DSc - PhD

Director of ICE (International Consulting on Energy)

Summary

This article examines the energy situation in five Central European countries - Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the former Czechoslovakia - and compares it with a fictitious country called "Eur", representing an average of the 12 EC countries. This comparison highlights the extremely high primary and final energy intensity in Central Europe (the proportion of energy consumption to gross domestic product). The same is true of electricity consumption.

The consequences of inefficient energy use are catastrophic for the economy, the environment and the quality of life. Economic and social recovery for the countries of Central Europe necessarily involves the implementation of a consistent energy efficiency policy in all sectors of activity. Energy efficiency is clearly the primary energy "source" to be exploited. The potential is considerable. This can be shown roughly, but probably accurately enough, by considering the following hypothesis: in less than twenty years the countries of Central Europe could reach the standards of energy efficiency and level of energy efficiency of Western European countries. If they do not achieve this, their economic and social development will be seriously compromised. Starting from this hypothesis, it is possible to determine what energy consumption in these countries would need to be by the year 2010. The results are interesting; they show that consumption could decline considerably at the same time as a marked growth, and

redistribution, of GDP. This is not a forecast, but a glimpse of a reasonable objective which could be achieved if an overall energy efficiency policy were implemented with the appropriate political commitment and resources.

The article finally examines how such a policy could be implemented, along with the restructuring of productive capacity and price adjustments for energy products: energy efficiency programmes, national and local bodies, regulation and legislation, financial and human resources, active international aid.

This article is based on studies and missions in 1991 and 1992 on behalf and with the support of Ademe, the World Bank, the Equipe Cousteau and EBRD (report entitled "Energy in the Danubian countries: current situation, outlook, and energy policy proposals").

This article has been published, in French, in the December 1992 issue of "Revue de l'Energie", n 444.

1.HIGH ENERGY INTENSITY

To achieve an overall comparison between energy use in various countries and their economic situation, two indicators are used: energy consumption (primary or final) per capita, and energy intensity, that is, the ratio of energy consumption (primary or final) over gross domestic product (GDP).

In Table 1, five Central European countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia (taken as one country), are compared with an "average" Western European country, "Eur", defined by dividing EC figures by 12. The comparison covers 1989 and 1990.

Energy data and GDP are taken from the ENERDATA database. GDP is given in 1980 United States dollars. This is "purchasing power parity" GDP as calculated by CEPII (Centre d'études prospectives et d'informations internationales, Paris).

Although purchasing power parity GDP is a better reflection of reality than exchange-rate GDP, these figures must be treated with some caution, especially when comparing economic systems as different as those of Central and Western Europe. These overall figures obviously need to be complemented by sectoral analyses.

Table 1 - Energy intensity (1989 and 1990)

BUL HUN POL ROM TZS Eur

89 90 89 90 89 90 89 90 89 90 89 90

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Area

(1000 km2) 111 93 313 238 128 197

Population

(millions) 9 11 39 24 16 27

GDP

($ billion) 42/40 56/54 152/140 86/85 91/88 261/268

GDP per cap.

(1000 $) 4,6/4,4 5,2/5,0 3,9/3,6 3,6/3,6 5,7/5,5 9,7/9,9

Primary Energy

Total Cons.

( Mtoe) 34/29 30/29 116/94 75/64 74/70 92/ 94

Cons. per.cap..

(toe) 3,8/3,2 2,8/2,7 3,0/2,4 3,2/2,7 4,6/4,4 3,4/3,5

Intensity

(toe/$ 1000) 0,81/0,74 0,53/0,53 0,76/0,67 0,87/0,76 0,81/0,80 0,35/0,35

Final Energy

Total Cons.

(Mtoe) 24/21 22/20 79/64 54/46 52/51 66/67

Cons. per cap.

(toe) 2,7/2,3 2,0/1,9 2,0/1,6 2,3/1,9 3,3/3,2 2,4/2,5

Intensity

(toe/$1000) 0,58/0,53 0,38/0,37 0,52/0,45 0,63/0,54 0,58/0,59 0,25/0,25

Electricity

Final Cons.

(TWh) 39/36 32/31 104/96 65/54 74/70 124/127

Cons. per cap..

(1000 kWh) 4,3/3,9 3,0/2,9 2,7/2,5 2,7/2,3 4,6/4,4 4,6/4,7

Intensity

(kWh / $) 0,93/0,90 0,57/0,57 0,68/0,69 0,75/0,64 0,81/0,80 0,48/0,47

Source : ENERDATA

By area and population, the five countries of Central Europe come close to "Eur".

In 1990, per capita GDP varied between 36% (Poland, Romania) of "Eur" and 56% (Czechoslovakia). In all the Central European countries, GDP declined between 1989 and 1990. This decline was most marked for Bulgaria (5%) and Poland (8%).

Primary energy consumption per capita is similar to Western Europe: about 3.5 toe per year. In 1990, Poland had the lowest value (2.4 toe) and Czechoslovakia the highest (4.4 toe). The drop in consumption between 1989 and 1990 was marked in Bulgaria (0.6 toe), Poland (0.6 toe), and Romania (0.5 toe). Primary energy consumption in Poland fell 24% between 1987 and 1990.

Taking account of GDP, the primary energy intensity figures are obviously much higher for Central Europe, although less so for Hungary. In 1990 the primary energy intensity figures for Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia were over twice those for "Eur"; for Poland the factor was 1.9, and for Hungary, 1.5.

Final energy consumption shows similar results: energy intensity in Central Europe is very high compared with "Eur". Once again the difference is a factor between 1.5 and over 2.

It is also useful to compare "electricity intensity", final electricity consumption compared with GDP, in kWh per $. These figures are also higher for Central Europe than for "Eur", by a factor of 1.9 in Bulgaria, 1.7 in Czechoslovakia, 1.5 in Poland, 1.4 in Romania, and 1.2 for Hungary, confirming this last country's less wasteful use of energy.

These overall figures are complemented by the breakdown of final energy consumption by sector of activity for 1990, shown in Table 2.

Table 2 - Final energy consumption by sector (1990, in %)

BUL HUN POL ROU CZS Eur

Industry*

65 43 48 58 55 37

Transport

13 13 12 8 7 29

Other

22 44 40 34 38 34

* including non-energy uses

Source: ENERDATA

Sectoral distribution of energy consumption shows clearly the difference between Central Europe (except Hungary again), where industry is dominant, and "Eur", where the three sectors have comparable consumptions (with a disturbing increase for transport in Western countries). The low figure for transport consumption reflects reality, but is accentuated in some countries by statistical difficulties; in Eastern countries part of energy use for goods transport has traditionally come under the industry heading.

This dominance of industry is due to the marked development of basic industries that are high consumers of energy, and the extensive use of natural resources, particularly coal and lignite. Furthermore, these industries are energy-inefficient because of the age of plant and procedures, a virtual absence of proper maintenance, and more recently, the under-use of many factories, causing further energy waste.

Since the tertiary sector is very undeveloped, consumption under the heading "Other" is essentially domestic. The notable feature is the high proportion of district heating, which is generally in poor condition at every point from production to final consumption, with no regulation systems (often not even a stopcock) and poor insulation of housing. In Bulgaria the situation is made worse by a high proportion of electric heating, leading to shortages at peak periods in winter. In a number of countries there is the paradox, acutely resented by the population, of abnormally high total energy consumption together with power cuts and breakdowns in the heating system.

Considerable improvements in energy efficiency could be achieved in the two sectors of industry and housing. At present, energy consumption in industry is declining fast, but this is not yet due to any significant improvement in energy efficiency, but rather to reduced production, especially in heavy industry. Clearly the initial reduction of energy intensity by GDP will come from industrial restructuring. But this reduction must not be an excuse for not launching energy efficiency programmes, otherwise a continuation of inefficient energy consumption will prevent durable economic recovery.

Transport is a particularly striking issue. This is definitely a sector where the "Western model" should not be followed by Central Europe. In Western countries the transport sector consumes some 30% of final energy. Transport is dominated by use of the private car for people and lorries for goods. This has disastrous consequences: a high level of air pollution, especially in towns, an unacceptable number of accidents (in France, 10,000 dead and 300,000 injured each year), continual traffic jams costing time, money and energy, increased use of petroleum products, and endless infrastructure costs. This situation is evidence of total failure, and is difficult to correct. The countries of Central Europe have not had the same type of development and generally possess public transport and trains of relatively high quality. These countries are in a position to avoid the headlong rush towards greater use of the private car and the lorry. One of the first stages in their "redevelopment" must be, with international h

elp, the modernization and development of public transport in towns, and trains for passenger and goods transport over longer distances, not to mention the inland waterways associated with the Danube.

2.ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ENERGY CONSUMPTION

A number of studies have already been done on future energy demand in Central Europe by teams from those countries and outside consultants. The most recent studies take as their hypothesis (confirmed by events) that economic growth will be nil or negative in the early 1990s, and will become positive towards the end of the decade, as economic reforms yield results. During the first period, energy consumption is expected to decline fast, largely as a result of industrial restructuring. But later it is forecast to increase again, particularly electricity consumption. Energy intensity does not appear to improve sufficiently. In general, although these studies accept that energy efficiency must be an absolute priority, they do not draw the consequences in terms of planning campaigns, organization and finance. The potential of energy efficiency policies is consequently understated.

To give an approximate but realistic idea of future energy use in Central Europe, we start from the hypothesis that over the twenty years until 2010 these countries will successfully make economic changes and that there will be an "open" market between Central and Western Europe. Although they will not completely follow the Western model (see transport, above), their economic development will only be satisfactory if energy consumption is increasingly efficient. Energy intensity in Central Europe needs to reach the average level of efficiency in Western Europe.

For the 12-country EC which is our reference, we have used the results of scenarios studied by the Directorate General for Energy of the Commission of the European Communities for the year 2010, published in 1990 and shown in Table 3. Scenario S1 (highest energy consumption) shows a fall of 32% in final energy intensity from 1990 to 2010, whereas Scenario S3 (a policy of firm energy management for environmental reasons) has a 48% fall.

Table 3 - Future energy use in the 12-country EC

1990 2000 2010

S1 S3 S1 S3

Final

energy intensity

(toe/$1000)

0,25 0,21 0,20 0,17 0,13

Final

electricity intensity

(kWh/$)

0,47 0,45 0,42 0,41 0,33

Source: Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General for Energy ("Energy in Europe", September 1990).

Average annual GDP growth: under S1, 2.7% from 1990 to 2010; under S3, 3.5% from 1989 to 2000 and 3% from 2000 to 2010.

We start from the following hypothesis for Central Europe:

oGDP in 1995 will be at 1989 levels, and then grow at an average annual rate of 3% from 1995 to 2010.

oFinal energy intensity will come close to that of the European Community.

This overall hypothesis enables us to assess final energy consumption in the future.

We have applied the same hypothesis to all the countries, which is obviously debatable; we simply consider that, at present, an admittedly over-general procedure is likely to provide useful indications of action to take. Clearly, detailed studies must be done country by country to define action programmes for energy efficiency, determine needs for energy products, and outline future energy systems.

Final energy consumption for 2000 and 2010 has been calculated for two scenarios:

a)Under Scenario A1, final energy intensity improves from 1990 to 2010, and reaches the 1990 figure for "Eur": 0.25.

Under this scenario the final energy intensity for Central Europe would in 2010 still be higher than for Western Europe, since the latter countries will have continued to improve.

b)Under Scenario A2, final energy intensity improves from 1990 to 2010, and reaches the figure that the 12-country EC would achieve in 2010 under Scenario S1 (highest energy consumption).

The results for each country are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - Final energy consumption in 2010

1990 2000 2010

A1 A2 A1 A2

--------- -----------

BULGARIA

GDP (1) 40 49 65

FEI (2) 0,53 0,40 0,35 0,25 0,17

FEC (3) 21 20 17 16 11

HUNGARY

GDP 54 65 87

FEI 0,37 0,31 0,28 0,25 0,17

FEC 20 20 18 22 15

POLAND

GDP 140 176 237

FEI 0,45 0,36 0,32 0,25 0,17

FEC 64 63 56 59 40

ROMANIA

PIB 85 100 134

IEF 0,54 0,40 0,35 0,25 0,17

CEF 46 40 35 34 23

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

GDP 88 105 142

FEI 0,59 0,45 0,40 0,25 0,17

FEC 51 47 42 36 24

(1)Gross domestic product in billions of 1980 U.S. dollars

(2)Final energy intensity in toe per $1000

(3)Final energy consumption in Mtoe.

Under Scenario A1, it can be seen that final energy consumption is either stable over this period (Hungary, Poland) or considerably reduced (Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia).

Under Scenario A2, final energy consumption falls noticeably over this period, by a factor of two for the countries at present most wasteful with energy: Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia.

This result deserves reflection; the objective is not unreasonable. If it is achieved, the financial savings (investment, imports) will be considerable, and a factor in economic development. The money at present wasted on an inefficient energy system could be devoted to economic and social development (renovation of housing, public transport, social services, etc.). The impact on the environment will also be considerable, since action on energy consumption will be accompanied by modernization of the production system.

Of course, this objective will not be achieved on its own. There is a mutual relationship between improved energy efficiency and economic reforms. One cannot occur without the other; each is necessary for the success of the other. How an energy efficiency policy could be implemented will be discussed in the third part of this article.

The same comparative reasoning can be used for electricity consumption, which also shows high intensity levels.

We have taken three scenarios for the period until 2010:

Scenario A1: electricity intensity in Central Europe reaches, in 2010, the 1990 "Eur" figure: 0.47.

Scenario A2: electricity intensity in Central Europe reaches, in 2010, the 2010 "Eur" figure under CEC Scenario S1: 0.41.

Scenario A3: electricity intensity in Central Europe reaches, in 2010, the 2010 "Eur" figure under CEC Scenario S3: 0.33.

Table 5 - Final electricity consumption in 2010 (TWh)

1990 2000 2010

A B A B C

------- ---------- -----------------

BULGARIA

Intensity (1) 0,90 0,70 0,60 0,47 0,41 0,33

Total final cons.(2) 36 34 29 31 27 21

HUNGARY

Intensity 0,57 0,52 0,45 0,47 0,41 0,33

Total final cons. 31 34 29 41 36 29

POLAND

Intensity 0,69 0,60 0,50 0,47 0,41 0,33

Total final cons 96 106 88 111 97 78

ROMANIA

Intensity 0,64 0,60 0,50 0,47 0,41 0,33

Total final cons. 54 60 50 63 55 44

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Intensity 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,47 0,41 0,33

Total final cons. 70 74 63 67 58 47

(1)in kWh per $ of GDP

(2)in TWh

Rational use of electricity and the potential for efficiency are well worth considering for a number of reasons.

a)In Central Europe, electricity production causes considerable problems in terms of risk (nuclear accidents, radioactive waste), environmental pollution (low-grade coal, poorly maintained power stations), and the economy (capital costs, hard-currency imports). Reducing consumption for the same standard of service will have a decisive impact on the improvement of the environment. At the same time, the production system needs to be improved in economic and environmental terms.

b)As in the case of transport, a rational use of electricity is far from being properly achieved in most of Western Europe, especially for lighting and household appliances. This failure is often due to the policy of electricity utilities which encourage the customer to consume. (Fortunately, the trend in some countries is for electricity utilities to realize that it is in their own interest to encourage rational use of their product). Potential savings in electricity are, therefore, still considerable in the EC.

c)Again as for transport, electricity use is an area of energy efficiency where Central Europe can "miss out a stage" and go straight to effective solutions without copying their Western neighbours. Examples are large-scale adoption of compact fluorescent light bulbs and low-consumption refrigerators.

N.B.: This article does not cover the supply and distribution of energy. These topics have been broadly studied in the report on energy in the Danubian countries mentioned above.

If final energy and electricity consumption in the future are at the levels presented above, and if production and transport systems are gradually repaired and modernized, it is certain that Central Europe will, in the medium and long term, enjoy a more relaxed and open position than might be imagined from the present state of the energy system or the assertions of some pressure groups.

At all events it is essential that energy supply policies should be defined as part of an overall approach to demand and potential action on energy consumption. It is a matter of giving as much importance to action and investment to improve the efficiency of energy consumption as to energy supply. The solution adopted must provide the consumer with the same standard of service, at the minimum economic and environmental cost.

On sources of energy, the recommendations of the study on the Danubian countries are the following:

a)Develop the use of natural gas (combined cycle power generation).

b)Reduce the use of lignite and coal by developing efficient, less polluting procedures (fluidized bed) to exploit these fuels which are a major resource for some countries.

c)Develop the decentralized use of renewable energy, particularly in the countryside, where it can be a decisive economic asset (a number of countries have geothermal resources, small-scale hydro-electric plants, and, in Romania especially, bio-mass).

d)Limit the consumption of petroleum products (as recommended above for transport).

In this way, a judicious combination of action on consumption and production could allow the closure of nuclear power stations that have to be stopped for safety reasons (VVER models), without needing to replace them by more nuclear stations.

3.IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICIES

Despite all the arguments for energy efficiency and the priority given to it in public statements by governments, few programmes have yet been developed. Neither the countries concerned, nor their international partners, have done enough in terms of legislation, institutions or finance.

Of the five countries studied, only Romania has created a national body to implement energy efficiency programmes (see box).

But changes are now occurring in all countries at three levels: nationally, proposals for legislation and organization are being made; a number of decentralized initiatives are happening in towns and regions, with the active cooperation of regional teams from Western Europe, especially a number of regional delegations of Ademe; international aid is supporting more energy efficiency programmes, PHARE and THERMIE of the CEC, proposed loans from the World Bank and EBRD (already granted for renovation of heating networks).

To give a greater impulse to energy efficiency policies, a number of reforms and initiatives are necessary, which are outlined below.

Energy pricing: a necessary but not sufficient condition

The countries of Central Europe are at present moving, not without difficulty, towards the market economy. For this economy to work properly, prices have gradually to be based on costs. This is particularly true for the consumer prices of energy products, which need to reflect international primary energy prices or production costs, and, if possible, include externalities such as impact on the environment. The subsidies for energy, as are still practised in some countries, cannot continue: they are a burden on the State budget, interfere with the normal running of energy companies and inhibit the rational use of energy by the consumer, who has no incentive to avoid waste.

It is true that higher energy prices exercise pressure on the consumer to save. But in a number of countries in Central Europe, energy prices, particularly of electricity, are already very high compared with incomes: consumers are forced to reduce their consumption, not by using energy more efficiently but by restricting its use. This is because the effort has not been made to promote energy efficiency programmes.

Furthermore, since price adjustment can only be gradual for social and political reasons, especially for heating, the State continues a de facto subsidy to energy. So it is in the direct interest of public finances to implement energy efficiency programmes, without waiting for "market prices", which will not alone solve the problem.

The example of Western industrialized countries, well versed in the market economy, shows that the successful energy efficiency policies, which stabilized consumption while GDP grew 30% from 1975 to 1987, only began with the rise in the oil price. For them to be effective, it took a whole range of state intervention: regulations, information campaigns, institutions and other bodies, research and innovation programmes, financial incentives to investors (tax concessions and subsidies).

Energy efficiency programmes

Programmes are defined on two main principles:

a)Reduce existing waste: renovation of heating networks, monitoring energy consumption, regulation systems, housing insulation, heat recovery in industry, etc.

b)Produce new energy-efficient plant: low-consumption electrical appliances, public transport, well-designed, insulated housing, efficient industrial processes, etc.

The main features of a national energy efficiency programme are the following;

onew regulations, especially for new buildings and household appliances;

oinformation campaigns for consumers, middle and senior management (particularly politicians who veer between an old-style obsession with production and full-blooded market economics, which is just as devastating);

otraining programmes for engineers, technicians, architects, managers, company heads, town technical services;

oenergy audits and demonstrations in industry and housing estates to define action programmes;

otechnical support (consultants) and financial support for R&D institutes and industries to develop, produce and market energy-efficient equipment;

osupport for the creation of design and engineering offices able to provide energy efficiency services, define programmes, and carry out projects;

osupport for industrial agreements (purchase of licences, shareholdings) and technology exchanges;

onational and international financial support (grants, loans) for investment in energy efficiency, nationally, regionally and locally, especially for towns, which are at present the most reliable players in such a policy;

Apart from their effects in terms of energy, economy and the environment, these programmes could have a major impact on employment in all activities and regions, and thus provide essential help in this transition period.

Bodies to promote, motivate and coordinate

The state needs to intervene; programmes have to be defined, coordinated and promoted; a network of partners needs to be set up. Public bodies are necessary for the public service role of energy efficiency.

The implementation of energy efficiency programmes is by its nature a diversified and decentralized activity: it concerns companies-either in the management of energy consumption, or the production and sale of efficient equipment-local authorities, service companies or administrations, and households.

A body responsible for the national energy efficiency programme is not intended to carry out projects itself, but to create the necessary conditions for those projects and ensure that they are as effective as possible, technically, economically, socially and environmentally. This is a public service role, new for the administration, especially in Eastern countries, and requires the ability to motivate, discuss, respond quickly and understand the problems and constraints of various partners.

In the light of experience elsewhere, the solution that is slowly being adopted in a number of Central European countries (see box) is as follows:

oSet up decentralized teams, particularly in large countries, in regions, cities and industrial centres. Local teams have the advantage that they are close to consumers, work on the ground, and develop programmes that fit both with the national programme and local conditions. Depending on the organization of local government, these teams can be linked to regional or local authorities or depend on the national body. The former solution is better, since it reduces the size of the national body (the fear of bureaucracy in Central Europe is understandable), and respects the principle of decentralizing initiatives.

oSet up a national body with responsibility for: integrating energy efficiency objectives into the economic, industrial and energy policy of the country; defining a national energy efficiency programme; proposing national standards and regulations; encouraging and coordinating programmes of research, innovation and demonstration; organizing and coordinating national and international financial support; coordinating international aid.

Finance for energy efficiency action

Finance is needed for running costs (salaries, equipment, offices) and direct action (information, training, economic studies, international activities) for all the bodies responsible for the programmes, and also to support the programmes themselves: innovation, demonstration, energy audits, investment support, industrial development support.

In Central Europe, international aid is obviously necessary for energy efficiency and needs to be increased from its present level. In particular, the international development banks (World Bank, EBRD, EIB) need to adapt their procedures to investments that are new to them; they need to learn how to finance programmes of varied action rather than large-scale projects, by using national contacts, with banks (such as development banks) and technical bodies (energy efficiency agencies are essential to set up and monitor programmes).

The countries concerned, however, must also provide the financial means for their political ends. In a number of countries (including Russia), it has been suggested that a national fund for energy be set up, financed by a 1% surcharge on all final energy "bills". The Russian scheme is particularly innovative and decentralized: the surcharge would be made regionally to finance operations under the responsibility of regional energy efficiency centres, and 30% of regional funds would be forwarded to the federal level for national programmes.

The economic and social development of the countries of Central Europe requires the implementation of energy efficiency programmes in all sectors of activity. These countries should show their political commitment by decisions concerning institutions, regulations and finance. International aid should support these programmes more effectively than is now the case: this is one of the major conditions for a successful transition for these countries.

Energy efficiency bodies in Central Europe

Romania: This is the only country to have set up a specific institution to implement an energy efficiency policy: ARCE, the Romanian Agency for Energy Conservation, founded in 1991. ARCE employs some 130 staff, 30 at the Bucharest headquarters and the rest in 16 regional "branches". ARCE comes under the Ministry of Industry, and is financed from the State budget, for running costs and grants to consumers. Until now ARCE has worked almost exclusively with industry, via its regional branches: energy audits, investment support (the financial aspect is handled by the Romanian Development Bank). As from the end of 1992, ARCE will receive technical assistance from the Commission of the European Communities (DG I, PHARE programme), which has been entrusted to Ademe. There are also a number of town-to-town initiatives between Romania and France.

Bulgaria: There is no ministry of energy or other government body to coordinate all the activities of the energy sector. The Energy Committee supervises electricity production, coal mines and district heating. Within the Committee, a department is in charge of energy efficiency, but remains unconvinced of its value. In October 1992, the government decided to set up a national energy efficiency agency and appointed a director. The Agency is still being set up, and delay has been caused by the political crisis of late 1992.

Hungary: In energy consumption Hungary is less inefficient than the other countries in Central Europe. Energy efficiency is clearly part of the government's energy policy, but most confidence is placed in the price mechanism. Energy efficiency comes under the energy directorate of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. A specific body for energy efficiency was set up within the ministry in 1985, but was ineffective because of lack of resources. A law on energy efficiency was due to go before Parliament in late 1992 or early 1993.

Czechoslovakia: The separate organization of the two republics will need to be awaited for a clear picture to emerge. Under the federal structure, implementation of energy efficiency policy was entrusted to the federal energy agency, under the Ministry of the Economy. Its main tasks were: organizing international aid (energy planning, regional programmes financed by the European Commission), organizing information and training in energy efficiency, pursuing a policy of standards, organizing a network of partners-service companies, energy producers. The SEVEN foundation is active here.

Poland: The idea of setting up an agency for energy efficiency arose in 1989, and the Parliament voted for it in October 1990. Nothing ensued, largely as a result of reluctance on the part of the ministries of industry (responsible for energy) and finance. This was a classic case of opposition, reinforced by the belief that pricing will solve the problem (when Poland at present proves the reverse), despite support from the ministries of construction and the environment.

However, there have been a number of decentralized initiatives in regions and towns such as Gdansk, Katowice, Biesko-Biala, non-governmental initiatives such as that of the FEWE foundation, active international aid, particularly from Denmark and France (Ademe helped with institutional issues and decentralized regional cooperation).

Some months ago a new proposal for a national agency was made by the ministry of construction. A decision is awaited.