Chapter 3: Latvia
(continued)
The companies selected deal with the elaboration and implementation of different environmental technologies or provide the corresponding equipment for environmental quality and pollution control and analysis, pollution prevention and reduction, treatment of water and waste, recycling and disposal and remediation of polluted territories.
Seventy-three percent of the environmental businesses surveyed are privately owned, 7 percent are of mixed ownership and 11 percent are state-owned. Those state institutions playing an important role in the environmental service sector include the Latvian Environment Data Center and the National Environmental Health Center. Privately owned environmental businesses are generally small or medium-sized and have generally been privatized in the past few years. The majority of private companies are based on former state bodies (including research or education institutions) and enterprises. Forty percent of the selected environmental businesses were established from the human resources and technical background of former research or education institutions, for example Virsma Ltd., Baltic Scientific Instruments Ltd., and the Latvian Society of Heat and Gas and Water Technology Engineers.
Approximately 30 percent of the selected environmental businesses are new companies, some of which have grown from former environmental businesses, for example, the Environmental Consultancy Office and Reshetilov & Co. Around 45 percent of the selected companies are considered small (with up to 10 members of staff), 50 percent are medium- sized companies (with 10-60 staff members), and 5 percent have more than 60 staff members.
The environmental businesses surveyed tended to be established within the past 2-8 years. Approximately 50 percent of the companies are only 2-3 years old, 25 percent are 4-5 years old and the last 25 percent are more than 6 years old. More than 80 percent of the selected companies have an annual turnover of more than USD 170,000, 25 percent of these companies have an annual turnover of more than USD 850,000.
Generally speaking, a majority of companies are interested in cooperating with foreign partners and foreign investors. Only the state institutions interviewed failed to indicate an interest in foreign investments, perhaps because their income resources tend to be more reliable.
The most popular journals are the applied technology journals such as Water Science and Technology and Waste Management and Research. The other popular sources of information are journals published on a regular basis by well-known environmental companies, for example MERCK and Drager (The Drager Newsletter).
The third group of less frequently used publications are environmental journals such as AMBIO. Some companies use publications published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other environmental institutions for general environmental information. Periodicals issued by associations, for example the International Association of Environmental Engineering newsletter, also tend to be used. Some environmental technology providers publish their own newsletters. The Latvian Society of Heat, Gas and Water Technology Engineers, for example, publishes a monthly issue called Society Newsletter. Some companies have their own home pages on the Internet, for example Reshetilov & Co.
Approximately half of the surveyed companies are members of national or international professional associations. The most popular national associations are the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, The Society of Heat, Gas and Water Engineering, The Latvian Waste Management Association and The Building Engineering Association.
Virtually all of the surveyed companies indicated a need for more thorough information. As shown in Table 3.23, the information most in demand includes in-country environmental regulations, sources of project financing, new environmental technologies, environmental quality standards for industries, EU environmental legislation and domestic tenders for projects.
| TABLE 3.23: INFORMATION NEEDS | |
|---|---|
| Type of Information | Rating |
| In-country environmental regulations | 3.8 (44) |
| Sources of project financing | 3.7 (41) |
| New environmental technologies | 3.4 (39) |
| Environmental quality standards for industries | 3.4 (36) |
| Domestic tenders for projects | 3.3 (41) |
| EU environmental regulations | 3.3 (40) |
| Information on where to find domestic partners | 3.2 (43) |
| International tenders for projects | 3.2 (36) |
| Information on where to find international partners | 3.1 (38) |
| Eco-efficiency and cleaner production practices | 3.1 (37) |
| Contact information to government agencies | 3.0 (38) |
| Certification requirements for environmental professionals | 3.0 (35) |
| The following scale was used for ranking importance: 4 - very important, 3 - important, 2 - somewhat important, 1 - not important. | |
Information on potential international business partnerships is in relatively low demand. The issues that are less or are not legally binding to companies have also been ranked low, for example certification requirements for professionals and eco-efficiency. The least popular information is that which is provided by the governmental agencies.
| TABLE 3.24: OBSTACLES TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT | |
|---|---|
| Barries | Rating |
| Access to credit and finance | 2.9 (38) |
| Tax regulation | 2.8 (42) |
| Environmental regulation | 2.7 (42) |
| Market demand for products | 2.7 (41) |
| General access to information | 2.7 (19) |
| Lack of lobbying groups | 2.4 (37) |
| Foreign competition | 2.1 (37) |
| Legal regulation and registration requirements | 2.0 (42) |
| The following scale was used for ranking barriers: 4 - a major barrier, 3 - barrier, 2 - limited barrier, 1 - not a barrier. | |
Financial issues including access to credit and tax regulations are the major barriers outlined by survey respondents. Legal regulation and registration requirements were considered a minor obstacle. This contradicts earlier statements regarding the unsatisfactory and binding nature of existing regulations. Besides those barriers in the questionnaire, some technology suppliers mentioned the poor tendering system and the need to improve it.
