Download pdf - A programmatic review of UNIDO/UNEP national cleaner production centres

Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 195–205www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A programmatic review of UNIDO/UNEP national cleanerproduction centres

Ralph A. Luken∗, Jaroslav NavratilUnited Nations Industrial Development Organization, P.O. Box 300, Vienna, A-1400, Austria

Received 4 March 2002; accepted 28 October 2002

Abstract

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)jointly initiated the National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPCs) programme in 1995 with the funding of eight centres. The centresand the CP assessors trained by them do not deliver ready-made solutions, but rather they train and advise their clients on how tofind the best solutions for specific problems. Two UNIDO evaluations of the programme confirm that the methodology forimplementing the CP concept at the factory level is an effective tool for identification and prioritisation of technology changes thatyield both environmental and financial benefits. However, the dissemination and application of the CP concept to small and mediumsize (SMEs) on the basis of its own financial merits does not occur easily; hence, there is a need to support the dissemination ofthe concept through promotional (awareness raising, training) activities, national policy formulation and access to financing. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cleaner production; National cleaner production centres; Capacity building; Global; UNIDO

1. Introduction

Chapter 34 of Agenda 21 endorsed by the UN Confer-ence on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992calls on international organizations, including UnitedNations agencies, to “promote, facilitate and finance asappropriate, the access to and transfer of ESTs and corre-sponding know-how, in particular to developing coun-tries…” [1]. In response to this request, several bilateraland multilateral institutions have established pro-grammes to promote the utilization of cleaner techno-logies and techniques in developing countries within theoverarching concepts of cleaner production/pollutionprevention.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development(Johannesburg, 2002) reviewed the obstacles to progresstowards sustainable development and the results achi-eved since the endorsement of Agenda 21. The “Johann-esburg Plan of Implementation” approved at the summit

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+43-1-26026-3352; fax:+43-1-21346-5031.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.A. Luken); [email protected] (J. Navratil).

0959-6526/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00102-1

recognized, amongst other things, the need to reduceunsustainable patterns of production in both developedand developing countries and called for yet again urgentaction to promote, facilitate and as appropriate financethe development, transfer and diffusion of ESTs and thecorresponding know-how to and amongst developingcountries[2].

This article reviews one programme, the jointUNIDO/UNEP National Cleaner Production Centres(NCPCs), set up in response to Agenda 21 with the ulti-mate (developmental) objective being the widespreadapplication of the CP approach at all decision-makinglevels in industry with a significant focus on the uptakeof cleaner technologies and techniques within the indus-trial sector. The article starts with background infor-mation on the NCPC programme from its inception to itscurrent status. Then, it moves on to describe the resultsachieved by the programme and puts forward con-clusions and lessons learned that need to be taken intoaccount in designing new and modifying existing pro-grammes for reducing unsustainable patterns of indus-trial production in developing countries.

The article is based on two in-depth evaluations of theUNIDO/UNEP NCPC programme undertaken by

196 R.A. Luken, J. Navratil / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 195–205

UNIDO’s evaluation unit and other documents availableat UNIDO headquarters [3,4]. Four otherevaluations/reports about the programme, either in theirentirety or partially, were found as part of the prepara-tory process for writing the article. One was an evalu-ation undertaken for UNIDO at the end of 1995, withonly one year of programme operation [5]. The evalu-ation was limited to project design and administrativearrangements as the NCPCs had barely begun their pro-grammatic activities. The second was a comparativeanalysis of several different donor sponsored CP pro-grammes by the US Agency for International Develop-ment and the Swiss Federal Office for Foreign EconomicAffairs [6]. Five of the 22 interviews undertaken for thereport were with the directors of NCPCs. The analysisaddressed programme design and management issues aswell as commenting on the relative importance of vari-ous programmatic activities undertaken by cleaner pro-duction centres. The third was a critique of the UN man-date for EST as set forth in Agenda 21 and a secondarysource critique of the NCPC programme. It suggestedthat the lack of integration of NCPCs into national sys-tems of innovation makes the NCPC role limited andperipheral [7]. The fourth is advice on how to set up anNCPC and a description of the six programmatic func-tions typically undertaken by an NCPC [8].

2. Background

2.1. Purpose of the NCPC programme

The basic premise of the UNIDO/UNEP NCPC pro-gramme is that cleaner production can only be sustainedin a country if there is capacity in place to adopt it. Trueappreciation of cleaner production and therefore itsapplication can only come about if the concept is pro-moted by professionals in the beneficiary country itselfand adjusted by them to the local conditions. Buildingcapacity to do this through the centres is the main objec-tive of the programme. The programme targets the trans-fer of know-how and not the transfer of technology. Thecentres and the cleaner production assessors trained bythem do not deliver ready-made solutions; rather theytrain and advise their clients on how to find the bestsolution for their specific problems.

During the three to five years it takes UNIDO to fullyestablish its centres, the latter build capacity in the pro-cess of offering six basic services:

� Awareness-raising with short seminars up to one dayduration and dissemination of general CP infor-mation;

� training as professional training in CP methodologyused in in-plant assessments;

� technical assistance, both in the form of in-plant CPassessments and in other ways;

� advice on sources of financing for cleaner techno-logies;

� information dissemination as technology informationneeded for in-plant assessments;

� policy advice.

2.2. Brief history and status of the UNIDO/UNEPprogramme

The report from UNIDO’s Conference on Ecologi-cally Sustainable Industrial Development called uponUNIDO to assist developing countries build “ insti-tutional capacity to develop, absorb and diffuse pollutionprevention techniques and cleaner production processesessential to making the transition to ESID” [9].

The UNIDO Energy and Environment Unit finalizeda project document requesting donor support for theestablishment of National Cleaner Production Centres inJuly 1992 and submitted it to the Government of theNetherlands in November 1992, receiving a funding ofUS$ 1.6 million in 1994. The project document calledfor a joint programme between UNIDO and UNEP, withUNIDO acting as the executing agency and UNEP’sIndustry and Environment Programme Activity Centreproviding professional support (methodology andinformation). This Phase One document envisaged sup-porting eight to nine NCPCs for three years.1 In February1993, UNIDO and UNEP requested developing coun-tries to apply, on the basis of guidelines issued by thesetwo organizations, as host countries for NCPCs. Theguidelines stated that an NCPC could be located inindustrial trade associations, chambers of commerce andindustry, industrial productivity centres, universities orother industry-oriented organizations. UNIDO received

1 The brief description in the project document reads as follows:“UNIDO’s Environment and Energy Branch and UNEP’s Industry andEnvironment Programme Activity Centre propose to support NationalCleaner Production Centres (NCPCs) in approximately 20 countriesfor a five year period. The NCPCs will serve a coordinating and cata-lytic role for cleaner production by providing policy advice on environ-mental management, supporting demonstrations of cleaner productiontechniques and technologies, training industry and government pro-fessionals in this new area of industrial environmental managementand by being a source of information on cleaner production. They willbecome the core of a network of institutions and individuals involvedin pollution prevention activities, they will be managed by experiencedcountry nationals and hosted in existing institutions. Phase I of thisprogramme will support eight–nine NCPCs for three years. Phase Iof this programme will test the effectiveness of this approach for thepromotion of pollution prevention/source reduction as an importantcomplement to end-of-pipe pollution control efforts. Phase I achieve-ments and experiences will form the basis for an application to SpecialPurpose Donors and UNDP for Phase II, which, if accepted, wouldfund the eight-nine existing NCPCs for two more years and 12 newsNCPCs for five years” .

197R.A. Luken, J. Navratil / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 195–205

applications from 39 institutions in 25 countries on theclosure date of October 1993. In November 1993, anexpert panel selected nine institutions/countries basedprimarily on the strength of the host institution andqualifications of the potential head of the centre (calledthe Cleaner Production Promoter) and taking intoaccount regional distribution. UNIDO and UNEP under-took field visits to the semi-finalists in mid-1994 andannounced the five finalists (China, India, Mexico, Tan-zania and Zimbabwe) for the programme in November1994. In addition, Brazil was selected conditionallybased on the availability of funds, both its own and thosefrom UNIDO and UNEP. In 1994, UNIDO also pro-posed centres and found funding from Austria forNCPCs in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Officially,the NCPC programme started for the seven centres inJanuary 1995 with Brazil joining in June 1995 on thebasis of a self-financed trust fund. Collectively in thisarticle, these eight centres are referred to as the “old”NCPCs.

The current status of the NCPC programme (January2003) is that the programme has funded 25 centres.Table 1 indicates the starting and closing dates andamount of general support funds made available. In mostcases, funding for each NCPC includes the salary for theCleaner Production Promoter (Director), a start-upoffice, minimal in-plant monitoring equipment if needed,

Table 1Location of NCPCs, time span of operation with UNIDO funding, donor country and amount of funds (as of January 2003)

Country Start of operation with End of operation with Donor Amount (US$) Amount per yearUNIDO UNIDO (US$)

Brazil 1995 1998 Brazil 330,000 110,000China 1995 1998 The Netherlands 310,000 103,000Costa Rica 1998 2003 Switzerland 1,123,000 224,600Croatia 1997 1999 Czech Republic 175,000 58,100Czech Republic 1994 1999 Austria 603,000 120,600El Salvador 1998 2003 Switzerland 1,123,000 224,600Ethiopia 2000 2002 Italy 708,000 236,000Guatemala 1999 2004 Switzerland 1,123,000 224,600Hungary 1997 2000 Austria 444,000 148,000India 1995 1998 The Netherlands 310,000 103,000Kenya 2000 2002 UNDP 421,000 140,300Republic of Korea 2001 2003 Republic of Korea 610,000 203,000Lebanon 2002 2004 EU/Austria 200,000 100,000Mexico 1995 1998 The Netherlands 310,000 103,000Morocco 2000 2005 Switzerland 1,334,000 266,800Mozambique 2000 2002 Italy 713,000 237,600Nicaragua 1997 2002 Austria 805,000 161,000Slovakia 1995 2000 Austria 517,500 86,200Sri Lanka 2001 2006 Norway 1,200,000 240,000South Africa 2002 2007 Switzerland, Austria 1,500,000 300,000Tanzania 1995 1998 The Netherlands 310,000 103,000Tunisia 1996 1998 Norway 66,500 33,200Uganda 2001 2003 Austria 708,000 236,000Vietnam 1998 2003 Switzerland 2,550,000 510,000Zimbabwe 1995 1998 The Netherlands 310,000 103,000TOTAL 17,804,000

installation of computerized data management, funds forinternational (mostly in the twinned institutions) andnational experts, study tours, training and travel. Theonly centre with a full-time international advisor is theone in Vietnam.

The total budget for centre specific activities is US$17.4 million as of January 2003. In addition, the centrescollectively benefit from global activities in the field ofCP undertaken by UNIDO and UNEP. Most of thebudget (85%) is funded by donor countries (the bulkbeing from Switzerland, Austria, Norway, the Nether-lands, and Italy), the remaining part by multilateralorganizations (UNEP, UNIDO, UNDP—10%) andthrough self-financing (Brazil, Oman, Republic ofKorea, Russia—5%).

The budget for the “old” NCPCs including initial pre-paratory work amounted to US$ 4.7 million with all themoney already spent. The material in this article drawsprimarily on the experience of the NCPCs in this catego-ry.

2.3. Types of activities/services of the NCPCs

The first tranche of NCPCs, a standard UNIDO/UNEPNCPC, once established and operational was expectedto conduct at least the following core activities: training,in-plant assessments, dissemination of information and


policy dialogue. Based on the experience with theseNCPCs, the newer NCPCs are expected to conduct thesecore activities plus assistance in finding investmentfunds for cleaner technology. It is apparent that there arejustifiable differences between the “new” NCPCs(Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, etc.) and the “old”ones. In the case of Tunisia, the USAID EnvironmentalPollution Prevention Programme set up and provided theinitial funding for the centre. UNIDO/UNEP involve-ment came after the support from USAID ended and wasvery limited as can be seen by the amount made avail-able to the centre.

All NCPCs are engaged in the following core activi-ties: short-term training (up to five days) and dissemi-nation of generic information on cleaner production. Allare engaged in conducting in-plant assessments(combined with training and demonstration activities).Most NCPCs are engaged in policy dialogue with differ-ent ministries or regional authorities (preparation of orcomments on policy papers, etc.). Many of them alsoconduct training courses longer than five days and pro-vide information on cleaner technology (CT).

The awareness raising function in the “old” centreswas subsumed under training and information dissemi-nation. This made the training and information servicesvery heterogeneous. In the case of the “new” centres,awareness raising (short seminars up to one dayduration) and dissemination of general CP informationare singled out as two distinct activities. This hasresulted in more precise definition of training as pro-fessional training in CP methodology used in in-plantassessments as well as in a more precise definition ofinformation as technology information needed for in-plant assessments and CT application.

Some centres are also engaged in non-core activities.The most significant is cooperation of the “old” NCPCswith educational institutions in introducing CP subjectsin their curricula. Some of the “old” NCPCs offerenterprises advice on Environmental Management Sys-tems (EMS), environmental benchmarking, environmen-tal management accounting and energy efficiency(conservation). Only a few indicate involvement in morecomplex activities such as life cycle analysis (LCA) andeco-design and only three of them provide on occasionadvice on end-of-pipe (EOP) treatment if it complementsthe CT measures. No NCPC is reported to have beeninvolved in hazardous waste management (even thoughother information suggests that at least the NCPC in Bra-zil was involved in this area). It is worth noting that onlysome of the “old” NCPCs have advised companies onfinancing and transfer of technology related to CP.

3. Results

3.1. Reported results

NCPCs are expected to report to UNIDO and UNEPsemi-annually on their activities. On the basis of thesereports, a standard “NCPC Activity Report” for thewhole programme is compiled by UNIDO. The onlycomplete set of key indicators, taken from the “FirstQuarter 1999 Activity Report with the exception of dataon trained assessors” , is presented in Table 2.

The data presented in the table suggest that there aredifferent interpretations by people from different NCPCsof the contents of some of the reported activities. Thisapplies to the number of plants submitted to in-depth CPassessments, the number of trained CP assessors and thenumber of awareness raising seminars and activities.Interviews with individual NCPCs in the context of the1999 evaluation also indicate frequent discrepancybetween information provided in the course of theseinterviews and the key indicators contained in theactivity report. For example, a later evaluation of justthree centres (Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia)found some noticeable differences in the reported num-ber of demonstration projects and trained CP assessors.Therefore, the information provided in Table 2 has tobe considered with caution. Particularly, the number oftrained assessors should not be interpreted as the numberof assessors who actually are qualified to conduct in-plant assessments: these numbers are much lower.

Collection of information for this evaluation con-firmed that most of the NCPCs do not have a well-estab-lished management information system, which wouldprovide information on the activities, their costs andimpacts. For example, it was difficult for some NCPCsto provide information on the implementation of CToptions by enterprises. (It should be, however, high-lighted that some NCPCs have a very good overview:NCPC Mexico was able to report on the percentage ofimplementation of every CT option.) None of theNCPCs has a good overview of how many CP assessorstrained by the NCPC actually conduct regular in-plantassessments and what is the impact of their work (howmany CT options were identified by them, how manywere implemented, etc.). The environmental and econ-omic impacts of the implemented CT options are notmeasured in a standard way.

3.2. Staffing of NCPCs

The number of staff varies between 1 (Zimbabwe) and15 (China). Industrial experience and profound knowl-edge of an industrial sector are definitely an asset forworking in an NCPC, particularly in conducting in-plantassessments and providing information on technologies.Only a few larger NCPCs (such as China) can afford to


Tab

le2

Key

indi

cato

rsof

the

prog

ress

ofth

eon

goin

gN

CPC

Prog

ram

me

(as

of19

99)

Cou

ntry

Star

tof

oper

atio

nw

ithN

umbe

rof

Num

ber

ofN

umbe

rof

Num

ber

ofN

umbe

rof

plan

tsN

umbe

rof

Num

ber

ofN

umbe

rof

Num

ber

ofU

NID

Oaw

aren

ess

pers

ons

pers

ons

trai

ned

CP

subm

itted

toin

-pl

ants

w.

appl

icat

ions

for

subm

itted

and

requ

ests

orra

isin

gpa

rtic

ipat

ing

inre

ceiv

ing

asse

ssor

sde

pth

CP

impl

emen

ted

inve

stm

ent

toac

cept

edte

chni

cal

sem

inar

san

daw

aren

ess

trai

ning

asse

ssm

ents

EM

Ssy

stem

sfin

anci

alpr

ojec

tsin

form

atio

nac

tiviti

esra

isin

gw

ithN

CPC

inst

itutio

nsas

sist

ance

Cum

.19

99C

um.

1999

Cum

.19

99C

um.

1999

Cum

.19

99C

um.

1999

Cum

.19

99C

um.

1999

Cum

.19

99In

cl.

Incl

.In

cl.

Incl

.In

cl.

Incl

.In

cl.

Incl

.In

cl.

1999

1999

1999

1998

a19

9919

9919

9919

9919

99

Bra

zil

July

1995

227

1461

517

1319

414

43n.

a.52

243

122

811

60

0C

hina

June

1995

104

815

,580

1180

741

275

350

n.a.

130

2010

614

410

2n.

a.10

Cos

taR

ica

Dec

embe

r19

984

410

710

710

10n.

a.n.

a.0

00

00

00

010

10C

zech

Rep

ublic

Nov

embe

r19

9410

020

1000

150

450

5230

3n.

a.12

517

125

225

124

100

25E

lSa

lvad

orJa

nuar

y19

996

637

537

58

8n.

a.n.

a.0

00

00

00

00

0G

uate

mal

a19

991

133

339

9n.

a.n.

a.0

00

00

00

08

8H

unga

ryM

ay19

97n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.11

n.a.

n.a.

n..a

.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.n.

a.In

dia

July

1995

8928

2552

1414

1469

364

65n.

a.26

82

115

68

4M

exic

oD

ecem

ber

1995

82

394

3255

733

232

n.a.

3310

00

01

00

100

45N

icar

agua

Sept

embe

r19

9828

813

7315

512

69

n.a.

n.a.

223

20

00

00

227

Slov

akia

Febr

uary

1995

627

015

426

9n.

a.74

57

38

356

Tan

zani

aA

ugus

t19

958

129

250

128

36n.

a.n.

a.26

80

00

00

0?

?T

unis

iab

Janu

ary

1996

101

400

9010

025

n.a.

n.a.

2810

00

05

05

254

Vie

tN

amJu

ly19

986

628

228

25

5n.

a.n.

a.0

00

00

00

01

1Z

imba

bwe

Apr

il19

953

348

4848

4811

n.a.

55

55

55

40+

40+

All

NC

PCs

389

101

23,8

9747

0349

7017

4110

79n.

a.52

111

036

1678

4247

2930

6+20

6+

n.a.

=no

tav

aila

ble.

The

exac

tfig

ures

inth

eta

ble

abov

esh

ould

beta

ken

with

som

ere

serv

atio

nsas

the

cent

res

have

used

slig

htly

diff

eren

tde

finiti

ons,

i.e.

todi

stin

guis

hbe

twee

nse

min

ars

and

wor

ksho

ps.

aN

umbe

rof

trai

ned

CP

asse

ssor

data

only

avai

labl

efo

rei

ght

cent

res

asof

July

1998

.b

Ten

ofth

e28

plan

ts(fi

veel

ectr

opla

ting,

five

foun

drie

s)w

ere

asse

ssed

ona

less

stri

ctm

etho

dolo

gy,w

hile

four

plan

ts(c

hem

ical

)w

ere

asse

ssed

inan

even

deep

erfo

rmat

than

UN

IDO

met

hodo

logy

.


employ sectoral specialists. However, in most cases ofin-plant assessments, the NCPC staff act as managers,supervisors or organizers of activities conducted actuallyby consultants. It is primarily the awareness raising,training, dissemination of generic CP information andpolicy dialogue activities in which the staff are directlyinvolved. Their strong feature is, therefore, good knowl-edge of the methodology while specialized sectoralexpertise is possessed only by some of them. Given themodality of conducting in-plant assessments primarilyby consultants, the professional composition of the staffseems to be adequate.

3.3. Awareness raising

In quantitative terms, awareness-raising activitiesaimed at disseminating the CP concept have been veryextensive (newspaper articles, TV press, newsletters,brochures, handbooks, websites, stands at fairs, etc.).Many of the centres have become recognized as focalpoints for CP and the CP concept has become wellknown amongst a set of environmental professionals andwithin a certain segment of government organizations,municipalities and industry. However, the CP concepthas not yet become known or fully understood by allindustrial and service companies, but it would beunrealistic to expect such a result from this programmealone, particularly in the more populous countries.

3.4. Technical assistance/demonstration projects

The interest in the CP programme and the relatedeffective demand for CP advisory services at the com-pany level are rather low. This applies particularly toSMEs. There are a number of reasons for this behaviour.First, for many of them, environmental objectives are notyet truly integrated in the company objectives/strategypartially because of inadequate enforcement of environ-mental standards. Second, the expected financial benefitsthat would result from the implementation of the non-investment CT measures may not seem robust enoughto deserve staff time and organizational effort requiredfor conducting in-plant assessments. Risks associatedwith interference in established technologies and pro-cesses and time required for identification and elabor-ation of CT measures may also fend off the companymanagement. Third, the implementation of investmentoptions requires either the use of their own capital,which the SMEs are usually short of, or a loan that, how-ever, is difficult to access for a number of reasons. Theseinclude the fact that the amount of loan is not big enoughto be of interest for a commercial bank, non-compliancewith banks’ lending criteria in terms of collateral, finan-cial standing, complicated procedures and strict criteriato access soft loans from the government funds.

There is one more factor that curtails the interest of

both the investor and a financial institution in investingin CT measures. It is difficult to quantify all theeconomic/financial benefits because they may affectmultiple areas, long time horizons and probabilistic nat-ure. In addition to reduction of direct operating costs,CT measures may result in reduction of indirect costs(regulatory compliance costs, pollution control equip-ment operation costs, etc.), reduction of liability costs(probability of future penalties and fines, etc.) andachievement of less-tangible benefits (safer workingenvironment, corporate image, etc.). Some agencies tryto support the decision-making processes for CP invest-ment by elaborating and disseminating the concept oftotal cost assessment [10] and UNEP has launched a pro-ject which also should, inter alia, develop instruments tosupport economic analysis and decision-making oninvestment [11]. However, the methodological problemof total cost assessment is compounded by the fact thatstandard accounting systems do not track environmentalcosts well, so that even the reduction of some operatingcosts may not be reflected in the accounting system. Allthese constraints apply and are difficult to overcomeparticularly in the case of SMEs and CT measures withsmall size of investment (and an impact not big enoughto observe the difference). Potentially, the increasing uti-lization by enterprises of environmental managementaccounting will help to overcome some of these diffi-culties.

When under time pressure to drastically reduce pol-lution in order to comply with environmental norms,companies very often cannot (or think they cannot) avoidthe end-of-pipe treatment of waste. Established con-sulting companies and suppliers of such waste handlingtechnologies, pursuing their own commercial interests,tend to ignore or marginalize the CP approach. Thedecision-making at the company level is influenced notonly by cost considerations, but also by “easiness” ofthe end-of-pipe treatment from the management point ofview (no need to change production process, trust inestablished approaches and technologies, etc.). Accord-ing to one association of industry in a country preparingfor EU membership, insistence on rapid implementationof EU environmental standards prompted huge invest-ment in end-of-pipe technologies, which—at leastpartly—could have been used more efficiently in therationalization of the technology processes themselves.

3.5. Training

As explained above, the national capacity to promoteand provide CP services is not confined to the NCPCalone, but also includes the mass of expertise and knowl-edge in the companies and institutions created throughawareness raising, training and participation at in-plantassessments. A critical role in the implementation of theCP concept is played by those who become qualified


enough to work as CP assessors and, thus, as activeagents of the CP programmes. To achieve this capability,the candidates have to attend the training course and takean active part in a plant assessment.

The number of people trained as CP assessors by theeight NCPCs reviewed under the 1999 evaluation(Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Mexico,Slovakia and Zimbabwe) was 1079 as of July 1998. Thesame number compiled through interviews of the NCPCdirectors in March 1999 amounted to 765 (excluding thefive to 6000 participants at training courses of six daysduration in China). This discrepancy can be partlyexplained by the fact that the former estimate may alsoinclude those CP assessors who were trained by CP pro-grammes organized by various donors prior to the NCPCestablishment. What is, however, more important is thediscrepancy between people trained as assessors (765)and the number of assessors who are qualified andexperienced enough to actually conduct in-plant assess-ments (estimated at approximately 200). Some of thesepeople are in industrial companies, some work in insti-tutions and consulting companies, and some work asfreelance consultants. (The breakdown depends verymuch on the country—typically NCPCs hosted by a uni-versity or national productivity centre train more stafffrom those host institutions.) These qualified CPassessors usually work only part-time as CP assessors,either for an in-plant assessment project of the NCPC orin the context of other consulting services. In the lattercase, however, the methodology is not necessarily usedin its totality.

While it is recognized that CP assessment will mostoften be used as a complement to other environmentalactivities, it seems that there is still a potential to makemore extensive use of the developed capacity to conductin-plant assessments. In other words, the demand for in-plant assessment services is below the capacity that isalready available. Actually, the services of CP assessorsworking as freelance consultants are used primarilyunder CP projects organized by the NCPCs or otherdonor-funded programmes, which from the point of viewof the target companies contain a certain element of sub-sidy. A spontaneous, commercially driven unfolding ofthe CP advisory services beyond the NCPCs’ control hasbeen rather limited or at least there is little evidence ofit. This experience seems to confirm that those who offerCP assessments as fee-paying service will probably notbe able to offer them full-time, but rather as a comp-lement to other (mostly legislation-driven) services or tofix specific process related problems as they come up.

There were some allusions that some staff trained asCP assessors only partially apply the methodology whenproviding related advisory services to industry, such ascounselling on EMS. It is also observed that training inCP methodology helps consultants in advising on EMSand its implementation. This fact would not only support

the NCPC strategy to integrate CP with EMS. It wouldalso suggest that making CP an integral part of otheradvisory services to industry could be one of the effec-tive avenues for a self-sustaining dissemination of theCP concept. In practical terms, it should imply increasein the attention of the NCPCs to consulting companiesand freelance consultants when selecting target groupsfor awareness raising and training activities as well asnetworking with them for the purpose of deliveringcomplementary services.

3.6. Technical information services

In most cases, requests for technical information weresupply driven in the sense that they were initiated bythe NCPC itself in the process of conducting in-plantassessments. The number of spontaneous inquiries fromthe end-users (companies, institutions and public ingeneral) has been rather limited. The NCPCs do not keeprecords of such inquiries, but some NCPCs estimate thatthe number of such inquiries does not exceed 10 permonth. The inquiries usually deal with generic aspects ofCP. Inquiries about environmentally sound technologies,including end-of-pipe treatment technologies, are notfrequent and inquiries about specific CT options areactually very rare.

Low demand for this type of information reflects itselfin the very limited development of capabilities at theNCPC to provide such services. Databases at the NCPC,where they are developed and operational, serve ratherNCPC management than external users. Some databasestaken over (such as International Cleaner ProductionInformation Clearinghouse (ICPIC) from UNEP) wereinstalled and in some cases (Hungary) even translatedbut their use is negligible. The capability to perform areferral service is also not well developed; hardly anyNCPC has a list of useful websites to refer to when look-ing for information. Internet is used usually for theNCPC’s own information needs and again, these needsonly occasionally deal with specific technologies. Also,international experts provided by the UNIDO/UNEPprogramme and UNEP’s expert groups have hardly beenused as sources of information on technology. Most ofthe international experts are considered as competent inproviding methodological advice, but not in terms ofspecific (sectoral) expertise.

Some NCPCs have a staff member trained and experi-enced in searching on the Internet and this person thencarries out the search for other NCPC staff. However,some NCPCs still report technical problems in con-nectivity (low capacity, long waiting time, etc.). Lowdemand for information on technologies by external cli-ents is to a great extent understandable. Large companieshave their own mechanisms, professionals and estab-lished channels to keep abreast of the state-of-the-arttechnologies. SMEs, on the other hand, are in most cases


not aware of what information they may need and there-fore, they do not ask for it. The second dimension of theproblem is that the information available in the databaseson the Internet and elsewhere is often of little practicaluse for SMEs if not accompanied by advice/expertise.Technical information is a powerful tool in the hands ofthe expert who knows how to interpret it and apply itin a certain context, whereas information on technologyaccessed through a library, the Internet, or a patent officein the hands of laymen is of limited value. If SMEs doneed some information on technology, they usually con-tact somebody they know in the business and whom theytrust, or a dealer or manufacturer/supplier of equipment.

It seems that the frequently emphasized importance ofinformation for technology change including transfer oftechnology needs some qualification. Simple dissemi-nation of information on technology among SMEs wouldnot help much. What is more effective is disseminationof information in the context of business advisory ser-vices. In view of this, the NCPCs need not set tooambitious goals as regards dissemination of stand-aloneinformation on technology. Rather, they should aim atdeveloping a capability to provide expert advice(supported by updated technical information). Suchexpertise, however, requires continuous exposure to thespecific technology area, visiting trade fairs, followingup professional literature etc. As it is hardly possible tostaff the NCPC with such experts covering all sectors,it is necessary either to focus on a specific sector ofindustry or—what seems to be more practical—to estab-lish a network with other sectoral institutions, consultingcompanies or freelance consultants to whom such ser-vices can be subcontracted or referred to. This is yetanother reason why these groups should be targeted intraining and awareness raising activities.

3.7. Financial advisory services

So far only a few NCPCs have tried to address theproblem of access to financing for implementation of theinvestment options. Some of them (such as the Czechcentre) were instrumental in promoting and establishingsuch financing facilities or in cooperating with them inevaluating applications for soft loans (Tunisia). Asaccess to financing is one of the key factors of CPimplementation, this field is becoming more and moreimportant for the NCPCs and a number of them plan toenter into this field. It will require their close cooperationwith the banking system and the government authorities;participation of bankers at the CP training courses or inthe final stages of in-plant assessments can support suchcooperation. As financing of CP options has some spe-cific features, this is apparently one of the fields in whichthe UNIDO and UNEP headquarters can play a signifi-cant role in providing methodological advice to theNCPCs, in organizing an intensive and continuous

exchange of experience among them and in mobilizingbilateral and multilateral investment funds to supportNCPC’s activities at the industry level. The UNEP CPfinancing project mentioned earlier plays a special role,in which five NCPCs participate. Their experience aswell as the instruments designed by the project could beused by all NCPCs in providing financial advisory ser-vices.

3.8. Policy advice

Given the increasing importance of environmentalprotection among the policy objectives of governmentsand sufficient evidence provided by the CP programmesthat it is possible to reconcile environmental and econ-omic objectives, the demand at policy level for CP pro-grammes has been considerable. This is reflected notonly in government interest in and political support fordonor-funded technical cooperation programmes in thisfield, but also in policy measures adopted by somegovernments to support dissemination of the concept andimplementation of CT measures by enterprises. Forexample, the Czech Ministry of Environment includedCT among those measures that are eligible for a subsidyfrom the State Environment Fund. Companiesimplementing CT measures/projects are eligible to applyfor a subsidized (soft) loan up to 70% of the requiredinvestment (with the upper limit of US$ 1 million perloan).

At the same time, however, the budgetary constraintsin most developing countries and countries in transitiondo not allow them to back the CP concept by allocationof resources large enough to carry out promotional andother dissemination activities. It is only in some coun-tries (such as India) that the government allocates dis-tinct budgetary resources to finance promotion and dis-semination of the programme. Thus, in most countries,local ownership of the CP dissemination programmes(demonstrated by financial commitments) is difficult toachieve and the role of external (donor) funding remainsessential. To a great extent, this “supply driven” compo-nent in the CP programmes reflects the differences inactual policy priorities between the developed anddeveloping countries.

4. Sustainability

As explained above, the long-term goal of the pro-gramme is the widespread application of the CPapproach in industry. NCPCs are one of the tools. Oncethe ultimate goal is achieved, there will be no need forthe NCPCs. However, this is a perspective reaching farbeyond the lifetime of the UNIDO/UNEP programmesupport to individual NCPCs (three to five years). Hence,


in the medium-term (three to ten years), the sus-tainability of the NCPCs is a real issue.

In practical terms, the issue of sustainability boilsdown to financial sustainability (cost recovery)!! Oncethe UNIDO financial support is over, there are in prin-ciple three potential sources of NCPC financing: contri-bution in cash or kind by the host organization (if thereis any), income from services to local clients (industry,the Government) and income from implementation ofCP projects funded by other donors. Except for govern-ment support through the host organization, if in publicsector, direct Government subsidy to the centres seemsto be only a theoretical possibility at present.

Even though it is difficult to get a clear picture aboutthe current level of cost recovery by NCPC programmecomponents, it is clear that without external support (byforeign donors), the NCPCs could hardly survive. ThoseNCPCs, which are likely to sustain their operations aftercompletion of the UNIDO financial support (China,India, Brazil, Mexico, Slovakia, the Czech centre, Zim-babwe, Tanzania etc.), either enjoy support of the hostinstitution or have managed to access other externalfunding sources (usually other CP programmes). Someof them earn some income on services sold to thegovernment when supporting them in the design andimplementation of their environmental programmes.

There is a general trend to commercialize the servicesof service institutions and this trend is frequently appliedto the NCPCs as well. It is, however, hardly possiblefor the NCPCs to sustain on income generated from CPadvisory services to industry alone. Furthermore, thepolicy of maximizing income from the direct advisoryservices to industry would run counter to the purpose ofthe programme. The primary purpose of the NCPC isnot to provide CP advisory services to industry but ratherto play a pivotal role in implanting the CP concept inexisting advisory services carried out by other organiza-tions and consulting companies. Such an approach con-tributes best to the dissemination of the concept, com-plies well with the staff qualifications and professionalcapabilities and, at the same time, minimizes distortionin the market of consulting services.

To play such a pivotal role, the NCPCs must sustaintheir capability to act as centres of excellence in thisfield by deepening their direct experience from in-plantassessments under different conditions and by extendingnetworking with potential partners in CP applications.For playing such a non-commercial (public service) role,the NCPCs hosted by a well-established organization(either government or NGO) may be in an advantageousposition compared to the status of being an independententity, which tends to focus on commercial activities.This, however, applies only on the condition that thehost organization identifies itself with the mission of theNCPC and does not consider it as potential source ofincome for the host organization, as some experience

suggests. On the other hand, too close an identificationof the NCPC with a government institution may jeop-ardize its credibility in the eyes of industry.

As there is no standard solution for the status ofNCPCs after project completion, it also depends on themanagement and staff of the NCPCs themselves to whatdegree they manage to develop contacts with differentstakeholders and establish themselves in the “market”for CP programmes and advisory services. The impor-tance of this issue has been fully recognized in the NCPCprogramme as evident from the emphasis laid on andmethodological support provided for preparation of busi-ness plans in each NCPC.

5. Conclusions and lessons learned

CP is a cost-effective approach towards sustainabledevelopment. The UNIDO/UNEP NCPC programmeconfirms that the CP methodology is an effective toolfor identification and prioritisation of technologychanges that yield both environmental and economicbenefits. This applies particularly to existing productionor service facilities. (Other tools, such as environmentalimpact assessment and life cycle analysis, address theenvironmental dimension of new investment projects.)In some cases, the proposals for technological changesgenerated under the programme were based on genericrationalization principles without application of the CPmethodology. This indicates the affinity of the underly-ing principles of the CP methodology as applied by theNCPCs to the generic rationalization approaches used inproduction management.

However, the programme has also confirmed that dis-semination and application of the CP concept amongSMEs on the basis of its own economic merits does notoccur easily, so there is a need to support the dissemi-nation of the concept through promotional (awarenessraising and training) activities and policy measures.Developing local capacity to promote CP takes timebecause hands-on experience and a certain minimumnumber of success stories need to be available. Further-more, local ownership of the CP dissemination pro-grammes (demonstrated by financial commitments) isdifficult to achieve so that the role of external (donor)funding remains essential. To a great extent, the con-straints of local funding and availability of donor fund-ing reflect the differences in actual policy prioritiesbetween the developed and developing countries andtheir capability to support environmental policy objec-tives by appropriate budget allocations.

5.1. Impact

The programme has contributed to the disseminationand application of the CP concept in the countries sup-


ported by the programme. Its effectiveness can beobserved mainly in awareness raising, training of CPassessors, and introduction of the CP concept in curric-ula of educational institutions and, in some countries,integration of CP into the environmental policy frame-work. Actual impact in terms of environmental andeconomic benefits at the industry level has been rathermodest compared to the potential which exists in thewhole industrial sector and this impact has been achi-eved primarily through in-plant assessments conductedor organized by NCPCs themselves. There is only lim-ited evidence of an impact at industry level, which couldbe ascribed to the activities of NCPC-trained CPassessors carried out beyond the control of NCPCs orthrough any other spin-off activities.

5.2. Transfer of technology

Given the constraints identified earlier (such as limitedaccess to financing) and some intrinsic features of man-agement decisions (the easiest to implement are the non-investment changes in housekeeping), the technologicalchanges induced by the programme are primarily in thelower order of complexity and investment so that mostof the implemented changes are not spectacular. This iscompounded by the fact that majority of the companiessupported by the programme are SMEs.

5.3. Management dimension

While the core methodology of the CP is technical,its application within a company is a function of its man-agement. Therefore, the success at company leveldepends not only on the technical and communicationcapability of the CP assessors but also on the level ofmanagement in the company. The NCPCs have twooptions for addressing this problem. One is to providesupport in conducting in-plant assessments on selectivebasis only to companies with good management (asreflected in company performance indicators, establishedsystems of quality management, integration of environ-mental objectives in the company strategy, etc.). Compa-nies certified or preparing for ISO 9000 or EMS wouldbe the best candidates. The other is to complementingthe CP advisory services by other management advisoryservices (quality management, production management,etc.). The latter option is more difficult and represents acomplex task that could stretch the NCPC services toobroadly; alternatively, cooperation with other con-sultancy services may help.

5.4. Upgrading methodology

On the supply side (delivery of advisory services), theNCPCs need to continue upgrading the professionallevel of their advisory services to industry by strengthen-

ing their sectoral expertise (or, more probably theiraccess to sectoral expertise) and elaborating further theCP methodology and its application. Further elaborationof the methodology could include elaboration of sec-tor—or process specific methodologies with compilationof selected parameters for benchmarking purposes. Thisshould be harmonized with the contents of the databaseof technical reports. Enhanced application of the meth-odology should also include active mastering of selectedmeasuring instruments and techniques. In addition to thisrather technical upgrading of the methodology itself, itis also necessary to continue elaborating principles forits application in the context of company management(integration with EMS but also industrial managementin general) and in relation to other tools aiming at sus-tainable production (such as life cycle analysis andenvironmental management accounting). No doubt suchactivities will require cooperation with other stake-holders, including universities and international advisors.

5.5. Public service vs. commercial activities

The activities of the NCPCs should continue to bea mixture of income generating advisory services andsubsidized public service (focal point) functions which,in addition to awareness raising, policy dialogue, etc.should include the above mentioned elaboration of themethodology and approaches for its application as wellas compilation of and mastering of access to informationresources. The shares of these two categories of activi-ties (commercial consulting and public service) cannotbe standardized as they depend on the specific conditionsof each country, but the focal point function shoulddominate. As a rule, the more advanced and competitivethe management consulting services in the country are,the easier it should be to transfer gradually the commer-cial application of the CP advisory services to them,while retaining and upgrading the public service (focalpoint) functions. Consulting companies in the fields ofquality management (ISO, TQM, EMS, etc.) and pol-lution control (end-of-pipe technologies) are the mostsuitable candidates to integrate CP in their services, butthere may be other service providers who can integrateCP into their advisory services, such as R&D institutionsand universities.

In view of the above, the NCPCs should not be evalu-ated exclusively or primarily by impact at the companylevel, which results from in-plant assessments organizedby the NCPCs themselves. Rather they should be evalu-ated primarily by the impact at the industry level in termsof their successfully transferring the CP concept and itstools to other organizations/consultants and their con-tributing to the formulation of a conductive CP policyframework.


5.6. Main lessons learned

The above findings suggest that:

� The diffusion of the CP concept can hardly unfold oncommercial principles, particularly among the SMEs,so that some element of promotion/subsidy is needed;

� the promotion of the concept under the programmeneeds to focus on factors creating demand (awarenessraising, policy framework, access to finance);

� the access to finance is the critical factor forimplementing more complex technology changes(usually through transfer of technology) and achiev-ing significant economic and environmental impact;

� to become a continuous process in the company, CPneeds to be integrated in EMS;

� therefore, the main target group for CP should becompanies introducing or planning to introduce ISO9000, EMS, ISO 14000 or Corporate Social Responsi-bility Programmes, i.e. the more advanced segment ofthe SMEs particularly those receiving foreign capital.For the purpose of visibility and creating a body ofreferences, large companies could be among the cli-ents as well; and

� a certain level of management and financial stabilityshould be a prerequisite for any intervention. Comp-lementing CP advisory services or integrating themwith other management advisory services could over-come this problem.

The preceding conclusions imply that the NCPC pro-gramme has better chances of achieving significantimpact in countries that have a larger segment of wellperforming industry with consolidated management sys-tems than in countries in which large segments of indus-

try face rudimentary problems of survival and are inneed of restructuring and consolidating managementfunctions first. It is particularly in such countries that theCP programmes should cooperate closely or be inte-grated with other management consulting services inproviding advisory services to industry.

References

[1] UN, Department of Public Information. Agenda 21, Section34.14. 1997.

[2] UN. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development,Johannesburg, South Africa, New York (available onwww.johannesburgsummit.org) 2002.

[3] UNIDO. In-Depth Evaluation of Selected UNIDO Activities onDevelopment and Transfer of Technology, The UNIDO/UNEPNational Cleaner Production Centres (NCPCs), Component 1,ODG/R.11, 1999.

[4] UNIDO. Evaluation of the National Cleaner Production Centresin Central Europe, ORG/R.22–25, Four volumes, 2001.

[5] Kisch P, Ryden E, Lindhqvist T. Evaluation of theUNIDO/UNEP National Cleaner Production Centre Programme,International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics atLund University, 1996.

[6] Grutter J. Comparative analysis of cleaner production centers.Swiss Federal Office of Foreign Economic Affairs, 1998.

[7] Muchie M. Old wine in new bottles: a critical exploration of theUN’s conceptions and mechanisms for the transfer of environ-mentally sound technologies to industry. Technology in Society2000;22:201–20.

[8] UNEP. Learning from the Experience of National Cleaner Pro-duction Centres, Division of Technology, Industry and Econom-ics, 2002.

[9] UNIDO. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Ecological Sus-tainable Industrial Development, Copenhagen, vol. 8. 1991. p.44a.

[10] US Environmental Protection Agency. Facility Pollution Preven-tion Guide. EPA/600/R-92/088, 1992.

[11] UNEP. Finance Initiative http://unepfi.net/ebulletin.