cleaner production and sustainability

Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 329e339

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Cleaner production and sustainability

Gudolf Kjaerheim)

Cecilia Askham Nyland, Institute for Environmental Protection, Oestfold Research Foundation, Post Box 276, 1601 Fredrikstad, Norway

Received 6 November 2001; accepted 15 July 2003

Abstract

This paper describes the Norwegian method for Cleaner Production (CP) as well as results and experiences from its use over more

than 12 years.Quantifiable results in terms of reduced wastes and emissions and improved material and energy efficiencies have been

documented by many authors. Many countries as a strategy for improving environmental performance have also adopted the CPconcept.

This paper focuses on the intangible benefits and human factors derived from CP projects, how the present CP model may beimproved and present ideas on how the CP concept can be expanded to more directly address the needs of developing countries.Improvements to the present CP model should include means for ensuring sustainability of the local CP centre and its activities and

financial mechanisms to facilitate affordable environmental investments.The expansion of the basic CP concept should include modules that more directly address the challenges of creating job

opportunities, eradicating poverty, protecting public health and improving safety. CP should no longer be viewed as a stand-alone

option but be integrated in all business development activities to improve quality of life.The authors also encourage the development of a holistic view to include ‘‘greening of the supply chain’’, recycling of materials

and applying an LCA philosophy in product development.To speed up the adaptation of CP in the many very small enterprises that exist, an integrated approach to quality systems, CP

and environmental management systems is proposed. Some of these ideas were recently implemented in the planning of a CPprogramme in Uganda.

CPas a stand-aloneoptionwill not create a sustainable society, but expanding the concept in a similar fashion to that proposed in this

article, is believed to be an important step in the right direction, provided that sufficient funding is available over an extended period.� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cleaner production methodology; Sustainability; Training modules; Developing countries

1. Introduction

Cleaner Production (CP) has been practised for morethan 12 years in many countries all over the world.Oestfold Research Foundation’s Institute for Environ-mental Protection in Norway has been involved in thiswork from the very beginning. We have participated insome capacity or other in CP projects in Poland, theCzech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, China, Indonesia,and Uganda. The financing for these projects has comefrom the Norwegian Government.

) Tel.: C47-6935-1100; fax: C47-342-494.

E-mail address: [email protected].

0959-6526/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00119-7

Many participating companies can show impressiveresults with respect to improved material utilisation,lowered energy consumption and reduced emissions toair, water and soil. Others have, for various reasons, notbeen so successful. This paper will discuss some of thecritical phases in implementing CP projects based on ourpractical experience.

We assume that basic CP methodology is known. Wewill, however, briefly describe the ‘‘Norwegian Model’’for cleaner production.

We look at Sustainable Development as a direction inwhich we ought to movedprobably faster than we aredoing today. Will CP bring us to the ‘‘Promised Land’’?

This paper proposes some activities that can supple-ment CP as it is defined today. The usefulness of these

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

330 G. Kjaerheim / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 329e339

supplementary activities or modules will vary fromcountry to country and even from company to com-pany. However, they position one to tailor a trainingprogramme to better suit the needs of major stake-holders.

Even though CP has been in use for many years andeco-efficiencies have improved considerably in manycountries, the amount of waste we in industrialised coun-tries produce seems to continue to increase. This increaseis apparently strongly correlated to Gross NationalProduct (GNP). This means that Waste Managementand consumption patterns will continue to be importantactivities for many years to come.

2. The Norwegian model for CP

The so-called ‘‘Norwegian model’’ for implementingCP has evolved from the early experience gained fromprojects in Norway and Poland in 1989e1991. Later, asexperience has accumulated, the model has been refinedand improved.

When starting up in a new country, a contract has tobe drawn up with a local partner that has good contactswith authorities, industry and academia. The next step isto recruit a sufficient number of companies to participatein a pre-project seminar lasting for one or two days. Thepurpose of this seminar is to’’wet the appetites’’ of theparticipants, in particular the appetites of top manage-ment. The objective is to engage their interest and getthem to commit themselves to participate in theprogramme. It is important that the participants in theseminar understand that ecology and economy can beimproved simultaneously and those substantial benefitscan be obtained without, or with very low, investments.

The best results are obtained when the participatingcompanies can satisfy some of the following require-ments:

� Located within a reasonable distance from the loca-tion of the seminar;

� Top management is interested in improving envi-ronmental performance;

� Have potential for environmental improvement;� Represent an important industry sector;� Be willing to allocate necessary time and resourcesfor participants in the programme;

� Possess reasonable economic stability;� Allow at least two persons from the same companyto participate.

We also try to put forward requirements for peopletaking part, for example:

� Be able to understand and speak English (unfor-tunately the advisors are limited to speaking English

and some German and French in addition to theirown language);

� Be motivated to work for environmental improve-ments;

� Possess basic engineering/technical skills and knowl-edge of own processes;

� Have a position in the company such that they havethe authority to implement changes (typically pro-duction managers, process engineers, environmentalengineers etc.).

In addition to people from industry we recommendthat a certain number of people from universities, auth-orities, NGOs and consultancy companies may be invitedto participate if they have a relevant background.If circumstances are right, a certain number of partic-ipants may later be invited to act as co-advisors in anew programme, and/or as CP advisors to othercompanies.

We, as facilitators, are completely independent ofsuppliers of equipment and processes and we will notrecommend any specific technology or manufacturer.We may however discuss essential elements in the selec-tion process.

The main programme consists of four plenarysessions with intermediate company visits (Fig. 1). Theplenary sessions are mainly made up of lectures, groupwork, discussions/exchange of information, and presen-tations by the participants on the progress of CP caseassessment studies they have initiated in their owncompany. The group work is designed to prepare theparticipants for the tasks they are facing when they startCP assessment in their own company and to facilitateexchange of experiences.

All participating companies are visited at least onceby the lecturers/advisors during the course of the pro-gramme. The purpose of the visits is threefold:

� Meet with top management to help secure commit-ment and full support for CP programme;

� Meet with the internal project organisation to dis-cuss their progress, approach, problems, etc.;

� Visit the selected production site.

In addition to teaching CP methodology in somedetail, the curriculum includes business analysis, invest-ment analysis and strategic planning. In other words, weconcentrate on CP methodology, ecology and economy,not technology.

We have, when requested, incorporated lectures onbasic concepts of quality systems and EnvironmentalManagement Systems, EMS. This gives the participantsan idea about the potential of these systems, but so far,the time spent on these subjects is short, so we can notexpect the average company to be able to developa quality system (ISO 9000) or an EMS (ISO 14000)based on just the input we give them in the lectures.

331G. Kjaerheim / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 329e339

Fig. 1. Modules in the training program.

Emphasis is placed on brainstorming techniques andopen communication such that all relevant personnelmay be involved in generating ideas for improvement.The proposed options are screened and subjected to acost benefit analysis. ‘‘The low-hanging-fruits’’, requiringnil or low investment are implemented (harvested)immediately. Other options, requiring investments, arescheduled for future implementation. Frequently we hearpeople in the financial world say that there is moneyavailable, but there are no good projects. Similarly thereare technical people in industry saying that they have lotsof good projects, but they don’t have the money. Due tothis a special course is occasionally offered, designed todeal with options requiring higher investments. Thiscourse is designed to bridge the gap between the financialworld and the technical world by training people todevelop professional loan applications. However, morework needs to be done in this area.

The CP programme ends with an exam. This examconsists of submitting a written paper and an oralpresentation of results and experiences from the CP caseassessments that have been carried out. The candidatemust also present plans for future work. The partic-ipants have to demonstrate that they have a thoroughunderstanding of CP methodology and that they areable to utilise the concept in practical work. Successfulcandidates are awarded a certificate issued by the WorldCleaner Production Society.

A complete CP programme is normally carried outover 6e12 months. A more comprehensive descriptionof the ‘‘Norwegian Model’’ for CP is given in [1].

3. Results

A completed CP programme can show both quantifi-able results and intangible benefits. The quantifiableresults are:

� At least one case assessment has been carried out ineach company;

� Twenty-five to thirty people have been trained inpractical application of the CP methodology (Sometimes as many as 50e60);

� Economic savings associated with the case assess-ments are realised;

� Energy savings, better utilisation of raw materials,reduced emissions and reduced amount of solidwaste are achieved;

� Qualified CP graduates are used as co-advisors tosupplement foreign staff.

Normally it is possible to quantify the ecological andeconomical benefits with reasonable accuracy. These arereported elsewhere in detail, e.g. [2,3,4].

The intangible results may, however, prove to be justas important in the long run. One important slogan thatguides our work is ‘‘HELP PEOPLE HELP THEM-SELVES’’. This means that we want to develop anattitude where people rely on themselves. In ourphilosophy therefore, human resource development isof major importance. We want people to use their ownexperience and knowledge together with existing dataand information in analysing a problem area (i.e. lowyield, variations in quality, too high energy consumption


per ton produced, etc.) and come up with proposals forimprovement. We try to stimulate people to be in-novative and active in their work for continuousimprovement. We want all forces to pull in the samedirection and utilise the knowledge and experience ofeverybody in an organisation. This is the essence of ourteaching and should be practised and developed as partof the case study assessments. Experience from manyprojects clearly shows that implementing CP projectsaccording to the so-called ‘‘Norwegian Model’’ contrib-utes to changing attitudes and developing interested andactive employees. We believe that it is in this area thereal challenges are in improving both enterprises andsociety as a whole.

4. Experience

After extensive use of the Cleaner Production conceptover the last 12 years it has been proven that CP can be anefficient tool when trying to conserve resources andreduce emissions. It can also be a high motivationalfactor. It can be funworking to improve the environment.

It is important, at the beginning of a programme, tospend some time with the participants, discussing theirneeds and expectations. This puts us in a position, to acertain degree, to tailor the programme to suit the parti-cular group of people at hand. However, we always stickto some basic principles. In a network of companiescoming from the same branch of industry we have thepossibility to also discuss technology, but the main focusis always upon understanding and being able to use CPmethodology in daily life.

Some typical responses we meet at this very earlystage in the programme may be something like these:

� Just give us money so that we can invest in newequipment. We know what to do. Or

� In our boiler plant we frequently have problemscontrolling the steam pressure. Can you please comeand fix the problem for us?

� What modern equipment (clean technology?) wouldyou recommend for this or that application?

Our response is usually as follows:

It is important to have modern, efficient processes.But to invest in new equipment will cost a hugeamount of moneydmoney that we don’t have. In theprogramme we intend to show that it is possible toobtain substantial economic savings and at the sametime reduce emissions by working according toa certain methodology which we will discuss withyou. Efficient and environmentally friendly produc-tion is not just a question of technology. Equallyimportant are people, skills, experience, motivation,systems, organisation etc.

When savings have been made from implementinghousekeeping actions, low investments may beafforded and hopefully additional savings can bemade. It is necessary, even in a company with the verylatest in technology, that people develop their pro-duction skills and adopt a positive attitude topollution prevention.We can ‘‘help people help themselves’’ by showinghow to work in a systematic manner and utilise therelevant knowledge and experience that exists ina company to solve specific problems. The advisorswill not try to solve the technical problems for you,but rather provide you with the tools to do it yourself.

One main goal with our work is to reach the so-calledbasic capacity level in a country (‘‘train the trainers’’).This means that a sufficient number of people havereceived CP training such that they can continue thework on their own in a sustainable manner. The foreignspecialists should make themselves superfluous assoon as possible and leave the work and responsibilityto local advisors, but maintain good contact for follow-up activities. It is probably only in Poland that we cansay that this basic capacity level has been reached. Inorder to achieve this, continuous work was needed foran extended period of time. However, we have found itdifficult to obtain commitment for funding for so manyyears from government sources.

Limited funding imposes another constraint on ouractivities. One important question is this:

� How many companies continue their CP work oneyear, two years, and three years after the trainingperiod?

We have not been able to research this verysystematically. The modest research work that has beendone includes an informal audit carried out in Kalinin-grad in December 1999 [5]. The companies audited hadcompleted the training programmes either two anda half years or 1 year previously. For the oldest network,ten out of thirteen companies were still working withCP, giving a ‘‘survival percentage’’ of 77. For theprogramme that was completed one year earlier, thirteenout of fifteen companies were still working with CP,giving a ‘‘survival percentage’’ of 87. These figures donot tell the full story however, because several compa-nies dropped out during the course of the programmewithout completing it. These companies are not includedin the statistics given.

Very few companies had put much work intoverifying and documenting that implemented optionshad resulted in savings similar to those that had beencalculated. The argument was that this was difficultto do. However, the results obtained must have beenreasonably good because most of the companies wereeager to continue CP work.


It was interesting to observe that the reasons forstopping CP work, or having a low CP activity level fellinto three categories, see Table 1.

A stop in production will of course also end CPactivities. What is somewhat surprising is that when CPparticipants leave a company, the CP activities stop.This means that the organisation has not been able totransfer the know-how and enthusiasm of the partic-ipants to others in the same company. We must alsoquestion the commitment of top management in suchcases.

Companies that were struggling very hard to survivein an unstable and difficult economic situation still hadthe desire to continue CP work, but were only able tomaintain a low level of activity.

When the auditing team asked directly if it was likelythat the CP participants would forget the CP conceptafter a while and go back to the old way of working, theunanimous answer was NEVER. Those that had ‘‘seenthe light’’ would continue pollution prevention work.

We do not know how representative these observa-tions are, but believe that a formal audit carried out ona routine basis, let’s say every two years, would be veryvaluable. Such audits could verify that planned activitieshad been implemented and to what extent estimatedresults had been obtained. At the same time guidancecould be given regarding corrective action and futurework.

We have observed that our CP programmes passthrough several critical phases, the most importantbeing:

� Management commitment from the start of theprogramme.

� When participants return home from the firstplenary session ready to start organising the projectand do practical CP work.

� Idea generation.� Dealing with options requiring investments.

There is no doubt that management commitment isessential to the success of the programme. It is advisableto spend some time with a reluctant company beforeembarking on the programme, trying to convince man-agement about the merits of CP. Good arguments arepotential economic savings, relevant examples from

Table 1

Informal audit results, Kaliningrad, 1999

Reason No. companies CP activity level

Stop Low

Stop in Production 2 X

Unstable economic situation 3 X

CP participants

retired or left

company for other reasons

3 X

a similar industry and in some cases the importance ofan improved environmental image in a competitivemarket. Management could also be challenged to writean environmental policy for their company. When theprogramme has started it is a good idea to try to maintaingood communication and keep management involvedand interested. This can be achieved by discussing resultsand soliciting their advice. The company managementshould also allow the participants sufficient time forcarrying out their project work and spreading informa-tion about the project. All employees should be informed,stressing the importance of working with pollutionprevention. The example management sets for theemployees are of vital importance.

When participants return to their own companyafter the first plenary session they have some ideaabout what CP is all about, but they normally feeluncertain about how to get started. They feel insecurewhen it comes to informing their sceptical colleaguesand management about CP. Company visits fromadvisors and management backings are importantelements in this phase. This helps to get a dialog goingas soon as possible trying to identify areas where thepotential for economic and environmental improve-ments is the greatest. The fact that the concept is sostraightforward bewilders some people. ‘‘How can sucha simple tool produce good results in our complicatedprocesses?’’ However, engineers are trained at solvingproblems and when they get started with flow diagramsand digging for data for their material and energybalances their interest and motivation are normallyawakened.

Idea generation must take place in an atmosphere oftrust and mutual respect. Each member of the team hassomething of value to contribute, based on his or herbackground, even though some ideas may seem to be offtarget at first. Maybe next year the idea is moreacceptable and the year after it might even be possibleto implement the option and generate a good profit. Insome cultures it may be difficult for the project membersto open up and put forward their ideas with confidence.They are used to believing that people at the top have allthe answersdthey know what is best and it is not politefor ‘‘little old me’’ to propose changes.

A high number (20e30, or more) proposals maycome up during the idea generation phase. These arenormally screened and put into three groups. The firstgroup is for typical housekeeping actions that should beimplemented immediately. The options in the secondgroup require small investments or use of other re-sources and have a payback period of about one year.The third group of options requires larger investments.Usually funding these larger investment options seemsto be out of reach for the companies and nothing more isdone with these proposals. However, in the future weshould put more time and effort into developing these


options so that we will know more precisely what theirpotentials are and what investments are required. Thisis a unique possibility to identify projects that financeinstitutions are looking for. It is therefore vital that wecommunicate and understand each other better than wedo today.

In addition to training people from industry weshould, when possible, try to involve people from localauthorities, NGOs, consultancy companies and theeducational system. We have had considerable successwith involving students from local universities in the CPprogrammes. Kaliningrad is a particularly good exam-ple. Two local universities took part in CP programmeshere. In addition to following the lectures and partici-pating in the group work, the students were assigned todifferent project organisations and participated activelyin the CP case study assessments in the participatingcompanies. The students proved to be a valuable re-source in the project work and were well accepted in thecompanies. The students got valuable insight into thedaily work of an industrial company. Some of themclaim that participation in CP projects has helped themto qualify for further studies abroad, including theInternational Institute for Industrial EnvironmentalEconomics in Lund, Sweden. The main reason for thesuccessful involvement of the students was probably dueto the fact that our interpreter also happened to beteaching at one of the universities. He managed torecruit some of the most outstanding students to ourprogramme.

It is also important that pollution preventionphilosophy is integrated in the curriculum, not only inenvironmental sciences, but also in all engineeringdisciplines. Modern textbooks in the local languageshould also be prepared.

We have experienced, particularly in Indonesia, thatworking through national industrial branch organisa-tions is an efficient way of disseminating CP experiences.In conjunction with a CP programme, we carried out2-day seminars for the plywood industry, the palm oilindustry and the crumb rubber industry. The companiesclearly appreciated these opportunities to exchangeexperiences with colleagues. Questions that frequentlycame up were: ‘‘Where do we really stand with respect toenvironmental performance? What are our references?’’This naturally led to lively discussions on how to defineenvironmental performance indicators (EPIs), whichparameters to use, how to measure them, how to cal-culate them, how to present information, who needs theinformation and so on. This triggered another dis-cussion on the use of benchmarking and if this tech-nique could be used to stimulate friendly competitionamong similar companies in order to obtain continuousimprovement.

Hopefully we will get the opportunity to follow upthis work.

5. Can CP create a sustainable society?

Probably not, but it is an important step in the rightdirection. It produces quantifiable results, raises aware-ness and changes attitudes. It provides the basis forexpanding the concept into other areas and alsoaddresses other needs.

We are preaching ‘‘continuous improvement’’ inenvironmental work. We must also think continuousimprovement when it concerns our own methodologies:our weapons for fighting pollution and a wasteful society.

We will briefly try to describe a desired methodologydevelopment where traditional CP continues to be theworkhorse. Development of this methodology would bepossible if a government, for example the Norwegiangovernment, became convinced about the merits ofCP and decided to put forward a generous grant forCP-related activities for a period of 10 years. Theywould need to believe that such activities would in theend contribute to a development in a country in thedirection of:

Today

� Improved material utilisation (eco-efficiency)� Lowered specific energy consumption and reducedproduction of greenhouse gases

� Reduced emissions to air, water and soil� Reduced use of toxic materials in production and inproducts

� Reduced amount of waste to landfill� Reaching basic capacity levelTomorrow

� Create a positive attitude to change and improve-ment

� Develop a ‘‘learning organisation’’� Improve communication between employees, be-tween companies and their suppliers and betweencompanies and their customers (‘‘Greening thesupply chain’’)

� Improve relations between a company and itsneighbours and between a company and authorities

� Improve occupational health and safety� Obtain a better understanding of long-term planningand adopting a holistic view of production, quality,environment, working relationships, human resour-ces, finite/renewable material and energy resourcesand profit making

� Enhance competitiveness of enterprises� Update curriculum and teaching methods at univer-sities and involve students in CP projects

� Develop incentives. (It should appear economicallyadvantageous to make the ‘‘right’’ environmentalchoices)

� Improve understanding of natural processes anddevelop respect for Nature


This, hopefully, in a not too distant future will lead to:

� Enhancing human dignity and self respect.� Eradicating poverty.� Fair trade.� Democratic development.� Change in consumption patterns.

The process that can lead us in the desired direction isbased on a combination of international developmentaid, research and expertise and dedicated people.International collaboration is a requirement for success.

The present CP concept can contribute to solving theitems listed above under ‘‘Today’’. An expanded CPconcept could solve a wider range of problems.

If we put ourselves in the position of a manager in anindustrial company we immediately realise that inaddition to considering ecology we have to develop anorganisation which can adapt to a constantly changingbusiness environment. We have to produce goods andservices at a quality and price that the market is willing topay for. We have to make money so that we can pay forsalaries, energy, raw materials, taxes, investments in newequipment, development of new products, and trainingfor employees and so on. Much of the knowledge neededto accomplish this is already available, while other skillsand knowledge have to be developed.

Through research and co-operation with industry andinternational institutions an arsenal of advanced train-ing modules needs to be developed. The new trainingmodules have to be tested thoroughly before beingqualified for routine use. The strength of such anapproach would be that we have a dynamic system ofcontinuous development, facilities for testing newmodules and most important of all: to be able to tailora training programme to fit the needs of the customer.The conventional CP concept would always be the basisor the locomotive, other modules would be additions forspecific needs, see Fig. 2.

This figure illustrates the authors’ vision for futuredevelopment of CP training. There are three main partsto this model:

� The first part in the model consists of the traditionalCP training programmes;

� The second part is a development/improvementcycle; and

� The third part is more research and developmentorientated.

In this way we incorporate the important phase ofcontinuous improvement and development into the CPmethodology itself.

To define and specify the real needs of a company orcommunity is easier said than done. It is important toinvolve relevant partners and use sufficient time andresources for this job (see also the ‘Implementation ofExpanded Concept’ section of this paper).

6. New training modules

We will briefly mention the obvious additional mo-dules to CP and then describe three areas that areless well known in some detail. These less well knownsubjects are still partly being researched and improvedand are implemented to a lesser extent than moreestablished methods. Other topics of interest that aremuch further away from the implementation phase arejust being identified and therefore the list below shouldbe considered incomplete and open for discussion, seeFig. 2.

The road from CP to an environmental managementsystem (EMS) is not very long. EMS should be imp-lemented primarily to secure continuity and progressin CP related work and to improve reporting andrelationships with stakeholders.

Quality systems and EMS are two sides of the samecoin. Many companies find it advantageous to integratethese systems. Logistics could be made part of qualitysystems.

CP as a tool for identifying promising projects worthfinancing has already been discussed. Financial Engi-neering is already included in CP methodology in somecases, but this module needs further development inorder to facilitate easier communication between

Fig. 2. Vision for future development of CP training.


industry and financial institutions. This would againstimulate interest in CP.

Energy management can be part of an EMS, but therenewed interest in climate change, new energy sourcesand trading with CO2 quotas may justify a separatesystem for energy management.

If we really want to move in a sustainable direction, wehave to make some fundamental changes. There aretechniques available for preparing an organisation forchange (called: organisational development or manage-ment of change). These should be used when appropriate.

Environmental performance indicators are to a cer-tain extent already included in some of the CP pro-grammes, but this work could be expanded and followedup with benchmarking.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is described as a sys-tematic survey and assessment of health, environmentaland resource effects throughout the whole life cycle ofa product, or product system [6]. An LCA is based upona product system and assesses environmental and re-source effects throughout the whole of the product’s lifecycle, from ‘cradle to grave’ (from extraction of rawmaterials to final disposal). The LCA model includes allof the processes and activities that are part of a productsystem and together contribute to fulfilling the functionor functions that the product is meant to fulfil. LCA isa systems approach to environmental problems, focus-sing upon many different environmental effects, not onlyindividual processes, or single effects. It is a holisticapproach. The methodology is described in more detailin ISO 14040-43 [7,8,9]. Fig. 3 summarises the processesinvolved in an LCA.

There are three central points with a Life CycleAssessment:

� One examines the whole technical system that isrequired to produce, use and dispose of a product(system analysis)dnot just the product itself;

� One examines the whole material cycle along theproduct’s value chain and not just a single operationor processing step for a product (e.g. refining of rawmaterials);

� One examines a number of relevant environmentaland health effects for the whole system and not justone individual environmental parameter (e.g. emis-sions of solvents, or particulates).

Fig. 3. The processes involved in an LCA.

This gives a more holistic approach to health, envi-ronmental and resource problems than has often beenthe case in the past. Historically there has been morefocus on individual factors, or processes. This is indeedthe case with Cleaner Production, where the focus isoften on an individual production site, rather thanexamining the impacts of the particular production sitein the life cycle of a given product. The main point ofperforming a life cycle analysis is to show where in thelife cycle the most important environmental problemsarise. Cleaner Production methodology has historicallyfocused on improvements to individual production sites.With system analysis methodology like LCA one canalso see how changes in suppliers, or productionmethods can impact on the overall environmental profileof a given product, or product system; e.g. does a changein design mean increased/reduced problems for wastemanagement/recyclability.

Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) area good example of LCA methodology in practical usefor sales and marketing. Environmental Product Decla-ration methodology and formats have been developedon a Nordic basis [10]. ISO standards for this type ofdeclaration are also under development [11]. OestfoldResearch Foundation has been very active in this work.

Environmental Product Declarations provide docu-mentation of the health, environmental and resourceeffects of a given product, based on life cycle analysismethodology. An independent third party verifies theinformation in these declarations. Environmental Prod-uct Declarations provide a professional buyer with allthe information he/she needs to see how a particularsupplier’s product performs according to health, envi-ronmental and resource criteria and compare this witha competing product. This can be a powerful tool fordeveloping markets and companies to show a potentialbuyer the environmental benefits of their particularproduct. This can be useful for encouraging fair trade;e.g. agricultural products produced in developing coun-tries are often produced in a more ecological way thanin the developed world. This kind of information ispresented in an Environmental Product Declaration ina systematic way and enables the buyer to assess whichof the products has the best environmental profile.

Eco-design is about designing products that are easyto recycle. Product development today focuses on pro-ducts and packaging that are aesthetically pleasing andperform their function. The focus is on the consumer,making the product attractive and user friendly for theconsumer. When the product has reached the end of itslife it must be disposed of. Traditionally one thinksabout how to handle this waste when the product hasbecome waste. Waste management is a separate step inthe life cycle of the product. It is now widely acceptedthat consideration of waste management must be anintegral part of the design process. Eco-design is about


extra planning and thought in the design phase to makeproducts that are not only aesthetically pleasing anduser friendly for the customer, but also easy to recycle.For example component parts of different materials thatcan be easily separated when the product has come tothe end of its useful life; parts that can be used again, orrecycled in order to extract the raw materials that theywere made from.

7. Implementation of the expanded concept

In October 2002 we got an opportunity to implementsome of the ideas presented above in designing a new CPprogramme in Uganda. Funded by the Royal Norwe-gian Embassy in Kampala, the Ugandan CleanerProduction Centre (UCPC), Institute of Technology,Oslo and Ostfold Research Foundation jointly carriedout a pre-project. Through workshops and visits to

governmental institutions, universities, financial institu-tions, private industries, industry associations, theFederation of Employers and UNIDO, the needs andrequirements of important stakeholders were identified.These needs were incorporated into our basic CP.concept and this resulted in seven interconnected workpackages (WP), as shown in Fig. 4.

The name given to the proposed programme:Business Development in Uganda Based on the CleanerProduction Strategy, indicates a broader approach thannormal, with emphasis on making enterprises morecompetitive.

The 1st Work Package (WP 1) is made up of Clea-ner Production Assessments (CPA). CPA is the keyelement in the project, but in this case an integratedapproach to Quality Systems, CP and EnvironmentalManagement Systems will be used. This is believed tobe particularly useful and cost effective for SME’s.Through CPA’s, investment options are identified and

Fig. 4. Project Structure, Uganda.


the most viable improvement options are developedinto loan applications (in WP 4). CPA’s will also beused for identification and selection of candidates(companies and people) for further training in QualitySystems (ISO 9000) and Environmental ManagementSystems (ISO 14000), WP 2.

Four CPA projects will be carried out, each witha planned duration of 9 months.

CPA 1 for enterprises from different industrial sectors.CPA 2 will concentrate on companies from the food-processing sector.CPA 3 will deal with companies from the servicesector.For CPA 4, a simplified CPA methodology will bedeveloped, specifically addressing the needs of themany very small enterprises or informal businesses inUganda. These small companies make a large con-tribution (35e40%) to the total economy of thecountry, but their relative contribution to theenvironmental load is even higher.

Invitations to all of the CPAs will be sent to govern-mental authorities, NGO’s, consultancy companies,Makerere University and industry associations, inaddition to companies.

WP 2 is designed for enterprises interested in sys-tematic and continuous progress towards improvedeconomic results, low environmental impacts and properregard for occupational health and safety of workers.Two such projects will be carried out and successfulcompanies may later choose to go for certification, butthat would be outside this programme.

WP 3 is called Awareness Raising. The purpose ofthis WP is to promote the CP concept among stake-holders with a special emphasis on the private sector.The work will consist of organising discussions, arrang-ing workshops in cooperation with Industry Associa-tions, production and dissemination of a bi-annualnewsletter and workshops for media. Radio time anddissemination through TV will also be used.

The purpose of WP 4 is to develop a financialmechanism for CP investments, especially for smallenterprises. WP 4 will have two components. One is theestablishment of a soft loan facility, and the other thedevelopment of bank loan applications.

The National Environment Management Authority(NEMA) has four main activity areas, one being todevelop a compliance assistance programme includingtraining environmental officers in the 56 districts ofUganda. An organised and well functioning enforce-ment system is recognised as a key element for reducingenvironmental degradation, promoting CP practicesand ensuring sustainability of a CP centre. UCPC willcooperate with NEMA and other lead agencies inassisting enterprises to comply with the environmentallaws, regulations and standards.

WP 6 will focus upon Policy Development. Ugandahas, for the time being, no strategic document for imp-lementation of CP in the national economy. A nationalstrategy for the promotion of CP is needed at the nationallevel, as well as a political declaration encouraging theintroduction of CP in industry and political/legislative/fiscal instruments to this end. This has to be a long-termstrategy with a step by step approach. WP6 also includesa study visit abroad and arranging an African Round-table on CP.

The last work package contains the required activitiesfor ensuring an effective and smooth implementationthroughout the 5-year project period.

8. How to track progress

How do we know whether we are moving in thedirection of a sustainable society or not? Lord Ruth-erford once said that your knowledge is of meagre valueif you cannot measure it. We also need some propermetrics to guide us in the right direction. All countriesoperate with GNP as a measure of the total economicactivity. However, GNP does not distinguish between‘‘good’’ and ‘‘bad’’ transactions. On the one hand GNPdoes include the cost of treating cancer and cleaning upoil spills, but does not include the ‘‘wealth of nature’’(healthy forests, wildlife, clean water, a rich topsoil etc).Maximising GNP in a country will not by itself bringabout a sustainable society.

9. Summary and conclusions

Cleaner Production has proven itself as an effectiveway of obtaining improved material utilisation, reducedenergy consumption and lower emission levels. It alsomotivates positive preventive action and promotesa holistic view of resources, production, economy andthe environment. Every effort should be made to reachthe so-called basic capacity level of CP training know-ledge in a country. In order to achieve this, funding mustbe of a long-term nature. There must be support for thedevelopment of CP so that an efficient way of followingup performance of companies that have been throughthe basic training programme is included.

The vision of a sustainable society presents us withnew challenges. In order to meet these challenges wehave to sharpen our existing tools and develop newones. CP can continue to be our basic method forpollution prevention and new training modules can beadded to satisfy specific needs. A model for doing this isproposed, provided sufficient funding is available overan extended period.

CP, together with extended training modules, cancontribute to a more competitive and environmentallyfriendly industry, which is required for economic growth.


The advanced training module for EnvironmentalProduct Declarations can contribute to fair trade.

It is extremely important that the programmes of thefuture are established with the active participation ofstakeholders. This type of ‘tailor-made’ programme ismore likely to meet the specific needs of the region/industry involved.

Integrating CP methodology in the foreign aiddevelopment programmes of western countries wouldmost probably increase the effectiveness of theseprogrammes.

There is hope of a future sustainable society whenmore politicians and industry leaders start taking theenvironment seriously, if they do it in time.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuablecontributions and active participation of numerouspeople in our CP programs; in particular Dr. AlexandreTsygankov and Larisa Yanchik of the Russian-Norwegian Cleaner Production Center in Moscow, MrVladimir Litvinenko, Mr Felix Alekseev and Ms OlgaBalandina from the Kaliningrad Regional Committeefor Environmental and Natural Resources Protection,professor Eugene Krasnov and Dr. Dimitry Zhaphor-ozhsky of Kaliningrad State University, Mr DaniilRybakov, Mr Sergei Zhavoronkin, Mr Mikhail Durkin,Mr Fedor Ivanov, Admirality Shipyards, St. Petersburg,Ms Antonina Sinitsina, Jantarenergo and Ms NinaProkhoda, Kaliningradsky Fish Preserves Combinatfor their work as coadvisors in our programs inKaliningrad.

For Indonesia we further acknowledge the contibu-tions of Dra. Masnellyarty Hilman, Deputy for Envi-ronmental Law Enforcement, BAPEDAL, Plt. Ir.Laksmi Dhewanthi, Diractorate for EnvironmentalManagement Tools and Environmental Technology,BAPEDAL, Mr Arif Wibowo, Ms Titi Panjaitan, MsTota Redny and Mr Yudi Suyudi of BAPEDAL,Jakarta, Dra. Liana Bratasida, Environmental Man-agement consultant, Plt. Drs. Nuriswan Taqim, MrBrahmana, Mr Hari Suharianto from BAPEDAL Re-gional 1 and the Norwegian Ambassador to IndonesiaMr Sjur Torgersen.

In Uganda we would like to acknowledge contribu-tion of the Norwegian Ambassador to Uganda, Mr ToreGjøs and his staff and Dr. Patrick Mwesigye, managingdirector of Uganda Cleaner Production Centre and hisable staff in Kampala.

The authors would also like to thank the NorwegianDepartment of Environment, the Norwegian Agencyfor Development Cooperation, NORAD, and the Pollu-tion Control Authority for their financial support inprogrammes and projects that have contributed to theauthors’ experience and work in the CP field. We wouldalso like to thank our colleagues at Oestfold ResearchFoundation for the support (both moral and technical)that we have received during our work there.

References

[1] OECD. Best practices guide for cleaner production programmes

in Central and Eastern Europe. Paris: OECD/GD 1995;95:98.

[2] Prof. Dr. hab. inz. Zygfryd Nowak, editor. The environmental

protection strategy for the XXI century. Katowice: ‘‘Polish CP

Movement’’ Society; 2000 (in Polish).

[3] Tsygankov AP. Cleaner production, A story of successful

development. Moscow: Russian-Norwegian Center; 2000.

[4] The WCPS cleaner production capacity building in Central and

Eastern Europe; Results and costs from local dissemination of CP

to Industry in 5 Countries. WCPS.

[5] Kjærheim G. Status report on CP activities in Kaliningrad

companies pr. 30.11.99. Oestfold Research Foundation Report

AR.08.99, 1999.

[6] Askham C, Raadal HL, Hanssen OJ. Analysis of the environ-

mental effectiveness of collection and recycling of drink cartons,

carton packaging and corrugated cardboard. Oestfold Research

Foundation Research Report OR.24.00, 2000.

[7] ISO 14040:1997. Environmental managementdlife cycle asses-

smentdprinciples and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: Interna-

tional Organization for Standardization 1997.

[8] ISO/DIS 14042:1999. Environmental managementdlife cycle

assessmentdlife cycle impact assessment. Geneva, Switzerland:

International Organization for Standardization 1999.

[9] ISO/DIS 14043:1999. Environmental managementdlife cycle

assessmentdlife cycle interpretation. Geneva, Switzerland:

International Organization for Standardization 1999.

[10] Hanssen OJ, Strandorff H, Tillmann AM, Vold M, Lindfors LG,

Hoffmann L. Nordic co-ordinating system for environmental

product declarations (type III); Report from the NIMBUS

project. Fredrikstad/Gøteborg/København 2001.

[11] Environmental Labels and declarationsdType III environmental

declarationsdGuiding principles and procedures. ISO/TC 207/

SC 3 /WG1 Task Group Type III N51, 1999, ISO/PDTR 14025.

cleaner production and sustainability

Documents