Click here to load reader
Upload
rene-van-berkel
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORIGINAL PAPER
Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEPNational Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme
Rene Van Berkel
Received: 21 September 2009 / Accepted: 12 January 2010 / Published online: 3 February 2010
� Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract Since 1994 UNIDO and UNEP cooperate in a
Programme to establish National Cleaner Production
Centres (NCPCs) in developing and transition countries.
An evaluation was conducted in 2007 when the Programme
covered 37 countries. The programme evaluation was
based on three information sources: a review of Pro-
gramme strategy and management; self-evaluation by
NCPC directors; and independent reviews of 18 NCPCs. It
was found that NCPCs had been successful in putting
Cleaner Production (CP) on the agenda of business and
government, training of professional staff, implementation
of low and intermediate technology options in assisted
companies and policy change in some countries. An overall
assessment was made on six assessment criteria: relevance;
effectiveness; efficiency; sustainability; capacity develop-
ment; and ownership. Limitations in articulation and
implementation of the Programme strategy, the complexity
of inter-agency cooperation and diversity among Pro-
gramme countries globally, had a somewhat negative
impact on the programme assessment, which was regard-
less on average satisfactory. It was concluded that the
Programme had great potential, as relevance of CP was
rising, due to worsening industrial pollution, resource
scarcity, globalisation and resulting market pressure. The
challenge remained to adapt to the changing interests and
diversifying demands from governments and private sector
globally.
Keywords Cleaner Production � Eco-Efficiency �Environmentally Sound Technology � Capacity
development � Developing countries �Transition economies
Introduction
Cleaner Production (CP) has been defined by UNEP as
‘‘the continuous application of an integrated preventive
environmental strategy to processes, products and services,
to increase efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the
environment’’ (UNEP 1994b, p. 3). CP offers an opportu-
nity for win–win solutions as companies reduce their
operational costs and environmental and other liabilities by
using less energy, water and materials, handling chemicals
and their waste safely and generating less waste and pol-
lutants. CP is commonly achieved through a diversity of
practices, including good housekeeping, process and/or
equipment modification, input material substitution, on-site
reuse and recycling and change in products and/or tech-
nologies (e.g., van Berkel 2007a, b). A number of related
terms exist that for practical purposes can be considered as
operational equivalents of CP, including for example Eco-
Efficiency, Pollution Prevention, Green Productivity and
Waste Minimisation (see e.g., USEPA 1992; DeSimione
and Popoff 1997; APO 2002; Envirowise 2002; Van Berkel
2007b). CP can be achieved through a range of prevention
techniques, typically referred to as good housekeeping,
technology modification, input substitution, product mod-
ification and on-site reuse and recycling (USEPA 1988; de
Hoo et al. 1991; UNIDO 2005).
CP was first practiced in industrialised economies most
notably in North America (e.g., OTA 1986; Hirshhorn and
Oldenburg 1991; USEPA 1997) and Western Europe
Rene Van Berkel—formerly Eco-Innovation, Inglewood, Australia.
R. Van Berkel (&)
United Nations Industrial Development Organisation,
P.O. Box 300, 1400 Vienna, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]
URL: www.unido.org/cp
123
Clean Techn Environ Policy (2011) 13:161–175
DOI 10.1007/s10098-010-0276-6
(e.g., Backman et al. 1991; Dieleman et al. 1991). How-
ever, from the early 1990s onward, applications have been
reported in developing countries and transitional econo-
mies (see e.g., UNEP 1993, 1994a; van Berkel et al. 1994;
UNIDO 1995; Gallup and Marcotte 2003; Staniskis and
Arbaciauskas 2003)
The United Nations Industrial Development Organisa-
tion (UNIDO) and the United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme (UNEP) collaborate in the promotion of CP (see
www.unido.org/cp and www.unep.fr/scp/cp). Since 1994,
UNIDO and UNEP cooperate specifically to establish and
support National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPCs)1 in
developing and transition economies with funding support
from various donors, including the Governments of Swit-
zerland, Austria, Norway, Italy, Denmark, The Nether-
lands, Czech Republic and Slovenia. This is commonly
referred to as the UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme. In the
absence of a formal programme strategy, strictly speaking,
this was rather a collection of mostly national and some
multi-country projects. Moreover, the roles and responsi-
bilities of both agencies were in no way equal or compa-
rable in terms of finances, management and organisational
mandate. UNIDO administered the establishment of
NCPCs and managed the majority of the total resources
available for the Programme. UNEP provided strategic
inputs, primarily through separately funded multi-country
projects on emerging topics [such as integration with
energy efficiency (UNEP 2003), design for sustainability
(UNEP 2006a) and Multilateral Environmental Agree-
ments (MEAs; UNEP 2006b)] and also involved the
NCPCs in its series of regional and global strategic
dialogues in particular under the Marrakech Process on
10-year frameworks of programmes on sustainable con-
sumption and production (SCP) (UNEP 2009).
At the Programme’s inception, a NCPC was expected to
be an entity within a national host institution (e.g., tech-
nical institute, industry association or university) that
would provide four basic types of CP services (UNEP and
UNIDO 2002):
1. Information dissemination and awareness raising:
development and distribution of promotional materials
and delivery of awareness seminars or workshops to
put CP nationally on the agenda of government and the
private sector;
2. Training: delivery of training programmes to establish a
cadre of CP professionals who could assist businesses
and other organisations with CP implementation;
3. CP assessments/in-plant demonstrations: technical
assistance provision to companies and other organisa-
tions for the identification, evaluation and implemen-
tation of CP opportunities; and
4. Policy advice: liaison with government and other key
stakeholders to identify and adopt strategies and
policies to foster uptake of CP by businesses and
other organisations.
Over time, the NCPC services have expanded, including
in particular support for transfer of Environmentally Sound
Technologies (ESTs) and investments therein. In its early
establishment stage, each NCPC would essentially be a
project management unit of UNIDO. Over time the NCPC
would be expected to gradually become increasingly or-
ganisationally and financially independent from UNIDO
and UNEP. It would thereby evolve into a nationally
directed provider of CP services to businesses, govern-
ments and civil society.
The first eight NCPCs were established in 1994/1995,
respectively, in Brazil, China, Czech Republic, India,
Mexico, Slovakia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Upon their
success, further NCPCs were established across the four
main Programme Regions (respectively, African and Arab
Region, Asia, Eastern Europe and Newly Independent
States (NIS) and Latin America). In 2007, the Programme
included activities in 37 countries: Armenia, Bolivia,
Brazil, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia,
Cuba, Czech Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia,
Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Kenya, Lao, Leba-
non, Macedonia, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicara-
gua, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russia (two independently
operating centres), Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and
Zimbabwe. UNIDO and UNEP viewed their NCPC Pro-
gramme as a cornerstone of their activities to foster sus-
tainable industrial development and SCP in developing and
transition countries.
To establish a basis for strengthening their support to an
expanding and diversifying network of NCPCs, UNIDO
and UNEP agreed to undertake an independent programme
evaluation, as per standards, criteria and methods com-
monly used in development assistance evaluation (OECD
2008).2 It would further build on specific CP programme
1 In some countries, the establishment of a NCPC is preceded by a
National Cleaner Production Programme (NCPP). As NCPCs and
NCPPs have similar aims and objectives, and undertake similar
activities, for ease of reference in this paper all are referred to as
NCPCs.
2 The Development Assistance Committee of OECD defined eval-
uation as: ‘‘the systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or
completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation
and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of
objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sus-
tainability. An evaluation should provide information that is credible
and useful, enabling incorporation of lessons learned into the decision
making process of both recipient and donor. Evaluation also refers to
the process of determining the worth and significance of an activity,
policy or programme’’ (OECD 2008, p. 4).
162 R. Van Berkel
123
evaluations (e.g., Kisch et al. 1996; UNEP and UNIDO
2002; Gallup and Marcotte 2003; Luken and Navratil 2003;
Staniskis and Arbaciauskas 2003; Grutter 2005) and
country-specific monitoring and evaluation (e.g., Sarmi-
ento 2003; Stevenson 2003; van Berkel 2003). This pro-
gramme evaluation considered the results and experiences
of the global set of NCPCs. It thereby aimed to determine
the success or otherwise of the national implementation of
the UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme as an example of a
global capacity development programme operating in 37
Programme countries. This paper summarises and dis-
cusses the methodology and results of this programme
evaluation.
Scope and methodology
The programme evaluation was initiated to assess the
results of the NCPC Programme by documenting and
reviewing the activities and results of the NCPCs estab-
lished and supported by the Programme. It was therefore
based on four primary and two secondary evaluation cri-
teria (UNIDO 2008).
The primary criteria related to the adoption of CP
concepts, methods, practices, technologies and policies and
their resulting economic, environmental and/or other ben-
efits for the target group of Small and Medium Enterprises
(SMEs) in host countries, both individually as well as
collectively. These were:
1. Relevance: were the elements of the Programme (in
particular the CP concept, the CP services, the NCPC
institution, the global network and international tech-
nical assistance provided) applicable and valuable for
the intended beneficiaries (in particular the private
sector, government, academia and research institutes in
the host country)?
2. Effectiveness: did the design of the Programme
(specifically: national centres; global strategy and
management; networking; and technical assistance)
and its implementation enable the Centres and bene-
ficiaries to achieve the programme’s intended result of
beneficial implementation of CP by the target group?
3. Efficiency: was the Programme designed and imple-
mented to achieve optimal benefit from its available
resources? Were the NCPCs and other programme
activities managed and administered in a manner that
fostered service delivery to the target beneficiaries?
and
4. Sustainability: would it be probable or likely that the
benefits (including: availability of CP services; envi-
ronmental and productivity benefits of assisted enter-
prises; etc.) achieved from the Programme would
continue into the future, even in the absence of the
Programme?
The secondary criteria assessed the success of the NCPC
Programme as a development assistance intervention.
These represented two elements of best practice for pro-
gramme execution and management, namely:
5. Capacity development: did the Programme capacitate
local stakeholders to improve their current and future
well-being by developing essential capacities, specif-
ically for resource productivity, environmental man-
agement, entrepreneurship, and/or public private
partnerships? and
6. Ownership: did local stakeholders regard the Pro-
gramme as their own and would they be making
commitments to advance the programme’s aims and
objectives and to act on its outputs?
The programme evaluation was based on three infor-
mation sources, respectively: (i) review of the Programme
including its strategy and management (based on document
review); (ii) self-evaluation by the 38 NCPCs (by means of
a survey); and (iii) independent country reviews for 18
NCPCs (constructive evaluation at national level based on
semi-structured interviews of staff, beneficiaries and cli-
ents, government counterparts and other stakeholders). The
findings were considered in an integrated manner to sum-
marise results from Programme implementation at national
level, assess the Programme against the evaluation criteria,
and derive overall conclusions. The evaluation was exe-
cuted between April and December 2007 and included
extensive discussions with NCPCs and programme man-
agement both individually and collectively on the basis of
interim findings and draft conclusions. The final results
were released in May 2008 (UNIDO 2008).
Findings
Programme review
The explicit and implicit objectives of the UNIDO-UNEP
NCPC Programme were reviewed, and activities of UNI-
DO and UNEP to achieve those objectives were analysed.
It was found that the CP concept is well reflected in the
Programme and that the original Programme was a
coherent approach to building CP into an international
cooperation initiative. The consistency and clarity of the
Programme had diminished over time as a result of the
repeated attempts to re-design and re-shape the Programme
with inclusion of new topics and/or service areas [for
example Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Occupa-
tional Health and Safety (OH&S) and Environmental
Evaluation of UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme 163
123
Technology Assessment (EnTA)]. These were only par-
tially incorporated into national project plans and lacked a
clear vision and logical framework for the Programme as a
whole. The NCPC model was found to be largely suc-
cessful, given its replication within and outside3 the Pro-
gramme and demand from some 30 other national
governments to establish a NCPC. Cooperation between
UNIDO and UNEP as well as networking among NCPCs
had not yet been designed into the Programme. There was
also no strategy to deal with NCPCs that had graduated to
become financially and administratively independent from
the UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme.
The Programme started with a programmatic approach
which included a generic cooperation agreement between
UNIDO and UNEP, a programme document for estab-
lishing NCPCs in pilot countries and a competence based
application process for selection of host countries and then
host institutions for these first NCPCs. Over time this
weakened considerably in favour of management of indi-
vidual CP projects (predominantly to set up or support one,
or several co-located, NCPC(s)) with little steering and
monitoring at programme level. This approach had been
successful in establishing NCPCs, but had limited the
potential to learn from past and parallel experiences within
the Programme to improve quality and effectiveness of CP
interventions (including projects not exclusively related to
NCPCs) and build and exercise professional and thematic
leadership in CP.
The Programme had used a select group of CP service
providers from industrialised countries to train, coach and
support NCPCs and act as their International Reference
Centres (IRCs). This had been beneficial for fostering
coherence in programme implementation among recipient
countries. The use of more experienced NCPCs as IRCs for
newly established NCPCs had worked well as an example
of South–South cooperation. With the maturing of the
Programme, it would be beneficial to expose NCPCs to
different methods and practices for CP service delivery.
Such would enable NCPCs to develop methods and prac-
tices that are adapted to local circumstances in their
respective home countries.
The limited internal (within UNIDO and UNEP,
respectively) and external (inter-agency) cooperation pre-
sented a barrier for wider impact at programme level.
These shortcomings were in part outside the control of the
NCPC Programme due to systemic constraints within the
organisations’ management and administrative systems that
foster a project-by-project approach and a general lack of
programme-based resources.
Self-evaluation
The self-evaluation was undertaken to obtain comparable
baseline information on the operation, management and
activities of all NCPCs directly from their Directors. It was
executed by means of two surveys. The first covered
operational, institutional and managerial aspects (com-
pleted by 36 NCPCs, i.e., response rate 95%). The second
dealt specifically with emerging service areas and use of
various tools and resource materials (completed by 23
NCPCs, i.e., response rate of 61%).
The majority of NCPCs operated with limited inde-
pendence, either as subsidiary of their host organisation
(formally or informally as an administratively and finan-
cially isolated activity area) or otherwise semi-autono-
mously, with only some 30% being fully independent.
They therefore typically assumed the legal status of their
host institutions, which in about half of the countries was a
public sector entity and in some 10% of the countries a
private sector institution. About 30% of the NCPCs
described their legal status as unresolved.
Just over 80% of the responding NCPCs reported to
have received institutional funding for its establishment
directly through the NCPC Programme. The initial set up
of the remaining NCPCs was funded outside the Pro-
gramme, and these NCPCs joined the Programme at a later
stage to access the Programme’s methods, tools and other
resources. This institutional funding was most often pro-
vided for 3–5 years, even though several NCPCs had been
funded for much longer. The accumulated funding amounts
through the Programme reported by the Directors varied
widely (70-fold), with an average of around USD 860,000
per country. Reported annual budgets for each NCPC
varied between USD 50,000 and USD 3,600,000, with an
average (excluding the lowest and highest outlying values)
of around USD 460,000. The average percentage contri-
bution to the operating budget of all responding NCPCs
was 28% from the NCPC Programme, 26% from private
sector, 23% from other donor programmes, and 18% from
national governments. The average staff strength (upon
exclusion of the outlying lower and higher values) was 11.3
full time equivalent, comprising 1.9 in management, 6.9 at
professional level and 2.5 at administrative and support
levels.
The activity information confirmed that three of the
Programme’s key CP services were provided by at least
80% of the responding NCPCs, respectively: information
dissemination, professional training and CP assessments
(and/or in-plant demonstrations). The two other service
areas (policy advice and technology transfer) were
3 CP Centres comparable to NCPCs were set up by several donors
and/or national governments without an association to the UNIDO-
UNEP NCPC Programme in other countries, including for example
Indonesia, Malaysia, Lithuania and Chile, whilst also in some
countries sub-national NCPC-type entities were set up outside the
Programme (e.g., in China and India).
164 R. Van Berkel
123
reportedly delivered by about half of the NCPCs. About
one-third of the NCPCs delivered other services, most
commonly related to OH&S, Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and/or
Design for Environment/Sustainability (DfE/D4S). There
was general agreement among responding NCPCs for the
potential for service delivery in some CP-related fields, in
particular OH&S, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Hazardous Waste Management, Environmental
Management Systems (EMS) and Environmental Tech-
nology Assessment (EnTA). About three quarters of the
NCPCs claimed to have expertise in these areas except for
OH&S. Apart from the Marrakech SCP process, reported
expertise and involvement in MEAs was relatively low and
patchy among the responding NCPCs.
The Directors also self-assessed their NCPC against five
evaluation criteria, respectively: relevance; effectiveness;
efficiency; sustainability; and ownership (see Table 1).4
The responses indicated a high level of confidence from the
Directors that their NCPC performed well. The self-
assessment was most optimistic about relevance and
effectiveness, rated high by, respectively, 67% and 61% of
the responding NCPC Directors. The self-assessment was
also good for efficiency, rated high and medium by,
respectively, 50% and 25% of the respondents. There
appeared some more doubt about performance on sustain-
ability and ownership, with the high scores in the self-
assessment falling to 39% and 28% of respondents and
medium ratings increasing to, respectively, 36% and 39%.
Independent country reviews
Individual evaluators visited independently selected Pro-
gramme countries for a constructive evaluation based on
information gathered from semi-structured interviews of
Director and staff of the respective NCPC, members of its
governing and management bodies, its clients and its
partners in government and private sector. The countries
were selected so as to achieve maximum diversity in terms
of location, donor for and maturity of the NCPC and size/
structure of the national economy. The final sample
included 18 countries, namely China, Columbia, Costa
Rica, Croatia, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, India,
Kenya, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The
results from these 18 NCPCs would have to be considered
illustrative for the NCPC Programme. These were, how-
ever, not representative of the entire Programme due to
non-randomised selection and potential differences in the
interpretation of data and judgements by the different
evaluators.
For the visited countries, the activities of Programme
management and NCPCs were reviewed, including the
establishment and operational stages and participation of
the NCPC in the global Programme. It was found that the
establishment stages had been dominated by fund raising,
leading to minimalist approaches to project justification
and feasibility analysis. In the operational stage trans-
parency, accountability and responsiveness in manage-
ment of the NCPCs had been weak towards national
stakeholders. Professional and institutional development
was biased towards technical service delivery to enter-
prises. Moreover, a provision was missing for ongoing
interaction with NCPCs that were no longer financially
and administratively dependent on the Programme. The
NCPCs and their national stakeholders reported loyalty to
the Programme, despite strongly felt needs for stream-
lining Programme administration and for increasing
the intensity of networking opportunities within the
Programme.
The national results in regard to the five core service
areas were also analysed. This was done on the basis of
information available from the NCPC and its customers
and stakeholders. Within the framework of this programme
evaluation no additional primary data were collected on for
example the level of CP implementation in enterprises
assisted by the NCPC and environmental, economic and
Table 1 Self-assessment by NCPC Directors against evaluation criteria (36 responses) (UNIDO 2008)
Evaluation criteria Self-assessment rating
High Medium Low Unknown or no response Total
1. Relevance 24 67% 7 19% 1 3% 4 11% 36 100%
2. Effectiveness 22 61% 8 22% 0 0% 6 17% 36 100%
3. Efficiency 18 50% 9 25% 2 6% 7 19% 36 100%
4. Sustainability 14 39% 13 36% 3 8% 6 17% 36 100%
5. Ownership 10 28% 14 39% 8 22% 4 11% 36 100%
4 Capacity development was considered ambivalent in the context of
the self-evaluation by NCPC Directors who themselves had been
trained by the Programme, and therefore left out from the self-
assessment.
Evaluation of UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme 165
123
possibly other benefits achieved (as had been done in other
country level evaluations (e.g., Sarmiento 2003; Stevenson
2003; Van Berkel 2003; Grutter 2005). The available data
on results was considered at three levels, namely:
• Result Level 1: Outputs: activities delivered by the
NCPC;
• Result Level 2: Outcomes: activities of the direct
customers of the NCPC, in follow up to services
received from the NCPC; and
• Result Level 3: Impacts: economic, environmental and/
or other benefits achieved by local industry (individu-
ally and/or collectively) and other stakeholders in the
host country.
Schemes were established to classify and compare the
scale of outputs, outcomes and impacts in each core service
area among the 18 NCPCs. As an example, Table 2 pro-
vides the classification scheme used for assessing country
level results on CP assessments (or in-plant demonstra-
tions). Similar schemes were developed and applied for the
other four service areas (UNIDO 2008). Table 3 provides a
summary of the findings in terms of the scale of NCPC
results in the 18 countries. It provides the frequency dis-
tributions of the 18 NCPCs by scale-category (i.e., excel-
lent, good, some or unknown results) for outputs, outcomes
and impacts for all five common NCPC service areas.
In regards to the five service areas, the following could
be concluded:
1. Information dissemination and awareness raising: The
majority ([80%) of the reviewed NCPCs had a good
portfolio of activities. They had demonstrated their
ability to prepare and deliver information materials
and awareness seminars, and had established some
systems for keeping records on attendance levels, etc.
Collection of data on outcomes and impacts was hardly
done at all and those few NCPCs that had attempted it
did so in a relatively un-systematic manner.
2. (Professional) Training: for half of the reviewed
NCPCs training was a core activity in its own right
with a considerable and sustained level of outputs. For
the other reviewed NCPCs training appeared to be
more narrowly focused and delivered only in support
of other core activities. Despite the considerable
training efforts, data on outcomes and impacts were
anecdotal, incomplete and irregularly maintained.
3. CP assessments and in-plant demonstrations: These
were indeed a core activity for all reviewed NCPCs.
Recordkeeping for the number of assessments under-
taken (outputs) was good and showed sustained CP
assessment activity over time. It was found that the
follow up to CP assessments was relatively weak,
including limited monitoring of implementation,
investments made and environmental and economic
benefits achieved. NCPCs had, however, started to pay
more attention to follow up, as evidenced by the fact
that 17 out of the 18 reviewed NCPCs had some data
on implementation and benefits in at least some of the
audited companies. As illustration Table 4 contains
some business examples of investments and benefits
achieved as a result of NCPC interventions in the
Vietnamese electroplating industry.
4. Policy advice: two-third of the reviewed NCPCs had
achieved and/or contributed to demonstrable policy
change conducive to CP. Recordkeeping for interven-
tions in and contributions to policy processes was
unfortunately weak, which added to the inherent
complexities of attribution of policy change to specific
project initiatives. Most NCPCs required a more
strategic approach to policy interventions and change
to increase their policy relevance and impact.
Table 2 Categories for comparative analysis of NCPC results on Cleaner Production Assessments (CPAs) (UNIDO 2008)
Level Service area 3: CPAs
Scale of results
Unknown Some result Good result Excellent result
1. Outputs No information
available
Two or fewer full CPA’s/year
or 5 or fewer rapid CPA’s/
year
Three to five full CPA’s/year
or 6–15 rapid CPA’s/year
Six or more full CPAs/year
or 16 or more rapid
CPA’s/year
2. Outcomes No information
available
Less then 25% of CP options
have been implemented (or
only qualitative information
available on implementation
levels)
Between 25 and 75% of CP
options have been
implemented
Over 75% of CP options
have been implemented
3. Impacts No information
available
Benefits achieved quantified for
\25% of audited companies
Benefits achieved quantified
for 25–75% of audited
companies
Benefits achieved
quantified for at least 75%
of audited companies
166 R. Van Berkel
123
Table 3 Scale of results by
service area for the reviewed
NCPCs (UNIDO 2008)
a Number of reviewed NCPCs
achieving the respective scale-
category (total 18 reviewed
NCPCs)
Service area Result level Scale of NCPC resultsa
Inactive or
unknown
Some
results
Good
results
Excellent
results
1. Information dissemination
and awareness raising
Outputs 0 3 9 6
Outcomes 1 13 4 0
Impacts 12 6 0 0
2. (Professional) training Outputs 4 5 4 5
Outcomes 1 10 5 2
Impacts 11 5 1 1
3. CP Assessments and in-plant
demonstrations
Outputs 0 4 1 13
Outcomes 0 8 10 0
Impacts 6 6 3 3
4. CP Policy advice Outputs 3 4 6 5
Outcomes 4 2 8 4
Impacts 3 4 7 4
5. Technology transfer (ESTs) Outputs 4 8 2 4
Outcomes 9 2 2 5
Impacts 9 4 2 3
Table 4 Benefits in metal finishing industry in Vietnam (adapted from Van Nhan et al. 2005)
Company Principal Cleaner
Production initiatives
Economic benefits Environmental benefits
1. Binh Minh Mechanical
Company
Replacement of brick liner
of dryer with more
efficient metallic liner
Investment of 15 million VND
generates annual savings of 60
million VND
60% reduction in electricity
consumption for dryer
2. Da Nang Metal
Construction
Manufacturing Company
Good housekeeping Investment of 5 million VND for
annual savings of 100 million
VND
3. Ha Noi Mechanical Joint
Stock Company
Replace well water with
city water
Investment of 5 million VND
generates annual savings of 100
million VND
Reduced plating defect (and
rework) rate from 5 to 2%
4. Xuan Hoa Repair, maintenance and
installation of meters
Annual savings of 770 million
VND
Reduced use of electricity, gas,
water and chemicals
Adjustment of air/oil ratio
in boilers
Annual savings of 80 million VND
with no investment required
8% reduction in consumption of
diesel oil
Change from overflow to
counter current rinsing on
zinc plating line
Investment of 700,000 VND
generates annual savings of 30
million VND
Annual water saving of 7500 m3
Modification of automatic
dryer line
Investment of 11 million VND
generates annual savings of 30
million VND
3% reduction in gas consumption,
and reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions by 14 ton
Total achievement of all Eco-Efficiency initiatives in four
participating companies
Investment: 326 million VND
Annual savings: 4.35 billion VND
Reduction in use of:
• Chemicals: 36 ton/year
• Fuel oil: 3,100 l/year
• Diesel oil: 58,000 l/year
• LPG: 66,000 l/year
• Electricity: 1,000 MW h
Reduction in emissions:
• CO2: 1,118 ton/year
• Waste water: 129,000 m3
Note: 1 USD equalled at the time approximately 16,000 VND
Evaluation of UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme 167
123
5. Technology transfer (ESTs): The activities of reviewed
NCPCs appeared to be quite diverse, which is com-
mensurate with a broader interpretation of technology
transfer including ‘diffusion of technologies and
technology across and within countries’ and ‘learning
to understand, use and adapt technology’ (Trindade
et al. 2000). Some NCPCs had been successful with
bottom up approaches, starting from company level
technology needs assessment, gap identification, tech-
nology sourcing and investment appraisal to initiate
the purchase, installation and adaptation of specific,
often international, equipments. Examples included the
installation of two phase olive pressing in the Moroc-
can olive industry and substitution of mechanical metal
parts cleaning for chemical cleaning in Colombia.
Other NCPCs assisted governments with setting envi-
ronmental performance standards that created a push
or even a legal requirement to implement advanced
environmental technology. Yet other NCPCs focused
on diffusion of relatively simple enhancements to
common equipments to facilitate widespread environ-
mentally beneficial equipment upgrades on e.g., boil-
ers or mills. Overall it was found that half of the
reviewed NCPCs made contributions to successful
technology transfers, mostly in an indirect way by
contributing to the enabling environment for technol-
ogy transfers, including standard setting, information
dissemination and capacity development.
In summary, over 75% of the reviewed NCPCs had
substantive outputs in three service areas (information dis-
semination, technology transfer and CP assessments). This
was markedly lower for the other two service areas,
respectively, policy advice (some 60% of reviewed NCPCs)
and professional training (some 50% of NCPCs). Generally
achievements in terms of outcomes were less substantive.
Data on outcomes and particularly impacts were very lim-
ited. Regardless, there was typically reasonable ground to
confirm some positive outcomes, which in turn would be a
weak leading indicator for impacts. There was, however,
not always a causal link between level of output and level of
outcomes, as outcomes were in several countries the com-
bined results of activities of the NCPCs and of other
stakeholders, including national government, private sector
and donor-led initiatives.
The 18 reviewed NCPCs were also assessed on the six
evaluation criteria by the independent evaluators. To
enable transparent and comparable assessments, scorecards
were developed to capture elements that contributed to
each of the evaluation criteria (UNIDO 2008). These
scorecards reflected the explicit and implicit objectives of
the global Programme (as discussed under the programme
review) which had not necessary in full been incorporated
in the national implementation strategies and plans. These
scorecards were completed using available documentation
and information from the semi-structured interviews with
NCPCs and their national governments, private sector
stakeholders and customers. The overall assessment was
then made on a five point ordinal scale, with scale points
excellent, good, satisfactory, poor and absent. Tables 4 and
5 show these scorecards for, respectively, the primary and
secondary evaluation criteria (note that the assessment
ratings included in these tables pertain to the total Pro-
gramme as discussed in the following section).
Figure 1 shows the frequency distributions for the six
assessment criteria for the 18 reviewed NCPCs. The dis-
tributions are quite similar for the four primary evaluation
Summary of National Assessments
2
43
4
01
5
5
5
6
3
4
5
6
6
6
83
6
34
2
5
7
0 0 0 0
23
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Sustainability CapacityDevelopment
Ownership
Evaluation Criteria
coun
trie
s (n
=18
)
excellent good satisfactory poor absent
Fig. 1 Summary of results of
national assessments by
independent evaluators (UNIDO
2008)
168 R. Van Berkel
123
criteria. The highest assessment is achieved for sustain-
ability, closely followed by effectiveness, efficiency and
relevance. For each of these criteria 39–56% of the
reviewed NCPCs achieved a score in either of the two
highest assessment categories (excellent or good). The
evaluation on the secondary criteria is markedly weaker, as
just 16% and 28% of the reviewed NCPCs attained either
of the two highest assessment levels for capacity devel-
opment and ownership.
Programme assessment
The NCPC Programme as a whole was assessed by the
international evaluation team on all six evaluation criteria,
using the same itemised scorecards that had been used
nationally for the country reviews. This was based on the
three main sources of information (programme review,
self-evaluation and independent country reviews). The
detailed assessments on primary and secondary criteria are
Table 5 Assessment on primary evaluation criteria (UNIDO 2008)
Primary criteria Contributing elements Programme Assessment
Beneficiary Ratinga
1. Relevance • CP Concept (productivity benefits from preventive
environmental management)
• Private sector Low
• Public sector Good
• Academia Satisfactory
• CP Services (information dissemination, training, CP
assessments, policy advice)
• Private sector Satisfactory
• Public sector Good
• Academia Low
• NCPC Institution • Private sector Satisfactory
• Public sector Good
• Academia Low
• Networking (ability to exchange with and learn from
other NCPCs)
• Private sector Satisfactory
• Public sector Satisfactory
• Academia Satisfactory
• Technical Assistance (provision of international
technical, methodology and policy expertise)
• Private sector Satisfactory
• Public sector Satisfactory
• Academia Low
2. Effectiveness • Programme management (strategy, planning,
reporting, control and UNIDO and UNEP
coordination)
Low
• National Centres (CP service delivery units
in programme countries
Satisfactory
• Technical assistance (provision of international
technical, methodology and policy expertise)
Satisfactory
• Networking (ability to exchange with and learn
from other NCPCs)
Low
3. Efficiency • Programme management (strategy, planning,
reporting, control and UNIDO and UNEP
coordination)
Low
• National Centres (CP service delivery units
in programme countries
Satisfactory
• Technical assistance (provision of international
technical, methodology and policy expertise)
Satisfactory
• Networking (ability to exchange with and learn from
other NCPCs)
Low
4. Sustainability • Availability of CP services (information, training,
assessment, policy advice and technology transfer)
Satisfactory
• Productivity gains and environmental improvements
(of enterprises and other organisations)
Good
• Catalyst role for sustainable industrial development Low
a Five point scoring scale, respectively: unsatisfactory, low, satisfactory, good and excellent
Evaluation of UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme 169
123
summarised in Tables 5 and 6, respectively (UNIDO
2008).
The primary assessment criteria pertain to the uptake of
CP concepts and implementation of CP practices, tech-
nologies and policies. Table 5 shows the following:
• Relevance: overall relevance was assessed highest for
the public sector, followed by private sector and then
academia. Key considerations were: entering into
force of MEAs (public sector); worsening industrial
pollution situation and the technical performance gap
between commonly used technologies in developing
countries and international best practices (Luken and
van Rompaey 2007) (all stakeholders); prospect for
operational cost savings and productivity gains
(mainly private sector); and strategic alignment with
ongoing economic reform and trade liberalisation (all
stakeholders). On average among all beneficiary
groups, there was hardly any difference in relevance
between the different programme elements. However,
some programme elements (in particular the NCPC
institution, CP services and CP concept) appeared
markedly more relevant to government than to the
other stakeholders.
• Effectiveness: Overall effectiveness was assessed as
being moderately satisfactory, however taking note that
the detailed reviews of the 18 NCPCs had shown
considerable variation in effectiveness between differ-
ent NCPCs and among the various programme compo-
nents. Among the Programme elements, the national
centres and the international expert inputs were ranked
somewhat more effective than the programme manage-
ment and the networking. Effectiveness was most
evident where NCPCs successfully assisted target
companies with implementation of low/intermediate
technology CP options that contributed to economic
development, resource conservation and environmental
protection. The NCPCs were capable of doing so
following effective training and transfer of methods,
information and experiences, from international trainers
and consultants. The effectiveness was compromised
by over-ambitious goals at programme level (including
decoupling of economic growth from environmental
Table 6 Assessment on secondary evaluation criteria (UNIDO 2008)
Secondary criteria Contributing elements Programme Assessment
Stakeholder Ratinga
1. Capacity development • For resource productivity (productive use of energy,
water and materials)
Of enterprisesb Good
Of private sector (***) Satisfactory
Of government Good
• For environmental management (minimisation of
wastes, emissions and effluents)
Of enterprisesb Satisfactory
Of private sectorc Low
Of government Good
• For entrepreneurship (improved management,
profitability and sustainability of businesses)
Of enterprisesb Low
Of private sectorc Unsatisfactory
Of government Low
• For public–private partnerships (improved
collaboration of business and government)
Of enterprisesb Unsatisfactory
Of private sectorc Unsatisfactory
Of government Low
2. Ownership • Of CP concept (productivity benefits from preventive
environmental management)
By enterprisesb Satisfactory
By private sectorc Unsatisfactory
By government Low
• Of NCPC institution By enterprisesb Unsatisfactory
By private sectorc Low
By government Satisfactory
• International CP Programme (networking, training,
international expertise)
By enterprisesb Unsatisfactory
By private sectorc Unsatisfactory
By government Low
a Five point scoring scale, respectively: unsatisfactory, low, satisfactory, good and excellentb Enterprises individuallyc Collectively for enterprises and their representative industry, sector and professional associations
170 R. Van Berkel
123
impact), ongoing diversification and specialisation in
the programme scope and weak programme level
strategic planning and operational management, includ-
ing for networking activities.
• Efficiency: The assessment showed a mixed result on
efficiency, on average just about satisfactory. As in the
case of effectiveness, efficiency was assessed some-
what higher for the national centres and the interna-
tional expert inputs, compared to the programme
management and the networking. The positive signs
on efficiency were at NCPC level efforts to standardise
service delivery as a way to improve quality and
efficiency of existing services and the emergence of
mutually beneficial working relations between NCPCs
and technical institutes and other business service
providers in the country, including the NCPC host
institution. Concerns were expressed over the high
administrative burden and micro-management of the
Programme, due largely to systemic constraints in the
cooperation modalities available to the partner UN
agencies. This channelled management resources away
from strategic planning and pro-active management.
• Sustainability: The assessment on sustainability of the
Programme was primarily justified by expected trends
in seven determinants for an enabling environment for
CP. These were: (1) willingness to pay for CP services;
(2) availability of CP know-how and skills; (3)
consensus on relevance and benefits of CP; (4) presence
of framework conditions for CP (policy, etc.); (5)
availability of CP technologies; (6) resource prices and
environmental costs; and (7) supply chain environmen-
tal requirements. It was found that at least three were
ongoing trends, namely improvements in framework
conditions, rising resource prices and increasing buyer
expectations for environmental performance. These
would not yet be sufficient to catalyse large scale
uptake of CP. The sustainability of the current impacts
was considered good, as beneficial changes already
realised would be unlikely to be discontinued. Expan-
sion of such benefits to other potential beneficiaries
might, however, not materialise without further support
from the NCPC Programme.
The secondary assessment criteria dealt with the quality
of delivery of the NCPC programme as a development
assistance intervention. The programme level assessment is
summarised in Table 6 which shows:
• Capacity development: a distinction was made between
four target capacities, among which the NCPC
Programme appeared to have been most successful on
resource productivity and environmental management.
This reflected the Programme’s success in conveying
the message of environmental improvement through
productive investments, most profoundly to individual
enterprises and government, with slightly lower impact
on industry associations and other representative
organisations in the private sector. Capacity develop-
ment for the other two target capacities was minimal,
reflecting that entrepreneurship and public–private
sector partnership had remained among the implicit
programme objectives that were not sufficiently artic-
ulated in programme activities at the national level.
• Ownership: the programme assessments on ownership
were quite low. The level of ownership of the CP concept
and the NCPC institution was rated about equal, but with
government displaying the highest level of ownership of
the NCPC institution and enterprises displaying the
highest level of ownership for the CP concept.
As per Tables 4 and 5, the programme level assessments
were best summarised as satisfactory or on average a score
of about 3 out of 5. The variation in the programme level
assessments between the six evaluation criteria was rela-
tively limited. Sustainability and relevance were slightly
more positively assessed then effectiveness, efficiency and
capacity development, followed by ownership. The
assessment scorecards were, however, based on both
explicit and implicit objectives in the arguably ambitious
initial programme strategy (as discussed under the findings
from the programme review). Moreover, the global and
inter-agency NCPC Programme had a high complexity and
broad mandate. The satisfactory assessment at Programme
level should therefore be seen as a commendable
achievement. This was further underpinned by a set of key
summary findings, provided in Table 7.
Conclusions
The evaluation team found that relevance and sustainability
were good for the Programme, with scope for improvement
particularly for effectiveness and efficiency. This could
result in better targeted, customised and streamlined
interventions at the national level, which in turn could
further bolster relevance and sustainability, as well
capacity development and ownership. In line with this
overall assessment, the conclusions were organised in
twelve clusters, respectively (UNIDO 2008):
1. Relevance: CP was relevant and its relevance was on
the rise due to worsening industrial pollution,
resource scarcity, entering into force of MEAs, trade
liberalisation and globalisation, buyer pressure and
greater government and community awareness.
2. Impact: The Programme was successful in establish-
ing CP initiatives in each host country and all were
reported to be active. For the NCPCs independently
Evaluation of UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme 171
123
reviewed valuable outputs and outcomes were con-
firmed including higher awareness, trained profes-
sionals, implementation of low and intermediate
technology CP options and, in some countries, policy
change.
3. Design & strategy: There was no programme docu-
ment covering the overall objectives, the strategy and
intervention logic and the different expected contri-
butions from UNIDO, UNEP and local stakeholders.
4. Focus (Contents): The expansion of the scope of the
CP concept that gradually occurred over time in
response to interests of donors and UN agencies, was
not widely understood by all Programme partners and
lacked widespread endorsement by the NCPCs and
their national stakeholders.
5. Networking: The Programme had not formulated a
distinct strategy with tangible objectives, outcomes
and outputs for networking among NCPCs and the
resource needs for its facilitation and technical
support through the UNIDO-UNEP Programme
management had not been specifically identified.
6. Funding model: The predominant model for funding
of the Programme as a collection of country projects
had hindered effective networking and constrained
the Programme in developing and delivering special-
ist services on a multi-country basis.
Table 7 Summary findings from programme evaluation (UNIDO 2008)
Summary finding Justification and explanation
1. CP was of continued and risingrelevance
CP was generally considered relevant. Several trends caused relevance of CP to rise, including;
worsening industrial pollution situation and high industrial resource use; entering into force of
MEA; globalisation and trade liberalisation; and buyer pressure. The presence and significance
of these trends varied greatly between the countries
2. The NCPC Programmeproduced valuable outputs andoutcomes in all 18 independentlyreviewed countries
Principal achievements are: putting CP on agenda of government and business; building capacity
and disseminating information on CP; implementation of good housekeeping and low/
intermediate technology options in companies; and policy change in some countries
3. The NCPC Programme did havegreater potential
The Programme could support NCPCs to take up niche roles that are most appropriate and
effective in their national contexts. Programme-based funding would avoid the scattered
approach to networking and learning and facilitate dissemination of best practices including
through strengthened network
4. There were shortcomings indesign and strategy of the NCPCProgramme
Stakeholders’ expectations varied due to partially implicit overall objectives, impacts, outcomes,
outputs and activities, and their logical relationships. A standardised approach resulted which
prevented demand-based models for national implementation of the Programme
5. Monitoring and reporting wasweak thus hampering adaptiveand effective programmemanagement
Monitoring of outcomes and impacts was generally insufficient to allow reporting of results
against Programme objectives. This hindered adaptive management and continuous
improvements in service delivery, at national and programme levels
6. The ‘win-win’ premise of CPwas true only under specificcircumstances
The win–win premise of CP was not universally achievable in the host countries due to lacking
enabling environment, including in particular environmental compliance and resource pricing
7. The NCPC Programme was notyet very successful in ESTTransfer
CP technology investments were realised on a modest scale, in particular where green credit could
be mobilised and/or local engineering design and fabrication utilised
8. NCPCs were appropriate for CPcapacity development butattention for theirinstitutionalisation was limited
NCPCs were defined by their portfolio of standardised CP services. The institutional development
and positioning amidst other business services providers was not sufficiently considered in many
cases
9. The potential for cooperationwith other initiatives was notexploited
Given the multitude of other initiatives in the field of industry, environment and sustainability
there was an unexploited potential to leverage expertise and resources at Programme and
national levels
10. The valuable contribution ofthe Programme to nationalcapacity development was notsufficiently communicated
Programme management and donors tended to claim ownership of NCPCs despite of their national
management and governance structures, substantially different activity portfolios and funding
models. This did not reflect the role of the Programme in building up and supporting national
capacities and ownership
11. There was a trade-off betweenfinancial independence of theNCPC and sustained impact ofthe Programme
The sustainability of the Programme’s achievements in building CP capacity, implementing CP in
companies and CP-promoting policies was generally high. Overemphasis on financial
independence of NCPC through income from services was found to have been counterproductive
to achieving such sustained effects and impacts
172 R. Van Berkel
123
7. Centre model: The capacity development model
through NCPCs was relevant. NCPCs had been
defined by their service categories without providing
clear institutional perspective(s) both during and
beyond their phase of administrative and financial
dependence on UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme.
8. NCPC services: The Programme had outlived its
initial design of services which was based on a
standard package of NCPC services to be delivered
through one single national centre. Countries that
have built CP capacity in different institutions require
more tailor made NCPC services.
9. Management & monitoring: Reporting on Pro-
gramme achievements was generally insufficient to
assess outcomes and impacts against Programme
objectives which prevented adaptive management
and continuous improvement of the Programme’s
performance.
10. Administration: The Programme management units
and NCPCs had been able to meet administrative
requirements, including financial administration and
contracts’ management and disbursement of funds,
but repeatedly not in a timely manner.
11. Governance & ownership: The Programme had not
established a transparent and accountable governance
structure for incorporating the views of stakeholders,
beneficiaries and NCPCs into its strategic planning
and for ensuring adequate oversight over implemen-
tation of the Programme. The governance of NCPCs
was of varying effectiveness, accountability and
transparency.
12. Excellence: Despite its ambition for excellence,
thematic leadership in the Programme management
had been weak, as well as its incentives and
opportunities for realising continuous improvements
in development, adaptation and replication of CP
services and initiatives.
Discussion
As per the main findings from the programme review, self-
evaluation and independent reviews, the NCPC Programme
was in 2007 in its youth stage. NCPCs had been established
and were undertaking CP and CP-related activities. A
richness of experience and expertise was documented, and
solid progress could be confirmed in putting CP on the
agenda, delivering professional training, implementation of
in particular low to medium technology options and policy
change. There were clearly pockets of excellent work, but
also of poorer quality. Overall the Programme displayed
great potential for effectively capturing and disseminating
best practices among NCPCs.
The potential of the Programme was great as the rele-
vance of CP was on the rise, due to various factors, that
each had different dynamics among the Programme coun-
tries, which should create greater awareness and demand
for CP and related services in the public and private sec-
tors. The Programme would need to address the changing
interests and demands from governments and private sec-
tor. This urgently required a consistent Programme Strat-
egy that would be impact-focused, deliver and value
excellence and take due account of the specific situations of
host countries. This could drive the institutionalisation,
positioning and profiling of NCPCs into nationally appro-
priate niches with customised service and capacity profiles.
This vision of a strengthened and re-energised Programme
has since completion of this evaluation lead to the formu-
lation and approval of joint UNIDO-UNEP Programme on
Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production in developing
and transition countries (www.unido.org/cp).
There were inherent limitations in the evaluation meth-
odology. Responses to the self-evaluation could not be
verified in detail, and a respondents’ bias can therefore not
be excluded. The country selection for the independent
reviews was not randomised so that results from the 18
countries cannot be generalised. The country reviews were
brief and even though the set of interviews with key
stakeholders enabled the evaluators to construct a picture of
NCPC performance, it was not possible to review all out-
puts of the respective NCPC comprehensively. Moreover,
the distribution of the country visits to the team members
was also not randomised. Despite these limitations, the
evaluation methodology was in tune with international
practices for evaluation of development assistance pro-
grammes (OECD 2008). A relative advantage of such type
of evaluations is the opportunity to gather inputs from a
broad cross section of stakeholders, including some inti-
mately involved in the programme and some outside par-
ticipants and observers, into strengths and weaknesses of
the programme and opportunities for improvement. A
drawback is that some interviewees may not have had full
information on all details of the Programme. Albeit not
capable of capturing and verifying all activities and
achievements in detail, the adopted methodology was suf-
ficient and appropriate to construct a comprehensive eval-
uation of the performance in implementation and delivery
of the global programme in the 37 beneficiary countries.
Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the contributions
made to this research by Johannes Dobinger (UNIDO, Austria), Hans
Schnitzer (Graz University of Technology, Austria) and Matthias
Meyer (PRAXIMONDO, Switzerland).
Disclaimer The views expressed herein are those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Industrial
Development Organisation and/or the United Nations Environment
Evaluation of UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme 173
123
Programme. Designations such as developed, industrialised, devel-oping and transition are intended for convenience and do not nec-
essarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular
country or area in the development process.
Conflict of interest The Evaluation was financially supported by
the Austrian Ministry of International and European Affairs and the
Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs. The author was at the
time of this research with Eco-Innovation (Australia). He declares that
he had no conflict of interest.
References
APO (2002) Green Productivity: an approach to sustainable devel-
opment. Asian Productivity Organisation, Tokyo, Japan, 34 p
Backman M, Huisingh D, Persson E, Siljebratt L (1991) Preventive
environmental protection strategy: first results of an experiment
in Landskrona Sweden. In: Crul M, Brezet H, de Hoo S (eds)
PREPARE: manual and experiences. Ministry of Economic
Affairs, the Hague, the Netherlands, 39 p (for EuroEnviron)
de Hoo S, Brezet H, Crul M, Dieleman H (1991) Manual for the
prevention of waste and emissions. In: Crul M, Brezet H, de Hoo
S (eds) PREPARE manual and experiences. Ministry of
Economic Affairs, the Hague, the Netherlands, 84 p (for
EuroEnviron)
DeSimione L, Popoff F (eds) (1997) Eco-Efficiency: the business link
to sustainable development. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
(for WBCSD)
Dieleman H, Van Berkel R, Reijenga F, de Hoo S, Brezet H, Cramer
J, Schot J (1991) Choosing for prevention is winning. In: Crul M,
Brezet H, de Hoo S (eds) PREPARE manual and experiences.
Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Hague, the Netherlands, 112 p
(for EuroEnviron)
Envirowise (2002) Waste minimisation for managers. Good practice
guides (GG367). Envirowise, Oxford, UK, 24 p
Gallup J, Marcotte B (2003) An assessment of the design and
effectiveness of the environmental pollution prevention project
(EP3). J Clean Product 12(3):215–225
Grutter J (2005) Impact assessment of sustainable enterprise devel-
opment centres. Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs,
Bern, Switzerland, 36 p
Hirshhorn J, Oldenburg K (1991) Prosperity without pollution: the
prevention strategy for industry and consumers. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, NY, USA
Kisch T, Ryden E, Lindqvist T (1996) Evaluation of the UNIDO
UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres Programme. Inter-
national Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund,
Sweden, 60 p
Luken R, Navratil J (2003) A programmatic review of the UNIDO-
UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres. J Clean Product
12:195–205
Luken R, van Rompaey F (2007) Environment and industry in
developing countries: assessing the adoption of environmentally
sound technology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
OECD (2008) Evaluation of development assistance: summary of key
norms and standards. Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development, Paris, France, 28 p
OTA (1986) Serious reduction of hazardous waste: for pollution
prevention and industrial efficiency. Office of Technology
Assessment, Washington DC, USA
Sarmiento F (2003) Assessment of the impact of the E2P3 project on
the uptake of pollution prevention in Ecuador. J Clean Product
11(3):283–296
Staniskis J, Arbaciauskas V (2003) Institutional capacity building for
pollution prevention centres in central and eastern europe with
special reference to Lithuania. J Clean Product 12(3):207–214
Stevenson R (2003) Impact of the ASEA Environmental Improvement
Project (ASEAN-EIP) on the adoption of waste minimisation
practices in the Philippines. J Clean Product 11(3):297–303
Trindade S, Siddiqi T, Martinot E (2000) Managing technological
change in support of the climate change convention: a frame-
work for decision making. In: Mertz B, Davidson O, Martens J,
van Rooijen S, Van Wie Mc Grory L (eds) Methodological and
technological issues in technology transfer. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge, UK, pp 49–66
UNEP (1993) Cleaner production worldwide. United Nations Envi-
ronment Programme, Paris, France, 36 p
UNEP (1994a) Cleaner production in the Asia Pacific economic
cooperation region. United Nations Environment Programme,
Paris, France, 41 p
UNEP (1994b) Government strategies and policies for cleaner
production. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris,
France, 32 p
UNEP (2003) Cleaner Production—energy efficiency manual. United
Nations Industrial Development Organisation, Paris, France, 296 p
UNEP (2006a) Design for sustainability. United Nations Environment
Programme/Division of Technology, Industry and Economics,
Paris, France
UNEP (2006b) Environmental agreements and Cleaner Production:
questions and answers. United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme, Paris, France, 28 p
UNEP (2009) Marrakech Process: frequently asked questions. United
Nations Environment Programme, Paris France, 23 p
UNEP and UNIDO (2002) Changing Production Patterns: learning
from the experiences of the National Cleaner Production
Centres. United Nations Environment Programme and United
Nations Industrial Development Organisation, Paris (France)/
Vienna (Austria)
UNIDO (1995) From waste to profits: the Indian experience (towards
financial and environmental dividends from waste minimisation
in small scale industries in India). United Nations Industrial
Development Organisation, Vienna, Austria, 100 p
UNIDO (2005) UNIDO Cleaner Production toolkit. United Nations
Industrial Development Organisation, Vienna, Austria
UNIDO (2008) Independent evaluation of the UNIDO-UNEP Cleaner
Production Programme. United Nations Industrial Development
Organisation, Vienna, Austria, 208 p
USEPA (1988) Waste minimisation opportunity assessment manual.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnatti,
OH, USA, 26 p
USEPA (1992) Facility pollution prevention guide. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, 140 p
USEPA (1997) Pollution Prevention 1997: a national progress report.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, USA, 286 p
Van Berkel R (2003) Assessment of the impact of the DESIRE
Project on the uptake of waste minimisation in small scale
industries in India (1993–1997). J Clean Product 12(3):269–282
Van Berkel R (2007a) Cleaner Production and Eco-Efficiency. In:
Marinova D, Annandale D, and Phillimore J (eds) The interna-
tional handbook of environmental technology management.
Edward Elgar Publications, Cheltenham, UK, pp 67–93
174 R. Van Berkel
123
Van Berkel R (2007b) Cleaner Production and Eco-Efficiency in
Australian small firms. Int J Environ Technol Manage 7(5–6):
672–693
Van Berkel R, Kryger J, Luken R (1994) Preliminary experiences
with the introduction of cleaner production in China and India.
UNEP Industr Environ Rev 17(4):46–50
Van Nhan T, Thi Nga N, Thi Huong Loan T (2005) Cleaner
Production in metal finishing sector in Vietnam. 6th Asia Pacific
roundtable on sustainable consumption and production, Mel-
bourne (VIC), Australia, Asia Pacific roundtable on sustainable
consumption and production
Evaluation of UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme 175
123