope, “Government and Environment: A Directory ofGovernmental Organizations with EnvironmentalResponsibilities for CEE,” Budapest, Hungary, 1996

14. “Workshop on Building Capacity in the EnvironmentalGoods and Services Industry in the Central and EasternEuropean Countries,” OECD and REC, Szentendre,Hungary, November 1996

15. “East-West Seminar on Business, Industry andEnvironment: Environmental protection and opportunity,responsibility and challenge for the business sector — pos-sibilities of East-West cooperation by the business sector,”Berlin, December 1996

16. OECD, “The Environment Industry,” Papers from ExpertMeeting, 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

20. Informal information discussions and telephone calls, PBCONSULTING, 1996

21. Internal Materials of PB CONSULTING

22. Slovak Statistical Office, Statistical Figures and Graphs,Bratislava, 1993

23. Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the SR in theYears 1986-1992,” Bratislava, 1992

24. Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the SR,”Bratislava, 1993

25. Slovak Statistical Office, “Environment in the SR, SelectedIndicators in the years 1990-1995,” Bratislava, 1996



5.10 List of Referenced Organizations The structure of the information is as follows:

Name of organizationAddressContact, phone, fax, e-mailBackground

R&D ORGANIZATIONS

VuchtNobelova 34, 836 03 BratislavaMagda Kurucova, Ph.D., Tel: (421-7) 525-9349, Fax: (421-7)525-9349ET for chemical industry

Vucht-ChemitexRybniky 10, 011 68 Zilina Ing. Peter Jergus, CSc., Tel: (421-89) 32-857, Fax: (421-89)645-519Textile and fiber technologies

TSUKrajinska 9, 921 01 PiestanyIng. Ladislav Mihalcik, Head of the Acoustics Dept.Tel: (421-838) 57-160, Fax: (421-838) 72-3716Noise and vibration abatement and monitoring

HycoRadlinskeho 37, 815 43 Bratislava Ing.Juraj Kralik, Tel: (421-7) 539-0360, 397-012Fax: (421-7) 391-078, 397-678Design and applied R&D in environmental construction

STU Faculty of Chemical TechnologyRadlinskeho 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] of plastics

Dr. Jan Derco, Ph.D, Associate ProfessorTel: (421-7) 326-021, 495-243, Fax: (421-7) 493-198, E-mail:[email protected] treatment

SensorNobelova 34, 831 02 BratislavaTomas Andrezal, Tel: (421-7) 525-8021,525-8163Fax: (421-7) 525-8004, E-mail: [email protected] monitoring

Ekotoxikologicke, centrum Bratislava s.r.o.Nadrazna 37, 900 28 Ivanka pri DunajiJuraj Gavora, Tel: (421-7) 943-712, 945-223, Fax: (421-7) 945-223Monitoring, control, Risk assessment, textile and fiber tech-nologies, environmental optimization

TreansmisieP. Mudrona 10, 036 01 Martin Ing. Sona Behava, Tel: (421-842) 36-511, 34-668, Fax: (421-842) 33-157R&D in monitoring for ET

Datatherm s.r.o.Hlinska 25, 010 01 ZilinaStefan Smrekovsky, Tel: (421-89) 45-781, 43-089, Fax: (421-89) 48-754Energy saving, water equipment for process control

MZP SRnam. L.Stura 1, 812 35 Bratislava Ing. Robert Brnak, Tel: (421-7) 516-2167, Fax: (421-7) 516-1111Expert on ET

SAZPKollarova 8, P.O. Box 1, 917 02 TrnavaRNDr.Miroslav Rusko, Tel: (421-805) 20-406, Fax: (421-805)26-431, E-mail: [email protected] of technologies

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCED IN THE REPORT

SAV Geologicky UstavDubravska cesta 9, 846 26 BratislavaIng. Ivan Krizani, Tel: (421-7) 373-961, Fax: (421-7) 377-097Optimisation of mining and processing of minerals

SAV UMMSLetna 9, 04200 KosiceTel. (421-95) 35-465, Fax. (421-95) 37-048Active insulation of vibration

VUPNabrezna 4, 971 04 Prievidza Ing. Vladimir Hlavac,CSc, Tel: (421-862) 31-841-43, Fax: (421-862) 32-261ET 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) 4192Ultrasound cleaning technologies

VUVHNabr. arm. gen. L. Svobodu 5, 800 00 Fax: (421-7) 315-743, 537-1342Technologies for water management

SHMUJeseniova 17, 81105 BratislavaTel: (421-7) 373-807, Fax: (421-7) 372-004R&D in air and water pollution

VURUP 824 12 Vlcie Hrdlo Tel: (421-7) 244-565,248824, Fax: (421-7) 248-622ET in oil industry

VUP s.p.Bojnicka cesta 86, 910 01 Prievidza Ing. Vladimir Hlavac, CSc, Tel: (421-862) 31-841, Fax: (421-862) 32-261ET in oil industry

VuchtNobelova 34, 836 03 Bratislava Magda Kurucova, Ph.D., Tel: (421-7) 525-9349, Fax: (421-7)525-9349ET 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]

STU CHTFRadlinskeho 9, 812 37 Bratislava Tel: (421-7) 326-021, 495-243, 56-021, Fax: (421-7) 493-198Wastewater treatment, air protection technologies



VUSAPL Novozamocka cesta 179, 950 37 Nitra Ing.Mikulas Kiss, Tel: (421-87) 501-111, Fax:(421-87) 413-495Recycling of plastics

Technical University, EF KEMTLetna 9, 040 01 KosiceTel: (421-95) 622-4611, Fax: (421-95) 622-4611Noise and vibration control and monitoring

EGUBajkalska 27, 82701 BratislavaTel: (421-7) 522-1267, Fax: (421-7) 522-1560Energy saving alternative/renewable resources

VUCHV05921 SvitDr. Dusan Budzak, Tel: (421-92) 56-444, Fax: (421-92) 55-663ET optimation in textile and fiber industry

VSDS Faculty of MachineryVelky Diel, 01026 ZilinaDoc. Ing. Peter Zvolensky, Tel: (421-89) 42-679, Fax: (421-89)48-624Energy recuperation, waste minimatization technologies,noise control

SensorNobelova 34, 831 02 Bratislava Tomas Andrezal, Tel: (421-7) 525-8021, 525-8163, Fax: (421-7) 525-8004E-mail: [email protected] monitoring

Vucht-ChemitexRybniky 10, 011 68 Zilina Ing. Peter Jergus, CSc., Tel: (421-89) 32857, Fax: (421-89)645-519Textile 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) 52-757Environmental optimization of processing technologies

VUDVelky Diel, 011 39 Zilina Ing. Jozef Pinter, Tel: (421-89) 47-394, Fax: (421-89) 44-865Environmental optimization of transport technologies

VUEZ Tovarenska 210, 935 28 Tlmace Ing. Jan Murani, Tel: (421-813) 926-3145, Fax: (421-813) 921-617Environmental optimisation ofenergetics technologies

VUJE Okruzna 5, 918 64 Trnava Ing. Rudolf Burcl, Tel: (421-805) 213-01,-02,-03,-04, Fax: (421-805) 912-64Nuclear safety technologies

VUKI a.s.Tovarenska 14, 815 71 Bratislava Ing. Lubica Cveckova, Tel: (421-7) 383-366, Fax: (421-7) 67-201Technologies of waste incineration

VVNPVotrubova 11/a, 825 05 Bratislava Ing. Stefan Kosut, Tel/Fax: (421-7) 65-366Liquid waste storage

Bio-EnvironHurbanovo nam. 9, 811 03 BratislavaIng. Dr. Matus Povazaj, CSc, Tel: (421-7) 331-658, Fax: 332-468Biotechnologies

ZTS VVUJuzna trieda 97, 04124 KosiceTel: (421-95) 50-187, Fax: (421-95) 57-613Hazardous waste transport equipment

WUSAMBuzulucka 3, 96150 ZvolenIng. Jan Slancik, Tel: (421-855) 232-407, Fax: (421-855) 25-839Environmental mechanical engineering technologies

ThermosolarNa Varticke, P.O. Box 45, 96503 Ziar n. H.Ing. Jozef Novak, CSc., Tel: (421-857) 862-4345, Fax: (421-857) 86-244Solar Energy



6.1 Summary of FindingsSlovenia’s environment fares relatively well compared

with many other CEE countries. Acid rain, transboundary airpollution from neighboring countries, and surface andgroundwater contamination are the main environmental prob-lems experienced. There are also growing problems related topoor waste management, and soil pollution caused by theextensive use of pesticides and fertilizers.

The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning,responsible for regulatory measures and control, is the mainbody in charge of environmental protection. Within theMinistry there are several agencies with different tasks relatedto the environment. The administration of environmental reg-ulations is carried out both at the national level and at the locallevel including 147 municipalities.

The Inspectorate for Environment and Physical Planningsupervises the implementation of environmental regulations,oversees water resources management, and regulates physicalplanning and construction activities. The levels of complianceare still below EU standards in many key areas, such as theindustrial and energy sectors, or in the management of munic-ipal and hazardous waste. The country’s efforts to enforcecompliance have focused mainly on water quality.

In 1996, total spending on environmental protection inSlovenia amounted to USD 150.4 million, or approximately0.8 percent of GDP. In 1994, air protection projects account-ed for the largest share of national expenditures (71 percentof the total). Waste management related projects accountedfor 18 percent of the total spending, followed by water andwastewater activities (9 percent). Currently, the share of thelatter two categories of projects is increasing. Reliable infor-mation on the spending on environmental technologies inSlovenia is not available.

Environmental expenditures in Slovenia are financedmainly through the municipal budgets, the state budget, theEnvironmental Development Fund, and spending from the pri-

vate sector. State co-funding of environmental investments iscommon in Slovenia. An increase in environmental expendi-tures can be expected over the next few years as a result ofefforts to harmonize local environmental legislation and poli-cy with EU standards.

The PHARE Programme is one of the biggest contributorsof foreign funding for environment-related projects inSlovenia, with additional financial resources provided by theEBRD and the World Bank. Several Western governmentsprovide bilateral assistance.

The Slovenian Ministry of Environment currently gives pri-ority to the protection of ground and surface waters by theappropriate treatment of wastewater, and protection of waterresources. Waste management priorities include remediationof existing disposal sites, minimization and recycling ofwastes, and the proper management of hazardous waste.Other priorities include coordinating environmental protec-tion with existing practices in the European Union; introduc-

C H A P T E R 6 : S L O V E N I A



Population (mln) 10.3 10.2 38.6 5.4 2.0

Area (sq.km) 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




Inflation rate (%) 10.3 18.4 14.5 6.0 9.6






S L O V E N I A

Ljubljana

Maribor

Adriatic Sea

C R O AT I A

PtujCelje

Kranj

Koper

A U S T R I A

I TA LY

0 50 100

kilometers

Chapter 6: Slovenia

ing sectoral legislation; improving the enforcement of legisla-tion; and establishing an environmental information system.

Based on interviews conducted with Slovenian environ-mental experts, the most important problems needing to beaddressed included: waste disposal sites requiring remedia-tion; a need for the construction of new waste disposal sites;pollution of surface and ground water by municipal and indus-trial wastewater; pollution of potable water sources from agri-culture; air pollution from industrial boilers and householdfireplaces, from industry due to the lack of flue gas cleaningfacilities, and from traffic; and the accumulation of hazardouswaste that needs treatment and removal.

The areas likely to offer the most business opportunities inSlovenia are the protection of ground and surface waters byappropriate treatment of wastewater, protection of waterresources, and waste management activities. Business oppor-tunities related to environment-related projects in the energysector will be significant in the mid term. In the coming years,about USD 400 million are expected to be invested in envi-ronmental protection programs in Slovenia as a result of theprivatization process.

There are few effective formal channels in Slovenia pro-viding information on environmental business opportunities.The source most frequently used is the Official Gazette of theRepublic of Slovenia which announces tenders for projectsco-funded by the government. Other significant sourcesinclude personal contacts, participation in fairs and exhibi-tions, and information from the media. Among the mostimportant fairs in Slovenia dedicated to the environment andenvironmental technology are EKO sejem in Celje andTehnika za okolje in Ljubljana.

As for information on environmental technologies, themost reliable and frequently used sources include previouslyestablished contacts with suppliers, and information pub-lished in specialized journals or obtained at fairs in othercountries. Representatives of technology suppliers are also asignificant source of information.

Overall, the demand for environmental technologies inSlovenia is moderate, with demand for technologies relating toair and water monitoring, industrial wastewater treatment, andmanagement of radioactive and hazardous waste likely togrow. One should bear in mind, however, that the overall stateof the environment in Slovenia is relatively good, and thatsome important environmental problems have already beensolved in recent years.

Demand for air-related technologies is moderate. Growthin demand is expected for technologies relating to air sam-pling and laboratory analysis equipment for gaseous emissionsand ambient air, for emission abatement and cleaner produc-tion technologies, and for air pollution control and flue gaspurification equipment.

Demand for water and wastewater technologies is alsomoderate, with growth tendencies expected for technologiesrelating to the treatment of industrial wastewater.Technologies in increasing demand include equipment for themonitoring, sampling and laboratory analysis of industrialwastewater, and for instrumentation, process control and soft-ware for industrial wastewater treatment. Some growth indemand is also expected for those technologies relating to pol-lution prevention and waste minimization in industrial waste-water treatment and drinking water supply.

Waste management is the only area where high demandfor environmental technologies was identified, with technolo-gies related to radioactive and hazardous waste in highestdemand. High demand was identified for waste disposal, andwaste prevention/minimization technologies for radioactivewaste; technologies relating to recycling and resource recov-ery from industrial waste; and for equipment used in landfilldisposal of hazardous waste. Increasing demand is expected

for technologies in the field of recycling and resource recovery(including those for composting and biomass conversion) formunicipal waste management; equipment for landfill disposalof industrial and municipal waste; and technologies relating topollution prevention/waste minimization of hazardous andindustrial waste. Other technologies where demand is expect-ed to rise include spillage control and decontamination ofradioactive waste; and equipment for collection, transporta-tion and storage of municipal waste.

Demand for energy-related technologies was found to bemoderate. Growing demand was noted for alternative (non-CFC) refrigerants, while other areas where demand is expect-ed to increase include technologies for heat recovery andenergy savings (e.g. insulation) in the energy sector; new andefficient energy and heat generation systems; and retrofittingand rehabilitation of existing energy systems in both thepower generation and other industrial sectors. Alternative orrenewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, andsolar) are other possible growth areas.

Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, andoccupational health and safety was low to moderate, with somegrowth in demand expected for OHS protection equipment.

In most technology categories, the municipal sector,including power generation, is the major end-user of environ-mental technologies. In the air, water and wastewater, andwaste sectors, municipal users were followed by the respec-tive industries such as chemical, mining, wood, and food pro-cessing. The transportation and mining sectors are the majorend-users in the noise and vibration category. Industry is animportant user of environmental technologies related to ener-gy. The order of end-users was affected by the decline inindustrial production after 1991, leading to a decrease in envi-ronmental pollution, and the current focus on pollution fromthe municipal sector, which had been neglected in the past.The privatization of public utilities has also led to increasedspending in the municipal sector.

Most Slovenian buyers (about two-thirds) rely on the useof best-technology or best-practice criteria when making pur-chasing decisions. However, a small proportion of buyersdeclared preference for domestic products. There was a slightpreference for buying foreign-manufactured environmentaltechnologies from domestic representatives compared withbuying directly from the producer abroad.

High product quality is considered the most importantstrength of foreign environmental technologies. Among otherhighly ranked qualities are their reliability, durability, andgood value for money. Available credits and funding from theforeign provider, found to be of importance in other CEEcountries, are deemed less important in Slovenia. When mak-ing purchasing decisions, some experts considered a foreigntechnology known to have been used and verified in othercountries to be an advantage over domestic products. In spiteof these positive comments, only a limited proportion ofrespondents regarded foreign environmental technologies asuser-friendly and easy to customize and adapt to specific localconditions. Importantly, only one in three respondents con-sidered the quality of after-sales service as a strength ofimported environmental technologies.

The lack of reliable product information, and the relative-ly high cost of foreign technology are the most significant bar-riers to buying environmental technologies from abroad.Other barriers include the difficulties in ensuring authorizedafter-sales technical service and maintenance, too little infor-mation about suppliers, and the non-suitability of products tothe local conditions and technical culture.

In general, perceptions of foreign environmental technolo-gies were between average and good, somewhat higher thanperceptions of domestic environmental technologies, whichwere evaluated as average. German, American, Japanese and



Austrian technologies were ranked highly in the air sector. Inthe water and wastewater sector, technologies from Hollandand Germany were ranked high, followed by products fromAustria and France. German and American technologies werebest rated in the waste sector, while German and Scandinaviantechnologies were highly rated in the energy sector. Finally,American, German, and Scandinavian products were evaluatedhighly in the noise, vibration, and OHS sector.

No single foreign company dominates on the Sloveneenvironmental market. The highest number of foreign firmswere active in the air, water and wastewater sectors, followedby the waste sector. German firms seem to hold the lead insupplying Slovenia’s environmental technologies in terms ofboth quantity and quality. However, Austrian and Americansuppliers are close behind, and considerably ahead of thosefirms 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 qualityproduct at competitive Western prices, moreso because a lim-ited environmental technology industry exists in Slovenia.

6.2 MethodologyThe information presented in this report was obtained

from interviews with the experts and senior staff from 37Slovene environmental businesses, R&D institutions, govern-mental agencies, and other organizations. The interviews wereheld between Oct. 15 and Nov. 15, 1996. Experts were select-ed on the basis of information provided from the followingsources:

INFOLINK—Center for Information System, Chamber ofCommerce, Republic of Slovenia

PIRS—Business Directory of the Republic of Slovenia

List of environmental businesses in Slovenia provided bythe Regional Environmental Center

Researchers’ own personal contacts.

Of the 70 organizations identified as potential candidatesfor this survey, only 37 were eventually interviewed, the mainreason for this being that information on environmental busi-nesses in Slovenia is not regularly updated and therefore a sig-nificant number of companies had already ceased to exist.Furthermore, another survey, also undertaken by the REC, wasin progress at the same time. For this reason, many environ-mental professionals expressed reluctance to spend time oninterviews that primarily served foreign companies interestedin business opportunities and becoming active on theSlovenian market.

The list of interviewed experts (with correspondenceaddresses) is provided in Section 6.8.

The organizations were selected on the basis of their pri-mary area of expertise in order to ensure that all areas of envi-ronmental technology were evenly represented within the sur-vey. Several organizations were involved in different and mul-tiple areas of environmental technology or R&D, thus resultingin a varying number of responses in different areas during theinterviews. In addition, attention was also given to the properbalance of organizations from all major cities and regions ofSlovenia, and to the participation of public institutions and pri-vate organizations involved in the environmental technologybusiness or in R&D.

Most of the organizations interviewed in this survey wereestablished before 19918, with only seven being established

after Slovenia had declared independence. This is partly dueto the fact that many of those established after 1991 provideenvironmental services rather than technology and, as such,did not fit into the profile of organizations desired for inter-view. In addition, many newly established organizations hadalready 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 thesurvey (eight) might seem relatively small. However, it wasintended to include only those organizations that really pro-vided environmental technologies to the marketplace — notjust consulting services. In fact, there are very few such orga-nizations in Slovenia. Under the “environmental business”classification, only seven firms were identified. The number oforganizations classified as “other” is, however, relatively large.This is because many organizations whose environmentalfunction is only a small part of the activities of the larger orga-nization or is just an additional source of income were alsoincluded. A typical example of such an organization is theInstitute of Public Health, which is practically the only organi-zation dealing with problems related to noise, vibration, andindustrial health and safety.

The size of those organizations surveyed with respect tothe 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 thesmall, medium-size, and large categories was fairly even — therewere 11-12 organizations in each category based on the numberof employees: fewer than 10, between 10 and 100, and morethan 100 employees, respectively. In the breakdown presented,the 11 largest organizations were divided into two groups to indi-cate the fraction of companies with over 700 employees. Thiscan be considered particularly large for the Slovene businesscommunity. It should be pointed out that, in cases where subdi-visions of organizations could be clearly identified as performingenvironmental activities, only the size of the subdivision wastaken into account, and not the whole organization.

Based on the size of income, as declared by the respon-dents, the organizations were distributed in the following way:

small . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%

medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%

large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

Interestingly, on the basis of annual environmental rev-enues, most organizations with anywhere from 10 to 700employees classified themselves as medium-sized. In actualnumbers, 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 asmuch 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.

large organizations reported an income from environmentalactivities of less than USD 1 million. This points to a relativelylow percentage of revenue generation from environmentalbusiness activity within medium-sized and large organizations.It must be noted, however, that not all the organizations werewilling to provide information concerning their income.

Organizations from almost all regions of Slovenia weresurveyed, including:

capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%

major cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%

small towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%

Rural or less developed areas are not included in the abovetable, since there are actually very few environmental businessactivities there. Any environmental activities in those areastend to be run by companies from other major cities whichwere included in the survey. While the major cities and small-er towns are evenly represented, the relatively large number oforganizations from the capital city of Ljubljana was due to thefact that all major research institutions and government agen-cies surveyed were located in the capital.

As shown in Table 6.2, over two-thirds of the activities ofthe majority of organizations are conducted at a national level.Conversely, the share of international activities was below onethird for most organizations. Smaller organizations and organi-zations from smaller towns were the ones primarily involvedin local activities. Most organizations were involved in a mix-ture of operations — only three organizations operated just atthe local level, while only two organizations were found tooperate at the international level.

Sectoral activities are well spread among the most signifi-cant environmental fields in Slovenia, as shown in the break-down 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, distort-ed by the fact that some large companies are active in severalareas. This is particularly the case for “other” activities, underwhich respondents most frequently included environmental riskassessment and consulting, which can be relevant to all areasand not to any specific environmental technology. Radiationprotection related activities were also classified in this category.

6.3 Overview of the MarketWith a population of 2 million and an area of 20,200 sq.km

(7,800 sq.mi., slightly larger than New Jersey), Slovenia is asmall country by Central European standards.

In general, Slovenia’s environment fares relatively well incomparison with many other CEE countries, and there are noparticular environmental disaster areas. Surface and ground-water pollution, acid rain, and transboundary air pollutionfrom neighboring countries are the main environmental prob-lems experienced.

The quality of surface and groundwater has deterioratedover the past few decades mainly due to discharges of untreat-ed municipal and industrial wastewater, agricultural run-off,and pollution caused by the numerous industrial and munici-pal waste disposal sites. The quality of drinking water is gen-erally poor, and only a small proportion of wastewater is treat-

ed. Improvements (and investments) in the sector are expect-ed over the next few years.

In the context of air pollution, the energy sector has beenthe main area of concern, and high priority has been given toflue gas desulfurization at power plants. In 1994, air pollutioncontrol programs accounted for more than 70 percent ofnational environmental spending. Although many improve-ment projects have since been successfully implemented,power plants and increasing urban traffic are still the mainsources of air pollution, especially around Ljubljana. Pollutionfrom the transport sector is a growing issue and acid rain hasalso become a problem.

There are also growing problems related to poor wastemanagement, and soil pollution caused by the extensive use ofpesticides and fertilizers. Waste management is an area of par-ticular concern because of the growing amount of industrialand municipal waste generated, and because of the contami-nation caused by leaching from unregulated and illegal dumpsites. Hazardous waste management, and management ofradioactive wastes are high priority areas.

There exists a high level of public awareness and a strongenvironmental NGO sector in Slovenia. However, most envi-ronmental decisions made in the past were based mainly onpolitical grounds, without a comprehensive strategy or direc-tion. The National Environmental Protection Program, current-ly under preparation, should help focus environmental efforts.Priority capital investments, the introduction of more compre-hensive and viable environmental policies and legislation, andimproved enforcement of regulations and institutionalimprovements are among those issues needing to beaddressed in the near future.

Environmental AdministrationThe Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning,

responsible for regulatory measures and control, is the mainbody in charge of environmental protection in Slovenia.

Within the Ministry there are several agencies with differenttasks related to the environment. The Nature ProtectionAuthority is responsible for environmental policy implementa-tion and permitting, with a range of duties including the han-dling of waste, water management, management of public ser-vices, provision of information services, technical assistance tothe Environmental Development Fund, etc. The Authority’sWater Management Department consists of eight subdivisions,one for each major watershed, while its Nature ProtectionDepartment has seven regional offices which operate as tech-nical supervisory bodies to local authorities. The Office forPhysical Planning is responsible for land use and planning,including urban and regional development and the supervisionof land-use development plans undertaken by local authorities.

The Inspectorate for Environment and Physical Planningsupervises the implementation of environmental regulations,



Scope of Operations Local National International

Less than one-third 9 7 19of overall activities

Between one-third 4 6 2and two-thirds

More than two-thirds 5 15 2

Note: The breakdown presents the number of organizations indicating agiven share of their overall activity at different levels (i.e., local, national,and international scope of operations)

TABLE 6.2: GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF OPERATIONSOF ORGANIZATIONS SURVEYED

oversees water resources management, and regulates physicalplanning and house building activities. The Inspectorate hasnine regional offices responsible for environmental inspection,and twelve offices responsible for physical planning.

Within the structure of the Ministry of Environment thereare also other institutions with environmental responsibilities,including: the Geophysics Administration, the Surveying andMapping Authority, the Nuclear Safety Administration, and theHydro-Meteorogical Institute.

The administration of environmental regulations inSlovenia is carried out both at the national level and at thelocal level (through 147 municipalities). The main function oflocal authorities related to the environment include setting reg-ulatory policy concerning the protection of air, soil, and waterresources on the local level (local regulations can be morestringent than the national) and the provision of public ser-vices, including the regulation and maintenance of water andpower supply facilities; the collection and disposal of munici-pal waste; protection against excessive noise, and the preser-vation of local natural and cultural monuments. No environ-mental administration takes place on the regional level,although there are 58 regional administrative units whichoperate between the national and the local authorities, andwhich perform some local administration tasks.

Finally, there are several independent or semi-independentscientific institutes that play some role in environmental pro-tection. These include the Josef Stefan Institute, the WaterManagement Institute, and the National Chemical Institute.

Environmental FinancingEnvironmental expenditures in Slovenia are financed

mainly through the budget of local governments and munici-palities, the state budget, the Environmental DevelopmentFund (or EcoFund), and spending from the private sector. Theannual expenditures can be roughly estimated as follows:

Budget of the Minstry of Environment — approx. USD 20million (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 mil-lion (although investment in flue gas desulfurization pro-jects worth some USD 100 million are being planned)

Municipal and private funds matching the contributionsfrom the Ministry of Environment — approx. USD 5 millionto 10 million.

Loans from the Environmental Development Fund —USD 10 million

An estimated USD 400 million is likely to be spent on envi-ronmental projects within the next three to seven years, basedon the received and approved requests (“reservations”) forlong-term funding support for environmental protection pro-grams submitted (before July 4, 1995) to the Ministry ofEnvironment and Physical Planning by different companiesduring the process of privatization.

Contributions from municipal budgets are also a signifi-cant source of environmental funding although rather difficultto estimate.

Co-funding of environmental investments is a commonscheme in Slovenia. Under the arrangement, the governmentsupports environmental projects undertaken by businesseswith up to 30 percent of the total investment. Projects areissued based on a public tender. Between 1991 and 1994,annual co-funding increased from USD 1.7 million to USD 4million. The main condition for the co-funding of any projectis that it must ensure the direct reduction of emissions.

It is expected that environmental investments from the pri-vate sector will increase significantly due to provisions in the

privatization law that allows companies to reduce their assetvalue by reserving long-term funds for investment in environ-mental protection.

The PHARE Programme is one of the biggest contributorsof foreign funding in Slovenia, with more than USD 100 mil-lion in grants disbursed since 1992. However, only a part ofthis amount was related to environmental projects, such as theconstruction of wastewater treatment plants and sewerage net-works, conversion of domestic heaters, industrial sanitationand coastal management programs. Additional sources offinance included loans from the EBRD (e.g. a wastewater treat-ment plant in Maribor, currently under preparation) and theWorld Bank, which co-financed the conversion of domesticand small commercial heaters from coal to natural gas. Furtherdonors include the governments of Austria, France, theNetherlands, and the UK, all of which support various pro-grams in the public and private sector.

Environmental Legislation and EnforcementThe fundamental legal instrument governing environmen-

tal protection in Slovenia is the 1993 Environmental ProtectionAct, covering most important environmental activities. The Actserves as a framework law for other legal instruments, such asdirectives, regulations, and standards which are preparedwithin different levels of government.

The major state bodies involved in preparing environmen-tal legislation are the Parliament, which passes basic legisla-tion; the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning; theEnvironmental Protection Council; the Nature ProtectionAgency established within the Ministry of Environment, andlocal authorities, dealing with environmental protection issuesat the local level.

The general structure of environmental legislation reflectsthe pattern of the Slovenian legal system. Its hierarchy of legalsources begins with the Constitution, followed by basic envi-ronmental legislation (i.e., the 1993 Environmental ProtectionAct) and subordinate regulations and decrees covering indi-vidual sectors. The legislative framework related to air andwater pollution is already in place. Although the governmenthas recently adopted a waste strategy, the legislation coveringwaste management is still missing. Moreover, legislation con-cerning the implementation and enforcement of existing regu-lations is lagging behind. Although Slovenian officials areputting great effort into harmonizing national environmentallegislation with EU standards, many gaps still exist, especiallyin sectoral and enforcement legislation.

The levels of compliance are still below EU standards inmany key areas, such as the industrial and energy sectors, orin the management of municipal and hazardous waste. Thecountry’s efforts to enforce compliance have focused mainlyon air pollution control and water quality protection, and haveneglected many important areas.

In the future, more attention will have to be paid to intro-ducing air, waste and water regulations, to the IntegratedPollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) directive, and to estab-lishing funding sources for environmental protection projects.

TOTAL COUNTRY SPENDING ONENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Table 6.3 presents national environmental expenditures inSlovenia over the period 1994-1996.

Total spending on environmental protection in Slovenia wasapproximately 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 rangedbetween USD 146.6 and 150.4 million during the given period.

The breakdown of environmental expenditures by mediain 1994 is shown in Table 6.4. Air protection projects account-



ed for the largest share of national expenditures (71 percent ofthe total). In contrast to the other surveyed countries, wastemanagement related projects accounted for a significant pro-portion of the total spending (18 percent), followed by waterand wastewater activities (9 percent).

Media-specific figures for 1995 and 1996 were not availablebecause of ongoing reorganization at the Slovenian StatisticalOffice. However, a new system to track environmental spend-ing has been devised, and is expected to be introduced in 1998.

An increase in environmental expenditures can be expect-ed over the next few years as a result of efforts to improve com-pliance with environmental legislation and policy which isincreasingly being harmonized with EU standards. Accordingto a 1997 study prepared for the EU “Assessing the Costs of CEEApproximation with EU Environmental Directives,” the annualcosts of compliance in the major environmental sectors (air,wastewater and waste) are estimated to exceed USD 152 mil-lion in Slovenia. The bulk of this amount is expected to bespent on purchasing new environmental technologies and onupgrading old systems, and will come in part from improvedenforcement of regulations and collection of fees and fines.

Country Spending on Environmental TechnologiesComprehensive and reliable information on total country

spending on environmental technologies in Slovenia is notavailable, as it is not centrally tracked. However, spending onenvironmental technologies in projects co-financed by theMinistry of Environment in 1994 is shown in Table 6.5. The fig-ures are obtained from the Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning Report on the Status of Environment in 1995.

It should be noted that the figure of USD 20 million pre-sented in Table 6.5 only refers to projects co-financed by theMinistry of Environment. Spending from other sources (e.g.other ministries, municipal budgets, private companies, etc.)has not been included.

The Environmental Business SectorAnother relevant characteristic of the environmental market

is the turnover of environmental businesses. Based on the 1997REC survey of the environmental business sector in Slovenia,there may be as many as 250 companies providing a wide rangeof environmental services and technologies.

The REC survey included 121 environmental companies.The combined 1995 turnover of the 95 companies of the 121which responded to the question on turnover amounted toUSD 87 million. As shown in Table 6.6, the Slovenian environ-mental market is geared primarily toward providing technicalservices (40 percent of revenues). The next major source ofincome was manufacturing of environmental technologies (26percent), 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 aNational Environmental Protection Program (NEPP) be devel-oped, setting out the goals, guidelines, and strategies for envi-ronmental protection and the use of natural resources for thenext ten years. While the NEPP has yet to be finalized andimplemented, two distinct sets of activities have been identifiedwhich will be implemented over periods of five years each. Thefirst period is to be dedicated to the preservation of nature andnatural resources, as well as the reduction of the impacts ofhuman activities. The focus during the second period will be onthe implementation of sound environmental technologies.

The NEPP should in particular cover: (i) environmentalstress and its impact on the health of the population; (ii) theassessment of the state of the environment and naturalresources, and the risks to which they are exposed; (iii) longterm projections of environmental trends and conditions; (iv)attainable goals and methods for their realization; (v) the nec-essary financial means for achieving the goals set; (vi) prioritytasks and projects; (vii) analysis of expected costs and benefits;and (viii) guidelines for the technical development of environ-mental protection activities and public services. The NEPP



Category 1994

Air 3.3

Water 12.5

Waste 4.0

Energy 0.2

Noise and vibration 0

Total 20.0

TABLE 6.5: SPENDING ON ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES IN SLOVENIA (MLN USD)

Activity % of Revenues

Technical Services 40%

Environmental Technologies 26%

Testing, Monitoring, and Laboratory Services 15%

Other (non-media specific) 19%

Source: REC, The Emerging Environmental Market, 1997

TABLE 6.6: BREAKDOWN OF THE REVENUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESSES IN SLOVENIA

BY ACTIVITY, 1995

Media Mln USD Share of Total

Air 104.8 71%

Water and wastewater 13.3 9%

Waste 26.6 18%

Other 3.0 2%

Total 147.6 100%

Source: The Statistical Yearbook of Slovenia, 1995

TABLE 6.4: BREAKDOWN OF ENVIRONMENTALEXPENDITURES BY MEDIA, 1994

Environmental Year Expenditures Share of GDP

1994 146.6 1.0%

1995 150.4 0.8%

1996 (estimated) 147.6 0.8%

Source: IMAD Spring Report 1997, based on data collected from theStatistical Office of the RS, Ministry of Finance, EcoFund of the Republicof Slovenia, and IMAD estimates

TABLE 6.3: ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES IN SLOVENIA, 1994-1996 (MLN USD)

should be divided into global, national, regional and localfields of activity, and is expected to include short, medium, andlong-term policy targets together with a list of the major envi-ronmental problems facing the country. The NEPP also focusesattention on the conditions necessary for its effective imple-mentation, including the expected costs, which are estimatedto be about 1.5 percent of GDP annually (currently standing atapproximately 0.8 percent of GDP).

While it is not expected that the NEPP will be adoptedbefore 1998, the following priority areas were identified in theMinistry of Environment 1995 Environmental Report as need-ing urgent attention:

protecting inland and ground water quality with appropri-ate wastewater treatment and discharge control, and waterresource protection;

waste disposal and treatment, including the developmentof an integrated strategy, remediation and clean up ofexisting landfills, reducing waste generation and increas-ing the levels of recycling, and measures in the field ofindustrial and special waste management;

coordinating environmental protection with existing prac-tices in the European Union;

introducing environmental protection into individual sec-tor policies and determining the measures for monitoringtheir enforcement; and

establishing an information system for environmental pro-tection and a coordinated system for collection of environ-mental data.

It is interesting to note that the focus on water protectionand waste management is well reflected in the breakdown ofthe environmental revenues of the environmental businesssector in Slovenia. The breakdown by media, based on theREC survey, is presented in Table 6.7.

According to the survey, water and wastewater relatedactivities, and waste-related activities each generated 30 per-cent of total revenues. These were followed by air-related andenergy-related activities, which generated nine percent andseven percent of revenues, respectively. Non-media specificrevenues (e.g. EIA, environmental planning, industrial safetyand noise control, introduction of Environmental ManagementSystems, etc.) amounted to 24 percent of the total.

Priorities of the Environmental Development Fund (EcoFund)

In 1993, under the Environmental Protection Act, theEnvironmental Development Fund of Slovenia (hereafter, theEcoFund) was established, with an initial capital of USD100,000. In 1994 the capital was increased to USD 15.5 millionthrough the transfer of repayment and interest from 277 loanspreviously administered by the Ministry of Environment.

Although the EcoFund has been fully operational since1995, 1996 was the first year of significant financial turnover.Total revenues in 1996 amounted to USD 13.9 million, whileexpenditures amounted to USD 10.3 million. Table 6.8 pre-sents information on the financial activities of the Fund.

The revenues of the EcoFund include budgetary contribu-tions, 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 priva-tization programs, and loan repayments from projects previ-ously awarded by the Ministry of Environment.

The Slovenian EcoFund is generally regarded as one of thebest funds of this type in Central and Eastern Europe. TheFund operates as a non-profit financial organization providingsoft 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 theEnvironmental Protection Act, and include air pollution abate-ment, phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, municipalinfrastructure development, and programs for the reduction ofindustrial pollution. Table 6.9 presents the breakdown of theFund’s expenditures by media.

As shown in Table 6.9, in 1996, 57 percent of the Fund’sexpenditures were allocated to air pollution reduction pro-grams, 29 percent to water-related activities, and 14 percent towaste management projects. As for the recipients, the largestproportion of the expenditures (46 percent) was awarded toprivate individuals in supporting conversion to cleaner domes-tic heating systems based on natural gas. Thirty-two percent ofexpenditures 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 worthUSD 4.5 million to municipalities and municipal service com-panies for wastewater treatment, waste management, and con-struction of water, sewage, and gas pipelines. In 1996, theFund awarded USD 7 million in loans to companies for air andwater pollution reduction projects, and for programs to phaseout ozone-depleting substances. In May 1996, the Fundobtained a USD 20 million loan from the World Bank for air



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 6.7: BREAKDOWN OF REVENUES OFENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESSES IN SLOVENIA

BY MEDIA, 1995

Year 1994 1995 1996 (estimate)

Total Revenues 1.2 10.5 13.9

Total Expenditures - 0.6 10.3

Source: The Slovenian Environmental Development Fund, 1997

TABLE 6.8: REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OFTHE ECOFUND, 1994-1996 (USD MILLION)

Year 1995 1996 (estimate)

Air 100% 57%

Water and wastewater – 29%

Waste – 14%

Source: The Slovenian Environmental Development Fund, 1997

TABLE 6.9: BREAKDOWN OF THE EXPENDITURESOF THE ECOFUND BY MEDIA

pollution projects, and a further USD 3.5 million loan to set upthe Geo Information Center. Currently, the PHARE programmeis considering awarding the Slovenian Fund a grant of ECU 5million for further environmental investments.

The main problems still facing the Fund, however, are thelack of capital and high interest rates, pegged 6 percent abovethe rate of inflation. Another problem commonly noted bybusinesses is the large amount of time necessary to process afunding application.


The major environmental problems in Slovenia noted bysurvey respondents are listed in Table 6.10. Within each cate-gory, the problems are shown in order of importance, asrevealed by the survey. The seven most important environ-mental problems (based on the number of occasions eachproblem was listed) are as follows:

Inadequate waste disposal sites (now requiring remedia-tion) and the need for new waste disposal sites

Pollution of surface and groundwater by municipal andindustrial wastewater

Pollution of potable water sources from agriculture

Air pollution from industrial furnaces and household fire-places

Air pollution from industry due to the lack of flue gascleaning facilities

Air pollution from traffic

Accumulation of hazardous waste requiring treatment andremoval.

Other environmental problems listed in Table 6.10 wereattributed much less importance by the interviewed experts.

It is necessary to stress that while using the number of cita-tions as a measure of the importance of a particular problemmight not accurately reflect the actual importance of problems,the seven major environmental problems in Slovenia thatemerged from the survey are consistent with the priorities set by




Air 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

Water Pollution of surface and groundwater by municipal and industrial wastewaters Nova Gorica, Celje,(construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants) (next 15-20 years) Krsko, Ljubljana,

Maribor, other cities

Protection and remediation of drinking water sources1 affected by agricultural Ljubljana, Maribor, activities (next 10 years) 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

Waste Inadequate waste disposal sites requiring remediation and/or need for new waste Nationaldisposal sites (next 10 years)

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

Energy Use of low-quality fuels for heating (coal, crude oil) (next 5 years) National

Noise and Noise from industry and traffic (continuing) Celje and Nova Vibration2 Gorica region

Occupational exposure (continuing) Nova Gorica region

1 Environmental problems related to the protection and remediation of drinking water resources are primarily associated with pollution by nitrates and pes-ticides 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, aswell as those of occupational exposure, are actually important in all urban and industrialized areas of Slovenia.

TABLE 6.10: MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN SLOVENIA



Organization Projects in Progress or Foreseen

Institut “Jozef Stefan” Cleaning of flue gases(Jozef Stefan Institute) Closing and decommissioning of Slovenia’s uranium mine

Reuse of solid waste generated in flue gas desulfurization projects

Kemijski Institut Treatment of municipal and industrial wastewater(National Institute of Chemistry) Restructuring of chemical factories

Elektroinstitut “Milan Vidmar” 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 Improved waste management in Slovenia(Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning)

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 Study of the impact of combustion processes on environmental pollutionStrojnistvo (University of Maribor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering)

Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za Exploitation of solar energyStrojnistvo, Center za Energetske in Reduction of noise in household appliancesEkoloske Tehnologije (University of Combustion of biomassLjubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Energy and Environmental Technologies)

Iskra Avtoelektrika d.d. 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. Production of natural coverings for site remediation and protection against erosion

Humization of coconut waste

Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo Celje Sanitation program for wastewater in Celje(Institute of Public Health Celje)

Klima Celja d.o.o. Production of dust filters (for export) Ventilation and heating systems

DEPS - Sistemi za Zascito Narave Development of software packages for wastewater monitoring(Systems for Environmental Protection) Directory and mapping of unauthorized waste disposal sites in the

Ruse municipality Modeling of water streams at monitoring stations

Raci d.o.o. 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

TABLE 6.11: CURRENT OR PLANNED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning9, namely theprotection of ground and surface waters by appropriate treat-ment of wastewater, and protection of water resources. It alsoconforms to the Ministry’s waste management strategy, whichincludes remediation of existing disposal sites, minimization andrecycling of wastes, and proper hazardous waste management.

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS INPROGRESS

The most important environmental problems and prioritiesin Slovenia are well reflected in the involvement of variousorganizations in current or planned environmental projects.These are listed in Table 6.11.

Based on the findings in the last two sections, it appearsthat the areas presenting the most business opportunities inSlovenia are the protection of ground and surface waters (e.g.appropriate treatment of wastewater) and waste managementactivities, including the remediation of existing disposal sites,minimization and recycling of wastes, and programs improv-ing hazardous waste management. It should also be noted thatwhile the share of air pollution control projects in overall envi-ronmental expenditures has been declining, in terms of actualfigures the sector is still important.

Also, while the energy-related part of the environmentalmarket is not explored in great depth in this report, in the midterm the sector will account for a large amount of environ-mental expenditures.

Overall, Slovenia offers a diverse range of opportunitiesfor environmental technology businesses, however, few ofthose opportunities, it seems, will result in large projects.


Generally, very few effective formal channels exist inSlovenia that offer information on environmental businessopportunities. The most frequently mentioned source of infor-mation for business opportunities named by the interviewedexperts was the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia(Uradni list RS) where all environmental and other 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 6.11 (CONTINUED): CURRENT OR PLANNED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

Source of Information Respondents (%)


Environmental Ministry 70%


Daily press 61%

Direct mail 57%


Local authorities/municipalities 54%


Chambers of Commerce 43%



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


Publication Readership (% of Respondents)

Okolje 16%

Gospodarjenje z Odpadki 13%

Environmental Science and Technology 6%

Gea 6%

Umwelt 5%


TABLE 6.13: MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS

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.

financed fully or in part by governmental agencies and min-istries are announced as calls for proposals (with full terms ofreference). It is important to note that the great majority ofinvestments in environmental technologies in Slovenia are part-ly financed by the government and therefore require announce-ment in the public media. Other significant sources listed by sur-vey respondents included personal contacts, participation infairs and exhibitions, and information from the media.

For comparison, Table 6.12 presents the breakdown of majorinformation sources, based on the REC’s 1997 survey of 121 envi-ronmental businesses in Slovenia. According to the survey, per-sonal and professional contacts, the Ministry of Environment,and participation in fairs and trade shows are the primarysources of information on environmental business opportunities.Daily press, direct mail, information from local authorities, andparticipation in conferences are among other important sourceslisted. Interestingly, professional associations and chambers ofcommerce are not seen as major information sources or as effec-tive lobbying groups for the environmental business sector.

Tables 6.13 and 6.14 present the main environmental andbusiness publications read by environmental professionals inSlovenia. As can be noted from the tables, environmental publi-cations reach a very limited audience, with only two publicationsreaching more than one in seven environmental professionals.The situation is somewhat better with business publications andthe daily press, where Delo and Gospodarski Vestnik reach a sub-stantial proportion of environmental professionals.

Although announcements of environmental projects are alsomade in daily newspapers, personal contacts frequently tend tobe more reliable, and often faster, information sources.

The role of environmental and trade associations inSlovenia is considered to be quite low, as shown in Table 6.15.The limited membership also reflects the fact that, as noted ear-lier, the associations are not seen as effective representatives oras a useful source of information for business opportunities.

On the other hand, several fairs give the opportunity to thebuyers of environmental technologies to obtain informationon state-of-the-art products. The most important environment-related fairs in Slovenia are listed in Table 6.16.


Among the 37 interviewed experts, 19 had previous expe-rience in buying environmental technologies. The informationsources they used when looking to purchase technologies arelisted below. The number in brackets represents the numberof respondents indicating a particular source.

Previous contacts with a supplier (7)

Specialized journals (7)

Foreign fairs (7)

Representatives of suppliers (6)

Domestic fairs (4)

Directories (4)

Conferences (2)

Internet (2)

Catalogues (2)



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%


TABLE 6.14: MAIN BUSINESS PUBLICATIONSAND NEWSPAPERS

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 3%Urban Planners

Ecological Association of Slovenia 3%


TABLE 6.15: MOST IMPORTANT PROFESSIONALASSOCIATIONS


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 technol-ogy. The other fairs listed cover specialized areas of environmental technology.

TABLE 6.16: IMPORTANT FAIRS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCERS AND BUYERS IN SLOVENIA

When the buyers needed information on available envi-ronmental technologies, they most frequently relied on previ-ous contacts with suppliers, on information provided in differ-ent journals (e.g. Environmental Technology, andInternational Labmate) or on information obtained at fairs inother countries (e.g. ACHEMA in Frankfurt).

The representatives of technology suppliers are also animportant source of information in Slovenia. Due to thealready described system of financing of environmental pro-jects, including the purchase of environmental technologies,all organizations seeking financial support from governmentalagencies must tender their need for a supplier of a particularequipment or technology in the public media. Informationprovided by suppliers in response to such announcementssometimes serves as a source of information on the availableenvironmental technologies.

Domestic fairs and various directories are used less fre-quently as sources of information. Other sources rarely usedinclude the Internet, catalogues, and information provided atspecialized conferences.

IMPORTANT CONTACT POINTS FORENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES

The most significant contact points for environmental pro-ject opportunities are listed in Table 6.17.

The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning shouldserve as the most important point of contact for environmen-tal project opportunities in Slovenia. However, the informationprovided to interested organizations often seems to be insuffi-cient, serving large public institutions well but not small busi-nesses. Many small organizations (which were unable to pro-vide contact persons in the questionnaire) clearly therefore

rely on information obtained from the Official Gazette of theRepublic of Slovenia, from the public media, or from otherministries that cover their particular area of interest.

6.5 Demand for EnvironmentalTechnologiesDEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES— OVERVIEW

Overall, the demand for environmental technologies inSlovenia was moderate compared with the other surveyedcountries, with only a handful of technologies in high demand.However, when interpreting the results, one should bear inmind that the overall state of the environment is not as poor asin other countries of the region, and that some important envi-ronmental problems have already been solved in recent years.Moreover, Slovenia was also open to modern Western tech-nologies well before 1990.

Demand for air-related technologies was moderate.Growth in demand was expected for technologies related to airsampling and laboratory analysis equipment for gaseous emis-sions and ambient air, for those technologies used in emissionabatement and cleaner production, and for air pollution controland flue gas purification equipment. However, the sector stillaccounts for the largest share of environmental expenditures.

Demand for water and wastewater technologies was alsomoderate, with growth tendencies expected for technologiesrelating to the treatment of industrial wastewater.Technologies likely to be in increasing demand includedequipment for the monitoring, sampling and laboratory analy-



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


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


Chamber of Commerce, Slovenska cesta 41, 1000 Ljubljana Andreja Jerina, (386-61) 125-0122

ENERGY


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

TABLE 6.17: IMPORTANT CONTACT POINTS FOR ENVIRONMENTALPROJECT OPPORTUNITIES IN SLOVENIA

sis of industrial wastewater, and for instrumentation, processcontrol and software for industrial wastewater treatment. Somegrowth in demand was also expected for those technologiesrelating to pollution prevention and waste minimization inindustrial wastewater treatment and drinking water supply.

Waste management was the only area where high demandfor environmental technologies was identified, with technolo-gies related to radioactive and hazardous waste in highestdemand. Specifically, high demand was identified for tech-nologies for waste disposal, and waste prevention/minimiza-tion for radioactive waste; those technologies relating to recy-cling and resource recovery from industrial waste; and forequipment for landfill disposal of hazardous waste. Increasing

demand was expected for technologies which could be usedfor recycling and resource recovery (including those for com-posting and biomass conversion) for municipal waste man-agement; equipment for landfill disposal of industrial andmunicipal waste; and technologies relating to pollution pre-vention and waste minimization for hazardous and industrialwaste. Other technologies where demand was expected to riseincluded those for spillage control and decontamination fromradioactive waste; and equipment for collection, transporta-tion and storage of municipal waste.

Demand for energy-related technologies was moderate.Higher demand for energy-related technologies was expectedin the “energy and power generation sector” than in “otherindustrial sectors.” Growing demand was noted for alternative(non-CFC) refrigerants, while other areas where demand wasexpected to increase included technologies for heat recoveryand energy savings (e.g. insulation) in the energy sector; newand efficient energy and heat generation systems; and retro-fitting and rehabilitation of existing energy systems in bothpower generation and other industrial sectors. Alternative orrenewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, andsolar) were deemed other possible growth areas.

Demand for technologies related to noise, vibration, andoccupational health and safety was low to moderate, with somegrowth 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 ahandful of technologies, including those for the inspection andreconditioning of existing supply and collection networks fordrinking water, and water recycling and reuse for drinkingwater and municipal wastewater.

DEMAND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIESBY SECTOR

The following tables summarize the responses to the ques-tion on demand for specific environmental technologies.

The following scale was used in ranking: 5 – highest, andwith rapidly growing demand, 4 – high demand, likely to grow,






Air pollution control/flue gas — 3.4 (11)purification equipment (e.g. filters and scrubbers)

Gas-detection/warning devices 3.3 (5) 2.8 (5)

Emission abatement/cleaner — 3.5 (9)production (e.g. low-emission burners)

Instrumentation and process — 3.3 (9)control/software

Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 air sampling/laboratory analysis (ambient air and gaseous emissions); #2 emissionabatement/cleaner production (gaseous emissions); #3 Air pollution con-trol/flue gas purification equipment (gaseous emissions).

Note: The standard deviation for figures is 0.4 to 0.8.

TABLE 6.18: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — AIR

Surface and Potable Municipal Industrial Groundwater Water Wastewater Wastewater

Monitoring 2.9 (14) 3.0 (12) 3.2 (14) 3.6 (14)


Construction of collection/supply networks — 2.3 (8) 2.9 (9) 2.8 (8)

Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and — 2.8 (8) 3.0 (8) 2.8 (8)collection networks

Standard physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes — 2.9 (7) 3.1 (11) 3.1 (12)

Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. ultraviolet/ozonation, — — 2.9 (10) 3.0 (10)activated carbon phosphate removal, and reverse osmosis)

Sludge treatment and disposal — — 3.1 (10) 2.9* (9)


Water recycling and reuse — 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, processcontrol/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.

TABLE 6.19: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — WATER AND WASTEWATER

3 – moderate slowly growing demand, 2 – low demand, will notgrow, 1 – very low and decreasing demand, blank – no opinion.Figures in cells show the average score, while those in brack-ets represent the number of responses.

AirEven though the sector still accounts for the largest share of

national environmental expenditures, overall demand for air-related technologies was moderate, as shown by Table 6.18.

Growth in demand was expected for technologies related toair sampling and laboratory analysis equipment for bothgaseous emissions and ambient air; those technologies for emis-sion abatement and cleaner production (e.g. the use of naturalgas as source of energy); and equipment for air pollution con-trol and flue gas purification (e.g. filters, scrubbers, etc.).

In the researcher’s opinion, demand for technology relat-ed to the monitoring and analysis of air can be associated withSlovenia’s recent revision of laws that now define the highestpermitted values of emitted pollutants and which require con-stant monitoring of emissions into the environment.

Also, when interpreting the apparent low demand for air-related environmental technologies, one has to be aware ofthe fact that some important environmental problems relatedto air pollution have already been solved in Slovenia. Forexample, a flue gas desulfurization unit was installed at Sostanjthermoelectric power plant (another desulfurization unit isunder preparation), and natural gas has been widely intro-duced as the domestic heating source.

Water and WastewaterGenerally, demand for water and wastewater technologies

was moderate. As shown in Table 6.19, expected growth ten-dencies are mainly limited to technologies related to the treat-ment of industrial wastewater.

Technologies in increasing demand included equipmentfor the monitoring, sampling and laboratory analysis of indus-trial wastewater, and for instrumentation, process control andsoftware for industrial wastewater treatment. Some growth in

demand was also expected for those technologies relating topollution prevention and waste minimization in industrialwastewater treatment and drinking water supply facilities.

As with air related technologies, demand for equipmentrelated to monitoring and analysis of wastewater is driven bythe recent revision of laws that now define the highest permit-ted values of discharged pollutants, and which require con-stant monitoring of emissions into the environment.

It is necessary to note that the ongoing privatization of utili-ties is based upon the Public Utility Services Act (Official Gazette32/93). In the future the expected trend will be wastewater treat-ment plants to be established under the build-operate-transferscheme, whereby the private investor constructs and operatesthe plant for a specified number of years, after which the own-ership of the plant is transferred to the municipality.

Waste ManagementOverall, waste management was the only area where high

demand for environmental technologies was identified, withtechnologies related to radioactive and hazardous waste in high-est demand in this sector. Waste minimization and pollution pre-vention, resource recovery, and landfill disposal appeared to bepriority areas, as shown in Table 6.20. This corresponds wellwith 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 towaste disposal, and waste prevention minimization forradioactive waste; for those technologies relating to recyclingand resource recovery from industrial waste; and for equip-ment for the landfill disposal of hazardous waste.

Increasing demand was expected for technologies forrecycling and resource recovery (including those for compost-ing and biomass conversion) from municipal waste; equip-ment for landfill disposal of industrial and municipal waste;and technologies relating to pollution prevention and wasteminimization for hazardous and industrial waste. Other tech-nologies where demand was expected to rise included thosefor spillage control and decontamination from radioactive




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)

Site monitoring 2.9 (9) 3.1b (10) 3.0b (8) 3.5b (6)

Landfill disposal 3.7b (9) 3.8 (9) 4.0 (8) 4.6 (7)

Incineration 3.4 (7) 3.2 (9) 3.8 (8) —

Composting/biomass conversion 3.6 (9) 3.0b (5) — —


Recycling/resource recovery 3.9 (8) 4.0 (8) 3.2b (6) 3.0a (3)

Spillage control/decontamination 2.7b (10) 3.2 (9) 3.4b (8) 3.8a (5)

Site remediation/clean-up of contaminated land 3.4 (8) 3.4 (8) 3.4 (6) 3.4a (5)

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 collec-tion/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 theconstant 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 variesfrom 0.5 to 0.9.

TABLE 6.20: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — WASTE MANAGEMENT

waste; and equipment for collection, transportation and stor-age of municipal waste.

The high demand for technologies for disposal and mini-mization of radioactive waste can be attributed to the fact thatSlovenia must find sites for the disposal of radioactive waste inthe immediate future in order to maintain the operation of theKrsko Nuclear power plant. Since this has become somethingof a political issue, the results of the interviews are probablythe partial result of the impact of public opinion concerningthe problem of radioactive waste disposal in the country.

The already mentioned Public Utility Services Act of 1993has already had a strong impact on the waste managementsector. There are a number of Western (primarily Austrian)companies already operating in Slovenia, and they mostlybring waste management technology from their home country.

Finally, discussions are currently taking place at theMinistry of Environment concerning the construction of twolarge-scale incinerators for municipal waste. The issue is polit-ically sensitive, but if the project is approved, there will be sig-nificant demand for incineration technologies.

Energy Demand for energy-related technologies was moderate, as

can be seen in Table 6.21. Overall, interviewed experts indi-cated higher demand for energy-related technologies in the“energy and power generation sector” than in “other industri-al sectors.” However, high demand was not identified in anysingle technology class.

Surprisingly, and in contrast to all the other surveyed coun-tries in this publication, the most significant growth in demandin the energy sector was expected for alternative (non-CFC)

refrigerants. This is most likely due to the fact that Slovenianindustries have already undergone the restructuring of someproduction processes, such as the introduction of non-chloro-fluorocarbon coolants in the Gorenje factory (which is thelargest plant in the country) and at LTH Skofja Loka, the man-ufacturer of refrigerators in Slovenia.

Other areas where demand was expected to increaseincluded technologies for heat recovery and energy savings(e.g. insulation); and new and efficient energy and heat gen-eration systems, and retrofitting and rehabilitation of existing



Energy and Power Other Industrial Generation Sectors



Process management and control (e.g. boiler tune-up and fuel efficiency optimization) 3.4 (6) 3.0a (3)


Alternative/renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, biomass, and solar) 3.5 (6) 3.0a (4)



Technologies where demand is expected to rise: #1 Alternative refrigerants (non-cfc) (energy and power generation); #2 heat recovery and energy sav-ings (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 6.21: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — ENERGY

Noise and Vibration Occupational Health and Safety

Instrumentation, measurement, and control devices 3.3 (3) 3.3 (3)


Abatement (insulation and absorption) 2.8 (5) 3.0a (5)

Electromagnetic field exposure — 3.0b (4)

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.

TABLE 6.22: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN DEMAND — NOISE, VIBRATION, AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

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, heavyindustry, and mining

Waste Municipal waste management services, the chemical industry, the wood processing sector, heavy industry, and mining

Energy Municipal power generators and industryin general

Noise and Transport, industry, and miningVibration


energy systems in both the power generation and other indus-trial sectors. Some growth in demand was also expected foralternative or renewable energy systems (e.g. geothermal, bio-mass, and solar).

It is also interesting to note that only limited demand wasidentified for process management and control, and instru-mentation. These two areas were usually ranked high in theother 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 occupationalhealth and safety, the demand for protection equipment willlikely grow in the near future. This will mainly be caused bythe increased direct liability of employers for workers’ safety,and by the requirements related to health risk management inthe ISO-related certification process, which is already at anadvanced stage in Slovenia. Only limited growth in demandwas expected for the other technologies in this category.


The major end-users of environmental technologies inSlovenia identified by survey respondents are listed inTable 6.23.

In most technology categories, the municipal services,including municipal power generation, were indicated asmajor end-users of environmental technologies. In the air,water, and waste sectors, municipal services were followed byrelevant types of industries such as chemical, mining, wood,and food processing. As might be expected, the transportindustry and mining industry are the major users in the noiseand vibration sector. Industry in general is also an importantuser of environmental technologies related to energy.

The ranking of end-users by sector is affected by thedecrease of industrial production after 1991. During this peri-od, several factories ceased production owing to financialproblems resulting in a decrease in environmental pollution.In addition, some major environmental problems with theirorigins in industry have already been solved. Therefore, themajor 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 weak-nesses of foreign suppliers as revealed by the survey.Specifically, it presents Slovenian buyers’ preferences fordomestic and foreign suppliers, means of purchasing envi-ronmental technologies, and their strengths and weaknessesas well as barriers to buying environmental technologiesfrom abroad.

PURCHASING PREFERENCESTable 6.24 provides a summary of responses to the ques-

tion on purchasing preferences.Most experts (about two-thirds) rely on the use of best-

technology or best-practice criteria when making purchasingdecisions. Among most other participants in the survey, a pref-erence for domestic products prevails.

As indicated in Table 6.24, there is a slight preference forbuying foreign-manufactured environmental technologies

from domestic representatives compared with buying directlyfrom the producer abroad. A considerable number of organi-zations, however, combine both approaches. This depends toa great extent on the availability of domestic representativesfor a particular technology and on the quality of their service.


Table 6.25 presents a summary of responses to the ques-tion about the strengths of foreign environmental technolo-gies. It is worth noting that many respondents considered thisinformation confidential.

High product quality is considered the most importantstrength of foreign environmental technologies. Also amongthe most highly ranked qualities of foreign technologies arereliability and durability of products, and good value formoney. Available credits and funding from the country of ori-gin are obviously not very important. Also interesting is the



When making purchasing decisions, does yourorganization prefer to buy domestic or foreignenvironmental technologies?

Only use best-technology or best-practice criteria 70%

Prefer domestic products 21%

Prefer foreign products 9%

When buying foreign-manufactured environmentaltechnologies, do you buy from local representa-tives of foreign companies, or go directly to theproducer 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.

TABLE 6.24: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ON PURCHASING PREFERENCES

Within your area of expertise, what are thestrengths of foreign environmental technologiescompared 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 4%

Low price -

Note: Some companies considered this information confidential. Onlytwo-thirds of the interviewed experts answered the question on thestrengths of foreign products.

TABLE 6.25: STRENGTHS OF FOREIGNENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

fact that low price was never referred to as one of the strengthsof foreign environmental technologies.

Some experts (“other” in Table 6.25) also noted that a for-eign technology which had been verified by several users inother countries had an advantage over domestic products.Only a limited proportion of respondents regarded foreignenvironmental technologies as user-friendly, and easy to cus-tomize and adapt to specific local conditions.

Perhaps most importantly, only one in three respondentsconsidered the quality of after-sales service as a strength ofimported environmental technologies. Problems with ensuringprompt technical services and maintenance by authorized rep-resentatives were also ranked high among barriers to pur-chase, and was found to be almost as important as the highprice and lack of information on suppliers.


Table 6.26 presents a summary of responses to the ques-tion on the main barriers to buying environmental technolo-gies from abroad.

The preference for buying the best available technology inmany cases results in difficulties because of the relatively highcost of imported technologies. As evident from Table 6.25, thisis the second most important barrier to buying environmentaltechnologies from abroad, while the most important is the lackof reliable product information. Interestingly, Slovenia was theonly surveyed country from the region where the high price offoreign products was not the most significant barrier.

Other important barriers included the lack of authorizedtechnical services and maintenance, the scarcity of informationabout suppliers, and non-suitability of products to the localconditions and technical culture. Changing environmental reg-ulations have been an obstacle in the past during the transitionof regulations from those established by the former Yugoslaviato those more modern introduced for independent Slovenia.That transition has now been largely completed and regulato-ry change should pose little problem to technology purchasesin the future. Import restrictions and associated high customsduties and communication problems with foreign suppliersalso are expected to become less important in the future.


This section of the survey had two objectives - it examinedperceptions of foreign technologies specific to the country oforigin, and surveyed respondents’ perceptions of the majorforeign companies seen to be active in Slovenia.


Table 6.27 shows the ratings (i.e., the average values of allresponses) of perceptions of environmental technologies fromselected countries, based on the answer to the question “Howdo environmental professionals in your country rate environ-mental technologies from different countries ?”

The following scale was used in rating: 5 = excellent repu-tation, 4 = good reputation, 3 = average reputation, 2 = poorreputation, 1 = very poor reputation, blank = no opinion.

The figures in brackets indicate the number of responsesreceived, which vary because respondents had differing levelsof exposure to each environmental sector and to suppliers.

In general, perceptions of foreign environmental tech-nologies were between average and good, somewhat higherthan perceptions of Slovenian environmental technologies,



What do you see as the greatest barriers to buyingenvironmental technologies from abroad?

Lack of reliable product information 58%

Too expensive 46%

Scarcity of information concerning suppliers 42%

Lack of authorized technical service 38%and maintenance

Products not suited to local conditions and 21%technical culture

Communication problems with foreign suppliers 17%

Import restrictions/high customs duties 13%

Changing environmental regulations 13%

Note: Some companies considered this information confidential. Onlytwo-thirds of the interviewed experts answered the question on barriersto buying foreign technologies.

TABLE 6.26: BARRIERS TO BUYING FOREIGNENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

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)

TABLE 6.27: PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES FROM SELECTED COUNTRIES



Country Competitive Strengths Sector Company Name of Origin Specialization and Weaknesses

Air AE & E Austria Desulfurization technology Complete service

MLU Vienna Austria Monitoring equipment Complete service

Airmotec Switzerland Automatic measurement High product qualityinstrumentation

Rotronic Switzerland Humidity detectors Good quality

ANSYCO, Germany On-line measurement Only producer of portable Karlsruhe instrumentation IR spectrometers

Bayer Diagnostic, Germany Flue gas monitoring equipment High product qualityMunchen

Bernath Atomic Germany Portable equipment for TOC No service or maintenancemeasurement 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 United States Atmospheric pressure detectors Good quality

Water and Elin Austria Potable water preparation High product qualityWastewater Purator 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 Good quality, reliability instrumentation 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

Waste 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

TABLE 6.28: LEADING FOREIGN COMPANIES ON THE SLOVENIAN MARKET

evaluated as average. It is worth noting that the perceptions offoreign products were significantly lower in Slovenia than inthe other surveyed countries, which seems to indicate widerexperience with foreign products in this economicallyadvanced country.

Overall, German technologies were the best rated amongthe foreign products on the environmental technology market.They were rated best in all areas. The next best rated productswere technologies from Austria and the US, while in the watersector suppliers from The Netherlands, and in air sectors sup-pliers from Japan received high rating for technologies. High rat-ings for some other suppliers (i.e., Great Britain, Canada, andDenmark) cannot be given substantial consideration becausethey were all obtained on the basis of only one response.

German, American, Japanese and Austrian technologieswere ranked particularly high in the air sector. In the waterand wastewater category, technologies from Holland andGermany were ranked high, followed by products fromAustria and France. German and American technologies werebest rated in the waste sector, while German and Scandinaviantechnologies were highly rated in the energy sector. Finally,American, German, and Scandinavian products were ratedhighly in the Noise, Vibration, and OHS sector.

The number of responses in each category is also signifi-cant, since it indirectly reflects the availability of foreign tech-nologies on the market (and the perceived level of foreignactivity). The distribution of responses indicates that in theopinion of the interviewed experts, foreign activity was high-est in the water and wastewater sector, followed by the air pro-tection and waste management sectors.

It is important to note that the above question focused onperceptions of foreign technologies depending on the countryof origin, rather than on the respondents’ actual familiarityand/or experience with specific foreign companies and prod-ucts. The following section presents the answers to a morespecific question concerning familiarity and actual experiencewith specific foreign companies.

MAJOR FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IN THE MARKETThere appears to be no single foreign company that could

be considered more important than any other on the Slovenemarket. In fact, each interviewed expert referred to a differentcompany as most likely to be the major supplier. This indicatesthat even within a single area of environmental technology,several companies are active on the market and there is nomajor supplier. For this reason, all the companies referred toduring the interviews are listed in Table 6.28.

As shown in the table, the highest number of foreign

firms were active in the air, water and wastewater sectors,followed by the waste sector. The responses also indicatethat German firms are by far the most active, followed byAustrian companies, and then by American, Swiss, Italian andFrench firms.

It may be worth noting for comparison that according tothe 1997 REC survey, 13 percent of surveyed Slovene environ-mental businesses operated joint ventures with foreign part-ners. The three most important countries in this respect wereAustria, Germany, and Croatia.

In conclusion, German firms seem to hold the lead in sup-plying Slovenia’s environmental technologies in terms of bothquantity and quality. However, Austrian and American suppli-ers are close behind, and are considerably ahead of othercountries. No firm is considered dominant in any product line;thus, there are opportunities for any firm able to provide aquality product at competitive Western prices.



Country Competitive Strengths Sector Company Name of Origin Specialization And Weaknesses

Waste FARID Italy Transportation Good value for money(cont.) and high product quality

IVECO Italy Transportation Good value for moneyand high product quality

Hoval & Vaduz Liechtenstein Hazardous waste incineration High product qualityequipment

Noise and Bruel Kjaer Denmark Noise measurement Complete service, good Vibration maintenance

Radio- ALNOR France Radioactivity measurement —activity

TABLE 6.28 (CONTINUED): LEADING FOREIGN COMPANIES ON THE SLOVENIAN MARKET

6.8 List of Interviewed ExpertsThe structure of information is as follows:

OrganizationName of person interviewedAddressTelephone and fax numbersAreas of activity

Institut Jozef StefanAndrej StergarsekJamova 29, 000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 177-3900, Fax: (386-61) 219-385air, waste, water, and energy

Kemijski Institut (National Institute of Chemistry)Viktor Grilc, Vida HudnikHajdrihova 19, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 176-0200, Fax: (386-61) 125-7069waste, water, and air

Elektroinstitut Milan Vidmar (Electroinstitute “Milan Vidmar”)Igor Cuhalev, Hajdrihova 2, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 125-0333, Fax: (386-61) 125-3326energy, air, and water

Limnos d.o.o.Dani VrhovsekPodlimbarskega ulica 31, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 557-472, Fax: (386-61) 557-386water

MOP-Ministrstvo za Okolje in Prostor(Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning)Janko ZerjavDunajska 46, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 170-7400waste, water, air, and energy

MOP-Uprava RS za Jedrsko Varnost(Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration)Marjan LevstekVojkova 59, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 172-1100, Fax: (386-61) 172-1199nuclear safety

Zavod za Varstvo Pri Delu (Institute of Occupational Safety)Maja MetelkoBohoriceva 22a, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 132-0253, Fax: (386-61) 312-562air and NVOHS

Vodnogospodarski Institut (Institute of Water Management)Alojz UcmanHajdrihova 28, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 125-4333, Fax: (386-61) 126-4162water and waste

Inea d.o.o.Primoz PirnatLjubljanska 80, 1230 DomzaleTel: (386-61) 721-563, Fax: (386-61) 721-672energy and water

Ames d.o.o.Martin LesjakJamova 39, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 177-3900, Fax: (386-61) 125-7087air

ZVD Maribor Institut za Varstvo Okolja(Institute of Environmental Protection)Stanko BrumenPrvomajska 1, 2000 MariborTel: (386-62) 413-978, Fax: (386-62) 413-709air, water, waste, energy, and NVOHS

Erico VelenjeBoris StropnikPartizanska 78, 3320 VelenjeTel: (386-63) 854-760, Fax: (386-63) 856-351air, waste, water, and NVOHS

Univerza Maribor Fakulteta Strojnistvo(University of Maribor, Faculty of MechanicalEngineering)Leopold SkergetSmetanova 17, 2000 MariborTel: (386-62) 221-112, Fax: (386-62) 227-774air, NVOHS, water, and energy

Univerza v Ljubljani Fagg, Institut za zdravstvenohidrotehniko (Instititute of Sanitary Hydrotechnics)Mitja RismalHajdrihova 28, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 125-4333, Fax: (386-61) 219-897water and waste

Raci d.o.o.Jurij CretnikJamova 39, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 177-3211, Fax: (386-61) 219-385air and energy

Zavod za Gradbenistvo(Slovene National Building and Civil Engineering Inst.)Matjaz ZupanDimiceva 12, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 1888-8100, Fax: (386-61) 1888-8484energy and NVOHS

Iskra Avtoelektrika d.d.Helena VodopivecVrtojbenska 62, 5290 Sempeter Pri GoriciTel: (386-65) 31-211, Fax: (386-65) 32-513waste, water, and air

Komunalno Stanovanjska Druzba d.o.o.Anica PeterneljGoriska 23/b, 5270 AjdovscinaTel: (386-65) 63-133, Fax: (386-65) 63-142waste and water

Eko–The Pavel JankovecPolhov Gradec 46a, 1355 Polhov GradecTel: (386-61) 645-157, Fax: (386-61) 645-157hazardous waste

Kem–Eko d.o.o.Franc KocarSteletova 8, 1241 KamnikTel: (386-61) 812-978, Fax: (386-61) 812-870waste

Slovenski PlinovodiTomaz VugaUl. 25. junija 1/b, 5000 Nova GoricaTel: (386-65) 131-180, Fax: (386-65) 131-191air and energy



Prehod d.o.o.Anton JenkoSmledniska 64a, 4000 KranjTel: (386-64) 331-071, Fax: (386-64) 331-071erosion

Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo, Celje (Institute of Public Health in Celje)Andrej UrsicIpavceva 18, 3000 CeljeTel: (386-63) 37-112, Fax: (386-63) 33-407air, water, waste, noise, and EIA

Klima Celje d.o.o.Norbert VerhovcDelavska 5, 3000 CeljeTel: (386-63) 34-511, Fax: (386-63) 411-762air and noise

Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo, Nova Gorica(Institute of Public Health in Nova Gorica)Marko VudragKostanjeviska 16a, 5000 Nova GoricaTel: (386-65) 28-191, and 28-193, Fax: (386-65) 28-188water and other

Deps – Sistemi za Zascito NaraveMiran PrajncRuske cete 5, 2342 RuseTel: (386-62) 662-289, Fax: (386-62) 662-289water

Kemis d.o.o.Franc LipovsekKajuhova 4, 1235 RadomljeTel: (386-61) 728-007, Fax: (386-61) 728-005waste

Komunala Radovljica (Municipal service)Ljubljanska 27, 4260 RadovljicaTel: (386-64) 715-109, Fax: (386-64) 714-660water and waste

TKI Pinus Race D.D.Tone BerglezGrajski trg 21, 2327 RaceTel: (386-62) 608-240, Fax: (386-62) 611-768water and waste

Oikos d.o.o.Robert SpendlLjubljanska 36, 1230 DomzaleTel: (386-61) 716-152, Fax: (386-61) 714-807waste and other

Bio Diskont d.o.o.Stojan BizjakTrg svobode 12a, 5222 KobaridTel: (386-65) 85-332, Fax: (386-65) 85-332waste and energy

PII d.o.o. IdrijaRasto RevenLapajnetova 9, 5280 IdrijaTel: (386-65) 72-308, Fax: (386-65) 72-348energy

Hidrometeoroloski Zavod RS(Hydrometeorological Institute of Slovenia)Martina ZupanVojkova 1b, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 178-4000, Fax: (386-61) 178-4051air, water, and waste

IBE Zoran StojicHajdrihova 4, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 125-0333, Fax: (386-61) 210-527air, water, waste, and other

Projekt MR Inzeniring D.D.Stanislav UrekSvetozarevska 10, 2000 MariborTel: (386-62) 227-161, Fax: (386-62) 23-765waste and energy

Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za Strojnistvo, Center zaEnergetske in Ekoloske Tehnologije (Center for Energy and Environmental Technologies)Peter NovakAskerceva 6, 1000 LjubljanaTel: (386-61) 177-1200, Fax: (386-61) 218-567energy and noise

Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo, Koper (Institute of Public Health in Koper)Jelka ZupanVojkovo nabrezje 4a, 6000 KoperTel: (386-66) 37-685, Fax: (386-66) 22-869air, water, waste, and other



6.9: Major R&D Institutions inSlovenia Specializing inEnvironmental TechnologiesAIRZVD Maribor, Institut za varstvo okolja (Institute of Public Health Maribor, Department ofEnvironmental Protection)Prvomajska 1, MariborAir pollution monitoringStanko Brumen, Tel: (386-62) 413-141

AMES d.o.o.Jamova 39, LjubljanaMeasurement technologies, monitoring systems, and modelingMartin Lesjak, Tel: (386-61) 177-3900

Elektroinstitut “Milan Vidmar” (Institute of Electrical Engineering)Hajdrihova 2, LjubljanaAir pollution control Maks Babuder, Director, Tel: (386-61) 125-3326

AIR AND ENERGYRACI d.o.o.Jamova 39, LjubljanaMeasurement technologies, combustion control, and opti-mization Jure Cretnik, Tel: (386-61) 177-3211

AIR AND WASTEWATERInstitut Jozef Stefan (Jozef Stefan Institute)Jamova 39, LjubljanaFlue gas desulfurization, waste incineration, measurementtechnologies, and modelingNada Lavrac, Tel: (386-61) 177-3272

WASTEWATER AND WASTEKemijski Institut Ljubljana (National Institute of Chemistry)Hajdrihova 19, LjubljanaWaste management, measurement technologies, and waste-water treatmentStane Pejovnik, Director, Tel: (386-61) 176-0200

ENERGY, NOISEUniverza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za strojnistvo, Center zaenergetske in ekoloske tehnologije (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of MechanicalEngineering, Center for Energy and EnvironmentalTechnologies)Askerceva 6, LjubljanaAlternative energies and noise abatementPeter Novak, Tel: (386-61) 177-1200

NVOHSZavod za varstvo pri delu(National Institute of Occupational Safety)Bohoriceva 22a, LjubljanaRadiation protectionMarko Mis, Director, Tel: (386-61) 132-0253

6.10: Bibliography“Report on the Status of the Environment in 1995” (“Predlogporocila o stanju okolja 1995-EPA 1378”), Porocevalec drza-vnega 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 ofSlovenia, 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 EasternEurope, The Emerging Environmental Market: A Survey inBulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Slovenia, Szentendre,Hungary: REC, September 1997



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 Research & Development Institution

Government 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 distri-bution of operations:

Local/provincial level approx. %

Nationwide/whole country approx. %

International approx. %

9. What is your area of environmental expertise or specialization (check all that apply)?

Air Water and Wastewater Noise, Vibration, and Industrial Health and Safety

Energy Waste Management Other (specify):

A P P E N D I X : Q U E S T I O N N A I R E F O R I N T E R V I E W S


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 thenear 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 informationcenters, 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 youfind information about potential suppliers? (please describe in as much detail as possible)



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 2 - low demand, will not grow4 - high demand, likely to grow 1 - very low and decreasing demand3 - moderate slowly growing 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

Surface and Potable Municipal Industrial WATER AND WASTEWATER Ground Water (Drinking) Water Wastewater Wastewater

Monitoring Sampling/laboratory analysis Construction of collection/supply networks Inspection and reconditioning of existing supply and collection networks

Standard physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes

Advanced (tertiary) treatment processes (e.g. UV/ozonation, activated carbon, phosphateremoval, reverse osmosis)

Sludge treatment and disposal Pollution prevention/waste minimization Water recycling and reuse Spill control and containment/clean-up Quality restoration and decontamination Instrumentation/process control/software

Municipal Industrial Hazardous RadioactiveWATER MANAGEMENT Solid Waste Waste Waste Waste

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



Energy and Other Industrial SectorsENERGY Power Generation (e.g. Manufacturing, Chemical)

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 Noise and Vibration Occupational Health and Safety

Instrumentation/measuring and control devices Protection equipment Abatement (insulation, absorbing) Electromagnetic field exposure

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:



Part 4: Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreign Suppliers

1. In making purchasing decisions, does your organization prefer to buy domestic or foreign-manufactured envi-ronmental technology?

prefer domestic products only use best-technology or best-practice criteria

prefer foreign products other (specify):

2. If you buy foreign-manufactured environmental technology, do you buy from local representatives of foreigncompanies, 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 todomestic products? (please check all that apply)

high product quality reliability and durability of products

low price easy to customize/adapt for the specific local needs

good value for money good after-sales service

available credit/funding from the foreign country other (specify):

user-friendly and easy to operate technology

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 import restrictions/high customs duty

lack of reliable product information communication problems with a foreign supplier

products not suitable for the local conditions difficult to ensure authorized technical serviceand technical culture and maintenance

too little information about suppliers other (specify):

changing environmental regulations other (specify):



Part 5: Major Foreign Competitors in the Environmental Technology Market

1. Rank in the attached table how environmental professionals in your country perceive environmental technol-ogy from different countries:

5 - excellent reputation 3 - average reputation 1 - very poor reputation4 - good reputation 2 - poor reputation blank- no opinion

Your Other Other OtherCountry Austria Germany France Japan Netherlands Scandinavia US _____ _____ _____

Air Water Waste Energy Noise, Vibration, and OHS

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 Name of the Country Competitive Strengths Sector Company, City of Origin Specialization and Weaknesses



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 EAST-

ERN EUROPE. THE REC WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1990 BY THE UNITED STATES,

HUNGARY AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. ADDITION-

AL 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 PROB-

LEMS 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.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY MARKET