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

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

Post on 15-Jul-2016




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>ORIGINAL PAPER</p><p>Evaluation of the global implementation of the UNIDO-UNEPNational Cleaner Production Centres (NCPC) Programme</p><p>Rene Van Berkel</p><p>Received: 21 September 2009 / Accepted: 12 January 2010 / Published online: 3 February 2010</p><p> Springer-Verlag 2010</p><p>Abstract Since 1994 UNIDO and UNEP cooperate in a</p><p>Programme to establish National Cleaner Production</p><p>Centres (NCPCs) in developing and transition countries.</p><p>An evaluation was conducted in 2007 when the Programme</p><p>covered 37 countries. The programme evaluation was</p><p>based on three information sources: a review of Pro-</p><p>gramme strategy and management; self-evaluation by</p><p>NCPC directors; and independent reviews of 18 NCPCs. It</p><p>was found that NCPCs had been successful in putting</p><p>Cleaner Production (CP) on the agenda of business and</p><p>government, training of professional staff, implementation</p><p>of low and intermediate technology options in assisted</p><p>companies and policy change in some countries. An overall</p><p>assessment was made on six assessment criteria: relevance;</p><p>effectiveness; efficiency; sustainability; capacity develop-</p><p>ment; and ownership. Limitations in articulation and</p><p>implementation of the Programme strategy, the complexity</p><p>of inter-agency cooperation and diversity among Pro-</p><p>gramme countries globally, had a somewhat negative</p><p>impact on the programme assessment, which was regard-</p><p>less on average satisfactory. It was concluded that the</p><p>Programme had great potential, as relevance of CP was</p><p>rising, due to worsening industrial pollution, resource</p><p>scarcity, globalisation and resulting market pressure. The</p><p>challenge remained to adapt to the changing interests and</p><p>diversifying demands from governments and private sector</p><p>globally.</p><p>Keywords Cleaner Production Eco-Efficiency Environmentally Sound Technology Capacitydevelopment Developing countries Transition economies</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Cleaner Production (CP) has been defined by UNEP as</p><p>the continuous application of an integrated preventive</p><p>environmental strategy to processes, products and services,</p><p>to increase efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the</p><p>environment (UNEP 1994b, p. 3). CP offers an opportu-</p><p>nity for winwin solutions as companies reduce their</p><p>operational costs and environmental and other liabilities by</p><p>using less energy, water and materials, handling chemicals</p><p>and their waste safely and generating less waste and pol-</p><p>lutants. CP is commonly achieved through a diversity of</p><p>practices, including good housekeeping, process and/or</p><p>equipment modification, input material substitution, on-site</p><p>reuse and recycling and change in products and/or tech-</p><p>nologies (e.g., van Berkel 2007a, b). A number of related</p><p>terms exist that for practical purposes can be considered as</p><p>operational equivalents of CP, including for example Eco-</p><p>Efficiency, Pollution Prevention, Green Productivity and</p><p>Waste Minimisation (see e.g., USEPA 1992; DeSimione</p><p>and Popoff 1997; APO 2002; Envirowise 2002; Van Berkel</p><p>2007b). CP can be achieved through a range of prevention</p><p>techniques, typically referred to as good housekeeping,</p><p>technology modification, input substitution, product mod-</p><p>ification and on-site reuse and recycling (USEPA 1988; de</p><p>Hoo et al. 1991; UNIDO 2005).</p><p>CP was first practiced in industrialised economies most</p><p>notably in North America (e.g., OTA 1986; Hirshhorn and</p><p>Oldenburg 1991; USEPA 1997) and Western Europe</p><p>Rene Van Berkelformerly Eco-Innovation, Inglewood, Australia.</p><p>R. Van Berkel (&amp;)United Nations Industrial Development Organisation,</p><p>P.O. Box 300, 1400 Vienna, Austria</p><p>e-mail: r.vanberkel@unido.org</p><p>URL: www.unido.org/cp</p><p>123</p><p>Clean Techn Environ Policy (2011) 13:161175</p><p>DOI 10.1007/s10098-010-0276-6</p></li><li><p>(e.g., Backman et al. 1991; Dieleman et al. 1991). How-</p><p>ever, from the early 1990s onward, applications have been</p><p>reported in developing countries and transitional econo-</p><p>mies (see e.g., UNEP 1993, 1994a; van Berkel et al. 1994;</p><p>UNIDO 1995; Gallup and Marcotte 2003; Staniskis and</p><p>Arbaciauskas 2003)</p><p>The United Nations Industrial Development Organisa-</p><p>tion (UNIDO) and the United Nations Environment Pro-</p><p>gramme (UNEP) collaborate in the promotion of CP (see</p><p>www.unido.org/cp and www.unep.fr/scp/cp). Since 1994,</p><p>UNIDO and UNEP cooperate specifically to establish and</p><p>support National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPCs)1 in</p><p>developing and transition economies with funding support</p><p>from various donors, including the Governments of Swit-</p><p>zerland, Austria, Norway, Italy, Denmark, The Nether-</p><p>lands, Czech Republic and Slovenia. This is commonly</p><p>referred to as the UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme. In the</p><p>absence of a formal programme strategy, strictly speaking,</p><p>this was rather a collection of mostly national and some</p><p>multi-country projects. Moreover, the roles and responsi-</p><p>bilities of both agencies were in no way equal or compa-</p><p>rable in terms of finances, management and organisational</p><p>mandate. UNIDO administered the establishment of</p><p>NCPCs and managed the majority of the total resources</p><p>available for the Programme. UNEP provided strategic</p><p>inputs, primarily through separately funded multi-country</p><p>projects on emerging topics [such as integration with</p><p>energy efficiency (UNEP 2003), design for sustainability</p><p>(UNEP 2006a) and Multilateral Environmental Agree-</p><p>ments (MEAs; UNEP 2006b)] and also involved the</p><p>NCPCs in its series of regional and global strategic</p><p>dialogues in particular under the Marrakech Process on</p><p>10-year frameworks of programmes on sustainable con-</p><p>sumption and production (SCP) (UNEP 2009).</p><p>At the Programmes inception, a NCPC was expected to</p><p>be an entity within a national host institution (e.g., tech-</p><p>nical institute, industry association or university) that</p><p>would provide four basic types of CP services (UNEP and</p><p>UNIDO 2002):</p><p>1. Information dissemination and awareness raising:</p><p>development and distribution of promotional materials</p><p>and delivery of awareness seminars or workshops to</p><p>put CP nationally on the agenda of government and the</p><p>private sector;</p><p>2. Training: delivery of training programmes to establish a</p><p>cadre of CP professionals who could assist businesses</p><p>and other organisations with CP implementation;</p><p>3. CP assessments/in-plant demonstrations: technical</p><p>assistance provision to companies and other organisa-</p><p>tions for the identification, evaluation and implemen-</p><p>tation of CP opportunities; and</p><p>4. Policy advice: liaison with government and other key</p><p>stakeholders to identify and adopt strategies and</p><p>policies to foster uptake of CP by businesses and</p><p>other organisations.</p><p>Over time, the NCPC services have expanded, including</p><p>in particular support for transfer of Environmentally Sound</p><p>Technologies (ESTs) and investments therein. In its early</p><p>establishment stage, each NCPC would essentially be a</p><p>project management unit of UNIDO. Over time the NCPC</p><p>would be expected to gradually become increasingly or-</p><p>ganisationally and financially independent from UNIDO</p><p>and UNEP. It would thereby evolve into a nationally</p><p>directed provider of CP services to businesses, govern-</p><p>ments and civil society.</p><p>The first eight NCPCs were established in 1994/1995,</p><p>respectively, in Brazil, China, Czech Republic, India,</p><p>Mexico, Slovakia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Upon their</p><p>success, further NCPCs were established across the four</p><p>main Programme Regions (respectively, African and Arab</p><p>Region, Asia, Eastern Europe and Newly Independent</p><p>States (NIS) and Latin America). In 2007, the Programme</p><p>included activities in 37 countries: Armenia, Bolivia,</p><p>Brazil, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia,</p><p>Cuba, Czech Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia,</p><p>Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Kenya, Lao, Leba-</p><p>non, Macedonia, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicara-</p><p>gua, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russia (two independently</p><p>operating centres), Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka,</p><p>Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and</p><p>Zimbabwe. UNIDO and UNEP viewed their NCPC Pro-</p><p>gramme as a cornerstone of their activities to foster sus-</p><p>tainable industrial development and SCP in developing and</p><p>transition countries.</p><p>To establish a basis for strengthening their support to an</p><p>expanding and diversifying network of NCPCs, UNIDO</p><p>and UNEP agreed to undertake an independent programme</p><p>evaluation, as per standards, criteria and methods com-</p><p>monly used in development assistance evaluation (OECD</p><p>2008).2 It would further build on specific CP programme</p><p>1 In some countries, the establishment of a NCPC is preceded by a</p><p>National Cleaner Production Programme (NCPP). As NCPCs and</p><p>NCPPs have similar aims and objectives, and undertake similar</p><p>activities, for ease of reference in this paper all are referred to as</p><p>NCPCs.</p><p>2 The Development Assistance Committee of OECD defined eval-</p><p>uation as: the systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or</p><p>completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation</p><p>and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of</p><p>objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sus-</p><p>tainability. An evaluation should provide information that is credible</p><p>and useful, enabling incorporation of lessons learned into the decision</p><p>making process of both recipient and donor. Evaluation also refers to</p><p>the process of determining the worth and significance of an activity,</p><p>policy or programme (OECD 2008, p. 4).</p><p>162 R. Van Berkel</p><p>123</p></li><li><p>evaluations (e.g., Kisch et al. 1996; UNEP and UNIDO</p><p>2002; Gallup and Marcotte 2003; Luken and Navratil 2003;</p><p>Staniskis and Arbaciauskas 2003; Grutter 2005) and</p><p>country-specific monitoring and evaluation (e.g., Sarmi-</p><p>ento 2003; Stevenson 2003; van Berkel 2003). This pro-</p><p>gramme evaluation considered the results and experiences</p><p>of the global set of NCPCs. It thereby aimed to determine</p><p>the success or otherwise of the national implementation of</p><p>the UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme as an example of a</p><p>global capacity development programme operating in 37</p><p>Programme countries. This paper summarises and dis-</p><p>cusses the methodology and results of this programme</p><p>evaluation.</p><p>Scope and methodology</p><p>The programme evaluation was initiated to assess the</p><p>results of the NCPC Programme by documenting and</p><p>reviewing the activities and results of the NCPCs estab-</p><p>lished and supported by the Programme. It was therefore</p><p>based on four primary and two secondary evaluation cri-</p><p>teria (UNIDO 2008).</p><p>The primary criteria related to the adoption of CP</p><p>concepts, methods, practices, technologies and policies and</p><p>their resulting economic, environmental and/or other ben-</p><p>efits for the target group of Small and Medium Enterprises</p><p>(SMEs) in host countries, both individually as well as</p><p>collectively. These were:</p><p>1. Relevance: were the elements of the Programme (in</p><p>particular the CP concept, the CP services, the NCPC</p><p>institution, the global network and international tech-</p><p>nical assistance provided) applicable and valuable for</p><p>the intended beneficiaries (in particular the private</p><p>sector, government, academia and research institutes in</p><p>the host country)?</p><p>2. Effectiveness: did the design of the Programme</p><p>(specifically: national centres; global strategy and</p><p>management; networking; and technical assistance)</p><p>and its implementation enable the Centres and bene-</p><p>ficiaries to achieve the programmes intended result of</p><p>beneficial implementation of CP by the target group?</p><p>3. Efficiency: was the Programme designed and imple-</p><p>mented to achieve optimal benefit from its available</p><p>resources? Were the NCPCs and other programme</p><p>activities managed and administered in a manner that</p><p>fostered service delivery to the target beneficiaries?</p><p>and</p><p>4. Sustainability: would it be probable or likely that the</p><p>benefits (including: availability of CP services; envi-</p><p>ronmental and productivity benefits of assisted enter-</p><p>prises; etc.) achieved from the Programme would</p><p>continue into the future, even in the absence of the</p><p>Programme?</p><p>The secondary criteria assessed the success of the NCPC</p><p>Programme as a development assistance intervention.</p><p>These represented two elements of best practice for pro-</p><p>gramme execution and management, namely:</p><p>5. Capacity development: did the Programme capacitate</p><p>local stakeholders to improve their current and future</p><p>well-being by developing essential capacities, specif-</p><p>ically for resource productivity, environmental man-</p><p>agement, entrepreneurship, and/or public private</p><p>partnerships? and</p><p>6. Ownership: did local stakeholders regard the Pro-</p><p>gramme as their own and would they be making</p><p>commitments to advance the programmes aims and</p><p>objectives and to act on its outputs?</p><p>The programme evaluation was based on three infor-</p><p>mation sources, respectively: (i) review of the Programme</p><p>including its strategy and management (based on document</p><p>review); (ii) self-evaluation by the 38 NCPCs (by means of</p><p>a survey); and (iii) independent country reviews for 18</p><p>NCPCs (constructive evaluation at national level based on</p><p>semi-structured interviews of staff, beneficiaries and cli-</p><p>ents, government counterparts and other stakeholders). The</p><p>findings were considered in an integrated manner to sum-</p><p>marise results from Programme implementation at national</p><p>level, assess the Programme against the evaluation criteria,</p><p>and derive overall conclusions. The evaluation was exe-</p><p>cuted between April and December 2007 and included</p><p>extensive discussions with NCPCs and programme man-</p><p>agement both individually and collectively on the basis of</p><p>interim findings and draft conclusions. The final results</p><p>were released in May 2008 (UNIDO 2008).</p><p>Findings</p><p>Programme review</p><p>The explicit and implicit objectives of the UNIDO-UNEP</p><p>NCPC Programme were reviewed, and activities of UNI-</p><p>DO and UNEP to achieve those objectives were analysed.</p><p>It was found that the CP concept is well reflected in the</p><p>Programme and that the original Programme was a</p><p>coherent approach to building CP into an international</p><p>cooperation initiative. The consistency and clarity of the</p><p>Programme had diminished over time as a result of the</p><p>repeated attempts to re-design and re-shape the Programme</p><p>with inclusion of new topics and/or service areas [for</p><p>example Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Occupa-</p><p>tional Health and Safety (OH&amp;S) and Environmental</p><p>Evaluation of UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme 163</p><p>123</p></li><li><p>Technology Assessment (EnTA)]. These were only par-</p><p>tially incorporated into national project plans and lacked a</p><p>clear vision and logical framework for the Programme as a</p><p>whole. The NCPC model was found to be largely suc-</p><p>cessful, given its replication within and outside3 the Pro-</p><p>gramme and demand from some 30 other national</p><p>governments to establish a NCPC. Cooperation between</p><p>UNIDO and UNEP as well as networking among NCPCs</p><p>had not yet been designed into the Programme. There was</p><p>also no strategy to deal with NCPCs that had graduated to</p><p>become financially and administratively independent from</p><p>the UNIDO-UNEP NCPC Programme.</p><p>The Programme started with a programmatic approach</p><p>which included a generic cooperation agreement between</p><p>UNIDO and UNEP, a programme document for estab-</p><p>lishing NCPCs in pilot countries and a competence based</p><p>application process for selection of host countries and then</p><p>host in...</p></li></ul>