Manual on the Development of Cleaner Production Policies ... - Unido

DEVELOPMENT OF CP POLICY
MODULE 1: INTRODUCING CP
SLIDE: Evolution of approach to environmental protection
• No action and/or lack of recognition for the problem until mid-20th
century
• Dispersion/“solution by dilution” (the 1960s)
• End-of-pipe treatment (the 1970s)
• Recycling and energy recovery (the 1980s)
• Cleaner production and preventive measures (the 1990s)
• In the future: dematerialization? Industrial ecology?
This slide presents a short overview of how the approach to environmental
protection has evolved over the years. The goal is to track its evolution, from
the lack of pollution control, to CP and preventive measures. At this point, it
may also be useful to highlight the difference between end-of-pipe pollution
control and CP and the preventive approach.
Background
Industry continues to be a major cause of environmental problems, both globally and locally. It has a
strong influence on both the local environmental situation and quality of life. In recent years, the
serious impact of municipal operations on the state of local environment has attracted attention. Over
the past decades, the industrialized nations have responded to pollution and environmental degradation
in five characteristic ways:
1. By not recognizing—or ignoring—the problem of environmental pollution;
2. By diluting or dispersing pollution, so that its effects are less harmful or apparent;
3. By seeking to control pollution and wastes (the end-of-pipe or pollution control approach);
4. By trying to develop and improve environmental technology that will help close the loops in
material flow streams during the production process, and facilitate reuse and recycling, and
5. Most recently, by implementing Cleaner Production through the prevention of pollution and
waste generation at source.
In the past, command and control methods were widely used by environmental agencies until their
disadvantages became apparent. Traditional pollution control solutions proved less effective than they
initially appeared, and there came a point beyond which further requirements became prohibitively
expensive. More often than not, end-of-pipe technology simply shifted waste or pollutants from one
environmental medium to another, as in the case of air and water pollution control devices that
produced concentrated hazardous waste for leaking landfills. The most significant disadvantages of the
command and control method is that firstly, it does not allow companies to explore other, cheaper
ways to reduce pollution, and secondly that enforcement is both complicated and expensive because of
the need for a strong and qualified administration. All in all, pollution control approaches of the 1970s
and 1980s were no longer sufficient, and a new more flexible approach, had to be put in place that
allowed creative solutions to be developed jointly by industry, government and environmentalists.
In the mid-eighties, two new methods, the recycling of waste and energy recovery came into common
use, alongside the traditional pollution control approach. By the end of the decade, the common-sense
concepts of resource conservation, risk reduction and pollution prevention became widely accepted by
both governments and industry. The United States of America passed a Pollution Prevention Act in
PAGE 6