- Email: [email protected]
Cleaner technologies in the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU
Journal
of Cleaner
Cleaner technologies
Production
6
(1998) I29- 134
in the Fourth Framework of the EU
Programme
Wilhelm Schramm *, Roger Hackstock’ Institute
of Technology
Assessment,
Austrian
Academy
of Sciences.
Postgasse
7/4/3, A-1010
Vienna, ,4ustria
Abstract The role of cleaner technologies in the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU is of major importance for research and technological development. This article presents an analysis of projects submitted in the field of cleaner technologies for the industrial sector. The analysis encompasses the programmes ‘Environment and Climate’ and ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’. Both the objectives and contents of the projects concerning source-level prevention are investigated in detail; the results of both pro-
grammes are compared with each other as well as assessed, In addition, recommendations are made concerning the composition of future programmes. 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords:
Cleaner
technologies;
Cleaner
process
technologies;
Research
1. Introduction The Framework Programme of the EU for Research and Technological Development is of key importance for technological development in Europe. The Fourth Framework Programme ran from 1994 to 1998, and the subsequent Fifth Framework Programme is planned for 1998-2002. The Fourth Framework Programme particularly aims at the promotion of the scientific and technical basis of the European industry in order to make it competitive with the competitors (USA, Japan). In addition, it supports improvement of the utilisation and commercial exploitation of research results to overcome European shortcomings in the field of technology transfer as well as improvement of the coordination between the research policies of the member states. Not least, the Fourth Framework Programme is intended to have a technological influence on EU policy as a whole, e.g. on environment policy. Support is provided for the following sectors: information and communication technologies, industrial and materials technologies, environment, life sciences and biotechnologies, energy and
and development;
0959-6526/98/$19.00 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: SO959-6526(98)00009-2
Fourth
Framework
Programme
of the EU
transport as well as socio-political research [ 11. From the point of view of cleaner production. it is very interesting to know how well the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU actually supports the development of cleaner technologies, which technologies are especially stimulated, and what recommendations can be made concerning the composition of future programmes. This article answers these questions. It analyses project proposals submitted to the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU*.
2. Analysis of project proposals submitted to the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU In the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU cleaner technologies are supported in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ and in the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’3. In the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ [2], the support of
* This article is part of the research project ‘Cleaner Technologies Framework Programme of the EU-Analysis of the Suhmitted Projects’ which was supported by the Austrian Ministry of the Environment. ’ Programmes concerning cleaner technologies in agriculture, transport, and energy are not analysed in this article. in the Fourth
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 43-l-51581/592; fax: + 43-l. 5131145; c-mail: [email protected] I Present address: Austrian Energy Agency, Linke Wienzeile 18,A1060 Vienna, Austria.
Industry
130
W. Schramm, R. Hackstock/Joumal
of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 129-134
Table 1 Analysed subprogrammes of the programmes ‘Environment and Climate’ and ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ Subprogramme
Programme
Technologies to protect and rehabilitate the environment Development of clean production technologies Technologies for recovering products at the end of their lifecycle
Environment and Climate Industrial and Materials Technologies Industrial and Materials Technologies
cleaner technologies is the task of the subprogramme ‘Technologies to protect and rehabilitate the environment’. This subprogramme is investigated in this article. In the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ [3] the subprogramme for the support of cleaner technologies is ‘Development of clean production technologies’ and to some extent the subprogramme ‘Technologies for recovering products at the end of their lifecycle’. Both subprogrammes are also analysed in this article. Project proposals, which were only assigned with second priority to the subprogramme ‘Development of clean production technologies’ are included in our study4. Table 1 gives an overview of the programmes and subprogrammes analysed. The objective of the subprogramme ‘Technologies to protect and rehabilitate the environment’ is to contribute to the elimination or mitigation of priority environmental problems by developing solutions of wide ranging and general applicability. Several research tasks exist within this subprogramme, the aim of one of these is explicitly to support cleaner technologies and cleaner products. The other tasks concern recycling technologies and endof-pipe technologies. The objective of the subprogramme ‘Development of clean production technologies’ is similar but focuses more on cleaner technologies. The aim of this subprogramme is to support development of cost-effective non-polluting processes and pollution prevention technologies, emphasising the efficient use of material and energy resources, and reduction or elimination of polluting wastes at their source. In contrast to this, the objective of the subprogramme ‘Technologies for recovering products at the end of their lifecycle’ is development of technologies to convert disposed-of products into saleable products, either as raw materials for other processes, or as materials or parts for new products. The analysis of this article is based on the investigation of the project proposals which were submitted to the first invitation of tenders (17 January 1995-27 April 1995 ‘Environment and Climate’; 15 December 199415 March 1995 ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’). Project information is taken from the corresponding reports of the European Commission [4,5]. The abstracts 4Each group of researchers has to assign their projects to one subprogramme with first priority and to another subprogramme with second priority.
were investigated and, as a result, each project was assigned to one type of environmental technology5. For developments in the field of source-level prevention a modified version [7] of the internationally used [g] categories is used. The results of the analysis are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2.
3. Results of the analysis of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ In the analysed subprogramme of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’, only 14% of the submitted project proposals concern ‘source-level prevention’ in the production cycle, and only 1% aims at developing ‘cleaner products’. In contrast to this, the share of projects submitted to end-of-pipe technologies is 69%. One third of the submitted proposals falls into the category ‘clarification of air and wastewater’; another third is assigned to the ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’, and 3% concern ‘waste treatment’. Projects aiming at ‘recycling of waste and emissions’, as well as of ‘product recycling’, have together a modest share of 16%. In the case of approved proposals, the share of cleaner-production projects is higher. At least one fifth of the approved projects is concerned with ‘source-level prevention’ in production; and 7%, ‘cleaner products’. The increase in this percentage is to the detriment of projects in the categories ‘clarification of air and wastewater’ and ‘waste treatment’. In contrast to the share of 33% in the case of submissions from the category ‘clarification of air and wastewater’, the share of approvals is only 20%. In the category ‘waste treatment’, the situation is extreme. From the seven proposals submitted, not one project was approved. The share of projects from the type ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’ is, in terms of approved projects, consistently high and also dominant. The low rate of approval is very striking6. With 6.5%, it is far below the values for other programmes. In the category ‘source-level prevention’, the rate of approval
5Some projects are assigned to two categories because their objectives are of such a comprehensive nature. For more details of the method used see Ref. [6]. 6 The rate of approvals is defined as the quotient of the number of projects approved and the number of projects submitted.
W. Schramm, R. Hackstock/Journal
of Cleaner Production
6 (1998) 129-134
131
Inputmaterials
;OURCE-LEVEL
PREVENTIOh
Development of more efficient process technologies I Waste treatment internal reuse of waste and emissions generated
Y
Recycling waste and emissions
Substitution of input materials 1
1m
Product
r-l
Rehabilitation of contaminated sites 171(5)-
Total: legend:
projects Environment and Climate
Fig. 1.
Table 2 Results of analysis
Results
of the analysis
of the programme
Category
‘Environment
Programme Submitted
Cleaner products Source-level prevention production
of the programmes
projects
‘Environment
and Climate’ and ‘Industrial
and Climate’ and ‘Industrial
‘Environment
and Climate’ Approved
1218(15)=
Industrial and Materials Technologies
and Materials
Technologies’
Programme projects
and Materials
‘Industrial
Submitted
projects
Technologies’.
(in percent) and Materials
Technologies’
Approved
projects
1 14
I 20
1 64
0 70
Recycling of waste and emissions as well as product recycling
16
20
19
23
Clarification of air and waste water Waste treatment Rehabilitation of contaminated sites
33
20
15
I
3 33
0 33
0 1
0 0
100
100
100
100
Total
in
W. Schramm. R. Ha&stock/Journal
132
is about lo%, which is higher but nevertheless below average. In the case of ‘source-level prevention’, most of the projects submitted aimed at the goal of ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ (50%) or of a ‘substitution of input materials’ (40%). Only three out of a total of 30 projects concern the ‘development of more efficient process technologies’. However, one of these projects was approved. In contrast, only two projects from the category ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ were approved, and no projects from the category ‘substitution of input materials’. The ‘development of more efficient process technologies’ concerns the three industrial sectors of steel, chemicals and paper. In the case of ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ treating water for reuse forms, with eight out of 15 proposals submitted, a main thematic focus. An analogous but weaker main focus exists in the category ‘substitution of input materials’. It concerns the substitution of solvents containing volatile organic compounds. Table 3 summarises the objectives of the projects submitted and approved in the field of ‘source-level prevention’.
4. Results of the analysis of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ In the case of submissions, the category ‘source-level prevention’ is dominant in the analysed subprogramme of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’, with nearly two thirds (64%) of all projects submitted. The share of the both recycling categories (recycling of waste and emissions, and recycling of products at the end of their lifecycle) is, at 19%, somewhat higher than the share of technologies for ‘clarification of air and wastewater’ (15%). In contrast, only 1% of all submitted proposals aimed at ‘cleaner products’ and ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’ each. No proposal was submitted for the development of waste-treatment technologies.
Table 3 Objectives of submitted and approved of approved projects in italics)
projects
concerning
Internal
of more efficient
process
reuse of waste and emissions
Substitution
of input materials
In the case of approved project proposals, as many as 70% aim at ‘source-level prevention’ in production and 23% at recycling (again, both categories together). In contrast, only 7% of projects approved concern the development of end-of-pipe technologies, exclusively the category ‘clarification of air and wastewater’. No proposals were approved in the fields of ‘waste treatment’ and ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’; but neither were any projects approved for the develoment of ‘cleaner products’. In the part of the programme that was examined, the rate ofupprovaZ was 19.8%, as high as the values for other programmes. In contrast to this, it is about three times higher than in the subprogramme analysed from the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ (see Section 3). In the case of the category ‘source-level prevention’, 64 of the 91 projects submitted (70% of the total) are concerned with the ‘development of more efficient process technologies’. In contrast, the prevention themes ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ and ‘substitution of input materials’ are, with 10 and 17 projects, respectively, only rarely the object of submissions. In the case of approvals, the share is almost the same: 71% for ‘development of more efficient process technologies’, 10% for ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’, and 19% for ‘substitution of input materials’. The majority of the projects submitted from the category ‘development of more efficient process technologies’ concern the industrial sectors of chemicals (13 x ), electronics (10 x ), metal-working (7 x ) and paper (6 x ). Table 4 shows all the industrial sectors concerned. In the category ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ there exists a clear main focus: seven out of 10 projects submitted aim at internal water reuse, the same thematic focus as in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’. In the case of ‘substitution of input materials’, no main focus is recognisable.
prevention’
in the programme
‘Environment
and Climate’ (with objectives
Objectives
Field of prevention Development
‘source-level
of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 129-134
technologies generated
1 x pickling of steel, 1 x ethoxylation of alcohol and I x paper production with less chemicals 6 x wastewater, 2 x wastewater, 2 x solvents, 2 x refused teletubes, 1 x chromatic residuals from galvanic baths, 1 x chemicals from pulp production, and 1 x narcotics in medicine 3 x solvents, 1 x chromium-free leather, 1 x halon-free extinguishing agents, 1 x lacquer without primary coat, 1 x components of building materials, 1 x lubricants, 1 x detergents, 1 x oxidation-impeding materials, 1 x narcotics, 1 x chemicals for weed-killing
W. Schramm, R. Hackstock/Joumal
of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 129-134
Table 4 Industrial sectors covered by projects of the category ‘development of more efficient and Materials Technologies’ (number of approved projects in parentheses) 13 x 10 x IX
6x 3x 3x
Chemicals (5 x ) Electronics (1 x ) Metal working (4 Paper (1 x ) Petrochemicals (1 Automobile
x )
x )
3x 3x 3x 2x 2x 2x
process
Glass and ceramics (1 x Plastic processing Engine construction Textile (1 x ) Particle board manufacture Rubber manufacture
5. Objectives of the projects in the category ‘source-level prevention’ For the category ‘source-level prevention’, the analysis results in the following findings for the objectives of the projects submitted. In the case of the ‘development of more efficient process technologies’, technological development is understandably predominant. In each case, the prevention targets are to reduce (or minimise) the amount of waste and emissions generated, and thus commensurately of the levels of resources consumed. In this type of project, the producers of process technologies play the most important role. In contrast, in the category ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’, it is not so much a matter of technological development as of the development of concepts. It evolved from our analysis that the objectives of such projects are to analyse internal material and energy flows, to appropriately choose from the existing technologies for the treatment of the waste and emissions generated (to achieve the required quality and to enable their internal reuse), as well as to assess or demonstrate their actual internal reuse. The prevention targets are, again, to exclusively reduce (or minimise) the amount of waste and emissions generated, and thus commensurately of the level of resources consumed. In these projects, the producers of process technologies are only rarely involved. For the most part, those involved with such projects are the users of existing process technologies (for which internal reuse has to be developed), together with institutions having know-how in general process engineering as well as in ecology. In the case of ‘substitution of input materials’, the objective is, again, not so much a matter of technological development but to test new environmentally sound input materials in existing process technologies, as well as to adapt existing process technologies to achieve the required product quality. In terms of prevention, the target is usually to reduce (or minimise) the hazards of the waste and emissions generated. As a rule, these projects are planned by the users of existing process technologies, together not only with institutions having knowhow in general process engineering and ecology but also with the producers of the new input materials.
)
technologies’
2X 2X
I x I x (1 x ) I x
133
submitted
to the programme
‘Industrial
Power supply Industry general (e.g. noise) Metal manufacture Tannery Mining
6. Comparison of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ with the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ For the projects from the type ‘source-level prevention’, the comparison of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ with the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ results in the following three findings. First, three quarters of the projects of the type ‘source-level prevention’ (9 1) were submitted to the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’, and only one quarter (30) to the programme ‘Environment and Climate’. Second, the ‘development of more efficient process technologies’ can be found nearly exclusively in the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ (with 64 submissions) and only very rarely in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ (with only three submissions). Third, the projects concerning the ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ and the ‘substitution of input materials’ were divided between the two programmes nearly equally. The high share of projects of the type ‘source-level prevention’ in the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ results in the large number of projects concerning ‘development of more efficient process technologies’. The development of more efficient process technologies is the main objective of the analysed subprogramme of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’. The high share of projects concerning ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ and ‘substitution of input materials’ in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ is caused by the objectives of the analysed subprogramme. The cleaner technology objectives of the analysed subprogramme are focused more on in-process recycling and replacement of toxic substances than on development of more efficient process technologies. 7. Assessment of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ and ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ The results show that in the environmental programme of the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU-
134
W. Schramm, R. Hack.stock/Jounal
despite the explicit invitation for tenders of ‘cleaner technologies and cleaner products’ (in the examined subprogramme)-projects with cleaner production objectives have a relatively low share in relation to endof-pipe technologies. Only 15% of all submissions and 20% of all approvals concern cleaner production. Promoting the development of end-of-pipe technologies is, with 69% of projects submitted and 53% of projects approved, obviously still given considerable importance, particularly ‘clarification of air and wastewater’ and ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’. Concerning the stimulation of the development of ‘cleaner products’, it must be said that the programme ‘Environment and Climate’, at least with its first call for tenders, failed completely. Only 1% of the projects submitted was on this theme. Furthermore, the distinctly below-average rate of approvals must be mentioned, which is obviously due to the low quality of the project proposals in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’. Not only were the highest rated proposals approved but also those evaluated as one category worse. In contrast, in the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’, the share of cleaner-production projects is, with 65% of submissions and 70% of approvals, pleasantly high. But this is relative, because the objective of the examined subprogrammes explicitly concerned cleaner production or recycling technologies. Hence, it is more astonishing that, without an explicit call for tenders, projects in the field of ‘clarification of air and wastewater’ were not only submitted (15%) but also approved (7%). But from the cleaner production point of view as well as from the point of view of the programme, the examined subprogrammes of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ can definitely be classified as successful because of the impressive numbers of submitted and approved cleanerproduction projects.
8. Recommendations future programmes
concerning the composition of
In spite of the success of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’, more support for cleaner technologies will be necessary in the future-especially in relation to the end-of-pipe technologies-to stimulate the transition to a sustainable economy. In view of these results, the following recommendations can be made concerning the composition of future programmes. For the promotion of source-level prevention, it seems appropriate to place a stronger focus on future programmes in accordance with the different types of projects identified (‘development of more efficient process technologies’, ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ and ‘substitution of input materials’). It could be useful to create special focuses within these project
of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 129-134
categories, for example, a thematic focus on internal reuse of water in the sub-category ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ as was the case in the analysed projects. For future submissions, it is very important to ensure high quality in the project proposals so as to achieve a satisfactory rate of approval. Additionally it is very important to increase the number of submitted projects in the field of cleaner technologies. The number was not satisfactory in the analysed subprogramme of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’. European researchers should be better informed of possible sources of support and funding of cleaner technology projects. Cleaner products must be given an essentially stronger role in the future because of the necessary transition to a sustainable economy. The support given through the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ proved to be entirely insufficient. In the future, special subprogrammes for the promotion of cleaner products are clearly necessary7.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Austrian Ministry of the Environment for support of the research work connected with this article as well as three anonymous referees for their helpful comments.
References [l] European Commission (DG XIII), The Fourth Framework Programme-General Information, Brussels, 1994. [2] European Commission (DG XII), Environment and Climate, 19941998, Workprogramme, Brussels, 1994. [3] European Commission (DG XII), Industrial and Materials Technologies (B&e-EuRam III), 1994-1998, Workprogramme, Brussels, 1994. [4] European Commission, Environment and Climate, Data Sheets, Volume 3, Brussels, 1995. [5] European Commission, Industrial and Material Technologies, Proposal Reports, Volumes 2 and 3, Brussels, 1995. [6] Schramm W, Hackstock R. Cleaner Technologies im 4. Rahmenprogramm der EU-Analyse der eingereichten Projekte (Cleaner Technologies in the Fourth Framework Programme of the EUAnalysis of the Submitted Projects), report to the Austrian Ministry of the Environment, Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, June 1996. [7] Schramm W. Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(4):291-300. [8] See, for instance, US Environmental Protection Agency, Facility Pollution Prevention Planning Guide, Cincinnati, 1992.
’ Stimulating the development of cleaner products by the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ was not considered in this article. But there exists no subprogramme exclusively or at least mainly concerning the subject of cleaner products in the work programme (see Ref. [3]).
of Cleaner
Cleaner technologies
Production
6
(1998) I29- 134
in the Fourth Framework of the EU
Programme
Wilhelm Schramm *, Roger Hackstock’ Institute
of Technology
Assessment,
Austrian
Academy
of Sciences.
Postgasse
7/4/3, A-1010
Vienna, ,4ustria
Abstract The role of cleaner technologies in the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU is of major importance for research and technological development. This article presents an analysis of projects submitted in the field of cleaner technologies for the industrial sector. The analysis encompasses the programmes ‘Environment and Climate’ and ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’. Both the objectives and contents of the projects concerning source-level prevention are investigated in detail; the results of both pro-
grammes are compared with each other as well as assessed, In addition, recommendations are made concerning the composition of future programmes. 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords:
Cleaner
technologies;
Cleaner
process
technologies;
Research
1. Introduction The Framework Programme of the EU for Research and Technological Development is of key importance for technological development in Europe. The Fourth Framework Programme ran from 1994 to 1998, and the subsequent Fifth Framework Programme is planned for 1998-2002. The Fourth Framework Programme particularly aims at the promotion of the scientific and technical basis of the European industry in order to make it competitive with the competitors (USA, Japan). In addition, it supports improvement of the utilisation and commercial exploitation of research results to overcome European shortcomings in the field of technology transfer as well as improvement of the coordination between the research policies of the member states. Not least, the Fourth Framework Programme is intended to have a technological influence on EU policy as a whole, e.g. on environment policy. Support is provided for the following sectors: information and communication technologies, industrial and materials technologies, environment, life sciences and biotechnologies, energy and
and development;
0959-6526/98/$19.00 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: SO959-6526(98)00009-2
Fourth
Framework
Programme
of the EU
transport as well as socio-political research [ 11. From the point of view of cleaner production. it is very interesting to know how well the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU actually supports the development of cleaner technologies, which technologies are especially stimulated, and what recommendations can be made concerning the composition of future programmes. This article answers these questions. It analyses project proposals submitted to the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU*.
2. Analysis of project proposals submitted to the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU In the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU cleaner technologies are supported in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ and in the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’3. In the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ [2], the support of
* This article is part of the research project ‘Cleaner Technologies Framework Programme of the EU-Analysis of the Suhmitted Projects’ which was supported by the Austrian Ministry of the Environment. ’ Programmes concerning cleaner technologies in agriculture, transport, and energy are not analysed in this article. in the Fourth
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 43-l-51581/592; fax: + 43-l. 5131145; c-mail: [email protected] I Present address: Austrian Energy Agency, Linke Wienzeile 18,A1060 Vienna, Austria.
Industry
130
W. Schramm, R. Hackstock/Joumal
of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 129-134
Table 1 Analysed subprogrammes of the programmes ‘Environment and Climate’ and ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ Subprogramme
Programme
Technologies to protect and rehabilitate the environment Development of clean production technologies Technologies for recovering products at the end of their lifecycle
Environment and Climate Industrial and Materials Technologies Industrial and Materials Technologies
cleaner technologies is the task of the subprogramme ‘Technologies to protect and rehabilitate the environment’. This subprogramme is investigated in this article. In the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ [3] the subprogramme for the support of cleaner technologies is ‘Development of clean production technologies’ and to some extent the subprogramme ‘Technologies for recovering products at the end of their lifecycle’. Both subprogrammes are also analysed in this article. Project proposals, which were only assigned with second priority to the subprogramme ‘Development of clean production technologies’ are included in our study4. Table 1 gives an overview of the programmes and subprogrammes analysed. The objective of the subprogramme ‘Technologies to protect and rehabilitate the environment’ is to contribute to the elimination or mitigation of priority environmental problems by developing solutions of wide ranging and general applicability. Several research tasks exist within this subprogramme, the aim of one of these is explicitly to support cleaner technologies and cleaner products. The other tasks concern recycling technologies and endof-pipe technologies. The objective of the subprogramme ‘Development of clean production technologies’ is similar but focuses more on cleaner technologies. The aim of this subprogramme is to support development of cost-effective non-polluting processes and pollution prevention technologies, emphasising the efficient use of material and energy resources, and reduction or elimination of polluting wastes at their source. In contrast to this, the objective of the subprogramme ‘Technologies for recovering products at the end of their lifecycle’ is development of technologies to convert disposed-of products into saleable products, either as raw materials for other processes, or as materials or parts for new products. The analysis of this article is based on the investigation of the project proposals which were submitted to the first invitation of tenders (17 January 1995-27 April 1995 ‘Environment and Climate’; 15 December 199415 March 1995 ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’). Project information is taken from the corresponding reports of the European Commission [4,5]. The abstracts 4Each group of researchers has to assign their projects to one subprogramme with first priority and to another subprogramme with second priority.
were investigated and, as a result, each project was assigned to one type of environmental technology5. For developments in the field of source-level prevention a modified version [7] of the internationally used [g] categories is used. The results of the analysis are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2.
3. Results of the analysis of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ In the analysed subprogramme of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’, only 14% of the submitted project proposals concern ‘source-level prevention’ in the production cycle, and only 1% aims at developing ‘cleaner products’. In contrast to this, the share of projects submitted to end-of-pipe technologies is 69%. One third of the submitted proposals falls into the category ‘clarification of air and wastewater’; another third is assigned to the ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’, and 3% concern ‘waste treatment’. Projects aiming at ‘recycling of waste and emissions’, as well as of ‘product recycling’, have together a modest share of 16%. In the case of approved proposals, the share of cleaner-production projects is higher. At least one fifth of the approved projects is concerned with ‘source-level prevention’ in production; and 7%, ‘cleaner products’. The increase in this percentage is to the detriment of projects in the categories ‘clarification of air and wastewater’ and ‘waste treatment’. In contrast to the share of 33% in the case of submissions from the category ‘clarification of air and wastewater’, the share of approvals is only 20%. In the category ‘waste treatment’, the situation is extreme. From the seven proposals submitted, not one project was approved. The share of projects from the type ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’ is, in terms of approved projects, consistently high and also dominant. The low rate of approval is very striking6. With 6.5%, it is far below the values for other programmes. In the category ‘source-level prevention’, the rate of approval
5Some projects are assigned to two categories because their objectives are of such a comprehensive nature. For more details of the method used see Ref. [6]. 6 The rate of approvals is defined as the quotient of the number of projects approved and the number of projects submitted.
W. Schramm, R. Hackstock/Journal
of Cleaner Production
6 (1998) 129-134
131
Inputmaterials
;OURCE-LEVEL
PREVENTIOh
Development of more efficient process technologies I Waste treatment internal reuse of waste and emissions generated
Y
Recycling waste and emissions
Substitution of input materials 1
1m
Product
r-l
Rehabilitation of contaminated sites 171(5)-
Total: legend:
projects Environment and Climate
Fig. 1.
Table 2 Results of analysis
Results
of the analysis
of the programme
Category
‘Environment
Programme Submitted
Cleaner products Source-level prevention production
of the programmes
projects
‘Environment
and Climate’ and ‘Industrial
and Climate’ and ‘Industrial
‘Environment
and Climate’ Approved
1218(15)=
Industrial and Materials Technologies
and Materials
Technologies’
Programme projects
and Materials
‘Industrial
Submitted
projects
Technologies’.
(in percent) and Materials
Technologies’
Approved
projects
1 14
I 20
1 64
0 70
Recycling of waste and emissions as well as product recycling
16
20
19
23
Clarification of air and waste water Waste treatment Rehabilitation of contaminated sites
33
20
15
I
3 33
0 33
0 1
0 0
100
100
100
100
Total
in
W. Schramm. R. Ha&stock/Journal
132
is about lo%, which is higher but nevertheless below average. In the case of ‘source-level prevention’, most of the projects submitted aimed at the goal of ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ (50%) or of a ‘substitution of input materials’ (40%). Only three out of a total of 30 projects concern the ‘development of more efficient process technologies’. However, one of these projects was approved. In contrast, only two projects from the category ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ were approved, and no projects from the category ‘substitution of input materials’. The ‘development of more efficient process technologies’ concerns the three industrial sectors of steel, chemicals and paper. In the case of ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ treating water for reuse forms, with eight out of 15 proposals submitted, a main thematic focus. An analogous but weaker main focus exists in the category ‘substitution of input materials’. It concerns the substitution of solvents containing volatile organic compounds. Table 3 summarises the objectives of the projects submitted and approved in the field of ‘source-level prevention’.
4. Results of the analysis of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ In the case of submissions, the category ‘source-level prevention’ is dominant in the analysed subprogramme of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’, with nearly two thirds (64%) of all projects submitted. The share of the both recycling categories (recycling of waste and emissions, and recycling of products at the end of their lifecycle) is, at 19%, somewhat higher than the share of technologies for ‘clarification of air and wastewater’ (15%). In contrast, only 1% of all submitted proposals aimed at ‘cleaner products’ and ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’ each. No proposal was submitted for the development of waste-treatment technologies.
Table 3 Objectives of submitted and approved of approved projects in italics)
projects
concerning
Internal
of more efficient
process
reuse of waste and emissions
Substitution
of input materials
In the case of approved project proposals, as many as 70% aim at ‘source-level prevention’ in production and 23% at recycling (again, both categories together). In contrast, only 7% of projects approved concern the development of end-of-pipe technologies, exclusively the category ‘clarification of air and wastewater’. No proposals were approved in the fields of ‘waste treatment’ and ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’; but neither were any projects approved for the develoment of ‘cleaner products’. In the part of the programme that was examined, the rate ofupprovaZ was 19.8%, as high as the values for other programmes. In contrast to this, it is about three times higher than in the subprogramme analysed from the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ (see Section 3). In the case of the category ‘source-level prevention’, 64 of the 91 projects submitted (70% of the total) are concerned with the ‘development of more efficient process technologies’. In contrast, the prevention themes ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ and ‘substitution of input materials’ are, with 10 and 17 projects, respectively, only rarely the object of submissions. In the case of approvals, the share is almost the same: 71% for ‘development of more efficient process technologies’, 10% for ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’, and 19% for ‘substitution of input materials’. The majority of the projects submitted from the category ‘development of more efficient process technologies’ concern the industrial sectors of chemicals (13 x ), electronics (10 x ), metal-working (7 x ) and paper (6 x ). Table 4 shows all the industrial sectors concerned. In the category ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ there exists a clear main focus: seven out of 10 projects submitted aim at internal water reuse, the same thematic focus as in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’. In the case of ‘substitution of input materials’, no main focus is recognisable.
prevention’
in the programme
‘Environment
and Climate’ (with objectives
Objectives
Field of prevention Development
‘source-level
of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 129-134
technologies generated
1 x pickling of steel, 1 x ethoxylation of alcohol and I x paper production with less chemicals 6 x wastewater, 2 x wastewater, 2 x solvents, 2 x refused teletubes, 1 x chromatic residuals from galvanic baths, 1 x chemicals from pulp production, and 1 x narcotics in medicine 3 x solvents, 1 x chromium-free leather, 1 x halon-free extinguishing agents, 1 x lacquer without primary coat, 1 x components of building materials, 1 x lubricants, 1 x detergents, 1 x oxidation-impeding materials, 1 x narcotics, 1 x chemicals for weed-killing
W. Schramm, R. Hackstock/Joumal
of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 129-134
Table 4 Industrial sectors covered by projects of the category ‘development of more efficient and Materials Technologies’ (number of approved projects in parentheses) 13 x 10 x IX
6x 3x 3x
Chemicals (5 x ) Electronics (1 x ) Metal working (4 Paper (1 x ) Petrochemicals (1 Automobile
x )
x )
3x 3x 3x 2x 2x 2x
process
Glass and ceramics (1 x Plastic processing Engine construction Textile (1 x ) Particle board manufacture Rubber manufacture
5. Objectives of the projects in the category ‘source-level prevention’ For the category ‘source-level prevention’, the analysis results in the following findings for the objectives of the projects submitted. In the case of the ‘development of more efficient process technologies’, technological development is understandably predominant. In each case, the prevention targets are to reduce (or minimise) the amount of waste and emissions generated, and thus commensurately of the levels of resources consumed. In this type of project, the producers of process technologies play the most important role. In contrast, in the category ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’, it is not so much a matter of technological development as of the development of concepts. It evolved from our analysis that the objectives of such projects are to analyse internal material and energy flows, to appropriately choose from the existing technologies for the treatment of the waste and emissions generated (to achieve the required quality and to enable their internal reuse), as well as to assess or demonstrate their actual internal reuse. The prevention targets are, again, to exclusively reduce (or minimise) the amount of waste and emissions generated, and thus commensurately of the level of resources consumed. In these projects, the producers of process technologies are only rarely involved. For the most part, those involved with such projects are the users of existing process technologies (for which internal reuse has to be developed), together with institutions having know-how in general process engineering as well as in ecology. In the case of ‘substitution of input materials’, the objective is, again, not so much a matter of technological development but to test new environmentally sound input materials in existing process technologies, as well as to adapt existing process technologies to achieve the required product quality. In terms of prevention, the target is usually to reduce (or minimise) the hazards of the waste and emissions generated. As a rule, these projects are planned by the users of existing process technologies, together not only with institutions having knowhow in general process engineering and ecology but also with the producers of the new input materials.
)
technologies’
2X 2X
I x I x (1 x ) I x
133
submitted
to the programme
‘Industrial
Power supply Industry general (e.g. noise) Metal manufacture Tannery Mining
6. Comparison of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ with the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ For the projects from the type ‘source-level prevention’, the comparison of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ with the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ results in the following three findings. First, three quarters of the projects of the type ‘source-level prevention’ (9 1) were submitted to the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’, and only one quarter (30) to the programme ‘Environment and Climate’. Second, the ‘development of more efficient process technologies’ can be found nearly exclusively in the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ (with 64 submissions) and only very rarely in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ (with only three submissions). Third, the projects concerning the ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ and the ‘substitution of input materials’ were divided between the two programmes nearly equally. The high share of projects of the type ‘source-level prevention’ in the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ results in the large number of projects concerning ‘development of more efficient process technologies’. The development of more efficient process technologies is the main objective of the analysed subprogramme of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’. The high share of projects concerning ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ and ‘substitution of input materials’ in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ is caused by the objectives of the analysed subprogramme. The cleaner technology objectives of the analysed subprogramme are focused more on in-process recycling and replacement of toxic substances than on development of more efficient process technologies. 7. Assessment of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ and ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ The results show that in the environmental programme of the Fourth Framework Programme of the EU-
134
W. Schramm, R. Hack.stock/Jounal
despite the explicit invitation for tenders of ‘cleaner technologies and cleaner products’ (in the examined subprogramme)-projects with cleaner production objectives have a relatively low share in relation to endof-pipe technologies. Only 15% of all submissions and 20% of all approvals concern cleaner production. Promoting the development of end-of-pipe technologies is, with 69% of projects submitted and 53% of projects approved, obviously still given considerable importance, particularly ‘clarification of air and wastewater’ and ‘rehabilitation of contaminated sites’. Concerning the stimulation of the development of ‘cleaner products’, it must be said that the programme ‘Environment and Climate’, at least with its first call for tenders, failed completely. Only 1% of the projects submitted was on this theme. Furthermore, the distinctly below-average rate of approvals must be mentioned, which is obviously due to the low quality of the project proposals in the programme ‘Environment and Climate’. Not only were the highest rated proposals approved but also those evaluated as one category worse. In contrast, in the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’, the share of cleaner-production projects is, with 65% of submissions and 70% of approvals, pleasantly high. But this is relative, because the objective of the examined subprogrammes explicitly concerned cleaner production or recycling technologies. Hence, it is more astonishing that, without an explicit call for tenders, projects in the field of ‘clarification of air and wastewater’ were not only submitted (15%) but also approved (7%). But from the cleaner production point of view as well as from the point of view of the programme, the examined subprogrammes of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ can definitely be classified as successful because of the impressive numbers of submitted and approved cleanerproduction projects.
8. Recommendations future programmes
concerning the composition of
In spite of the success of the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’, more support for cleaner technologies will be necessary in the future-especially in relation to the end-of-pipe technologies-to stimulate the transition to a sustainable economy. In view of these results, the following recommendations can be made concerning the composition of future programmes. For the promotion of source-level prevention, it seems appropriate to place a stronger focus on future programmes in accordance with the different types of projects identified (‘development of more efficient process technologies’, ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ and ‘substitution of input materials’). It could be useful to create special focuses within these project
of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 129-134
categories, for example, a thematic focus on internal reuse of water in the sub-category ‘internal reuse of waste and emissions generated’ as was the case in the analysed projects. For future submissions, it is very important to ensure high quality in the project proposals so as to achieve a satisfactory rate of approval. Additionally it is very important to increase the number of submitted projects in the field of cleaner technologies. The number was not satisfactory in the analysed subprogramme of the programme ‘Environment and Climate’. European researchers should be better informed of possible sources of support and funding of cleaner technology projects. Cleaner products must be given an essentially stronger role in the future because of the necessary transition to a sustainable economy. The support given through the programme ‘Environment and Climate’ proved to be entirely insufficient. In the future, special subprogrammes for the promotion of cleaner products are clearly necessary7.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Austrian Ministry of the Environment for support of the research work connected with this article as well as three anonymous referees for their helpful comments.
References [l] European Commission (DG XIII), The Fourth Framework Programme-General Information, Brussels, 1994. [2] European Commission (DG XII), Environment and Climate, 19941998, Workprogramme, Brussels, 1994. [3] European Commission (DG XII), Industrial and Materials Technologies (B&e-EuRam III), 1994-1998, Workprogramme, Brussels, 1994. [4] European Commission, Environment and Climate, Data Sheets, Volume 3, Brussels, 1995. [5] European Commission, Industrial and Material Technologies, Proposal Reports, Volumes 2 and 3, Brussels, 1995. [6] Schramm W, Hackstock R. Cleaner Technologies im 4. Rahmenprogramm der EU-Analyse der eingereichten Projekte (Cleaner Technologies in the Fourth Framework Programme of the EUAnalysis of the Submitted Projects), report to the Austrian Ministry of the Environment, Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, June 1996. [7] Schramm W. Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5(4):291-300. [8] See, for instance, US Environmental Protection Agency, Facility Pollution Prevention Planning Guide, Cincinnati, 1992.
’ Stimulating the development of cleaner products by the programme ‘Industrial and Materials Technologies’ was not considered in this article. But there exists no subprogramme exclusively or at least mainly concerning the subject of cleaner products in the work programme (see Ref. [3]).