cleaner production28 cleaner production perspectives 1: cp and industrial development– by rené...

of 96 /96
UNEP ISSN 0378-9993 Industry and Environment Volume 24 No. 1-2 January – June 2001 A publication of the United Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics Une publication du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement Division Technologie, Industrie et Economie Una publicación del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente División de Tecnología, Industria y Economía industry and environment Cleaner Production Sixth International High-level Seminar Montreal

Upload: others

Post on 12-May-2020




0 download



ISSN 0378-9993Industry and EnvironmentVolume 24 No. 1-2January – June 2001

A publication of the United Nations Environment ProgrammeDivision of Technology, Industry and Economics

Une publication du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnementDivision Technologie, Industrie et Economie

Una publicación del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente División de Tecnología, Industria y Economía

industry andenvironment

Cleaner ProductionSixth International High-level Seminar


C o n t e n t s

2 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

3 Editorials – Klaus Toepfer, David Anderson and Milos Kuzvart

5 Introduction – by Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel

6 Presentation

8 Recommendations

9 Keynote Speeches

10 The International Declaration on Cleaner Production: from signature to action

11 Summary Report

28 Cleaner Production perspectives 1: CP and industrial development– by René Van Berkel

33 Cleaner Production perspectives 2: integrating CP into sustainability strategies – by Ken Geiser

37 Sustainable consumption and Cleaner Production: two sides of the same coin

41 Cleaner Production: government policies and strategies – by Thomas Lindhqvist

46 Policy and planning: a holistic approach to promoting Cleaner Production – by Warren Evansand Richard Stevenson

48 National centres: delivering Cleaner Production – by Edward Clarence-Smith

51 Cleaner Production worldwide: regional status

54 Using Cleaner Production to achieve implementation of MEAs – by Per Bakken

56 How to finance Cleaner Production

60 Technology innovations and Cleaner Production: possibilities and limitations – by John F. Jaworski and David E. Minns

64 Industrial ecology: a new Cleaner Production strategy – by Suren Erkman and Ramesh Ramaswamy

68 Cleaner production information: the importance of interNET-WORKING – by Marianne Lines

71 “Untold stories” – India, China, Czech Republic

72 Backfilling requirements and constraints in Indian opencast mining – by Manas K. Mukhopadhyay and I.N. Sinha

75 Tourism FocusSoft mobility: making tourism in Europe more sustainable – by Karl Reiner, Alexandra Tobler,Marie-Claude Gaudriault and Olaf Holm

79 World News

81 Industry Updates

82 UNEP Focus

87 Books and Reports

94 Web Site Highlights

� News � Actualités � Actualidades

� Newsletters � Bulletins � Boletines

� Other topics � Autres sujets � Otros tópicos

� Cleaner Production

ContentsIndustry and Environment is a quarterly reviewpublished by the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme Division of Technology, Industry andEconomics (UNEP DTIE), Tour Mirabeau, 39-43quai André-Citroën, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France.Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 50; Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74; E-mail: [email protected];


Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel

Editorial Board

Tore BrevikMichael ChadwickOsama El-KholyClaude FusslerNay HtunAshok KhoslaWilliam H. Mansfield IIIHaroldo Mattos de LemosWalter RetzschLéon de RosenSergio C. Trindade

Editorial Staff

Françoise RuffeRebecca BriteJohn SmithThalia Stanley

Editorial Policy

The contents of this review do not necessarily re-flect the views or policies of UNEP, nor are they anofficial record. The designations employed and thepresentation do not imply the expression of anyopinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concern-ing the legal status of any country, territory or cityor its authority, or concerning the delimitation ofits frontiers or boundaries.

The non-copyrighted contents of this reviewmay be reprinted without charge provided that Industry and Environment and the author orphotographer concerned are credited as the sourceand the editors are notified in writing and sent avoucher copy.

Industry and Environment welcomes for pos-sible publication feedback from readers, news ontheir sectors of activity, or articles. The editors can-not guarantee publication or return of unsolicitedmanuscripts, photographs and artwork. Manu-scripts which do not conform to the conventionsand standards of the review may be returned for re-vision.


Industry and Environment is subject to an an-nual subscription fee of US$ 60.00. See back coverfor order form. Upon application to the Director,submitted on letterhead, the annual subscriptioncharge may be waived for government, educationaland non-profit organizations in developing coun-tries which are unable to remit payment.

Industry and Environment is printed on 100%chlorine free paper.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 3

Cleaner Production

Klaus ToepferUnited Nations Under Secretary-General and Executive Director,UNEP“The global framework for changingcurrent production and consumptionpatterns has been set – the time forACTION is now!”

This is our primary challenge: tomove from words to action. The

Malmö Ministerial Declaration,adopted in May 2000 by

Environment Ministers from around the world, recognized thatthe root causes of global environmental degradation lie in currentunsustainable production and consumption patterns. Thechallenge before us is to reorient these unsustainable patterns bypromoting a life cycle economy that incorporates a “CleanerProduction” strategy

A Cleaner Production strategy implies:� improving production processes – to increase resource useefficiency and replace non-renewable resources (both energy and materials) with renewable ones;� designing new products which consume less material andenergy, not only during production but throughout their wholelife cycle;� developing management tools to enable Cleaner Productionpractices in the day to day decision-making process;� promoting and developing institutions which could helpstakeholders implement Cleaner Production on a wider scale than ever before;� influencing market forces to shift the focus from a product-based economy to one that is service-based.

It has been estimated that if the lifestyles of all the people in the world were comparable to those in developed countriestoday, we would need six more Planet Earths – just to dispose ofthe waste. We have to work towards improving the quality of lifefor the billions of people in developing countries, without furtherstressing the Earth’s carrying capacity.

Greater integration of the Cleaner Production strategy withsustainable consumption practices is necessary to reconcileeconomic development with environmental protection. We have to develop initiatives to influence consumer choices, and to motivate them towards more rational and sustainableconsumption patterns. UNEP’s Advertising Initiative and Life Cycle Initiative are two steps in this direction.

The last few years have seen the development of importantMultilateral Environmental Agreements to tackle globalenvironmental issues (for example, the Basel Convention’sProtocol on Liability, the International Treaty on PersistentOrganic Pollutants, and the Convention on Biodiversity’s BiosafetyProtocol). Cleaner Production is a cost-efficient way to helpfacilitate implementation of these agreements. Approaches and

measures need to be identified, so that the preventive strategiesembodied in Cleaner Production can be used more effectively toaddress and resolve these global issues.

In October 2000, on the occasion of UNEP’s Sixth High-levelInternational Seminar on Cleaner Production in Montreal,Canada, I challenged everyone there by asking: “Who is interestedin making change?” The 250 senior decision-makers presentspent the next two days discussing who needs to do what, andwhat they would do when they returned to their countries andorganizations. This special issue of Industry and Environment isdevoted to summarizing the results of their hard work, and thecommitments made to address the challenges before us. �

David AndersonMinister of the Environment forCanada, and President of the Governing Council of UNEP

Last October, Canada hosted theSixth International High-level

Seminar on Cleaner Production (CP6)in Montreal. Together with the firstInternational Pollution PreventionSummit that immediately followed it,CP6 provided an unprecedented

opportunity for over 250 representatives from government,business, community and non-governmental organizations todiscuss pollution prevention and Cleaner Production. This was thelargest-ever international pollution prevention event in terms ofparticipants, diversity and scope.

Companies around the world are embracing pollutionprevention and Cleaner Production – it’s simply smart business.Rethinking production processes and reducing energy useprotects our health and our environment. It is a pattern that isemerging in many countries, with enthusiastic supporters amongsmall and medium-sized companies, as well as internationalcorporate leaders such as Royal Dutch Shell, BP Amoco andInterface Inc.

Pollution prevention and Cleaner Production are growingstrategies among Canadian manufacturers and are essential in theGovernment of Canada’s approach to environmental protection.They bring together governments, businesses, NGOs,communities and individuals to make the right decisions, takinginto account the healthy, natural environment that we need whilestimulating economic growth. As President of the GoverningCouncil of UNEP, I will be a strong advocate for this inclusiveapproach on the international stage.

Canada’s commitment to pollution prevention is embodied inthe new Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). This Act,which came into force in April 2000, is one of the most advancedenvironmental laws of its kind in the world. Making pollution

e d i t o r i a l s

4 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

prevention the priority approach to environmentalprotection is a significant step along the path to a sustainableenvironment.

Longer-term success in protecting and conserving theglobal environment will depend on the willingness of allmembers of the international community to seek creativesolutions and foster innovation. Our global standard of livingand quality of life depend on our ability to learn and adaptquickly to new discoveries, new ideas and new opportunities.Citizens must be fully engaged and understand the powerthey have to make a difference in the environment we share.

The challenge is to maintain the momentum developed atmeetings and seminars such as CP6 and the InternationalPollution Prevention Summit in Montreal. While we havemade some progress, continuing to promote the benefits ofCleaner Production will ensure that more businesses andconsumers adopt sustainable environmental practices.

I will continue to advance the environmental protectionagenda, and look forward to working with many of you at theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development. �

Milos KuzvartMinister of the Environment, Czech Republic

We were very pleased that wecould participate in the

Sixth International High-levelSeminar on Cleaner Production.CP6 reviewed the state of the artand future prospects forimplementating CleanerProduction. Recently, CleanerProduction become part of the

strategic portfolio of the Czech government.CP6 confirmed that there are many significant new

achievements in CP worldwide. However, we also participatedin discussions where it was pointed out that the desiredbroader adoption of CP by all stakeholders is not materializingas we would wish, and also as we might have assumed itwould, given its clearly demonstrated benefits.

This represents a significant challenge (to the public andprivate sectors) to strengthen efforts and cooperation in thisfield, keeping in mind that people lose in both theenvironmental and economic areas if decisions are madewithout CP considerations.

UNEP’s response to the challenge of going beyonddemonstration and facilitating broad adoption of CP by allstakeholders was already presented in 1998, in the form of theInternational Declaration on Cleaner Production. The CzechGovernment adopted the CP Declaration on the occasion ofthe meeting of the UNIDO-UNEP National Cleaner ProductionCentres in Prague in 1999.

CP6 provided new insights into different concepts and toolsutilized in this field, ranging from technological innovations inprocesses to the behaviour of consumers, and from reviewingprogress in implementing the CP Declaration to linkagesbetween CP and sustainable development.

Some topics kept recurring during many of the workshops

and talks at CP6. They could be summarized by the question:“How to mainstream CP?” The call to create better frameworkconditions for promoting CP, and for integrating CP intoimportant decisions within the private and public sectors, washeard very clearly. We have contributed to this discussion byour experience in launching the National Cleaner ProductionProgramme adopted by the Czech government in February2000.

The growing commitment of the Czech Republic to use CPas one of the strategies for implementing its core policies alsoleads to our growing engagement in this field on theinternational level. We feel very privileged that the CzechRepublic can host the Seventh International High-levelSeminar (CP7) in Prague in the spring of 2002. We would liketo present some thoughts on its possible topics here.

The importance of CP7 will be underlined by the fact that itsconclusions can contribute to the Rio+10 summit in SouthAfrica in September 2002. CP7 could contribute to anevaluation of progress with respect to CP initiativesworldwide.

Lack of capacity to track and evaluate the effects of CPprogrammes, and to disseminate this information, still seemsto be one of key challenges for CP initiatives. CP is more a journey than a destination, and there is thequestion of how to obtain a broad commitment to a journey ifthe destination is perceived to be somehow vague.

What is the CP vision? Is it changing over time? Thediscussion on CP and sustainability, and/or broadening thehorizon of CP at CP6, showed that clear linkage of CP strategy to particular principles of sustainable developmentcould – together with a better description of its effectsregarding the interests of particular stakeholders – increasecommitment to CP.

The role of different stakeholders in promoting CP is anotherissue which is always relevant. We can observe that CPprogrammes involving different stakeholders on the local levelare one of the most successful in putting CP initiatives on aself-sustainable basis.

What lessons can be derived for implementing Agenda 21and vice versa? What can we learn from this experience withrespect to policies promoting CP?

Many more questions come to mind in thinking about CPglobally.

We look forward to CP7 in Prague contributing to theredirection of contemporary developments that lead tosustainability, through facilitating the mainstreaming of CP on the individual, corporate, local, regional and global levels.




ls �

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 5

Cleaner Production

More than 12 years ago, UNEP declared CleanerProduction to be a vital part of strategies toachieve sustainable development. Since then,

UNEP and its longtime partners in this work have pro-moted the CP concept worldwide.

Progress has occurred in many areas. For example:� Decision-makers at all levels increasingly realize that it isto everyone’s advantage to prevent pollution in processes,products and services – in an integrated way – instead oftrying to control it after the fact.� New tools, such as CP assessment, life cycle analysis,sustainable design, and, in a broader sense, environmen-tal management systems, have been developed to meet theCleaner Production challenge by improving efficiency,reducing environmental risk and conserving naturalresources.� Few if any institutions dealt specifically with CleanerProduction 12 years ago. Today there are 19UNIDO/UNEP National CP Centres. There are also hundreds of bodiessuch as the World Cleaner Production Society, the Philippines Cleaner Pro-duction Technology Center, the Argentine Cleaner Production Center, andthe Centre for Sustainable Design in the UK, to name just a few.� To date, there are over 200 senior-level signatories to the International Dec-laration on Cleaner Production, including governments, companies andindustry associations;� Cleaner and safer production technologies have been (and continue to be)developed.� Innovative CP financing projects and programmes are receiving increasingattention.

Nevertheless, the progress made so far is no reason forcomplacency.

Economic activity is essential in order to alleviate pover-ty. However, it continues to translate into overuse ofresources and too great a demand on the planet’s absorptivecapacity.

The degree of “decoupling” (in which resource use andenvironmental impacts, instead of increasing along witheconomic growth, stabilize and eventually decline whileeconomic growth continues) is too low. And the trendtowards decoupling is limited to too few countries.

We cannot rely on gradual technological improvementsto achieve Cleaner Production. We need quantum leaps,which only innovative technologies can make possible.

Awareness is important, but it is not the same as takingaction. Governments can and must play a leading role inestablishing enabling legislative and economic frameworksfor Cleaner Production and Sustainable Consumption.

Companies should widely apply existing management tools; they should alsointegrate the environmental dimension into overall decision-making.

Consumers, whether they are companies or individuals, need to under-stand that Cleaner Production and Sustainable Consumption are two sides ofthe same coin.

UNEP’s Sixth High-level International Seminar on Cleaner Productionwas about looking at progress, identifying barriers and opportunities, andestablishing an agenda for further action. This issue of Industry and Environ-ment highlights the main discussions and the recommendations adopted atMontreal. �

IntroductionJacqueline Aloisi de Larderel

UNEP Assistant Executive DirectorDirector, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics

Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel

Thank youUNEP expresses its appreciation to the Governmentof Canada for hosting the Sixth International High-level Seminar on Cleaner Production. In particular, itthanks David Anderson, Minister of the Environ-ment, James Riordan, Acting Director General of theToxics Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environ-ment Canada, and Clifford Lincoln, Member of Par-liament, Lac Saint-Louis, for the welcome they gaveparticipants and for their insightful remarks.

Special thanks are given to Milos Kuzvart, Minis-ter of the Environment of the Czech Republic, forsharing his country’s experience with the Interna-tional Declaration on Cleaner Production and hisvaluable participation throughout the Seminar. Theother keynote speakers – Amory Lovins, Co-Execu-tive Director of the Rocky Mountain Institute,

Braden Allenby, Vice-President Environment atAT&T, and Kalyan P. Nyati, Head of the Environ-mental Management Division, Confederation ofIndian Industry – presented stimulating ideas andprovoked discussions. We are extremely grateful toall of them.

We are deeply indebted to the staff of Environ-ment Canada and the Canadian Centre for PollutionPrevention for their assistance in planning and orga-nizing the Seminar.

Finally, thanks are due to the governmental, busi-ness, NGO, academic and international agency rep-resentatives who demonstrated their commitment tosustainable production and consumption patterns byattending the Seminar and contributing invaluableinput as chairs, rapporteurs or participants.

Cette édition spéciale de la revue Industry and Environmentest consacrée au Sixième séminaire international sur la Pro-duction plus propre (CP6), organisé par le PNUE en

coopération avec le Centre canadien pour la prévention de la pol-lution. Le séminaire s’est déroulé à Montréal du 15 au 17 octobre2000, sous l’égide du gouvernement canadien. Il a été suivi, du 18au 20 octobre, du Sommet international pour la prévention de lapollution, également accueilli par le gouvernement canadien.

Plus de 250 décideurs de haut niveau de quelque 85 pays –représentant des gouvernements, des secteur industriels, des étab-lissements universitaires et des ONG – ont fait le point sur lesmodes de production et de consommation compatibles avec undéveloppement durable. Ils ont insisté sur le travail qui reste à faireet défini les prochaines mesures concrètes à prendre.

Depuis 1989, le PNUE réunit en séminaire des responsables dehaut niveau qui dressent le bilan des progrès de la Production pluspropre, identifient les lacunes qui restent à combler et définissentun cadre mondial d’action pour encourager les synergies entrediverses parties prenantes. Le Cinquième séminaire avait eu lieu enseptembre 1998 à Séoul. La République tchèque a proposéd’accueillir le prochain séminaire, prévu en 2002.

Les débats de CP6 ont reflété les changements intervenus depuisle lancement du concept de Production plus propre, en 1989. Lesparticipants ont donné la vision d’un monde émergeant deprocédés, produits et services qui contraste avec les modes actuels deproduction et de consommation incompatibles avec un développe-ment durable. Ils se sont interrogés sur les moyens d’instituer de

nouveaux schémas de comportement dans ce domaine. L’un des points mis en avant par le séminaire est le succès rem-

porté par la Déclaration internationale pour la production plus pro-pre depuis son lancement en 1998 à l’occasion du Cinquièmeséminaire. De nouvelles signatures ont d’ailleurs été recueillies lorsde la réception d’ouverture et tout au long des deux journées dedébats. A la fin du séminaire, le nombre total de signataires de hautniveau atteignait 223.

Cette réunion a servi de forum de discussion pour aborder desquestions critiques, comme les modes de production et de con-sommation incompatibles avec un développement durable, et plusspécifiquement la Production plus propre, notamment : l’innova-tion technologique ; les stratégies et l’action des pouvoirs publics ;les Centres nationaux de production plus propre ; le financementde la Production plus propre ; le rapprochement entre l’écologieindustrielle et la Production plus propre ; l’utilisation de la Pro-duction plus propre pour faciliter les accords multilatéraux surl’environnement ; l’importance du partage et des échanges d’infor-mations ; et les visions pour l’avenir.

La nécessité de considérer les impacts actuels de la consomma-tion a également été au cœur des débats. Les liens entre la Produc-tion plus propre et les modes de consommation compatibles avecun développement durable ont été examinés en détail. Une autrequestion centrale a été abordée, celle du rapport entre les modes deconsommation compatibles avec un développement durable et lanécessité de modifier chez les jeunes la perception des styles de viedésirables, afin de changer leurs modes de consommation. �

6 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

This special issue of Industry and Environment covers theSixth International High-level Seminar on Cleaner Pro-duction (CP6), organized by UNEP in cooperation with

the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention. Hosted by theGovernment of Canada, the Seminar took place in Montrealon 15-17 October 2000. The International Pollution Preven-tion Summit, also hosted by the Government of Canada, washeld immediately following, on 18-20 October.

Over 250 senior-level decision makers from some 85 coun-tries – representing government, industry, academic institu-tions and non-governmental organizations – examined thestatus of sustainable production and consumption patterns.They outlined the work remaining to be done and identifiedconcrete next steps.

Since 1989, UNEP has convened senior-level seminars toassess Cleaner Production achievements, identify remaininggaps, and establish a global framework for action to encouragesynergies among various stakeholders. The Fifth High-levelSeminar took place in Seoul in September 1998. The CzechRepublic has offered to host the next Seminar in 2002.

Discussions at CP6 reflected the changes that have takenplace since the Cleaner Production concept was introduced in1989. Participants presented a vision of an emerging world ofprocesses, products and services, and of current unsustainable

production and consumption patterns. Consideration wasgiven to ways in which new patterns could be developed.

One of the highlights of the Seminar was the success of theInternational Declaration on Cleaner Production, which waslaunched at the time of the Fifth High-level Seminar in 1998.At the opening reception, and throughout the two days of dis-cussions at Montreal, signatures continued to be added. Thetotal number of high-level signatories by the end of the Semi-nar was 223.

This Seminar served as a forum for discussion of criticalissues concerning unsustainable production and consumptionpatterns, and (more specifically) Cleaner Production. Theseissues included: technological innovation; government policiesand strategies; National Cleaner Production Centres; financ-ing of Cleaner Production; twinning of industrial ecology andCleaner Production; using Cleaner Production to facilitatemultilateral environmental agreements; the importance ofinformation exchange and sharing; and visions for the future.

The need to address the current impacts of consumption wasalso a major topic. Links between Cleaner Production and sus-tainable consumption were addressed in depth. Also central isthe relationship between sustainable consumption and theneed to change perceptions of desirable lifestyles among youngpeople, so as to influence their consumption patterns. �



Cleaner Production

Esta edición especial de Industria y Medio Ambiente abarca elSexto Seminario Internacional de Alto Nivel sobre una Pro-ducción más Limpia (CP6), organizado por la UNEP en

colaboración con el Centro Canadiense para la Prevención de laContaminación. Patrocinado por el Gobierno de Canadá, el Sem-inario se desarrolló en Montreal entre el 15 y el 17 de octubre de2000. La Cumbre Internacional sobre Prevención de Contami-nación, patrocinada también por el Gobierno de Canadá, fue real-izada inmediatamente después, del 18 al 20 de octubre de 2000.

Más de 250 ejecutivos formadores de opinión, provenientes de85 países, de sectores representativos del gobierno, la industria,instituciones académicas y organizaciones no gubernamentales,estudiaron la situación de los patrones de producción y de con-sumo sustentables. Delinearon el trabajo pendiente e identificaronlos pasos concretos a seguir.

Desde 1989, la UNEP viene convocando a seminarios de nivelejecutivo para asesorar sobre los logros de una Producción másLimpia, identificando brechas pendientes y estableciendo unmarco global de acción con el propósito de fomentar sinergias entrelos distintos participantes. El Quinto Seminario de Alto Nivel sellevó a cabo en Seúl en septiembre de 1998. La República Checa haofrecido ser sede del próximo Seminario que se realizará en 2002.

Los debates de la CP6 reflejan los cambios que han ocurridodesde la introducción del concepto de Producción más Limpia en1989. Los participantes presentaron una visión de un mundo

emergente de procesos, productos y servicios y de una produccióny un consumo no sustentables en la actualidad. Se consideraronformas de desarrollar nuevos patrones.

Uno de los momentos culminantes del Seminario fue el éxito dela Declaración Internacional sobre una Producción más Limpiadado que fue lanzada en oportunidad de realizarse el Quinto Sem-inario Internacional de Algo Nivel en 1998. En la ceremonia deapertura y durante los dos días de deliberaciones, se siguieron agre-gando firmantes. La cantidad total de signatarios de alto nivel alcabo del Seminario fue de 223.

Este Seminario sirvió como foro para discutir temas críticossobre patrones de producción y consumo sustentables y, másespecíficamente, Producción más Limpia. Los temas incluyeron:innovación tecnológica, políticas y estrategias gubernamentales,Centros Nacionales de Producción más Limpia, financiamiento deuna Producción más Limpia, hermanamiento de ecología indus-trial y Producción más Limpia, uso de una Producción más Limpiapara facilitar acuerdos ambientales multilaterales, importancia deintercambiar y compartir información y visiones para el futuro.

También se subrayó la necesidad de encarar los impactos actualesdel consumo. Se estudiaron en detalle las relaciones entre Produc-ción más Limpia y consumo sustentable. Fue fundamental ademásla relación entre consumo sustentable y la necesidad de cambiar lapercepción de la juventud sobre estilos de vida deseables, a fin decambiar sus patrones de consumo. �

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 7


8 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

1. Propel the International Declaration on Cleaner Production beyond the initial signing. In addition to promoting the Declaration, UNEP and partnersshould work harder to facilitate its implementation and continue tocollect and disseminate information on implementation progress.Highlight Declaration successes in other Cleaner Production events,increase dissemination of information materials, and produce imple-mentation guidelines.

2. Integrate Cleaner Production and technologyinnovation.Identify and support biotechnology applications for Cleaner Pro-duction. UNEP should identify, collect and disseminate relevantinformation.

3. Promote sustainable consumption patterns. Define and clarify sustainable consumption (e.g. better, efficient, dif-ferent) with respect to developing and developed countries, and workto better understand what drives consumption. Break down con-sumption patterns, particularly those of youth, into more manage-able segments, so that changes can be identified and experiencescirculated. Age-specific consumption patterns should also beaddressed in depth. Collect best practice examples and disseminateinformation on new business opportunities in design and product-service systems. Develop and promote training and networking tools,including LCA. Develop a voluntary initiative for the advertisingindustry, and engage in stakeholder dialogues to generate a world-wide vision for sustainable consumption.

4. Incorporate Cleaner Production into governmentpolicies and strategies. Continue to select and provide examples of successful integration ofCleaner Production in national/local policy frameworks. In addition,intensify work in key areas like industrial estates where there is thepotential for multiplier effects.

5.UNEP should continue to play its leadership role indeveloping and guiding National Cleaner ProductionCentres (NCPCs), both those handled in conjunctionwith UNIDO and those supported by other partners. UNEP should continue its catalytic role and provide more guidancematerials for setting up and running successful NCPCs. Each centreshould specialize in a few specific Cleaner Production fields, com-plemented by access to networks. NCPCs should create capacity inother Cleaner Production service providers.

6. Promote Cleaner Production financing. More work needs to be done to develop capacity for integrating pre-ventive strategies in accounting and due diligence practices amongrelated stakeholders such as financial institutions, enterprises, busi-ness schools and the media. Revolving funds should be encouraged,and governments should formulate rules and incentives to stimulateinvestment in Cleaner Production implementation.

7. Facilitate synergies between Cleaner Productionand Multilateral Environmental Agreements. As a first step, UNEP DTIE should organize a kick-off workshop tobring MEA stakeholders together to identify a course of action.

8. Use existing information collection anddissemination tools (e.g. Internet) rather thancreating new ones. UNEP should continue to play the role of a global facilitator, coor-dinating with other initiatives such as the forthcoming UNEP-Glob-al Environment Facility (GEF) Sustainable Alternatives Network.Regional electronic Cleaner Production networks should be devel-oped around the world.

9. Involve non-technical stakeholders in CleanerProduction centre work. Stakeholders such as policy-makers, financial institutions, NGOsand the media need to be more involved in Cleaner Productiondevelopment, promotion and implementation.

10. Focus on the service sector.Experts noted that much of the work done to date in Cleaner Pro-duction has focused on the manufacturing side of existing produc-tion systems. This focus should be expanded to include the servicesector.

11. Convene a small group of experts to analyzeemerging trends and develop a vision for the futureof sustainable production and consumption,culminating in an action plan. Primarily as input to the World Summit on Sustainable Develop-ment, this work could also feed into preparation of a global statusreport on Cleaner Production, which would in turn be a CP7 con-tribution.

Sixth International High-level Seminar on Cleaner Production16-17 October 2000, Montreal, Canada

RecommendationsThe following recommendations were adopted at Montreal.

They were drawn from the general conclusions, which were presented at the end of each session and were based on plenary discussions.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 9

Cleaner Production

SummaryAmory Lovins, Co-Executive Director ofthe Rocky Mountain Institute, an NGO based in theUnited States.

During his keynote address at CP6’s openingreception, Mr. Lovins described the concept of“natural capitalism” – doing business as if nature(and people) were “properly” valued. He presentedthis concept from a historical perspective, andprovided illustrations from current industrialapplications that underline its potential as adriver for change.

He noted that in the 18th century naturalresources were abundant, but there was no way toutilize them efficiently. The Industrial Revolution,which began about the middle of that century,increased labour productivity a hundredfold.Today there is an abundance of people and scarci-ty of nature. Natural capitalism can be seen as away to protect the biosphere, and to improve prof-its and competitiveness. The four principles ofnatural capitalism are: 1. radically increase the productivity of naturalresources – in essence, reduce waste;2. shift to biologically inspired production mod-els, thereby creating closed-loop systems thateliminate the concept of waste;3. move to a solutions-based business model inwhich value is delivered as a flow of services, ratherthan sale of goods. Acquisition of goods as a mea-sure of affluence is replaced by measures of well-being based on continuous satisfaction ofchanging expectations for quality, utility and per-formance;4. reinvest in natural capital – restore, sustain andexpand the planet’s ecosystems so that they canproduce their vital services and biologicalresources even more abundantly.

Mr. Lovins highlighted some surprising out-comes from businesses’ experience in applying oneor more of these principles: � The law of diminishing returns often does notapply. In fact, returns can be even greater withincreased efficiencies. There are indications thatthere may be a law of expanding returns when nat-ural capitalism is practised.� Higher labour productivity is a side benefit ofnatural capitalism. (For more information, consult

Braden R. Allenby, Vice-PresidentEnvironment at AT&T in the United States.Mr. Allenby provided an industry perspectiveduring the first plenary session. Cleaner Produc-tion can provide the desired quality of life with anacceptable social and environmental “footprint”.Mr. Allenby focused on the need to change ways

of thinking about economics and the environ-ment. Current thinking about problems is out-dated and essentially irrelevant. Humans drawartificial boundaries around how to think aboutimpacts. For example, the environmental impactsof a 747 aircraft do not only consist of its ownenvironmental impacts. They also include ele-ments relating to how the airline business operatesin the economic world.

Deciding how to define and evaluate theimpacts of an industry may not be straightforward,and is a particularly daunting challenge whenapplied to service activities. How, for example, canthe impact of the internet and the informationstructure in general be measured? These challengeswill have to be addressed as the developedeconomies become increasingly service-based.

Mr. Allenby emphasized that the challenge ofCleaner Production is profoundly cultural.Whose idea of “good” do we use? That of theindustrialized world? Technological fixes are notgoing to make the world unicultural. There arealso cultural issues within countries. Teleworking(working from home via computers) can appear afeasible way for businesses to reduce their “foot-print”, but many managers are not in favour of itbecause they cannot ensure that employees areputting in an appropriate number of hours.

Kalyan P. Nyati, Head of theEnvironmental Management Division,Confederation of Indian Industry.

Mr. Nyati identified two key challenges to Clean-er Production, particularly in developing coun-tries: convincing business leaders of itsimportance, and mainstreaming it into produc-tion. He emphasized that only business leadershave the necessary influence to mainstreamCleaner Production. Change flows from higher tolower administrative levels. Mr. Nyati offered anumber of suggestions for furthering Cleaner Pro-duction implementation around the world:� Cleaner Production can make a great differencein larger companies and multinationals, but itmust also be implemented by small and medium-sized enterprises. � Through networking and partnerships, nation-al industry associations can be powerful CleanerProduction flag-bearers in their own countries. � Some members of the banking community areto be complimented for financing Cleaner Pro-duction initiatives, but more remains to be done.It is in the interest of the banking community totell clients they should integrate Cleaner Produc-tion into production methods. � Finally, to ensure implementation, Cleaner Pro-duction needs to be institutionalized by integrat-ing it with ISO 14000 and other sustainabilitymanagement systems. �

Keynote Speeches

Braden R. Allemby

Amory Lovins

Kalyan P. Nyati

10 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

The International Declaration on CleanerProduction was launched at the Fifth High-level Seminar on Cleaner Production in

Seoul in October 1998 to foster renewed dedica-tion to Cleaner Production, which is a provenstrategy for improving efficient use of naturalresources and minimizing wastes, pollution andrisks to human health and safety at the source.The Declaration has been signed by 40 national-level governments and by business and commu-nity leaders from around the world. There aresignatories from over 70 countries.

Klaus Toepfer presided at the opening of theSeminar, where signatories included Atlas Cycles,the world’s largest bicycle manufacturer (India),the International Council on Metals and the Envi-ronment, the Rocky Mountain Institute, anNGO based in the United States, the CanadianChemical Producers Association, and the Alu-minum Association of Canada. Signatures con-tinued to be collected throughout the seminar.Among 16 new ones, commitments were made byorganizations from Russia, Paraguay, Viet Nam,Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Mexico. Clifford Lin-coln, Member of the Canadian Parliament, signedon Canada’s behalf.

Milos Kuzvart, Minister of Environment,

Czech Republic, and other government and busi-ness leaders contributed insights concerning theirexperience with Declaration implementation.The Declaration is a voluntary public statementof a commitment to practise Cleaner Production.The principles fall under the headings of leader-ship, awareness education and training, integra-tion, research and development, communicationand implementation. The Declaration’s specificgoals are to:� spread awareness of current environmental prob-lems, with Cleaner Production (and preventivestrategies as a whole) the preferred solution;� renew and intensify commitment to using Clean-er Production by society and community leaders;� diversify and broaden the client base for CleanerProduction;� encourage Cleaner Production investments beyondcurrent demonstration activities; and� stimulate further cooperation at the local andglobal level.

In promoting the Declaration, UNEP encour-ages more signatories, facilitates implementation,and gathers feedback and reporting on progress.UNEP’s strategy has been to raise awareness andthen to support implementation. It does sothrough promoting the collection of more signa-

tures, developing Implementation Guidelines/suggestions for action, helping increase signato-ries’ experience, and developing a DeclarationSupport Group to provide ongoing guidance.

Implementation Guidelines have been devel-oped and distributed to each category of stake-holder: governments, companies and facilitatingorganizations. The Guidelines provide suggestionsand give examples concerning over 300 differentactivities that could be used to promote CleanerProduction. To supplement the Guidelines, a col-lection of case studies illustrating experiences in thesignatory categories is being developed.

In 2000, for the purpose of collecting feedbackto guide future Declaration activities, the “Signa-tory Implementation Questionnaire” (adapted tothe different signatory categories) was developedand distributed to over 150 signatories. Allrespondents indicated that they had undertakenactivities in the areas of leadership and awareness,education and training. Respondents also notedthat they applied tools from the Integration andCommunication principles. Half the respondentshad taken action to set goals for water and energyuse, waste generation or air emissions, and hadmonitored and reported on progress. Half hadalso made financial investments in Cleaner Pro-duction. However, there were indications thatmore work is needed to improve the Declarationand to support signatories’ implementation ofCleaner Production. Respondents considered theprinciple of research and development to be theleast useful in helping to guide activities.

Initial results are encouraging. They will helpUNEP structure Declaration support activities.UNEP will continue to collect and integrate feed-back from Declaration experts – the signatoriesthemselves.

In addition to the questionnaire, UNEPbrought together 13 signatories from the differentsignatory categories to form a Declaration Sup-port Group for provision of additional guidance.The Group has already provided valuable recom-mendations, which can be summarized as follows:� Obtain more signatories. Given the amount ofenergy and interest in implementing Local Agen-da 21, the Group suggested that UNEP focus onlocal-level governments in the future.� Facilitate implementation. The Group suggestedthat case studies for each action point and eachsignatory category would greatly assist signatories.An opportunity to have their work presented in aUNEP publication would be an additional incen-tive for signatories to move from signature toaction.� Improve feedback and reporting methodology.Since reporting requirements for EMS and regu-lations are becoming increasingly onerous forindustry, the Group suggested that feedback bedrawn from currently available information.

The Support Group’s ongoing input andendorsement of UNEP’s proposed Declaration-related initiatives will help ensure the Declaration’scontinued relevance and increase global commit-ment to Cleaner Production and preventive strate-gies.

The International Declaration on Cleaner Production: from signature to action

The Malmö Declaration, as well as the Millenium Summit Declaration,highlighted the need to make changes in production and consumptionpatterns and, in particular, the need to address poverty. The internationalDeclaration on Cleaner Production is not just a piece of paper, it is acommitment and implementation is key. Klaus Toepfer

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 11

Cleaner Production

Summary Report

The primary challenge is to move from wordsto action…Cleaner Production is not onlyabout cleaning up production processes but

about shifting these processes – and the productsand services they provide – into more sustainablepatterns.” With these words Klaus Toepfer,UNEP’s Executive Director, established theframework of the Sixth International High-levelSeminar on Cleaner Production. His introducto-ry remarks reflected the sense of urgency, but alsoof cautious optimism, that characterized the sem-inar.

Attended by 241 participants from govern-ment, industry, academia, UNEP, and NationalCleaner Production Centres (NCPCs), CP6acknowledged the many solid achievements dur-ing Cleaner Production’s first decade. However, italso addressed areas where inroads have been lim-ited. Looking to the short- and medium-termfuture, participants saw a need to consolidate andexpand current Cleaner Production initiatives,and to use new approaches and new ways ofthinking to meet future challenges. Reasons foroptimism include the promise of new eco-effi-cient technologies and systems, as well as possibil-ities to use the synergies of regulatory, policy andmarket forces.

Participants were welcomed by James Riordan(Acting Director General, Toxics and PollutionPrevention Directorate, Environment Canada),who noted the impressive level of attendance frommany parts of the world. Mr. Riordan pointed tothe International Declaration on Cleaner Produc-tion as a very effective means of focusing the atten-tion of governments and industries on the need tolimit human environmental impacts. The newCanadian Environmental Protection Act empha-sizes pollution prevention, which leads to Clean-er Production and to sustainable development.

Mr. Toepfer, referring to the Montreal Protocolon CFCs, the recent Biosafety Protocol, and a

number of important international conferenceson environmental issues, said that “Canada is apioneer in working with other parts of the worldto achieve environmental agreements.” He paidtribute to the United Kingdom for hosting thefirst Cleaner Production Seminar in 1989, and tothe Korean Government for hosting the mostrecent High-Level seminar in 1998. Concerningthe International Declaration on Cleaner Produc-tion, he also mentioned the Malmö Declaration,which resulted from a recent meeting of environ-ment ministers. The Malmö Declaration empha-sizes the need to change unsustainable modes ofproduction.

Mr. Toepfer pointed out that the publishedtotal number of signatories does not include themany individuals who have now signed the Dec-laration. “They would be in the thousands,” he

said, “but we need still more signatories.”Milos Kuzvart (Minister of Environment,

Czech Republic), who signed the Declaration in1999, noted that a Cleaner Production specificprogramme was approved by the Czech Govern-ment in February 2000.

During the opening Signing Ceremony inMontreal, four new signatories were added to theDeclaration: Ashok Kumar, Senior General Man-ager, Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd., India; ChristianL. Van Houtte, President, Aluminium Associationof Canada; Gary Nash, Secretary General, Inter-national Council on Metals and Environment;and Amory B. Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute,United States.

In his keynote address, Mr. Lovins discussed theconcept of “natural capitalism”, i.e. doing businessas if nature (and people) were appropriately valued.

Summary ReportThis report summarizes the presentations and discussions at the Sixth International High-level

Seminar on Cleaner Production (CP6), held in Montreal in October 2000. Participants came fromover 70 countries. Each Plenary Session is described briefly. Highlights of Parallel Sessions are

presented in the accompanying boxes. Edited versions of CP6 background papers appear in thisissue of Industry and Environment as individual articles.

Klaus Toepfer

Opening ceremony, 15 October“

12 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Facing new challengesKeynote speakers presented their visions of thechallenges facing Cleaner Production, as well assustainable production and consumption.

Clifford Lincoln (Member of Parliament, LacSaint-Louis, Canada), who welcomed participantson behalf of the Government of Canada, felt thatstreet demonstrations during the WTO meetingin Seattle and other international meetings relat-ing to trade and investment have sent the messagethat people are looking for change. The challengewas clear: i.e. to produce goods and services in acleaner way. Mr Lincoln referred to work alreadydone by Amory Lovins, Paul Hawkin and othersshowing that it is possible to produce less, andwaste less, while making a profit and meeting real-world needs. Waste, which is the greatest chal-lenge, paradoxically presents the greatestopportunity. The less businesses waste, the moreprofitable they can become.

Mr. Lincoln cited several Canadian success sto-ries:� In 1992, Environment Canada signed a pollu-tion prevention accord with the auto industry.DaimlerChrysler has since eliminated chlorinesubstances from production. Ford has eliminatedlead and other toxic substances from its paintshops.� The dry cleaning industry has signed an accordto reduce perchloroethylene, which has now been60-70% eliminated.

� Ford and DaimlerChrysler are working withCanada’s Ballard Power Systems to develop fuel-cell cars.

Mr. Toepfer, referring to Amory Lovins’keynote speech the previous evening, re-empha-sized the need to ask new questions and break outof current paradigms. He commended the Nor-wegian and German Governments, UNIDO, theAsian Development Bank and others for demon-strating a commitment to new thinking.

Mr. Toepfer highlighted several Cleaner Pro-duction issue areas: � major environmental and social issues con-cerned with tourism and its increasing globalimpacts; � further use of the banking and finance industryto promote Cleaner Production;� defining the advertising industry’s role. Giventhe traditional selling approach, which advocatesmore consumption, there is an apparent contra-diction between advertising and Cleaner Produc-tion. However, some consumers are bringing anethical dimension to their buying decisions. Theywant to know about environmental and socialcosts; � persistent organic pollutants (POPs). On 10December 2000, a POPs treaty was signed by 122countries under UNEP auspices. The DDT issuesuggests this issue’s complexity: an immediate uni-versal ban on DDT, which is used to eradicatemalaria, is widely considered undesirable.

Mr. Toepfer also noted that technologicalopportunities would be an important element ofthe two-day seminar discussions. Better technolo-gy can facilitate application of the precautionaryprinciple.

Keynote speeches were made by Braden R.Allenby (Vice-President Environment, AT&T,United States) and Kalyan P. Nyati (Head Envi-ronmental Management Division, Confederationof Indian Industry), who presented the industryperspective on challenges facing Cleaner Produc-tion. The keynote speakers shared a number ofgeneral insights regarding future challenges. Theseconcerned:� application of creative and systems thinking toCleaner Production problems;� analysis of the hidden dimensions of the Clean-er Production approach, as they relate to environ-mental, economic and social problems;� analysis of Cleaner Production challenges andopportunities associated with the informationtechnology revolution;� increased partnering with business leaders andnational industry associations to promote Clean-er Production;� institutionalization of Cleaner Production atcompany level through integration with, ratherthan duplication of, current environmental man-agement systems and reporting; and� continuing to work to promote Cleaner Pro-duction in SMEs and large multinationals.

Plenary Sessions

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 13

Cleaner Production

UNEP’s International Declaration onCleaner Production: from signature to actionThe International Declaration on Cleaner Pro-duction was launched at the Fifth High-level Sem-inar on Cleaner Production in October 1998. Todate, it has been signed by over 220 high-level sig-natories from national governments and businessand community leaders from around the world.Signatories are from more than 70 countries.There were 16 new ones during CP6.

The International Declaration was the topic ofone of the first Plenary Sessions. This sessionbrought together speakers from different stake-holder perspectives and geographic regions toshare insights and experience concerning imple-mentation. They stimulated discussion, and out-lined successes and remaining challenges.

Olivia la O’Castillo (Chair, Asia-Pacific Round-table for Cleaner Production, Philippines) com-mented that putting the Declaration into actionrequires building broader stakeholder awarenessand bringing stakeholders together, not only toexchange experience but also to form partner-ships. The greatest potential impact will be withrespect to consumer goods. She recommendedthat companies consider: � including a commitment to Cleaner Productionin their budget (1% to begin with); and� working on the redesign of processes, proce-dures and even products using Cleaner Produc-tion.

Dr. la O’Castillo cited activities and pro-grammes undertaken by the Asia-Pacific Round-table for Cleaner Production (APRCP) to imple-ment the Declaration:� highlighting the Declaration as a tool to imple-ment Cleaner Production (e.g. the Declarationwas a focal point at the third APRCP conferencein Manila);

� promoting sound networking, and linking withindustries of all sizes, to foster Cleaner Productionpolicies, practices and programmes; and� organizing training seminars on the promotionof Cleaner Production.

To make the Declaration more effective, theAPRCP emphasizes that companies shoulddemonstrate strong leadership, full commitment,budget support and effective information, educa-tion and communication (which cascades downfrom leaders to employees to consumers).

Dr. la O’Castillo emphasized the continuousneed for networking and exchanging experiences.

Claude Fussler (Director of Stakeholder Rela-tions, World Business Council for SustainableDevelopment) noted that the WBCSD was oneof the first signatories of the Declaration. Howev-er, WBCSD uses the term “eco-efficiency” todescribe its preventive philosophy and focuses itswork on making the business case for sustainabledevelopment. Its membership, consisting of 150transnational companies and 30 associate net-works in many countries, gives WBCSD influ-ence and access to industry. It is building capacityand sharing experience through workshops, pub-lications such as the newsletter Sustainability andarticles in Tomorrow magazine, and an eco-effi-ciency reporting platform on the web.

Mr. Fussler discussed two complementary busi-ness models that promote sustainability and com-petitiveness:� shared success: shared values as a source of topgrowth and staying power (the theme can be sum-marized as “I cannot succeed unless society suc-ceeds”); and� efficiency and innovation: leads to leading edgecompetitiveness (waste and emissions are a sign ofpoor management);

He noted that the Dow Jones Sustainability

Index and other objective measures indicate thatinnovation and shared success pay off (“by gettingclean you are getting rich”). Using the currentcompetitive index, the United States is not “No.1” anymore. Finland, a leader in eco-efficiency, wasin this position in 2000.

Mr. Fussler stressed that innovative public pol-icy fosters competitiveness. Traditional regulationdrives companies to achieve compliance at thelowest cost, i.e. to invest as little as possible inenvironmental protection. The compliance mind-set sees the situation as a win-lose “game”. Cana-da, on the other hand, uses a range of voluntaryinitiatives and economic instruments to achieveenvironmental goals – covenants, targets, public-private ventures, research and development fund-ing, consumer incentives, etc., with traditionalregulation at the bottom as a back-up where nec-essary. This illustrates efforts to create a win-winsituation for government and industry.

He concluded with Einstein’s observation that“problems cannot be solved by thinking withinthe framework in which they were created.” Byfostering new thinking, WBCSD is helping tomove the Declaration from signature to action.

Yuji Yamada (Adviser to the Secretary General,Asian Productivity Organization) emphasized thatit is not the Declaration which is important, butputting it into practice. This is more easily saidthan done. He gave as an example the panic amonglarge computer companies in Japan in response toa government plan to ban lead-soldering technol-ogy by 2004. The APO first has to convince gov-ernments, business associations and union leadersthat green productivity is crucial and can be prof-itable. The organization is developing a set ofCleaner Production workshops with accompany-ing training manuals: a half-day workshop forleaders, a two-day workshop for middle managers,and a five-day session for trainers and consultants

Olivia la O’Castillo

Claude Fussler Yuji Yamada

14 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

who interact with supervisors on the shop floor. Among the next steps for the Declaration,

speakers mentioned the following:� using the Declaration to factor a culture of envi-ronmental accountability into decision-making;� keeping the Declaration fresh through dialogueand implementation;� using the Declaration to integrate Cleaner Pro-duction/eco-efficiency into the complete valuechain, thereby leading to an improved quality oflife;

� including commitment to Cleaner Productionin company financial budgets; and� developing appropriate training programmes forsenior managers, middle managers and supervisors.

Technology innovations and Cleaner Production This Plenary Session was aimed at outlining therole technological innovation can play in achiev-ing Cleaner Production and, beyond that, sus-tainable development, recognizing that such

innovation is only one of the driving forces.Specifically, the session reviewed trends in tech-nology development from a Cleaner Productionperspective. Speakers came from different stake-holder groups and geographic regions of theworld. The needs and potential of technologyassessment approaches were also discussed.

The theme speaker, David Minns (DirectorGeneral, National Research Council, Canada),emphasized that “invention plus deploymentequals innovation”. Invention – the outcome of

Parallel SessionGovernment Policies and StrategiesThis session brought together representatives ofdifferent stakeholders from around the world tooutline progress and future needs concerningCleaner Production policies and strategies.

Theme speaker Warren J. Evans (Manager,Office of Environment and Social Development,Asian Development Bank, Philippines) observedthat Cleaner Production has not had significantenvironmental impacts in Asia. Over 50 interna-tional organizations, national donors and NGOspromote Cleaner Production in the region. How-ever, coordination of these efforts is woefullyinadequate, as is the rate of adoption of CleanerProduction. Making information, skills andfinancing available is not enough; without under-lying policies and planning, there is little hope forrapid adoption of Cleaner Production. Asian gov-ernments, he said, see Cleaner Production as atechnical fix. They have not viewed or treated itas a policy issue.

Mr. Evans proposed the following conclusions: � Until there is a meaningful level of enforcementof countries’ environmental regulations, CleanerProduction will not work;� Cleaner Production is not the domain of a sin-gle government agency, or of private sector man-ufacturing only;� Business as usual is no longer possible or desir-able in the promotion of Cleaner Production;� Cleaner Production should be viewed in thelarger context of poverty and public health; and� Cleaner Production concepts should be main-streamed into public policy in all sectors.

He added that tactical solutions will differfrom country to country, but the approachshould include identification of broad nationalgoals by public and private stakeholders whowork together to achieve them. Development ofAsia-specific guidelines might also be worthwhilein regard to developing national policy frame-works for Cleaner Production.

Zhu Xingxiang (Director General, Departmentof Industrial Pollution Management, SEPA,China) reviewed SEPA’s key strategies for pro-moting Cleaner Production in China. These are:� development of a Cleaner Production indicatorsystem and recommendation of technical criteria;� formulation of supporting incentive policies to

implement Cleaner Production;� integration of Cleaner Production strategiesinto existing risk management regulations; and� continuous development of new areas forCleaner Production implementation.

S. Edward Mallett (President and Chief Execu-tive Officer, Ontario Centre for EnvironmentalTechnology Advancement (OCETA), Canada)explained that OCETA is a not-for-profit orga-nization providing business and technical servicesto small and medium-sized enterprises. The Cen-tre is a delivery mechanism for government pro-grammes. It is trying to shift the behaviour ofSMEs towards Cleaner Production and sustain-ability. OCETA activities address issues such asclimate change, clean air, clean water and wastereduction. Dr. Mallett focused on climate changeprogrammes. OCETA can show how much cap-ital expenditure is required to implement energysavings. Payback on investments begins after onlytwo years, yet SMEs are not taking advantage ofthese programmes. Barriers are: � existing financial burden;� difficulty accessing financing (due to internaland external competition for funds); and� limited time and expertise internally to consid-er programmes.

OCETA has developed a programme designedto address these barriers. The Eco-efficiencyInnovation Programme provides two key ser-vices: � a facility energy/eco-efficiency audit and evalu-ation of improvement opportunities (with gov-ernment financing of up to 50% of the auditinvestment available to qualified manufacturers);and� a Credit Facility to implement capital invest-ment projects.

A pilot project targeting 25 SMEs in Ontariohad positive results:� 30 facility audits;� over 90% of the options implemented;� annual greenhouse gas reduction of 18,500tonnes; and� identification of R&D projects for processinnovation.

Key success factors included the large networkof trusted partners to access clients and a credible

delivery agent. OCETA has decided to extend theprogramme to toxics reduction and pollutionprevention.

Tarcisio Alvarez-Rivero (Economic Affairs Offi-cer, UN Department of Economic and SocialAffairs) emphasized the importance of integrat-ing all policy frameworks in developing coun-tries: business regulations, environmentalregulations, industrial policy, etc. He described athree-step strategy used by UN DESA to imple-ment cleaner technology strategies and promoteCleaner Production: 1. Studies and diagnostics identifies priority tech-nology sectors with high growth potential, andfor which government support may be most pro-ductive. It evaluates policy strategies in the regionto assess the potential for promoting Cleaner Pro-duction, and identifies cleaner technologies asmore competitive and sustainable substitutes forthose in use. 2. Business plans for sector-wide transfers of tech-nology includes cost/payback analysis; identifica-tion of possibilities for cost reductions throughinternational support; and innovative financialmechanisms.3. Development of national policies and institutionsfor National Cleaner Technology Strategies (NCTS)makes recommendations for changes in policyframeworks and institutional structures to sup-port cleaner technology.

Mr. Alvarez-Rivero concluded that “We arejust beginning to understand how all these policyaspects – economic, R&D, environmental –work together, but if we don’t integrate them wewill fail.”

Jean Cinq-Mars (Head of the Pollution Pre-vention and Control Division, OECD Environ-ment Directorate), commented that CleanerProduction depends on several factors:� social and market factors that often precede orsupersede public policy;� external technology; and� getting the prices “right”.

An important role for government is to lead byexample through such initiatives as sustainablepurchasing policies and the development andimplementation of sustainable developmentstrategies by public institutions.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 15

Cleaner Production

R&D and technological development – providesthe “technological push”. In Cleaner Production,technological push is occurring in the areas of eco-efficiency, design for the environment (based onlife-cycle analysis, or LCA) and emerging systemstechnologies. Biotechnology is a key systems tech-nology with great promise for achieving sustain-able industrial development.

Deployment – commercialization of the inven-tion – provides “technological pull.” However,technology is not enough to drive Cleaner Pro-

duction. Market demand (e.g. improved or sus-tained profitability/competitiveness and consumergood will) and government policy (e.g. purchasingpolicy, product labelling, liability legislation) arealso needed. Market forces can stimulate change inthe shortest timeframe.

Dr. Minns focused on environmental life-cycleanalysis (LCA) as a key tool for measuring tech-nologies’ Cleaner Production performance. Hereferred to a case study comparing greenhouse gasemissions associated with traditional gasoline and

gasoline with 10% bioethanol fuel. One LCAindicated that the environmental impacts of thelatter were less great. However, a sustainabilityanalysis, which adds a time component, indicatedthat the opposite was true. He also looked at theissue of the sustainability of innovation, suggest-ing a way to assess the environmental performanceof new technologies when they enter the market.In order to address the question “What environ-mental performance will be required to keep theenvironmental footprint of the economy at a con-

Mr Cinq-Mars identified current challenges toCleaner Production, involving issues such as: � non-point source pollution;� dissipative waste;� impacts of service industries;� consumption patterns;� nitrogen management regime;� carbon management; and� trade policy and the environment.

He also emphasized that achieving policycoherence and international cooperation is nec-essary if the issue of Cleaner Production is to beaddressed effectively.

Sandor Kerekes (Director, National CleanerProduction Centre, Hungary) commented thatthe “low-hanging fruit” – i.e. Cleaner Productionopportunities that are relatively easy to seize – arenot really low-hanging at all since perceptionsand behaviour are difficult to change. ProfessorKerekes added that, in the short term, CleanerProduction will be achieved through a combina-tion of preventive and end-of-pipe technologies.

Communicating the fact that end-of-pipetechnologies are more expensive is the educa-tional challenge for Cleaner Production advo-cates. At a more profound level, industry andgovernments need to achieve an understandingof systems thinking: the ecological system is theall-encompassing one, with cascading subsystemsand sub-subsystems (social system, economic sys-tem, industrial system and so on). Systems’ inter-dependence cannot be broken.

Sang Eun Lee (President, Korea EnvironmentInstitute) reviewed Cleaner Production progressin Korea since it hosted CP5 in 1998:� Basic environmental policy has changed fromend-of-pipe to a pollution prevention approach; � A programme has been developed to minimizepollution in the production process;� There are pollution prevention agreementsbetween government and industry;� A “green building” certification system is inplace;� Extended producer responsibility will be inplace by 2001 for household appliances, and by2002 for computers;� Voluntary emission reduction systems havebeen developed;� Incentives for Cleaner Production include gov-ernment financial assistance;� Cleaner Production guidance materials have

been published; and� An R&D programme for Cleaner Productionis under way.

The chairperson of this session, Victor Shanto-ra (former Director, Toxics Pollution Prevention,Environment Canada), summarized the presen-tations as: “Yes, we have moved the Declarationfrom signature to action, but it is a qualified yes.”He heard calls for greater integration of govern-ment environmental policies with other areas,more inclusiveness and involvement of all stake-holders, and use of the full toolbox of regulatory,policy and market instruments. Incentives andtechnical support, now provided by some gov-ernments, are key.

During the general discussion, participantsfocused on the need for – and challenge of – behav-ioural changes. It was agreed that information andtechnology are not sufficient to effect change. Thelimits of several common approaches to changingbehaviour were noted. For example, consumer par-ticipation in boycotting products for ethical orenvironmental reasons is typically very low. Orwhen new regulations are written (the traditionalway governments try to bring about positivechange), businesses often try to identify more loop-holes. The following suggestions for facilitatingbehavioural change were made: � changing planning processes to focus on socialand economic effects of industrial policy;� empowering local communities to stimulatechange among hard-to-reach small industries;� use by larger companies of their credibility,influence and technical capacity to effect behav-ioural changes in their customers through thevalue chain; � considering the benefits of developing strongindustrial associations for SMEs; � learning from the successes of industry safetyprogrammes in changing workplace cultures; and� mainstreaming Cleaner Production by inte-grating it into core business university curricula,engineering, finance, business administration,etc.

A range of views were presented on develop-ing countries’ specific challenges and needs: � Communities in developing countries may nothave the same level of “empowerment” as thosein industrialized countries, so governments mustlead by putting enabling subsidies in place in theshort and medium terms;

� Democracy and “cleaner leadership” are criti-cal in bringing about change;� Inclusion of business associations (which mayhave real political power in developing countries)in policy discussions should be ensured; and� In the areas of technology transfer, donationsor investment, one should start with the localneeds of recipient countries, not with what thedonor country happens to have on offer.

The findings of the background document on“Policies and Strategies for Cleaner Production”,prepared by Professor Thomas Lindhqvist ofLund University, were generally accepted.Clean-er Production can be promoted by a wide rangeof policy instruments, ranging from direct regu-lation to economic/market-based and informa-tion instruments. Most are not specific toCleaner Production. Appropriate combinationstherefore need to be made to favour Cleaner Pro-duction specifically.1

Recommendations� Integrate Cleaner Production into all publicpolicy domains; • Developing countries should base industrialplanning on Cleaner Production principles;• Governments of developed countries shouldlead by example, through initiatives such as sus-tainable development strategies for public insti-tutions and sustainable purchasing policies;� Exploit all the tools available to reward Clean-er Production and discourage end-of-pipe solu-tions, including tax policies, subsidies, voluntaryagreements, regulations; � In developing countries, link Cleaner Produc-tion to the most urgent priorities, particularlypoverty and public health; � Change planning processes so that they alsofocus on the social and economic effects of indus-trial policy;� Ensure meaningful enforcement of regulations;� Empower local communities and local leadersto stimulate changes in industrial behaviour; � Learn from successful safety programmes inindustry how to change organizational culturesand individual behaviour; and � Mainstream Cleaner Production by integratingit into core university curricula (e.g. engineering,finance, business administration).

1. See page 41.

16 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Parallel SessionNational Centres: Delivering Cleaner ProductionThis session was chaired by Margaret T. Chi-namhora (Secretary for Mines, Environment andTourism, Zimbabwe). The theme speaker wasEdward Clarence-Smith (Team Leader, SectoralSupport and Environmental Sustainability Divi-sion, UNIDO). The panellists were Hans-PeterEgler (Deputy Head, SECO, Switzerland),Guillermo Roman (Director, NCPC, Mexico)and Martina Motlova (Director, Global RelationsDepartment, Ministry of the Environment,Czech Republic).

The background paper1 and theme presenta-tion suggested that even if National Cleaner Pro-duction Centres (NCPCs) have generally beensuccessful as promoters of Cleaner Production, anumber of constraints still need to be addressed iftheir goals are to be met fully. Centres’ goals andobjectives were identified as:� awareness raising;� training;� technical assistance;� information dissemination;� investments in Cleaner Production technolo-gy; and� policy advice.

The constraints identified in the theme presen-tation were further elaborated upon and added toby the panellists and participants. Discussions oneach issue can be summarized as follows:

Centres’ self-sustainability NCPCs are expected to become financially self-sustainable after an initial start-up period of a few

years. However, since the actual business demandfor Cleaner Production is still poor in many coun-tries, there is a risk that they will have to deliverservices in areas not directly related (such as ISO14000 and Environmental Performance Indica-tors) in order to achieve self-sustainability. Someparticipants noted that it is of less importance howthe Cleaner Production concept is promoted (incombination with other environmental tools, oron its own) than that it is promoted. It may evenbe desirable for other mutually reinforcing toolsto be promoted at the same time.

Another issue relating to NCPCs’ self-sustain-ability is their integral goal of “training the train-ers,” i.e. building capacity in other companies andorganizations so as to deliver Cleaner Productionservices to the industry. A concern is that the com-panies and consultants trained may in the long runbecome competitors of the NCPCs and put themout of business. Most comments on this issue sup-ported the idea that centres’ sustainability is not anend in itself, but that capacity building and pro-motion of Cleaner Production are. If the capacitybuilding undertaken by NCPCs results in a stronggroup of Cleaner Production service providers, thisis actually a positive development. NCPCs maystill be able to survive, not as providers of CleanerProduction services to industry but as “centres ofexcellence” supplying other providers with the lat-est information and training.

The issue of government financial support forcentres was also discussed. While a few centresmay receive public funding, seemingly because

their work is seen by governments as importantenough to receive state funding, the majority needto become business oriented to survive in the longterm. This was widely agreed by participants. Itwas pointed out that in order to develop a sus-tainable Cleaner Production market, it is impor-tant that the service provided by centres never begiven away (although discounted services may beprovided in the beginning to attract customers).“A commodity provided for free is never valued.”

Local companies in some countries do pay feesto local consultants. A related suggestion was thatNCPCs that help international consultants accesslocal Cleaner Production markets should chargefor this service, thereby servicing the local mar-ket and also increasing NCPC revenues. Finally,it was pointed out that in some countries it maystill take a long time for NCPCs to achieve self-sustainability simply due to the country’s lowlevel of economic development.

Limitations on NCPC activitiesThe Cleaner Production concept emphasizesimprovements that can be achieved with non-technological options, such as good housekeep-ing and process control. However, transferringclean technology was also seen as a necessary“next step” that must be taken by all centres soon-er or later. While this point was not disputed, itwas noted that NCPCs cannot provide the sec-tor-specific and highly specialized technicalknowledge often required for this task (since thefew centre staff members wear the hats of gener-

stant level?”, Dr. Minns listed four assumptions:� Environmental impacts are proportionate toeconomy activity;� Economic growth occurs at a rate of 4%;� Increased eco-efficiency decreases environmen-tal impact at a given level of economic activity;and� If newly developed technology is beginning tobe introduced into industry, an average of 25 yearswill be required before it becomes the average per-formance of industry as a whole.

Given the last assumption, technology enteringthe market today should have a performance atleast three times better than the current industryaverage (i.e. emissions that are 33% of currentones) to be sustainable. If present environmentalimpacts are not sustainable, of course, environ-mental performance targets for new technologieswill have to be even higher.

Dr. Minns stressed that the issue is not cleanervs. clean enough. Both are needed. Cleaner Pro-duction is a crucial concept that mobilizes indus-try to respond with innovation to the challenge ofimproving environmental performance. At thisstage, Cleaner Production would benefit mostfrom “front-wheel drive” policies aimed at marketdeployment or technological “pull”.

John F. Jaworski (Senior Industry DevelopmentOfficer, Industry Canada) presented a table show-ing that the use of conventional processes andnon-renewable feedstocks is not sustainable. Bio-processes and bioproducts offer “a way to go backto the future” – i.e. a way to achieve sustainabledevelopment. Biotechnology is playing an increas-ingly important role in the chemical industry; bio-catalysis (the use of enzymes or microorganismsto synthesize or modify molecular structures) isbecoming part of the general tool kit of syntheticorganic chemists. BIOCHEMIE, a subsidiary ofNovartis, reported that in the production of onetonne of cephalosporin, the conventional chemi-cal process resulted in 31 tonnes of wastes requir-ing incineration while its new enzyme biocatalysisprocess resulted in only 0.3 tonnes.

Dr. Jaworski discussed the move to a “biobasedeconomy.” Such a global economy, based on bio-fuels and biochemicals, offers opportunities forboth developed and developing countries.Biotechnology-based technologies in particular,and the life sciences in general, will play anincreasingly prominent role in moving global pro-duction systems towards the ultimate goal of sus-tainability. Research communities in variousdisciplines, national and international agencies,David Minns

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 17

Cleaner Production

associations and NGOs have developed CleanerProduction initiatives. Some networks, such asthat led by UNEP, have begun to emerge. Thesestakeholders need to communicate with eachother and work together to develop and imple-ment global solutions to global problems.

Mentor E. Poveda (Latin American EnergyOrganization, OLADE) stated that for some yearshis organization has been working with othercountries in Latin America and the Caribbean ona project relating to energy and sustainable devel-opment. OLADE has produced a guide for sus-tainable energy policy-making. The low efficiencyof technologies in the region indicates that there isconsiderable room for improvement. However,the region’s environmental concerns involve otherpriorities. New approaches are needed to developenergy efficient strategies in Latin America, andoutside help will be required to implement suchapproaches. For example, should developed coun-tries penalize companies that export old cars andoutdated plant technology to the region?

Kenichi Sakamoto (UNU/ZERI, Project Advi-sor, Japan) presented eight Japanese Cleaner Pro-duction case studies from industry sectorsincluding metal finishing, iron and steel, pulp andpaper, and beer manufacturing. Dr. Kenichi

alists, salesmen, lobbyists, etc). One solutionwould be to allow regional (sub-national) centresto specialize in different sectors. UNEP’s work-ing groups could also be better utilized by cen-tres for this purpose.

A general weakness of the NCPC approach isthat centres too often focus on supplying serviceswithout addressing the issue of how to create ademand. In this context, the discussion touchedon the issue of what might happen to “publicgoods” if the centres only delivered “private goods”as a result of becoming business-oriented. It wassuggested that since the win-win character ofCleaner Production combines environmental ben-efits (public goods) and economic benefits (privategoods), the “public goods” will not be lost.

NCPCs may also find a substantial source ofincome if they provide services for improvingenergy efficiency and link this to the anticipatedcarbon trading schemes and flexible mechanismsunder the Kyoto Protocol.

Critical mass and networkingThe question was raised whether NCPCs are toofew and far apart to have an impact on industryand society. This issue reinforced the need forNCPCs to prioritize capacity building so as toachieve a critical mass of Cleaner Production pro-moters and practitioners. More regional and sub-national centres would be very useful in thisregard. In the long run, however, to be widelyaccepted the concept needs to be perceived byboth the public and private sectors as providingadded value. The importance of achieving thiscredibility is underlined by the fact that areas

where Cleaner Production can be applied mayvary widely from one country to another (e.g.sectors such as tourism and agriculture are majorincome earners in many countries, but with a fewexceptions the concept has focused on applica-tions in manufacturing industry).

There were calls for closer and more active net-working among centres. The challenge in this casewould be financing. It was noted that regionalroundtables, UNEP’s Cleaner Production work-ing groups, and universities are informationsources that are not well utilized by NCPCs. Thisagain brought up the question of whether toomuch is being asked of centres. Much of theexpertise on specific issues could be generated andaccessed through a closer network, not onlyamong NCPCs (and regional and sub-nationalcentres) themselves, but also working more close-ly with regional roundtables, working groups anduniversities.

Centres as policy advisersIt was widely accepted that bringing about wide-spread adoption of Cleaner Production in soci-ety will not only require training, awarenessraising, information dissemination and techni-cal/financial assistance, but also changes of poli-cy by national and local governments. To achievethis, NCPCs need to access the highest politicallevels of decision-making – which is often notonly time-consuming but also very difficult. Sev-eral participants noted that other actors shouldwork together with NCPCs to address this issue,including UNEP/UNIDO, other practitioners(consultants) and industry associations. Even if

the centres do not have the capacity to spend anideal level of resources on addressing policyissues, they can still seek to influence policy-mak-ers as an integral part of their work.

The road aheadSeveral participants expressed appreciation forthe succinct analysis of present challenges toNCPCs presented in the background paper. Awidely supported proposal was made to take thisdiscussion beyond CP6 by turning the back-ground paper into a questionnaire that could bedistributed and commented on by participantsand other interested parties. The informationcollected would provide valuable input to furtherdevelopment of the NCPC network.

Recommendations� For long-term sustainability, NCPCs need tooperate on a business basis. Services provided byNCPCs should always be offered on a fee basis. � Providing cleaner technologies is a necessary“second step” in the development of NCPCs.Highly specialized expertise can be created wheneach centre specializes in only a few areas, com-plemented by close networking with other cen-tres, UNEP working groups and universities.� NCPCs are not an end in themselves. Creatingcapacity (and demand) for Cleaner Productionservices is a priority. NCPCs’ “new role” wouldbe to support other Cleaner Productionproviders with the latest know-how.

1. See page 48.

John F. Jaworski Mentor E. Poveda

18 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

observed that these cases make it clear that tech-nology is one method of reaching the goal ofCleaner Production. However, it is very importantthat policies be closely linked with market forcesso that they reinforce each other.

The panellists submitted the following generalcomments:� Policies should be developed aimed at marketdeployment or technical “pull” to drive CleanerProduction. Technological innovations can drivesustainable production.� Socio-economic market responses and policyframework factors need to be accounted for in theassessment of technology application;� Techno-economically proven technologicalinnovations should be commercialized for easyaccess and effective outreach; � Advantage should be taken of emerging oppor-tunities for bioprocesses and bioproducts toachieve a quantum leap in eco-efficiency;� A guide should be produced for energy policy-making with a view to sustainable development; � Penalization of companies that export out-of-date plant technologies should be considered, ifnecessary;

� New strategies to achieve energy efficiency needto be devised; and� It should be ensured that biotechnology isincluded in discussions about, and evaluation of,Cleaner Production initiatives and strategies.

Twinning industrial ecology and Cleaner ProductionTo launch discussions on the second day, SurenErkman (Director, Institute for Communicationand Analysis of Science and Technology(ICAST), Switzerland), delivered a keynoteaddress on industrial ecology. Cleaner Productionand eco-efficiency remain targeted towards man-ufacturing processes and business strategies with-in industrial companies. However, CleanerProduction could be applied at the level of a clus-ter of various companies, an industrial zone, oreven a whole region (that is, it could be appliedat the level of a system). This emerging approachhas become known as “industrial ecology.” Theultimate goal of industrial ecology is to determinehow the industrial system could be restructuredto make it compatible with the way naturalecosystems function.

Parallel SessionHow to Finance Cleaner ProductionThe chairperson, Sriratana Tabucanon Monthip(Deputy Director-General, Department ofEnvironmental Quality Protection, Thailand),opened this session by pointing out that state-ments of commitment need to be translated intoaction. Adoption of Cleaner Production will notspread unless corresponding financial flows areensured. The current pattern of pay-as-you-go isnot sustainable in the long run. She referred tothe background paper prepared by Ari Huhtala(Project Manager, CP Financing, UNEP DTIE)highlighting, in particular, the importance ofelaborating a definition for Cleaner Productioninvestments and embedding the terminology inthe financial services industry in the same way asenvironmental management.1 The session rap-porteur was Jurgis Staniskis(Director, Institute of

Environmental Engineering and Cleaner Pro-duction Centre, Lithuania).

The theme speaker, David Hanrahan (Pro-gramme Team Leader for Urban, Industry andEnergy, Environment Department, World Bank),emphasized that the Bank encourages lending infinancial competitive terms, i.e. it discourages per-verse subsidies. He reiterated the importance ofthe language issue and integration of Cleaner Pro-duction into the enterprises’ financial decision-making. He also called for improved accountingpractices and policy changes conducive to selec-tion of Cleaner Production options. He felt thatCleaner Production is happening on a much larg-er scale than usually perceived, as much of thischange is funded directly from companies’ ownresources. Communicationproblems persist between

those seeking external funding (e.g. loans) and thesupply agents.

Eric K. Mugurusi (Director, Department ofEnvironment, Government of Tanzania) pre-sented the perspective of a developing countryin which newly privatized enterprises are pro-ducing basic goods and require assistance toimprove their technologies. He stressed the needfor an ongoing educational process to help enter-prises prepare “bankable” investment proposalsattractive to financial services. He called fordonor-supported and national revolving fundsto jump-start the adoption of Cleaner Produc-tion in developing countries, thus rewarding pio-neers and initiating good examples. He also

Parallel Session on financing Cleaner Production

Suren Erkman

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 19

Cleaner Production

Sustainable consumption and CleanerProduction: two sides of the same coinThis Plenary Session targeted consumers’ roles inthe product chain with respect to identifying whatgovernments, businesses and other organizationsneed to know about consumer behaviour andtrends, so as to successfully design and communi-cate about Cleaner Production products and ser-vices.

Chris Ryan (Director, International Institute forIndustrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE),Lund University, Sweden), the theme speaker,introduced the session by noting that consump-tion is currently taken as a measure of prosperity.The great inequalities in global consumption senda disturbing message, but there are grounds forhope that inequalities will be reduced and unsus-tainable consumption curtailed. Polluter-payspolicies and extended producer responsibility willcontribute to making eco-innovation a businesspriority. Recent surveys of industry suggest that areordering of priorities is beginning to occur.

A potential problem is that efficiency improve-ments could become a trigger for increased con-sumption. Eco-efficiency will not lead to a

sustainable future unless consumption levels fallglobally. This does not necessary imply a “wind-ing down” of the economy. In industrialized coun-tries it means a shift from an emphasis on quantityto one of quality in consumption. The mostprevalent consumption approach is demand man-agement, whose success depends on a feedbackmechanism that is information rich and cultural-ly attuned.

Product innovations such as multi-functional-ity, extended life products, dematerialization andeven e-materialization can all work to make con-sumption more sustainable. De- and e-material-ization must be viewed with some scepticism. Theoverall result of reducing net materials use is notclear. For example, there are limits to miniaturiza-tion. However, there is evidence that some con-sumers are willing to shift to e-materialization.

Professor Ryan also addressed other approach-es to reducing consumption:� Re-use and re-manufacturing. In some markets,Xerox has achieved an increase in materials useefficiency greater than factor 4 by “reinventing”itself as a service company. The Xerox approachreflects a wider trend elsewhere in manufacturing.

highlighted the particular difficulties faced bySMEs due to high interest rates and cumbersomeloan application procedures.

Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia (Executive Vice-President, Corporacion Andina de Fomento(CAF), Venezuela), who expressed his generalagreement with the points raised in the back-ground paper, provided examples of environ-mental lending and financial intermediarytraining programmes provided by CAF. He feltthat problems faced by SMEs are generic and notrelated to Cleaner Production investments only.The importance of an enterprise’s competitive-ness and the determining character of the marketwere emphasized. Links between poverty andenvironmental degradation were also men-tioned.

Mike Kelly (Environment Manager, KPMG,United Kingdom) described the process of car-rying out the UNEP DTIE survey on pastCleaner Production investment practices. Henoted the main conclusions, also summarized inthe background paper. He felt that a strict defin-ition of Cleaner Production investments is notrequired, but rather expansion of a new culturethrough education, including the media andbusiness schools. Cleaner Production invest-ment should be seen as an integral part of aprocess, not just a component. Mr. Kelly alsocited examples of SME guaranteed funds thathave proved unsuccessful in terms of findingborrowers.

Sybren de Hoo (Director Sustainable Develop-ment, Rabobank, The Netherlands) consideredthe background paper a good basis for discussion.He felt that projects should have their own cashflows and risks. Most projects currently present-

ed to Rabobank are not bankable projects. In thecase of Cleaner Production projects, environ-mental revenue sometimes relates to politicaldecisions and so presents an additional risk forbanks. Mr. De Hoo recommended that the out-come of the UNEP DTIE Cleaner ProductionFinancing project be submitted to the signatoriesof the UNEP Financial Institutions Statement onEnvironment and Sustainable Development, inorder to solicit innovative mechanisms and pro-posals for solutions.

Dr. Monthip described recent developmentsin Thailand, including the embedding of Clean-er Production in the 9th National Economic andSocial Development Plan (2001-2006) andapproval of a technical assistance project fundedby the Asian Development Bank to support theestablishment of a National Centre for CleanerProduction in Thailand, with the objective ofassisting in information networking and promo-tion of financing mechanisms for Cleaner Pro-duction.

The presentations and subsequent discus-sion resulted in the following conclusions andrecommendations.

Conclusions� There has been considerable progress in imple-menting Cleaner Production investments com-ing from companies’ own resources. A commu-nication gap remains, however, betweendemands for external funding and their sources. � Language can be a major barrier with respect tointroducing the concept to new audiences. It isalso crucial in meeting the criteria of specificfunds or facilities for Cleaner Production invest-ments. Language is less of a problem at the level

of commercial investment projects. � Cleaner Production investments require a basiccapacity level in a country. Otherwise, there is lit-tle demand from industry for Cleaner Produc-tion assistance and little assistance available tofirms that are interested. This basic capacity is aprerequisite in choosing countries for activeCleaner Production investment promotion ini-tiatives. � There are examples of successful special fundsfor environmental and/or Cleaner Productioninvestments, but it is recognized that the processof integration into the market requires a certainperiod of time.

Overall recommendations � Cleaner Production should be embedded ingovernment policies to encourage commerciallycompetitive Cleaner Production investments andto discourage perverse subsidies.� Accounting practices in enterprises should beimproved to reflect more accurately the actualcost of waste management and external environ-mental costs.� Concerted efforts are needed to strengthen thecapacity of financial institutions, businessschools, academia and the media to understandthe benefits of preventive approaches.� Enterprises, particularly SMEs, need to betrained to prepare creditworthy investment pro-posals.� Revolving funds and other targeted investmentfacilities should be encouraged to jump-start theimplementation of bankable Cleaner Productioninvestments, particularly in developing countries.

1. See page 56.

Chris Ryan

20 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

There are sound business reasons for maximizingmachines for longer life and low maintenance. � Pay for service instead of buy to own. Services per seare not eco-efficient. While services are perceivedas transitory, the infrastructure and materials usedin traditional services are probably quite unsus-tainable. The service sector has generally not beentargeted for preventive strategies. However, the ser-vice concept is a very good way for businesses tothink about change, as the focus on use has veryimportant implications for product design.� Informational feedback. The act of consumptiontraditionally connotes a change of product own-ership (and responsibility). Informational feed-back in product design has been ignored.Pay-by-use approaches fit well with information-al feedback. In the case of pay-by-use washingmachines, the electricity supplier is also the infor-mation supplier with respect to use patterns andmachine performance.

Professor Ryan noted a recurring theme regard-ing the above approaches: information technolo-gy is possibly the most critical factor in achievingimprovement. Culture is another critical factor.For example, a pay-per-use washing machinebreaks down traditional business boundaries butmay not work in a different place or culture. Towork, the pay-by-use approach must be moredesirable for consumers than traditional purchas-ing. Redirecting desire gets back to advertisingand UNEP’s discussions with the advertising

industry, in which the need for advertising as anindustry to work in tandem with product design-ers has been emphasized.

Designing to conform to consumer desires isthe key to market success. There were many ques-

tions concerning the education and training ofdesigners and the values of consumers. A heateddebate also took place on the human need forownership and whether it is an immutable part ofhuman nature. University students may not iden-tify with a need to own, at least while they areyoung. Another encouraging sign is that con-sumers in a number of industrialized countrieshave shown a striking willingness to spend timeseparating waste. More such opportunities forconsumer involvement need to be generated.

Diane Dillon-Ridgley (on the Board of Direc-tors of Interface Inc., United States) told how hercompany’s service-lease approach fosters sustain-able consumption. Interface is the world’s largestmanufacturer of modular carpeting, with annualsales of $1.3 billion. It is a solution provider forcommercial interiors, providing a floor-coveringservice rather than selling carpets outright. For amonthly fee, Interface takes responsibility formaintaining fresh and clean carpeting at all times,replacing worn carpet tiles as needed.

Interface has been committed to sustainabilitysince 1994. It is striving for sustainability on sevenfronts:� eliminate waste – elimination of the concept ofwaste, not just incremental reductions;� benign emissions – elimination of molecularwaste emitted with negative or toxic impacts onnatural systems;� renewable energy – reduction of energy use whileDiane Dillon-Ridgley

Parallel SessionThe Strategy to Implement Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)The theme speaker, Per Bakken (formerly Offi-cer-in-Charge, UNEP Secretariat of the BaselConvention, Switzerland), noted that the basicphilosophy of Cleaner Production is that it isbetter to prevent and cure, and that the bestplace to implement preventive strategies is at thesource. However, early MEAs were technologydriven agreements that focused on end-of-pipesolutions. Recent MEAs offer a more flexibleapproach to solutions, and therefore moreopportunities for Cleaner Production.1 Mr.Bakken divided MEAs into total bans (e.g. theMontreal Protocol, the proposed POPs Con-vention) and pollutant reduction conventions(e.g. the Basel Convention, FCCC, LRTAP).

Reduction targets have the greatest potentialto promote Cleaner Production. Mr. Bakkenhighlighted UNEP’s Regional Seas Programmeto control marine pollution as being of interestto most NCPCs around the world. He conclud-ed that there is significant scope to use CleanerProduction methodologies as a means to achievenational commitments under MEAs.

Tony Hetherington (Deputy Chief Officer, Sec-retariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Imple-mentation of the Montreal Protocol, Canada)emphasized that work now under way to imple-ment the Protocol does indeed represent CleanerProduction activities. He added that the Montre-al Protocol does not demand the cleanest produc-

tion – it represents the “art of the possible.” Thechallenge of phasing out ozone depleting sub-stances is driving technology improvement inboth developed and developing countries. Theresult has frequently been improved efficienciesand an increased bottom line. The MultilateralFund has catalyzed equipment development.However, there are major funding issues, partic-ularly the need for focus and fund accountabilityversus achievement of broader goals. MEA chal-lenges cannot be met by throwing money at them;there needs to be full stakeholder participationand responsibility.

Professor James Salzman (Washington Collegeof Law, United States) agreed with Mr. Bakkenthat more recent MEAs offer great potential forCleaner Production approaches. He called onUNEP DTIE to work with convention secretari-ats on such practical issues as funding and tech-nical assistance. He emphasized that the focusshould be on what an MEA can achieve thatnational actions alone cannot. He added thatthere is a good chance the Global EnvironmentOrganization (GEO) will occur, a major oppor-tunity for Cleaner Production and for interactionamong MEA secretariats.

Viera Feckova (Director, NCPC, SlovakRepublic) emphasized that seizing Cleaner Pro-duction opportunities represented by MEAsrequires interaction with all stakeholders – gov-

ernments, large companies and SMEs. Alsoimportant is clarifying the role of each player(NCPCs, Cleaner Production activists, govern-ments, polluters).

The chairperson, Stephen O. Andersen (Direc-tor, Technology Transfer and Industry Pro-grammes, Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA),commented that one of the lessons of the Mon-treal Protocol is the value of a technical advisorypanel. Involvement of experts from business wasthe key to technical success in implementing it.

In the general discussion with participants,the following points were made:� UNEP should interact more with conventionsecretariats; � MEAs bring government commitment andprobably money to the table, while Cleaner Pro-duction players should bring knowledge andleadership to the table;� Sectoral strategies are needed;� The role of NCPCs and Cleaner Productionactivists is transferring not just technical assis-tance but also capacity building; and � UNEP DTIE should organize a kick-off work-shop to bring MEA stakeholders together toidentify common areas of action, or whereCleaner Production programmes could supportand facilitate implementation of specific con-ventions. 1. See page 54.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 21

Cleaner Production

Parallel SessionCP Information: the Importance of InterNET-WORKINGThe rapporteur for this session was Mark Kasman (Senior Interna-tional Information Officer, US EPA). The theme speaker, ChaiyodBunyagidj (Vice President, Thailand Environmental Institute), sug-gested that the goals of networking are different at the global, region-al, national and local levels. The stakeholders of networking includegovernment, business, industry, NGOs, academia, international orga-nizations, donors and society at large. However, different stakehold-ers have different needs, which raises the question of what is to beachieved by networking. Should it � provide “free” information dissemination?� create core exchange/discussion groups on Cleaner Production? or� become a bulletin board for the region?

Mr. Bunyagidj pointed to a variety of ways to network, includingthe Internet, printed materials, seminars, training and roundtables.Key success factors include:� a committed and knowledgeable Cleaner Production person withgood communication skills;� personal contact (much easier at country and local level); and� simple terminology.

Barriers include: � the very passive nature of Cleaner Production information;� lack of hardware/infrastructure;� lack of knowledge of (or interest in) the Internet;� lack of common issues to bring all stakeholders together;� language; and � lack of ongoing funding support.

Mr. Bunyagidj concluded by reiterating the importance of furtherclarifying networking goals.

Frank Rittner (formerly Programme Manager, World Bank; GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) Secretariat) described the SustainableTechnology Alternatives Network (STAN), an electronic informationand facilitation service being developed through a partnership betweenGEF and UNEP. The goal is to identify and address key barriers to theintroduction, commercial transfer and global market development ofviable technology alternatives. Barriers include: � lack of awareness concerning global environmental agreements andtechnology/business alternatives that meet convention objectives;� isolated efforts to implement conventions;� lack of access to up-to-date technologies;� lack of business planning know-how;� lack of access to finance and risk capital for investments and ven-tures; and � lack of incentives for considering alternatives.

STAN will provide added value not available on the Internet. It willorganize, verify and customize information relating to specific busi-ness needs, and will offer interactive business planning tools and dis-cussion groups. Specific services under consideration include: on-linetechnology comparison/assessment; integrated business planningadvisory services; information on financial tools and investment risk-management tools; integrated trade policy advisory services; on-linemarketing and procurement engines for cleaner technology; distancelearning tools; and dialogues online. Mr. Rittner indicated that a busi-ness plan for the service will be completed by March 2001 and a net-work proposal submitted by the following May. GEF and UNEPwant to start services by August 2001.

Hans Schnitzer (Joanneum Research, Austria) defined network suc-cess as bringing the right information to the right people at the rightmoment in the right language – an achievement more difficult than itsounds. The right moment is when people are open to receiving infor-mation and have the power to use it. Information has to be in simplelanguage that the target group can understand. SMEs, for example, arenot going to use the Internet to read about a new subject in a foreign

language. Information needs to be “new” for the target audience; oldinformation can be relevant to a particular target group. ProfessorSchnitzer agreed with Mr. Bunyagidj that networks are needed at dif-ferent levels, such as local/community-based, theme-oriented (e.g.Cleaner Production or energy), regional, national and international.

Julia Alice Ferreira (Manager, P2 Office, CETESB, Brazil) discussedthe challenges of networking in Latin America and the Caribbean,where Cleaner Production approaches differ from country to country.Barriers to networking include lack of financing sources and lack ofinformation in local languages. Creation of a New Americas CleanerProduction network could provide a helpful tool. However, the suc-cess of the network will require a committed group providing supportto target audiences; simplicity and attractiveness to users; finding andkeeping partners motivated to provide and update data; sustainablefunding; and a marketing programme to reach the public.

In the general discussion with participants, the following pointswere made:� Some participants agreed with GEF that a charge is justified for avalue-added service, while others saw fee-for-service as a barrier to net-working. It was suggested that advertisers be charged but not users,who would be discouraged from using the system when they did notknow the value of the information they would be paying for.� Many developing countries do not have access to the Internet.Funding agencies should make relevant journals available to thosecountries in local languages. � The target audience should not be SMEs, which do not have thetime or interest to surf the net, but their intermediary or extensionservice provider.� The issue of liability for information provided through these net-works needs to be considered.

Several networking initiatives were noted: � Thai MOSTE is setting up an information centre with the supportof the Asian Development Bank, as well as cooperating with UNEP inJapan and with the Japanese Government to promote the ASEMTechnology Centre. They are also cooperating with RIET in Singa-pore. � US AID has put together a CD-ROM on their technical CleanerProduction case studies, which they would like to make available. Thedifficulty of getting this information out to recipients amid the “flot-sam” of the Internet was noted.

The chairperson, Terri Willard (Coordinator for Sustainable Devel-opment Communications Network, International Institute for Sus-tainable Development (IISD), Canada), reviewed key themes fromthis session: � There is a difference between a network and a web site. � Shaping the message to the particular audience is important.� Matching a suite of communications products and services to theaudience is a challenge.� Any network needs an internal and external communications strat-egy. � It is important to decide whether to create new content or packageexisting information for target audiences.� There is a need to avoid duplication. � Marketing continues to be a challenge.

Recommendations � Match information to target needs of different audiences.� Establish networks in addition to websites.� Avoid duplication by building on existing systems.

See the article by Marianne Lines on page 68.

22 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

replacing non-renewable resources with sustain-able ones;� closing the loop – redesign of processes and prod-ucts to create cyclical material flows;� resource-efficient transportation – exploringmethods to reduce transportation of molecules(products and people) in favour of moving infor-mation;� sensitivity hook-up – creation of a community inand around Interface that understands the func-tioning of natural systems and our impact onthem; � redesign of commerce – focusing on the delivery ofservice and value instead of delivery of material.

Amel Benzartim (General Director, Tunis Inter-national Centre for Environmental Technologiesand the Tunisian National Cleaner ProductionCentre) focused on challenges and opportunitiesin promoting sustainable consumption in Africa.The concept of sustainability is not yet clear topeople in Africa, where one of the major concernsis alleviating poverty. The driving forces in Africancountries are: � economic and social development;� export prospects;� promotion of local consumption vs. importingof goods; and� preservation of local customs

Ms. Benzartim described the role of the NCPCas: � awareness raising and promotion of sustainableconsumption;� building local capacity through training;� fostering policy dialogue;� facilitating the introduction of new tools andindustries; and� transferring eco-technology in a cost-effectivemanner.

She also gave an example of how using simpletechnology could reduce consumption of fire-wood in Tunisia. In that country 6.3 million m2 offirewood is consumed per year, but only 2.8 mil-lion m2 is produced. Households are the greatestconsumers (4.5 million m2). A special type ofstove lid could reduce household firewood con-sumption by 50%, the equivalent of 150,000tonnes of petroleum per year. This example illus-trates that sustainable consumption can beachieved in an African context, provided strategiesare characterized by: � striving to meet the basic needs of all;� building local capacity; and� fostering constructive partnerships betweenstakeholders (government, industry and con-sumers).

Charles Laroche (Vice President, CorporateRelations and Public Affairs, Unilever HPCE,Belgium) talked about the Code of Good Envi-ronmental Practice of the International Associa-tion for Soap, Detergent, and MaintenanceProducts (AISE) and its “Wash Right Campaign”.AISE represents national associations and theirmember companies in 28 countries, mainly inEurope. The campaign has successfully reducedconsumption of energy, water and laundry deter-gent by 5-10%. AISE members have committedthemselves to improve their environmental

progress when formulating products and packag-ing for household laundry detergents, and toencourage consumers to be more closely involvedin proper product use.

Mr. Laroche presented what AISE has learnedin trying to connect with consumers on environ-mental issues. The major environmental impactof washing powders derives from consumer useand disposal, but the general public is largelyunaware of the fact. Even if they were aware of it,

most people would not sacrifice a consumer ben-efit to meet an ecological goal. Initiatives like theWash Right Campaign offer an opportunity to bea satisfied consumer and a good citizen. Issuesarising from efforts at sustainable advertising wereidentified:� the role of detergent on the sustainability agenda;� the logic of commerce vs. values of sustainabili-ty; and� the logic of brand identification vs. a commonstrategy for sustainability.

Involvement of youth in promoting sustainableconsumption was discussed by Dania QuirolaSuarez (AIESEC Alumnus, Ecuador) and KarunKoernig (Manager Environmental Youth Alliance,UNEP; Youth Advisory Council, Canada). Ms.Suarez noted that UNEP benefits from the net-work of youth carrying out grassroots work onsustainability issues, including members of theInternational Association of Students in Eco-nomics and Business (AISEC), which now acceptsstudents from many disciplines. A network hasevolved out of a national youth forum on Youthand Sustainable Consumption in Cameroonbringing together 500 groups.

Mr. Koernig described how youth in Canadaare using video and other media to communicatesustainable consumption messages. For example,in cooperation with UNEP, two young womenhave produced a video on sustainable consump-tion. Other young people are putting together amagazine in French and English concerned withCleaner Production and changing consumerbehaviour. There are many instances of youthworking in partnership with business on sustain-ability issues.

He pointed out that sustainable consumptionchallenges existing ideas of “cool” and desirablelifestyles. Many young people in Canada and else-where are working to change their peers’ con-sumption patterns. Sustainable consumptionpatterns will create the demand needed for imple-menting Cleaner Production.

Panellists then responded to participant com-ments and questions: � “How do we jump-start the process of chang-ing behaviour?”Mr. Laroche: An advertising code of conduct isneeded, and UNEP is working to develop one. Ithas to be at the industry level, but involving mar-keters. � “The detergent example is a good initiative,but it makes it too easy on the consumer side.I’m personally sceptical how much consumerbehaviour can ultimately be changed. I believechange will have come from offering sustainableservices and products for the same or less moneythan other products.”Mr. Koernig: I agree that changing behaviour is achallenge. The impact of culture is tremendous.Let’s look at car sharing. For young people theirfirst car is very, very important, but car sharing hasthe potential to shift perceptions a little bit, pro-vided there is government support that fosters carsharing, use of public transport and so on. Yes,young people are more open to new ideas, butthings can backfire if all sectors are not involved. Charles Laroche

Amel Benzartim

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 23

Cleaner Production

� “Are there no government policies that help con-sumers to think about sustainable consumption?”Ms. Suarez: Building consumer awareness of con-sumption impacts on the environment is impor-tant, as are market incentives to promote CleanerProduction. However, if we don’t cooperate acrossall countries, we will achieve nothing. For exam-ple, as noted earlier, the emission reduction bene-fits of new cars are undercut if heavily pollutingold cars are exported.

Perspectives for the next decadeParticipants presented a number of personal per-spectives on the seminar and made recommenda-tions that feed into the overall seminar recom-mendations. Below are some highlights of thesepersonal perspectives.

John F. Jaworski (Senior Industry DevelopmentOfficer, Industry Canada) said that “We have notgot very far yet on the sustainable communitiesjourney.” He was pleased, however, to note theemphasis the seminar had placed on “out of thebox” thinking and linking of Cleaner Productionwith the broader agenda of sustainable develop-ment – the evolution from cleaner to cleanenough. He captured key themes from the meet-ing with two quotations:� “To survive, we need a new manner of think-ing.” – Albert Einstein� We need “actualization of a new lifestyle of per-manence.”– E.F. Schumacher

Ken Geiser commented that much had beenachieved in the field of Cleaner Production andduring the seminar. “We moved forward in thismeeting,” he said, “because we focused on evalu-ating and criticizing ourselves.” Participants wereasking themselves: “How can I contribute to get

better results out of the work of furthering Clean-er Production?”

Appreciation of the attendance of His Excel-lency Milos Kuzvart, Minister of Environment,Czech Republic, was expressed by all. MinisterKuzvart thanked UNIDO and UNEP for Clean-er Production assistance to his country. The CzechMinistry of the Environment plays a catalytic rolein fostering sustainability in the Czech Republic.He had the sense from the discussions of the pasttwo days that this is the right role for it. To muchapplause, he invited UNEP to hold CP7 in Praguein 2002.

Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel of UNEP and James

Riorden, representing the Government of Cana-da, offered concluding remarks summarizingsome of the ideas proposed during the seminar tomeet current challenges to Cleaner Production.Thanking organizers and participants for the hardwork that led up to CP6, and the work achievedduring the seminar, they wished them good luckand success for the work that lies ahead.

NotesTo learn more about CP6 (and for the full text ofpresentations and background papers, as well asthe web forum discussion previous to the semi-nar), go to CP6. �

Parallel SessionCleaner Production: The Untold StoriesThis session provided a platform for discussing what has not been suc-cessful in Cleaner Production implementation and trying to understandwhy. It was chaired by Don Huisingh (IIIEE, Lund University, Sweden)and facilitated by Surya P. Chandak (Cleaner Production Coordinator,UNEP DTIE). The rapporteur was Sergio Musmanni (Director, NCPC,Costa Rica).

Barriers to the success of Cleaner Production identified in these discus-sions included:� unexpected changes in government policy, e.g. in the definition of waste;� unclear or unrealistically high expectations of a project; � difficulties in obtaining underwriting;

� lack of management commitment;� lack of clarity with respect to roles;� lack of empowerment of employees at all levels; and� cultural issues, internal as well as those of advisors coming in.

Threaded through all the stories presentedwere attitudinal, motiva-tional and psychological dimensions. It was concluded that successdepends as much on psychological and cultural factors as on technical andmanagerial ones.1

1. See page 72 and the CP6 web site (

24 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

What can we do collectively that as practi-tioners we cannot do alone?” This is the

question asked by Marianne Lines, ExecutiveDirector of the Canadian Centre for PollutionPrevention (C2P2), as she welcomed participantsto the International Pollution Prevention Summitthat followed UNEP’s Sixth International High-level Seminar on Cleaner Production.

The Summit was hosted by the C2P2 andEnvironment Canada’s National Office of Pollu-tion Prevention, with guidance from an interna-tional Steering Committee of pollutionprevention roundtables, CP networks and UNEP.There were more than 250 participants from over60 countries.

Ray Anderson (CEO of Interface Inc.), thekeynote speaker, said reading The Ecology of Com-merce1 inspired him to restructure his corporationaccording to seven sustainability principles:1. eliminate waste;

2. avoid using or producing toxic substances;3. aim for closed-loop recycling;4. be energy-efficient and use renewable energy;5. deliver products and transport people in a car-bon-neutral way;6. encourage the outside links of your process (e.g.suppliers, customers) to make choices based onsustainability;7. re-invent commerce itself (e.g. provide a servicerather than a product).

Mr. Anderson is convinced that setting anexample demonstrates the benefits of pollutionprevention. “It’s not just the right thing to do, it’sthe smart thing to do. Businesses that don’t movein this direction won’t survive”.

Action planningAction planning workshops identified roles andresponsibilities for achieving actions and consideredhow they should be implemented and monitored.

Changing behaviourParticipants explored behaviour that fosters orimpedes sustainability efforts and examined cul-tural influences. Some actions identified include:� integrating sustainability concepts into mediamessages;� nurturing charismatic leaders for effective deliv-ery;� developing a model environmentally preferablepurchasing programme.

FinancePrticipants identified priority areas where theenvironmental community can influence thefinancial sector to promote pollution prevention:� improving financial and environmental perfor-mance measures;� developing specific market instruments;� promoting appropriate business planning tools.

Canada hosts First International Pollution Prevention Summit

Each biennial High-level Seminar on Cleaner Production highlightsprogress made in the previous two years. To introduce the Plenary Ses-

sions and set the tone for CP6, Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Director of theUNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, reviewed theeight recommendations from the Fifth High-level Seminar in Seoul andthe progress on each:

1. Develop a systematic approach for regional initiatives. Since CP5, four regional Cleaner Production roundtables have been estab-lished – Asia-Pacific, Africa, Europe and Latin America.

2. Use influence with large companies to reach small and medium-sized enterprises through the supply chain.Activities have been launched, including a calendar targeting SMEs.Through this and similar activities, UNEP is promoting a life-cycleapproach.

3. Get involved with ISO Technical Committee 204.UNEP supports ISO 14001 of the International Organiztion for Stan-dardization as a tool to achieve Cleaner Production.

4. Use the advertising sector to advocate sustainable development. An advertising initiative is under way for 2001. In January 1999, UNEPconvened its first meeting on advertising. A second meeting was held inParis in June 2000.

5. UNEP should support existing initiatives such as multilateralenvironmental agreements. This is being done. UNEP works with existing conventions on the inte-

gration of Cleaner Production. Work has already been carried out with theBasel Convention. A Parallel Session at CP6 was devoted to exploring fur-ther ways to link efforts.

6. UNEP should set up an information sharing and exchange working group.A working group has been established, and CP6 had a Parallel Session oninformation sharing and exchange.

7. Promote the Declaration as a tool to implement CleanerProduction.The Declaration has been promoted through raising awareness and develop-ing implementation tools. The tools developed include: implementationguidelines targeting signatory categories, a questionnaire sent to signatories,and a Declaration Support Group. Promoting the Declaration was a majortheme of the seminar.

8. NCPCs and working groups should interact. Due to lack of funding, it is difficult to ensure close interaction betweenworking groups and NCPCs.

AccomplishmentsProgress on Cleaner Production was also discussed in terms of tangibleresults. The following is a partial listing of accomplishments in 1998-2000.

National Cleaner Production Centres:� UNIDO/UNEP centres total 19 (up from 15 in 1999)� CP active institutions total 331 in 75 countries (up from 311)

From Korea to Canada

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 25

Cleaner Production


ISSN 0378-9993Industry and EnvironmentVolume 21 No. 4October – December 1998

A publication of the United Nations Environment ProgrammeIndustry and Environment – UNEP IE

Une publication du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnementIndustrie et Environnement – PNUE IE

Una publicación del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente Industria y Medio Ambiente – PNUMA IMA

industry andenvironment

Cleaner ProductionFifth International High-level Seminar




SSN 0378-9993ndustry and EnvironmentVolume 22 No. 1anuary – March 1999

A publication of the United Nations Environment ProgrammeDivision of Technology, Industry and Economics

Une publication du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnementDivision Technologie, Industrie et Economie

Una publicación del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente División de Tecnología, Industria y Economía

industry andenvironment

Financial services andsustainability

Financial services andsustainability

� Green investing

� Brownfieldsredevelopment

� UNEP FinancialInstitutions Initiative

� Communitydevelopment

� Accounting andthe environment


ISSN 0378-9993Industry and EnvironmentVolume 22 No. 4October – December 1999

A publication of the United Nations Environment ProgrammeDivision of Technology, Industry and Economics

Une publication du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnementDivision Technologie, Industrie et Economie

Una publicación del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente División de Tecnología, Industria y Economía

industry andenvironment

Changing consumptionpatterns

�The role of consumers

�Supply-chain management

�Government purchasing


�Youth and consumption

�Developing countryperspectives


SSN 0378-9993ndustry and EnvironmentVolume 22 No. 2-3April – September 1999

A publication of the United Nations Environment ProgrammeDivision of Technology, Industry and Economics

Une publication du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnementDivision Technologie, Industrie et Economie

Una publicación del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente División de Tecnología, Industria y Economía

industry andenvironment

Sustainability and the agri-food industry

Sustainability and the agri-food industry

�Controlling landdegradation

�Managing waterresources

�Reducingchemical impacts

�Applying a life-cycleapproach

�Ensuring foodsafety

Regional CP initiatives (UNEP-supported):� Second CP Roundtable – the Mediterranean� African Roundtable on CP and SC� National CP Roundtable – Mexico� Regional CP Roundtable – Latin America and the Caribbean � Annual European CP Roundtable � Annual Asia and Pacific CP Roundtable� International Pollution Prevention Summit� West Asian CP and SC Roundtable

UNEP’s CP publications:� Industry and Environment issues on:

• Changing Consumption Patterns• Sustainability and the Agri-food Industry• Financial Services and Sustainability• Cleaner Production: Fifth International High-level Seminar, Seoul

� Cleaner Production Assessment Guides : meat, fish, dairy processing� Cleaner Production Newsletter : Issues No. 15-17� Cleaner Production: A Guide to Sources of Information� Towards a Global Use of Life Cycle Assessment� CP in the Mediterranean: Second Regional Report �

EducationParticipants agreed that educational materialsshould include both technical and non-technicaldimensions of environmental problems and solu-tions. They proposed:� updating the inventory of worldwide educa-tional initiatives for on-line access;� coordinating an integrated process concerningthe need for further education and additional sup-porting material; � making plans with a clear timeframe and mon-itoring programmes.

PolicyStrategic plans and tools for policy consisted of acompendium, a roundtable action strategy, andpolicy guidelines. Participants recommended anawards programme and increased product/processdisclosure to support the design and implementa-tion of strategic plans.

What’s next? Ongoing communication, action plan promo-tion, and locating resources were consideredessential for achieving the action plan objectives.In addition to follow-up meetings at pollutionprevention and CP roundtables worldwide in

2001, participants identified 30 key events wherethe outcomes should be promoted. The Govern-ment of Canada delegation will present the Sum-mit results to the UN General Assembly duringthe ninth meeting of the UN Commission onSustainable Development in 2001.

New Global Information Network Roundtable leaders from around the worldunveiled the Global Cleaner Production Informa-tion Network.2 Regional nodes will be launchedthroughout 2001, providing each area with its ownnetwork to address regional interests.

Speakers at the Summit James Riordan (National Office of Pollution Pre-vention, Environment Canada) chaired the panelon “The Power of Pollution Prevention Roundta-bles”. Olivia La O’Castillo (Asia-Pacific Round-table on Cleaner Production), Leif Thuresson(European Roundtable on Cleaner Production),Ariel Gustavo Carbajal (Roundtable of the Ameri-cas) and Dave Johnson (US National Pollution Pre-vention Roundtable) focused on how theirroundtables are organized and roundtables’ impacton governments and on advancing pollution pre-vention. The closing speaker, Oscar Motomura

(founder of a management development centre forbusiness executives in Brazil), urged participants togo beyond conventional problem-solving.

The role of pollution prevention inachieving sustainabilityChaiyod Bunyagidj (Thailand Environment Insti-tute) chaired a panel on “The Role of PollutionPrevention in Achieving Sustainability”. Speakersaddressed why pollution prevention is not auto-matically seen as fundamental to sustainability.Ken Geiser of the Toxics Use Reduction Institutecited several reasons:� Sustainable development is about systems, whilepollution prevention tends to focus on compo-nents, seldom generating a comprehensive per-spective; � Sustainable development is about equity, whilepollution prevention remains silent about issuesof poverty, social equality and human justice; � Sustainable development is about consumption,while advocates of pollution prevention havechampioned the ideas of sustainable consump-tion, with limited practical advice.

Mr. Geiser argued that pollution preventionpractitioners could learn from the current approachto sustainability by becoming more systems- �

26 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Putting Cleaner Production into practice

For more information on Cleaner Production, consult UNEP’s web site.Information concerning CP6 is available at recent UNEP publication Cleaner Production: A Guide to Sources of

Information is an invaluable reference tool. It includes contacts and descrip-tions of CP centres and organizations, as well as activities, publications, elec-tronic information sources (e.g. databases and Internet sites), audio-visualmaterials, training resources and other Cleaner Production related informa-tion.

Participant perspectives Over 250 high-level decision-makers from 75 countries participated inCP6. Some had attended previous High-level seminars while for others thiswas an introduction. Here are some comments by participants.

• Julia Ferriera, Manager, Pollution Prevention Section, CETESB, Brazil A lot of CP work has been done in developing nations, which I would neverhave known about if I hadn’t attended this meeting. Some of these experi-ences, including ones with not so positive results, have helped us in the plan-ning and actual development of our work.

For the future, a direct marketing strategy should be developed to propagate CPconcepts among small and medium industries, focused on real-life examples. Tosupport these industries, a low-interest credit line should be created. Policiesshould be created and enforced to reach predetermined targets. CP will only bringgood results if it is part of a broader environmental control programme.

• Nehal Abeysekera, Vice-President, Federation of Chambers of Commerce andIndustry, Sri Lanka As a signatory to the CP Declaration and alsothe future host of a UNIDO/UNEP NCPC,CP has a bright future in Sri Lanka’s businesscommunity. The NCPC aims to establishnational capacity in Sri Lanka to ensure the con-cept’s sustainable application to industry. TheNCPC will serve a coordinating and catalyticrole for CP by conducting in-plant demonstra-tions, organizing training programmes, pro-moting CP technology investment projects andproviding policy advice to government, and bybeing a source of information on CP.

The NCPC’s operations will be launched from a strong foundation of CPactivity in Sri Lanka, supported in part by the organization FCCISL throughits Project SMED, which has taken a lead role in promoting and populariz-ing CP among industries/business through audits, implementation, trainingand information dissemination. With the added support of UNIDO, UNEPand the Ministry of Industrial Development, CP is now on the national plan-ning agenda. The National Action Plan of the Ministry of Environment andForestry has taken CP as a strategy to minimize pollution rather than apply-ing traditional end-of-pipe approaches.

CP has also been integrated into large-scale projects for development ofindustry sectors such as leather, as well as planning of industrial parks.

Encouraging private-public partnerships involving financial institutionsis another area of FCCISL/SMED CP activities. Present CP activity hasattracted other important projects such as the UNIDO Triple Bottom Lineproject and the Asian Development Bank’s project to green the supply chain.Efforts have been extended to include CP at secondary and higher educa-tional levels and to promote research. Areas that remain to be developedinclude life-cycle assessment, CP accounting and benchmarking.

• Margaret Chinamhora, Permanent Secretary, Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism, ZimbabweAs a newly appointed Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Environmentand Tourism in the Republic of Zimbabwe, I was highly honoured and priv-ileged to be a participant and chairperson in the Parallel Session on “Nation-al Centres: Delivering Cleaner Production.”

As Zimbabwe is one of the few Africancountries (including Tanzania) that hasestablished a National Cleaner ProductionCentre (NCPC), I was able to get invaluableinformation and ideas from the seminar anddiscussions with other participants. Experi-ences and proposals on financing NCPCswere of particular interest to me, as my coun-try is looking at ways and means of self-financing.

The seminar was well organized with inter-esting topics. It was well attended at highlevel by both the public and private sectorsand academic and other technical institu-tions, making it worthwhile to participate. Margaret ChinamhoraNehal Abeysekera

oriented and attentive to social factors. Tarcisio Alvares-Rivero of the UN Department

of Economic and Social Affairs urged the audienceto find ways to make changes in the way man-agers, investors and governments make daily deci-sions. The challenge is to find how pollutionprevention can be of use to today’s business andgovernment cultures.

Expanding the influence of pollutionprevention roundtables The panel on “Expanding the Influence of Pollu-tion Prevention Roundtables”, chaired by ParryBurnap (Colorado Department of Public Healthand Environment), outlined ways to increase par-ticipation in pollution prevention initiatives.

Iza Kruszewska (Northern Alliance for Sustain-ability) reviewed challenges that NGOs face in

working with governments and business on CP.In Europe, NGOs apply pressure for policychange rather than working with governments toeffect improvements. Partnership with business ishampered by a “climate of mistrust”.

Dave Bennett (Canadian Labour Congress)emphasized that pollution prevention and sus-tainability should go hand-in-hand with green jobcreation. Carol Carmichael (Institute for Sustain-able Technology and Development) said universi-ties must ensure that all graduates understand theirrole in sustainability and have the necessary tools.

Youth perspective People under the age of 20 represent over 40% ofthe world’s population and a large proportion ofconsumer demand. If CP and sustainable con-sumption engage only decision-makers from busi-

ness and government, they will achieve only one-sided change. Thoughts from youth representa-tives presented at the Summit included: � Pollution prevention should be both an indi-vidual and collective responsibility.� If we want a better environment, we must notonly find technological solutions but also modifyour behavior and cultural values.

Notes1. Paul Hawken (1993) The Ecology of Commerce:A Declaration of Sustainability. Harper Collins,New York.2. See p. 68.The Summit organizers thank all participants fortheir contributions. Summit follow-up is availableat

Reflections on relations between the UNEP High-level Seminarson Cleaner Production and the regional roundtables• Uno Abrahamsen, Project Manager, National Institute ofTechnology, Oslo, NorwaySince I was a participant at CP2 in Paris in 1992, there has been tremendousdevelopment which is hard to see on a year-to-year basis, but easy to under-stand from the important achievements over ten years.

One important element of the seminars is, and always has been, the net-working potential for participants and possibilities to share experiences. Forme, this was extremely important when I was responsible for setting up aCleaner Production Programme in Norway.

CP6 has evolved, and there is now a stronger policy focus. How to do a CPassessment seems to be conventional wisdom, but how to develop a demandfor the Cleaner Production strategy seems to remain a difficult task. The CPDeclaration and the “financing” project are important steps in addressing this.Concerning the CP Declaration, I believe more could be done to monitorimplementation progress. Signing the Declaration is easy, but implementingit is the challenge facing signatories, with UNEP’s assistance.

Furthermore, there are a number of instruments to help develop a demandfor CP. The problems of developing an effective mix – or an appropriate mixof sticks and carrots – remains to be solved.

At CP 4, a proposal developed by OECD and presented at CP5 was used forbenchmarking CP promotion in Asia. I believe this benchmarking tool is useful.It could be used by UNEP to monitor the progress of CP implementation indifferent regions.

One issue to be considered in upcoming seminars is how best to enable theregional events to handle relevant regional issues, and how best to let the glob-al events handle global issues. Mixing agendas could lead to a dilution of effi-cacy in addressing needs.

• Marianne Lines, Director, Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention,CanadaIn October 2000, decision-makers and leading practitioners from around theworld gathered in Canada to strengthen partnerships and stimulate furtheraction on Cleaner Production and pollution prevention.

The outcomes of CP6 and the International Pollution Prevention Summitunderline the cross-cutting nature of cleaner production/pollution preven-tion initiatives. Pollution prevention is a fundamental component of sustain-ability. Its basic tenet, preventing pollution from occurring, offers the promiseof integrated and balanced social, economic and ecological benefits for indi-

viduals and at the local, national, regional and international levelsThere were concrete results. The International Pollution Prevention Sum-

mit resulted in the launch of a Global Information Network – a permanentnetwork that goes beyond annual meetings, to truly link practitioners andencourage ideas and innovation. Designed to become a vital new resource forbusinesses and governments, the Internet-based network will connect andserve as a virtual meeting place for pollution prevention roundtables, sus-tainability and Cleaner Production networks and other organizations world-wide that are committed to advancing Cleaner Production and pollutionprevention.

• Marie Tamoifo Nkom, President,Association Verde du Cameroun, UNEPAssociate Youth Advisor, and KarunKoernig, Manager, Environmental YouthAlliance, UNEP Youth Advisor for CanadaYouth are an important stakeholder group.Young people below 20 years of age make upover 40% of the world population. They willalso inherit 100% of the world’s problems.Efforts should be made now to start using ourplanet’s limited resources more wisely. Why notask adults to use their share of the naturalresources and to pay their share of all necessaryenvironmental clean-up? The young people oftoday should not be forced to have a lower qual-ity of life and be stuck with major clean-up bills.

Some recommendations include:� Work with youth to continue defining moreconcretely what sustainable consumptionmeans to them, and disseminate the resultswidely.� Continue to include youth in internationalfora, and provide them with support in pre-and post-conference discussions, surveys anddissemination.� Work with a committee of youth to try toencourage entertainers and other youth opin-ion makers to learn about sustainable con-sumption. �

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 27

Cleaner Production

Marie Tamoifo Nkom

Karun Koernig

28 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

This article is about trends in the promotionand uptake of Cleaner Production aroundthe globe, and improvements that could be

made to better serve the environmental and sus-tainable development agendas. As a starting point,one could look at current progress from two dif-ferent perspectives – Cleaner Production andindustrial development.

Cleaner production started as an integrativeand preventive environmental management strat-egy for avoiding, or at least minimizing, environ-mental impacts from industrial products andservices, as well as from the production, distribu-tion and service processes they require. The fieldhas matured over the last 25 years. During the lastdecade, in particular, there has been remarkableprogress putting Cleaner Production on the agen-da of industry, government and communities inboth industrialized and industrializing countries.Cleaner production programmes have generallybeen successful in demonstrating potential envi-ronmental, financial and other benefits of an inte-grated, preventive environmental managementstrategy for industrial operations.

Despite the ever-increasing set of positiveindustry case studies (covering an expandingrange of countries, sectors, products and marketniches), Cleaner Production activity still appearsto be limited. Surveys show that the number of

companies considering Cleaner Production issteadily increasing, and that a growing number ofindustries have even implemented selectedoptions that could be regarded as Cleaner Pro-duction. However, it is felt that Cleaner Produc-tion’s potential has not yet been fully utilized, asimplementation of the first Cleaner Productionoptions has not been further substantiated andsustained through systematic integration ofCleaner Production principles in key functionalareas of business operations (e.g. production man-agement, accounting and reporting, and processand product development).

In today’s world, we see that Cleaner Produc-tion outcomes are being achieved without specif-ic consideration of Cleaner Production principles,especially in areas and sectors with comparativelyhigh growth. Businesses expand and replace pro-duction capacity. As previously used equipmentand technology is no longer available, the expan-sion and renovation of businesses results in theinstallation of newer technology that is most oftenat least incrementally more efficient. The new orrenovated facilities will be able to produce withless materials, energy and water, while generatingless waste and emissions, and thus realize CleanerProduction outcomes.

If some Cleaner Production outcomes areachieved without specific consideration of the

underlying Cleaner Production principles, whileCleaner Production programmes have only limit-ed success in enabling structural change in com-panies, it is time for a strategic retreat. Is the wayCleaner Production is defined still appropriate,and do the key underlying assumptions for its pro-motion still have currency in today’s industrialworld? How can Cleaner Production programmesbe modified to improve their effectiveness andenable a quantum leap in the uptake of CleanerProduction within the next decade? I will addressthese questions in this article, in order to encour-age and stimulate discussion, and present someinitial thoughts on how current Cleaner Produc-tion practice can be improved.

Review of statusThe launch of 3M’s Pollution Prevention Paysprogramme in 1974 is generally regarded as thefirst landmark on the road towards Cleaner Pro-duction. The 3P programme was unique in itsrecognition of the importance of process andproduct innovation for achieving the dual objec-tives of enhancing competitiveness and reducingenvironmental impacts. The continued success ofthe 3P programme has been widely acknowl-edged. It clearly demonstrates that pollution pre-vention or Cleaner Production opportunities willcontinue to emerge if proper incentives are givenemployees and engineering staff, and if environ-mental objectives are integrated in process andproduct innovation.

However, pollution prevention was practisedlong before the 3P programme came into being,although it was not known as pollution preventionor Cleaner Production. The American PetroleumInstitute, for instance, reviewed solid waste man-agement practices for storage tank bottoms, refin-ery sludges and production waste waters between1950 and 1985.1 It was found that 32% of thestandard industrial practices for these wastestreams would, under current definitions, beregarded as source reduction, 41% as recycling andreuse, 18% as treatment and only 9% as disposal.

Programmes like 3P inspired other industriesto explore pollution prevention opportunities, ini-tially mainly among the large processing and man-ufacturing industries in North America, but latermore widely across a broad set of industry sectorsas well as among small and medium enterprises.The concept was also transferred to, and subse-quently further developed in, other regions (e.g.Europe and Australasia, followed by Asia, LatinAmerica and Africa) thanks to the catalytic role ofUNEP’s Cleaner Production Programme and the

Cleaner Production perspectives 1: CP and industrial development

René Van Berkel, CSBP Professor of Cleaner Production and Director, Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U 1987 Perth WA 6845, Australia ([email protected])

SummaryIs the way Cleaner Production is defined still appropriate? Do the key underlying assumptionsfor promoting CP still have currency in today’s industrial world? How can CP programmes bemodified to improve their effectiveness and enable a quantum leap in uptake during the nextdecade? Such questions are addressed in this article. Suggestions are also made concerningimprovements to current Cleaner Production practices.

RésuméLa définition actuelle de la production plus propre est-elle adaptée à la réalité ? Les hypothès-es qui sous-tendent les initiatives pour promouvoir la production plus propre ont-elles encorecours dans le monde industriel d’aujourd’hui ? Comment modifier les programmes pour pro-duire plus propre pour les rendre plus efficaces et permettre un bond prodigieux en avant dansles dix années à venir ? Telles sont les questions abordées par cet article qui fait également dessuggestions pour améliorer les pratiques actuelles en matière de production plus propre.

Resumen¿La definición de producción más limpia continúa siendo apropiada? ¿Las razones claves sub-yacentes para promover la Producción más Limpia siguen vigentes en el mundo industrial dehoy? ¿De qué manera se pueden modificar los programas de Producción más Limpia paraaumentar su efectividad y permitir la generación de un salto cuántico en la próxima década?El artículo responde a estos interrogantes. Se presentan también sugerencias respecto a mejo-ras en las prácticas actuales de Producción más Limpia.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 29

Cleaner Production

partners in its evolving global Cleaner Productionnetwork.

Many Cleaner Production initiatives and pro-grammes have gone through a number of stages,regardless of whether these were focused on acountry, region or industry sector. These pro-grammes initially meet a considerable degree ofresistance, particularly from industry, most oftenuntil at least a few local Cleaner Production suc-cesses have been developed. Next programmes cango into a period of rapid development, with grow-ing recognition of the potential benefits of Clean-er Production by industry and government, andimplementation of Cleaner Production technolo-gies and practices in industry. After this rapiddevelopment, a consolidation stage could bereached.

Industry and government generally endorseCleaner Production. Practical Cleaner Productionoutcomes with environmental and financial ben-efits are being achieved, although in many casesthey are the result of industry modernizationrather than environmental considerations. Manyprogrammes, however, experience a drawback inthe consolidation stage or even before this stagecommences. Stakeholders start to recognize thatwhether “pollution prevention pays” depends onthe level of environmental legislation and itsenforcement, material and energy costs, and thecosts of managing and disposing of waste and pol-lutants. Moreover, it generally turns out that theCleaner Production outcomes (i.e. the optionsimplemented in industry) could also have result-ed from other efforts (such as total quality man-agement, process and product innovation, andother efficiency drives). The outcomes are thusnot unique to Cleaner Production.

Cleaner production experience and expertiseare still largely concentrated in the manufacturingand processing industries. We reviewed the pre-sent application of Cleaner Production to indus-trial development trends – from a Europeanperspective – and found an apparent paradox.Although Cleaner Production is based on a pre-ventive mindset, current Cleaner Productionefforts are often still made in the final phases ofindustrial development rather than beingdesigned in right from the start. In other words,Cleaner Production has moved industrial envi-ronmental management from the end of the pro-duction pipe to the end of the innovation pipe,but has not yet been integrated into the innova-tion cycle as required for the transition towards apriori clean products and processes.2

How Cleaner Production is definedBy the end of the 1980s, a great many competingconcepts and definitions had been developed andused to focus attention on the opportunities andbenefits of a preventive approach to industrialwaste management and environmental issues: e.g.waste minimization, waste prevention, sourcereduction, pollution prevention, clean technology,cleaner technology, toxics use reduction, etc.3Against this background, UNEP has been suc-cessful in proposing Cleaner Production as anoverarching concept, and in building consensus

on its operational definition. The UNEP definition contains process and

outcome elements, with the latter being elaborat-ed for each of the three main application areas forCleaner Production: processes, products and ser-vices (Table 1). This combination of process andoutcome elements has both advantages and dis-advantages. The key advantage is the link betweena short-term interpretation (that Cleaner Produc-tion is about preventing pollution and increasingresource efficiencies) and a long-term interpreta-tion (that Cleaner Production envisions the inte-gration of the environmental agenda into keybusiness functions). It is generally perceived that

although the short-term interpretation is criticalfor getting started with Cleaner Production, thelong-term interpretation is conditional for achiev-ing comparatively radical environmental innova-tions in products and processes that, in principle,have the greatest potential for cost-effective factorimprovements in the resource efficiency of prod-ucts and processes. The disadvantage of the linkbetween Cleaner Production process and outcomeelements is that the latter are fairly generic and canbe achieved without the Cleaner Productionprocess (e.g. as a result of expansion or renovationof production facilities, or regular product designefforts not driven or shaped by environmental

Figure 1Typology for Cleaner Production programmes

Type IIIExperimentation

Type IRegulation

Type IVIntegration

Type IIMarketing










environmental multiple

policy domains

Table 1Breakdown of UNEP Cleaner Production definition

Process elements Applications Outcome elements

Continuous application of an integrated preventive environmental strategy

to products, processes and services

to increase eco-efficiency and reduce risksfor humans and the environment.

For production processes, Cleaner Production involves

conserving raw materials and energy,eliminating toxic raw materials, reducingthe quantity and toxicity of all emissionsand wastes before they leave the process.

For products, Cleaner Production involves

reducing negative impacts along the life cycle of a product, from rawmaterials extraction to its ultimate disposal.

For services, Cleaner Production involves

incorporating environmental concerns into designing and delivering services.

Cleaner Production requires changing attitudes, applying know-how and improving technology.

30 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

considerations). One might conclude that theCleaner Production process is more than, or per-haps even entirely different from, the sum of theCleaner Production outcomes.

The generic nature of Cleaner Production out-comes runs the risk of creating a deadlock for thepromotion of Cleaner Production.4 It enables theinitial marketing, since Cleaner Production hasbecome a non-threatening strategy that is in thebusiness’s self-interest and can be achievedthrough incremental changes. Meanwhile, suchincremental changes already occur as a result ofregular efficiency drives and process and productinnovation. The incremental nature of the Clean-er Production outcomes thus becomes a barrier toachieving progress on the long-term process goalof integrating Cleaner Production considerationsinto key business functions. In other words, itbecomes increasingly hard to convince businessesto change the way they do business to favour “evenmore cleaner” production, as it becomes clear tothem that they are already achieving Cleaner Pro-duction outcomes through their regular businessoperations. And such changes in business process-es are indeed needed to achieve the long-termpotential of Cleaner Production.

Another related criticism often heard is:“Cleaner is good, but may not be clean enough.”In the case of a highly polluting company, it maybe fairly easy to become cleaner through imple-menting simple operational changes, althougheven after these changes the company’s environ-mental performance could still lag behind averageindustry practice in the sector. This could evenremain the case after investment in new equip-ment. Consider, for instance, a dry cleaner cur-rently operating a so-called “third generation”perchloroethylene dry cleaning machine thatinvests in a new “fourth generation” machine. Itis obvious that the company becomes cleaner, asthe amount of garments cleaned per litre of sol-vent used almost doubles, and consequently thesolvent emissions per garment cleaned are approx-imately halved. However, several “even morecleaner” technologies have been proven and arereadily available, such as the use of alternative, lesstoxic solvents, more efficient use of perchloroeth-ylene (fifth generation dry cleaning equipment)or multi-stage washing with water.5 The drycleaner thus adopts a Cleaner Production optionthat lags behind the industry’s environmental bestpractice. Would that still qualify as Cleaner Pro-duction?

The answer depends on what we want toachieve. If we aim for widespread uptake of Clean-er Production, the answer should be yes. Pollut-ing businesses get an early reward for movingtowards industry environmental best practice,anticipating that this will encourage them to takefurther steps in the near future that will eventual-ly bring those businesses to the environmentalbest practice level. As a consequence, businessesoperating at or close to industry environmentalbest practice have a much harder time achievingCleaner Production and may not incorporate thetask of integrating Cleaner Production principlesinto their key business functions. If, on the other

hand, we aim to encourage the “good” perform-ers to improve on their industry’s environmentalbest practice, any options that will not achieve itshould not be considered as Cleaner Production.Consequently, Cleaner Production becomes moreof an “elite” approach for the best performers. Itprovides an incentive for those best performers toimprove further. It can be expected that, soonerrather than later, the poorer performers in the sec-tor will have to match the best performers in orderto remain competitive and or conform to envi-ronmental regulations.

To focus attention on the process nature ofCleaner Production, and therefore call upon com-panies to incorporate Cleaner Production princi-ples and practices into their core business functionsand operations, it would be beneficial to distin-guish Cleaner Production from environmentalbenefits achieved as a spin-off from non-environ-mental initiatives such as renovation, moderniza-tion and expansion projects. The outcomestatements in the Cleaner Production definitionwould therefore have to be supplemented or evenreplaced with a performance statement. At leastthree types of benchmarks can be used for suchperformance statements. First, performance couldbe described in relation to environmental industrybest practice (e.g. “Cleaner Production will at leastachieve industry environmental best practice”).Second, performance could be described with ref-erence to the Earth’s carrying capacity (e.g. “Clean-er Production will result in progressive reductionsof the environmental impact and resource con-sumption of products, services and processes to alevel at least in line with the Earth’s estimated car-rying capacity”).6 The third alternative would beto link performance to environmental progressachieved by a company in reducing its environ-mental impacts or increasing eco-efficiency (e.g.“Cleaner Production is reflected in progressiveimprovements of the key eco-efficiency indicatorsthat at least equal x% over y years”).

Potential links with industry environmentalbest practice and the estimated carrying capacityof the Earth are probably the most meaningful,but they are also the most complicated to estab-lish and update. Most likely these will evoke anongoing debate concerning what the reference lev-els are for this industry environmental best prac-tice or the Earth’s carrying capacity. Performancein terms of progressive and sustained eco-efficien-cy improvements is therefore potentially a goodcompromise. It can build upon evolving work oneco-efficiency metrics7 and provides a means oflinking with factor 4, 10 or x efforts (sustainedimprovements in eco-efficiency of, for instance,20% per three-year period would achieve, say, afactor 4 improvement over 20 years).

How Cleaner Production is beingpromotedOver the last 15 years a great variety of pro-grammes have been launched to facilitate theuptake of Cleaner Production in industry. Manyprogrammes have had, and continue to have, astrong technical assistance component thatassists businesses with the identification, evalua-

tion and implementation of Cleaner Productionoptions appropriate for their operations(through on-site auditing, training, informationclearinghouses, etc.). Moreover, enabling policyframeworks have been set up, for instance on thebasis of mandatory planning, voluntary agree-ments, industry environmental managementcodes or financial incentives. Only recently havethe first efforts been taken for comparativeassessment of the effectiveness of different policyregimes on uptake of Cleaner Production (par-ticularly at the micro level, within and betweenindustry sectors).8 Strategic guidance for devel-oping effective Cleaner Production programmesis therefore scarce and context bound if it existsat all. Against the strategic background of pro-voking more structural change to drive theuptake of Cleaner Production beyond obtainingthe “low-hanging fruit”, an initial classificationof Cleaner Production programmes on twodimensions might be considered. These dimen-sions are:� degree of innovation ( whether or not the Clean-er Production programme contains innovative ele-ments, in terms of technologies being assessed andpilot-tested, or in terms of establishing new part-nerships between stakeholders, or using novelassessment methodologies and policy instru-ments); and� involvement of different policy domains(whether the Cleaner Production programme isdesigned and managed strictly within the envi-ronmental policy domain, or with equal involve-ment from other policy domains, such as businessdevelopment, technology and innovation, tradeand investment, etc.).

If each dimension is divided into two categories,a typology for Cleaner Production programmesemerges: Regulation (Type I), Marketing (Type II),Experimentation (Type III) and Integration (TypeIV) (Figure 1). A summary of the features of eachof these types is presented in Table 2.

There are examples of successful programmes,at least in the case of the first three types:

Type I (Regulation) Several states in the US (e.g. Massachusetts andMinnesota) have adopted legislation requiringbusinesses to develop and submit toxic use reduc-tion or pollution prevention plans. The effective-ness of such legislation is generally perceived to behigh, particularly in combination with a techni-cal assistance programme that assists businesseswith the development and implementation oftheir plans.

Type II (Marketing)Interesting examples in this category include theUK Environmental Technology Best Practice Pro-gramme and the Australian Cleaner Productionand Eco-Efficiency Programme. Both pro-grammes rely heavily on provision of informationto businesses by means of case studies and sector-specific environmental best practice guides.

In Australia, two recent surveys confirmed thatthe marketing approach has achieved a high levelof awareness of Cleaner Production. However, it is

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 31

Cleaner Production

far less evident that higher awareness has resultedin the uptake of Cleaner Production beyond the“low-hanging fruit”.9 The first survey involved across-section of industries in New South Wales,Victoria and Queensland. There was a 16%response rate (153 companies responded). In thepast, 85% of respondents claimed to have imple-mented waste minimization, 45% Cleaner Pro-duction and 5% eco-efficiency measures. Fewrespondents explicitly merged productivity andenvironmental issues – the core of Cleaner Pro-duction and eco-efficiency – as only a few report-ed that environmental management issues had asignificant influence on their production strate-gies. The adoption of preventive environmentalmanagement practices was found to lag behindthe general advance of the environmental man-agement function. Companies are increasinglylooking at moving beyond compliance, but notnecessarily through preventive environmentalmanagement strategies such as Cleaner Produc-tion and eco-efficiency.

The second survey included interviews with 53companies from across Australia which were rec-ognized as industry thought leaders on environ-mental management. The results showed that85% were aware of Cleaner Production. They alsoindicated that those companies that hademployed Cleaner Production methods had notmoved from using them on one project or prob-lem to comprehensive use in all operations.

Type III (Experimentation)The Netherlands presents a good example of thistype, particularly for the timeframe roughlybetween 1988 and 1996.10 In this period the firstState of Environment and National Environmen-tal Policy Plan were drafted, and covenants wereset up for the management and reduction of pri-ority waste streams. Several Cleaner Productiondemonstration projects were conducted, with dif-ferent geographical focus and industry sector cov-erage. The 1993 amendments to the frameworkenvironmental law provided the opportunity tomandate a Cleaner Production plan as part of thepermitting procedure. Moreover, exploratory pro-jects were launched for perspectives of sustainabletechnology development, applicability of CleanerProduction in service and retail sectors, develop-ment of customized tools for Cleaner Production,and eco-design.

Type IV (Integration)In general terms, it appears most likely that TypeIV Cleaner Production programmes (“Integra-tion”) will be the most effective. This relates toboth the number of organizations that considerand implement Cleaner Production, and the levelof Cleaner Production achievements by each ofthese organizations (implementation beyond thelow-hanging fruit options and inclusion of Clean-er Production considerations in key business func-tions). There are two key challenges for thetransition to such Type IV programmes: � to enhance the level of innovation in the designand implementation of Cleaner Production pro-grammes.

Innovation is required in order to enlarge thearray of available Cleaner Production solutions forconsideration by industry and other stakeholders.Innovation can be strengthened through theestablishment of new partnerships between stake-holders (e.g. manufacturers, consumers, R&Dorganizations, governments, financial sector), theapplication of novel strategies and instruments,and support for the development and evaluationof new Cleaner Production technologies and prac-tices. � to broaden and deepen the involvement of non-environmental governmental and non-govern-mental stakeholders in the design, implementa-tion and management of Cleaner Productionprogrammes.

The challenge ahead is to make sure thatCleaner Production is integrated into the processand product development processes right from thestart. This will only be possible if businesses startto see that applying Cleaner Production principleswill lead to greener and more competitive prod-ucts. The message on competitiveness requiressupport from non-environmental agencies to betaken seriously by industry and other stakehold-ers.

The future: refreshing the vision andthe practiceThe future for Cleaner Production depends onhow CP’s present status is viewed. It is increasing-ly evident that Cleaner Production outcomes arebeing achieved without specific consideration ofthe underlying principles, and at the same timethat CP programmes are only moderately suc-cessful in provoking structural change in compa-

nies. It has been argued that this situation is (or isabout to become) a major limitation for achiev-ing the long-term goal of Cleaner Production, and ongoing reductions of the envi-ronmental impacts of industrial products, servicesand processes. Such progressive and ongoing eco-efficiency improvements are in turn a conditionfor addressing the evolving environmental andsustainable development agendas.

This article has proposed one way ahead, com-mencing with a fresh look at what should be real-istically considered as Cleaner Production. Anarrowing down of the Cleaner Production strat-egy appears to be inevitable in order to refresh thevision and focus Cleaner Production efforts moretowards achieving longer-term and process-ori-ented objectives. This can be achieved with per-formance-based interpretation of CleanerProduction, and with performance linked toindustry environmental best practice, the Earth’scarrying capacity, or a designated rate of progressin reducing environmental impacts. The latter isprobably the least desirable conceptually, but themost practical. Current Cleaner Production pro-grammes would have to be revisited accordingly,to reflect the shift towards a performance-basedinterpretation of Cleaner Production.

In general terms, there appear to be two majorchallenges with respect to improving Cleaner Pro-duction programmes and policies: 1) enhancingthe innovativeness of Cleaner Production pro-grammes in terms of technologies considered, aswell as methodologies and instruments used andpartnerships established; and 2) broadening anddeepening the involvement of non-environmentalgovernmental and non-governmental stakehold-

Table 2Cleaner Production programme features

Underlying assumption

Key CP policy instruments



Type I: Regulation

Without regulatoryincentives, fewcompanies willconsiderimplementation of CP options.

Mandatory CPimplementation (e.g. by means of CP planning process,EIA)

Wide adoption of CP,driven byenforcementstrategies

CP application limitedto regulated premisesor substances

Type II: Marketing

If companies arebetter aware of CPoptions, they willimplement CP,especially since themarket will forcebusinesses toimplement CP toremain competitive.

• Dissemination ofcase studies• Informationclearinghouses• Industry training(incl. CP clubs)

Focus on businessopportunitiesprovided by CP

CP implementationlimited to CP optionsprovided

Type III: Experimentation

Uptake of CP abovepresent level calls fornew CP solutions thatare best developedthrough collaborationbetween stakeholders.

• Demonstration projects• Voluntaryagreements andcovenants• Environmental levies• Carbon tax• Extended ProducerResponsibility,\• Industry recognitionprogrammes

Ability to develop new(“breakthrough”) CPsolutions

Most attractive to eco-innovators

Type IV: Integration

Uptake of CP abovepresent level calls forconcerted action bystakeholders todevelop new CPsolutions and achievetheir widespreadadoption.

• Long-termenvironmentalstandards• Benchmarking andeco-labelling• Green procurementprogrammes• Subsidies forenvironmental R&Dand investment

Long-term focus and integration ofenvironmental issuesin industry andtechnology policies

Specific focus on CPmay be lost

32 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

ers in the design, implementation and manage-ment of Cleaner Production programmes.

Notes1. Perkins, J. (1997) An Examination of Incen-tives and Obstacles for Pollution Prevention in thePetroleum Industry, Research Paper No. 87,American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.2. Van Berkel, R., E. Willems and M. Lafleur(1997) The Relationship between Cleaner Pro-duction and Industrial Ecology, Journal of Indus-trial Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-66.3. A useful compilation of concepts and compar-ison of their content can be found in J. Van Wee-nen, Waste Prevention: Theory and practice, PhDDissertation, Delft University of Technology, TheNetherlands, 1990. 4. There is growing evidence that this deadlock isalready occurring, e.g. in the United States (J.Hirschhorn, Why the Pollution Prevention Revo-lution Failed and Why it Ultimately Will Succeed,Pollution Prevention Review, winter 1997, pp. 11-

31) and The Netherlands (T. De Bruijn and P.Hofman, Pollution prevention and IndustrialTransformation: evoking structural changes with-in companies, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.8, pp. 215-223; H. Dieleman, The Cleaner Pro-duction Arena: Man and organization betweenpreservation and innovation (in Dutch), PhD The-sis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 1999).5. For information on dry cleaning technologiesand their alternatives, see, for example: CleanerTechnologies Substitutes Assessment for ProfessionalFabricare Processes, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA 744-B-98-001, Wash-ington, D.C., 1998.6. This approach has already been taken by theWBCSD in its definition of eco-efficiency (see,for example, Eco-Efficient Leadership for ImprovedEconomic and Environmental Performance, WorldBusiness Council for Sustainable Development,Geneva, Switzerland, 1995). 7. Verfaillie, H. and R. Bidwell (2000) MeasuringEco-Efficiency: A guide to reporting company perfor-

mance, World Business Council for SustainableDevelopment, Geneva, Switzerland.8. See, for example, A. Clayton, G. Spinardi andR. Williams, Policies for Cleaner Technology: A newagenda for government and industry, EarthscanPublications, London, 1999. 9. Van Berkel, R. (2000) Cleaner Production inAustralia: Revolutionary strategy or incrementaltool? Australian Journal of Environmental Man-agement, September, pp. 9-24.10. See, for example, R. Van Berkel, Cleaner Pro-duction in Practice, University of Amsterdam, TheNetherlands, 1996; L. Rowledge, et al. Mappingthe Journey, Greenleaf Publishers, Sheffield, UK,1999; G. Keijzers, The Evolution of Dutch Envi-ronmental Policy: The changing ecological arenafrom 1970-2000 and beyond, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 8 (2000), pp. 179-200; P. Weaver,et al. Sustainable Technology Development, Green-leaf Publishers, Sheffield, UK, 2000.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 33

Cleaner Production

From its inception, Cleaner Production hasbeen about assisting companies and govern-ments to develop more environmentally

sound systems of production. That work will con-tinue to be needed in the next decade, but withnew directions and broader contexts.

The initial concepts of Cleaner Productionwere brought together during the mid-1980s. Theestablishment of UNEP’s Cleaner ProductionProgramme in 1989 provides a commonly recog-nized date for the formal launch of the concept.The UNEP Cleaner Production activities havegenerated national government programmes,national technical assistance centres, academicresearch and teaching programmes, non-govern-mental advocacy programmes, and a host of man-uals, books and journals focused on CleanerProduction. Cleaner production initiatives havealso supported or spawned a collection of newtools including facility assessments, full-costaccounting, technology assessments, eco-balancesand life-cycle assessments. There have been inter-national conferences, national roundtables, andan international declaration on Cleaner Produc-tion.

Cleaner production has had significant impactsas a set of tools, as a programme, and as a way ofthinking. These impacts can be assessed at variouslevels: � Cleaner production has been a technology pro-moter. At the simplest level, Cleaner Productionprogrammes have advanced more resource-inten-sive and less hazardous production technologies.Aqueous cleaning, powder coatings, solvent recy-cling, non-cyanide plating, counter-current rins-ing, lead-free soldering, water-based paints,vegetable-based dyes and bead-blasting strippersare physical ramifications of Cleaner Productioninitiatives.� Cleaner production has been a managerial cata-lyst. It has liberated environmental values from thedungeon of residual management and regulatorycompliance, placing them nearer the centre ofproduct and process design. Environmental per-formance is increasingly considered an importantmanagement system that needs to be optimized,along with management systems, for quality andfinancial return.� Cleaner production has been a paradigmreformer. The conventional economic view of

environmental protection identified pollutioncontrol investments as a business cost. By pro-moting full cost accounting and green marketing,Cleaner Production has restructured environ-mental economics, converting environmentalprotection investments into productivity benefits.It has been proven that environmental values addto, rather than subtracting from, economic per-formance.� Cleaner production has been a conceptual bridgeconnecting industrialization and sustainability.Since the work of the Brundtland Commissionand the subsequent 1992 UN Conference onEnvironment and Development, the concept ofsustainability has been enshrined as the globalvision of a healthy future. Cleaner production hasallowed industrial production to find a place inthis vision by recasting negative images of pollut-ing industrial processes into positive images oftechnologies that are materials-conserving, ener-gy-efficient, non-polluting and low-waste, andthat produce ecologically friendly products whichare responsibly managed throughout their life-cycle.

Not satisfied with cleaning up productionprocesses, Cleaner Production programmes havealso addressed the products of production and theproblems of consumption. These efforts, morerecent and still emerging, have resulted in newapproaches to product management includingeco-design, integrated product chains, life-cycleassessments and Extended Producer Responsibil-ity initiatives. Adding environmental values toproduct design, marketing and management, likeadding them to process management, offers newopportunities to improve business performanceand competitive advantage.

Current challenges for CleanerProductionFor all that has been accomplished under the ban-ner of Cleaner Production, much remains to bedone. Progress over the past decade or so hasfocused on many of the easier aspects and riperopportunities. Now the necessary changes aremore complex and more costly. Progress onCleaner Production has slowed, particularly in themore industrialized countries. Current CleanerProduction programmes have run up against sev-eral significant challenges involving:� government policies;� environmental technology;� waste reduction;� performance measurement;

Cleaner Production perspectives 2:integrating CP into sustainability strategies

Ken Geiser, Director and Professor of Work Environment, Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts, 200 Kiston Building, One University Avenue, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854-2866, USA ([email protected])

SummaryCleaner production has impacts as a set of tools, a programme and a way of thinking. Theseimpacts can be assessed at various levels. Despite progress made during the past decade, CPissues that still need to be addressed involve government policy, environmental technology,waste reduction, workplace safety, economic development and social consumption. Three envi-ronmental objectives on which progress is needed in the next decade are detoxification, dema-terialization and decarbonization. Some longer-range goals for Cleaner Production are alsopresented.

RésuméLa production plus propre a plusieurs impacts : en tant qu’ensemble d’outils, en tant que pro-gramme et en tant que manière de penser. Ces impacts peuvent être évalués à différentsniveaux. Or, malgré les progrès accomplis ces dix dernières années, un certain nombre de ques-tions n’ont pas encore été abordées dans ce domaine, notamment la politique gouvernemen-tale, les technologies de l’environnement, la réduction du volume des déchets, la sécurité surle lieu de travail, le développement économique et la consommation des collectivités. Les troisobjectifs en vue desquels des progrès sont nécessaires dans les dix années à venir sont la détox-ication, la dématérialisation et la décarburation. L’article présente également quelques buts àplus long terme de la production plus propre.

ResumenLa Producción más Limpia se presenta como un conjunto de instrumentos, un programa y unmodo de pensar. Los impactos que generan se pueden evaluar a distintos niveles. A pesar delprogreso de las últimas décadas, los temas pendientes en materia de Producción más Limpiaincluyen políticas gubernamentales, tecnología ambiental, reducción de deshechos, seguri-dad en lugares de trabajo, desarrollo económico y consumo social. Tres objetivos ambientalesa desarrollar en los próximos diez años son desintoxicación esmaterialización y descarbonat-ación. Se presentan también metas a más largo plazo para una Producción más Limpia.

34 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

� workplace safety;� economic development; and� social consumption.

Government policiesCleaner production emerged after many industri-alized countries had established environmentalregulatory infrastructure. These legal structures,and the professionals trained and hired by gov-ernment agencies and by regulated industries,have developed a sophisticated regulation andcompliance culture. Discharge permits, and thegovernment staff overseeing environmental com-pliance and enforcement, focus on what passesbetween the facility boundaries and the publicenvironment. But Cleaner Production is aboutwhat goes on inside the facility, between facilities,and between facilities and their customers. Con-ventional regulatory legal structures and the cul-tures they support too often reduce opportunitiesfor waste exchange, materials recycling and Clean-er Production solutions.

National Cleaner Production Centres haveobtained mixed results in their attempts to addressthe policy issues that inhibit Cleaner Production,particularly where these centres are viewed asexisting outside the conventional regulatoryagency structure. Even if concerted efforts havebeen made to encourage environmental agencystaff to adopt Cleaner Production approaches,they have proven quite resistant to change (BerlinBlackman and Luskin, 2000).

Environmental technology Market and technical barriers tend to inhibit thediffusion of Cleaner Production technologies. Thepollution control technology market remains sub-stantially larger and more vital than that for Clean-er Production technology. Suppliers of wastetreatment, pollution abatement and refuse dispos-al technologies are well established, with strongmarket recognition. Selling pollution controlequipment generates profits, increases employ-ment, and adds to gross national product figures.Cleaner production is often touted as a way toreduce operating costs, but promoters are general-ly silent on issues of increased sales, profits or jobs.

Many technologies for enhancing Cleaner Pro-duction are available. However, unlike the “add-on” equipment used to control pollution, CPtechnologies are often more central to the coreprocesses of product production. Technical tradi-tions, investments in older equipment, conven-tional work practices and skills, low motivationfor change, and uneasiness with less conventionaland less well tested technologies all inhibit transi-tion to cleaner technologies in the core produc-tion processes. Indeed, Cleaner Production isoften more than technology focused, involvingchanges in management practices and in the orga-nization of product consumption and waste man-agement systems, which are slow to change.

Heavy financial investments and managerialcommitments in traditional manufacturing facil-ities reduce opportunities for low-cost solutions.New solutions are often best determined by orig-inal equipment manufacturers, chemical suppli-

ers and large-scale customers who specify produc-tion procedures in long-term contracts. Recentdevelopments in “green chemistry” and “sustain-able materials” offer good opportunities for newfeedstock materials, catalysts, routes of synthesis,and biodegradable and renewable materials, butmany of these are still experimental (DeVito andGarrett, 1996; Anastas and Warner, 1998). Clean-er production advocates need to pay special atten-tion to the “upstream” suppliers of productionequipment and feedstock materials if “down-stream” production facilities are to have the rangeof technological choices that make environmen-tally sensitive production technologies betterinvestments than waste treatment technologies.

Waste reduction On a global scale, the volume of domestic andhazardous waste is enormous. Just 28 parties tothe Basel Convention reported that an aggregatetotal of 182 million metric tonnes of hazardousand special wastes was generated in 1997 (UNEP,1999). In the United States, industries generatesome 41 million tonnes of hazardous wastes peryear. The municipal solid waste stream grew from87 million tonnes in 1960 to 209 million tonnesin 1996 (US EPA, 1998; 1999). The scale of wastegeneration threatens the natural assimilativecapacities of many of the planet’s regional ecosys-tems. The symptoms of global change providesuggestive warnings of the costs of such vastamounts of waste chemical releases and move-ments of materials.

The industrial threat to public health and theenvironment is caused by thousands of produc-tion and extraction activities throughout theworld. Hundreds of good case studies demon-strate the many successes of Cleaner Production,but they mask the existence of the millions of inef-ficient, polluting and dangerous industrial facili-ties that continue to operate. The voluntarynature of Cleaner Production programmes meansthe concepts can only reach enterprises that areopen to embracing environmental values. ForCleaner Production to become more widelyadopted among all sectors of industry, there needto be credible “sticks” as well as attractive “carrots”.

Performance measurementCleaner production programmes have been insti-tuted in a wide array of firms and institutions.There are many case reports on their successes. Yetthese programmes lack common metrics for mea-suring performance. They are seldom assessedagainst their full costs, and there is little possibili-ty to compare one project against another todetermine the effectiveness of differing strategies.Few government programmes publish annualtrend reports on their environmental impacts, andeven fewer have been evaluated for cost-effective-ness. The highly contextual character of CleanerProduction programmes makes it difficult todevelop common metrics or units of analysis.Without measuring performance against financialor environmental objectives, the specific impactsof cleaner technologies and practices cannot beeffectively assessed.

Interest in corporate environmental reportingand sustainability indicators is growing rapidly(Bennett and James, 1999; Bell and Morse, 1999).Professional bodies, including Dow Jones, theAmerican Institute of Chemical Engineers(AICE), the Social Venture Network and theWorld Business Council for Sustainable Develop-ment (WBCSD), have developed environmentalindicator systems for corporations. The Coalitionfor Environmentally Responsible Economics(CERES) is developing an ambitious GlobalReporting Initiative to track corporate environ-mental performance. These efforts suggest howuseful and feasible indicators of Cleaner Produc-tion might be; they should inspire Cleaner Pro-duction promoters to work towards developingsuch indicators.

Workplace safety Workplace safety remains a serious problem inmuch of the world. The International LaborOrganisation (ILO) estimates that 125 millionworkplace accidents occur annually, resulting in10 million crippling injuries and over 220,000fatalities (600 workplace fatalities per day world-wide). The economic losses from these accidentsaverage around 3% of GNP in many countries. Inthe US, the General Accounting Office estimatesthat the cost of disability insurance paymentsexceeds a billion dollars per week (Taqi, 1996).Although industrialized countries with stronglabour movements have instituted regulatoryhealth and safety and worker compensation sys-tems, the risk of occupational injury, illness anddeath remains significant in many parts of theworld.

For the most part, Cleaner Production pro-grammes have ignored occupational health andsafety issues (Ashford, 1997; Roelofs, 1999). Thevast majority of articles, books and manuals relat-ing to Cleaner Production are silent on workplacesafety. While reduced toxic chemicals use can havebeneficial implications in this area, such reduc-tions can also introduce unanticipated newergonomic hazards or changes in work, increasingemployee insecurity. Improvements to a facility’senvironmental performance should not ignore orincrease risks to employees. As Cleaner Produc-tion becomes more widely accepted, it will beincreasingly important to ensure that environ-mentally sound production also means physicallysafe workplaces.

Economic development Cleaner production is promoted as a means ofimproving business as well as environmental out-comes. However, upper management in most pro-duction enterprises thinks little about environ-ment and health factors when decisions aboutnew markets, increased production, new prod-ucts, corporate acquisitions or new financial busi-ness opportunities are made. Most product mar-keting decisions are not conditioned byconsiderations of process hazards, ecologicaleffects or product disposal.

Cleaner production has gained acceptanceamong a select group of leading firms in the

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 35

Cleaner Production

industrialized centres of the North. Nevertheless,the CP concepts’ low penetration into the officesof most corporate managers means that littleattention is given to Cleaner Production in invest-ment, banking or international trade discourse.Those who control finance capital are focused oneconomic performance indicators. For them, non-monetized environmental or health considera-tions are external to the market and secondary toeconomic development. Global and regional tradeagreements such as the North American FreeTrade Agreement (NAFTA) and the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have sys-tematically separated environmental and healthvalues from investment and finance decisions. IfCleaner Production is to achieve wider acceptanceamong business managers, it will need to be betterunderstood and more consciously embraced bythe international finance and trade communities.

Social consumption The fact that we are consuming more resourcesthan the Earth can regenerate is well recognized(Commoner, 1990; Durning, 1992; Meadows, etal., 1992). While energy is used more efficientlyin some countries than it was 20 years ago, andpopulations have stabilized in some countries, theproblem of total global over-consumptionremains acute. This problem is aggravated by theprofound inequity of consumption patterns, therichest 20% of the world’s population accountingfor 70% of total global resource consumption(Miller, 1995). There have been calls for a reduc-tion in the rate of consumption in industrializedcountries by a factor of four, ten or even 20 overthe next 50 years (Schmidt-Bleek, 1994; OECD,1997; Reijnders, 1998).

In the last several years, advocates of CleanerProduction, notably UNEP’s Cleaner ProductionProgramme, have initiated dialogue on the issueof sustainable consumption. Sustainable con-sumption is about the scale of throughput, butalso about who enjoys the benefits of materialconsumption. As developing countries becomemore affluent, new populations will seek to mimicthe material throughput standards of today’swealthy economies. The result will be demand forraw materials, spatial congestion, and a wastestream far beyond the planet’s capacities.

Cleaner production leads to increases inresource efficiency and deceases in waste gen-eration, reducing the environmental burdensof industrial production. However, steadygrowth in consumption required increases inthe aggregate level of production that couldwipe out the impacts of these process improve-ments. It makes little sense to promote Clean-er Production without seeking to reduceconsumption levels, particularly in the wealth-ier economies.

Future Cleaner Productionopportunities The past few decades have witnessed significantadvances in identifying and understanding a widerange of environmental problems: climate change,global pollution, habitat loss and over-population.

The task ahead will require less attention to prob-lem characterization, and more attention to solu-tion development and facilitation. Creativesolutions are needed in respect to population con-trol, conflict resolution, habitat protection, landuse patterns and poverty alleviation. It would beuseful here to consider three rather conventionalenvironmental objectives that will require progressover the next decade: detoxification, dematerial-ization and decarbonization.

DetoxificationConventional approaches to industrial processeshave tolerated the use of highly dangerous chem-ical substances without asking serious questionsabout their necessity and alternatives. The con-ventional regulatory and scientific approach to thehazards of toxic substances has been to invest inseemingly endless and almost never conclusivestudies of the nature of their toxicity, the signifi-cance of their risks, and levels of exposure thatshould be acceptable.

Cleaner production programmes have merci-fully avoided such unsatisfactory debates. Insteadof ruminating over acceptable risks of exposure,Cleaner Production programmes have more cre-atively sought alternatives to the well recognizedtoxic substances and promoted productionprocesses that avoided them. In so doing, CleanerProduction programmes have promoted aqueousprocessing, photo-sensitive catalysis, renewablematerials, and biodegradable products.

Knowledge about toxic substances hasadvanced dramatically during the past 25 years.We know that many highly persistent and bioac-cumulative substances (e.g. various metals andaromatic hydrocarbons) are likely to be carcino-gens, to present reproductive hazards, and/or tobe neurotoxins. Corporations such as Ecover,Nortel, Interface, S.C. Johnson and Philips Elec-tronics have made great strides in reducing thetoxicity of their products and processes. Baxter,Mattel and General Motors have pledged to elim-inate polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in some products.Several EU countries – the Netherlands, Sweden,Denmark and Germany – have developed lists ofproblem chemicals (“black” or “grey” lists). TheUS has established a list of chemicals that are “per-sistent, bioaccumulative and toxic”. A draft Unit-ed Nations Convention on persistent organicpollutants (POPs) has recently been agreed.1

Many Cleaner Production programmes use listsin an informal way to identify substances thatshould be avoided. This “alternatives preferenc-ing” provides an excellent example of the “precau-tionary principle”. The precautionary approach isto take action to avoid risks even where informa-tion is incomplete. Toxics use reduction pro-grammes in the US, and the “substitutionprinciple” in the Scandinavian countries, encour-age shifts away from recognized chemicals of con-cern. Avoiding use of toxic substances where othersubstances could deliver the same performancedemonstrates the value of precaution. Throughalternative assessments, life-cycle assessments andfull-cost analyses, Cleaner Production pro-grammes can promote precaution by demonstrat-

ing the utility of less hazardous production andless toxic products (Raffensperger and Tickner,1999; Gottlieb, 1995).

DematerializationIf industrialized countries are to take seriously theproposal to cut material throughput by a factor offour or more, substantial efforts will be needed toreduce process wastes, increase materials recycling,increase material use intensity, and create prod-ucts with social value using far less material. Thehuge amounts of waste created during extractionof renewable and non-renewable natural materialsand the synthesis of petrochemicals need to besharply reduced through new extraction and syn-thesizing procedures, or those wastes need to beused as co-products.

Materials recycling is already increasing in mostindustrialized countries. Paper, lead and steel havebeen recycled profitably for years. Primary leadproduction has remained fairly stable in marketeconomies over the past 20 years, while secondaryproduction has increased about 4% per year;today over half the lead consumed comes fromrecycled material (UNEP, 1994). In the US 66%of all lead, 57% of iron and steel, and 42% of alu-minium is recycled. In terms of products, thismeans that 96% of lead-acid batteries, 57% ofsteel cans and 63% of aluminium beverage con-tainers are recycled (US Geological Survey, 1999;US EPA, 1998).

Material use intensity is attracting a great dealof attention among those interested in sustainableproduct design or eco-design. Products that arelighter, smaller, more durable, more versatile,human-powered, reparable, recyclable or reusablecan reduce the ecological footprint on the Earth’snatural resources (US OTA, 1992; van Weenen,1997). Clean products are the first requirement ofnew product-oriented environmental manage-ment systems that employ life-cycle approaches toevaluate the environmental impacts of a productfrom “cradle to grave” (or “cradle to cradle” in thecase of materials). In sophisticated product man-agement systems such as those required in theNetherlands, all the market actors – producers,retailers, consumers, waste managers – areinvolved in reducing the product’s environmentalimpacts. In the case of packaging, automobiles,and (soon) electronic products, for instance,European producers have primary responsibilityfor their products through Extended ProducerResponsibility or “take-back” schemes (vanBerkel, van Kampen and Kortman, 1999; Davis,Witt and Barkenbus, 1997).

It is not just products that are subject to dema-terialization. Those who promote eco-efficiencyare promoting material use intensity in produc-tion processes to achieve maximal production, aswell as integrated production that yields severalproducts of commercial value from one produc-tion process (Fussler, 1996). The surge of interestin “lean production” has also served to promotematerials use efficiency (Romm, 1994).

Cleaner Production can promote dematerializa-tion by focusing attention on the materials of pro-duction and the constituents of products.

36 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Integrated supply chain management, ExtendedProducer Responsibility and integrated productpolicies offer tools for materials conservation bylinking suppliers to customers to secondary con-sumers. Conventional waste reduction and wasterecycling programmes are good examples of dema-terialization. But so are increased production effi-ciency and lighter-weight, better tailored products.

DecarbonizationOver the recent period of industrialization, theconcentration of CO2 in the atmosphere hasincreased from 280 to 350 parts per million(ppm). This build-up appears to be due largely toburning of fossil fuels. It is estimated that annualCO2 emissions from worldwide combustion offossil fuels is equivalent to 6 billion tonnes of car-bon. Most atmospheric models predict thatincreasing levels of carbon in the upper atmos-phere will reduce the Earth’s ability to dissipateheat (i.e. the “greenhouse effect”) and result indramatic local and regional climate changes(IPCC, 1990; Manabe and Stouffer, 1993).Already the eleven highest average annual globaltemperatures on record have occurred since 1983;the five hottest consecutive years were 1991 to1995, and 1998 was the hottest year recordedsince global temperatures have been monitored.

Efforts to slow and stabilize carbon build-up inthe atmosphere will require substantial restruc-turing of global energy generation and consump-tion patterns. While electricity generating utilitiesand transport vehicles are important sources ofatmospheric carbon, a significant contribution isalso madeby industrial production facilities.

The commitments to reduce greenhouse gasemissions agreed at the 1997 Kyoto Conferenceof the Parties to the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a setof national goals that could be met by capturingand sequestering greenhouse gases and “decar-bonizing” the world’s economies. Decarboniza-tion can be achieved by reducing energyconsumption through efficiency improvementsand energy conservation, or by a shift in energysources from oil and coal to natural gas (chieflymethane), hydrogen or renewable sources (e.g.hydro, solar and wind).

Some of the world’s largest oil and auto compa-nies have begun to address the need to changeenergy technologies.2 British Petroleum/Amocohas made a commitment to conduct $1 billion peryear in solar commerce by 2010. Shell has createda new company to produce renewable solar tech-nologies. Ford and Daimler/Chrysler have joinedwith Ballard Power Corporation to produce fuelcell-powered cars in the next three years. Both

Honda and Toyota are now marketing 60 to 70mile per gallon hybrid cars (Gelbspan, 2000).

Clean production can promote decarboniza-tion through increased attention to energy con-servation and energy utilization efficiency in bothproduction processes and product design. Forinstance, process heat recycling systems offeropportunities for interior climate control, as wellas reductions in energy requirements for raisingand maintaining processing temperatures. Motorsand motor systems represent a significant oppor-tunity for energy savings. Motors use a great dealof energy; in the US they consume some 70% ofall industrial energy. Because so many of today’soperating motors are inefficient – many use up to20% of their capital costs in energy costs everyyear – a Cleaner Production focus on motors canyield significant benefits. Lighter-weight materialsin products and packaging recycling or reductionprogrammes reduce energy requirements forproduct transport. Advances in thin-film photo-voltaics offer new possibilities for solar energyconversion devices that are likely to be quite costcompetitive. Where production facilities convertto fuel cells or renewable energy sources, green-house gases are reduced or eliminated. Finally, theInternet and the significant strides in electronictechnologies offer many rich opportunities forchanging the economy so as to reduce greenhousegas generation, although there are also opportu-nities to go the other direction as well (Horrigan,Irwin and Cook; 1998, Cohen, 1999).

Longer-range goals for CleanerProductionSome other goals are equally important, but willrequire longer-term commitment and may onlyget started during the next decade: � Cleaner production needs to be more effective-ly promoted within the investment and tradecommunities. It needs to be advocated as aninvestment strategy and as a factor of competition.This will require a reorientation of banking andinvestment philosophies, and the rewriting ofinternational trade agreements.� Promotion of cleaner and safer forms of pro-duction needs to be coordinated with a paralleland proportional promotion of sustainable con-sumption directed at cutting material and energyconsumption, particularly in the more economi-cally developed countries.

These are ambitious goals, but plenty of foun-dation work has already been done. This nextdecade could well be a time of rapid changes, asfirms and governments re-draft their missions andre-direct their functions. The past decade hasraised awareness enormously about environmen-

tally conscious production and proved its eco-nomic value. The agenda ahead is to move frombroad awareness and successful pilots to makingCleaner Production a part of conventional eco-nomic and social practice.

Notes1. See Seethe special “Sustainable Mobility” issue ofIndustry and Environment, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Octo-ber-December 2000).

Selected referencesAnastas, Paul and John Warner (1998) Green Chemistry:Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York.

Ashford, Nicholas (1997) Industrial Safety: The Neglect-ed Issue in Industrial Ecology, Journal of Cleaner Produc-tion 5:1-2, pp. 115-122.

Bennett, Martin and Peter James, eds. (1999) SustainableMeasures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental andSocial Performance. Greenleaf, Sheffield (UK).

Cohen, Nevin (1999) Greening the Internet: Ten WaysE-commerce Could Affect the Environment, Environ-mental Quality Management 9:1 (autumn), pp. 1-16.

Durning, Alan T. (1992) How Much is Enough? The Con-sumer Society and the Future of the Earth. Norton, NewYork.

Horrigan, John, Frances Irwin and Elizabeth Cook(1998) Taking a Byte out of Carbon: Electronics Innova-tion for Climate Protection. World Resources Institute,Washington, D.C.

Meadows, D. H., D.L. Meadows and J. Randers (1992)Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envision-ing a Sustainable Future. Chelsea Green, Post Mills, Ver-mont, USA.

Raffensperger, Carolyn and Joel Tickner, eds. (1999)Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Imple-menting the Precautionary Principle. Island Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Reijnders, Lucas (1998) The Factor X Debate: SettingTargets for Eco-Efficiency, Journal of Industrial Ecology2:1, pp. 13-23.

Romm, Joseph J. (1994) Lean and Clean Management:How to Boost Profits and Productivity by Reducing Pollu-tion. Kodansha International, New York.

US OTA (United States Congressional Office of Tech-nology Assessment) (1992) Green Products by Design:Choices for a Cleaner Environment. Washington, D.C.

Van Berkel, Rene, Michela van Kampen and Jaap Kort-man (1999) Opportunities and Constraints for Product-oriented Environmental Management Systems (P-EMS),Journal of Cleaner Production 7, pp. 447-455.

Van Weenen, Hans (1997) Sustainable Product Devel-opment: Opportunities for Developing Countries, Indus-try and Environment 20:1-2 ( January-June), pp. 14-18.

For a complete list of references cited in this article, seethe unedited CP6 background paper by Ken Geiser( �

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 37

Cleaner Production

Once we recognize that production andconsumption are two sides of the samecoin (see Chapter 4 of Agenda 21, adopt-

ed at the Earth Summit in 1992), the need forpolicies and strategies that encourage changes incurrent consumption and production patterns isobvious. By working within a consumption andproduction framework, one is also applying theconcept of a “life-cycle economy”. A life-cycleeconomy provides an integrated approach to sus-tainable production and consumption policies.UNEP’s sustainable consumption programmeapplies the “life-cycle approach” to consumerneeds. It focuses on understanding the drivingforces behind consumption, using them to inspirecost-effective improvements, and improving qual-ity of life in every part of the world. In May 2000,the Global Ministerial Environment Forum inMalmö, Sweden, which endorsed the use of suchan approach worldwide, asked UNEP to preparean action programme which would give countriesguidance in implementing it.

As demonstrated at UNEP’s First AfricanRoundtable on Cleaner Production and Sustain-able Consumption (Nairobi, Kenya, August2000), the priorities relating to consumption varyin different parts in the world. In developingcountries, the first priority is increased access toeveryone’s basic needs. Over a billion people liveon less than a dollar a day. For them, sustainableconsumption means consuming more. Basicresources are often used very inefficiently by those

who are most impoverished. They cannot act inany other way. Making it possible for people toconsume differently is a challenge that needs to beaddressed by the international community, as wellas the wealthier part of the population in devel-oping countries.

In industrialized countries, which agreed in Rioin 1992 to take the lead in promoting the sustain-able consumption agenda, the issue of “sufficien-cy” needs to be addressed, i.e. how to move fromconsumption patterns based on quantitative val-ues (“more is always better”) to enlightened con-sumption based on qualitative values (“qualityover quantity”).

Review of statusChapter 4 of Agenda 21, “ Changing Consump-tion and Production Patterns”, set the stage formuch of the ensuing debate on sustainable con-sumption and Cleaner Production. The UN’sinternational work programme on sustainableconsumption and production patterns, adoptedin 1995 by the third session of the Commissionfor Sustainable Development (CSD), defined sus-tainable consumption as “the use of goods and ser-vices that respond to basic needs and bring a betterquality of life, while minimizing the use of naturalresources, toxic materials and emissions of waste andpollutants over the life cycle, so as not to jeopardizethe needs of future generations”.1

Thus, sustainable consumption has economic,environmental and social dimensions, emphasis-

ing the significance of environmental constraintsand the requirement to address the needs of thepoor simultaneously.

The OECD workshop at Rosendal, Norway, inJune 1995 on “clarifying the concepts”, as well aslater activities concerned with analyzing the con-ceptual framework, have helped the internationalcommunity focus on key terms. The conclusionfrom Rosendal was that some of the various con-cepts under debate actually project the same mes-sage. They all boil down to looking at the impactof consumption and the natural capital require-ments of an economy, based on an interpretationof carrying capacity.2 The term “eco-efficiency”was chosen to “bring about a significant decouplingof consumption and production from raw materialinput and pollution output.” 3

In the late 1990s, UNEP started to explorelinkages between consumption and Cleaner Pro-duction activities, which had so far focused main-ly on the supply side of manufacturing processes.Growing awareness has drawn attention to thedemand side and consumers’ need for cleanerproducts and services. UNEP has therefore foundit useful to work with communication experts,apply tools that inspire stakeholders to take action(e.g. eco-design, product service systems), andaddress awareness-raising and education in orderto communicate about the issue.

The International Declaration on Cleaner Pro-duction encourages both sustainable productionand sustainable consumption practices. It alsocalls attention to the need to find innovativeCleaner Production solutions “by supporting thedevelopment of products and services which are envi-ronmentally efficient and that meet consumerneeds”.4 CP5 recommended that UNEP work onanalyzing the driving forces behind consumptionto facilitate change, in order to gain a betterinsight into the development of indicators and theunderstanding of emerging trends.

UNEP is collecting data for the finalization oftwo research projects on consumer behaviour andtrends concerned with young people and with the“Global Consumer Class”.5 The aim of thosestudies is to identify consumer perspectives, choic-es and expectations around the world. The UNEPYouth Research Project has been designed to ana-lyze young people’s consumption patterns andtheir approach to sustainable consumption. Theproject addressing the global consumer class seeksto determine whether any major similarities existbetween consumers across national borders, andto study the attitudes of global consumers to sus-tainable consumption. It will evaluate specific ele-ments involved in the consumption patterns of

Sustainable consumption and CleanerProduction: two sides of the same coin

SummaryA “life-cycle economy” is an integrated approach to sustainable production and consumptionpolicies. Working within this framework means addressing both sides of the coin (i.e. sustain-able consumption and Cleaner Production) to make sure the most efficient tools and strategiesare applied. National Cleaner Production Centres have an important role to play in this area.

RésuméUne économie basée sur le cycle de vie est une approche intégrée des politiques de productionet de consommation compatibles avec un développement durable. Inscrire son action dans cecadre signifie prendre en compte les deux faces de la médaille (c’est-à-dire des modes de con-sommation durables et des modes de production plus propres) si l’on veut réellement appliquerles outils et stratégies les plus efficaces. Dans ce domaine, les Centres nationaux de productionplus propre ont un rôle majeur à jouer.

ResumenUna “economía de ciclo de vida” es una aproximación integrada a las políticas de produccióny consumo sostenibles. Trabajar dentro de este marco implica dirigirse a ambas caras de lamisma moneda(es decir, consumo sostenible y producción más limpia) para garantizar que seapliquen las herramientas y estretegas más eficaces. Los centros nacionales de producciónmás limpia desempeñan un rol importante en este área.

38 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

the global consumer class and demonstrate publicopinion on possible policy initiatives.

CP5 recommended that UNEP facilitate sus-tainable development by encouraging new waysof doing business and identifying key networksworldwide to promote links to facilitate informa-tion exchange. UNEP took the initiative by estab-lishing a network of experts on sustainableconsumption, the “Kabelvåg network”, followingthe June 1998 expert meeting in Kabelvåg, Nor-way. This network is administered via a list serveoperation. There is a web-based newsletter everythree weeks. The objective is to provide a forumfor experts on sustainable consumption news,ideas and questions.

CP5 considered that information and educa-tion are critical in order to change consumptionpatterns. UNEP is now working with Carl Duis-berg Gesellschaft, UNESCO, and other partnersto identify training needs and develop material toeducate and raise awareness. Business and gov-ernments in developing countries need to identi-fy tools and strategies to enforce sustainableconsumption and Cleaner Production patternsbased on their own cultural frameworks. To fur-ther support this work, UNEP is organizingroundtables and workshops around the world todevelop regional action plans to be put forward atRIO+10 in 2002.

Potential and relevanceThe UNEP/UNIDO National Cleaner Produc-tion Centres (NCPCs) play a key role in trainingand in bringing local capacities together. UNEPwould like to work with NCPCs to address theneed for life-cycle thinking by business, and tohelp them develop tools to implement changes totake advantage of new opportunities. This initia-tive has already been introduced through theRoundtable on Sustainable Consumption andProduction in Nairobi.

Working within a life-cycle economy frame-work means addressing both sides of the coin –sustainable consumption and Cleaner Production– to make sure the most efficient tools and strate-gies are being addressed.

Opportunities and constraintsSome opportunities common to CP and sustain-able consumption include making use of localresource and knowledge bases, and working with-in the parameters of what nature provides by usingrenewable materials and energy. Moreover, oppor-tunities can be identified, when working within alife-cycle framework, for applying cleaner andsafer production practices to minimize pollution.Sustainable consumption and production oppor-tunities may come from mainstream economicdevelopment, as this provides the income andemployment needed to eradicate poverty andimprove the quality of life of citizens worldwide. Itmakes sense to try and avoid the mistakes madeby developed countries on the path to industrial-ization (through “leap-frogging”). Developingcountries could make use of the strengths ofindustrial development, while building onincreasing awareness among the world’s con-

sumers of the environmental and social aspects ofthe products they buy.

Constraints on sustainable consumption pat-terns can be grouped as economic constraints,structural constraints, and constraints due lack ofinformation and communication. Economicchallenges are associated with such factors as prod-uct prices and taxation schemes. With respect tostructural dimensions, many countries lack anefficient infrastructure and policy platform toaddress environmental issues (e.g. waste manage-ment, energy and transportation) efficiently. Gov-ernments have to do their job by creating aproductive framework, and UNEP would like tohelp. Awareness on the part of government, busi-ness and consumers, which is needed to makeinformed changes, should be improved. As aresponse, communication strategies are beingexplored and an initiative to promote the tool oflife-cycle assessment will be developed. This helpsorganize the quality and accessibility of environ-mental information.

CP and sustainable consumption:common issues“Life-cycle economy” implies an integratedapproach aimed at putting various tools, for bothconsumers and producers, in perspective. Some ofthe tools and activities on which UNEP is work-ing are mentioned above. Four main theme areaswill be addressed here: � perspectives of South and North;� stakeholders and tools; � communication and information; and � the role of design in making better products thatreflect consumer needs.

Differing perspectives: North and SouthThe concepts and tools needed to address sus-tainable consumption patterns have primarilybeen developed in the North, which agreed to takethe lead at Rio. However, it has become clear thatdeveloping countries also need to consider theirconsumption patterns to avoid the North’s mis-takes, as well as to identify new opportunities foreconomic development. In the North, sustainableconsumption is often perceived as consuming dif-ferently, consuming more efficiently and con-suming better. This does not necessarily take onboard all the relevant dimensions for developingcountries, where the primary concern is meetingcitizens’ basic needs. Other fundamental concernsinclude poverty reduction, population growth andeconomic development. The World Bank pointsout in a recent World Development Report thatpoverty reduction requires reducing inequalityand protecting vulnerable groups, as well as pro-moting economic growth.

In view of the differing starting points forNorth and South, there are also different drivingforces for sustainable consumption. The mainforces in the North might be identified as govern-ment regulations, consumer demand for betterproducts and services, business’s desire to make itsconsumption more efficient in order to achieveboth financial and environmental savings, and

demand from society in general for greater corpo-rate responsibility.

In the South, business and government moti-vation may come from international and nation-al regulation, the prospect of attaining new exportmarkets, environmental and financial savings, effi-cient management of natural resources and newtechnology, and economic and social develop-ment.

For consumers in the North and South alike,some motivating factors may be better informa-tion and education relating to environmentalissues, health concerns, the need for infrastruc-ture, peer pressure, financial savings, and an over-all improved quality of life.

In changing their consumption patterns, theNorth and South have a lot to learn from eachother through coming to understand better themany different cultural frameworks and ways oftaking action and addressing change. Drawing onindigenous knowledge and skills worldwide willundoubtedly provide added value to the knowl-edge base. This can offer new opportunities forbusiness, as well as different strategies and frame-works for society, bringing us a step closer to sus-tainability. To secure such opportunities,developing countries need access to information,training and technology by means of new cooper-ation between North and South. In short, address-ing sustainable consumption and changingconsumption patterns is by no means a one-waystreet. It means paying attention to each other, todevelopment, to nature, and not least to culturalframeworks and the needs of people.

In the last few years, we have seen what wemight call a global consumer class emerge.Thisglobal group is made up of consumers who sharecertain elements of a common lifestyle (i.e. accessto IT and purchasing of similar products) regard-less of who they are and where they live. The evo-lution of a class of global consumers means wenow have to reconsider the normal parameters ofthinking in terms of North and South perspec-tives. It forces us to look at social and cultural cir-cumstances across national borders, recognizingthat the divisions are to a greater extent betweenrich and poor than between North and South.

Stakeholders and toolsChanging consumption and production patternsis not exclusively the task of a certain societalgroup. Businesses, governments, communities,research institutes and households all need to beinvolved, and ways to work together need to beidentified.

Stakeholder approaches add an importantdimension to the life-cycle economy. Using bothapproaches, policy-makers will be able to makebetter informed decisions. Decisions concerningconsumption and production are made at all lev-els of society (e.g. by individuals, companies,national and international communities and orga-nizations). The objective is to identify opportuni-ties and strategies that might be addressed by eachagent.

For individuals the main objective is to addressconsumption patterns by looking at issues such as

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 39

Cleaner Production

transportation, consumption of non-renewableresources, energy carriers, and products that areindicators of citizens’ quality of life. By consider-ing the impacts of day-to-day activities, con-sumers may be able to select better products anduse resources more sustainably. For example, theycan contribute to improved material efficiencythrough waste separation and material recoverysystems.

Non-governmental organizations and citizensgroups play a central role in contributing toawareness raising, information provision, lobby-ing and networking. Today a number of NGOsaddress social, cultural, economic and environ-mental issues. Consumer organizations in devel-oped countries began to lobby for food securityand health issues many years ago. They graduallyrealized that these issues are often linked to theenvironmental agenda.

Young people are important actors in civil soci-ety. Therefore, UNEP is working with them todevelop a sustainable consumption strategy. Weare thinking of people between 18 and 25 years ofage: 40% of the world population is under 20, andin many developing countries children and youthrepresent the majority of the population. Youngpeople represent an enormous potential due totheir creativity, enthusiasm and strength, andinternational environmental policies are benefit-ing from this.

Young people will be decision-makers in thefuture. Their thoughts and consumption patternsare critical for the world of tomorrow. Some cen-tral questions addressed by youth all over theworld are: why do we consume as we do? how canconsumption patterns be made more sustainable?and what power do we have as consumers to influ-ence companies and governments towards a moresustainable path.

The UNEP youth and sustainable consump-tion strategy seeks to encourage and stimulatechanges in consumption patterns through variousactivities, including a campaign on sustainableconsumption, a research project to map the atti-tudes of young adults towards sustainable con-sumption, and making sure the voice of youth isheard at international meetings relating to sus-tainable consumption and Cleaner Production.

Several types of tools address consumption pat-terns in business and industry. In general, they canbe grouped in three categories:� those concerning the organization itself (i.e.EMS, standards, codes of conduct, voluntary ini-tiatives, negotiated agreements, environmentaland social reporting);� those concerning products or services, whichdeal primarily with optimizing energy and mate-rial consumption through waste minimizationand pollution prevention (i.e. Cleaner Produc-tion, eco-efficiency and dematerialization), andwith selecting the right materials and providingthe right information (i.e. through LCA, eco-design, indicators, eco-labelling). A primaryobjective is focusing more on a life-cycle econo-my and less on short-term profits. � “re-thinking”, or redefining core business activ-ities according to the underlying needs of con-

sumers (i.e. through stakeholder dialogues,addressing new solutions within the supply chain,technological capacities and innovation, industri-al ecology, and investment strategies).

At the level of the public sector, consumptionpatterns can be addressed through regulations,taxation, labelling schemes, policy recommenda-tions, stakeholder dialogues and voluntary initia-tives. Governments might wish to use tools toimprove analysis, and public and business aware-ness-raising, as well as monitoring activities andproviding feedback to society by developing andapplying, for example, general indicators, stan-dards, environmental education and informationcampaigns. Moreover, governments can provideincentives to the public and business by means ofeconomic instruments, eco-labelling schemes andnegotiated agreements with business, as well asthrough regulations and legislation. They can alsoimprove their own operations through, for exam-ple, green procurement and integrated productpolicy. Finally, it is essential that governmentswork with others with respect to regional andinternational relations.

It is becoming clear that the tools for promotingsustainable consumption and production patternsare as diverse as the subject itself. Considerationmust also be given to country-specific circum-stances. Generally speaking, tools to bring aboutchange should be linked to the process of changeitself. Decision-makers (in governments, businessand households) will only be prepared to change ifthey 1) know about the problem, 2) want tochange, and 3) are able to achieve their intentions.

Information and communicationBusinesses are increasingly recognizing the needto act responsibly with respect to consumers. Thisis not only because they feel they have a moralobligation, but also because there is increaseddemand for them to do so from consumers. Therelationship between producers and consumers isincreasingly based on trust. Companies recognizethat this provides them with new ways to do busi-ness in an aggressive marketplace. There is greatpotential for companies to gain competitiveadvantage through incorporating sustainabilityand social issues.

To help consumers make informed choices,eco-labelling and voluntary information cam-paigns have been introduced. The large amountof information (and debates about its quality)have a tendency to undermine the effect oflabelling. However, some labelling schemes havesuccessfully influenced consumers, such as theWhite Swan label in Nordic countries and theForest Stewardship Council (FSC) label found onsustainably harvested timber.

The International Association for Soap, Deter-gent and Maintenance Products (AISE) has intro-duced a voluntary initiative called the “WashRight Campaign”. AISE represents national asso-ciations and their member companies in 28 coun-tries, mainly in Europe. Its campaign hassuccessfully reduced consumption of energy,water and laundry detergent between 5 and 10%.As of March 2000, over 90% of the European

market (representing over 150 companies, includ-ing multinationals and their subsidiaries) wascommitted to the Code. Companies have under-taken this initiative in order to continue toimprove their environmental progress when for-mulating products and packaging for householdlaundry detergents, and to encourage consumersto be more closely involved in proper product use.

Communication tools applied through adver-tising and marketing strategies are well establishedmechanisms for affecting consumer choices. Thisis why the communication experts are also key toidentifying tools and strategies needed to encour-age consumers to make more environmentallyfriendly choices. The advertising and communica-tion sector is the link between producers and indi-vidual consumers. It influences clients’communication strategies, and its communicationskills and creative talent are an important asset thatcan help change consumption patterns. Moreover,the media play a key role in improving knowledgeand generating interest among consumers.

Design: a source of inspiration Cleaner, safer and more eco-efficient products andservices can be produced. Product design can bean effective tool for use in achieving more sus-tainable consumption patterns, in that it address-es all stages of product development as well astaking consumer needs into account. When basedon environmental data provided by tools such aslife-cycle assessment, design can play an impor-tant role in reducing energy and material through-put in the economy. Design concerns most factorsof the performance and composition of a productor process, including efficiency, multifunctional-ity, reusability, recyclability, and material andenergy use.

The objective of eco-design is to make productand service development an ecologically soundprocesses. Many companies are increasingly rec-ognizing the value of doing this to gain competi-tive advantage. A focus on design through productservice systems (PSS) can foster enhanced abilityof companies to address consumer demands, effi-ciency improvement and new technology. Prod-ucts designed “from cradle to cradle” presentchallenges in both developed and developingcountries. PSS can be defined as a marketable setof products and services, jointly capable of fulfill-ing a client’s need, to assist in reorienting currentunsustainable trends in consumption and pro-duction. Ideally, a mix which increases emphasison the service component will reduce environ-mental impacts while providing economic bene-fits. For instance, in a recent workshop organizedby Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft, and sponsored byUNEP, participants concluded that there is a needfor more training and awareness raising about thepotential of eco-design among those in the prod-uct design area. Almost echoing the expert meet-ing on Product Service Systems organized in June,participants pointed out the importance ofexploring the role of cultural adaptations in prod-uct design, increasing general awareness on thepart of business and government decision-makers,and determining which tools and instruments can

40 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

facilitate action.Addressing product service systems as a strate-

gic framework offers an opportunity to increaseefficiency and thereby “leap” to more sustainableproduction and consumption patterns. In short,replacing a product with a service does not neces-sarily allow the best solution. Sometimes optimiz-ing environmental performance, while respond-ing to consumer demands, requires a combinationof products and services. There is considerableexperience and material to draw on in developingtools in the areas of product development, eco-design and life-cycle assessment. To ensure a morecomplete approach, these concepts could be tack-led in combination with, for example, stakehold-er analysis, supply chain management and Clean-er Production.

ConclusionCP6 provided an opportunity to address the inter-relatedness of sustainable consumption andCleaner Production with high-level policy-mak-ers from throughout the world. What are the bestnext steps to address these issues efficiently?

UNEP plans to use the NCPC network toextend its consumption activities in the regions.More broadly, working within the framework ofa life-cycle economy requires focusing on bothsides of the coin – sustainable consumption andCleaner Production – to make sure the most effi-cient tools and strategies are being considered. A

life-cycle economy should be the guiding princi-ple for business and governments. There is a needto further develop and implement tools to opera-tionalize a life-cycle economy (i.e. LCA, eco-design, PS systems). Research presented in severalreports (i.e. GEO2, GEO3 and the Human Devel-opment Report from 1998) emphasizes that theEarth’s carrying capacity is already under stress asa result of current consumption patterns. This is aconcern when considering the requirements ofgenerations to come. We know there is an urgentneed to promote sustainable consumption pat-terns, which means changing lifestyles for con-sumers and the taking actions for governmentsand industry.

At CP6 it was suggested that there is a need todefine sustainable consumption clearly (e.g. bet-ter, efficient, different), especially with respect todeveloping countries. There is a need to betterunderstand consumption drivers, and to commu-nicate about them more efficiently. Consumptionpatterns should be broken down into more man-ageable segments, so that changes can be identi-fied and experiences circulated. Age-specificconsumption patterns should also be addressed indepth. Through collecting best practice examples,UNEP should disseminate information high-lighting new business opportunities in design andproduct-service systems. To address these issues,UNEP should initiate training and networkingtools (including LCA), develop a voluntary initia-

tive for the advertising industry, and engage instakeholder dialogues to generate a vision of sus-tainable consumption worldwide.

Notes1. Third Session of the Commission for Sustain-able Development (1995).2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (1997) Sustainable Development.OECD Policy Approaches for the 21st century, Paris.3. World Business Council for Sustainable Devel-opment (1998) Sustainability in the Market,Geneva.4. UNEP International Declaration on CleanerProduction (1998). See the special issue of Indus-try and Environment on Cleaner Production (Vol-ume 21, No. 4, October-December 1998),published following the Fifth International High-level Seminar at Seoul, Korea, on 29 September-1October.5. See the issue of Industry and Environment onsustainable consumption (Volume 22, No. 4,October-December 1999). In addition, seeMatthew D. Bentley, Consumer trends andexpectations: an international survey focusing onenvironmental impacts, Industry and EnvironmentVolume 23, No. 4 (October-December 2000).

For more information, contact: Anne Solgaard , Sus-tainable Consumption, UNEP DTIE, Paris([email protected]). �

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 41

Cleaner Production

Policy instruments that promote Cleaner Pro-duction are not fundamentally differentfrom other policy instruments. However,

they must be wisely conceived in order to favourpreventive rather than end-of-pipe approaches.

The Cleaner Production concept is as impor-tant for solving problems in the product and ser-vice areas as it is for addressing problems relatingto production processes at industrial facilities.Indeed, it should be understood that the successof the preventive approach largely depends on theability to mainstream the CP concept into majorpolicy areas beyond environmental policies.

You can still find people who question theseverity of environmental threats. However, thereis a general consensus on the need to deal withenvironmental problems more vigorously. Whichproblems should have priority, and how to addressthem, are much debated. It is here that moreknowledge and ideas are needed.

When consensus is reached on the need for pre-ventive action to reduce the environmental bur-den in a specific area, this message must betransferred to all decision-makers and actors

implementing the activities in question. Societytransfers such messages by formulating andputting into action various policies and strategies.Their operative content determines the sets of pol-icy instruments that will create incentives for theactors in question to change their behaviour in thenecessary direction.

The range of available policyinstrumentsIn fact, the range of policy instruments is very lim-ited. Broadly speaking, all policy instrumentscould be said to belong to one of three groups:� Regulatory (administrative or directive-based)instruments specify what various actors areallowed to do, or not to do, and how certain activ-ities should be conducted;� Economic (incentive-based) instruments createpositive or negative incentives for certain activi-ties by adjusting the financial conditions sur-rounding those activities; and� Informative (information-based) instruments arebased on the assumption that actors are notrational, owing to lack of knowledge or awareness.

They aim at compensating this deficiency throughprovision of better information.

The various policy instruments are not used inisolation. Regulatory instruments are often asso-ciated with fines for non-compliance, economicinstruments need a legal framework, and infor-mation is necessary to the implementation of alltypes of policy instruments. However, for the pur-poses of this article the definitions above will servewell.

The range of instruments available is illustratedin Figure 1. It should be noted that this is a selec-tion; all existing policy instruments are notincluded. This figure also shows a number of envi-ronmental tools such as life-cycle analysis (LCA)and environmental management systems (EMS)that could be part of policy interventions. Forinstance, a government policy could introducemandatory EMS or allow regulatory relief if com-panies introduced an EMS according to specifieddemands.

It is not only in the context of government poli-cies and international agreements that policyinstruments are of interest. Many companies andorganizations could benefit from, and have intro-duced, instruments of this type to create incen-tives for subsidiaries, departments and individualsto change their behaviour.

It should also be noted that both obligatory andvoluntary approaches are possible using the sametypes of instruments. Self-regulation and othervoluntary approaches are often attractive alterna-tives demanding fewer regulatory resources. Therehas been considerable interest in voluntary indus-try initiatives and various types of negotiated envi-ronmental agreements during the last decade.1

What is now typical of a policy instrument pro-moting Cleaner Production? The first answer isthat there is no special distinction between instru-ments promoting Cleaner Production and thosethat will lead to implementation of end-of-pipetechnologies. Most policy instruments availableto governments have the potential to lead eitherway. It is the way an instrument is used in a spe-cific case that determines whether it will provideincentives for preventive approaches. Hence, it isimportant to formulate the policy interventionand specific implementation of selected policyinstruments carefully.

Expanding the Cleaner Productionapproach beyond industrial processesProduction facilities and other types of pointsources have been the focus of most pollution

Cleaner Production: government policiesand strategies

Thomas Lindhqvist, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University, PO Box 196, Tegnersplatsen, 221000 Lund, Sweden ([email protected])

SummaryPolicy interventions in the future could bring about increased (and accelerated) adoption ofCleaner Production. A brief overview of major policy instruments in use or under developmentis presented. Generally speaking, policy instruments belong to one of three groups: regulato-ry (administrative or directive-based); economic (incentive-based); or informative (informa-tion-based). In practice these types of instruments are likely to be combined rather than appliedin isolation. Decision-makers can profit from greater knowledge of how such instruments havebeen applied in other countries.

RésuméDans le futur, l’intervention des pouvoirs publics pourrait stuimuler (et accélérer) l’adoption dela production plus propre. On trouvera ici une présentation succincte des principaux instru-ments d’action publique en usage ou à l’étude. Dans l’ensemble, les instruments d’actionpublique appartiennent à l’une des trois sphères suivantes : réglementaire (décisions admin-istratives ou directives), économique (système d’incitations) et informative (information dupublic). Dans la pratique, il est probable que ces instruments seront employés en associationplutôt qu’isolément. Les décideurs ont tout à gagner de mieux connaître leurs modes d’utili-sation dans d’autres pays.

ResumenPolíticas de intervención futuras podrían generar el aumento (y la aceleración) de la incorpo-ración de métodos de Producción más Limpia. Se presenta una breve reseña de los principalespolíticas instrumentales vigentes o en vías de desarrollo. En general, estas políticas instru-mentales pertenecen a uno de estos tres grupos: regulatorias (administrativas o basadas ennormativas); económicas (basadas en incentivos); e informativas (basadas en la información).En la práctica, este tipo de políticas instrumentales se aplican en forma conjunta y no de man-era independiente. Conocer cómo se aplican estas políticas en otros países puede beneficiar alos responsables de la toma de decisiones.

42 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

abatement (as well as Cleaner Production) activi-ties. In Sweden, significant improvements havealready been made through a mixture of differentapproaches – preventive as well as end-of-pipe.2Attention has now turned to the environmentalimpacts of products’ entire life cycles. However, itis much more difficult to quantify emissions relat-ing to usage and end-of-life management. Statis-tics have not been collected in a way that wouldfacilitate such calculations.

The problem is not simply one of statisticalparameters. There are an almost infinite numberof different products, not to mention the inher-ent (and increasing) complexity of many prod-ucts. A considerable share of the products sold inSweden are imported. Determining the relevantenvironmental properties of these products is evenmore difficult. Estimating environmental impactsis complicated by the time aspect of durable prod-ucts’ usage phase and of the impacts from, forinstance, waste disposal sites.

Figure 2 shows how the relative importance ofprocess-related emissions has diminished, whilethe level of emissions from usage and end-of-lifemanagement has continued to grow.Chromiumemissions from manufacturing facilities in Swe-den increased between the beginning of the cen-tury and approximately 1970 and then fellquickly, almost approaching zero two decadeslater. However, emissions from usage and from theend-of-life phase continued to increase through-out the entire period. After around 1970, it wasestimated that these emissions dominated thetotal for Sweden. Chromium emissions frommanufacturing were negligible in 1990.

In 1997, the Ecocycle Commission attemptedto compare the emissions of metals from pointsources with those from product use in Sweden.Point sources included manufacturing and wastetreatment facilities and sewage treatment plants.This meant that leakage from decaying productsat landfills, air emissions from the combustion of

discarded products in waste incinerators, and dis-solved products such as washing powders werecounted as emissions from point sources.

Amounts of various metals introduced intosociety in the form of new products were also esti-mated. While these figures (as wall as the figuresfor emissions from usage) were not accurate mea-surements, they were based on the best possibleestimates using available data from all relevantstudies and all relevant statistics. An attempt wasalso made to estimate the accumulated amountsof metals in Swedish society, i.e. the amounts ofvarious metals incorporated into products, includ-ing houses and roads and other infrastructure.The results are shown in Table 1.

Estimated annual emissions from point sourcesfor six of seven metals were lower (considerably soin several cases) than estimated emissions fromusage. It should be noted that amounts of thesemetals greater by one or two levels of magnitudewere introduced into the technosphere each year,and that very high amounts had already accumu-lated at that time. For almost all metals there iscontinuous accumulation, resulting in hugeamounts of future metal waste that will have to betaken care of some time.

It is important to recognize the implications ofthe information provided on environmentalimpacts of products. This means governments inindustrialized countries must direct their policyinterventions towards products and their envi-ronmental burden. It is often implied that Euro-pean governments have developed product-related environmental policies in order to createbarriers for non-European countries exportingproducts to the European market. However,acknowledging the present environmental situa-tion, it becomes evident that the Swedish govern-ment cannot ignore the fact that todayproduct-related problems are more severe thanprocess-related ones.

It can likewise be shown that governments

should pay increased attention to the services pro-vided in modern society. Service industries (e.g.tourism, transport, communications) increasing-ly dominate modern economies. Studies showthat their environmental impacts should not beneglected. However, there is also a positive mes-sage in that the Cleaner Production approach hasproven as promising for addressing service-relat-ed environmental problems as process- and prod-uct-related ones.

Review of the use of policyinstruments to promote CleanerProductionThe following is a short review of the current andprospective use of various policy instruments thatcan promote Cleaner Production in the areas ofindustrial processes, products and services. Thisreview broadly follows the list of policy instru-ments and management tools in Figure 1, begin-ning with the directive-based regulations on theright side of the figure.

Bans, permits and ambient standards are tradi-tional environmental policy approaches with along tradition in many countries. Examples arefound virtually everywhere; they are sometimesseen as the archetype of command-and-controlapproaches. In that context they are viewed as lessprogressive instruments largely favouring end-of-pipe solutions. However, as in the case of otherinstruments, it is the way a specific regulation isformulated that determines whether it will pro-mote Cleaner Production or traditional abate-ment technologies.

By definition, bans of specified substances arevery effective if they can be enforced. They canalso force a change in input material. A ban isclearly a Cleaner Production measure as long as itis not used in such a way that a banned material issubstituted by an even more harmful substance orprocess. This is obviously a risk, but it could beclaimed that this risk is more theoretical todaysince very few substances are subject to bans orsimilar restrictions. The main concern is ratherthat procedures for legitimizing a ban are sodemanding that they practically eliminate anypossibilities of using this instrument at all.

Sweden is one of the countries with the mostelaborate chemicals policies. A few substance bansare in effect, and a number of existing bans havebeen questioned in connection with Swedish EUentry. It has also been claimed that substance bansviolate free trade agreements. In the foreseeablefuture, it appears unlikely that more than a fewbans will be put in place. Many environmental-ists, recognizing the problem of identifying thelevel of danger through risk assessments, have puttheir hopes in the precautionary principle. How-ever, it seems that the present interpretation ofprecaution will not change the fact that suspectedsubstances are given the benefit of a doubt. It isthose calling for a ban who are required to provideevidence of a substance’s harmfulness – ratherthan the producer who must show it is harmless.

Proponents of Cleaner Production have point-ed to the problems of transferring emissions fromone medium to another and urged that permits

Figure 1Range of instruments for environmental policy






c inf













l rep








uct l




c Rele

ase a

nd Tr


r Reg









d sid

e man




ity re




idy re





ble p






l cha







nt st







Corrects lack of information

Changes incentives Mandates specificbehaviour



Adapted from EEA (1997): Environmental Agreements: Environmental Effectiveness.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 43

Cleaner Production

regulating emissions to air and water, and wastemanagement, be coordinated in one integratedpermit. Developments during the 1990s followedthis line in several countries, notably in the EU,where the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Preventionand Control) Directive has been implemented.The IPPC Directive has also been implementedin several countries in transition. However, it isunclear to what extent licensing authorities will beable to include Cleaner Production approaches inactual permit issuing.

Environmental charges are favoured by manypolicy analysts. The basic idea is simple: to inter-nalize external costs and thus obtain prices thatinclude full costs. Transferring theory into prac-tice has turned out to be too difficult in severalways. Calculating generally acceptable estimatesof externalized effects is still not an easy task,despite decades of attempts. Further, the politicalwill to implement environmental charges at levelsthat reflect external costs has not existed in mostcountries. Instead, there is a general feeling thatmost environmental charges have been designedmore to provide revenue for governments than tocreate effective incentives for change.

It is often suggested that revenue from environ-mental charges could be used to finance demon-stration projects or similar activities, preferablyfocusing on Cleaner Production strategies. Theintroduction of an environmental charge wouldtherefore have a double effect: a negative incentivewith respect to the activity subject to the charge,and a positive one for the Cleaner Productionmeasure being promoted. However, most envi-ronmental charges are not designed in this way,and there is not a general consensus among econ-omists and policy analysts that it is a preferableway to implement environmental charges. Thus,many environmental charges ought to be calledenvironmental taxes.

The means by which environmental chargeshave been developed in some countries in recentyears indicates a shift in the basic idea of how thesecharges should be designed. Instead of determin-ing the level of the charge based on an evaluationof externalized effects, it is argued that the levelshould be adjusted to secure a shift towards apolitically determined goal. In this way the prob-lem of deciding the value of the externalizedeffects is avoided. It is replaced by a process thatcould incorporate existing cost information andother relevant social concerns.

With respect to both regulations and econom-ic instruments, the enforcement of existing legisla-tion is one of the main problems in manycountries. Economic instruments such as envi-ronmental charges, for instance, require a moni-toring system that accurately measures emissionssubject to the charges. Poor enforcement systemsrisk perverting the steering effects associated withenvironmental charges.

A considerable problem is posed by the risk ofcorruption. Poorly paid inspectors are tempted toaccept bribes. When legislation/regulationsdemand unachievable emission limits, as in someof the countries in transition, all incentives forcompanies to reduce emissions are destroyed.

There is no way to avoid paying the inspectors. Marketable permits have the potential to ensure

that measures aimed at reducing environmentalimpacts are selected in the most cost-efficient way.Such trading systems were much discussed in the1990s, but few have been implemented in prac-tice. Joint Implementation and Clean DevelopmentMechanisms are examples of strategies that showthe growing interest in this approach.

In many countries, the most prominent oppor-tunities to create economic incentives for imple-menting Cleaner Production concern variousforms of subsidy removal. Prices for energy, waterand waste management are often low because ofhidden subsidies. Experience in Central Europeancountries has shown that adjusting energy prices,for instance, has led to substantial savings in ener-gy use in companies as well as in service-provid-ing organizations.

The risks of removing traditional subsidiesshould be noted. Industries accustomed to subsi-

dized price levels for energy or water may beunable to adjust to sudden price rises. Inefficien-cies associated with lower prices can be firmlyimplanted in the technologies used by companiesand in the industry’s management routines. Manyindustries (e.g. in economies in transition anddeveloping countries) have found that majorefforts are required to convert processes based onenergy, water and raw materials subsidies so thatthey are competitive when the subsidies areremoved. Cleaner Production offers solutions tominimize the problems with such transitions, butthey could still be painful and demand a wellplanned transition period.

Liability can be a powerful direct economicincentive to move away from polluting technolo-gies and unsafe products towards Cleaner Pro-duction. Several countries have found thatenforcing strict liability – meaning firms are heldresponsible for all the environmental damage theycause, even if they have fulfilled their legal obliga-

Table 1Point emissions of metals in Sweden in comparison to emissions by usage,

virgin material used for new products, and total accumulated amounts in the techno sphere

Metal Point emissions to Emissions at Virgin material Accumulated in air and water usage in products society

(tonnes/year 1992) (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) (tonnes)

Aluminium 130,000 3,000,000

Lead 400 3600 30,000 2,200,000

Iron/steel 1 - 2,000,000 >35,000,000

Copper 100 600-1100 100,000 3,500,000

Chromium 40 760-940 50,000 2,000,000

Nickel 60 4-40 10,000 400,000

Zinc 1000 1100-1400 40,000 2,500,000

Mercury 1 4 14 9000

Cadmium 3 0.12-50 170 5000

The Ecocycle Commission report points to the considerable uncertainties in the estimates of many of the figures for emissionsby usage and for accumulation. Source: Ecocycle Commission (1997)

Figure 2Estimated chromium emissions in Sweden, 1910-90

Total emissions





1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990


Usage and end-of-life

Ecocycle Commission (1997) Strategi för kretsloppsanpassade material och varor (Strategy for material and products adapted for ecocycles). Kretsloppsdelegationensrapport 1997:14. Stockholm: Kretsloppsdelegationen, Miljödepartementet, Figure 21:3, p. 359.

44 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

tions – often leads to attempts to minimize risksand take preventive measures. The success of suchliability systems depends on the effectiveness ofthe enforcement and legal system in the countryconcerned. This limits their applicability in manycountries.

Green public procurement programmes can beimplemented in all countries. Experience in sev-eral countries shows that government purchasingcan provide powerful signals for product develop-ment if systematically used to promote environ-mental improvements. There is also an effect onmajor purchasers in industry and other organiza-tions. Finally, through these programmes, betterenvironmentally adapted products become avail-able to individual consumers as well.

Efficient environmental protection measuresmay not be implemented owing to lack of knowl-edge and awareness. Policies promoting publicawareness and education are therefore of fundamen-tal importance, and are the basis for all long-termchanges in society. They can include demonstrationand Design for Environment (DfE) projects. How-ever, the speed with which preventive approacheshave been disseminated following successfuldemonstrations has been rather discouraging.

In the last decade, a number of managementtools to enhance the environmental performanceof companies have been developed, or at leastmatured, and disseminated in industry. Theseinclude eco-audits, environmental management sys-tems, environmental reporting and life-cycle assess-ment. As of today, it can be observed that these toolshave been introduced as voluntary industryapproaches. However, there is growing interest inexploring how such tools can be incorporated intogovernmental policy-making. Ireland’s implemen-tation of the IPPC Directive is in an interesting wayto incorporate mandatory EMS and reportingrequirements. In the summer of 2000, Denmarkpresented a system of environmental charges forpackaging materials based on a life-cycle assessmentmodel for such materials. Further introduction ofthese tools into government policy measures, vol-untary as well as mandatory, can be expected.Adopting international standards for EMS andLCA facilitates inclusion of these tools in variousregulations and incentive-based directives.

Eco-labelling was introduced in Germany overtwo decades ago. During the last decade, eco-labelling schemes have spread to a number ofcountries in most parts of the world. Systems existin all types of economies. However, the real suc-cess of these schemes is limited to a few countries,mainly in Northern Europe. In most other coun-tries the existing systems are experiencing consid-erable problems getting established and aresometimes ignored by the main clients, that is, theproducers of the products to be labelled. In India,only single manufacturers have shown interest inthe national eco-labelling system and such labelsare, in practice, non-existent. Sweden has had theopposite experience. It is difficult to get someproducts on the shelves of shops if they are notlabelled with either the common Nordic eco-label(the White Swan)3or the eco-label awarded by theSwedish Society for Nature Conservation. In a

country like Sweden, it is evident that such eco-labelling can only marginally influence the coun-try’s total environmental burden. Stronger policyinstruments are needed as a complement.

Various forms of voluntary approaches haveattracted considerable attention in environmen-tal policy discussions during recent years. Negoti-ated Environmental Agreements (NEAs) are aparticular form of “co-regulatory” policy instru-ments, distinct from other co-regulatory instru-ments such as unilateral industry commitmentsand public voluntary programmes. NEAs (some-times also known as industry “covenants”) areagreements reached following a process of negoti-ation between two or more parties – with at leastone party from the public sector and one from thebusiness/industry community – that results in acommitment formally recognized by governmentauthorities and subject to sanctions and/or posi-tive incentives, with a view to achieving certainagreed objectives for improved environmentalperformance within the affected business orindustry sector(s).

NEAs started to gain prominence during theearly 1990s. They have been concluded through-out most OECD countries and increasingly indeveloping countries, particularly in Latin Amer-ica. They have been used to address a range of pol-icy issues, including product related concerns,pollution and energy efficiency targets, andreporting requirements. In the EU, the majorityof NEAs relate to waste management or climatechange issues. They are increasingly being intro-duced in developing countries. More experienceis needed before solid conclusions can be drawnconcerning the potential for voluntary approach-es in various fields of environmental policy, as wellas in various geographical, political and econom-ical settings.

Just as the EU’s IPPC Directive is an exampleof a comprehensive approach to regulating envi-ronmental impacts from production facilities, theIntegrated Product Policy (IPP) concept is the newcomprehensive approach to product-related envi-ronmental problems. It has been noted by gov-ernments of EU Member States, as well as by theEuropean Commission, that it would be benefi-cial to coordinate the various policy interventionsfor a specific product range in a comprehensivepolicy framework. Without such an approach,there is a risk that instruments that contradicteach other and provide unwanted synergisticeffects will be introduced by governments. TheIPP concept has been introduced into Europeanpolicy discussions in the last couple of years. Itsfurther development is still not clear.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a poli-cy principle for promoting total life-cycle environ-mental improvements of product systems throughextending the responsibilities of the product man-ufacturer to various stages of the product’s entirelife cycle, especially to take-back, recycling and finaldisposal. Shifting responsibility for products’ end-of-life management from consumers and authori-ties concerned with waste management tomanufacturers (who can actually and most effec-tively change product characteristics) would make

them aware of issues relating to end-of-life man-agement of their products, including the costinvolved. This feedback loop between downstream(waste management) and upstream (design ofproducts) is the core of EPR. It is instrumental inimproving the design of products and product sys-tems, so that the environmental impact of a prod-uct is reduced during the entire life cycle.

Under an EPR programme, producers haveresponsibilities such as covering the cost of end-of-life management of their products ( financialresponsibility), being involved in the take-back oftheir products (physical responsibility), andinforming waste managers of the content of theirwaste (informative responsibility). Types ofresponsibilities include: take-back of end-of-lifeproducts; establishment of take-back sites/infra-structure for products’ end-of-life management;meeting recycling/recovery targets; environmen-tally sound treatment of end-of-life products; ban-ning use of certain materials; and providinginformation on producer responsibility to con-sumers, on product content to treatment facilities,and on operations to authorities. Concrete meansof meeting the responsibilities assigned to respec-tive parties are often left up to the producers, as itis assumed they will do so in the most cost-effec-tive manner.

EPR implementation will also encourage a shifttowards providing the functions of products moreefficiently. This could be the necessary push for ashift towards product-service systems. It will def-initely enhance the interest in re-manufacturingactivities in an industry that is manufacturing andproviding complex products. An EPR system,with full responsibilities allocated to the originalmanufacturers, will make the business opportuni-ties connected to such re-manufacturing andproduct-service approaches more visible and com-prehensible for industrial entrepreneurs.

EPR can provide a financing solution for a gov-ernment that wants to improve waste manage-ment and recycling standards. Contrary to thetraditional means of financing such activities,EPR provides the possibility of not raising taxesand municipal charges. This is attractive, and rel-evant, in developing countries and economies intransition, as well as in OECD countries. Here isan explanation for the growing interest in EPR.

Finally, a number of governments have devel-oped national strategies or policy statements relatingto Cleaner Production, waste minimizationand/or energy efficiency. Their role is to serve as aguiding framework for integrated development ofpolicy instruments promoting preventive envi-ronmental management practices. In addition tovarious national and regional strategies, severalgovernments have also signed the UNEP Interna-tional Declaration on Cleaner Production, an inter-national strategic policy statement for CleanerProduction.

Potential, opportunities andconstraintsImplementation of policies, strategies and instru-ments will be decisive for the success of CleanerProduction. There is still a huge potential for pol-

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 45

Cleaner Production

icy interventions, as this is generally an undevel-oped area in most countries. The necessary instru-ments and tools largely exist and are known topolicy analysts. However, it will be necessary toform policy interventions in new ways so that pre-ventive solutions to environmental problemsreceive the greatest support. Experience in creat-ing efficient policies exists, but knowledge of suc-cessful experiences and of problems encounteredought to be disseminated in a better way.

Brave political decisions are required in orderto implement mandatory policy instrumentsdespite the lobbying of groups that oppose them.Lack of awareness of the urgency of making suchdecisions might explain the slow developmentobserved in most cases, not least where interna-tional agreements are needed. The quest for eco-nomic development, and the interpretation ofhow free trade regimes should be developed in thiscontext, risk alienating large groups of citizensfrom policy-makers and undermining confidence

in international organizations. Mechanisms forapproaching problems relating to products andservices, which may have trade implications, mustbe developed, as evidence from several industrial-ized countries shows that the future challenge forpolicy-makers is to be found in these areas.

Voluntary approaches to forming policies incountries have attracted a lot of attention. Theyhave been promoted as an efficient way to achieveenvironmental improvements. However, volun-tary approaches must still demonstrate that theycan replace mandatory regulations, and that theydo not simply constitute the only alternative whenmore efficient approaches are blocked by decision-makers’ lack of willingness to act.

Notes1. See, for example, the special double issue ofIndustry and Environment devoted to voluntaryinitiatives (Vol. 21, No. 1-2, January-June 1998).2. Swedish Ministry of the Environment (1991)

Hur mår Sverige? – en rapport om miljösituationen(How Is Sweden Doing? – A report on the envi-ronmental situation). Bilaga A till regeringensproposition 1990/91:90. Stockholm: Miljöde-partementet, p. 178.3. The Nordic label is used in Denmark, Finland,Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

The author worked on the revision of UNEP’s docu-ment on Government Strategies and Policies forCleaner Production in the spring and summer of2000. This work was carried out together withVladimir Dobes, Jonathon Hanks and Naoko Tojo.colleagues at the International Institute for Industri-al Environmental Economics (IIIEE). The author isdeeply indebted to them for much of the input to thisarticle, in the form of ideas and facts, as well as textsdescribing particular instruments and examples ofpolicy implementation.

Japan’s Specified Home Appliance Recycling (SHAR) Law

Manufacturers and importers of four categories of home appliances (largetelevision sets, air conditioners, washing machines and refrigerators) arenow required to take back discarded products they manufactured, dis-mantle them, and recover components and material that can be reused orrecycled. Differentiated recycling rate requirements of 50-60% by weightare set for these products. The requirements should be met through prod-uct reuse, component reuse and material recycling with a positive monetaryvalue. Environmentally sound treatment of printed circuit boards in TVsets is also required, under Japan’s Waste Management Law.

Beginning in 2001, retailers (who had already been taking back approx-imately 80% of these appliances) are required by law to take back old prod-ucts when they sell similar new ones, and to take back products they

themselves have sold. Local governments will collect those products notcovered by retailers. End-users are responsible for covering the costs of end-of-life management of the products they discard.

The SHAR Law, enacted in 1998 and fully enforceable in 2001, is thesecond EPR programme in Japan that legally assigns part of the responsi-bility for end-of-life product management to manufacturers. Scarcity offinal disposal sites, increased amounts of electrical and electronic equip-ment (EEE) in the waste stream, and the inadequacy of existing treatmentplants (managed by local governments) to handle EEE are the main dri-ving forces behind this law’s enactment.

This case study was compiled by Naoko Tojo, IIIEE, for the revised UNEPdocument on Government Strategies and Policies for Cleaner Production.

46 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Policy and planning: a holistic approach to promoting Cleaner ProductionWarren Evans, Manager, Environment Division, Asian Development Bank (ADB), PO Box 789, 0980 Manila, Philippines ([email protected])

Richard Stevenson, Consultant, Mantaray Management LLC, 27126 Wapiti Drive, Evergreen, Colorado 804396, USA ([email protected])

Over 50 organizations with international operations are currently spend-ing many millions of dollars annually to promote Cleaner Production andrelated initiatives in Asia. Most national governments now fund their ownCleaner Production promotion programmes. The extent of concern overthe impacts of industry and other economic activities on human health,and the sustainability of the environment and natural resources, is evidentfrom the breadth of involved organizations. There is also a consensus, evi-dent in the number of programmes specifically promoting Cleaner Pro-duction, that together with innovative and enforceable environmentalstandards and regulations, Cleaner Production is a key means to reduce pol-lution and conserve natural resources.

Yet the result of all this activity remains disappointing, and Cleaner Pro-duction practices are not spreading as rapidly as hoped, especially amongsmall and medium enterprises. It appears that in the developing economiespollution and resource consumption intensities per unit of production arenot falling as rapidly as total production is rising. Continuation of this pat-tern will mean that the rapid economic growth anticipated for the nextdecade in Asia and other newly industrializing areas will bring increasingrisk to human health and continuing environmental deterioration anddepletion of natural resources, and may well threaten collapse of urbaninfrastructure in many of the large, already stressed urban centres in thedeveloping world.

Obstacles to rapid adoption of CPThere are many cultural and economic obstacles to rapid adoption of Clean-er Production. Even collectively, however, they do not seem to account forthe slow spread of Cleaner Production practices considering the advantagesthey offer and the substantial expenditure of resources for promotion pro-grammes. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has observed in its workthat two key conditions are generally missing and may account for thesepoor results. Most programmes to promote Cleaner Production have failedto address either:� the underlying policy framework that could provide critical incentives forchange; or�the integrated national planning needed to focus actions and utilizeresources efficiently in order to achieve the rapid spread of Cleaner Pro-duction.

These programmes consist of collections of useful actions to build capac-ity and awareness, but they have usually been selected episodically, withoutreference to any overall perspective of national goals or the conditionsrequired to achieve widespread voluntary change.

The attention of both international donors and the many local organi-zations and governments with which they cooperate in promoting CleanerProduction has been directed almost exclusively to business itself, largelyignoring the important roles of both government and civil society in bring-ing about change. Their approach has been based on the belief that if infor-mation, skills and financing are made available, and industry leaders are

shown directly how Cleaner Production can help them, many firms willsoon seek the available resources and emulate the leaders. In a fully rationalworld, and with perfect access to information, that might work. But thoseconditions are not found in either the industrialized countries or the devel-oping world.

Moreover, experience in many demonstration programmes has shownthat if they have a free choice, businesses usually prefer to use resources toexpand production and sales rather than to increase efficiency even whenthe latter clearly offers a greater net profit. This appears to be a fundamen-tal orientation of business around the globe. In many situations firms havebeen observed to change location to escape regulatory and community pres-sures, even when increased efficiency through Cleaner Production offereda more profitable solution. This behaviour may seem completely irrational,and as such it points up a fundamental issue that has seldom been addressedin the last decade of efforts to promote CP.

The challenge is to change the perspective and behaviour of decision-makers. To do so, one must alter the conditions in which they make theirdecisions, including the array of rewards and penalties they confront fromgovernment, the technical and managerial resources available to them, andpressures that may be exerted on them by civil society. Only from a holisticperspective can one hope to choose the most effective set of initiatives fromthe limited available resources. Without strategic planning it is almostimpossible to develop a holistic view, and without integrated action plan-ning it is unlikely that the chosen objectives can be achieved with the lim-ited resources available.

Most programmes to promote Cleaner Production have failed to addressthe underlying policy framework and the integrated national planningneeded to use resources efficiently and to achieve the rapid spread of Clean-er Production. Even where public policy development has been part of apromotion programme, it has been seen as secondary to information, train-ing and demonstration. Moreover, deeply ingrained bureaucratic territori-ality and an exaggerated sense of sovereign prerogative have been aformidable barrier to any efforts, domestic or foreign, to suggest how pub-lic policy can be used to further the cause of CP.

Governments of developing economies are focused on economic growth.They generally have not seen Cleaner Production or related concepts as anational policy issue. While they see protecting the environment and pub-lic health, industrial growth, and promoting trade and investment as poli-cy issues, and have established corresponding policy agendas, they tend toregard Cleaner Production as a technical solution to be addressed by busi-ness, not by government. Consequently, environmental policies remaininconsistent with industrial development and investment promotion poli-cies, and CP concepts have not been mainstreamed in the public policiesof the many aspects of economic activity that impact the environment andnatural resource base.

Much of the enormous collective effort to reduce industrial pollution andpromote Cleaner Production in Asia has focused on one or more of an array

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 47

Cleaner Production

of specific initiatives, from market-based instruments to plant demonstra-tions, from greening the supply chain to access to financing, and on to along list of worthwhile but narrowly and exclusively business focused solu-tions. In the wake of the failures of planned economies, the concepts of plan-ning have fallen out of favour. Few countries have attempted comprehensiveplanning for the promotion of Cleaner Production. Most donor and nation-al programmes have therefore failed to address the issues from a holistic viewof the problem, or to choose their initiatives strategically to achieve a broadand clearly articulated goal. Instead, national programmes are collectionsof intuitively selected actions, often reflecting individual local agendas andthe perspectives of various donors. Without the national strategic planningthat could focus and orchestrate available resources, and the mainstream-ing of CP concepts and objectives into the policy agendas of the many rel-evant sectors of government and the economy, there has been little basis toexpect widespread adoption of CP.

Guidelines on use of public policy and stategic and actionplanning to promote CPThe Asian Development Bank, in recent work to assist selected membernations directly in the formulation of policy agendas and strategic and actionplans for promotion of Cleaner Production, has observed that in many sec-tors use of policy instruments to promote Cleaner Production, and the inte-gration of Cleaner Production concepts in policy agendas, is often not wellunderstood. Moreover, basic concepts of strategic planning and action plan-ning have been overlooked or poorly understood, with the result that effortsto plan for the promotion of Cleaner Production often lack defined objec-tives and any clear strategy of how to achieve objectives or how to measureprogress.

The ADB, in collaboration with UNEP, UNIDO, the United States-AsiaEnvironmental Programme and the Asia-Pacific Roundtable for CleanerProduction, has therefore undertaken to develop and publish a handbook ofguidelines on using public policy and strategic and action planning to pro-mote Cleaner Production. The purpose of this publication is to give policymakers and policy influencers a practical set of guidelines for use of policyinstruments and planning tools, so that they can guide government and civilsociety to a proactive role in achieving the most rapid introduction of Clean-er Production possible with the available resources.

The guidelines give a brief introduction to Cleaner Production, what itmeans, and its importance, especially to rapidly industrializing economies.They do not attempt to explain in detail how to implement CP. Theyassume that the reader is a policy maker or influencer rather than a techni-cian, is already at least interested in doing something to cause CP principlesto be adopted, and would like to understand how the government and themany other stakeholders can take an active role and what tools are available.

The guidelines address how to find more resources through inclusion ofstakeholders that are often overlooked with regard to CP, thereby also spread-ing Cleaner Production into other areas of economic activity. Many assumethat CP applies only to manufacturing or industry and resist applying theprinciples in other sectors. However, the principles of Cleaner Productionare increasingly being applied in the way any organized activity sources its

inputs and produces and delivers products or services. Examples in businessinclude agriculture, transportation, tourism, energy, medical services, bank-ing, education and many more, and governments at all levels can apply CPin the way they operate their facilities and deliver services to their citizens.

The guidelines explain the importance of including a broad spectrum ofstakeholders in the planning process, both in order to spread concepts andpractice of CP to these sectors, and to identify common interests and theresources that these other sectors may be able to make available to a nation-al collaborative effort to promote CP. They discuss how to identify all stake-holders, and the importance of including them at all levels of decision-making. It is essential that a national plan be more than a government plan,and that the many stakeholders see themselves as valuable peers in the plan-ning process and in its implementation.

It is also pointed out that for CP to become entrenched in any sector, therelevant principles must be incorporated into the public policy agenda thatguides the sector. As a creator of policy, it is here that government must playa critical proactive role. That role can be at any level, from the highestnational body to the smallest community council.

On a more tactical level, the guidelines review the many policy tools thathave been used to promote CP and suggest some new ideas. The tools arepresented in menus according to five basic categories: regulatory, econom-ic/financial, information/education, voluntary programmes and trans-parency. Each tool’s type of application is described, as well as the keyministries (environment, industry and finance) that might find it most use-ful. Finally, examples of policy agendas are suggested for key ministries toillustrate how the tools might best be used in combination. Recognizingthat any actual selection will be different for every economy and culture,the guidelines attempt to provide useful examples that can help the policymaker unfamiliar with the subject make the transition from the theoreticalto the tangible.

The guidelines are intended to be a practical tool to encourage and helppolicy makers to build a proactive role for government through creatingconditions in which private sector decision-makers and operating elementsof government will all see Cleaner Production as in their best interest. Pub-lishing these guidelines, however, is only a small part of the difficult job ofengineering change. While each of those who collaborated producing theguidelines will surely promote their use, a larger consensus is needed amongdonors and government leaders that Cleaner Production is a key to sustain-able development, and that it requires an active role by government throughstrategic planning and policy integration.

A new paradigm is needed in respect to the way we all approach the pro-motion of Cleaner Production. Donors and national leaders should com-municate ideas among themselves and seek ways to collaborate to achievegreater results. Moreover, a dynamic voice is required in each region to pressfor active national policies, and to be the teacher and transfer point of expe-rience within a region and globally. This role is perhaps best carried out byregional roundtables, such as the Asia-Pacific Round Table for Cleaner Pro-duction. However it is done, active policy and planning roles for govern-ment remain the keys and necessary conditions if sustainable developmentis to be achieved through Cleaner Production.

48 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

The UN Industrial Development Organiza-tion (UNIDO) and UNEP established theNational Cleaner Production Centres

(NCPC) Programme in 1994. Since then, withUNEP’s assistance, UNIDO has established 19centres in developing countries and countries withtransition economies in Africa, Asia, Europe andLatin America.1 A sector-specific Cleaner Pro-duction centre was created in Russia in 1999,focusing on the oil and gas industry. UNIDO hasundertaken CP projects in India, Uzbekistan,Croatia and Macedonia. It is possible that centreswill be established in some of these countries at alater date.

The basic premise of the NCPC Programme isthat CP can only be sustained in a country if thecapacity is in place for its adoption. Understand-ing and application of CP cannot come aboutunless the concept is promoted by professionals inthe beneficiary country itself and adjusted bythem to local conditions. Building the capacity todo this is the programme’s main objective.

The NCPC Programme primarily targets thetransfer of know-how rather than of technology.Centres, and the CP assessors they have trained,do not deliver ready-made solutions. Instead, theytrain and advise their clients on how to find thebest solutions to specific problems.During thethree to five years it takes for UNIDO to fullyestablish its centres, this capacity-building role is

carried out by offering six basic services: � awareness-raising; � training;� technical assistance;� assistance in obtaining investments for cleanertechnologies;� dissemination of technical information; and� policy advice.

As the NCPCs mature, they modify their menuof services to fit local conditions and to maximizetheir financial sustainability once they are inde-pendent of UNIDO oversight. In order to maxi-mize the success of the transition to self-sustain-ability, UNIDO has its centres prepare andperiodically update a business plan. To date, sixNCPCs – in Brazil, China, the Czech Republic,India, Mexico and the United Republic of Tanza-nia – have successfully made this transition toindependence. A seventh, in Zimbabwe, is well onits way to achieving financial stability.

Other centres have been established in the sameregions by USAID, the World EnvironmentCouncil and the Swiss State Secretariat for Eco-nomic Affairs (SECO). In a recent trend, coun-tries themselves have established centres. The newCleaner Production centre in Chile is an example.While generally quite similar to NCPCs, thesecentres can differ in some significant aspects,notably regarding the importance given to tech-nology transfer rather than transfer of know-how.

Centres’ potential to deliver CPAn important part of the work undertaken by theUNIDO/UNEP network of NCPCs (and othersuch centres) is promoting the use of method-ological tools to help users systematically identifyand assess the CP options available to them.Enterprises are the primary target users, but othergroups are also targeted. It has been shown thatwhen enterprises use these assessment method-ologies they lead to economic as well as environ-mental benefits – the basis of CP.

The work of the NCPCs has also confirmed that,despite its evident economic benefits, applicationof the CP concept by small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs) – the NCPCs’ core client base –does not occur easily on economic merit alone.There is a need for a mechanism in these countriesthat deliberately and continuously supports SMEs’efforts to adopt CP. The potential clearly exists fornational centres to be this mechanism.

Opportunities to act as CP deliverymechanisms Demonstration projects and other awareness-rais-ing activities, together with training, have histor-ically been the most important of the six basicservices NCPCs now offer. The reason lies in thethinking behind the original planning of the pro-gramme. It was believed that one major reasonSMEs did not take advantage of CP’s obviousbenefits was that they were simply unaware of theconcept and its advantages. Therefore, awareness-raising activities, especially demonstration pro-jects, were considered a major opportunity forNCPCs.

It was also believed that this unawareness wasto some extent due to the fact that methodologi-cal tools that could assist SMEs identify and assessCP options were not available to them. Trainingwas therefore considered a second importantopportunity. Finally, recognizing that environ-mental policies (laws and regulations), if not craft-ed properly, could discourage enterprises fromadopting CP (or at least not encourage them asmuch as they potentially might), policy advice wasconsidered another, although less important,opportunity.

With more experience, it was recognized thatother opportunities were available to centres. First,they should attempt to offer advice on policiesthat were not “environmental” (i.e. prepared andimplemented by an environmental agency). Forinstance, government policies to subsidize energyand raw material costs are an obvious disincentive

National centres: delivering Cleaner Production

Edward Clarence-Smith, Cleaner Production and Environmental Management Branch, NCPC Programme, UNIDO, Room D 1286, Vienna International Centre, PO Box 300, A-1400 Vienna, Austria ([email protected])

SummaryWith five years of experience behind it, UNIDO recently carried out assessments of a numberof projects and centres with respect to their effectiveness as CP delivery mechanisms. The activ-ities of six of the mature centres in the UNIDO/UNEP NCPC network (Brazil, China, the CzechRepublic, Hungary, Mexico and Slovakia) were evaluated, as were some CP demonstrationprojects.

RésuméFort de ses cinq années d’expérience, l’ONUDI a récemment évalué l’efficacité de certains pro-jets et centres pour la diffusion de la production plus propre. A cet effet, il a analysé les activ-ités de six Centres nationaux de production plus propre du réseau conjoint de l’ONUDI et duPNUE (NCPC) parmi les mieux rodés (Brésil, Chine, République tchèque, Hongrie, Mexique etSlovaquie). Il a également mis au point quelques projets de démonstration du principe de pro-duction plus propre.

ResumenRespaldado por cinco años de experiencia, Unido recientemente evaluó diversos proyectos ycentros para determinar su efectividad como dispositivos de distribución de CP. Se evaluaronlas actividades de los centros más desarrollados de la red UNIDO/UNEP NCP (Brasil, China,República Checa, Hungría, México y Eslovaquia), y algunos modelos de demostración de CP.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 49

Cleaner Production

to CP, as they reduce the costs of inputs. This fieldis in flux, as more attention is devoted to betterunderstanding the full range of public policiesthat could affect enterprises’ CP decisions. As cen-tres have built up their expertise and becomeknown by industry as centres of excellence for CP,individual enterprises have come to them for help,increasing the opportunities to offer technicalassistance and information. This has also becomean important way for centres to ensure their ownfinancial sustainability.

More recently, it has been recognized thatenterprises’ inability to raise money for neededinvestments in CP is a major barrier to adoptionof cleaner technologies, especially by SMEs. At thepolicy level, attention is now being given to mech-anisms to help finance CP investments.

Another trend that has become noticeable overthe years is that NCPCs have begun offering ser-vices, including those involving environmentalmanagement systems (EMS) such as ISO 14001,energy efficiency programmes and life-cycle analy-sis, that go beyond the centres’ original scope.This has proved so useful that all new centres arebeing trained from the start in EMS. A few cen-tres are exploring the possibility of linking CPwith quality systems and health and safety man-agement systems.

Constraints faced by centresOver the last year, with five years of activity nowbehind it, UNIDO has reviewed projects and cen-tres to assess their successes and failures. An eval-uation of the activities of six of the more maturecentres in the NCPC network (Brazil, China, theCzech Republic, Hungary, Mexico and Slovakia)has been carried out,2 supplemented by twoUNIDO evaluations of CP demonstration pro-jects.3,4 While there is still room for more in-depth evaluations, some preliminary conclusionscan be drawn.

The need to ensure financial self-sustainability One of the most important constraints onNCPCs is the need to quickly become financiallyself-sustainable. Most donors will not fund a cen-tre for over five years, and often not more thanthree. The NCPCs have a small “window ofopportunity” in which to create a sufficient mar-ket for themselves, and this is hard. In at least onecase where donor funding did not continue afteran initial three-year period, a centre came close tocollapsing. It was only saved by being appendedto a broader CP project in that country, which wasfunded bilaterally.

Experience teaches us that developing a CP“culture” is slow in countries with economies intransition, and still slower in developing countries.It takes time to build up the critical mass of hands-on experience and “success stories” necessary togive centres the credibility they need with respectto managers of SMEs on one hand and govern-ment officials (or other potential clients) on theother. A market for CP services can only be creat-ed slowly. It may never be large enough to coverall the centre’s costs. Certainly it will not cover

activities that are not commercially interesting,even if they are useful for promoting CP.

Centres need to tap into other sources of fund-ing. Programmatic support funds provided bylocal stakeholders are one possibility. Such fundsalready exist, mainly as in-kind support, but thissource is quite modest and unlikely to grow.Funds from other international donors, in theform of projects on CP or related topics, are theother potential source. Centres are following upquite successfully on this source.

The net result is that mature centres (those nolonger receiving funding from UNIDO) oftencannot undertake all the activities they considernecessary to continue promoting CP at an ade-quate level of intensity. They tend to shy awayfrom activities that are good for the country butnot marketable. This can make them less a nation-al institution for CP promotion, and more simplya consulting company. Centres also tend to lookfor other marketable opportunities in related fields,such as environmental management systems. Thiscan actually be a very positive development, sincethe best way to promote CP is to promote the CPphilosophy in as many different contexts as possi-ble. However, there is an increased risk that, underconstant pressure to survive, centres will eventual-ly drift off into services that have little if any realconnection with CP.

A second important constraint is linked to theself-sustainability issue. The centres’ primary aimis to develop the local ownership and capacity nec-essary to promote CP, without which CP adop-tion cannot become sustainable. But this goalthreatens to undermine the parallel pursuit offinancial self-sufficiency. Local ownership requirescentres to “give away” to other parties in the coun-try the knowledge and skills they have gained inthe CP area. Financial self-sufficiency pushesthem to do the opposite, hoarding their knowl-edge and skills so as to make themselves moremarketable. Examples of the tension betweenthese two goals are already being reported by themature centres, which find themselves in compe-tition with consultants who have been trained bythem.

Quite how to “square the circle” in this case isnot absolutely clear. The general consensus is thatthis can only be done if centres take it upon them-selves to stay at the cutting edge of the discipline,one step ahead of the competition, supported bytheir stakeholders. Many mature centres arealready doing this. Their entry into new servicesrelated to CP is surely due, at least in part, to thedesire to remain at the front. For this to work, how-ever, centres need to be part of a good network thatkeeps them abreast, rapidly and efficiently, of thelatest trends. The current UNIDO/UNEP net-work is not really designed to do that. There is alsothe danger that, in their search for competitiveadvantage, centres will shift their focus to areaswith little if anything to do with CP.

Limitations of centres’ activitiesIn general, centres have succeeded with the pro-jects that were designed to establish them. Never-theless, they have faced certain limitations.

Demonstration projectsDemonstration projects undertaken by centres areconsidered very important to industry’s accep-tance of the CP concept. Simply put, enterpriseswill not believe until they actually see CP inaction. It would therefore be expected that enter-prises participating in demonstration projectswould continue with CP after the projects werecompleted, and that other enterprises would beconvinced to adopt CP by the results.

Two recent studies suggest that results havebeen mixed.3,4 While at least some enterprisesdirectly involved in demonstration projects havecontinued with their CP activities after the pro-jects ended, others have not. This could partlyresult from the fact that demonstration projectswere not carried out in the context of a CleanerProduction centre that could continue pushingthe enterprises when the projects were over. How-ever, even more important is a very fundamental,unavoidable constraint in the concept of CleanerProduction centres, which can only put the nec-essary tools in the hands of those who will actual-ly implement CP. The centres do not implementCP themselves. As the saying goes, “You can bringa horse to water but you cannot make it drink.”Many other factors, in addition to lack of aware-ness or lack of tools, determine whether an enter-prise will make a long-term commitment to CP.A not insignificant failure factor is therefore to beexpected.

It appears that demonstration projects have hadlimited success in persuading non-involved enter-prises to begin CP activities on their own. Successseems to have been greater where these projectsleft, as a “residue”, a “champion” for CP (e.g. lead-ers of the Waste Minimization Circles in India,the municipalities involved in municipal-basedCP assessments in Central Europe). These “cham-pions” could perform the task of persuading andcajoling companies to continue down the CPpath.

The value of demonstration projects is not onlyin their demonstration value per se. They also givecentres and their core external consultants trainingon the practical application of CP concepts, as wellas the promotional material needed to marketthemselves and their services to enterprises. By car-rying out demonstration projects, centres bringabout real quantifiable benefits: financial benefitsfor the enterprises taking part, and benefits for theenvironment as a whole. Valid as these benefits are,demonstration projects must effectively respondto their core requirement, which is to demonstrateto enterprises the value of adopting CP. If they donot, then some rethinking is needed.

TrainingThe situation is unclear with respect to the finalvalue of the training given. In the past, centres’training activities were focused on company per-sonnel taking part in the demonstration projects,and on external consultants who could then takepart in in-plant assessments or offer other CP ser-vices. The fact that some enterprises participatingin demonstration projects continued with CPactivities shows that at least some of the trained

50 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

company staff used their training, so that long-term value was delivered. However, there is astrong element of chance concerning whether anenterprise will continue down the CP path. Tosome extent, centres can only launch enterprisesdown that path and then hope for the best.

The limited evidence available seems to showthat consultants trained by centres as CP assessorshave not had their services requested by compa-nies to any great extent. This suggests that centresmay be “putting the cart before the horse”, creat-ing a body of trained individuals ready to offer ser-vices for which there is as yet no market.

Policy adviceWith respect to policy advice, the same uncer-tainty reigns as to the value of what centres havemanaged to do. Some of the mature centres havehad a clear impact on CP policy. Others have beenplayers in developing CP policies, but whethertheir input was in any way determining is unclear.Yet others have done little.

The most important factor seems to be that themore successful centres have obtained access tothe highest levels of government. Here centresface a constraint that comes from another basicpremise, adopted at the beginning of the pro-gramme. It has always been argued – quite cor-rectly in the author’s opinion – that centres wouldnot successfully reach their prime audience,industry, if they were part of (or seen to be partof) the government establishment. Much care hasalways been given to choosing host institutionsthat were clearly “pro-industry”, like industryassociations or chambers of commerce, or at leastneutral but sympathetic parties, such as technicaluniversities. However, a strategy that keeps gov-ernment out of the centres also keeps the centresout of government. It has therefore been moredifficult for centres to make the necessary con-tacts inside the government so as to play the roleof policy advisor.

An attempt was made, in the case of the firstcentres to lessen this separation, by including gov-ernment representatives on their governing bod-ies. How successful this has been is open toquestion. In the centres that have been most suc-cessful, it does not seem to have been only this for-mal link between the centre and government thatcreated the conditions necessary to make themaccepted partners in the CP or wider environ-mental policy dialogue.

In the mind of this author, the centres’ role inimparting policy advice is very critical. If CP is tobe a long-term strategy in any country, it is vitalto ensure that business conditions are modifiedthrough the policy-making process to push enter-prises as a whole towards CP.

Technical assistanceAs a natural follow-up to demonstration projects,and as a means of becoming financially self-sus-tainable, the mature centres have moved into con-sultancy-type activities, providing individualenterprises technical assistance to solve CP andrelated problems. This trend was not an explicitpart of the structure of the projects run by

UNIDO. However, UNIDO welcome it as a ben-eficial course for centres to embark on, so as tomake them a more effective mechanism for deliv-ering CP and to give them a broader funding base.

In general, this trend has been very positivealthough several major constraints hamperNCPCs from becoming truly dynamic mecha-nisms for delivering CP. First, there was great insis-tence from the start on the fact that centres, ascapacity-builders, transfer know-how and nottechnologies, and that they put others in the con-dition to implement CP and do not implement itthemselves. This has naturally meant that centreshave heavily favoured building methodologicalcapacity, with the idea that once the practitionerswere given the right methodology they would nat-urally favour CP in their work.

The use of assessment and evaluation methodsspecific to CP does allow the users to “see” theactivities under observation in a different light,and therefore to “see” CP options that had notregistered with them before. The great mass of so-called “low-hanging fruit” (CP options that arequick and cheap to implement) identified in pro-ject after project is surely testimony to this fact.Yet once this transfer of know-how occurs, long-term shifts to CP by industry in any country willrequire enterprises to transfer, adapt or adoptcleaner technology. Centres’ long-term success asCP delivery mechanisms will be a function oftheir ability to promote this process.

From that angle, it does not appear that the cen-tres have had much of an impact so far. In onestudy,out of some 440 CP options identified dur-ing one year by six of the mature centres as part oftheir plant-level work, 50% were housekeepingmeasures and 18% were input material changes orbetter process control, neither requiring much ifany investment. Of options actually implemented(64% of those identified), 58% fell into the cate-gory of housekeeping measures, with a further16% in the categories of input material changeand better process control. Only 21% of the iden-tified options fell into “hard” technology options(equipment/hardware modification/replacementand change of process technology), and only 16%of the implemented options fell into these two cat-egories.2

Since NCPCs are national centres, they areexpected to be open to all industries established inthe country. This would be the preferred method,since the centres have small staffs. Even in the bestof circumstances they could only build up exper-tise in one or two industrial sectors, as some haveindeed done. Centres thus tend to focus onmethodological approaches that are valid for allindustrial sectors, rather than fostering sector-spe-cific expertise. Yet a centre’s ability to tap into suchexpertise is crucial if it is to promote technologytransfer, adaptation and adoption.

The relative lack of emphasis on promotingtechnological change is not solely due to a bias inthe centres’ “culture”. One major constraint facedby enterprises in many countries is their limitedaccess to affordable financing for the adoption ofcleaner technologies. Another is a risk aversionphenomenon common to all enterprises all over

the world. In neither case can centres currentlyhave much leverage. However, these constraintsdo tend to reinforce centres’ natural predisposi-tion not to focus on technological change.

Being spread too thinA major problem for centres is that they risk beingspread too thin. Much is asked of them, and theyare given relatively few resources. The idea hasalways been that centres would get around thisproblem through being a catalyzing agent and gal-vanizing other actors into working on CP. Never-theless, particularly in larger countries like Indiaand China, even this is much to ask of one smallnational centre. Furthermore, a centre works bestas an industry support mechanism (surely its mostimportant role) if it is close to its client base. Thisstrongly supports having not one but many fociof CP scattered throughout a country’s industrialfabric. That is already occurring in several coun-tries, notably India, where a number of state level(and state funded) Cleaner Production centres arespringing up, connected to the national centrethrough a series of training and other capacity-building links. In this context, it is interesting tonote that in the United States, pollution preven-tion centres were created first at the state ratherthan national level.

The need for a networkIn the last five years, a whole series of individualcentres have been established. More are likely tobe created in the future. Little has been done tolink these centres in an overall network. Since theycannot draw efficiently upon each other’s individ-ual strengths and knowledge, they are not as effi-cacious as they could be, This is an issue on whichcentres have been pressing UNIDO, and one thatUNIDO acknowledges. To date, lack of fundinghas made it impossible to implement a properlystructured network.

Centres’ relevance as CP delivery mechanisms Up to now, the assumption has been that if cen-tres offer their services efficiently and effectively,Cleaner Production will result. However, forNCPCs to be considered truly relevant mecha-nisms for delivering CP, they must show that theirservices bring about obvious environmental aswell as economic benefits.

NCPCs have had an undoubted, documentedeffect through their various activities. Centres’awareness-raising and training activities havetouched a wide range of persons and institutionsin their countries, and have covered a good num-ber of CP and related topics. The mature centresall have good records of demonstration projectsundertaken, and the newer centres all have aggres-sive ongoing demonstration project programmes.There has also been some success in creating CPnetworks through involving other institutionswithin countries. Some centres have even beenable to bring about quite significant policychanges that promote CP.

All these are means to an end. They are not theend itself, which is ever-growing adoption byindustry of CP, leading to both environmental and

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 51

Cleaner Production

economic benefits. Here the picture is not so clear.Insufficient attention has been paid in the NCPCProgramme to date to monitoring centres’impacts. Using a series of recently developed suc-cess indicators, all new centres are required toreport annually not only on number of trainings,number of demonstration projects, etc. but also ontheir activities’ impacts to the extent that these aremeasurable. More post facto evaluations of centres’work will help judge their true impacts, and thustheir true relevance, as CP delivery mechanisms.

It is important to recognize that it will alwaysbe difficult to measure total impacts. By their verynature, the centres work mostly through others.Often other actors in countries where NCPCs arelocated are also attempting to exert influence in

the CP area independently. Under the circum-stances, it is difficult to say what outcome has beendue to a centre. We may therefore have to be sat-isfied with obtaining only a partial response to thequestion of centres’ impacts.

Notes1. The United Republic of Tanzania (1995), Zim-babwe (1995), Tunisia (1996), Morocco (1999),Ethiopia (2000), Kenya (2000), Mozambique(2000), China (1995), India (1995), Viet Nam(1998), the Czech Republic (1994), Slovakia(1995), Hungary (1997), Brazil (1995), Mexico(1995), Costa Rica (1998), El Salvador (1998),Guatemala (1999) and Nicaragua (2000).2. UN Industrial Development Organization

(UNIDO) (1999) In-Depth Evaluation of SelectedUNIDO Activities on Development and Transfer ofTechnology. Component 1: The UNIDO/UNEPNational Cleaner Production Centres (NCPCs).ODG/R.11. 27 October. Distribution restricted.3. Van Berkel, R. (2000) Assessment of the Impact ofthe DESIRE Project on the Uptake of Waste Mini-mization in Small Scale Industries in India. Preparedfor the Cleaner Production and EnvironmentalManagement Branch, UNIDO. February.4 . Sarmiento, F. (2000) Assessment of the Impactof the E2P3 Project on the Uptake of Cleaner Pro-duction. Prepared for the Cleaner Production andEnvironmental Management Branch, UNIDO.July (draft).

At CP6, representatives from 80 countriesdiscussed Cleaner Production’s status andfuture directions. Since CP5, held in Korea

in 1998, substantial progress has been made inimplementing Cleaner Production. Highlightsinclude:

National Cleaner Production Centres� UNEP/UNIDO Centres now total 19 (from15);� Institutions active in Cleaner Production num-ber 331 (from 311) and are located in 75 coun-tries.

UNEP-supported regional CleanerProduction initiatives:� Second Cleaner Production Roundtable in theMediterranean Region;� First African Roundtable on Cleaner Productionand Sustainable Consumption;� Regional Cleaner Production Roundtable inLatin America and the Caribbean;� Annual European Roundtable on Cleaner Pro-duction;

� Annual Asia and Pacific Cleaner ProductionRoundtable; � International Pollution Prevention Summit.

UNEP publications:� Industry and Environment review, issues specificto Cleaner Production:• CP: 5th International High Level Seminar, Seoul• Financial Services and Sustainability• Sustainability and the Agri-food Industry• Changing Consumption Patterns� Cleaner Production Assessment Guides (meat,fish and dairy processing)� Cleaner Production Newsletters No. 15-17� Cleaner Production: A Guide to InformationSources (4th edition)

Towards a Global Use of Life CycleAssessmentCleaner Production progress was also reviewed atthe regional and national level. During prepara-tions for CP6, regional input was collected viaroundtables and status reports, and through anon-line discussion forum. Four status reports were

prepared outlining region-specific issues, interna-tional initiatives and updates on national progress.The four reports available are:� “Status Report: Cleaner Production in Asia-Pacific”;� “First African Roundtable on Cleaner Produc-tion and Sustainable Consumption”;� “Cleaner Production in Latin America and theCaribbean”;� “Cleaner Production in the MediterraneanRegion”.

Each regional report was the result of a lot ofhard work from the responsible national andregional organizations active in CP. Below is abrief summary of report highlights, beginningwith a brief listing of regional activities under way.This is followed by a compilation of national sta-tistics on CP progress.

Asia-Pacific RegionIn addition to a variety of Cleaner Productionactivities initiated by international organizationssuch as the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation(APEC), the Association of Southeast Asian

Cleaner Production worldwide: regional status

52 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Nations (ASEAN), the Asian Productivity Orga-nization (APO), the European Union, UNIDOand UNEP, three efforts stand out as crucial toboosting Cleaner Production:� the establishment, and activities of, the Asia-Pacific Roundtable on Cleaner Production;� the International Declaration on CleanerProduction; � the Regional Technical Assistance (RETA)project undertaken by the Asia DevelopmentBank.

The Cleaner Production Roundtable providesthe first step for stakeholders to engage in discus-sion of CP. The Declaration solicits and solidifiescommitment to Cleaner Production at the highestlevels. And the RETA project supports the trans-lation of commitment into action by conductingpolicy studies.

Summary highlights of national progressinclude:� Of the 15 countries reviewed, all were noted ashaving undertaken some activities in the area ofskill development, capacity building and infor-mation exchange. Examples include training ofexperts and trainers and development of country-specific case studies, demonstration projects ormodel business plans.

� Ten countries have established Cleaner Produc-tion centres. Three of these centres are hosted byUNIDO/ UNEP.�Many countries have undertaken efforts to devel-op a policy framework conducive to Cleaner Pro-duction. Examples include specific national policiesthat stress Cleaner Production and prevention asthe preferred environmental management strategy,drafted in India, Australia and China.� Signatories to the International Declaration onCleaner Production from 12 countries reflecthigh-level commitment.� Involvement of different stakeholders, andmainstreaming of the concept, have taken placein different countries in different ways. India andNew Zealand have developed networks of local-ized Waste Minimisation Circles for local entre-preneurs in small-scale industry. In Malaysia, aroad show was developed to bring environmentalmanagement and CP to small-scale companies.New Zealand also has sector-specific Cleaner Pro-duction activities targeted at local authorities.� Environmental management systems and inter-national standards can be useful tools to leverageCleaner Production integration. China, Japan andNew Zealand have activities devoted to CleanerProduction and to ISO 14000. Australia and

Korea have activities integrating Cleaner Produc-tion and life-cycle assessment, in recognition ofthe need to integrate Cleaner Production intoproduct-related environmental managementtools.� Progress on financing CP has been made in sev-eral countries. Viet Nam is one of five countriesinvolved in UNEP’s Project on Financing Clean-er Production. China has worked with the WorldBank and other donors to finance implementa-tion of Cleaner Production, and Australia and SriLanka have set up independent revolving loanprogrammes.

African RegionIn 2000, the First African Roundtable on Clean-er Production and Sustainable Consumptionbrought together Cleaner Production practition-ers from 14 countries. Supported by UNEP, theCarl Duisberg Gesellschaft (Germany), and theDutch and Norwegian Governments, it was thefirst regional event to also address sustainable con-sumption, recognizing the need to integrate bothproduction and consumption elements in orderto achieve more sustainable patterns.� There are seven UNIDO/UNEP CleanerProduction Centres in the region.


Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Ecuador El Salvador

Undertaking demonstration xx xx xx xx xx x o na naprojects with industry

Providing technical xx xx xx xx xx xx xx na nainformation on CP options

Providing information xx xx xx xx xx x xx na naon CP assessment methodologies

Training on CP assessment xx xx xx x xx x o na namethodology, conductinggeneral CP

Training on raising public o o o x xx xx o na naawareness about CP

Conducting CP policy xx x o xx xx o xx na nastudies or making CP policy recommendations

Development of CP x x x x x o xx na natechnical materials

Educating university or x x xx xx x o o na natechnical students about CP

Developing CP case studies xx x x x x o x na na

CP centers o o xx x x xx o x xx

CP financing o o x x xx x o x x

xx : major activity x: minor activityo: not undertaken na: not applicable

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 53

Cleaner Production

� The International Declaration on CleanerProduction has signatories from nine countriesin the region, four of which come from nation-al governments.� Financing Cleaner Production has had someremarkable successes. The two pilot activitiesof the UNEP Cleaner Production Financingproject are the most advanced in the project.Of the many loan proposals prepared, fourhave received funding and been implemented.� Capacity building activities, including thetraining of trainers and country-specific casestudies or demonstration projects, were under-taken in ten of twelve countries. � Engaging all stakeholders, including smalland medium-sized enterprises, in promotingCleaner Production is a major challenge in theregion. In South Africa, the issue has beenaddressed by waste minimization clubs thatbring together companies to exchange ideasand information on waste minimization.

Latin America and the CaribbeanRegional activities have focused on bringingnational experts together to exchange ideas andexperiences. International seminars and eventsinclude:

� International Seminars on Cleaner Productionhosted in Colombia (two) and Chile (one), withtotal participation from nine countries (Argenti-na, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Costa Rica,Nicaragua, Venezuela and Colombia).� UNEP/UNIDO Workshop of NCPCs fromMercosur countries (Southern Common Market).� Two “Conferences of the Americas on CleanerProduction – Building the Roundtable for Co-operation in the Hemisphere” were hosted, one inBrazil and the other in Colombia.� There are signatories to the International Dec-laration on Cleaner Production from seven coun-tries in the region.

The chart summarizes country-specific infor-mation.

Mediterranean RegionThe second Regional Report on Cleaner Produc-tion in the Mediterranean highlights internation-al activities in this region as well as nationalCleaner Production activities. The report, whichcovers some of the same countries as those in theAfrican and European Regions, also presentsinformation on problems common to Mediter-ranean countries. Some of the highlights are:� Regional initiatives are supported by the Clean-

er Production Regional Activity Centre inBarcelona, Spain, which acts as a focal point forinformation exchange and activities focusing onregional specific issues.� Cleaner Production activities were identified in13 of the 19 countries in the region.� There are signatories to the International Dec-laration on Cleaner Production from four coun-tries in the region.� The report presents case studies that reflectindustrial priorities and available Cleaner Pro-duction options.

Worldwide Cleaner Production StatusIn preparation for the World Summit on Sustain-able Development, to be held in South Africa inSeptember 2002, a global status report on Clean-er Production will be prepared by UNEP. Thereport will highlight progress made sinceUNCED in 1992. It will spotlight successes andareas where more work needs to be done. The sta-tus report will cover Cleaner Production in termsof:� policy framework (including integration intoacts, regulations and policies, enforcement andpermitting programmes, and voluntary agree-ments such as the International Declaration onCleaner Production);� skill development and capacity building (includ-ing training and education, demonstration pro-jects, Cleaner Production centres, guidelines andmanuals);� information exchange (including databases,publications, awareness-raising seminars, casestudies and technical guidelines);� mainstreaming and stakeholder involvement(including different levels and types of stakehold-ers: government, industry, NGOs, academics andcivil society);� financing (including that of the above activities,as well as of options from Cleaner Productionaudits);� integration into other existing environmentalmanagement tools (life-cycle assessment, EMSand standards, energy, health and safety, and sus-tainable consumption).

For more information, or to provide input to theglobal Cleaner Production status report, contact:Surya Chandak, Cleaner Production,UNEP DTIE,Paris ([email protected]).

Guatemala Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Peru Trinidad/ Tobago Uruguay

xx o xx xx xx x na

xx x xx xx xx xx na

o o xx xx xx x na

o o xx xx o na na

x x o o xx na na

xx o o o xx na na

o o xx xx xx na na

o o x x xx na na

o o xx xx xx na na

xx o xx xx x o x

xx o x xx x o x

54 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Only limited attempts have been made touse Cleaner Production systematically asan implementing tool to meet the com-

mitments set out in global or regional multilater-al environmental agreements. One problem is thatthe specificity of many MEAs does not leavemuch room for innovative solutions.

The traditional way to control emissions or dis-charges, as developed in the 1970s and 1980s, iswith end-of-pipe solutions. In this case, govern-ments impose very specific requirements based ontheir knowledge of best available technologies.Most early MEAs contained end-of-pipe require-ments. Since limits were strict, industry had nochoice but to invest in a limited number of tech-nologies that would sufficiently reduce emissionsor discharges of the pollutants in question. Effec-tive promotion of those technologies, however,would make it difficult to develop other means ofachieving the same goal.

Larger industries resisted these requirements aslong as possible, but they generally initiated earlyactivities to develop the needed equipment. Smalland medium-sized industries have always had ahard time meeting end-of-pipe requirements.Since they have lacked the resources to developsolutions themselves, they have been forced to buyexpensive equipment developed and produced bylarger industries.

More recent MEAs are increasingly open withrespect to the way their requirements can be met.The introduction of economic instruments, asrepresented in the VOCs Protocol1 to the UNECEConvention on Long-Range Transboundary AirPollution (LRTAP) or the UN Framework Con-vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is a sig-nificantly more flexible approach than theonly-one-way-to-meet-the requirement approachrelied upon earlier. Emission trading and jointimplementation are examples of such economicinstruments.

Economic instruments, however, are normallybetter at stimulating reduction processes than atmeeting specific emission targets, when they arerarely effective. The importance of economicinstruments has put an important focus on thecosts of reductions, and on allowing industry tomeet general or specific goals more flexibly. Taxeson toxic raw materials or hazardous wastes, andemission taxes, are other ways to stimulate indus-try to review total operations. The greater open-ness in MEAs to using economic instrumentsshould stimulate more widespread use of the CPapproach.

Total bans vs. pollutant reductionconventionsPollution reduction conventions can broadly be

divided into two groups: those whose goal is toeliminate emissions or discharges of specific sub-stances, and those whose only purpose is to reducethese emissions or discharges. The Montreal Pro-tocol, the new Convention on Persistent OrganicPollutants (POPs), 2 and parts of the Regional SeasConventions all strive towards a zero emissiongoal. However, the Basel Convention on theTransboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes,the LRTAP, the UNFCCC, and parts of theRegional Seas Conventions are aimed at reducingpollutant emissions or the production of haz-ardous wastes.

Cleaner Production programmes, if developedto assist the implementation of MEAs, wouldprobably have to adopt different strategiesdepending on the purpose of the agreement. It islikely that CP strategies would be more successfulin the case of MEAs designed to reduce pollutants.

The latest Conference of the Parties to the BaselConvention put greater emphasis on waste mini-mization, including reduction of the toxicity ofthe wastes produced. To implement the wasteminimization focus, specific pilot projects, CPcase studies and training curricula should bedeveloped, where lacking, for the most importantwaste streams, involving several types of indus-tries. In fact, this is a specific recommendation ofthe last Conference of the Parties.

The waste minimization requirement is a gen-eral obligation of the Parties. Many Parties tendnot to put much emphasis on these general claus-es, and the urgent need for general action is some-times given significantly lower priority thanfulfilling specific requirements. CP programmeswould therefore have an additional task to per-form: encouraging awareness of the need to makeefforts to fulfil these general clauses of MEAs, aswell as performing an educational role withrespect to both industries and governments.

The LRTAP provides an example of the poten-tial to use CP to achieve the goals of MEAs. In itslatest Protocol, adopted in 1999,3 the Parties haveagreed a multi-effect and multi-pollutant strategyto deal with several types of emissions (SOx, NOx,NH3 and VOCs) that can cause acidification,eutrofication and ground-level ozone formation.Using a critical load/critical level approach, eachcountry has been given an emission ceiling basedon the effect of its emissions on the targeted effectsin other countries. There are emission limits forseveral major stationary and mobile sources. Thisapproach is modelled on the traditional approachto curbing emissions. However, the Parties can

Using Cleaner Production to achieveimplementation of MEAs

Per Bakken, Former Officer in Charge, UNEP Secretariat of the Basel Convention, International Environment House, 9-15 Chemin des Anémones, CH-1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland ([email protected])

SummaryThe purpose of many global and regional MEAs is to achieve pollution reductions. Whetherthese MEAs contain general reduction requirements, or targets for reducing emissions or dis-charges of specific pollutants, Cleaner Production can help meet national commitments. Tothis end, the CP concept needs to be extended to effectively address sectors other than indus-try (e.g. agriculture and transport).

RésuméDe nombreux accords multilatéraux sur l’environnement ont pour objet de réduire la pollu-tion. Qu’ils comportent des exigences générales de réduction ou des objectifs précis de réduc-tion des émissions ou rejets de certains polluants, la production plus propre peut être une aidepour respecter les engagements pris au niveau national. Encore faut-il cesser de confiner leconcept de production plus propre aux seules activités industrielles et l’élargir à d’autressecteurs (par exemple l’agriculture et les transports).

ResumenEl objetivo de numerosos MEAs globales y regionales es lograr reducir la polución. Ya sea quelas MEAs presenten requisitos generales de reducción o metas de reducción de emisiones odescargas de contaminantes específicos, una Producción más Limpia puede ayudar a alcan-zar los compromisos nacionales. A tal fin, es necesario extender eficazmente la difución delconcepto de Producción más Limpia hacia sectores no industriales (por ejemplo: agricultura ytransporte).

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 55

Cleaner Production

deviate from these requirements as long as theymeet the emissions target by other means.

Regarding exchange of information and tech-nologies, the Parties shall exchange informationinter alia on the development and updating ofdatabases of best available techniques, includingthose that increase energy efficiency, low-emissionburners and good environmental practices in agri-culture, as well as the development of less pollut-ing transport. Measures shall also be developed toencourage introduction of low-polluting process-es and products, management programmes toreduce emissions (including voluntary pro-grammes), use of economic instruments, andremoval of damaging subsidies, tax, fiscal incen-tives and duty exemptions which run counter tothe Protocol’s objective.

This Protocol, which is a sophisticated mixtureof scientific understanding and policy response,opens up quite a large area for using CP approach-es. There are alternatives to technical standards,provided that overall reductions of targeted sub-stances could be achieved by other means. TheProtocol also addresses the use of economic mea-sures. It calls for the removal of economic subsi-dies that counteract the aim of the Protocol. Thisflexible approach might serve as a pilot exampleof how MEAs could achieve strong environmen-tal results while taking full account of the differentsituations in different countries, different indus-trial structures, and the variety of measures alreadyintroduced.

MEAs with reduction purposes are still target-ing specific pollutants, and therefore specific typesof industries. Some of these pollutant sources maynot be relevant to CP programmes in their presentform, such as emissions of NOx from vehicles,which in Europe and North America account for50-60% of all NOx emissions. Since both the lat-est LRTAP Protocol and the Kyoto Protocolrequire development of less polluting transport, acleaner “production” programme may target thegovernment in respect to this specific sector. Theapproach followed in the industry programmesmay be developed into a total governing pro-gramme for the authorities, proposing a compre-hensive approach to this sector.

Coal- or oil-fired power plants, which emit a sig-nificant portion of total NOx emissions, are tar-geted by this LRTAP Protocol, as well as by theKyoto Protocol, because of their emissions of CO2and N2O. These power plants could also be targetsfor CP programmes. Indirectly, through other CPprogrammes in other types of industries whereenergy consumption is a target, this would have apositive effect through reducing demands for ener-gy and lowering the need for energy production.

The Regional Seas ProgrammeThe Global Programme of Action (GPA) is astructure adopted in 1995 as a comprehensiveprogramme to protect and conserve the world’smarine environment from the adverse impacts ofland-based activities. The GPA is designed as asource of conceptual and practical guidance, to bedrawn upon by national or regional authorities indevising and implementing sustained action to

prevent, reduce, control or eliminate marinedegradation from land-based activities. The GPAaims to integrate protection of the marine envi-ronment into relevant environmental, social andeconomic development policies.

Implementing the GPA is primarily the task ofgovernments, in close cooperation with all stake-holders including local communities, public orga-nizations and the private sector. The GPAidentifies UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme as anappropriate framework for delivery of the GPA atthe regional level.4

The Regional Seas Programme was initiated byUNEP in 1974 as a global programme, imple-mented through regional components. Sincethen, UNEP’s Governing Council has repeatedlyendorsed a regional approach to the control ofmarine pollution and the management of marineand coastal resources. It has also requested thedevelopment of regional actions plans.

The UNEP Regional Seas Programmeincludes 13 regions. Over 140 coastal states andterritories participate in it. In addition, there arethree non-UNEP Regional Seas Programmes forthe Arctic, the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) andthe Baltic Sea (HELCOM). All these action-ori-ented programmes are concerned not only withthe consequences but also the causes of environ-mental degradation, encompassing comprehen-sive approaches to combating problems throughsound management of marine and coastal areas.The action plans promote parallel developmentof regional legal framework agreements and ofaction-oriented programmes.

Means of implementing the Regional Seas Pro-grammes vary according to the specific issuesbeing addressed. The regulatory instruments usedinclude traditional direct regulation and legisla-tion through national and local laws, standardsand emission permits. However, as an evolvinginstrument these programmes can also includeeconomic and financial instruments such as taxes,subsidies, domestic funding and public/privatepartnerships. Structural/operational measuresinclude both infrastructure projects, such assewage treatment plants, land-use plans andupgrading of industrial machinery, and specificreferences to the use of CP/best practices, such asbest management practices for environmentalenhancement of industries (e.g. waste waterreduction, energy efficiency).

The Regional Seas Programme has developed astructure of governmental and non-governmentalorganizations which provide the institutionalmechanisms responsible for, and capable of, devel-oping and implementing management pro-grammes and plans. It also addresses capacitybuilding, including training workshops, environ-mental education and conferences. Use is made ofawareness raising and public participation, includ-ing NGO involvement.

Bearing in mind the variety of possible “targets”for CP activities and the large number of coun-tries involved, as well as the Global Plan of Action(108 countries plus the EU), the Regional SeasProgramme should be of major interest to mostCleaner Production centres.

The climate change challengeExcept in a few countries, the targets elaborated inthe Kyoto Protocol would be difficult to meet.However, looking at other MEAs, there are possi-bilities to identify some activity areas, whether spe-cific industries, transport, hazardous wastes oragriculture, where a targeted, broad-based pro-gramme like the Cleaner Production Programmecould play a role. This may require some changesin today’s approach, while adhering to the basicphilosophy behind the CP work. The task is assist-ed by one of the annexes to the Kyoto Protocol,which lists the relevant sectors and source cate-gories whose greenhouse gases should be con-trolled or reduced.

While the Kyoto Protocol put most of the bur-den on Annex I (industrialized) countries, theUNFCCC urges all countries to control theiremissions and increase the GHG sinks, takinginto account their common responsibilities. Inany case, the obligations in the Kyoto Protocolcould only be viewed as the start of a process.They are far from sufficient in themselves to dealwith the climate change problem. The CP pro-grammes in developing countries and in countrieswith economies in transition should, where rele-vant, emphasize pilot programmes that addressGHG emissions.

ConclusionThe scope for using CP methods to achievenational commitments under MEAs has beenclearly demonstrated. In some conventions, wherereductions in emissions or discharges of individ-ual pollutants are specified, establishing CP in afew key industries would significantly improve thesituation. The potential for CP is highest whendealing with reduction targets, and less when thegoal is to stop all emissions, as in the MontrealProtocol.

Today’s CP concept needs to be broadened toeffectively address sectors other than industry.Areas like agriculture and transport would benefitgreatly from a comprehensive approach. Theclient would not be industry, but, for example,governments or farmers. If today’s CP pro-grammes were to encompass these groups, themarket for CP centres would increase significant-ly. Most importantly, the environmental effectswould go a long way towards meeting nationalcommitments agreed in several MEAs, as well ascreating a better environment.

It might be useful to arrange a specific meetingbetween the secretariats of relevant conventionsand the UNEP/UNIDO Cleaner ProductionProgramme, to identify common areas of actionor areas in which CP programmes could supportand facilitate implementation of specific conven-tions. The cooperation of UNEP’s regional officesshould also be reviewed. Conventions that havespecific training activities, such as the RegionalTraining Centres under the Basel Convention,should where possible work closely with theCleaner Production Programme, as specified inthe work programme adopted in the last meetingof the Conference of the Parties.

Not many of the conventions have specific

56 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Developing countries and countries in tran-sition have an opportunity to avoid thecostly waste management solutions that

have burdened the industrialized world. Whethercountries seize this opportunity greatly dependson the types of technologies they choose to adoptfor new and retrofit investments, and on the avail-ability of appropriate financing.

Despite the advantages of the Cleaner Produc-tion strategy, mobilizing investment funds is amajor constraint with respect to achieving wide

adoption of CP. Financial institutions and othersources of private sector funding follow a welldefined due diligence process when evaluatingloan and investment proposals. The process con-sists of verifying the technical, financial and legalaspects of the project, evaluating the borrower’screditworthiness and assessing the different risksinvolved. Environmental risks are still oftenundervalued in this process, and many environ-mental management costs are hidden in compa-nies’ overhead accounts.

To understand the reasons for this, and to devel-op instruments to alleviate constraints, UNEPDTIE launched a project on “Strategies and Mech-anisms for Promoting Cleaner Production Invest-ments in Developing Countries”, financed under atrust fund from Norway. As part of the project, itstudied the experience of eight developing coun-tries and countries in transition and reviewed howselected financial institutions in the developedworld address environmental issues, particularlythose related to CP. The countries studied wereGuatemala, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Nicaragua,Tanzania, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

The overarching conclusions of the study, applic-able to all pilot countries, can be grouped underthree main headings: language, time scales, andsize of investments.

LanguageThe level of response to the global survey wasexceedingly low. “Cleaner Production” has notbeen embedded in the financial services industryin the same way as “environmental management”.There is a lack of clear understanding of the CPconcept, as well as misunderstandings or misin-terpretations regarding its purpose. This languagebarrier was also observed at the national level,where there were clear differences in the “bound-ary conditions” for CP investment descriptions.Flexibility of interpretation is to be encouraged. Itpromotes innovation, extends the boundaries ofenvironmental management to sustainable devel-opment policies and practices, and engages awider level of societal input than would otherwisebe the case.

training facilities. The Parties would normally beleft alone to find ways and means to meet the gen-eral and specific obligations. CP centres shouldtake this opportunity to offer assistance to nation-al governments and, wherever possible, look forpossibilities to assist governments in neighbour-ing states.

New and innovative ways to raise funds shouldbe sought. MEAs could be one source of specificfunding through the incorporation in their work

programmes of specific references to the need forCP programmes. However, the budget constrainsin the conventions are normally tight and therewould be a need for additional funding outsidethe industries, governments and conventions sec-retariats.

Notes1. The Protocol to the 1979 Convention onLong-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Con-

cerning the Control of Emissions of VolatileOrganic Compounds or their TransboundaryFluxes. See See The 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acid-ification, Eutrophication and Ground-LevelOzone. See See

How to finance Cleaner Production

SummaryFinancing investments in Cleaner Production remains problematic, despite increasing aware-ness of CP’s merits within the business community. Examples are given of initiatives and mech-anisms that could overcome barriers to financing. It is in the interest of policy-makers and thebusiness community to take measures geared towards integrating Cleaner Production intodecision-making and management processes.

RésuméFinancer les investissements dans des modes de production plus propre reste problématique,malgré la prise de conscience croissante de leurs avantages par les entreprises. L’article donnedes exemples d’initiatives et de mécanismes qui ont permis d’abolir les barrières au finance-ment. Il est dans l’intérêt des responsables politiques et des entreprises de prendre des mesurespour intégrer la production plus propre dans le processus décisionnel et la gestion.

ResumenAún resulta difícil financiar inversiones en Producción más Limpia, a pesar de una crecienteconcientización respecto a las ventajas de Producción más Limpia en medios empresariales. Sepresentan ejemplos de iniciativas y procedimientos que permitieron superar las barreras delfinanciamiento. Es de interés para los responsables de la elaboración de políticas y los mediosempresariales tomar medidas que tiendan a integrar los principios de Producción más Limpiaen los procesos de gestión y toma de decisiones

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 57

Cleaner Production

Time scalesThe process of initiating a CP assessment of a pro-duction process or potential design change is gen-erally quite swift. Ensuing recommendations thatrequire little capital investment are normallyimplemented quickly. However, in cases where theCP concept is integrated into the capital budget-ing process, a much longer time frame is required.Empirical evidence confirms that the periodbetween loan agreement and disbursement is asignificant barrier.

Size of investmentsThe danger is that where the CP component of aninvestment is justified separately, it is seen as anadditional rather than an integral part of the pro-ject. This has the consequence of isolating CPinvestment as a hybrid rather than treating it as amainstream embedded issue. Clearly, the bestresults can be achieved if the process changesincorporating CP investment are valued as awhole.

Conclusions and recommendationsEach of the individual country sections of the reportincorporates national conclusions, based on theCP project analysis and financial institutionsreview, together with relevant recommendations.Some interesting findings relevant to one or sev-eral of the studied countries are:� In many developing countries, bank loans areconsidered unattractive due to high interest ratesand unattractive terms for loans. Most companiesrequire low-interest, long-term loans for environ-mental projects. Furthermore, the procedure forborrowing money from commercial banks is oftenconsidered complicated and costly.� In many banks, the due diligence process main-ly considers the financial aspect of loan applica-tions without paying much heed to technicalones. However, some countries are graduallybeginning to translate environmental considera-tions and sustainable development into financialmarkets. Although many financial institutions arefamiliar with environmental opportunities, envi-ronmental investments remain small. Forthcom-ing environmental funding programmes (e.g. theWorld Bank Carbon Fund) are seen as new oppor-tunities.� Current efforts to promote and implement CPmostly concentrate on developing and adaptingtechnology to existing production plants. In thefuture, the focus will eventually involve “techno-logical leaps” requiring fundamental changes inthe production plant, composition of raw materi-als and intermediary products, product design,etc. As this transition takes place, the size andmagnitude of CP projects will begin to reflect thechange taking place. This will have significantimplications with respect to financing require-ments for industry.� So far, government policies have focused main-ly on tools for enforcing and extending compli-ance. The challenge for governments will be tocreate a framework providing incentives for com-panies to move beyond compliance and take upCP as an efficiency measure.

� Policies introduced in some countries have high-lighted the importance of environmental tech-nologies with tax breaks on importation and useof contamination-control equipment. Equally, theestablishment of a similar programme focusingpredominately on CP technologies could high-light advantages over end-of-pipe technologies. � The ability to purchase appropriate machineryand equipment to support the CP concept hasproven difficult for businesses to acquire.� In some countries, the greatest potential for CPis the inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI),which can stimulate further new investmentthrough downstream or upstream production.FDI can therefore contribute to capital formationand job creation.

The study highlighted some key recommenda-tions for promoting adoption of Cleaner Produc-tion investments worldwide. These include theneed for:� governments to signal change regarding nation-al strategies that embrace Cleaner Production;� industry to take up the challenge of creatingongoing demand for Cleaner Production mea-sures that will spur continued progress;� educationalists to integrate such thinking intothe formal education programme;� the financial services sector to identify CleanerProduction as an investment opportunity throughfinancial innovation.

The authors of the report believe the long-termgoal will be to pursue introduction of CleanerProduction to every industry, as a way of trigger-ing worldwide transformation of industrial prac-tice and philosophy.

StakeholdersAnother survey carried out by UNEP DTIE inJanuary-March 2000 collected data for a “who iswho compendium in CP financing”. It revealedthat new initiatives are sprouting with respect topromoting investments in preventative approach-es, waste minimization, Cleaner Production andrelated activities. In particular, this is happeningin governmental and semi-governmental institu-tions. Some NGOs and consulting companieshave also developed services addressing this issue.Financial institutions lag behind. Very few com-mercial banks perceive the Cleaner Productionstrategy adopted by a loan applicant to be afavourable criterion when approving funds orassessing risks

The number of stakeholders in activities relatedto promotion of CP investment financing goeswell beyond those customarily linked to the dia-logue on CP itself. Instead of providing financing,some stakeholders have an important role in rais-ing awareness, providing technical advice, dis-seminating information, training, etc. Potentialstakeholders include:� international financial institutions (private andpublic);� multilateral financial institutions (World Bank,IFC, regional development banks, national devel-opment finance institutions in OECD countries,etc.);� Export Credit Agencies;

� foundations;� the media, in their roles as representatives of civilsociety and information disseminators;� ministries of economy and finance;� chambers of industry and other representativesof the business community;� CP service providers; and � academic and training institutions with finan-cial analysis, business planning, accounting andengineering curricula.

Possible responsesThe following strategies and responses could be con-sidered for these important groups of stakehold-ers:� increasing the capacity of public bodies to devel-op/foster environmental framework conditions(legislation, etc.) and their enforcement;� increasing the capacity of technical assistanceproviders (CP centres, consulting companies, etc.)and CP assessors regarding preparation of credit-worthy loan applications;� improving awareness of new tools and instru-ments for assessment of CP options’ economicmerits by financial institutions in developingcountries;� increasing the capacity of decision-makers tointegrate CP into their company strategies, so asto maximize internal rates of return on invest-ments in production and infrastructure facilities;� mainstreaming environmental investments intoa bank’s portfolio (adoption of CP as a viable investment field by loan officers);� promotion of credit schemes customized to CPinvestments;� active matchmaking between potential CPinvestors and credit lines, trust funds, etc. dedi-cated to pollution prevention or other environ-mentally sustainable projects and initiatives; and� global networking and advocacy with respect tomultinational financing institutions, to increaseemphasis on the preventative approach in theircommitment to (and implementation of ) envi-ronmentally sustainable financing schemes.

Possible strategies and responses have beendebated during various CP-related forums inrecent years. CP financing has emerged as a topicat most of the CP regional roundtables held inAsia, Europe, the Americas and, most recently, theMediterranean region and Africa. National CProundtables have also introduced this element ontheir agendas.

Selected responses to dateThe UNEP Financial Institutions Initiative onthe Environment originated in 1992, when the“Statement by Banks on the Environment andSustainable Development” was signed by some30 banks following the Earth Summit. ByAugust 2000, over 180 financial institutionswere signatories. The Financial Institutions Ini-tiative promotes integration of environmentalconsiderations into all aspects of the operationsand services of the financial sector or individualcompanies through building awareness, dialogueand understanding, and by fostering private sec-tor investment in environmentally sound tech-

58 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

nologies and services.The number of dedicated revolving funds and

credit lines for CP investment has increased con-siderably in the last two years. Several activities bythe World Bank, Asian Development Bank,Nordic Environment Finance Corporation(NEFCO), Inter-American Development Bank,EBRD, KfW of Germany and others have beenlaunched or are being formulated.

While such activities are an effective way topromote adoption of the CP strategy in enterpris-es (combining CP assessments with the possibili-ty of funding some of the required investments),the major challenge ahead is to mainstream andintegrate CP into the due diligence process, com-pany management strategies, government policiesand university curricula. This paradigm means ashift in the responsibility for environmental man-agement in an enterprise (including applicationof CP as a strategy) from environmental special-ists to the CEO and the entire company manage-ment.

Definition of a Cleaner ProductioninvestmentAn all-embracing definition of a Cleaner Produc-tion investment may not be possible, and perhapswill not even be necessary. However, it is impor-tant to arrive at a commonly accepted overall def-inition to ensure that different stakeholders speakthe same language. Such a definition can also guidevarious institutions launching their own initiativesin establishing their own criteria for assessing whatCP investment or new technology in general.

For the purpose of starting a dialogue withstakeholders, UNEP DTIE proposed the follow-ing definition in a background note prepared fora web discussion in August 2000:

A Cleaner Production investment is a manage-ment decision to invest in an industrial project,modification or upgrading (retrofit and new)which:� reduces use of materials, water and energy;� improves environmental performance;� reduces risk liabilities;� is not an additional cost related to environmen-tal performance; and� meets acceptable financial criteria.

This proposal has attracted several useful com-ments. For example, a detailed and focused defin-ition from the Tellus Institute concerning a CPinvestment project reads as follows:

A CP investment is a potential business invest-ment project that reduces the use of raw materi-als/natural resources (materials, water, energy),especially:� hazardous/toxic materials; � non-renewable and locally scarce resources;� resources that are likely to have negative healthand other impacts on humans and ecosystemsduring production or delivery;� reduces or prevents waste generation/pollutantemissions at the source or via recycling/reuse (i.e.not via waste treatment or control);� reduces or eliminates the potential health andother risks to humans and ecosystems of the wasteor pollution generated;

� takes into account trade-offs among the abovetypes of CP benefits.

A CP investment can include:� the redesign of existing products and services;� the modification/upgrade of existing equipmentand processes;� the acquisition of new equipment, processes andproduct lines.

A CP investment will often be profitable due toreduced raw materials purchase and processing, aswell as waste management costs, and often hasrelated business and financial benefits such as:� increased production throughput and productquality;� reduced liability and insurance costs; and� improved company and product image.

When we talk about an investment (includingCP), however, we should clearly distinguish itfrom a project. A project is something that some-one wishes to invest in, but is not an investmentuntil an investor actually decides to provide thefunds. Also, if a project is funded by a donor whodoes not expect a financial reward or its moneyback, we are not talking about an investment inits terms or records.

The two approaches presented above willneed to be combined into a lead statement,and possibly some more detailed selection cri-teria and qualifiers. In doing this, we shouldbear in mind that financial criteria are of para-mount importance to financial institutions,which are the main stakeholders in the pro-motion of CP investments.

LanguageThere is a clear need to make the language for“Cleaner Production” clearer, and as embedded inthe financial services industry as “environmentalmanagement”. Multilateral financial institutionsand the signatories to the UNEP Statement byFinancial Institutions on the Environment andSustainable Development can play an importantrole in leading this process. Many activitiesaddressed under the headings below will also con-tribute. Participants at the CP6 parallel sessionhave been encouraged to provide suggestions andideas on how and through which forums to accel-erate the process.

Integration/mainstreamingA key to wider adoption of the CP strategy is itsintegration in overall company strategies, in thedue diligence process for investment appraisal,and in the curricula of academic institutions edu-cating process engineers, financial analysts andaccountants. The UNEP DTIE project on“Strategies and Mechanisms for Promoting CPInvestments in Developing Countries” is in theprocess of developing training courses which will,inter alia, include suggested tools and instrumentsfor integrating CP into the due diligence process.

Engaging accountantsWithin the framework of work carried out by theUN Division for Sustainable Development, apaper is being prepared by the Tellus Institute inBoston, with assistance from Joanneum Research

in Austria, on policies for improving the role ofgovernment in promoting environmental man-agerial accounting (EMA). The paper will presentcase studies of past and ongoing EMA policy pro-grammes and initiatives, discuss the challengesand successes of those programmes, identify poli-cy pathways that may not yet have been tested,and make some general recommendations on nextsteps. A full draft of this policy paper was present-ed at an expert group meeting in Bonn in Novem-ber 2000. The final version will be made availableto the UN Committee on Sustainable Develop-ment in 2001.

The joint UNCTAD/UNEP project in the areaof environmental accounting has outlined a gov-ernance structure within which the value of a CPinvestment may be properly described. This modelhas been accepted in a number of jurisdictions andshould be further promoted by member govern-ments. UNCTAD has also done considerablework on environmental performance indicators.This has catalyzed change in a number of areas ofthe financial services sector.

The UNEP/DTIE project on CP financing indeveloping countries is in the process of design-ing training programmes on CP as profitableinvestments and the CP investment process.These programme also target accountants andeducational institutions training accountants.

The role of Export Credit AgenciesExport Credit Agencies (ECAs) are a very impor-tant source of project financing from developedto developing countries. They have begun a dia-logue on how to consider environmental aspectsin their operations with other partners, such as theOECD and multinational financial institutions.

The role of bodies controlling stockexchange listing requirementsExperience shows that in developing countriesand economies in transition the pre-privatizationphase is the time frame in which there is the great-est opportunity to influence future investmentpatterns. The bodies controlling stock exchangelisting requirements have an influential role thatcan be brought to bear for the benefit of CPinvestments. For example, Thailand’s stockexchange already requires all companies seeking alisting to report explicitly on their environmentalimpacts and environment improvement pro-grammes. Introducing similar pre-qualificationswill raise awareness of the different investmentprofiles of companies that embrace CP technolo-gy and those that do not. For indigenous stockexchanges, this may provide an opportunity tofloat more secure, lower-risk, and more long-termfocused investments. It improves the stability andreduces volatility of a stock exchange’s listed com-panies.

Policies and incentivesGovernments can introduce policies and instru-ments (import tax reductions, special funds andcredit windows for CP, pricing of water and ener-gy, etc.) that promote CP solutions in the selec-tion of technology for retrofits and new

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 59

Cleaner Production

investment. Policies that prevent pollution tendto be more effective and cheaper in the long termthan those inducing the treatment and disposal ofwastes that could be avoided. The developmentand enforcement of such policies will require par-ticipation of a number of ministries and agencies,such as ministries of finance, customs and taxdepartments, investment promotion and licens-ing authorities, and industrial promotion andcontrol agencies.

At the international level, mechanisms to trans-fer intellectual property rights to developingcountry agents are needed to stimulate local pro-duction and commercialization of CP. Suchmechanisms need not be complicated inter-gov-ernmental constructions, but may instead rely onprivate arrangements such as multinational jointventures. Developing country agents can alsomake greater use of pollution prevention tradepromotion tools to support investment in CP.This could include proactive use of eco-labellingand participation in international standards pro-grammes (e.g. ISO 14000).

Also at the international policy level, developedcountries need to eliminate escalating tariffs that

prevent developing countries from moving up theproduction chain away from raw materials andcommodities towards products with substantialadded value. This would allow developing coun-try agents to internalize environmental costs intoexport production.

Efficiency in enterprises can be improvedthrough adoption of a Cleaner Production strate-gy. Efforts should be made to link CP with quali-ty and environmental management systems. Amajor step forward would be to have a CPapproach as a potential component of a formalEMS system. One avenue might be to review howCP could be integrated into any revision or exten-sion of ISO14001.

Reducing risks to financial fundingagenciesOften, financially sound CP investment proposalspresent obstacles related to risks (size or location ofa project, other unpredictables). In order to enablebanks to take decisions on regular commercialterms, mechanisms such as partial guarantees,revolving funds or soft loans may be establishedto bridge the gaps.

Broadening the number ofstakeholdersThe section on stakeholders above provides a sug-gested list that may require expansion or revision.Which stakeholder groups should be targeted, soas to achieve the most effective response and rapidadoption of the preventative strategy in makingdecisions to finance investments in productionand service facilities?

CP investments and the economyThe contribution of CP investments to the econ-omy at the micro and macro levels has been stud-ied very little. As this is a very interesting andchallenging area of work, future High-level Sem-inars on Cleaner Production may wish to callupon relevant international and national eco-nomic research and statistical institutions, andministries, to initiate research activities targetingthese issues.

For more information, contact: Ari Huhtala, Pro-moting Cleaner Production Investments, UNEPDTIE, Paris ([email protected]).

60 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Akey prerequisite for CP is stakeholderrecognition that the status quo is not satis-factory, that change is necessary, and that

innovation rather than retrenchment is required.However, innovation should not be taken to meanonly technological innovation.

This article discusses the role technology inno-vation can play in achieving CP and, beyond that,sustainable development, while recognizing thattechnology innovation is only one of the drivingforces for CP.

The International Cleaner Production Infor-mation Clearinghouse (ICPIC) provides a seriesof very useful case studies showing how compa-nies and other organizations have developed andimplemented Cleaner Production, and what theenvironmental and economic benefits have been.A few practical conclusions can be drawn fromthese and similar case studies:� Simple, intelligent techniques such as improved“housekeeping” can be very effective for achiev-ing CP, as well as significant cost savings, and thesetechniques should be explored first. Technology isnot always the answer.� Appropriate adaptations of existing technologiesoften provide significant benefits in a short timeat relatively low cost. Unnecessary technological

sophistication or complexity (technology “overkill”)can be counterproductive and wasteful. � In many cases, available techniques and tech-nologies are inadequate and solutions must befound through scientific research and experimen-tal development. For effectiveness, this must beclosely linked with technology assessment andappropriate feedback throughout the research/design/development process. Technology innova-tion supported by simultaneous assessment and effec-tive policies can be a very powerful tool to achieve CP.

Driving forces for CP: technology isnot sufficientThe OECD1,2 has identified three interrelatedmacroeconomic driving forces for cleaner prod-ucts and processes: � market demand;� advances in science and technology, and� government policy.

The analysis carried out by the OECD leads tothe conclusion that these driving forces must workin concert to advance the adoption of CP byindustry.

Market forces can provide very powerful incen-tives for achieving CP because they affect the prof-itability of companies and therefore strongly

influence company behaviour. They allow greatflexibility in designing responses to publicly deter-mined environmental objectives, so that industrycan meet requirements by changing manufactur-ing processes or feedstocks, modifying the productor adopting/developing entirely new technology.

Advances in science and technology open upnew opportunities and options for achieving CP.The private sector often has difficulty making theinvestments necessary for developing and incor-porating CP technologies into existing systems,unless the benefits to be obtained are proven. Thisis because it is usually easier to measure the costs oftechnology innovation than the benefits, whichmay be complex and long-term. Achieving greaterpenetration of CP into industrial production willrequire joint R&D and demonstration efforts bygovernment and industry.

Government policies to enhance CP can be thesingle most decisive factor in the development andindustrial use of cleaner technologies. Legislation,regulation, guidelines, standards, governmentprocurement, government support for R&D, andhuman resource education/retraining can encour-age or discourage, accelerate or delay use of CP byindustry, depending on their orientation or man-ner of implementation.

Obstacles can arise from the absence of policy orits enforcement, insufficient international harmo-nization, policy uncertainties and contradictions,or policies that ignore the particular conditions ofindividual sectors. Government policies shouldpromote the best technologies and encourage theirwide dissemination for industrial use.

While there is some understanding of macro-economic drivers for CP, more study is needed atthe microeconomic level concerning the motiva-tion of companies that embark on CP initiatives.It is clear from CP case studies that a culture ofinnovation is more important than in-house tech-nological expertise in determining whether a firmundertakes to develop/implement CP and persiststo achieve this goal.3 At the level of the firm, themicroeconomic driving forces for CP mapapproximately onto the macroeconomic drivingforces. However, they are somewhat different andare expressed as the need for:� improved/sustained profitability/competitive-ness and consumer goodwill (market forces);� greater control of production and product qual-ity (science and technology); and� reduced environmental liability and risk man-

Technology innovations and CleanerProduction: possibilities and limitations

John F. Jaworski, Senior Industry Development Officer, Life Sciences Branch, Industry Canada, 235 Queen Street, Ottawa K1A 0H5, Canadaand Co-chair of the OECD Task Force on Biotechnology for Sustainable Industrial Development ([email protected] )

David E. Minns, Special Advisor to National Research Council, Sustainable Development Technology, 51 Homestead Street, Nepean, Ontario K2E 7T3, Canada ([email protected] )

SummaryA wide range of technologies and related research disciplines can contribute to Cleaner Pro-duction. Technologies based on life sciences and biotechnology will play an increasing role inmoving global production systems towards sustainability. As a driver, scientific and techno-logical advances are insufficient to achieve adoption of CP by industry. Market forces and gov-ernment policies, for example, are also needed.

RésuméDe nombreuses technologies et disciplines scientifiques connexes peuvent apporter une con-tribution à la production plus propre. Les technologies basées sur les sciences de la vie et lesbiotechnologies devraient jouer un rôle croissant dans l’évolution des systèmes mondiaux deproduction vers des pratiques compatibles avec un développement durable. Mais les progrèsscientifiques et technologiques ne suffisent pas pour inciter l’industrie à adopter le principe deproduction plus propre : il faut que s’y ajoutent les forces du marché et l’action des gouverne-ments.

ResumenUna amplia gama de tecnologías y disciplinas de investigación pueden contribuir a una Pro-ducción más Limpia. Las tecnologías basadas en las ciencias de la vida y la biotecnologíadesempeñarán un rol cada vez más importante en impulsar los sistemas de producción glob-ales hacia la sustentabilidad. Los avances científicos y tecnológicos no constituyen motor sufi-ciente para impulsar a la industria a incorporar criterios de Producción más Limpia. Serequieren también, por ejemplo, presión del mercado y políticas gubernamentales.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 61

Cleaner Production

agement costs (government policy).These three microeconomic driving forces must

also work in concert to advance CP within thefirm. Environmental benefits alone are generallynot sufficient to motivate the selection of CP by afirm, since their customers are usually reluctant topay more for products manufactured using CP.

Technology and CPApproaches to CP can be grouped into three cat-egories:

Level 1: Waste reduction at source� good housekeeping;� process modification;� product modification;� change of materials.

Level 2: Waste recycling � internal recycling;� external recycling (among different organiza-tions – industrial ecology).

Level 3: Use of renewable resources� biomass as a renewable feedstock for energy,fuels and chemicals;4� other sources of renewable energy: solar, wind,tidal, small-scale hydroelectric.

These approaches involve a combination oftechnology (processes and tools) and techniques(ways that technology is used). Technology andtechniques are mutually supporting in deliveringCP, as seen in case studies. Performance assess-ment is the guide to determining the optimumcombination of the two.

Chemicals and energy are critical sectors forCP technology in view of their importance toso many other industry sectors. Biotechnolo-gy also holds great promise for achieving sus-tainable industrial development. Most, if notall, technologies can be relevant to CP. A trea-tise could be written on the application of eachfield of technology to CP.

The following list provides a sampling of thiswide scope.

EnergyEnergy is a fundamental requirement for humanactivities, from cooking to industrial manufactur-ing to transportation and travel. The predominantenergy source at present is fossil carbon, specifi-cally oil, natural gas and coal. The industry hasinvested for decades, and continues to invest, intechnology to divert/convert more waste intoproduct, as well as to replace polluting chemicalsand develop new more environment-friendlyproducts.5

The efficiency of electrical technologies, specif-ically of electric motors, has increased significant-ly over the last few decades. More recently, fuel celltechnology has developed to the point that it isnow possible to use this technology to provide sta-tionary sources of electricity and to power motorvehicles.6 This latter application will greatlyincrease the energy efficiency of such vehicles,while eliminating the air pollution associated with

internal combustion engines. As the energy den-sities of fuel cells increase, the cost will becomemore competitive with conventional sources ofpower. Hydro and wind power technologies con-tinue to improve in efficiency and cost-effective-ness. Solar cells are not cost competitive with mostother sources of energy, but find application inproviding energy where there is no link to thepower grid and there is enough sunlight to drivelow-power systems or recharge batteries.

There is continued R&D on reducing the costof producing renewable fuels such as ethanol andmethane generated by pyrolysis or by bio-processsing from biomass, as well as biodieselderived from waste oils and lipids. In future,ethanol or some other product derived from bio-mass may be used to power some types of fuelcells. Research is also focusing on biological pro-duction of hydrogen, which would be the ulti-mate clean fuel.

Chemical technologyThe chemical industry is key to advancing CP, aschemical products and processes are used as inputsin so many other sectors. Chemical technologyhas increased in efficiency, with decreased wasteas a secondary benefit. This change has largelybeen driven by competition and regulation. It isestimated that the chemical industry reduced theoverall waste produced per tonne of productapproximately five-fold between 1975 and 1995.However, this has been offset somewhat by thetwo- to three-fold increase in production andincreasing use of commercially produced chemi-cals in developing countries that occurred in thesame period.

The reduction in waste per tonne of producthas been accomplished by approaches rangingfrom improved housekeeping to improvedprocesses and process control, development ofnew less polluting products, and more efficientutilization of by-products. Technology innovationhas occurred in the areas of catalysts, sensors andreactor design, as well as materials and separationstechnologies. Recently the concept of GreenChemistry or “environmentally benign chem-istry” (see box) has shifted the focus to reducingthe hazard of chemical products and processes,and to controlling emissions and exposure.

It is relatively recently that a fresh look has beentaken at incorporating environmental considera-tions, in a comprehensive manner, into the selec-tion of chemical inputs and the design of chemicalprocesses. A major effort is under way, led by orga-nizations such as the US Environmental Protec-tion Agency and the OECD, to advanceeducation, training and technology in the field ofGreen Chemistry. Industrial biotechnology can beviewed as a subset of Green Chemistry involvingbioprocesses that are more eco-efficient, and bio-logically derived chemicals that are morebiodegradable than their conventional chemicalcounterparts.

BiotechnologyBiotechnology embodies a group of technologiesthat harness the chemistry of life forms to develop

products and processes. Biocatalysis involves theuse of enzymes or microorganisms to synthesize ormodify molecular structures with great efficiencyand specificity. Many reactions utilize naturallyoccurring enzymes or microorganisms. Othersmake use of enzymes or microorganisms that havebeen modified using mutation and selection tech-niques, including high throughput screening.

More recently, genetic engineering has beenused to produce microorganisms that contain allthe steps for a particular series of reactions in onecell (“metabolic engineering”), in effect turningthe cell into a miniature chemical factory.

Biotechnology has begun to play an importantrole in the synthesis of fine chemicals to the extentthat biocatalysis is becoming part of the generaltool kit used by synthetic organic chemists, oftenproviding environmental benefits. For example,BIOCHEMIE, a subsidiary of Novartis, hasreported that for the production of one tonne ofcephalosporin the conventional chemical processresulted in 31 tonnes of wastes requiring inciner-ation, while its new enzyme biocatalysis processresulted in only 0.3 tonnes of such wastes.7 On thehorizon are bioprocesses to produce a number ofbulk and commodity chemicals as well as plasticsutilizing biomass as a renewable feedstock. Bio-processes naturally lend themselves to processingof biomass, a major renewable resource, into fuels(e.g. methane, ethanol) and chemicals (e.g. ace-tone, butanediol).

SensorsA wide range of chemical, electrochemical andbiosensors provide the means to measure the con-centrations of chemical reactants and products,control processes and detect products or pollu-tants in real time (as compared to having to sendsamples to a laboratory for analysis).

InformaticsInformation technologies can be used to designequipment and processes, as well as to controlprocesses in real time at the site or from a remotelocation. Process design and simulation technolo-gies can help with analysis and optimization ofcomplex industrial systems and their impacts onthe environment.

SeparationsSeparation technologies have evolved from simpledistillation and extraction to gas and liquid chro-matography, as well as affinity chromatographybased on molecular recognition phenomena.Ultrafiltration using semipermeable membranesis widely used to separate mixtures of naturalproducts. Supercritical extraction using CO2under high pressure can be used to extractflavours, perfumes and other fine chemicals withhigh selectively and no solvent residue.

MaterialsMaterials technologies include abrasion and cor-rosion resistant coatings; powder coatings whichdo not require solvents; and light-weight com-posite materials that save energy when incorpo-rated into cars, trucks and airplanes.

62 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

NanotechnologyNanotechnology is the ultimate in materials tech-nology.8 It is the fabrication of devices or productswith atomic or molecular scale precision. Some ofthe first examples of this technology are mirrorsthat don’t fog, biomimetic paint with a contactangle near 180 degrees, gene chips and fat-solublevitamins in aqueous beverages. While the field isstill in its infancy, there is great interest in itspotential to create entirely new products as well asto contribute to CP.

Materials shaping and cuttingPrecision moulding (thermoplastic or metal/ceramic sintering), high-power lasers, high-pres-sure water jets, electrochemical etching and othertechnologies can replace conventional machiningprocesses and save energy, as well as reducingwaste by-products including such machining aidsas cutting oils.

The importance of technologyassessmentIt is essential to measure the environmental per-formance of products, processes, and the tech-nologies embedded in them if CP is to beachieved. Measuring a technology’s performanceincludes consideration not only of the technologybut also of how and how well it is used. Tools suchas life-cycle analysis (LCA) have been developedto measure the environmental impacts of productsand processes and the technologies embedded inthem systematically.

LCA is an excellent tool at the microeconomiclevel for designers in individual companies to usein examining the environmental consequences oftheir decisions broadly and beyond the “plantboundary”. LCA measures a range of environ-mental impacts. For example, one type of software(Simapro 4, developed by PRé Consults B.V. inthe Netherlands) used in LCA includes the fol-lowing parameters:� eutrophication;� CO2emissions;� energy consumption;� winter and summer smog;� solid waste production;� acidification� carcinogenic substances;� heavy metals;� ozone-depleting substances.

Case studies using multi-parameter measuresindicate that in many cases improvements in tech-nology that move towards “cleaner” in terms ofone parameter may simultaneously move away interms of another parameter. Thus, potential trade-offs may have to be made or additional redesignundertaken to implement the technology.

Techniques such as LCA cannot readily exam-ine society-wide macroeconomic issues such assustainable development. This is because LCAanswers the question “Is it cleaner?” while for sus-tainability the question is “Is it clean enough?”.

However, it is possible to arrive at an estimateof what is clean enough based on present condi-tions and some simple assumptions. The questionthen becomes: If one is to approach environmen-

tal sustainability while achieving sustained eco-nomic growth, what should be the environmen-tal performance targets for technology undergo-ing R&D today, relative to the performance ofcurrent industry-standard technology?

To answer this question, it is necessary to deter-mine the environmental performance that will berequired to keep the environmental “footprint” ofthe economy at a constant level. An equation thatdescribes this is:

GDP(t) / Fe(t) = constant

where GDP(t) is GDP (global or national), as afunction of time, and Fe(t) is the economy’s eco-efficiency (i.e. its average environmental perfor-mance), also as a function of time.

The following assumptions are built into thecase shown in Figure 1:� Environmental impacts are proportional to eco-nomic activity.� For the sake of argument, economic growth isset at 4%.� Increased eco-efficiency decreases the environ-mental impact of a given level of economic activ-ity.� If newly developed technology is now beginningto be introduced, it will take an average of 25 yearsfor this technology to become the average practicefor the industry as a whole.� Technologies at the R&D stage today will takean average of ten years to achieve market readi-ness.

The line in Figure 1 represents the rising envi-ronmental impact from 4% economic growthwithout any changes in the environmental per-formance of the technology used. It shows that inorder to bring the environmental impact back toits original level:� Technologies ready for market today (and whichtake an average of 25 years to become averageindustry practice) should have environmental per-formance at least three times better than the cur-rent industry average (i.e. emissions only 33% ofthe current average).� Technologies at the R&D stage today (andwhich will take an average of 35 years to becomeaverage industry practice) should have an envi-ronmental performance at least four times betterthan the current industry average (i.e. emissionsonly 25% of the current average).

If the present environmental impact is not sus-tainable, then the environmental performance tar-gets for new technology to help address this willhave to be raised even higher. It should be notedthat a factor of 4 improvement is not a particular-ly aggressive target. For example, the Netherlandshas established a sustainable development tech-nology research initiative with a factor of 20improvement as the goal, and the BIOCHEMIEexample cited earlier achieved a factor of 100improvement for reduction of hazardous waste.

Developing an integrating principle At present, the application of a wide range of tech-nologies for CP is scattered across industry with-out an integrating principle. Such a principle isneeded to avoid wasting resources on incrementalimprovements in the cleanliness of industrial pro-duction systems that will never make it to “cleanenough”, i.e. sustainable. The need to shifttowards an economy based on renewable carbon,because of the eventual depletion of fossil carbonresources, provides such an integrating principle:a means of setting global and national prioritiesfor research and technology development, as wellas for allocating our scientific and financialresources accordingly.

Developing an economy based on renewablecarbon (a “Biobased Economy”) means the strate-gic technology challenge for the 21st century is touse Cleaner Production as the means of establishinga sustainable linkage between the carbon cycle inindustry and the carbon cycle in the environment.

The life sciences, particularly biotechnology,will play a prominent role in making this a reality.In fact, the Life Science Revolution will lead to aconvergence of industry sectors including agricul-ture, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, forest productsand informatics, as well as a period of economicgrowth surpassing that brought on by the Infor-matics and Telecommunications Revolution.9

Making the Life Science Revolution sustainableprovides a robust integrating principle for CleanerProduction technologies. The US Department ofEnergy10 presents a view of how this integrationcan be conceived, planned and executed throughtargeting the development of technologies in thenear, medium and long term for:� developing value-added plant varieties for foodfeed and industrial applications;

Figure 1Eco-efficiency required to keep the environmental footprint constant










y fa


(F e


year2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

GDP / Fe = constant

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 63

Cleaner Production

� high-yield, sustainable crop production;� eco-efficient processing; � sustainable utilization of the resulting products;and � closing the loop back to the environment.

Opportunities and constraintsThe vision of CP in the service of a “BiobasedEconomy” offers hope to both developed anddeveloping countries. For developed countries, itpresents the opportunity to use their technologicalabilities to head off major economic and social dis-ruptions caused by fluctuations in the price ofenergy and petrochemicals as the supply of thesefinite, non-renewable resources continues todiminish.

For a number of developing countries, it pro-vides the opportunity to potentially leapfrog theage of fossil fuels and petrochemicals to the age ofbiofuels and biochemicals, which are less toxic andmore easily biodegradable and can be derivedfrom locally grown feedstock, leading to local self-sufficiency. For example, d-limonene, derivedfrom citrus fruit, is an excellent substitute forpetroleum-derived solvents such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane in cleaning and degreasing appli-cations.11

There are major challenges to overcome if theseopportunities are to become realities:

PriceThe historically low price of petroleum-derivedchemicals, and the development of product stan-dards based on these types of products, makes itdifficult for alternatives based on renewable feed-stock to compete on an equal footing in the mar-ketplace. The recent increase in the price of oilmay help offset this disadvantage, as can policymeasures that reduce the cost of innovation andhelp develop the large-scale infrastructurerequired for processing renewable bio-resources.

Lack of interdisciplinary expertise Integrating CP into the Biobased Economy willrequire cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinaryresearch, as well as technology development/trans-fer and implementation on a very broad scale. Thelinkage of microbiology with chemistry and engi-neering and other relevant disciplines has yet tobe made across a range of industry sectors. Net-works such as the Cleaner Production centres canplay a major role in this area.

Long lead times for CP technologydevelopmentLong lead times require careful selection and plan-ning of investments in technology to ensure that,as far as possible, these investments pay off. Insome cases, CP technology can be developed inphases so as to lower the overall risk of the project.Initiatives such as Technology Roadmaps can alsolower the risk by helping identify market-drivenpriority areas for development of technologies,along with the relevant research disciplines andindustry/university/government networks toundertake research, development, scale-up andtechnology demonstration.

Lack of financingCP often results in sufficient cost savings. The pay-back period for investment in CP technology inno-vation may be a few years or less. A key element forbringing in financing, whether from the company’sown resources, the government or a financial insti-tution, is building awareness of CP’s economic ben-efits and the costs of continued pollution of theenvironment in the organization providing thefinancing. In this regard, tools such as LCA andEnvironmental Accounting can be useful. The useof Environmental Management Systems can alsoprovide comfort to investors that the objectives ofCP technology development will be met.

Lack of private sector entrepreneursMany CP technologies are commercialized byfirms specializing in technology development.These firms service the technology needs of otherfirms that are users and adapters of technology butnot developers. Some researchers in university andgovernment and industry laboratories may havepromising ideas for CP technologies that are notof interest to their current employer but could

provide the basis for starting a new company.Some universities, government research agenciesand companies have begun to provide flexibleleaves of absence and even incubator facilities forresearchers who want to spin out a company.Another factor in stimulating the flow of entre-preneurs is the example of entrepreneurs who havebeen successful and have benefited financiallyfrom their efforts.

Lack of government support for this kind ofresearchGovernment is one of the prime funding sourcesfor fundamental and applied research with poten-tial societal benefits, such as that on CP. Govern-ment priorities for supporting R&D are oftenfocused on technologies and products with com-mercial potential. In some cases, CP is not seen ashaving commercial potential or direct economicbenefits. Initiatives such as those of UNEP, OECDand other international organizations can be veryimportant in showing government policy-makersand programme managers that CP can also havemajor economic benefits and create/preserve jobs.

The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry

1. Prevention It is better to prevent waste than to treat or cleanit up after it has been created.

2. Atom economy Synthetic methods should be designed to max-imize the incorporation of all materials used inthe process into the final product.

3. Less hazardous chemical synthesisWherever practicable, synthetic methodsshould be designed to use and generate sub-stances that possess little or no toxicity tohuman health and the environment.

4. Designing safer chemicalsChemical products should be designed to effecttheir desired function while minimizing theirtoxicity.

5. Safer solvents and auxiliariesThe use of auxiliary substances (e.g. solvents,separation agents) should be made unnecessarywherever possible and innocuous when used.

6. Design for energy efficiencyEnergy requirements of chemical processesshould be recognized for their environmentaland economic impacts and should be mini-mized. If possible, synthetic methods should beused at ambient temperature and pressure.

7. Use of renewable feedstocksA raw material or feedstock should be renew-able, rather than depleting, whenever technical-ly and economically practicable.

8. Reduce derivativesUnnecessary derivativization (use of blockinggroups, protection/deprotection, temporarymodification of physical/chemical prosesses)should be minimized or avoided if possible.Such steps require additional reagents and cangenerate waste.

9. CatalysisCatalytic reagents (as selective as possible) aresuperior to stoichiometric reagents.

10. Design for degradationChemical products should be designed so that,at the end of their function, they break downinto innocuous degradation products and donot persist in the environment.

11. Real-time analysis for pollutionpreventionAnalytical methodologies need to be furtherdeveloped to allow for real-time, in-processmonitoring and control prior to the formationof hazardous substances.

12. Inherently safer chemistry foraccident preventionSubstances and the form of a substance used ina chemical process should be chosen to mini-mize the potential for chemical accidents,including releases, explosions and fires.

Source: Paul T. Anastas and John C. Warner,Green Chemistry Theory and Practice, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, 1998. For moreinformation, visit the American Chemical Soci-ety’s site at greenchem.

Industrial ecology: a new CleanerProduction strategy

Suren Erkman and Ramesh Ramaswamy, Institute for Communication and Analysis of Science and Technology (ICAST), PO Box 474, CH-1211, Geneva 12, Switzerland ([email protected])

SummaryConcepts, strategies and tools for applying the principles of industrial ecology to Cleaner Pro-duction planning at “system level” are presented. For the industrial system to evolve towardssustainability, waste and by-products should be valorized systematically, losses due to disper-sion minimized, economies dematerialized, and energy produced from sources other thanhydrocarbons. With the aim of testing and adapting the “industrial metabolism” methodolo-gy, the authors carried out a number of studies in India.

RésuméL’article présente des concepts, des stratégies et des outils pour appliquer les principes de l’écolo-gie industrielle à la planification de la production plus propre au niveau du “système”. Pour quele système industriel évolue vers des pratiques compatibles avec un développement durable, ilfaut systématiquement valoriser les déchets et les produits dérivés, réduire le plus possible lespertes par dispersion, dématérialiser les économies et produire de l’énergie à partir de sourcesautres que les hydrocarbures. Les auteurs ont mené plusieurs études en Inde afin de tester etd’ajuster la méthodologie du “métabolisme industriel”.

ResumenSe presentan conceptos, estrategias y herramientas para la aplicación de los principios deecología industrial en la programación de producción más limpia a “nivel de sistema”. Paralograr que el sistema industrial evolucione hacia la sustentabilidad, es necesario valorizar sis-temáticamente los desechos y subproductos, minimizar las pérdidas por dispersión, desmate-rializar las economías, y generar energía a partir de otras fuentes que no sean hidrocarburos.Los autores desarrollaron una serie de estudios en la India con el objeto de evaluar y adaptar lametodología de “metabolismo Industrial”.

64 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Distrust of technology and corporations A number of consumer and environmental groupshave developed a deep distrust of technology, andof many of the corporations that develop andcommercialize technology. CP is seen as an imper-ative by many of these organizations. This mayprovide an opportunity to develop a constructivedialog on the issues surrounding technology andCP. Consumer understanding and confidence inthe performance of CP technologies is one meansof stimulating the market forces driver for CP.

ConclusionTechnology innovation can be a very powerfultool for achieving CP if it is informed by effectivetechnology assessment and supported by effectivepolicies at the company level. A wide range oftechnologies and related research disciplines cancontribute to CP. However, advances in scienceand technology are not sufficient as a driver forachieving CP. Market forces and government poli-cies must also work in concert with technology toadvance industry’s adoption of CP. Thus, a widerange of different communities representing quitedifferent perspectives must come together to helpachieve CP.

One integrating principle for CP, which focus-es on sustainability, is use of CP technologies toestablish a sustainable linkage between the carboncycle in industry and the carbon cycle in the envi-ronment. Technologies based on life sciences andbiotechnology, in particular, will play an increas-ingly prominent role in moving global productionsystems toward this ultimate goal of sustainability.

For the full text of the background paper fromwhich this article has been taken, as well as com-plete references, see the CP6 web site (

Notes1. OECD (1995) Technologies for Cleaner Produc-tion and Products. OECD, Paris. 2. OECD (1998) Biotechnology for Clean Indus-trial Products and Processes. OECD, Paris.3. Wolf, Oliver (ed.) (2000) Modern Biotechnolo-gy and the Greening of Industry: The Introductionof Process-Integrated Biocatalysis in Companies –Effect of Dynamics in Internal and External Net-works. European Commission Directorate Gen-eral JRC, Joint Research Centre, Institute forProspective Technological Studies, Technologiesfor Sustainable Development, Seville, Spain.

4. See the site for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance ( See, for example, the Royal Dutch Shell Groupsite ( See, for example, Industry and Environment,Vol. 23, No. 4.7. OECD (in press) Case Studies of Biotechnologyand Cleaner Production. OECD Task Force onBiotechnology for Sustainable Industrial Devel-opment. OECD, Paris.8. More information is available on the site forNanoTechnology Magazine ( 9. Enriquez, J. and R.A Goldberg (2000) Trans-forming Life, Transforming Business: The LifeScience Revolution. Harvard Business Review,March-April.10. US Department of Energy (1998) Vision forPlant/Crop Based Renewable Resources 2020( );US Department of Energy (1999) The Technolo-gy Roadmap for Plant/Crop Based RenewableResources 2020 ( ).11. See, for example, the Carbohydrate EconomyBulletin (

When societies became conscious of theeffects of the environmental degrada-tion caused by human activity, the first

strategy conceived was that of building filters toensure that waste from industries did not “leak”into the environment. However, analysis showedthat better strategies were required. The processof building filters only transferred pollutantsfrom one medium to another (e.g. from water toland). The process of building filters was also notvery economical. No savings accrued from thisprocess.

Cleaner Production strategies then evolvedwhich looked at possible changes in processes orparts of processes to minimize waste. With thischange, the economics of production oftenimproved, as less waste meant better material uti-lization. Hence Cleaner Production and eco-effi-ciency became part of corporate strategies.

Cleaner Production and eco-efficiency are stillmainly targeted towards particular manufacturingprocesses and business strategies within individ-ual companies. One could think of going evenfurther, and trying to apply Cleaner Production

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 65

Cleaner Production

at the level of a cluster of various companies orthat of an industrial zone or even a whole region –in other words, applying Cleaner Production atthe level of a system. For the past few years, thisemerging approach has been known as “industri-al ecology”.

The industrial ecology philosophy and agendaThe industrial system can be seen as a certain kindof ecosystem. Like natural ecosystems, it can bedescribed as a distribution of materials, energy andinformation flows. Furthermore, the entire indus-trial system relies on resources and services pro-vided by the biosphere, from which it cannot bedissociated.1,2

To avoid confusion, we would like to specifywhat is meant in this article by “industrial metab-olism” and “industrial ecology”.

Industrial metabolism is the whole of the mate-rials and energy flows going through the industri-al system. It is studied using an essentiallyanalytical and descriptive approach (basically anapplication of materials-balance principles). Thisapproach is aimed at understanding the circula-tion of materials and energy flows – linked tohuman activity – from their initial extraction totheir inevitable reintegration, sooner or later, intothe overall biogeochemical cycles.3-7

Industrial ecology goes further. The idea is firstto understand how the industrial system works,how it is regulated and its interaction with thebiosphere, and then, based on what we knowabout ecosystems, to determine how this systemcould be restructured to make it compatible withthe way natural ecosystems function.

From a practical point of view, one of the firstanalogies that comes to mind is that of an “indus-trial food chain”. Just as in natural ecosystems,where certain species feed on the waste or organ-isms of others, one can imagine a process of wasterecovery among various economic entities. Thusthe concept of “eco-industrial parks” (EIPs) orig-inated in the early 1990s. EIPs are areas wherecompanies cooperate to make the most of resourceuse, namely through mutual recovery of the wastethey generate (waste produced by one enterprisebeing used as raw material by another).

The main challenge is therefore reorganizingthe industrial system in depth: this is commonlyreferred to as “eco-restructuring”. Eco-restructru-ing will help the industrial system evolve towardsa sustainable long-term operating mode compat-ible with the biosphere. In concrete terms, fourchallenges must be met within the framework ofindustrial ecology:

Waste and by-products need to be valorized systematicallyJust as in the food chain processes of natural

ecosystems, we must create networks ofresource and waste use in industrial ecosystemsso that almost all the residues become resourcesfor other enterprises or economic entities(through eco-industrial networks). Traditionalrecycling is only one aspect of a series of matterflow recovery strategies.

Loss caused by dispersion needs to be minimizedIncreasingly, human consumption and use

tend to cause more pollution than actualmanufacturing. Products such as fertilizers,pesticides, tyres and solvents are entirely orpartially dispersed into the environment as theyare used. New products and services thatminimize dispersion, or at least eliminate itsharmful effects, must be designed.

The economy needs to be dematerializedThe objective here is to minimize matter (andenergy) flows while making sure equivalentservices are provided. Due to technicalprogress, it is possible to obtain more servicefrom a smaller amount of matter by producinglighter objects or replacing matter (e.g.replacing copper cable use with fibre optics intelecommunications). However,dematerialization is not simple. Less massiveproducts may also have shorter life spans, inwhich case they will ultimately consume moreresources and generate more waste.Dematerialization applies not only to goods forconsumption, but also in large part to theindustrial system’s heavy infrastructure(buildings, roads, etc.).

Energy production needs to rely lesson fossil fuelsFrom the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have powered the enginesof industrial economies. However, they are also atthe root of many current problems including thegreenhouse effect, smog, acid rain and oil spills.We must make hydrocarbon consumption lessharmful (e.g. by recovering gases emitted by com-bustion) and encourage the move towards reducedconsumption (e.g. through renewable energy use,energy savings). In abstract terms, the “energy”function must be separated from its “fossil carbon”substratum.

Industrial ecology in practice: studies in India Looking beyond KalundborgThe story of Kalundborg, Denmark, really beginsin 1961, with a project to use surface water fromLake Tissø for a new oil refinery to preserve limit-ed ground water supplies. The city took responsi-bility for building the pipeline, while the refineryfinanced it. A number of other collaborative pro-jects were introduced and the number of partnersgradually increased. By the end of the 1980s, thepartners realized they had effectively “self-orga-nized” into what is probably the best-knownexample of a working industrial ecosystem or, touse their term, industrial symbiosis. The industrialsymbiosis in Kalundborg is an example of howstrategic material-based planning can earn a hand-some payback.

There is no doubt that the Kalundborg modelhas fruitfully inspired recent thinking on envi-ronmental management of industrial estates andeco-industrial networks. However, there is also

growing recognition that we need to look beyondKalundborg. This is especially true with respect toimplementation of industrial ecology in develop-ing countries, where the industrial pattern is veryunlike that of Kalundborg.8

Industrial metabolism in the context of adeveloping countryIn an attempt to test and adapt the methodologyof industrial metabolism in the context of a devel-oping country, the authors have undertaken vari-ous studies in India. These studies’ purpose hasbeen to try and develop a broad conceptual frame-work for planning strategies that use basic princi-ples and concepts drawn from industrial ecology.

We present in this article the methodologicalframework developed for the studies.9 From thisnew perspective, approaches to planning in adefined socio-economic system (e.g. city, state,country or any other clearly defined region) couldinvolve:� analyzing the “flow of resources” through thesystem;� redefining issues in the context of “resources”;� setting priorities for action and identifyingresources whose use is of immediate concern;� carrying out a detailed analysis of the utilizationof identified critical resources; � preparing a strategic plan for optimizing use ofselected resources;

Graphically, the flow of resources can be repre-sented as in the diagram in Figure 1.

Material or resource flow analysisIn the context of system-level planning, especial-ly when the object is to optimize use of scarceresources, Material Flow Analysis (MFA) could bereferred to as Resource Flow Analysis (RFA).10

Analysis of the flow of materials and energyused in an economic system, including the quan-tity of resources used, the way they are used andthe impact of their use on the local environment,could form the cornerstone of planning. Analysisof the flow of resources could generate criteria onthe basis of which a development agency mightplan activities in a region.

In Figure 2, we present a possible frameworkwithin which issues could be discussed. The “flow”of resources through the socio-economic system isrepresented. Land is specifically included as animportant resource, whose “flow” or use by differ-ent economic sectors needs careful and criticalexamination in view of many developing countries’high population density and the consequent highdemand from different economic sectors.

One aim of a resource-based development plancould simply be to ensure that total flow ofresources, particularly scarce resources or resourceswhose use or disposal can be harmful, is opti-mized. This can be achieved by: � eliminating the use of such resources; � reducing the use of such resources, e.g. throughsubstitution of lighter or benign materials thatperform the same function;� recycling wastes so that the same quantity ofresources performs its function many times beforebeing discarded to the environment, thereby

66 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

increasing resource productivity;� substitution with a more efficient resource,whose use and the ensuing flow of wastes to theenvironment will consequently be minimal;� substitution with a resource whose availability is“inexhaustible” (at least from the human perspec-tive), e.g. solar or wind energy.

Regional Resource Flow Analysis(RRFA)As mentioned earlier, preparation of a RegionalResource Flow Diagram like that in Figure 1could be useful for understanding the flow ofresources in a selected geographic region. Thiswould clearly show the quantitative inputs of re-sources to the selected region and outputs fromthe region, both as wastes going to other regionsfor reprocessing and as wastes going to the envi-ronment, apart from end-products for sale orconsumption.

A diagram such as this would immediately give adetailed quantitative account of the flows of differ-ent resources within an area. If establishing priori-ties for action is a development fund requirement,the first step might be to prepare a RegionalResource Flow Diagram clearly indicating resourcesof significance. Since the consumption figures forall resources are clearly quantified, it would be easyto assess any resource’s relative importance withinthe region.

For each resource which is an input, the ques-tions needing to be asked are:� Is the resource scarce within the region?� Is the availability of the resource likely to be a

problem in the future?� Is use of the resource likely to cause damage toany other resource?�Can the resource be more profitably utilized in thesphere/segment or be put to more profitable use?

Redefining problemsOnce a quantitative analysis of the “flows” of dif-ferent resources within the region is available, itmay be necessary to redefine problems from theperspective of resource utilization. For example, itis often said that of liquid effluent from a particu-

lar industry that it does not meet the norms laiddown. The same issue could be presented as theindustry using water (often a scarce resource), andthe effluent from the industry spoiling anotherresource such as soil or ground water. The reasonfor such a redefinition is that if the effluent doesnot affect any other resource within the region, itis not of much consequence and therefore not amajor problem. However, if the resource theindustry is using is scarce, and if the industry caus-es damage to other scarce resources within theregion, immediate attention is required. Henceproblems need to be considered specific to a loca-tion.

Setting prioritiesBased on a Regional Resource Flow Diagram, it ispossible to identify and prioritize resources thatneed more detailed attention.

If analysis of the regional resource flow is to betranslated into an action plan, priorities for actionhave to be established. If action is to be initiated,these aspects need to be studied:� Is action needed?� Which particular sector needs it?� Is action possible?� What would the consequences of any action be?

While setting priorities, it is necessary to prior-itize areas where action will yield results. Thus theresults indicated by a Regional Resource FlowDiagram may need to be examined in conjunc-tion with many other factors.

Analyzing use of resourcesHaving set priorities and selected the resources forcloser scrutiny, it is necessary to analyze in greaterdetail how the particular resource selected as a pri-ority is used in the identified region. The ques-tions that need to be answered are:� Who uses the resource?� Can usage be optimized?� Can users find an alternative resource?� Can the resource be harnessed in a better way(e.g. through water harvesting techniques)?� Can users be removed from the system orregion?

Preparation of a Resource Utilization Map(RUM) along the lines shown in Figure 3 couldprovide a coherent framework to help answerthese questions. It is important to understand aswell as possible the behaviour of each category ofusers of a given resource: what they use it for, andhow much of it they use. This information couldbe used effectively to plan a strategy for optimiza-tion of the resource’s use.

Any Strategic Resource Management Plan needsto take into account the following elements:� very clear definition of objectives;� possible options to achieve the goal;� optional action plans;� the cost assessment of each action plan and timeframe;� likely consequences/results of each option;� evaluation of options;� selection of a specific action plan;� setting of time-bound goals; � evolution of a system to evaluate progress.

Figure 1Regional Resource Flow Diagram


Resource 1Resource 2Resource 3Resource n

Waste to environment

To recycle

To re-use

Finishedproduct 1

Finishedproduct 2

Finishedproduct 3


Figure 2Flow of resources in an economic system

Waste recycled

Waste to agriculture/industry

Waste to agriculture/living

Waste to industry/human living

Waste to environment

Waste to environment

Waste to environment

Product (labour) to living/agriculture/industry

Product to agriculture/industry/living

Product to industry/agriculture/living

Waste recycled

Waste recycled

Human living








FoodShelterClothingCleaningCommunicationTemperature control

Food cropsCash cropsForestryAnimal breedingFishing

Large scaleSmall/cottage scaleInfrastructure

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 67

Cleaner Production

Possible strategy optionsClear definition of objectives canbe aided by figures generatedthrough the RRFA and RUM.What could be interesting, in thecontext of industrial ecology,would be discussing the kind ofstrategy options generated.

Using resources that arewasted (closing the materialcycle)Study of a Regional ResourceFlow Diagram provides an ini-tial idea of the quantity of differ-ent resources that are input tothe environment from a givengeographic region. These datacould be used to develop neweconomic activities or an indus-trial undertaking that wouldmake use of wastes.

Planning integrated closedmaterial cycle economic activityIf, for example, a new industrial area or industrialestate is envisaged, it may be possible to plan thetypes of industries to be set up in such a way thatwastes from one unit in the area are feedstock foranother. Hence individual industries in the clusterbecome partners in a quasi-closed cycle. Thisreplication of the Kalundborg model is attemptedin the planned eco-industrial parks (EIPs) or net-works (EINs).

This planning could also take the form of link-ing and interconnecting different economic sub-systems within a region.

Reducing or eliminating use of selectedcritical resourcesReduced resource consumption could be achievedthrough either a change in technology or improv-ing the efficiency of the same technology. Simi-larly, waste minimization programmes could bespecifically planned to achieve clear targets foridentified scarce resources within the region.

Recycycling materials within the same user sectorA targeted industry could be encouraged to recycleits own wastes, which would help it reduceresource use.

Strategically relocating industries that usecritical resourcesMainly for historical reasons, many industries growin areas where their resource requirements are quiteincompatible with resource availability. Such indus-tries might could be relocated.

ConclusionsThe concepts presented here offer a number ofperspectives for policy-makers:� The methodology is intended to allow countriesto map flows of materials through their entire eco-nomic system. This will show what the criticalresources are.� From such a model, the loose ends are very obvi-ous and immediately give an indication of unusedor under-utilized resources.� In specific instances, this information can beused to plan integrated industrial complexes. � This methodology is relevant on various scales:local, regional, national.� Such studies of different activity groups can beaggregated to provide an overall picture of mater-ial flows within a region. Based on this, plannerscan consider the promotion of industries in spe-cific sectors, which would optimize the use of crit-ical resources.� Information and understanding generated bymaterial flow analysis can be used as a tool in plan-ning socio-economic development. Such a toolcan be useful for local and regional government,or for international development agencies andfinancial institutions.

Finally, from a business point of view, thisapproach serves two purposes. First, it can offernew options for industries under great pressurefrom governmental authorities with responsibili-ties for controlling environmental pollution. Sec-ond, it can expose companies to the larger pictureand make them aware of the total range of mate-rials used in a cluster, zone or region. As largenumbers of small manufacturers use the materi-

als, an aggregation (as has beenshown) can be revealing and maybecome a catalyst for action. Evenmore important, such data canreveal new business opportunities.Moreover, knowledge of opportu-nities to use resources better couldbe of interest to companies in thecontext of globalization and ofincreasing competition fromneighbouring countries.

Notes1. Frosch, Robert A. and NicholasE. Gallopoulos (1989) Strategiesfor Manufacturing, ScientificAmerican, Vol. 261, No. 3, pp. 94-102, September (special issue onManaging Planet Earth).2. Erkman, Suren (1997) Industri-al Ecology: An Historical View,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.5, No. 1-2, pp. 1-10.3. Baccini, P. and P.H. Brunner

(1991) Metabolism of the Anthroposphere. SpringerVerlag, Berlin.4. Brunner, Peter H. and Paul Baccini (1992)Regional Material Management and Environmen-tal Protection, Waste Management and Research,Vol. 10, pp. 203-212.5. Stigliani, William and Stefan Anderberg (1994)Industrial Metabolism at the Regional Level: TheRhine Basin. In: R.U. Ayres and U.E. Simonis(eds.), Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sus-tainable Development, United Nations UniversityPress, Tokyo.6. Adriaanse, A., et al. (1997) Resource Flows: TheMaterial Basis of Industrial Economies. WorldResources Institute, Washington, D.C.7. Emily Matthews, et al. (2000) The Weight ofNations. Material Outflows from IndustrialEconomies. World Resources Institute, Washing-ton, D.C.8. Gertler, Nicholas and John R. Ehrenfeld (1997)Industrial Ecology in Practice. The Evolution ofInterdependence at Kalundborg, Journal of Indus-trial Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 67-79.9. A summary of these studies can be found in theproceedings of CP6 ( CP6 ). Thestudies will be published in detail inSuren Erk-man and Ramesh Ramaswamy, Industrial Ecologyas a Tool for Development Planning. Case Studies inIndia, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi and Paris,2001 (forthcoming).10. The word “resource” as used in this article specif-ically refers to material and energy resources. Insome cases this can include land and manpower.

Figure 3Resource Utilization Map (RUM)

Human living

Sector n

Sector n

Sector n

Sector 1Subsector 1

Subsector n

Subsector 1

Subsector n

Subsector 1

Subsector n

Subsector 1

Subsector n

Subsector 1

Subsector n

Subsector 1

Subsector n

Subsector 1

Subsector n

Sector 1

Sector 1

Sector 2



Selected resource

Origin n

Origin 1

An important development in the CleanerProduction world involves moving awayfrom the era of isolated case studies and

demonstrations towards broad-based implemen-tation of Cleaner Production principles. To suc-ceed in this transition, we need better, morecost-effective ways to disseminate information,share experiences, and build networks of CleanerProduction practitioners (Kasman, 1999).

Despite the abundance of Cleaner Productioninformation on the internet, this information isfragmented among agencies, centres and roundta-bles. Access varies from region to region. Business-es, practitioners and government programmes areoften unaware of the services and information avail-able to assist them. At the end of the1990s, severalnetworks emerged to help regional Cleaner Pro-duction communities find and share internet-basedCleaner Production information and resources.

Regional networks have an essential role incoordinating the information produced and dis-seminated worldwide. However, these networksthemselves need to coordinate access to their col-lective information, research and expertise whileavoiding duplication of efforts.

Four existing regional efforts to improve infor-mation exchange are described below.

� UNEP’s Work Group on CleanerProduction information sharing of the key outcomes of UNEP’s 5th Interna-tional High-level Seminar on Cleaner Productionin Seoul was a recommendation to establish a new

Work Group on Cleaner Production informationsharing. Chaired by the Canadian Centre for Pol-lution Prevention (C2P2), this Work Group isdevoted to:� fostering regular communication betweenCleaner Production information providers;� improving the organizational capacity to dis-seminate information.

The Work Group established a list-server, an e-mail list service linking 70 information providersand practitioners from 26 countries to discussionsdedicated to sharing of information.

While e-mail discussions can encourage mean-ingful exchanges, most fail in gathering usefulinput, let alone stimulating debate. To producethe most effective discussions:� the C2P2 acted as a facilitator and stimulateddiscussion by proposing discussion items;� discussions were structured to lead to a conclu-sion or plan of action;� material not relevant to effective informationsharing was tabled for future discussion;� subscribers were asked to respond to questionswithin a defined time;� dialogue was summarized and sent back to thelist-server; � a summary of key discussions was posted on theC2P2 site; and� all subscribers and their e-mail addresses wereposted on the C2P2 site.

Discussion and posted questions focused onthree key areas:� existing networks for increasing communica-tion;� barriers that information providers face;

� collaborative efforts for Work Group members.Discussion confirmed that while there is no

shortage of information systems supported byindividual centres and roundtables, only a fewregional networks exist. Sustaining informationprogrammes (funding) was one of the highest pri-orities – and greatest challenges – identified byinformation providers. Mandar Parasnis of theThailand Environment Institute’s Cleaner Tech-nology Information Center (CTIC) noted thatsince the CTIC’s inception its self-sustainabilityhas been a major issue of concern (Parasnis, 1999).

To help information providers overcome barriersand deliver their programmes more effectively, onerecommendation has been to create an internet-based global network. The recommended internetsite would link the growing number of regionalCleaner Production initiatives, National CleanerProduction Centres (NCPCs), roundtables andother Cleaner Production activities worldwide.

� Pollution prevention resourceexchange (P2Rx) 1994, the US Environmental ProtectionAgency funded a three-year pilot project to estab-lish a model programme to enhance informationsharing between two established regional pollu-tion prevention programmes. The scope of thiswork was unique, focusing exclusively on meth-ods for facilitating coordination and informationsharing between regional centres.

The regional centres, representing large pollu-tion prevention communities, coordinated theiractivities through conference telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and e-mail. Collaborative effortsincluded sharing strategic plans, joint internettraining, development of industry-specific infor-mation manuals, and updating regional databases.This interest, and the ability to leverage resourcesacross regions, was not developed instantaneous-ly: it took time to create a close relationship.Through formally bringing together the tworegional centres, it was possible to leverage andbenefit from others’ skills and knowledge (Regen-stein, et al. 1998).

This pioneering work, and the recommenda-tions in two reports from the US National Pollu-tion Prevention Roundtable, reinforced the needto establish a National Pollution Prevention Net-work (Kerr et al., 1995; Liebl et al., 1997).

Today the Pollution Prevention ResourceExchange (P2Rx) is a network of nine regionalpollution prevention centres in the United States.These centres offer a variety of resources, includ-

Cleaner Production information: the importance of interNET-WORKING

Marianne Lines, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention, 100 Charlotte Street, Sarnia, ONT N7T 4R2, Canada ([email protected])

SummaryOne outcome of CP6 was the commitment to develop a Global Cleaner Production InformationNetwork. The responsibilities, level of effort and resources required to maintain such a globalnetwork are outlined, based on experience with existing networks. Four existing regional effortsto improve information exchange are described.

RésuméL’un des résultats de CP6 est la volonté de mettre en place un réseau mondial d’information surla production plus propre. En se référant aux réseaux existants, l’article évoque les respons-abilités, les efforts et les ressources nécessaires pour faire fonctionner un réseau mondial de cetype et décrit quatre initiatives régionales pour améliorer les échanges d’informations.

ResumenComo uno de los resultados de CP6 surgió el compromiso de desarrollar una Red Global deInformación de Producción más Limpia. Se describen las responsabilidades, nivel de compro-miso y recursos requeridos para mantener dicha red global, en base a la experiencia de redesexistentes. Se describen cuatro emprendimientos regionales vigentes para incrementar el inter-cambio de información.

68 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 69

Cleaner Production

ing information for specific industry sectors,training, libraries, referrals and research. ThroughP2Rx, the nine centres are laying the groundworkfor a seamless national network of easily accessi-ble, high-quality pollution prevention informa-tion.

� Asia-Pacific Cleaner ProductionRoundtable (APCPR) http://www.apcpr.orgThe APCRP internet site, established in 1999,was designed to provide tools to Cleaner Produc-tion practitioners and support the Roundtable’sworking groups. Besides an on-line identity forthe APCPR, the site conveys technical and policyoptions to practitioners in the field, including:� industry-specific Cleaner Production guides;� facilitated on-line dialogues;� a gateway to Cleaner Production roundtablesites and information;� regional meeting and training opportunities; and� access to Cleaner Production networks in otherregions of the world.

� Roundtable of the Americas for Cleaner Production October 1999, the Steering Committee of theSecond Regional Conference of the Americas onCleaner Production in Bogota, Colombia, agreedon the idea of creating a web site for the Round-table. An Information Working Group includingArgentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and theUnited States was designated to design a test site.

Challenges facing networksThe challenges facing existing networks have beenestablished. For the collaborative effort proposed inthis article to be successful, it is essential to plan howto overcome the predicted challenges and barriers.

Networking at any level is exceptionally diffi-cult. The greatest challenge concerns resources –both time and money. A coordinated global effortonly accentuates this need.

Long-term funding commitmentPractitioners in the United States operate estab-lished information networks at both national andregional levels. Based on their experience with sus-taining information efforts, it is their recommen-dation that a national pollution preventionnetwork and regional information centres cannotdevelop without adequate fiscal support. They alsoconfirm what many information networks arebeginning to experience with some frustration: agrowing number of information tools are available,but resources devoted to coordinating and main-taining them are inadequate (Regenstein, 1998).

The regional partners interested in creating andmaintaining a Global Cleaner Production Infor-mation Network must work with private andpublic sector organizations to solidify long-termfunding commitments to maintain the Networkand strengthen regional infrastructures.

Regional capacityWhile the internet is widely available, and its value

to some regional partners and their clients isincreasing, many countries and regions are notfully integrated or linked to the internet. Tradi-tional methods of information delivery, such aspersonal contact and hard copies, will remainessential (UNEP, 1997).

The Global Cleaner Production InformationNetwork must communicate through a variety ofexchange mechanisms. These include meetingsand conference calls, as well as electronic commu-nications.

Regional infrastructureAs emerging centres are established and grow, theGlobal Cleaner Production Information Networkwill be invaluable. It can provide assistance, reduceduplication of effort, and help new centres buildon the capacities of established networks. Butregional contributors will also need financial sup-port to prepare and adapt their own informationto the coordinated Network.

The Global Cleaner Production InformationNetwork must leverage long-term funding tostrengthen regional infrastructures.

The language barrierMany Cleaner Production information systemsonly exist in English, whereas most of the worldpopulation does not use English as a working lan-guage. No matter how relevant information is, itwill be of little value to the practitioner or deci-sion-maker who does not know the language(UNEP, 1997).

With effective coordination and long-term col-lective planning, the Global Cleaner ProductionInformation Network could use combinedregional resources to support translation of infor-mation into languages other than English.

Level of effort and commitment Perhaps the most misunderstood element of anynetworking initiative is the amount of time, andlevel of effort, needed to build the relationshipsnecessary for successful communication. TheNetwork Host and Regional Contributors oftenunderestimate the time required to prepare mate-rial, populate websites, actively participate in dis-cussions and encourage unresponsive contribu-tors. The P2Rx Coordinator estimates that 85%of her time is allocated to coordination and tocommunicating with regional centres.

The Asia-Pacific Roundtable on Cleaner Pro-duction identified continuous commitment anddedication (by the leaders of the network, region-al partners and the network host) as vital to thesuccess of any network.

The network host should be an organizationprepared to allocate adequate long-term staff timeto develop and maintain the network and to coor-dinate Regional Contributors. Regional Contrib-utors must assign a main point of contact whoseprimary responsibility is ensuring that regionalcontent is supplied regularly to the network.

Launching a permanent globalnetworkOne outcome of CP6 was the commitment to

develop a Global Cleaner Production InformationNetwork. It is time to join in a permanent net-work that goes beyond annual meetings, trulylinks practitioners in isolated Cleaner Productioncentres, and encourages ideas and innovation.

Recommendations for establishing a GlobalCleaner Production Information Network areoutlined below.

Target audienceWhile the primary audience for most Cleaner Pro-duction assistance is industry, ultimately manag-ing Cleaner Production information through anetwork designed for practitioners will betterserve the business users of information. Cleanerproduction practitioners are generally profession-als in universities, industry associations, CleanerProduction centres, roundtables, NGOs and gov-ernment agencies – those who provide outreachand support to industry on Cleaner Productiontechniques and policies.

GoalThe Global Cleaner Production Information Net-work will:� foster regular communication between CleanerProduction information providers; and� improve the capacity of organizations to dis-seminate information.

In addition to facilitating greater access toCleaner Production information, this collabora-tive effort will help avoid duplication of activities,promote strategic planning, and help set prioritiesin Cleaner Production activities.

Network structureThe Global Cleaner Production Information Net-work will be anchored by an internet website. Theinternet-based forum will share practical tools andrelevant information sources, champion and trackprojects adopted by practitioners, and providebetter access to training and conference opportu-nities. The site will collect and disseminate thetype of data and information that will help pro-mote Cleaner Production concepts and tools totarget audiences of practitioners.

Hard copy material will be sent to support prac-titioners without access to electronic forms ofcommunication.

Network guidanceA working group of Cleaner Production regionalcontacts has been established to provide initialdirection to the Global Network and its host orga-nization. They will be responsible for:� active involvement in contributing and com-municating on behalf of their own region;� identifying regional information and capacityneeds; � identifying a regional contact to contribute tothe network and participate in collaborative pro-jects;� promoting use of the Global Cleaner Produc-tion Information Network;� ensuring that regional content is featured on theGlobal Cleaner Production Information Net-work; and

70 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

� contributing to joint funding proposals and tosecuring government, private and corporatefunds.

Regional partners/networks that have con-firmed their interest in supporting and contribut-ing to the Global Cleaner Production InformationNetwork include:� the Asia-Pacific Roundtable on Cleaner Pro-duction;� the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention;� the European Network on Good Environmen-tal Practices (GEPnet);� the National Cleaner Production Centre, Brazil;� the Roundtable of the Americas for Cleaner Pro-duction;� the Slovak Cleaner Production Centre;� the UNEP/UNIDO National Cleaner Produc-tion Centres (NCPCs);� the United Nations Economic and Social AffairsDepartment;� the United States National Pollution PreventionRoundtable;� the United States Pollution Prevention ResourceExchange (P2Rx); and� the International Cleaner Production Coopera-tive.1

Regional contributorsThe Global Cleaner Production Information Net-work will be a centrally integrated system withdecentralized management. While there will be acoordinating Network Host, regional partnersand existing networks would be responsible forpreparing their own information or continuing tomanage their own sites. The Global Cleaner Pro-duction Information Network will serve the needsof both experienced practitioners and emerginginitiatives.

Regional centres, networks and roundtableswould designate a contributor to the network.While the Network Host would be responsible forthe upkeep of the Global Cleaner ProductionInformation Network, the regional coordinatorswould continue to prepare their own informationor manage their own sites.

Network contentThe critical role of information in advancing pol-lution prevention and Cleaner Production haslong been recognized. Organizations and individ-uals need to understand the available alternatives,and their ramifications, prior to making changesto daily practices, facilities and products.

Typically, Cleaner Production centres and net-works provide information targeted to specificaudiences (e.g. industry and governments).Emphasis is placed on provision of technicalreports, case studies, industry referrals, on-siteassistance and newsletters (OECD, 1999).

At the annual meeting of UNEP/UNIDONational Cleaner Production Centres in Berne in2000, participants identified access to practicaltools that could applied in their day-to-day work,and shared with clients, as their most pressingneed. Many expressed an interest in identifyingthe key contacts and knowing what is happeningor emerging in Cleaner Production.

The Network will provide practitioners anddecision-makers with a roadmap for existingresources. Some tools which could be shared inthe Network and among support practitioners inthe field include:� industry-specific Cleaner Production informa-tion;� facilitated on-line dialogues on current CleanerProduction issues;� databases on key topics (e.g. ISO 14000,benchmarking); � directory of Cleaner Production/pollution pre-vention contacts and networks;� meeting and training opportunities;� on-line training materials;� roundtable and Cleaner Production centre back-ground/work group information; and� Cleaner Production Declaration monitoring.

Network platformsOne of the Work Group’s first issues for discus-sion and decision will be whether to use an exist-ing electronic platform or design a new website.

An existing site: the InternationalCleaner Production Cooperative International Cleaner Production Coopera-tive is one example of an existing tool that allowsusers to retrieve technical and policy data fromaround the world. Through a sophisticated searchengine that supports both simple and complexqueries, the Cooperative gives access to informa-tion from all participating centres around theworld. It is unnecessary to remember and accessnumerous and separate websites (Kasman, 1999).The Cooperative is designed and operated by theUS Environmental Protection Agency.

Establishing a new internet presenceTo make the internet site easy to manage, theentire site including graphics and site navigationshould be dynamically generated. Look and con-tent can be controlled by several databases. Com-puter programs read the information from thedatabases and create web pages “on the fly”, aseach visitor browses the pages. A consistent anduniform look is therefore maintained, and theinformation and navigation system is easy toupdate.

The site can incorporate a style sheet to controlall graphics and text for consistency. Both wouldbe managed via the Administration System. Alldatabase content can be managed through a pass-word-protected Secure Online AdministrationSystem. Changes to databases are instantly avail-able on the site. Regional contributors can haveaccess for updating their own information onlinethrough the databases. When regional input is notforthcoming, the Network Host will at a mini-mum update regional information quarterly.

Network HostThe Cleaner Production community will own theNetwork. Funding partners and regional contrib-utors will be recognized prominently on the site’shome page.

One organization should coordinate the Net-work, dedicating at least one full-time staff mem-ber to serve as project manager. This clearlydesignates an organization with the responsibili-ty for coordinating regional networks to shareinformation and work together.

All models of network coordination will beevaluated and considered by the Work Group.The selection of either an existing or new platformfor the Network will ultimately influence thechoice of Network Host.

Using an existing siteShould the Global Cleaner Production InformationNetwork operate from an existing internet presence,it will be the responsibility of the host of the existingsite to outline specific requirements. Issues to beconsidered include ease of use of the existing site;ease of incorporating changes; how regional part-ners contribute to the site; access to uploading; avail-able technical support; and resources available tosupport regional coordination.

Development of a new internet presenceIf the Global Cleaner Production InformationNetwork required that a new internet presencebe developed, the Working Group would beresponsible for selecting the Network Host. TheNetwork Host would be responsible for all pro-ject management, overseeing the technicalaspects of site design and designating the neces-sary long-term staff support to coordinate theNetwork.

Network coordinationRegular contact with regional contributors will beessential. Methods of coordinating activitiesshould include face-to-face meetings (scheduledto coincide with regional meetings), conferencecalls and e-mail. Supporting hardcopy throughmail or fax will be used as necessary.

Sustaining the networkEstablishing and maintaining the Global CleanerProduction Information Network will requirelong-term commitment from funding agenciesand from regional networks.

The Global CP Information Network and theregional infrastructure will not develop withoutstable, long-term funding sources. While there isan abundance of Cleaner Production informationon the internet, inadequate resources are devotedto coordinating and maintaining them.

Regional networks also have an essential role insustaining the network. Without the commitmentto share information and actively participate in theGlobal Network, the CP community will neverimprove organizations’ capacity to disseminateinformation. Equally important is securing long-term funding to strengthen regional infrastructure.

Recommendations for the next steps� Develop Terms of Reference for the WorkingGroup;� Confirm Working Group membership;� Identify the Network Host and outline theimmediate responsibilities;

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 71

Cleaner Production

� Confirm the use of existing platforms or theneed to design a new website; �Secure stable, long-term funding sources to main-tain the Global CP Information Network, andinvest in and strengthen regional infrastructure; � Coordinate existing information networks andconfirm how they can adapt their site or existinginformation.

Note1. For contact information concerning regionalpartners and existing networks, see Appendix A ofthe CP6 background paper on which this article isbased ( ).

ReferencesKasman, Mark (1999) Cleaner Production Networkingthrough the Internet. Presented at the Asia-Pacific Clean-er Production Roundtable, Australia, 1999.

Kerr and Associates Inc. and K. Dick, G. Hunt, D. Liebl,G. Miller, D. Thomas and V. Young (1995) Organizinga National Pollution Prevention Network. A Report by theNational Pollution Prevention Roundtable. Washington,D.C., 1997.

Liebl et al. (1997) Establishing a National Pollution Pre-vention Information Network: A Report by the NationalPollution Prevention Roundtable. Washington, D.C.,1997.

OECD (1999) Cleaner Production Centres in Central andEastern Europe and the New Independent States. Task

Force for the Implementation of the EnvironmentalAction Programmes for Central and Eastern Europe.CCNM/ENV/EAP(99)25. July.

Parasnis, Mandar (1999) Setting Up a Self-SustainableCP Information Center – Experiences and LessonsLearned. Presented at the Asia-Pacific Cleaner Produc-tion Roundtable, Australia, 1999.

Regenstein, L., T. Goldberg, J. Peden and D. Liebl(1998) Recommendations for a National P2 InformationNetwork.

UNEP (1997) UNEP Survey of Information Systems Relat-ed to Environmentally Sound Technologies. Contributionto 1997 Session of the Commission on SustainableDevelopment.

“Untold stories”

IndiaSustained Cleaner Production implementation requires prior analysis andtaking into account of ongoing changes in market and political contexts.

An Indian textile dye manufacturer producesvinyl sulphone, a dye intermediate, resultingin a large amount of waste mother liquor withvery high COD. A Cleaner Production pro-gramme in the company identified the oppor-tunity to recover by-products (70% sulphuricacid and Glauber’s salt). Implementation ofthis measure, while capital intensive (US$360,000), was attractive both economically(payback period of 1.5 years) and environ-mentally (50% COD reduction and elimina-tion of gypsum sludge from the waste watertreatment plant). It was therefore agreed to bymanagement.

Despite 18 months of successful operation,the recovery plant was discontinued. Amongthe reasons:� start of production of a huge quantity of

92% sulphuric acid (as a by-product) by anearby copper smelting unit, capturing theentire market for weak acid;� a change in government tax policy, andimposition of excise duty on recovered acid;� a complete ban on sale of weak acids due toinstances of their illegal dumping.

The lessons to be learned are:� During economic analysis, possible changesin market price due to opening up of othersources of supply, competition, etc. should belooked into.� The impact of forthcoming governmentpolicies should be anticipated and accountedfor.

For more information about Cleaner Produc-tion in India, contact the UNIDO/UNEPNCPC, Dr .PK Gupta, at: [email protected].

ChinaMarket competitiveness could be a majorincentive for companies to adopt CleanerProduction

An international donor-funded Cleaner Pro-duction audit was carried out at a medium-sized enterprise – a typical government-owned installation, Cement Mill A, in amedium-sized city in northern China. It washoped that more international investmentwould therefore be attracted.

For the demonstration project, the munic-ipal government organized an initial meetingof enterprise managers, who signed contractsto carry out Cleaner Production audits. Onceit was known that additional funding was notlikely, support for the demonstration projectdropped radically. The audit was eventuallycompleted after continual urging from exter-nal experts. Once the experts left, the plantreverted to previous practices.

The plant was sold a few months later to aprivate owner who was very interested in thepotential economic benefits of implement-ing Cleaner Production. Cleaner Productionefforts were reinstituted, and the resultingsavings surprised everyone. The new ownersaw the potential benefits and the linksbetween market competitiveness and Clean-er Production.

For more information about Cleaner Pro-duction in China, contact the UNIDO/ UNEPNCPC, Ning Duan, at:[email protected]

continued �

72 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Cleaner Production

Czech RepublicSustained Cleaner Production requires changes in management outlook and strategy.

This story concerns implementation of CleanerProduction in a medium-sized galvanizing shopwhere the Czech Cleaner Production Centrehad carried out on-the-job training.

The metal finishing field is well known for itsCleaner Production potential, e.g. through goodhousekeeping and simple operational changes.Significant benefits can also be obtainedthrough improving employee health and safety.

When the Cleaner Production Centre visitedthe plant two years after initial training, theywere told by management and some of the peo-ple trained that none of the options had beenimplemented and that Cleaner Productionefforts had not continued. However, after a visitto the shop floor, it was found that the previ-

ously identified Cleaner Production options hadbeen implemented by shop floor personnel.These personnel were motivated to make thechanges because Cleaner Production optionsimproved the quality of the worker environmentand reduced their workload.

There are a couple of lessons to be learned.First, an untold story can be an untold storywithin the enterprise itself. That is, what is notmeasured or reported does not exist on an offi-cial level. Second, the impacts of Cleaner Pro-duction are often not easy to verify. In this case,there had been significant improvements butthey could not be traced to Cleaner Productionpractices. The third lesson, perhaps the mostinstructive, is that Cleaner Production can result

in tangible improvements, often quite quickly,but the concept has real value and long-termstaying power when it is adopted by manage-ment. In this case, Cleaner Production was con-sidered a one-time audit as opposed to animprovement/change in management outlookand strategy.

Cleaner production audits, as part of aprocess, must be applied (and measured) on anongoing basis and the rationale behind themadopted by the involved stakeholders – mostnotably top management.

For more information about Cleaner Produc-tion in the Czech Republic, contact the UNIDO/UNEP NCPC, Ms. Anna Christianovà, at: [email protected].

Backfilling requirements and constraints in Indian opencast mining

Manas K. Mukhopadhyay, Manager, MECON Ltd., N-162, Shyamali Colony, Doranda, Ranchi, 834002, India

I.N. Sinha, Assistant Professor, Centre of Mining Environment, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India

SummaryMost mining in India takes place in ecologically sensitive areas. The findings of a research pro-ject on backfilling (i.e. filling the pit with extracted materials) are discussed. In some cases theuse of backfilling may have to be rejected, partially or completely, due to technical constraints.There are also a number of cost considerations. A national reclamation strategy for land onwhich mining has taken place is essential.

RésuméEn Inde, la plupart des mines sont situées dans des régions écologiquement sensibles. L’articleanalyse les conclusions d’un projet d’étude sur le remblayage des mines (remplissage desgaleries souterraines par les matériaux extraits). Dans certains cas, le remblayage est par-tiellement ou totalement exclu à cause des contraintes techniques. Plusieurs considérationsliées aux coûts interviennent également. Il est essentiel d’élaborer une stratégie nationale deremise en état des sols dans les anciennes régions d’exploitation minière.

ResumenEn la India, gran parte de la actividad minera se desarrolla en áreas vulnerables desde el puntode vista ecológico. Se presentan las conclusiones de un proyecto de investigación sobre rel-lenado (se rellena la perforación con material extraído). En ciertos casos puede resultar con-veniente no autorizar el rellenado, total o parcialmente, debido a restricciones técnicas. Esnecesario considerar también ciertas variables de costos. Es fundamental contar con unaestrategia nacional para recuperación de suelos en áreas de explotación minera.

Other topics

The most important of India’s majorresources is land (that is, soil, water, andassociated plants and animals that make up

the total ecosystem). Meeting food, energy andmany other needs depends on maximum utiliza-tion of this resource. Since India has about 15%of the world’s population but only something like2.5% of its land resources, the pressure on land isobvious. Per capita availability of land declinedfrom 0.9 ha in 1951 to 0.5 ha in 1980-81 and ispredicted to be 0.26 ha by the end of 2001.

Along with other natural and anthropogenicreasons for land degradation (e.g. relentless pres-sure of increasing human and cattle populations,reckless exploitation of primary resources by con-tractors, and dam, irrigation, river valley and var-ious other industrial projects), mining hascontributed to the gradual depletion of agricul-tural, forest and pasture land, These impacts areassociated with the increasing demand for fossilfuels and minerals during the last four decades.

The total land area leased for mining coal, lig-nite and other minerals is around 0.75% of India’s

� “Untold stories” continued

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 73

total land area of 304 million ha. Pits and over-burden dumps (i.e. dumps of excavated dirt androck that lay between topsoil and coal) occupyaround 0.2% of the total land area and 3.2% oftotal cultivable wasteland. These figures lookinsignificant when compared with the 175 mil-lion ha of land in India that has been degraded tovarious degrees. However, the percentage of thetotal land area disturbed by mining is consider-ably higher than in more advanced countries likeAustralia (coal: 0.0038%, metal: 0.0058%, non-metal: 0.0038%) or the United States (coal:0.069%, metal: 023%, non-metal: 0.069%) (Bell,1986).

Land degradation due to miningThe problem of land degradation caused by min-ing needs to be looked at seriously first on accountof the intensive local effects. Most mining in Indiatakes place in forests (e.g. iron, manganese andchromite mines in Orissa; coal and limestonemines in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh andMaharashtra; coal, copper, mica and bauxitemines in Bihar), fragile Himalayan areas (e.g.high-grade limestone, magnesite and rock phos-phate mines), tourist areas (e.g. iron ore mines inGoa), regulated coastal zones (e.g. sandy beachesin Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Kerala; silica sand inGoa and Maharashtra) or intertidal zones wherethere is live coral (e.g. calcareous sand deposits ofJamnagar). Most of India’s coal, fire clay and chinaclay lies under good agricultural land in West Ben-gal, Bihar and Orissa.

In absolute terms, the effects of local land degra-dation (and thus the loss of areas where miningtakes place) is alarming, especially when futureneeds are taken into account (Choudhuri, 1995).The coal industry currently renders about 500 haof land biologically unproductive every year. Thisis in addition to areas that are already derelict due toearlier activities. It is anticipated that by 2005 some1500 ha per year will be degraded as a result of coalsector activities (Sachdev, 1995). One study hasshown that coal mining in the past generated 1728ha of void land and that another 2120 ha now liesunder overburden dumps (CMPDI, 1986).

Second, land degradation is considered to resultfrom increasing dependence on surface mining,which produces some 73% of total coal mined.With respect to Coal India Ltd. (CIL), which isresponsible for 88% of the country’s total coalproduction, surface mining’s share is still higherat 77%. When the coal industry was nationalizedin 1973, coal production from CIL’s surface mineswas only 16.4 Mt. This figure had increased about20 times by 1999. Around 70% of the additionalland required by the coal sector is for surface min-ing. Current lignite production of 24 Mt/year isentirely by surface mining. In the non-coal sector,total production is about 225 Mt/year, of whichas much as 97% is by continuous surface mining.Production of some important minerals (e.g. ironore, limestone, bauxite, dolomite, gypsum andmagnesite) is exclusively by surface mining. Withfurther mineral price increases and technologicaldevelopments in the near future, surface miningof deposits with an even higher waste to ore ratio

may become economically feasible. The current production level of about 225

Mt/year of ores and minerals generates 270Mt/year of wastes; production of 305 Mt/year ofcoal and 24 Mt/year of lignite produces 1128Mt/year of wastes. In the future, with increasedemphasis on surface mining and the greater depthof surface mines, the rate of waste generation willgrow in the coal and metalliferrous sector.

The existence of value added land resourceswhere mineral ore occurs, as well as the increasingshare of opencast mining and the proportionateincrease in waste generation, make it imperativefor maximization of backfilling to be given prior-ity in India’s mining industry.

Legal requirements The Mineral Conservation and DevelopmentRules 1988, the Mineral Concession Rules 1960and the Metalliferrous Mines Regulation 1961 arethe main pieces of legislation that contain preven-tive and remedial measures against land degrada-tion in mining areas in the non-coal sector.Detailed provisions for phased restoration, recla-mation and rehabilitation are contained in Rule33(4), Rule 33 (5) and Rule 34 of the MineralConservation and Development Rules 1988.

The Forest (Conservation) Act, Forest Conser-vation Rules, Mines and Minerals (Regulationand Development) Act, Mineral ConcessionRules and Mineral Conservation and Develop-ment Rules provide for the regulation of miningto protect loss of vegetation and compensatoryafforestation. Approval of the conversion of forestland for non-forest purposes is required under theForest (Conservation) Act.

Legal requirements regarding backfilling aremarkedly lenient when compared with those ofmore advanced countries.

Constraints on backfillingGeo-mining conditions with respect to oredeposits vary widely in India. Several factors affectthe feasibility of backfilling, or the success of back-fill-oriented post-mining land use. Factors thatcould technically preclude backfilling are dis-cussed below. In some cases backfilling is techni-cally feasible, but the efforts or costs incurredwould be wasted due to other conditions thatmake the intended post-mining use of backfilledland (agriculture, forestation, etc.) impossible orcost-intensive.

Factors affecting technical feasibility When the ore body/seam dips at a steep angle(>30° with horizontal), backfilling is totally dis-couraged or practised only partially (IBM, 1995).In some cases a safe distance has been maintainedand a barrier (boulder in mud) erected. However,if the angle is very steep, keeping overburden mate-rials in position becomes difficult. In the case ofcoal seams, lignite and limestone (i.e. sedimentarydeposits), less effective space is available for accom-modating overburden when the angle is steep.

The international market price of some miner-als (e.g. chromite, lead-zinc) can vary frequentlyand abruptly. Since in mining the break-even

depth is economically determined, price changesaffect the break-even point. Backfilling can there-fore be risky from the economic point of view.

Waste rock associated with certain minerals isnot waste in the true sense of the word. Theseminerals contain a smaller amount of the same ora different mineral, whose beneficiation is not eco-nomical using technology now available in India.However, they could be useful in the future if bet-ter technology is available. Once backfilling ofthese value added wastes occurs, the possibility offurther mineral extraction at a later date vanishessince the cost would be prohibitive (Samant,1989). The Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) hasissued a directive requiring that this value addedoverburden/interburden be stored separately. Afew examples of application for value recovery, orof the potential for value recovery, include:� nickel recovery from nickliferrous lateritic wastedumps at chromite mines in Sukinda, Orissa; � reworking of scrap and undersized mica wastesfrom earlier dumps; � use of iron ore fines, millions of tonnes of whichwere once rejected and have accumulated; � separate mining of oxidized copper ore in theMalanjkhand copper mine’s tailings pond, whichis subjected to acid leaching for copper recovery;� recovery of phosphate concentrate tailings fromMaton; and� recovery of scheelite from gold tailings at theKolar gold field mines and Hutti gold mines,based on the beneficiation technique developed.

In the case of a few coal and bauxite projects, thegeneral extraction angle (with rises, dips) has beenfound to cause the backfilling problem. However,at deep mines with sufficient lateral extensions ofdeposits along the strike, it may be possible to locateinternal waste dumps for dipping and steeply dip-ping deposits if the bottom-most economical pitdepth is reached. Internal waste dumping and oremining can be carried out concurrently provided asufficient area is available for doing so safely.

For a few other coal projects, backfilling has notbeen envisaged since an underground mine existsor is proposed beneath the pit. A thorough tech-nical study concerning underlying rock masses,their strength, etc. is a prerequisite for backfillingplanning. If the parting (i.e. layers of materialbetween the seams of coal) is insufficient and/orthe rock mass is not strong enough, the deadweight of the backfilled mass may subside and theunderground work zone cave in.

Cost considerationsBackfilling is the basis for improving post-miningland use, but the process of delayed backfillingadds a substantial fraction of unproductive costs(in India, about 60% of total environmental costs)to the pithead cost of the mineral. Economicreturns from improved post-mining land use arealmost totally lacking in India. In today’s compet-itive mineral market, environmental benefitstranslated into economic terms, etc. haveremained within the area of interest of researchersand educators only. The fact remains that profitmargin decreases appreciably when delayed back-filling is carried out. With concurrent backfilling,

Other topics

74 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

however, the cost is generally almost the same asthat of external dumping, which must be prac-tised otherwise.

It is easier for the unproductive costs of higherpriced minerals such as chromite (48-50% Cr2O3at Rs 2400/tonne) and manganese (46-48% Mn atRs. 3145/tonne) to be absorbed. Such cost-inten-sive backfilling and other reclamation measures arenot planned for a mine where the market price ofthe mineral (kyanite, fire clay, soapstone, etc.) is toolow to sustain the extra unproductive cost. Gov-ernment incentives may be required in such cases.

Other factors also tend to increase reclamationcosts to a limiting extent, and sometimes makebackfilling unsuitable even if it is technically feasi-ble. The presence of a toxic sub-surface layer, whilenot noted in coal-bearing areas, is not uncommonin metal mining, especially in mining of chromiteand lead-zinc. In other cases, the topsoil may notcontain adequate nutrients to support vegetation,e.g. in lignite-bearing areas in Neyveli.

Alteration of strata during backfilling, or selec-tive placement of overburden to bury toxic materi-als at a depth where they will be harmless, and/or aproductive layer at the top, are suggested practices(Ammons and Perry, 1979). However, selectiveplacement of overburden does not facilitate con-current backfilling as temporary storage is required.Temporary storage, rehandling the overburden,more machine time, and delays in execution makeselective placement of overburden cost-intensiveand therefore unattractive economically. Selectiveplacement increases backfilling costs by 15-25%.

Backfilling is not popular at mines in arid zones.Costs due to backfilling are wasted in most cases, asbackfilled land cannot support any vegetation. Tosome extent surface manipulation of the backfilledarea is possible, as well as contour harvesting forplantation/agriculture (Sauer, 1978). But again

these practices involve substantial additional costs.They are not carried out anywhere in India.

Where ore is found near the surface or as out-cropping, much less overburden material is gen-erated (lower stripping ratio), e.g. in the case ofIndian iron ore mining. Transporting overburdenfrom a distant mine entails a prohibitive cost bur-den. In most cases, since similar geological forma-tions exist nearby, the availability of sufficientoverburden material is doubtful.

ConclusionsAlthough it is accepted that backfilling possibili-ties and techniques are unique to individual pro-jects, development of generalized nationalreclamation policy for the Indian mining indus-try has become essential. A detailed nationwidedatabase, together with successful examples fromabroad, should form the basis for a study con-cerning the formulation of a reclamation strategy.

Legal requirements in the mining industry andprovisions for subsidies, etc. could be based on therecommendations made following this study.Backfilling may be completely or partially dis-pensed with owing to one or more of the technicalconstraints discussed above. Where there are costfactors, provision of governmental assistance maybe considered.

External costs of reclamation should be inter-nalized, to account for the total amount spent onland reclamation.

Backfilling concepts for restoring ApproximateOriginal Contour (AOC) should be integratedinto mining planning. AOC stipulations, whichcurrently do not exist in Indian mining regula-tions, should not be stringent with respect torestoring the exact pre-mining contour. Scientificstudies are needed in order to fine-tune method-ologies for post-mining land-use planning.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank their colleagues atMECON Ltd. and the Indian School of Minesfor assistance in carrying out a study on “optimumbackfilling of surface mined land”. The viewsexpressed are those of the authors, and not neces-sarily those of the organization/institution theyserve.

ReferencesAmmons, T.J and F.E. Perry (1979) The relationship ofoverburden analysis to mineral properties in post miningland use. Proceedings of the Surface Coal Mining and Recla-mation Symposium, Kentucky. McGraw-Hill, pp. 170-179.

Bell, L.C. (1986) Mining. In: Australian soils – the humanimpact, J.C. Russel and R.F. (eds.). University of Queens-land Press, Australia.

Choudhuri, S.K. (1995) Mineral development in Indiaand review of environmental legislation. In: Mining andEnvironment, B.B. Dhar and D.N. Thakur (eds.).Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, pp. 393-408.

CMPDI (1986) Scenario of Old Coal Mines in MajorCoalfields. In: Environmental Restoration of Mined Areas– Broad Estimates. CMPDI report, Ranchi, pp. 25-66.

IBM (1995) Method of Disposal of Solid Wastes. Chap-ter 8 in IBM information circular No. 2, pp. 22-30.

Sachdev, R.K. (1995) Environmental Issues in CoalMining in India. In: Mining and Environment, B.B. Dharand D.N. Thakur (eds.). Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, pp.45-58.

Samant, L.D. (1989) Environment Management andReclamation in Iron Ore Mining of Goa. Proceedings ofNational Seminar on Protection of Environment andEcology by Mining Industry, Panjim, 3-8 February, pp.303-318.

Sauer, R.H. (1978) Precipitation harvesting and restora-tion on strip mine spoils. In: Ecology and Coal ResourceDevelopment, Mohan K. Wali (ed.). Vol . 2, pp.729-39.

Other topics

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 75

Over 50% of total passenger traffic inEurope is associated with leisure/tourism activities. The negative effects

of this traffic vary according to the type oftransport involved. Less than 10% of Euro-pean tourists use public transport to reachtheir destinations. On short holiday breaks,80% use their own vehicles. Travel duringlonger holidays is mainly by car (48%) orplane (47%).

Deciding whether to use public transportinvolves factors such as travellers’ resourcesand the choices made by friends and family.The attractiveness of the public transportavailable is, of course, another factor.

Soft mobility“Soft mobility” describes the effort to changepeople’s habit of using private motor vehiclesto one using public transport. The word “soft”

suggests two important aspects: higher quality,and greater sustainability.

While soft mobility has only become a pop-ular concept with respect to tourism duringthe last couple of years, studies have demon-strated increasing visitor dissatisfaction withtraffic solutions at tourist destinations. Todaythe problems tourists want to escape (e.g.stress, noise, bad smells) increasingly followthem on holiday. The negative impacts of traf-fic therefore have an important influence onthe choice of destination.

Soft mobility also has the aim of increasingthe public’s acceptance of measures taken toreduce traffic locally.

What makes soft mobilitysuccessful? Generally speaking, a holiday is a collection ofsmall experiences, each of which contributes

to its success or failure. The success of imple-menting soft mobility in tourism is guaranteedif it makes possible an uncomplicated andcomfortable journey using public transport,with unlimited mobility upon arrival. Such ajourney would include door-to-door luggageservice, optimized connection times, andacceptable prices.

In many cases, travellers are unaware of alter-natives to private motor vehicle use. Betterinformation campaigns are therefore needed.

NETS: a European tourism networkAn EU model project on “Soft Mobility inTourism Destinations” was carried out be-tween January 1996 and July 1997. Twelvedestinations and six expert organizations fromAustria, Germany and Italy participated.

This model project was behind the found-ing of NETS (the Network for Soft Mobilityin European Tourism). With support fromNETS, experience gained in the EU projectwill be disseminated and implemented withinthe tourism industry.

NETS was officially founded by the sixfoundation partners (see below): the Associa-tion for Soft Mobility, the Association for CarFree Tourism in Spa Destinations, the Car FreeTourism Destination Association, FUTOUR,Trafico, and the ÖAR-Regional consultancy.

A regular section reporting on developments in the field of sustainable tourism, and on the activities of the UNEP Tourism Programme

Tou r i sm FocusN° 13, 2001

SummaryTourists are increasingly aware of the negative impacts of traffic (including noise andother types of pollution). Heavy traffic can affect destinations’ recreational or other val-ues. For profit-oriented destination managers, the relationship between transportoptions and visitors’ level of satisfaction and desire to return is growing in importance.

RésuméLes touristes sont de plus en plus conscients des impacts négatifs de la circulation auto-mobile (notamment le bruit et d’autres formes de pollution). Une circulation intensepeut remettre en cause la valeur des sites touristiques, quelle que soit leur vocation(loisirs ou autre). Pour ceux qui sont responsables de sites touristiques à but lucratif, lelien entre les différentes options de transport, le degré de satisfaction des visiteurs etleur désir de revenir est d’une importance croissante.

ResumenLos turistas son cada vez más conscientes de los efectos negativos del tránsito (provo-cados incluso por ruidos y otros tipos de contaminantes). El tránsito pesado puede afec-tar el valor de esparcimiento y otras virtudes de los destinos de vacaciones. Paradirectivos de destinos vacacionales orientados a ganancias, la relación entre lasopciones de transporte y el nivel de satisfacción de los visitantes y su deseo de volverestá ganando importancia.


39-43 QUAI ANDRÉ CITROËN75739 PARIS CEDEX 15FRANCETEL.: 33 1 44 37 14 50FAX: 33 1 44 37 14 74E-MAIL: [email protected]://


EDITORS:Olivier HillelGiulia Carbone

Soft mobility: making tourism in Europe more sustainable

Karl Reiner and Alexandra Tobler, NETS-Management, Fichtegasse 2/17, A-1010 Vienna, Austria ([email protected];

Marie-Claude Gaudriault and Olaf Holm, AFIT – Tourisme Durable, 2 Rue Linois, F-75740 Paris, France ([email protected]; [email protected])














76 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

NETS is based on cooperation between dif-ferent partners. These include partners at adestination (e.g. local tourist boards), externalpartners (e.g. networks, platforms, publicenterprises, ministries, NGOs) and others, aswell as project leaders. For the first time, part-ners representing tourism, traffic and the envi-ronment have been linked within a Europeantourism network.

NETS emphasizes traffic and tourism con-cepts intended to reduce traffic’s negativeimpacts. Among the ways soft mobility can beencouraged are: creating pedestrian zones andcycling paths, increasing public transport at adestination and during journeys, and promot-ing use of low-polluting cars. The public ben-efits since, inter alia, pedestrians and cyclistsgain additional rights, public transport isexpanded, and stress is reduced for both visi-tors and local inhabitants. Use of emission-freeor low-emission vehicles ensures a better qual-ity of life, as does banning vehicles with inter-nal combustion engines from cities, citycentres or recreation areas.

The activities of the network partners aresupported by exchanges of know-how con-cerning development and implementation ofsustainable traffic initiatives. Informationexchange is based on viable concepts and prac-tical experience with planning, logistics, mar-keting and finance.

NETS also places a great deal of emphasison marketing. Market-specific holiday pack-ages such as “Holiday from the Car”, and mul-tilateral marketing research to clearly definetarget groups, have been developed. OtherNETS projects are also being planned, such asresearch to determine tour operators’ attitudesto soft mobility in general; analysis of the com-ponents of existing products and services; andproposals for improving soft mobility prod-ucts and services.


The Agence Française de l’Ingénierie Touris-tique (AFIT) is one of the main NETS part-ners. Established in 1993, AFIT is a publicdevelopment agency operating under theauthority of the French Ministry of Tourism.Its principal mandate is to improve and devel-

op French tourist services in all sectors (rang-ing from costal, rural and urban tourism toculture and mountain sports). The agency issituated between governmental authoritiesand private structures.

The activities of AFIT experts include pro-viding technical assistance to local authoritiesand companies in the form of multi-disci-plined teams. For the sector “environment andnature” (within work on sustainable develop-ment) soft mobility has assumed an importantrole in performance analyses and the design orimplementation of tourism master plans andprojects.

To address problems of motor vehicle use atFrench tourist destinations, the Ministries ofTourism and Environment decided to launcha programme to increase public awareness, incooperation with the local authorities. A studyon quality identified traffic growth as animportant area. Decision-makers involvedwith tourism are aware of the problems. Theyare asking for effective solutions to improvethe environment and the competitiveness ofthe tourism business.

In view of the concerns identified, the Min-istries of Tourism, Transport and Environ-ment have initiated several actions, led byAFIT experts, to develop and apply the con-cept of soft mobility. Naturally, the economicinterests of local authorities and tourism com-panies make it necessary to demonstrate theadvantages of alternative transport systemswith respect to improving tourist journeys andthe local inhabitants’ quality of life. A clear dis-tinction between actions in the tourism andtransport areas is impossible.

In this context, the methods proposed byAFIT are based on a 1996 French law (PDU,Plans de Déplacements Urbain) whose pur-pose is to protect cities from increasing air pol-lution by developing strategies to promotepublic transport systems. The PDU’s guide-lines, originally for urban areas with a popula-tion of 100,000, are also relevant and worthconsideration for smaller tourist destinationsthat experience tourist influxes.

Moreover, exchanges on practical know-how and real experience in other Europeancountries, carried out by AFIT in cooperationwith other countries and NETS, can lead toactivities being undertaken to meet the needsof different stakeholders.

AFIT experts have directed the followingprojects: � publication of a guide on practical experi-ence and best practice in Europe, as a tool forlocal authorities and tourism actors (LesCahiers de l’AFIT – Guide de savoir-faire : Cir-culations douces. Organiser les déplacements dansles sites touristiques, Paris, 2000, ISBN 2-910388-57-3);� organization of a workshop in May 2000,attended by national and internationalexperts, with visits to several projects at LaRochelle (see below);� provision of assistance and advice to destina-tions developing “soft mobility” action plans.

Over the last few years, projects and researchcarried out by NETS and AFIT members andpartners have led to a range of new initiativesfocusing on soft mobility.

The main French initiativesFrench initiatives for reducing the negativeimpacts of motor vehicle and air traffic haveincluded:� the high-speed train network, and improve-ment of connections with ski resorts and sea-side resorts on the Atlantic and Mediter-ranean;� promotion of public transport, especiallywith respect to mountain destinations;� creation of cycling paths on the Atlanticcoast and along the main rivers (e.g. the Loireand Rhône);� provision of “park-and-ride” systems in citiesand at heritage sites, including the possibilityof seasonal shuttles.

Integrating the needs of inhabitants andtourism stakeholders is of basic importance inthe development of acceptable sustainableaction plans that promote soft mobility.

Making high-speed trains morecompetitiveTrains currently appear to be the least pollut-ing means of public transport. Their competi-tiveness, however, depends on several factors:speed, frequency, regularity, comfort and price.

For 20 years, the French SNCF (Societénationale des chemins de fer français) hasmade great efforts to increase the high-speedtrain network. In June 2001, the Mediter-ranean TGV, which takes only three hours togo from Paris to Marseilles, was put into ser-

Electromobile VelotaxiSoft mobility in Werfenweng, Austria








UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 77

vice. During this huge project, much work wascarried out to protect the landscape, and tolimit noise and other nuisances for those liv-ing near the tracks.

Surveys have shown that 60-90% of trav-ellers prefer the train to the plane for journeysof three hours or less. Thus, airline companiesstand to lose hundreds of thousands of passen-gers per year to the new Paris-Marseille linealone. New high-speed train projects will con-tinue to connect Paris with other cities inFrance and throughout Europe.

Strasbourg: soft mobility benefits visitorsand inhabitants alikeStrasbourg is the regional capital of Alsace. Tokeep this national and international touristdestination attractive, and to improve qualityof life in the historic city centre, the traffic planwas completely modified during the last sev-eral years:� Construction of two new tramlines has beenof central importance. They connect the cen-tral pedestrian zone, suburbs, railway and air-port stations, and park-and-ride lots outsidethe centre.� Private motor vehicle use in the city centre isrestricted; crossing it in the morning and atnight is possible for inhabitants, delivery ser-vices and the handicapped. There are a limit-ed number of parking spaces in the centre andthe fees are high. The park-and-ride systemincludes a free shuttle service.� A bike rental service is available near publictransport stations (tramway, bus, train). Anelectric tourist train connects sites of interest.

La Rochelle and the Ile de Ré: cycling andother alternative forms of transportLa Rochelle, in Normandy, is at the centre ofan agglomeration of 120,0000 inhabitants.Every year there are 3 million visitors. Since1985, the “Autoplus” service has offered a widerange of alternative means of transport. Thesenow include:� 150 cars and 100 scooters, all electric, in self-service;� in addition to the traditional bus, two elec-tric seabuses which cross the harbour;� 300 bicycles for rent, four bicycle parkingareas with luggage service, and 100 km ofcycling paths;� day pass tickets for bicycles and all other pub-lic transport.

The bridge connecting La Rochelle and theIle de Ré, despite the amount of the toll and thepressure of traffic, has contributed to anincrease in the number of island tourists. TheIle de Ré is overcrowded: there are 10,000 res-idents and 100,000 visitors per day in high sea-son (about 6 million nights per year).

For the last ten years, the tourist office hascentred its communications on the benefits ofcycling and has planned many cycling tracksconnecting villages, harbours and beaches.There are almost as many bicycles as cars. Dur-ing the summer, the paths are crowded andthere are many accidents.

Some of the island’s elected representativesare considering imposing a carrying capacity to

limit the number of visitors. In some villages(e.g. Saint-Martin) the pressure is so great thatretailers and professionals are studying a newway to organize traffic, with variable hours,extension of the pedestrian zone, limitingmotor vehicle and bicycle access to the centre,and eliminating visitor parking outside the city.

AustriaIG-sanfte mobilitätIn Austria, two NETS destina-

tions – Werfenweng and Badhofgastein – arethe basis of the Austrian model project on“Soft Mobility – Car Free Tourism”.

The project’s objectives are to create a high-quality “car free tourism” product, implementinnovative traffic concepts for travelling to themodel communities, keep vehicles with inter-nal combustion engines out of city centres,encourage use of innovative transport tech-nologies, and improve environmental quality.

Badhofgastein, one of the ten most tourism-intensive communities, focused on “softtourism” earlier than many other destinations.The first pedestrian zone in Austria, created in1972, imposed a 30 km/hour zone in most ofthe village, with traffic prohibited at nightexcept for inhabitants, deliveries only by vehi-cles up to 7.5 tonnes and only on certain days,and (since 1990) support for public transportsystems. The Gastein Super-Ski Ticket (inexistence for some time) guarantees the use ofall lifts as well as many types of public trans-port.

Werfenweng, about 45 km south of the cityof Salzburg, has been designated by the Austri-an Ministry of Environment as a model com-munity for soft mobility in terms of traffic andtourism. The first step has been to reduce thenumber of streets and rebuild the communitycentre. The major part of “Werfenweng – Soft& Mobile” is the section called “Arrival Logis-tics”. The findings of this project helped to cre-ate a soft-mobile holiday package and led to thefoundation of a group of tourism establish-ments focusing on “Holiday from the Car”.This “special interest group” rewards soft andmobile behaviour by their guests with concreteand exclusive advantages. In cooperation withtrain companies, a door-to-door luggage ser-vice and free transportation from the railwaystation to the hotel are offered.

Visitors arriving in Werfenweng by train orleaving their car keys at the local tourist boardreceive a card allowing free use of electro-mobiles, electro-bicycles, electro-scooters andfun riders. In addition, the night bus and taxiservice can be used at no charge. To request ataxi, each family is provided with a mobilephone. Another offer was designed for trainusers. Those using public transport pay – atthe end of their visit – only as much as theyconsider it was worth.

In 1997, 13 tourism enterprises in Werfen-weng received awards for guaranteeing a spe-cial service available to train users (transfer,information on mobility within the hotel, dis-count on train tickets, etc.). Having created a“soft and mobile” offer, Werfenweng is nowemphasizing staff training. Employees of

hotels or the local tourist board are beingtaught how to promote the soft and mobileoffer and influence tourist behaviour towardsuse of public transport.

The impulse given to the entire region ofPongau by this model project can be seen inspecific examples. For example, the Bischof-shofen IC/EC station has become a “vacationtrain station” and a “mobility centre fortourism”. It coordinates the local mobilityoffer and functions as an information centrefor questions regarding local mobility.

SwitzerlandGAST – Association forCar Free TourismDestinations inSwitzerland Since 1988, nine Swissvillages have formed the

Association for Car Free Tourism Destinationsin Switzerland. This association’s goal is toposition car free tourism as a high qualityproduct. A ban on vehicles with internal com-bustion engines, as well as a general speed limitof 15-20 km/hour for electro-buses, electro-cars and electro-taxis, helps to ensure a relaxedatmosphere and preserve the natural sur-roundings.

Saas Fee SGU, the Swiss Association for Environmen-tal Care, promotes (together with the Gemein-denetzwerk Allianz in den Alpen) a projectcalled “New Mobility”. In February andMarch 2000, the project was presented to peo-ple travelling from the cities of Basel, Bern andLuzern to Saas Fee. The pilot aimed to addressthe two main reasons for not using publictransport: complicated handling of luggage,and limited mobility at the destination. TheNew Mobility campaign offered variousadvantages for tourists, including transport ofluggage free of charge (following the exampleof airlines), a low-cost door-to-door luggageservice, extension of local public transport anda low-cost car rental offer. The results of theproject show the possibilities of sustainablemobility management: 8% of “New Mobilitycustomers” switched from using their own carto using the train.

In addition to the New Mobility offer, SaasFee features (in cooperation with Dutch touroperators) an all-inclusive package includinghotel, transportation, and ski ticket.

GermanyIAKF – Associationfor Car FreeTourism and SpaDestinations

The Association for Car Free Tourism and SpaDestinations was founded in 1993, in order toreduce noxious emissions in German sparesorts by keeping city centres clear of motorvehicles with internal combustion engines.Twenty-eight resorts belong to this associa-tion. Results of implementing the new trafficconcepts showed that, for example, in Ober-stdorf (one of the member villages) motor








78 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

vehicle traffic fell by half within two years. BadReichenhall emphasizes cooperation with theGerman Railway; the tourism board is allowedto sell train tickets and reserve seats.

Uhldingen-Mühlhofen – Environmental AuditUhldingen-Mühlhofen on Lake Constance(Bodensee) attracts about 5 million visitors ayear. It was one of the first communities inEurope to carry out a voluntary Environmen-tal Audit. A major part of this project is con-cerned with sustainable mobility. Plannedactivities include an environmentally friendlybus shuttle to major attractions and expansionof the train station towards becoming a servicecentre for guests (including a bicycle rental ser-vice, park-and-ride, a car-sharing offer and atravel agency). To increase acceptance of publictransport by tourists and local inhabitants,Uhldingen-Mühlhofen is organizing for thesecond time a car free day in the village centreand a mobility fair presenting alternativemeans of transport.

NetherlandsNS Travel: TheAlpen Express The Alpen Express is atrain (run by the com-

pany NS Travel) that caters only for touristswho want to spend their holidays in the Alps.It operates during the winter and is equippedwith a service carriage, bar carriage andcouchette cars. During the winter season of1999/2000, over 22,000 tourists used this ser-vice, representing 100% capacity.

Other examplesOther examples of soft mobility projects arelisted on the “ECO-Tip” home page (

ConclusionTraffic associated with tourism and leisureactivities has been increasing at above averagerates. The negative side effects (e.g. traffic jams,air pollution and noise) are reducing the attrac-tion of many tourist destinations. Since trafficvolume is predicted to rise, sustainable trafficmanagement will be crucial to these destina-tions’ success. In the long term, destinationsthat fail to implement sustainable traffic solu-tions will lose out.

Within the scope of Austria’s EU Presiden-cy, a European Forum for Sustainable Mobil-ity in Tourism took place at Badhofgastein in1998. This meeting resulted in some recom-mendations concerning future traffic manage-ment:

� The principles of sustainable developmentshould be implemented through traffic,tourism and environmental policies. The basisof these policies ought to include the Kyoto tar-gets, the EU Environmental Action Pro-grammes and Strategy of Integration, theConvention of the Alps, and national environ-mental plans;� Realistic financial conditions are needed,such as internalization of external costs (costsdue to the health and environmental effects ofaccidents, air pollution, noise, climate im-pacts, etc.);� There is a need to change to optimal tech-nologies and alternative means of transport,with reduced emissions;� Quality can be increased through imple-menting environmentally friendly mobility,providing high value to the destination withregular quality checks.

Supported by the EU and national, region-al and local organizations, numerous holidaydestinations have already made considerableefforts towards finding solutions to their traf-fic problems.

For more information, see www.soft-mobility (sitein English and German) or e-mail: [email protected].

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 79

N e w s

Arab environment ministerscall for new commitment tosustainable developmentMinisters responsible for environment in Arabcountries have endorsed a wide-ranging set ofcommitments intended to ensure that economicdevelopment in their countries does not take placeat the expense of the environment. The AbuDhabi Declaration emphasizes the relationshipbetween poverty and environment, and the threatposed to natural resources by unsustainable devel-opment. The Declaration was issued in the con-text of the United Araba Emirates Environment2001 Conference and Exhibition on 4-8 Febru-ary, the largest environmental conference everheld in the Arab world.

“Two basic challenges must be met,” says theDeclaration. “First, the relentless increase in pop-ulation is a major long-term threat as long as thepresent rates of increase are maintained and thepresent imbalances in population density ... con-tinue. Second, the limitation and deterioration ofmost natural resources in the Arab countries mustbe addressed.”

The Declaration was adopted followingendorsement of Outlook for Environmental Actionin the Arab World, a report that resulted from aUNEP initiative. This report was prepared withsupport from the United Arab Emirates andUNEP.

The ministers highlighted five major environ-mental issues facing Arab countries:� severe lack of adequate water resources, in termsof both quantity and quality;� land shortage and deterioration of availableland;� unsustainable natural resource consumption; � rapid rates of urbanization; and� deterioration of coastal and marine areas, withresulting fisheries and biodiversity losses.

Emphasizing the importance of enhancedcooperation with UNEP, the ministers called onUNEP to provide further support to the Councilof Arab Ministers Responsible for the Environ-ment. In this context they recognized the need tosupport the Environment Fund, enabling UNEPto sustain its regional and global programmes.

Noting that Arab countries have relatively fewenvironmental specialists, and young institutionswhich face difficult and complex challenges, theministers called for capacity building througheducation, continuing institutional development,and improvements in the quality of scientificresearch institutions. They also affirmed the needto enable civil society organizations to participate

more effectively in environmental decision-mak-ing, so as to assure effective support for imple-mentation, with greater emphasis on the role ofwomen and the family.

“It would be a waste of effort, time and resourcesto try to address the consequences of environmen-tal degradation without dealing with the causes,”the ministers stated. “In some serious cases, theremay be a need to address both simultaneously.”They agreed that modern environmental econom-ics techniques should be used by decision-makersto compare the costs of investing in environmentalprotection with the long-term costs of ignoring theenvironmental dimension in development plan-ning.

The importance of adopting Cleaner Produc-tion (i.e. sustainable use of natural resources,exclusion of hazardous material inputs, maxi-mization of efficiency of design and productionmethods, and minimization of emissions, efflu-ents and wastes in production) was also stressed.

A unified Arab document on the state of theenvironment is expected to be ready in time forthe World Summit on Sustainable Developmentin 2002. Mostafa Tolba, head of the task force thatproduced the Outlook report (and a former Exec-utive Director of UNEP), said this SOE docu-ment would provide the first comparableenvironmental database on the entire Arab world.

Tolba, who heads the International Center forEnvironment and Development in Egypt, point-ed out that coordination among regional and sub-regional institutions will be essential if Arabcountries are to reverse the deterioration of theirnatural resources in coming decades.

For more information, contact: Majed Ali AlMansouri, Head of the Scientific Committee, Envi-ronment 2001 Conference and Exhibition, Tel:+971 2 6934567, Fax: +971 2 6817357, E-mail:[email protected], Internet: �

OLADE releases two majorLatin American/Caribbeanenergy reports

Energy production in Latin America and theCaribbean declined in 1999 and demand rose by0.5%, according to the latest Energy Report ofLatin America and the Caribbean from the Orga-nización Latinoamericana de Energía (OLADE,or the Latin American Energy Organization). TheQuito-based body has also issued a report onEnergy and Sustainable Development in Latin

America and the Caribbean: Guide forEnergy Policymaking.Primary energy supply increased in coun-

tries including Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Grenadaand Trinidad and Tobago. It fell in, for example,Colombia and Ecuador (due to lower oil or coalproduction) and Barbados and Jamaica (whereimported oil products were substituted for crudeoil). The region’s natural gas sector continued todevelop significantly and electricity generationcapacity increased. The share of renewable sourcesin primary energy supply shrank slightly as fire-wood use declined. The Energy Report alsoincludes a section on “Forecasting 2000-2020”.

The Energy and Sustainable Development reportresults from a project being carried out byOLADE, the UN Economic Commission forLatin America and the Caribbean (UNECLA)and the German Technical Cooperation Agency.It focuses on energy industry changes followingeconomic reforms by countries in the region,using case studies to examine how energy policiescontribute to sustainable development. The pur-pose of this report is to present the basic elementsneeded for energy policy identification, in orderto support sustainable development. Despiteimprovements in the functioning of energy sys-tems, the report emphasizes that major energypolicy challenges remain, especially with respectto social and environmental dimensions.

For more information, contact: OLADE, Ave.Mariscal Antionia José de Sucre, N5-863 & Fer-nandez Salvador, San Carlos Sector, PO Box: 1711-06413, Quito, Ecuador, Tel: +593 2 598122/598280/597995, Fax: +59 2 531691, E-mail:[email protected], Internet: www.olade.�

Eart Policy Institute to support“eco-economy”Lester R. Brown, the founder and Chairman of theBoard of the Worldwatch Institute, has announcedthe creation of a new Earth Policy Institute. Hecited three rationales for the institute:

“First, we are losing the war to save the planet.Many battles have been won, but the gap betweenwhat we need to do to arrest the environmentaldeterioration of Earth and what we are doing con-tinues to widen. Somehow we have to turn thetide.

“Second, we need a vision of what an environ-mentally sustainable economy – an eco-economy– would look like ... and a continual assessment ofprogress in this effort. Our goal is to help developa shared vision of the eco-economy.

“Third, to achieve these goals, we need a newkind of research organization – one that producesbrief pieces that are designed for use by the media,can be read by busy policy-makers and can be eas-ily distributed on the Internet.”

The Earth Policy Institute will disseminatethree main products: a book called Eco-Economy:Building an Economy for the Earth; a series of four-page Earth Policy Alerts, and brief Eco-EconomyUpdates identifying major milestones or setbacks

W o r l d N e w s

N e w s

80 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

on the way to an eco-economy. The book will givea picture of the new economy, how it would work,and how it can be built. Earth Policy Alerts, shortanalyses of environmental issues, will go to editorsand reporters worldwide. The monthly Eco-Econ-omy Updates will examine new initiatives that fur-ther or impede progress towards an eco-economy.

For more information, contact: Lester R. Brown,President & Sr. Researcher, Tel: +1 202 496 9290,E-mail: [email protected]; or DianneSaenz, Director of Communications, Tel: +1 202496 9290, extension 16; E-mail: [email protected]; or Earth Policy Institute, 1350 Con-necticut Ave., NW, Suite 403, Washington, D.C.,20036, USA, Tel: 1+200496 9290, Fax: 1+200496 9325, E-mail: [email protected], �

East Africa joins globalinitiative to save coral reefsFour coral reefs – located in the Seychelles, Mada-gascar and Kenya – have been chosen for devel-opment as “centres of excellence” for reefmanagement. This pioneering initiative wasannounced by researchers associated with UNEPand the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). Over aperiod of four years, the reefs will be become mod-els of best practice for protecting and managingreefs to benefit local people, wildlife and tourists.

The four reef systems are the St Anne MarinePark and the Cousin Island Marine ProtectedAreas in the Seychelles, the Nosy Atafana Marine

Park in northeastern Madagascar, and the Malin-di-Watamu Marine National Parks in Kenya. It ishoped that lessons learned at these demonstrationsites will be useful for other reef systems in theregion, such as the Dar es Salaam Marine Reservesystem in Tanzania.

The East Africa project is part of the Interna-tional Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN),which recently received US$ 10 million from theUnited Nations Foundation. An additional US$20 million is needed for the worldwide ICRANprogramme.

UNEP DTIE plays a leading role in the Inter-national Coral Reef Information Network withrespect to tourism-related activities.

For more information, please contact: Nick Nut-tall, Media Officer, UNEP, PO Box 30552, Nairo-bi, Kenya, Tel: +254 2 623084, mobile: +254 0733 632755, E-mail: [email protected]; orTore Brevik, UNEP Spokesman/Director, Commu-

nications and Public Information, also in Nairobi,Tel: +254 2 623292, Fax: +254 2 623927, E-mail: [email protected], Internet: �

New version of energy andGHG analysis software The Stockholm Environment Institute-BostonCenter has released LEAP2000, the latest versionof its Long-range Energy Alternatives Planningsoftware. LEAP is a tool for integrated energy-environment and greenhouse gas mitigationanalysis. It is intended for use by researchers,NGOs and government agencies. Earlier versionshave been used by over 200 organizations in some60 countries.

LEAP2000 includes a Technology and Envi-ronment Database with descriptions, technicalcharacteristics, costs and emissions related to awide range of energy technologies, includingthose concerned with energy efficiency andrenewable energy. The database can be used aloneor within LEAP2000 to calculate emission pro-files of energy scenarios. LEAP2000 users can alsoconduct greenhouse gas mitigation studies andintegrated assessments of energy and environ-mental policies and measures.

The software, which uses a Windows interface,is available on-line and is free to both non-profitand governmental organizations in developingcountries. The LEAP web site ( an evaluation version that can be down-loaded without charge. The site offers technicalsupport, as well as training exercises in Englishand Spanish.

For more information, contact: Charlie Heapsand Michael Lazarus, SEI-Boston/Tellus Institute,11 Arlington Street, Boston, MA 02116-3411,USA. Tel: +1 617 266 5400, Fax: +1 617 2668303, E-mail: [email protected]. �

UNU obtains ISO 14001 statusUnited Nations University (UNU) in Tokyohas achieved ISO 14001 certification afterspending nearly two years setting up and run-ning its environmental management system(EMS). The International Organization forStandardization’s ISO 14001 standards onenvironmental management tools and systemsaddress the way companies manage their day-to-day operations in terms of their impact onthe environment.

The results of the EMS at UNU’s Tokyo

campus include reduced resource consumptionand general improvement in staff ’s environ-mental awareness. This year UNU is takingsteps to increase local public understanding ofits policies and objectives related to ISO 14001.It is also working to share its experience withother parts of the UN system.

For more information, contact: Brendan Barrett,Fellow, UNU/Institute for Advanced Studies, E-mail: [email protected], Internet:

Czech Republic: a better environment and quality of life

Through a combination of broad public sup-port, adequate funding, stringent legislationand effective work by environmental institu-tions created since 1989, the environment andquality of life in the Czech Republic improveddramatically in the 1990s, according to a newreport by the Charles University Environmen-tal Center.

Czech Republic 2000, Ten Years On: Environ-ment and Quality of Life after Ten Years of Tran-sition summarizes the most notable changes inthe country’s overall well-being during thedecade. It cites improvements in air pollutionemissions, ambient air quality, water supplyand quality, and waste management, amongother environmental indicators. In addition,quality of life indicators such as improvednutrition and increased life expectancy point torapid convergence with EU countries.

In a section on responses to environmental

challenges, the report documents the legislativeand institutional framework developed over thepast several years. However, the issue of sus-tainable development is not considered to havebeen adequately addressed yet in any wide-spread fashion, remaining of concern mainly toacademics and NGOs.

The report covers international environ-mental cooperation, development assistance,the country’s pending accession to the Euro-pean Union, and other international issues. Itnotes that the environment is regarded as oneof the most difficult areas in the accessionprocess. Steps being taken as part of prepara-tions for EU accession are outlined.

For more information, contact: Charles Uni-versity Environmental Center, U Krize 8, 158 00Prague 5, Czech Republic, Tel: +420 251080202, Fax: +420 2 5610441, E-mail:[email protected]. Internet:

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 81

N e w s

Indian firms increasingly takeenvironment into accountThe Delhi-based Tata Energy Research Institute(TERI) has reported an increasing trend amongmajor Indian corporations to make environmen-tal considerations an important part of how theydo business.

The following examples were cited:� The Indian Government has announced that allpower plants are to undergo eco-rating. TERI,which will carry out the process, described this as“the green equivalent of a credit rating system.”Some big companies such as Indian Oil Corpora-tion have already had eco-ratings performed. Therating could be a first step towards ISO 14001 cer-tification.� Over 40 top companies per year, on average, getenergy audits at TERI. To date, more than 150companies have been audited. Major five-starhotels and building complexes have recently joinedthe trend. India’s proposed Energy Efficiency Billseeks to make energy auditing mandatory. � Several leading companies have formed a net-work called the Corporate Roundtable, or CoRE.The members – 16 enterprises so far – meet toidentify key problem areas in the field of industri-al sustainability and develop strategies to addressthem. Issues discussed have included reuse of watereffluent from oil drilling, waste use in kiln opera-tions, water audits for corporate facilities, and elec-tro-floatation for treatment of oily effluent.

TERI has undertaken India’s first survey onenvironmental management practices among lead-ing corporations, based on voluntary disclosures.Of the approximately 50 companies that respond-ed, more than 60% reported that they had ISOcertification. The findings suggested, however, thatinformation exchange among corporations is poor.

For more information, contact: Venkat Sundara-man or Uttam Amar Mishra, Communication Ser-vices, TERI, 2001, Darbari Seth Block, HabitatPlace, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003, India, E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected],Internet: �

Asia-Pacific Roundtable forCleaner Production meets inthe Philippines

Some 360 participants from 28 countries dis-cussed the current and future status of CleanerProduction in the Asia-Pacific region at the thirdmeeting of the Asia-Pacific Roundtable for Clean-er Production (APRCP), which took place in

Manila on 28 February-2 March 2001. UNEP and APRCP released a new joint report,

Status Report: Cleaner Production in Asia-Pacific2000, at the meeting (see book reviews below).UNEP, APRCP and the Singapore-based Region-al Institute for Environmental Technology (RIET)also held a parallel three-day workshop on ISO14001 for small and medium-sized enterprises.The UNEP/FIDIC ISO 14001 training kit waspresented at this workshop, as was UNEP IETC’straining package on ISO 14001 for urban man-agement.

The workshop, which was considered a greatsuccess, will be repeated in the Philippines laterthis year. UNEP and APRCP also collaborate inother areas, such as the launching of APRCP’sYouth Action programme. The session of theAPRCP meeting on CP financing was coordinat-ed by UNEP DTIE’s Ari Huhtala.

APRCP, a regional forum for informationexchange on CP and mutual support for CP activ-ities, is an independent non-profit organizationregistered in the Philippines. UNEP has acted asadviser to APRCP since its founding in 1997,when the first regional roundtable on CP (whichtook place in Bangkok) concluded that such aforum was needed. APRCP is governed by aBoard of Directors (current members come from12 countries and four international organiza-tions). Its Secretariat is hosted by the ThailandEnvironment Institute in Bangkok.

APRCP intends to take a more active role as aregional CP project clearinghouse in the region.The next APRCP meeting is planned for Septem-ber 2002 in Indonesia.

For more information, consult APRCP’s web site( or contact: Niclas Svenningsen,UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia andthe Pacific, United Nations Building, RajadamnernNok Avenue, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, Tel: +662 288 1234, Fax: +66 2 288 1000, E-mail: [email protected]. �

Sustainable coffee productionin MexicoMexican farmers are carving a niche for shade-grown, fairly traded coffee in the booming inter-national specialty coffee market, according to areport by Equiterre, a Montreal-based NGO.Small-scale coffee producers are employing fairtrade practices that involve forming cooperativesand exporting directly to foreign buyers. Becausethe farmers typically grow their coffee under theshade of forest canopies, usually without usingagro-chemicals, their activity helps preserve localbiodiversity.

The report, Coffee with a Cause, saysthis coffee production represents sus-

tainable development in action. It waspublished with financial support from the

North American Fund for Environmental Coop-eration, the fund of the North American Com-mission for Environmental Cooperationestablished by the NAFTA environmental sideaccord to build cooperation among Canada, Mex-ico and the United States in protecting theirshared environments.

For more information, contact: Christine Larson atNACEC ([email protected]), Tel: + 1 514 3504331; or Isabelle St-Germain at Equiterre (istg@, Tel: +1 514 522 2000, extension 22. �

Hybrid-electric buses performbestA study by the Northeast Advanced Vehicle Con-sortium (NAVC) in the United States has shownthat existing hybrid-electric and natural gas busesproduce less emissions in real driving conditions.The study compared conventional diesel buseswith newer, cleaner buses in “real world urban dri-ving cycles” to see if emissions from hybrid-elec-tric and natural gas buses were significantly less instop-and-start conditions. The buses were alsotested with different types of fuel to measure par-ticulate emissions.

Compressed natural gas (CNG) buses per-formed best in terms of particulate emissions,which were about 80% lower than those of tradi-tional diesel buses, and emissions of nitrogenoxide (NOx), which were 50-60% lower. Buthybrid buses running on low-sulphur gasolineseemed to perform best overall, with a combina-tion of lower emissions of carbon monoxide (CO)(70% lower than those of a traditional diesel bus),NOx (30-40% lower) and particulates (50-70%lower), as well as better mileage than either theconventional diesel bus or the CNG model.

For more information, contact: Sheila Lynch,Executive Director, NAVC, 112 South St., FourthFloor, Boston, MA 02111, USA, Tel: +1 617 482-1770, Internet: �

Certifying social responsibilityfor SMEsCurrent and former employees of the corporateadvisory giant KPMG have taken a recentlyformed company – which certifies corporate socialresponsibility (including environmental practice)– public. GoodCorporation is a London-basedfirm whose services are especially aimed at smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which itsays are often put off by the amount of bureaucra-cy involved in certification.

GoodCorporation has drawn up a 21-pointcharter covering responsibilities to employees,customers, suppliers, the community and envi-ronment, and shareholders. To be certified, a

Industry Updates

N e w s

82 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

company must undergo an independent audit.The first ten recipients of GoodCorporation cer-tification ranged from Ladbrokes, a major book-maker owned by Hilton, to an independenthotel-restaurant.

ARM Holdings, a UK-based internationalmicroprocessor technology firm which receivedcertification, said it underwent the audit becauseinstitutional investors were putting increasingpressure on companies to meet strict standards ofcorporate responsibility.

For more information, contact GoodCorporation,37 St John’s Hill, Battersea, London SW11 1TT,UK, Tel: +44 207 924 3994, Fax: +44 207 9247060, E-mail: [email protected], �

TotalFinaElf revampsenvironmental policy towardssustainability

The oil group TotalFinaElf has adopted a sustain-able development strategy, following in the foot-steps of the Shell and BP groups. Introduced tosome 250 upper-level managers in April, the strat-egy has gradually been made public since. It hasfive main elements: optimizing hydrocarbonresource use, reducing greenhouse gas emissions,

improving product energy efficiency, developingrenewable sources, and integrating company oper-ations in the local environment.

According to CEO Thierry Desmarest, theErika oil spill off the coast pf Brittany in December1999 was not behind the change, which originat-ed in separate moves by Total, Fina and Elf beforethe three European companies merged in Febru-ary 2000. “We realize we’re behind Shell and BP,but we’re not the last to act,” Desmarest said.“We’re ahead of ExxonMobil.”

For more information, contact: CommunicationsDepartment, TotalFinaElf, 2 place de la Coupole,La Défense 6, 92400 Courbevoie, France, Tel: +331 47 44 45 46, Fax: +33 1 47 44 78 78. �

Research on financialinstitutions and the KyotoMechanisms

A Swiss university institute, a US-UK emissionbroker, an Italian bank and a German insurancefirm have joined forces to conduct research onfinancial institutions’ contributions to use of theKyoto Mechanisms. The aim is to develop inno-vative financial products tailored to meet the needsof participants in greenhouse gas emission marketsand prospective Kyoto Mechanisms users.

The University of St. Gallen-IWOe, the Ger-ling insurance group’s sustainable developmentarm, SanPaolo Imi, and Natsource-Tullett Europewill examine how various policy scenarios andmarket structures affect pricing of emission per-mits. They will explore the scope for private sectorinsurance against financial risks associated withthe Kyoto Mechanisms, and adapt project financeapproaches to take the implications of emissiontrading into account. The group will also analyzehow to build efficient portfolios of commercialclimate protection projects that take advantage ofrisk-diversification potential, and determine whattype of private sector investment funds for suchprojects would best generate marketable emissionpermits.

The group plans to derive policy recommenda-tions from the findings. The results will be appliedto concrete cases, mostly in Europe and theMediterranean, and be disseminated throughreports, workshops and conferences. The projectis scheduled for completion by September 2002.

For more information, contact: Osef Anssen, sci-entific coordinator, IWOe-HSG, Tigerbergstrasse 2,CH-9000 St-Gallen, Switzerland, Tel: +41 71 2242587, Fax: +41 71 224 27 22; E-mail [email protected]; or Dirk Kohler, administrative-financial coordinator, GSDP, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Ring7-9, DE -50672 Cologne, Germany, Tel: +49 221144 7549, Fax: +49 221 144 7666, E-mail:[email protected]. �

UNEP’s Governing Council:calls for increased funding,more action

“We do not need new priorities or new visions.What we need to do now is to implement.” KlausToepfer, UNEP’s Executive Director, opened the21st session of the UNEP Governing Council andsecond Global Ministerial Environment Forumin Nairobi, Kenya, in February with this call toaction. He also underscored the need for morefunding of UNEP’s programmes. “Give us a basisfor our work. But please give us that basis withmore resources,” he urged.

Toepfer’s words picked up on an earlier state-ment by two members of the UNEP Youth Advi-sory Council, Shalala Oliver Sepiso (Zambia) andNanako Mizuno (Japan), who called for imple-mentation of policies rather than more meetingsand negotiations. They stressed the link betweenpoverty, overconsumption and the environment.

This Governing Council session was attendednot only by environment ministers from over 80countries, NGO representatives and young peo-ple from around the world, but also (for the firsttime) by lawmakers.

Among the results of the session:� Ministers approved UNEP’s 2002-2003 workprogramme and budget of nearly US$ 120 mil-lion. However, Toepfer stressed that UNEP needs

additional financial support to carry out theambitious work programme. He said it is

vital to broaden the donor base and secure reli-able contributions. The European Union isresponsible for 60% of UNEP’s core funding.Toepfer thanked Northern European countries,the United States and Canada for their support.He said he would work to encourage other coun-tries, including those in the Arab world, to con-tribute more to UNEP’s work.� UNEP will undertake a global study on thehealth and environmental effects of mercury. Thisstudy, which will also assess the cost-effectivenessof mercury anti-pollution measures and tech-nologies, is to run through 2003.� Among several decisions on UNEP’s chemicalsagenda was a new initiative to tackle the issue oflead in petrol, and one aimed at encouragingcountries to ratify the Rotterdam Convention onthe Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Cer-tain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in Inter-national Trade. UNEP committed itself todevelop a new global chemicals strategy, withpotential restrictions on heavy metals being thehighest priority.

U N E P F o c u s

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 83

N e w s

Both Toepfer and the session President, Cana-dian Environment Minister David Anderson,highlighted the growing importance of the Inter-net and telecommunications in raising environ-mental awareness. UNEP has launched,a “one-stop” web-based service whose purpose isto transform the way knowledge about the envi-ronment and environmental degradation is dis-seminated (see Web Site Highlights, page 94).

The importance of communications wasvividly demonstrated by means of a satellite linkbetween the session and Sir Peter Blake’s researchvessel, Seamaster, off the Antarctic Peninsula. SirPeter told Toepfer and the ministers present inNairboi: “We are in an area that normally is solidice at this time of year.” Seamaster, flying theUNEP flag, was at 71° South. Sir Peter linkedthe disappearance of ice in this area to globalwarming.

As a side event at the Governing Council ses-sion, a Global Compact meeting brought togeth-er members of the business community, tradeunions and NGOs. The Global Compact is aninitiative of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-Gen-eral, who has challenged businesses to incorporatehuman rights, labour and environmental princi-ples into individual corporate practices and intotheir lobbying for public policies.

The Governing Council concluded this sessionwith an agreement to establish an open-endedintergovernmental group of ministers, or theirrepresentatives, to examine how to strengtheninternational environmental governance andUNEP’s funding as part of the lead-up to theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) in Johannesburg in 2002.

Official documentation from this GoverningCouncil session is available on

For more information, contact: Tore Brevik,UNEP spokesman, Tel: +254 2 623292; or RobertBisset, Tel: +33 (1) 44 37 76 13, E-mail: [email protected]. For information about the GlobalCompact, see �

New Director of UNEP’sRegional Office for AfricaKlaus Toepfer, UNEP’s Executive Director, hasappointed Sékou Touré of Côte d’Ivoire as Direc-tor of UNEP’s Regional Office for Africa effective1 February 2001. Touré formerly worked for theGovernment of Côte d’Ivoire as High Commis-sioner for Hydraulics, Special Adviser to the StateMinister in Charge of Development Planning,and Special Adviser to the Prime Minister. Heprovided extensive technical assistance on a widerange of environmental issues and projects, andon matters related to international negotiations.

Touré has had research and teaching experiencein the United States as well as in Côte d’Ivoire. Heholds a Ph.D. in civil engineering (specializing inenvironmental engineering) from the Universityof New Hampshire.

For more information, contact: Cristina Boelcke,

Director, Division of Regional Cooperation, UNEP,Tel: +254 2 623517, Fax: +254 2 624270, E-mail: [email protected]. �

Stockholm Convention onPOPs signedDiplomats from around the world gathered inStockholm in May to sign the Stockholm Con-vention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).The new Convention, one of many important ini-tiatives growing out of the 1992 Rio Conference,is the international community’s most ambitiouseffort yet to reduce and ultimately halt prolifera-tion of toxic chemicals.

While earlier chemicals treaties have relied onnotification requirements or end-of-pipe controls,the Stockholm Cconvention calls for outrightbans and destruction. It is designed to eliminateor severely restrict production and use of 12 pol-lutants, including pesticides and industrial chem-icals; ensure environmentally sound managementand chemical transformation of POPs waste; andprevent emergence of new chemicals with POPs-like characteristics.

Four common characteristics of POPs makethem particularly hazardous: � they are toxic;� they are persistent, resisting normal processesthat break down contaminants; � they accumulate in the body fat of humans,marine mammals and other animals, and arepassed from mother to fetus; and� they can travel great distances (typically fromtemperate and tropical regions to the poles) onwind and water currents. Even small quantities ofPOPs can injure human and animal tissue, caus-ing nervous system damage, diseases of theimmune system, reproductive and developmentaldisorders, and cancers.

Negotiations on the Convention were orga-nized by UNEP. It was finalized in December byconsensus of the 122 negotiating governments,with the support of chemical industry trade asso-ciations and hundreds of environmental/publichealth NGOs. Key elements include:� precaution as the guiding principle;� funding commitments enabling all countries toparticipate. On an interim basis, the Global Envi-ronment Facility (GEF) will serve as the principalfinancial mechanism;� elimination of intentionally produced POPs,and ultimate elimination of by-product POPs;and� environmentally sound management and dis-posal of POPs wastes (including stockpiles, prod-ucts, articles in use, and materials contaminatedwith POPs).

Fifty ratifications are needed to make the agree-ment legally binding.

For more information, contact: UNEP Chemicals,PO Box 256, 15 chemin des Anémones, Châtelaine,CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland, Tel: +41 22 9178172, Fax: +41 22 797 3460, E-mail: [email protected], Internet: �

UNEP investigates depleteduranium sites in Kosovo

A UNEP team reports that depleted uranium(DU) used during the 1999 Kosovo conflictresulted in low levels of radioactivity. The findingssuggest there has been no immediate cause forconcern. However, UNEP is urging precaution,citing “a very clear need for...clean-up and decon-tamination of the polluted sites”.

In November 2000, a UNEP field missionfrom the Balkan Task Force team visited 11 of the112 sites identified by NATO as targets for ord-nance containing depleted uranium. Sites werechosen based on the amount of ammunition used,and their relevance with respect to the environ-ment and to local populations. It was the first timea study of this type had been carried out on DU’senvironmental impacts following a real conflictsituation.

The international team of 14 scientists collect-ed soil, water and vegetation samples and con-ducted smear tests on buildings, destroyed armyvehicles and DU penetrators. Remnants of DUammunition were found at eight sites. The teamsent 247 soil, 45 water and 30 vegetation samplesfor testing, along with a few milk samples. Alsoanalyzed were pieces of anti-armour rounds: twopenetrators, five penetrator jackets and a penetra-tor fragment.

Samples were analyzed for radioactivity andtoxicity by laboratories in Austria, Italy, Sweden,Switzerland and the UK, with financing from theGovernment of Switzerland.

“Out of the 11 sites visited, the team foundthree sites with no signs of higher radioactivity,nor any remnants of DU ammunition. At eightsites, the team found either slightly higheramounts of beta radiation immediately at oraround the holes left by DU ammunition, orpieces and remnants of ammunition,” said PekkaHaavisto, the former Finnish Environment Min-ister, who chaired the DU Assessment Team.

In addition to U-238, which makes up the bulkof DU, the penetrators contained uranium iso-tope U-236 and plutonium isotope Pu-239/240.The presence of these transuranic elements indi-cated that at least some of the DU had been innuclear reactors. The isotopes were found only atvery low levels, and no significant impact on over-all radioactivity was considered to have takenplace. Mild contamination from DU dust wasdetected near targeted sites. Bio-indicatorsrevealed some evidence of airborne DU contami-nation.

No widespread ground contamination wasfound. While the number of contaminationpoints in the areas investigated was high, the teamsaid there was no significant risk of contaminationof air or vegetation.

“These scientific findings should alleviate anyimmediate anxiety that people living or workingin Kosovo may have been experiencing” UNEP’sExecutive Director Klaus Toepfer, declared.“Under certain circumstances, however, DU canstill pose risks. Our report highlights a series of

N e w s

84 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

precautionary measures that should be taken toguarantee that the areas struck by DU ammuni-tion remain risk-free.”

The full report, including a map of the 112 sitesand additional details, is available at (also see page 93).

In a related development, Toepfer andMohamed El Baradei, Director-General of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency, agreed toconsider how to respond to requests for fact-find-ing missions to Bosnia-Herzegovina, the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia and Iraq, other sites whereDU has been used in military conflicts. UNEPand the IAEA are coordinating their actions withthe World Health Organization (which recentlydecided to send a team to study DU’s healtheffects in Iraq) and other UN system organiza-tions.

For more information, contact: Tore Brevik,UNEP spokesman, Tel: +254 2 623292, E-mail:[email protected]; or Pekka Haavisto, Tel: +35840 588 4720, E-mail: [email protected];or Henrik Slotte, UNEP Balkans Unit, Tel: +41 229178598, E-mail: [email protected]. �

Experts finalize global ship-breaking guidelinesIn June of this year, international experts on haz-ardous waste and shipping began finalizing inter-national guidelines for environmentally safedismantling of obsolete ships, under the auspicesof the Basel Convention on the TransboundaryMovement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Dis-posal.

Although transport of hazardous wastes by seaplayed a part in convincing the international com-munity to adopt the 1989 Basel Convention –there were highly publicized incidents of hazardouswastes being sent to developing and eastern Euro-pean countries for dumping – it is only in the lastseveral years that the toxic materials vessels them-selves are made of have become a priority issue.

Dismantling a large vessel may entail theremoval of many tonnes of hazardous materials,including PCBs, mercury, lead, asbestos, and oiland gas. It can also result in the release of dioxinand sulphur fumes. The health of workers andlocal communities, coastal and ocean biodiversity,and the quality of groundwater and air may bethreatened.

The new guidelines seek to minimize or elimi-nate such risks by introducing universally appliedprinciples for environmentally sound manage-ment of ship dismantling. Procedures and goodpractices are proposed for decommissioning andselling obsolete vessels, dismantling them, sortingparts (for reuse, recycling and disposal), identify-ing potential contaminants, preventing toxicreleases, monitoring environmental impacts, andresponding to emergencies and accidents. Theguidelines also address the design, constructionand operation of ship dismantling facilities.

Ship-breaking is labour intensive. The industryhas a strong presence in several developing coun-

tries, which also provide markets for recycledparts. India breaks 42% of the vessels dismantledworldwide every year, Bangladesh 7%, Pakistan6%, China 4%.

Concerned that practices at major breakingyards violate the Basel Convention, the EU isstudying the feasibility of dismantling ships inEurope. The United States, which has prohibitedthe export of government-owned vessels to majorbreakers, is also considering using its own capacity.

The guidelines are being developed by the BaselConvention’s Technical Working Group, withcontributions from the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO, the International LabourOrganization (ILO), and environmental NGOs.The plan is to finalize them by October, for adop-tion by the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of theParties to the Basel Convention in 2002.

For more information, contact: MichaelWilliams, Tel: +41 22 917 8242, mobile +41 79409 1528), E-mail: [email protected]. Orsee and �

World Energy Council andUNEP see hope forgreenhouse gas reductions

Voluntary actions by industry, governments andorganizations are leading to small but significantreductions in GHG emissions, according toUNEP and the World Energy Council. WECstudies released in late June indicate that currentclean energy programmes, government initiativesand renewable energy projects will save the equiv-alent of a billion tonnes of CO2 annually by 2005,or more than 3% of total GHG emissions in 2000.

WEC added that a billion tonnes might wellunderstate the savings outlook: a survey of 91countries indicated that additional projects in thepipeline could double that figure.

Klaus Toepfer, UNEP’s Executive Director, saidpessimism about recent climate change discussionshad obscured small but real progress towardsreducing emissions. For example, China (whichaccounts for 14% of world CO2 emissions) hasmade an “active effort to promote energy conser-vation, end coal subsidies, and support more effi-cient coal-fire power generation.”

The WEC report appeared after several monthsof developments concerning climate change ini-tiatives had given considerably less reason for opti-mism:� In January, the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change (IPCC) released the first of threeparts of its Third Assessment Report, confirmingthat evidence of human influence on the globalclimate is stronger than ever and projecting poten-tially devastating global temperature rises of 1.4-5.8°C before the end of this century.� In February, a member of UNEP’s Financial Ser-vices Initiative reported that global warming couldcost the world hundreds of billions of dollars ayear unless urgent efforts are made now to curb

emissions of CO2and other greenhouse gases. Inlow-lying countries like the Maldives, the Mar-shall Islands and the Federated States of Microne-sia, losses could exceed 10% of GDP by 2050.This report – from Munich Re, one of the world’sbiggest re-insurance companies – was publishedin UNEP’s Our Planet magazine.� In the same month, scientists from GRID-Aren-dal, UNEP’s key Arctic research centre, warnedthat global warming could accelerate as rising tem-peratures in the Arctic melt permafrost, causing itto release greenhouse gases. It estimated that sum-mer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean could thin by asmuch as 60% if CO2levels reach double their pre-industrial atmospheric levels. British scientists alsowarned that the ice in the Antarctic is shrinking. � Also in February, the second part of the IPCCreport ws released. It addressed expected changesin weather patterns, water resources, the seasons,ecosystems, extreme weather, and cycles of disease,famine and poverty.� In March, the third part of the IPCC report wasreleased. It examines policies and technologies fortackling GHG emissions and the threat of climatechange. The report confirms that many cost-effec-tive solutions are available, but cited institutional,behavioural and other barriers that governmentswould have to address if these solutions were torealize their potential. It also says the choice ofenergy mix and associated investments woulddetermine whether atmospheric concentrations ofgreenhouse gases can be stabilized, and if so atwhat level and cost.� In April, Klaus Toepfer urged development of amore complete picture of the roles and interactionsof greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone, after sci-entists associated with the Indian Ocean Experi-ment suggested the thick brown haze that formsover much of Asia during the tropical dry seasoncould have profound effects on human health, cropyield and rainfall patterns. GRID-Arendal alsolaunched an interactive on-line map to assist theKyoto Protocol process (http://maps. map presents data collected by internationalinstitutions. Using it, any user can evaluate currentemissions and projections for the future.� In May, 16 national academies of scienceendorsed the IPCC as the most reliable source ofinformation on climate change and its causes in ajoint statement. They called for prompt action toreduce GHG emissions. Moreover, they consid-ered that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is asmall but essential first step towards stabilizingatmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

For more information, contact: Nick Nuttall,Media Officer, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Tel: +254 2623084, mobile: +254 0 733 632755, E-mail:[email protected]; or Elena Virkkala Nekhaev,Manager of Programmes, WEC, Tel: +44 207 7345996, E-mail: [email protected]; or TaysirAl-Ghanem, WMO Spokesman, Tel: +41 22 7308315, E-mail: [email protected].

Also see for downloadable graphs; for official documents concerningthe climate change talks; and foradditional background information. �

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 85

N e w s

Energy entrepreneurship in AfricaWith support from the United Nations Founda-tion (UNF), African energy entrepreneurs willexpand their efforts to deliver clean, modern,affordable energy to poor rural areas of Africa andSouth America. UNF is investing US$ 4.2 millionin UNEP’s African Rural Energy EnterpriseDevelopment initiative (AREED) and will begina similar programme in Brazil. This is in additionto the Foundation’s initial US$ 2 million AREEDinvestment in 1999.

AREED’s goal is to nurture a new type of entre-preneur in Ghana, Botswana, Mali, Senegal andZambia by delivering commercial expertise andmodest amounts of start-up financing. Over 30

enterprises are being developed to deliver afford-able energy services based on clean, renewableenergy sources. It is working with a Ghanaiancompany that processes and sells cereal and tuberfood products. The company plans to use solarcrop dryers to meet increased production targets,with a small capital investment loan from AREEDand assistance in producing a full business plan forbank co-financing.

UNEP DTIE’s Energy Group in Paris adminis-ters AREED, which began in early 2000. AREEDprovides early-stage funding and assistance inleveraging financing from conventional sources, aswell as training and hands-on business develop-ment assistance. It also helps local developmentand finance organizations build long-term ruralenergy enterprise expertise. AREED works withAfrican NGOs to identify potential energy pro-jects and coordinate business support services forentrepreneurs, and with financial institutions toassess the rural energy business sector and integrateit into their loan and investment portfolios.

Part of AREED’s success is due to on-the-ground partnerships with organizations such as

the US-based E&Co (a pioneer in providing“patient” investment capital to energy enterprisesin developing countries) and ENDA, a develop-ment organization based in Senegal.

Recent expansion of this initiative to Brazil willhelp provide clean and affordable energy to the 20million rural Brazilians without access to modernenergy services. As in the case of AREED, theBrazil Rural Energy Enterprise Development(BREED) programme links access to energy ser-vices with the broader aims of sustainable devel-opment – especially for women and children, whooften bear the greatest burden from dependenceon traditional fuels.

For more information, contact: Eric Usher, Ener-gy Programme Officer, or Mark Radka, ProgrammeCoordinator, at UNEP DTIE in Paris, Tel: +33 144 37 14 50, Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74, E-mail:[email protected], Internet:; orXiaodong Wang, Programme Officer for ClimateChange, United Nations Foundation, Tel: +1 202887 9040, Fax: +1 202 887 9021, E-mail: [email protected].

UNEP Division of Technology,Industry and Economics (DTIE)


World Environment Day: the World Wide Web of Life The theme of this year’s observance of World Environment Dayis “Connect with the World Wide Web of Life,” a choice thatreflects the need for each and every one of us to recognize our rolein preserving our fragile planet and the ecosystems, resources andnatural processes that bind us all together. More than ever, life onearth requires of us a sense of universal responsibility – nation tonation, person to person, human to all other forms of life.

Albert Einstein once said that in crisis, imagination is betterthan knowledge. We do need more knowledge about the world’smajor ecosystems and about the complex interplay between envi-ronment and development, since it is impossible to devise effective policyunless it is based on sound scientific information. That is one reason whytoday marks the launch, by the United Nations and the World ResourcesInstitute, of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, an international col-laborative effort to fill important knowledge gaps and to map the health ofour planet.

At the same time, we know more than enough already to face the hardchoices ahead. We already have the technical skills to halt destructive trends

and to place our economies on a more sustainable footing. It isnot knowledge and scientific research, but political and eco-nomic factors, that will determine whether or not the wisdomaccumulating in our labs and libraries will be put into practice.Challenges such as climate change, desertification, the destruc-tion of biological diversity and population growth are testingnot only our imagination, but also our will.

Sustainability is in everybody’s interest, rich and poor alike.One in every two jobs worldwide – in agriculture, forestry andfisheries – depends directly on the sustainability of ecosystems.

Yet unsustainable practices are woven deeply into the fabric of modern life.And myths have taken hold suggesting there is little alternative to theseshort-sighted and wasteful patterns of consumption and development. Solet us, on this World Environment Day, connect with a new ethic of glob-al stewardship and conservation, and most of all with the imagination andcourage to make it a reality.

Kofi A. AnnanSecretary-General of the United Nations

World Environment Day 2001 had as its slo-gan “Connect with the World Wide Web ofLife.” The Executive Director of UNEP, KlausToepfer, called this “a reminder that the Earthwith all its complex, interlocking ecosystems isthe foundation of our lives.” At celebrations inTurin, Italy, he evoked the “puzzling combina-tion of promise and threat” posed by the newmillennium.

“The riches of the information age are beingfelt by all of us – from the Internet, the interna-tionalization of trade, to the inconceivablebreakthroughs in medical science,” he said. “Butdespite the profits and promise of globalizationour old problems are enduring – and urgent. Wecontemplate the looming threats of inequalitiesbrought about by the forces of globalization,poverty, reduced food security, the intricate bal-

ance between population, resources and theenvironment, the challenge of sustainable devel-opment and the relationship of all these to thefuture of humanity and the environment.”

The Earth, Toepfer said, is “our common her-itage”. He drew a parallel between the WorldWide Web and the “vast web of interconnectedspecies and systems that fit together in intricateways, enabling the whole system to continue.There are limits to how much our populationcan grow, and how much we can alter our sur-rounding environment, without causingchanges that will reverberate throughout thatweb and jeopardize our own future.”

Toepfer called for “a fundamental change inthe way we meet our needs and a reassessment ofwhat those needs really are,” adding that gov-ernments cannot do the job alone. “We need

every individual citizen to help ensure strongenvironmental protection. Joining together isnot a matter of choice – it is a necessity.”

To mark World Environment Day, UNEPpresented its Global 500 Awards for 2001 to 18individuals and organizations. They include ahusband and wife team from Malaysia who haverescued over a quarter of a million turtle eggs, aKenyan children’s doctor who almost single-handedly transformed an old quarry into anature reserve, an American company specializ-ing in ecotourism, and a Canadian teenager whobegan to fight pesticide misuse at the age of ten.

For more information, contact: Nick Nuttall,Media Officer, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya, Tel:+254 2 623084, mobile: +254 0 733 632755,Fax: +254 2 623692, E-mail : [email protected].

World Environment Day: message from UNEP’s Executive Director

Kofi Annan

N e w s

86 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

Methyl BromideCommunication Programmemakes use of NGO expertiseUNEP and representatives of ten environmentaland agricultural NGOs have launched a joint ini-tiative to raise methyl bromide awareness in tendeveloping countries. This pesticide is a hazardousozone-depleting substance.

The Methyl Bromide Communication Pro-gramme is the first project under the MontrealProtocol where funds have been provided to uti-lize the expertise of NGOs in phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. The NGOs have presentedapproaches for reaching farmers and other pesti-cide users, including organization of workshopswith users, meetings with government officials,and development of media strategies.

The NGOs will carry out communication pro-grammes in their countries, relying on the strate-gies and recommendations agreed at the meeting.Lovemore Simwanda, Director of the Environ-mental Conservation Association of Zambia,called the initiative “a unique partnership betweenUNEP and local organizations that allows us toreach and educate local farmers and take action onthis toxic pesticide.”

“UNEP is pleased to be working in close part-nership with NGOs to promote the phase-out ofmethyl bromide and the adoption of alternatives,”said Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Director ofUNEP’s Division of Technology, Industry andEconomics. “By leveraging NGOs’ expertise ingrassroots organizing, these awareness-raisingactivities will play an important role in helping

countries achieve the 2002 freeze and phase-outrequirements for methyl bromide.”

For more information, contact: Corinna Gilfil-lan, OzonAction Programme, at UNEP DTIE inParis, Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 71, Fax: +33 1 44 3714 74; E-mail: [email protected],

UNEP announces globaltelecommunications allianceUNEP joined the International Telecommunica-tion Union to celebrate World Environment Dayby announcing an alliance called the Global e-Sus-tainability Initiative, or GeSI. Its aim is to improvethe global environment and support sustainabledevelopment by promoting business practices andtechnologies that save energy, minimize waste,and help bridge the “digital divide”.

GeSI brings together some of the world’sbiggest information and communications tech-nology companies and their industry associations.Both operators and suppliers have made a com-mitment to manage their business operations inan environmentally friendly way, and to promotesustainable business practices and technologiesaround the world.

Companies joining the initiative must meet cri-teria showing they have reached a certain level ofenvironmental achievement. They commit tosharing experience, working with stakeholders,managing operations sustainably, raising aware-ness of the contribution their industry can make

to society, and carrying out research and bench-marking.

For more information, contact: Cornis Van derLugt at UNEP DTIE in Paris, Tel: +33 1 44 37 1439, Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74, E-mail: [email protected]. �

Joint conference on finance,mining and sustainabilityLeaders of institutions that finance many of theworld’s main mining projects met in Washingtonin April to analyze key issues facing the mineralindustries, and the role of financial institutions inthe transition to a more sustainable developmentmodel.

The conference on Finance, Mining and Sus-tainability was sponsored by UNEP, the WorldBank and the Mining, Minerals and SustainableDevelopment Project. At the Bank’s headquartersthe approximately 125 participants were addressedby its President, James Wolfensohn, and the Direc-tor of UNEP DTIE, Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel,among other speakers. Topics included the needfor clearer understanding of interactions betweenthe finance industry and the mining and mineralssector, the low capital returns and risks of cata-strophic loss in the sector, and the extent to whichimproving economic, environmental and socialperformance can lower risk and increase returns.

A report on an earlier mining-related event hasbeen published. Environmental Regulation forAccident Prevention: Tailing and Chemicals Man-agement, available in booklet form or on CD-

Opening of the Finance, Mining and Sustainability conference in Washington


Sharing Nature’s Interest:Ecological Footprints as anIndicator of SustainabilityIn Sharing Nature’s Interest the concept of ecolog-ical footprinting, introduced by Mathis Wacker-nagel and William E. Rees in 1996, is refined andtranslated into a methodology that, according toWackernagel and his two new co-authors, enablesindividual households, complex businesses orwhole cities to calculate their environmentalimpacts. The aim is not only to simplify calcula-

tion of the ecological footprint, but (asthe subtitle emphasizes) to promote foot-

printing as an easy-to-understand indicator ofjust how sustainable – or unsustainable – varioushuman activities are. The book is user-friendly,with cartoon illustrations, Question and Answersections, and many web site references for furtherinformation.

N. Chambers, C. Simmons and M. Wackernagel(2000). Earthscan Publications Ltd., 120 Pen-tonville Road, London, N1 9JN, UK, Tel: +44 207278 04 33, Fax: +44 207 278 1142, E-mail:[email protected], Internet: Pbk., 185p. ISBN 1-85383-739-3.

Natural Capitalism: The NextIndustrial RevolutionThree top consultants in the greening of businessand industry make the case for proper valuationof Earth’s “natural capital” as a key to major prof-itability gains. Focusing on specific business areas(e.g. car-making, textiles and farming) and onissues such as subsidies, waste, water use and cli-

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 87

N e w s

ROM, summarizes the proceedings of a workshoporganized in Perth in October 2000 by UNEPand the Government of Australia. The purpose ofthis workshop was to discuss ways to improve theeffectiveness of regulation as a means of prevent-ing mining accidents. It was the first major inter-national exchange on accident prevention bymining regulators. Experts and regulators fromabout 20 countries participated.

For more information, contact: the Mining, Min-erals and Sustainable Development Project, E-mail:[email protected]; or the Mineral Resources Forum –Environment, Internet:; or Fritz Balkau at UNEP DTIE inParis, Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 39, Fax: +33 1 44 37 1474, E-mail: [email protected]. �

Contractors and SoutheastAsian leaders sign CPDeclaration

Thomas Rogge, President of the Confederation ofInternational Contractors’ Associations, signedthe UNEP International Declaration for CleanerProduction in February, joining more than 220signatories representing private and public sectoractivities worldwide. The signing took place inChristchurch, New Zealand, at a convention ofthe Federation of Asia and Western Pacific Asso-ciations. The convention’s theme was Construc-tion in Partnership with the Environment.

Less than two months later, in Manila, thePhilippines, several senior Southeast Asian deci-

sion-makers confirmed their support for CP bysigning the Declaration at the opening session ofthe International Conference on Industrial ParkManagement, whose theme was New Strategiesfor Industrial Development. The signatoriesincluded Heherson Alvaraz (Minister of Environ-ment and Natural Resources of the Philippines),Anchalee Chavanich (head of the IndustrialEstates Authority of Thailand), and managers ofindustrial estates in the Philippines and Thailand.

For more information, contact: Fritz Balkau atUNEP DTIE in Paris, Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 39, Fax:+33 1 44 37 14 74, E-mail: fritz.balkau@;or Niclas Svenningsen, UN Economic and SocialCommission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations

Building, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok10200, Thailand, Tel: +66 2 288-1234, Fax: +66 2288-1000, E-mail: svenningsen.unescap �

New UNEP Finance Initiativesnewsletter

The UNEP Finance Initiatives (UNEP FI), administeredby DTIE’s Economics and Trade Unit, has launched a newquarterly newsletter with a provocative title: 0.618...

The reference is to the “golden” mean or ratio, found inshapes and patterns throughout nature, which has beencalled “nature’s way of building quantity without sacrific-ing quality.” Topics covered in the first 16-page issue,which appeared on 1 June, include UNEP FI’s April con-ference in Manila, “The Financial Sector in Asia-Pacific:The Business Case for Sustainability Performance”; theworkshop on North America hosted by Citigroup in NewYork, also in April; and UNEP FI activities in preparationfor the Rio + 10 summit next year.

For more information, contact: Paul Clements-Hunt, edi-tor UNEP Finance Initiatives, 15 chemin des Anémones, CH-1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland,Tel: +41 22 917 8178, Fax: +41 22 796 9240, E-mail [email protected], Internet:

UNEP DTIE web sitesThe following sites are either new or have newaddresses. Also see Web Site Highlights onpage 94.http://www.halontrader.org

Books & Reports

N e w s

88 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

mate change, they argue that developed countriescan reduce materials and energy consumption by90-95% without depriving people of the goodsand services they want. Natural Capitalism alsounderlines the human component of nature, withsection titles such as “Wasting People” and“Industry and Community.”

P. Hawken, A.B. Lovins and L.H. Lovins (2000).Earthscan Publications Ltd. (see above). Pbk., 396p.ISBN 1-85383-763-6.

From Here to Sustainability:Politics in the Real WorldThe Real World Coalition, comprising some 25British non-profit organizations, emphasizes thehuman costs of unsustainability. This is the Coali-tion’s second report. The Politics of the Real Worldwas published in 1996. Again addressed to polit-ical leaders, From Here to Sustainability describesseveral “sustainability gaps”, such as the Qualityof Life Gap (a “decoupling” of the economy fromquality of life) and the Environmental Gap (thedegree to which policies and actions fall short ofwhat is needed to safeguard the climate or biodi-versity, for example). The book outlines long-termprogrammes to close these gaps (urging inter alia,radical reform of fiscal policy, the trade system,education and the United Nations). It makes rec-ommendations to the current UK government onshort-term actions that might be taken in prepa-ration for the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment.

I. Christie and D. Warburton for The Real WorldCoalition (2001). Earthscan Publications Ltd. (seeabove). Pbk., 223p. ISBN 1-85383-735-0.

Perspectives on the New Economyof Corporate CitizenshipThe Copenhagen Centre (TCC) was founded bythe Danish Government in 1998 to further com-munication between government, business andcivil society, with a focus on social responsibilityand inclusiveness. This is the second report fromTCC’s New Economy Programme, whichexplores the relationship between the “new econ-omy” and development of new social partner-ships. It presents several short essays on corporatecitizenship and the new economy, including“Greening the New Economy” by J. Wilsdon andJ. Porritt of Forum for the Future.

S. Zadek, N. Hojensgard and P. Raynard, eds.(2001). The Copenhagen Centre, Holmens Kanal22, DK-1060 Copenhaken K, Denmark, Tel: +4533 92 94 43, Fax: +45 33 92 92 95, E-mail:[email protected], Internet: Pbk. 151p. ISBN 87-988161-0-1.

The Earthscan Reader in Businessand Sustainable DevelopmentThis volume brings together some of the mostimportant recent work on business implicationsof sustainable development. The articles and bookextracts, published between 1996 and 1999, covertopics including business opportunities, environ-

mental and social accounting, and trade and sus-tainable development. Among the authors are J.Elkington (on the “triple bottom line”), D. Kor-ten (“The Responsibility of Business to theWhole”), S. Zadek (on performance, ethics andaccountability) and S. Beder (“Global Spin,” onthe use of corporate clout to quash environmentalconcerns). The editors introduce each section bypresenting their take on the authors’ positions.

R. Starkey and R. Welford, eds. (2001). Earth-scan Publications Ltd. (see above). Pbk., 364 pp.ISBN 1-85383-639-7.

Buried Treasure: Uncoveringthe Business Case forCorporate Sustainability

Part of the “Engaging Stakeholders” series (pub-lished by SustainAbility in collaboration withUNEP DTIE), Buried Treasure tackles the com-mon assumption that sustainable development isnot necessarily good for business. It analyzes therelationship between ten measures of business per-formance and ten dimensions of sustainabledevelopment performance. The authors concludethat evidence in favour of the business case for sus-tainable development is continuing to increaseand is especially strong in certain business perfor-mance areas. Buried Treasure is designed to be usedin tandem with the on-line business case resourcesof SustainAbility and UNEP.

(2001). SustainAbility, 11-13 Knightsbridge,London SW1X 7LY, UK, Tel: +44 207 245 1116,Fax: +44 207 245 1117, Internet: Pbk., 56p. ISBN1-903168-02-3.

The Power to Change: MobilisingBoard Leadership to DeliverSustainable Value to Markets and SocietyPublished with the International Business Lead-ers Forum, The Power to Change explores how andwhy boards of major companies, faced with issuesthat relate to globalization and corporate power,are starting to integrate triple bottom line consid-erations – economic, social and environmental –into corporate governance responsibilities.

(2001). SustainAbility (see above). Pbk., 43p.ISBN 1899159-02-9.

Sustainable Banking: The Greening of FinanceFinancial institutions are increasingly aware thatfinancing of business can be carried out in a waythat stimulates firms to control their environmen-tal impacts. Sustainable Banking presents the view-points of bankers, other financial sector actors,academics, NGOs, and additional stakeholdersfrom around the world. Part 1 gives practicalexamples of environmental policy-making bybanks; Part 2 discusses the importance of trans-parency in such policies and the role of communi-cation; Part 3 looks at green investment funds; Part4 is devoted to environmental risk and productinnovation in banking; and Part 5 addresses the

roles of governments, NGOs and multilateralbanks.

J.J. Bouma, M. Jeucken and L. Klinkers, eds.(2001). Greenleaf Publishing (in association withDeloitte & Touche), Aizlewood’s Mill, Nursery Street,Sheffield S3 8GG, UK, Tel: +44 114 282 3475,Fax: +44 114 282 3476, E-mail: [email protected], Internet: Hbk., 480p. ISBN 1874719381.

Globalisation and SustainableDevelopment: Opportunitiesand Challenges for theFinancial Services Sector

This report summarizes the proceedings of a two-day UNEP Financial Initiatives Roundtable inNovember 2000, hosted by Deutsche Bank inFrankfurt. Some 260 bankers, insurers and asset

managers, along with representatives of civil soci-ety and intergovernmental organizations, met toexplore how the financial services sector is adapt-ing to the globalizing marketplace, and to stake-holder demands for more corporate responsibilityrelated to sustainable development. Among othertopics, participants discussed environmental man-agement and reporting in the finance sector, envi-ronmental performance indicators, innovativefinancing for renewable energy and cleaner pro-duction technologies, and micro-financing to alle-viate poverty.

(2001). UNEP Finance Initiatives, 15 Chemindes Anémones, CH-1219 Châtelaine, Geneva,Switzerland, Tel: +41 22 917 8178, Fax: +41 22796 9240, E-mail: [email protected], Pbk., 34p.

Environmental Policy: Objectives,Instruments, and ImplementationThough its examples are drawn mostly from theexperience in the UK, Environmental Policy isaimed at anyone concerned with the practicaldesign of economic instruments for implement-ing environmental policy. The 12 chapters, byScott Barrett, David Pearce. Dieter Helm (the edi-tor) and others, are divided into three parts: Prin-ciples, Policy, Sectors. In the first part topics suchas sustainable development, cost-benefit analysis

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 89

N e w s

and technology-based standards are addressed; inthe second the Kyoto Protocol and biodiversity;and in the third the roles of energy taxation, waterissues, agri-environmental policy and transport.The final chapter is devoted to the history of theUK’s landfill tax.

D. Helm, ed. (2000). Oxford University Press,Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, Tel: +44186 555 6767, Fax: +44 186 555 6646, E-mail:[email protected], Internet: Pbk.,324p. ISBN 019-9241368.

OECD Environmental OutlookDeveloped as a basis for OECD environmentalstrategy development, the Environmental Outlookanalyzes prospects for natural resource use andenvironmental quality to 2020, as well as policyoptions that could change the scenario. “Trafficlight” symbols are used to highlight key findings:green for a positive outlook, yellow for uncertain,red for worsening. Like the Worldwatch Insitute(see below), the OECD warns of increasing prob-lems with groundwater pollution. Other red lightfindings include biodiversity loss, climate changeand urban air pollution. This report covers pri-mary sectors and natural resources; energy, climatechange, transport and air quality; households,selected industries and waste; and cross-cuttingissues such as the social-environmental interfaceand resource use efficiency.

(2001). OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pas-cal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. Tel: +33 1 4524 82 00, Fax: +33 1 49 10 42 76, Pbk., 327 p. ISBN 92-64-18615-8.

State of the World 2001The 18th edition of the Worldwatch Institute’sannual flagship publication cites increasing signsof environmental deterioration and considers thatthis visible evidence is just the tip of a melting ice-berg. The deeper problem, the authors argue, isthe environmental and economic threat posed bygrowing inequity within and between countries.Several issues are put on the table for the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development in 2002,including the debt crisis, food security, ground-water pollution, environmental crime, and theloss of political momentum with respect to envi-ronmental concerns. However, examples ofprogress are also provided. Ways are suggested bywhich efforts to achieve a sustainable world econ-omy could be mobilized.

Worldwatch Institute (2001). W.W. Norton &Co., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,Tel:+1 212 354 5500, Fax: +1 212 869 0856,Internet:; Pbk., 275p. ISBN: 0-393-32082-0.

Vital Signs 2001: The Trends Thatare Shaping Our FutureHumans are eating more meat, drinking morecoffee, popping more pills, driving further andgetting fatter. Around the world they consume

more than ever before. Yet over a billion people donot have access to safe drinking water. Natural dis-asters may have more devastating consequencesthan ever, and we have yet to vanquish some of theworld’s biggest killers (diarrhoea, malaria andAIDS). The tenth anniversary edition of VitalSigns presents 50 key environmental, social andeconomic trends, documented using thousands ofgovernment, industry and other sources. Rangingfrom nuclear power to pharmaceutical sales to reli-gious environmentalism, they show how an econ-omy geared towards meeting insatiable consumerdemand can adversely affect the health of theworld and its inhabitants.

Worldwatch Institute (2001). W.W. Norton & Co.(see above). Pbk., 192p. ISBN 0-393-32176-2.

Governing Our Cities: Will PeoplePower Work?Timed to appear five years after the Habitat II“city summit” in Istanbul, this Panos Institutereport assesses whether post-Istanbul urbanstrategies are succeeding. It concludes that, fornew approaches to succeed, governments must

work with groups in civil society, especially thepoor. Integral to the discussion are issues such asurban water quality and quantity, sanitation,waste management, transport and air pollution.

(2000). Panos Institute, 9 White Lion Street, Lon-don N1 9PD, UK, Tel:+44 207 278 1111, Fax:+44 207 278 0345, E-mail: markc@, Internet: Pbk., 44p.

Improving EnvironmentalPerformance and Compliance: 10 Elements of EffectiveEnvironmental ManagementSystemsThis guidance document is the first joint state-ment of its type from Canada, Mexico and theUnited States. It is intended to help entities thatalready have an Environmental Management Sys-tem achieve better environmental performance,not only through assuring compliance with envi-ronmental laws but also by moving beyond com-pliance.

(2000). Commission for Environmental Cooper-ation, 393 rue St-Jacques Ouest, Bureau 2000,

Montréal, Québec, Canada H2Y 1N9, Tel: +1 514350 4300, Fax: +1 514 350 4314, E-mail: [email protected], Internet: Pbk., 10p.

Shaping the Urban Environment inthe 21st Century: FromUnderstanding to ActionThis reference manual, produced by the OECDDevelopment Assistance Committee, stems fromwork on the environmental aspects of its 1996Shaping the 21st Century report. A DAC taskforce, with participation by UNCHS (Habitat)and UNEP, set out to provide guidance on urbanenvironmental issues for development coopera-tion agencies. The manual addresses key policyissues, includes “do’s and don’t’s” for donors, andrecommends actions.

(2000). OECD Publications (see above). Pbk., 33p


Natural Selection: EvolvingChoices for Renewable EnergyTechnology and Policy

Energy demand has grown steadily in recent years,averaging some 2% per year in the 1990s. Thisnew UNEP DTIE publication says energy sys-tems developed to meet this demand so far areclearly unsustainable, as they lead directly or indi-rectly to health-damaging levels of air pollution,acidification of ecosystems, land and water con-tamination, biodiversity loss and global warming.Natural Selection provides an overview of majorrenewable energy technologies and policy frame-works that could further their development, aswell as some scenarios that might lead to a sus-tainable energy future.

(2000). UNEP. Available from: SMI (Distribu-tion Services) Limited, PO Box 119, Stevenage,Hertfordshire SG1 4TP, UK, Fax: +44 143 8748844, E-mail: [email protected], Pbk., 36p. ISBN 92-807-1968-8.


Biometeorology and Urban Climatology at the

Turn of the Millennium: SelectedPapers from the Conference ICB-ICUC’99Of the 300 or so papers presented at an WMO-UNEP conference in Sydney in late 1999, aroundone-third were selected for inclusion in this vol-ume. They identify a number of threats to healthand well-being, both individual and collective,linked to or made worse by urbanization. Theseinclude air pollution, flooding, heat stress, spreadof diseases, and climate change. Other issues high-lighted include climate-related threats to food

N e w s

90 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

security and the consequences of populationgrowth, crowding and poor health care.

R.J. de Dear, J.D. Kalma, T.R. Oke and A. Auli-ciems (2000). World Meteorological Organization(WMO), Case postale No. 2300, CH-1211 Geneva2, Switzerland, Tel: +41 22 730 88 11, Fax: +4122 730 81 81, E-mail: [email protected],Internet: Pbk., 646p. ISBN 92-63-01026-9.

The Implications of ClimateChange for the Insurance Industry:An Update and Outlook to 2020This publication analyzes the likely effects of cli-mate change on the global insurance industry by2020. Scientific, political and economic aspects ofthe issue are outlined from a risk perspective, rely-ing on the industry viewpoint. A major focus is the

development of strategies to help insurers mini-mize future losses. This “update and outlook”includes proposals for mitigation, which are rec-ommended to be put into effect as soon as possible.

D. Crichton and J.E. Salt (ed.) (2001). BRE,Garston, Watford WD25 9XX, UK, Tel: +44 192366 4930, Fax: +44 192 366 4994,, Internet: Pbk., 69p.ISBN 1-903852-00-5.

The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocoland the Struggle to Slow GlobalWarmingThe author, a Senior Fellow for Science and Tech-nology at the Council on Foreign Relations inNew York, is a regular contributor to publicationsincluding Foreign Affairs, Nature and ScientificAmerican. Despite the collapse of the November2000 conference at the Hague, many politicians,policy-makers and analysts continue to considerthe Kyoto Protocol a vital first step towards slow-ing greenhouse warming. Writing before theBonn negotiations in July of this year, Victor fore-sees an imminent climate change policy crisis. Heagrees with critics who say the Protocol is funda-mentally flawed and unlikely to be implemented.But he believes its failure could present opportu-

nities to establish more realistic alternatives.D.G. Victor (2001). Princeton University Press, 41

William Street, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 08540-5237; Tel: +1 609 258 4900, Fax: +1 609 258 6305,Internet:, 160p. ISBN: 0-691-08870-5.

OzonAction StrategicInformation System

UNEP DTIE has released an updated version ofthe OzonAction Strategic Information System(OASIS) 2000, an electronic reference tool thatsupports compliance with the Montreal Protocolon Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.This CD-ROM provides developing countrieswith the strategic information they need to makedecisions on technical and policy issues. Devel-oped by the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Pro-gramme, under the Multilateral Fund for theImplementation of the Montreal Protocol,OASIS is an easy-to-use reference system that fur-nishes essential resource material related to Mon-treal Protocol implementation. Although it isdesigned primarily for National Ozone Units(NOUs), industry associations and enterprises indeveloping countries, OASIS 2000 is a usefulinformation resource for anyone directly or indi-rectly involved in phasing out ozone-depletingsubstances (ODS). This version includes updat-ed and expanded information. It featuresimproved search options. OASIS 2000 can helpusers better understand how to meet the technicaland policy challenges that countries, businessesand organizations face under the Montreal Pro-tocol.

(2000). UNEP. Available from SMI (see above).

Eliminating Dependency onHalons: Case Studies

The development of safe, affordable chemical fireprotection agents such as bromochlorofluorocar-bons (commonly known as halons) significantlyincreased fire safety worldwide. But halons are anozone-depleting substance – the first ODS phasedout by industrialized countries under the Mon-treal Protocol. Now UNEP DTIE’s OzonActionProgramme has brought out a new publication inan effort to help developing countries meet thedual challenge of assuring effective fire protectionand Montreal Protocol compliance. Eight exam-ples show how countries and organizations haveaddressed problems of halon management. Topicsrange from alternatives used in sectors such as avi-ation, electronic facilities and the military, to howPoland established a network of stakeholders andinstitutions to steer its halon phase-out. Guidanceis provided on key issues such as decommission-ing of halon systems. Though designed forNational Ozone Units within governments, thispublication will also be useful to, for example,public fire services, fire equipment vendors, halonusers, insurance companies, customs officials andNGOs.

(2001). UNEP. Available from SMI (see above).Pbk., 70p. ISBN 92-807-1784-7.


APELL for Mining: Guidance forthe Mining Industry in RaisingAwareness and Preparednessfor Emergencies at Local Level

APELL (Awareness and Preparedness for Emer-gencies at Local Level) is a process for respondingto accidents and disasters. It provides the elementslocal communities need to prepare emergencyresponse plans in cooperation with industry andother key stakeholders This new UNEP Techni-cal Report describes how the APELL processapplies to various types of emergencies associatedwith mining, such as subsidence, breaches in tail-ings dams and spills of toxic chemicals.

(2001). UNEP. Available from SMI (see above).Pbk., 67p., ISBN: 92-807-2035-X.

A Landscape Transformed: TheIronmaking District of Salisbury,ConnecticutR.B. Gordon, a professor at Yale University, exam-ines the industrial ecology of a region in New Eng-land where ironmaking was a key economicactivity for 200 years, starting in the 18th century.A Landscape Transformed investigates the culturalcontext in which people made decisions about

their use of technology and the environment. Asthe author explains, these decisions often led tosurprisingly eco-friendly results.

R.B. Gordon (2001). Oxford University Press (seebelow). Hbk., 159p. ISBN 0-19-512818-4.

Thatcherism and the Fall of CoalWhen Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Min-ister in 1979, British coal mines employed over200,000 people and produced over 100 milliontonnes of coal a year. By the end of the 1990s, morethan 95% of these jobs and 80% of coal produc-tion no longer existed. The author, a member ofthe British Government’s Energy Advisory Panel,describes the industry’s decline, attributing it to acombination of the Thatcherite political agenda,economic forces and the industry’s own actions.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 91

N e w s

M.J. Parker (2000). Oxford University Press/Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (see above).Hbk., 234p. ISBN 0-19-7300251.

Making a Good Catch: Non-CFC Technologies in theFishery Cold Chain

From catch to consumer, the fishing industry relieson a “cold chain” to keep its product marketable. Acommon feature of many of the links in the coldchain has been the use of ozone-depleting, CFC-based refrigeration technology. With countriescommitted to phasing out ozone-depleting sub-stances under the Montreal Protocol, the fishingindustry is looking at new non-CFC technologies.This book, which gives examples of such tech-nologies and their use in nine countries, includesan overview of refrigeration equipment used in theindustry. It provides an introduction to alternativerefrigerants and lists refrigerant data and sources ofinformation.

(2000.) UNEP. Available from SMI (see above).Pbk., 58p. ISBN: 92-807-1976-3.


The Local Government WaterCode: The Lisbon PrinciplesWorking in close collaboration with the Interna-tional Council for Local Environmental Initia-tives, Lisbon’s city government developed a watercode now known as the Lisbon Principles. Thecode was finalized and endorsed by Lisbon, Riode Janeiro and Toronto during ICLEI’s 10thWorld Congress, which took place in Lisbon inApril 2000. This booklet presents the code in Por-tuguese, Spanish and English. Included is a modelwater code resolution for adaptation by local gov-ernments.

Municipality of Lisbon and ICLEI (2001).Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, Gabinete do VereadorManuel Figueiredo, Praça do Municipio, 1149-014Lisbon, Portugal, Tel:+351 213236174/5/6, Fax:+351 213236179, E-mail: [email protected], Internet: Pbk., 21p.


Database on the Transport ofChemical Substances (TROCS 2001)

The latest version of this CD-ROM was devel-oped by an IMO/UNEP collaborating centre, theRegional Marine Pollution Emergency ResponseCentre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC),also in collaboration with Malta University Ser-vices. It is designed to be used by parties to theBarcelona Convention to assist decision-makingin the case of marine spills. New features includean expanded listing, comprising more than 700chemicals; new conversion tools; accident reports;

and shoreline types.(2001). REMPEC, Manoel Island, Gzira, GZR

03, Malta, Tel: +356 337296, Fax: +356 339951,Internet:

Why Poison Ourselves? APrecautionary Approach toSynthetic ChemicalsThis publication argues that applying the precau-tionary principle, in combination with regulatoryefforts, would be more effective than regulationsalone in controlling persistent organic pollutants(POPs). In particular, the author examines thepulp and paper industry, pesticide production, andthe manufacture of PVC plastic. In each industry,she argues, there is evidence that “detoxification”can be carried out without crippling production.

A.P. McGinn (2000). Worldwatch Institute, Tel:+1 800 555 2028, +1 301 567 9522, E-mail:[email protected], Internet: Pbk., 92p. ISBN 1-878071-55-6.

IPCS Environmental Health Criteria seriesThe International Programme on Chemical Safe-ty (IPCS) is a joint venture between UNEP, theInternational Labour Organization (ILO) and theWorld Health Organization (WHO). The IPCSEnvironmental Health Criteria series providescritical reviews of potential health and environ-mental effects of chemicals and combinations ofchemicals. They are primarily risk evaluations,based on published and unpublished studies. Thedocuments are in English, with summaries inFrench and Spanish. The series is available fromWHO and from WHO sales agents. The latestEHC title is:

EHC 219: Fumonisin B1 (2000). Pbk., 150p.ISBN 92-4-157219-1.

WHO, Distribution and Sales, CH-1211 Gene-va 27, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 2476, Fax:+41 22 791 4857, E-mail: [email protected],Internet:

IPCS Concise InternationalChemical Assessment DocumentsA further IPCS series, begun in 1998, presents briefsummaries of scientific information on the poten-

tial human health and/or environmental effects ofspecific chemicals. These are based on selectednational or regional evaluations, or on the Envi-ronmental Health Criteria series. Like the EHCs,they are published in English with French andSpanish summaries. Four new titles are available:CICAD No. 23: 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1-trifluo-roethane (HCFC-123) (2000) Pbk., 31p. ISBN92-4-153023-5.CICAD No. 24: Crystalline Silica, Quartz (2000)Pbk., 50p. ISBN 92-4-153024-3.CICAD No. 25: Chloral Hydrate (2000) Pbk.,34p. ISBN 92-4-153025-1.CICAD No. 26: Benzoic Acid and Sodium Ben-zoate (2000) Pbk., 48p. ISBN 92-4-153026-X.

WHO, Distribution and Sales (see above).

OECD Environmental Outlook forthe Chemicals IndustryThe chemicals industry is an important segmentof the world economy, accounting for 7% of glob-al income, 9% of global trade and over 10 millionjobs worldwide. According to this OECD report,production will be 85% higher in 2020 than it wasin 1995. Non-OECD countries will have a muchlarger share of the market – especially in the caseof high-volume commodity chemicals. The reportconcludes that lack of information on chemicalsafety, as well as on the amounts of hazardous sub-stances being released to the environment duringuse or disposal, represents a major challenge to pol-icy-makers.

(2001). OECD Publications (see above). Inter-net: Pbk., 164p.


Managing for Change: Leadership,Strategy and Management in AsianNGOsThis comparative study is a result of the NGOManagement Research Programme, begun in1994 by the Aga Khan Foundation Canada. It is asynthesis of case studies of nine major South Asiannon-governmental organizations in an era whenNGOs in the region have been growing in size,complexity and influence. Topics covered includestrategy formation, effective leadership, donorrelations, staff motivation and development, andmanagement styles for crisis and change.

I. Smillie and J. Hailey (2001). Earthscan Pub-lications Ltd. (see above). Pbk., 193p. ISBN 1-85383-722-9.

Status Report: CleanerProduction in Asia-Pacific 2000

At the third Asia-Pacific Roundtable for CleanerProduction (APRCP) in Manila earlier this year,UNEP and APRCP introduced this report for useby government, industry, NGOs and othersimplementing or encouraging CP. It includesoverviews of CP activities in the region and by

N e w s

92 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

country, with highlights of particular successesand analysis of remaining challenges. A regionalvision of CP developments over the next few yearsis presented, with recommendations on how tomove forward.

(2001). UNEP. Available from SMI (see above).Pbk., 60p. ISBN 92-807-1990-4.

Europe “Agreening”: 2000Report on the Status andImplementation of MultilateralEnvironmental Agreements inthe European Region

This report is an updated version of UNEP’sReport on the Status of Multilateral EnvironmentalAgreements in the European Region, which was pre-sented as a background document at the “Envi-ronment for Europe” conference on 23-25 June1998 in Aarhus, Denmark. Europe “Agreening”covers 19 global, regional and sub-regional Mul-tilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)selected by UNEP and the GEO 2000 collabo-rating centres. The region treated comprises West-ern Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe andCentral Asia.

(2000). Regional Environmental Center for Cen-tral and Eastern Europe, Ady Endre ut 9-11, 2000Szentendre, Hungary, Tel: +36 26 311 199, Fax:+36 26 311 294, E-mail: [email protected], Pbk., 57p. ISBN 963-8454-85-7.

World Bank-Korea EnvironmentalManagement Research: FinalReports 2001These three volumes, published by the KoreanMinistry of Environment, result from studiescommissioned from independent researchers bythe Ministry and the World Bank. Each examinesa different area of environmental managementand includes case studies.The Exploration of Corporate EnvironmentalRisk Assessment for Sustainable Banking. Con-cludes with suggestions for action. Pbk., 203p.Environmental Accounting Systems and Envi-ronmental Performance Indicators. Includes pol-icy recommendations. Pbk., 235p.Development of Environmental ManagementSystem for SMEs. Pbk., 295p.

(2001). Korean Ministry of Environment, Gov-ernment Complex Kwacheon, Kwacheon 427-760,Republic of Korea. Tel: +822 504 9244, Fax: +822504 9206, Internet:

Environmental PerformanceReviews: Ireland and LuxembourgWith these two countries, the OECD completedthe first round of its Environmental PerformanceReviews. The series now covers all OECD membercountries as well as selected non-members. First-round EPRs include information on the reviewedcountry’s geography, resources, social and eco-nomic situation, and environmental policy, legis-lation and institutions. Each review containsrecommendations based on its analysis of the inte-

New from IndiaOxford University Press has published fournew environmental titles under its OUP Indiaimprint. Three deal with specifically SouthAsian topics, while the fourth is more general.

Economics of Water Pollution:The Indian ExperienceThe authors focus on industrial pollution andthe economic instruments used to control it.The result, a survey of the latest approaches toeconomic analysis in pollution economics, isthe first such study to address the situation in

India. Its aim is to acquaint readers with theo-retical and applied approaches to pollutioncontrol in developing countries, and to serve asa research text on applied environmental eco-nomics. The study relies largely on primaryresearch; much of the material is drawn from aproject on pollution abatement carried out bythe authors in 1994-96. Part I, “Policy Instru-ments for Pollution Control”, discusses the roleof government and includes a survey of inter-national practice. Part II, “Collective Action forPollution Regulation”, reviews approaches inwhich government’s role is minimized or elim-inated. Part III is concerned with environmen-tal resource accounting.

M.N. Murty, A.J. James and S. Misra (2000).Pbk., 295p. ISBN 019-56555068.

Cleaning-Up the Ganges: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the GangaAction PlanThe Ganga Action Plan (GAP), one of theworld’s largest ever river clean-up projects, wentinto effect in 1985. Ten years later, with invest-ment costs estimated at US$ 318 million andoperating costs at US$ 10 million, someobservers were asking whether the money hadbeen well spent, and whether a developingcountry with limited public funds could runsuch a project successfully. The Indian Gov-ernment therefore commissioned a cost-benefitanalysis. The authors, representing the twomain institutions involved in carrying out thestudy, note that such analysis has not often

been applied to river system clean-up projects.The study team not only evaluated water qual-ity improvements since 1985, but also mod-elled conditions that would have existed by thelate 1990s had the GAP not been undertaken.They examined both user and non-user bene-fits in terms of health, toxicants, fisheries andbiodiversity, taking into account distributioneffects and ways to finance the project sustain-ably. They conclude that the benefits justify theproject, and that practical ways exist to makethe GAP financially sustainable.

A. Markandya and M.N. Murty (2001).Hbk., 300p. ISBN 019-5648451.

The Use and Abuse of NatureThis Fissured Land: An Ecological History ofIndia (OUP India, 1992) and Ecology andEquity (UNRISD, 1995) are here combined inan omnibus edition. The authors, an ecologistand a sociologist, cite the uniquely humancapacity for both destruction and conservationof nature. This Fissured Land was originallyintended to fill a lacuna: lack of attention toenvironment by India’s historians. Focusing onforests and forestry, it deals largely with thecolonial period. The purpose of Ecology andEquity was partly to meet criticism of the firstbook as doom-laden, and partly as a responseto what the authors perceived as general nega-tivism among Indian environmentalists. Focus-ing on post-Independence India, it seeks toexamine the interaction of excess and prudencein human use of natural resources. Togetherwith a new introduction, the two books maynow help guide India’s environmental move-ment towards the use of new approaches.

M. Gadgi and R. Guha (2001). Hbk., 213p.ISBN 019 5649273.

Environmental EconomicsThis volume in the “Readers in Economics”series (previously published journal articles andbook excerpts) responds to the mushroominggrowth in the field of environmental econom-ics. Designed for students and researchers indeveloping countries, it presents several classicarticles in the field, such as Hardin’s “TheTragedy of the Commons” and Cropper andOates on “Measuring the Benefits and Costs ofPollution Control.” Other topics include exter-nalities, resource depletion, sustainability, andthe relationship between development and theenvironment.

U. Sankar, ed. (2001). Hbk., 469p. ISBN019 5655605.

All from Oxford University Press/OUP India,YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, POBox 43, New Delhi 110 001, India. Tel: +91 11373 2990, 374 7124/5, 373 4769, Fax: +91 11373 2312.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 93

N e w s

gration of environmental and economic policyconditions overall and in selected industry sectors,an assessment of current economic conditions andpollution management activities, and an evalua-tion of the country’s record in meeting interna-tional environmental commitments. The secondround of reviews, which include an examinationof countries’ responses to first-round EPR recom-mendations, recently began. They will bedescribed in forthcoming issues of Industry andEnvironment.Ireland. Pbk., 180p. ISBN 92-64-18292-6.Luxembourg. Pbk., 144p. ISBN 92-64-18293-4.

(2000). OECD Publications (see above).

Latin America and theCaribbean: EnvironmentOutlook 2000

This report is part of the initial response to a callby the Forum of Ministers of the Environment ofLatin America and the Caribbean for support indefining regional environmental concerns and set-ting up harmonized information systems. It iden-tifies urban air pollution and water shortages,destruction of forests (and hence biodiversity),and climate change vulnerability as the three keyenvironmental issues in the region. Environmen-tal stewardship has not improved in line with theincrease in concern over such issues, the reportnotes. The state of the environment, policyresponses and future perspectives are covered.

(2000). UNEP, Regional Office for Latin Amer-ica and the Caribbean, Boulevard de los Virreyes#155, Colonia Lomas Virreyes, 11000, Mexico DF,Mexico, Tel: +52 5 202 5851, Fax: +52 5 2020950, Internet:, 144p. ISBN: 92-807-1952-1.

Environmental Protection: Reviewof European Union LegislationThe Europe Information Service (EIS), whichreports on activities of the European Union andother European institutions, has published its lat-est single-volume compilation of EU environ-mental legislation, covering the period up toJanuary 2001. Measures are categorized by topic(e.g. Water; Air – Climate Change; Land Use,Farming and Forestry). Each entry includes dateof publication/adoption, reference to the relevantOfficial Journal of the European Communities and,where applicable, a description or comments.

A. Eckstein (2001). EIS S.A., 66 av Ad. Lacomblé,B-1030 Brussels, Belgium, Tel: +32 2 737 77 09,Fax: +32 2 732 6757, E-mail: [email protected], Pbk., 133p.

Post-Conflict EnvironmentalAssessment

UNEP Balkans has produced three reports on themost urgent environmental needs in the region inthe wake of the Kosovo conflict:Depleted Uranium in Kosovo: Post-ConflictEnvironmental Assessment (2001) Pbk., 186p.This report presents the findings of a scientific

field mission to determine the environmental con-sequences of NATO’s use of depleted uraniumweapons in Kosovo (see article above, p. 83). Itincludes a background chapter and a descriptionof the mission, its findings, conclusions and rec-ommendations, in addition to detailed, site-by-site findings and copious scientific appendixes.Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment: Alba-nia (2000). Pbk., 80p.Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment: FYRof Macedonia (2000). Pbk., 84p.Both these reports result from UNEP’s rapidstrategic environmental assessment, focusing onthe most urgent environmental needs of the twocountries. The assessment largely dealt with envi-ronmental “hot spots” requiring immediate atten-tion, the environmental consequences of refugeeinfluxes from the Kosovo conflict, and each coun-try’s environmental institutions and policies. TheAlbanian and Macedonian reports recommendimmediate action for five “hot spots” in each coun-try.

Available from SMI (see above).


Le Guide du développementdurableCe guide didactique est publié par Dexia CréditLocal de France, acteur majeur pour le finance-ment des activités publiques locales, en partenar-iat avec le Ministère français de l’Aménagementdu territoire et de l’Environnement. Il s’inscrit

dans le contexte du protocole d’accord que Dexiaa signé avec le ministère, en 1999, pour encour-ager les investissements des collectivités localescontribuant à la protection de l’environnement età l’aménagement durable des territoires. Le guidemet en relief les enjeux du développement durabledu territoire et le rôle des collectivités locales et desentreprises. Il examine la réglementation sur l’eau,les déchets et l’air ainsi que les principales aides etsubventions accordées dans ces différents secteurs.

(2000). Dexia Crédit Local, 7-11 quai André

Citroën, PB 1002, 75901 Paris Cedex 15, Tél :+33 1 43 92 76 63, Fax: +33 1 43 92 77 48, E-mail : [email protected], Internet Pbk., 34p. Supplément de Gestionlocale, janvier 2000, ISSN 0754 5770.

Guide à la mise en place dumanagement environnemental en entreprise selon ISO 14001Préparer une démarche de certification ISO 14001est un projet important qui demande des compé-tences qui ne sont pas forcément présentes danschaque entreprise. Le but de cet ouvrage est deguider le lecteur dans cette démarche en four-nissant à chaque étape les éléments essentiels et enanalysant, pas à pas, les exigences de la norme et lamethodologie nécessaire à la réalisation du projet.

P. Baracchini (2001). Presses polytechniques etuniversitaires romandes, EPFL – Centre midi, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, Tél : +41 21 693 4140, Fax : +41 21 693 4027. Pbk., 170p. ISBN 2-88074-411-3.

Vive l’eauCe petit ouvrage de vulgarisation traite des pro-priétés de l’eau comme ressource primordiale etconte l’histoire de la maîtrise de l’eau par l’hommeà travers les âges. Remarquable pour ses illustra-tions, il a reçu l’un des deux prix décernés par laFondation Altran pour l’innovation en 1999, dis-tinguant une « innovation technologique amélio-rant de manière significative l’accès à une eau dequalité pour le plus grand nombre. » L’ouvrageprésente en dernière partie des documents ettémoignages dont celui de Klaus Toepfer, directeurexécutif du Programme des Nations Unies pourl’environnement (PNUE).

J. Matricon (2000). Gallimard. Pour comman-der : Fondation Altran pour l’innovation, 251Boulevard Pereire, 75017 Paris, France, Tél : +33 144 09 54 47, Fax : +33 1 44 09 54 40, E-mail :[email protected], Internet 143p. ISBN 2-07-053510-X.

Tourisme, environnement,territoires : les indicateursCe document appartient à la collection « indica-teurs » de l’Institut français de l’environnement(Ifen). Cette collection a, entre autres objectifs, depermettre le diagnostic des relations entre unsecteur d’activité et l’environnement. Dans sa pre-mière partie, le document traite des indicateurstourisme et environnement à l’échelle nationale. Ilaborde ensuite les spécificités de quatre type de des-tinations : la mer, la montagne, la ville et la cam-pagne.

(2000). Ifen, 61, boulevard Alexandre Martin,45058 Orléans Cédex 1, France, Tél : +33 2 38 7978 78, Fax : +33 2 38 79 78 70, E-mail : [email protected], Internet : Pbk., 262p., ISBN 2-911089-38-3.

N e w s

94 � UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001

UNEP Environment

UNEP has launched this web site to bringtogether a large amount of well researched sci-entific information on the environment that hashitherto been fragmented across a wide varietyof institutions and sites. The aim is to make iteasier to sift through the information requiredto solve environmental problems, provide aforum for scientific technical peer review, andallow exchange of ideas and insights.

UNEP’s purpose in forming the unep.netpartnership was to begin a new global process ofdeveloping integrated solutions to well knownenvironment problems while highlightingemerging issues. The site aggregates data formany countries and global regions: it allowsusers to select a country or environmental topicby pointing to a map, choosing from a list, ortyping in a search term. Users can also generatecustom maps and overlay them with facts andfigures of their choice.

The partnership covers a broadrange of environmental information and dataproviders, who are committed to making theirinformation freely available. The site’s decen-tralized and distributed system can query (andgenerate reports from) remote databases andservers. This means that when a partnerupgrades a system or updates an informationbase locally, the benefits are realized directly bythe whole partnership.

For more information, contact: Beth Ingraham,Information Officer, UNEP Division of EarlyWarning and Assessment, PO Box 30552, Nairo-bi, Kenya, Tel: +254 2 624299, Fax: +254 2623293, E-mail: [email protected].

The SDGateway integrates on-line informationdeveloped by members of the SustainableDevelopment Communications Network, agroup of private organizations promoting morewidespread and better integrated informationand communications about sustainable devel-opment.

In addition to over 1200 documents, the siteincludes a calendar of events, a job bank, theSustainability Web Ring, a roster of automaticmailing lists (listservs), and news sites dealingwith sustainable development. SDGateway ismaintained by the International Institute forSustainable Development.

For more information, contact: SDCN, c/oIISD, 161 Portage Ave. E., 6th Floor, Winnipeg,

MB, R3B 0Y4 Canada. Tel: +1 204 958 7700,Fax: +1 204 958 7710, E-mail: [email protected].

On-line Halon

The UNEP DTIE Energy and OzonActionUnit has opened a business-to-business (B2B)site, the On-line Halon Trader, to facilitateinternational exchange of “banked” halons,which are ozone-depleting substances. This isbelieved to be the first B2B site developed speci-fically to boost compliance with a multilateralenvironment agreement. Companies that needhalon for critical applications can post listings ofdemand; companies or halon banks that are ableto meet this demand with recovered, reclaimedor recycled halon can respond, or post their ownlistings about halons available for exchange.

For more information, contact: RajendraShende, Chief, Energy and OzonAction, at UNEPDTIE in Paris, Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 59, Fax: +331 44 37 14 74, E-mail: [email protected].

FOOD for a Healthy

UNEP and the United Nations Industrial Devel-opment Organisation (UNIDO) have launcheda collaborative web site called “FOOD for aHealthy Planet” – with FOOD standing for FreeOf Ozone Depletion – to communicate theresults of demonstration projects on methyl bro-mide phase-out. It is the first site to provideinformation on the experiences and results of thenearly 60 projects in 36 countries financed by theMultilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol.

For more information, contact: Seniz Yalcindag,Director of Montreal Protocol Branch, UNIDO,Wagrammerstrasse 5, 1400 Vienna, PO Box 300,Tel: +431 26026 3347, Fax: +431 26026 6804,E-mail: [email protected]; or Sidi Menad SiAhmed, Head of Methyl Bromide Unit, Tel: +43126026 3782, Fax: +431 26026 2134, E-mail:[email protected].

Changes in UNEP URLsUNEP’s on-line Mineral Resources

Forum-Environment and Offshore Oil and GasEnvironment Forum have changed their Inter-net addresses (URLs). The new addresses are: � Mineral Resources Forum-Environment:� Offshore Oil and Gas Environment Forum:

The OzonAction Programme has a new website:

Two new French-language

France’s Association pour le Développement desOutils Multimedia appliqués à l’Environnement(ADOME) has opened Planet Ecologie, whichit describes as the most comprehensive web sitefor environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment. It includes a meta-search engine,comparable to Copernic but specialized in envi-ronmental topics. There are over 5000 links toother environmental sites.

To fill a perceived gap in information for fran-cophone countries on sustainable development,three Quebec-based organizations have set up asite called RELIEF – for RÉseau de Liaison etd’Échange de l’Information EnvironnementaleFrancophone. The site is funded by the FondsFrancophone des Inforoutes and run by theInstitut de l’énergie et de l’environnement de laFrancophonie (a subsidiary of the Agence inter-gouvernementale de la Francophonie) withassistance and input from the Observatoire del’écopolitique internationale de l’Institut desSciences de l’Environnement de l’UQAM inMontreal, Agora 21/Ecole nationale supérieuredes mines in Saint-Etienne, France, and theRéseau pour l’environnement et le développe-ment durable en Afrique/REDDA in Côted’Ivoire. The site can be reached via three dif-ferent URLs:� North America: or;� Europe:; � Africa:

For more information, contact: Michel Giran,ADOME ([email protected]); or

Institut de l’énergie et de l’environnement de laFrancophonie, Habib Benessahraoui, Directeurexécutif, Tél : +1 418 692 5727, E-mail:[email protected].

Web SiteHighlights


Current uses and development of natural resources, technolo-gies and production processes, as well as urbanization patterns,have negative effects on human health and the environment.This is illustrated by unsustainable use of water, land and ener-gy, air and water pollution, persistent and toxic bio-accumu-lative chemicals in the food chain, and other industry-relatedproblems.

To have a healthy environment, we need to change how weproduce and consume goods and services. This changeinvolves revising and developing economic policies and tradepractices, so as to integrate environmental issues in the plan-ning and assessment processes.

UNEP’s Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEPDTIE) was created in 1998 to help decision-makers in govern-ments, local authorities and industry develop and adopt poli-cies and practices that:

• are cleaner and safer; • use natural resources efficiently; • ensure adequate management of chemicals; • incorporate environmental costs; • reduce pollution and risks for humans and the environment.

UNEP DTIE, whose main office is in Paris, is composed of:

� The International Environmental Technology Centre(Osaka), which promotes the adoption and use of environ-mentally sound technologies, with a focus on the environ-mental management of cities and freshwater basins, indeveloping countries and countries in transition.

� The Production and Consumption Unit (Paris), which fos-ters the development of cleaner and safer production and con-sumption patterns that lead to increased efficiency in the use ofnatural resources and reductions in pollution.

� The Chemicals Unit (Geneva), which promotes sustainabledevelopment by catalyzing global actions and building nation-al capacities for the sound management of chemicals and theimprovement of chemical safety world-wide, with a priority onPersistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and Prior Informed Con-sent (PIC, jointly with FAO).

� The Energy and OzonAction Unit (Paris), which supportsthe phase-out of ozone depleting substances in developingcountries and countries with economies in transition, and pro-motes good management practices and use of energy, with afocus on atmospheric impacts. The UNEP/RISØ CollaboratingCentre on Energy and Environment supports the work of thisUnit.

� The Economics and Trade Unit (Geneva), which promotesthe use and application of assessment and incentive tools forenvironmental policy, and helps improve the understandingof linkages between trade and environment and the role offinancial institutions in promoting sustainable development.

FEEDBACKIf you would like to respond to something you’ve read here – to agree or disagree with a point of view, clarify a fact, or provide additional information – write to us. If you would like to air your views on any other subject relevant to Industry andEnvironment, we also hope to hear from you. As space is limited, we cannot guarantee to publish all letters, or to publish longones in full.

UNEP Industry and Environment January – June 2001 � 95



39-43, QUAI ANDRE-CITROËN75739 PARIS CEDEX 15, FRANCETEL: (33) 1 44 37 14 50FAX: (33) 1 44 37 14 74E-MAIL: [email protected]://

Send your Feedback letters to:

Feedback Industry and Environment reviewUNEP DTIETour Mirabeau39-43, quai André-Citroën75739 Paris Cedex 15, France

Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74E-mail: [email protected]

Industry and Environmenta publication of the United Nations Environment Programme

Division of Technology, Industry and Economics

Industry and EnvironmentSUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORMSubscription per volume: US$ 60.00

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________Organization: ______________________________________________________________________________________________Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Country: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Delete as applicable)E-mail/Tel./Fax Number: ___________________________________________________________________________________

❐ I enclose a cheque for $_________ €_______(Made payable to in US dollars or Euro equivalent)

❐ Please debit my credit/debit card as follows:Card name (Amex/Visa/Mastercard): _________________________________________________________________________

Number: _____________________________________________________________ Expiry date: ________________________

To order online, please visit

Note: Institutions and public libraries may request billing.Commercial firms and individuals, send payment along with this order form.

Back issues may also be ordered from Earthprint

Please send your order with payment to:EarthPrint Limited

P.O. Box 119, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 4TP, United KingdomFax: +44 1438 748 844. E-mail: [email protected]

With copy to: UNEP DTIE, 39-43, quai André-Citroën75739 Paris Cedex 15, France

Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74E-mail: [email protected]

For over 20 years, the quarterly Industry and Environment has provided a forum for exchanginginformation and experience. Articles are contributed by industry managers, government offi-cials, researchers and others active in the field of sustainable industrial development. Besidesreporting on developments of broad international interest, each issue focuses on a particulartheme. The themes of recent issues have included the agri-food industry, consumption pat-terns, urban environmental management, sustainable energy, and mining and sustainabledevelopment. For a list of past issues and their availability, contact UNEP DTIE or visit

The next issue of Industry and Environment will focus on ecotourism.

Industry and Environment is an English language publication, but it often includes articles inFrench and Spanish. All contributed articles are accompanied by summaries in English,French and Spanish.

The review is also published in Chinese. For further details, please contact: Professor Liu Xiaogwang Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 2871, Beijing 100085, China