15

Click here to load reader

Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 2: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

(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

Page 3: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 4: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 5: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 6: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 7: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 8: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 9: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 10: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 11: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 12: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 13: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 14: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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

Page 15: Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme

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