 |
|||||||
| About UNEP | UNEP offices | News centre | Publications | Calendar | Awards | Milestones | UNEP Store |
|
|||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
||
| UNEP>DTIE>IETC | |
|
|
3.6 Step 4: Comparative assessment of alternative technologies This step requires the assessor(s) to consider if there are alternative ways to achieve the same goals as those to be met by the existing or proposed technology. These alternatives may be either macro (e.g. a significantly different approach) or micro (e.g. a variation of the same process) in nature. The assessor(s), working on behalf of all interested parties, must decide whether to consider only macro or micro alternatives, or both. Step 4 provides the opportunity to assess if the alternative technologies are likely to have significantly higher or lower environmental impacts than the proposed technology. At the end of this step it should be possible to identify whether there is a feasible alternative technology intervention that is associated with less adverse impacts on environmental and related systems. Background As noted earlier, the ultimate purpose of an EnTA is to inform the decision makers, and the stakeholders, at the scooping stage of the technology investment project. Ideally, therefore, the assessment is not limited to examining just one proposed technology intervention. Rather, if the aim of adopting best practices is pursued, the assessment will identify and consider a range of alternative technologies, some of which might well have been overlooked if a formal EnTA had not been undertaken. Each alternative technology should, by and large, be capable of fulfilling the articulated generic goals of the intervention. A check list that will assist in making this assessment is provided as Worksheet B. Completing Step 4 a. Identify and briefly describe alternatives to the technology being assessed Desirably, one or more alternative ways to achieve the goals for the technology intervention (as identified in Step 1d) should be listed, and the specific nature of each alternative intervention described. Generally "No new intervention" (that is, maintain the status quo) should also be considered as a possible alternative. b. Evaluate the degree to which each alternative satisfies the goals that must be achieved by the technology intervention With reference to each of the goals to be satisfied by the intervention, compare the extent to which the alternative technology will achieve the goal, relative to the performance of the existing or originally proposed technology. For each goal the relevant box (or boxes if there is uncertainty or indecision) should be checked, and subsequently an assessment should be made with respect to all goals combined. c. For each alternative technology, compare its potential impacts and economic viability, relative to the technology being assessed This step evaluates the alternative technologies in terms of the potential environmental impacts and overall economic viability. In all cases the assessment is relative to the performance of the existing or proposed technology. The findings of this and Step 4b will, to a large extent, help decide if a more comprehensive assessment of an alternative technology is appropriate. Each alternative technology is assessed in terms of its environmental impacts and economic viability. The assessment involves a comparison with the environmental impacts and economic viability of the proposed technology, as determined in Step 3. To aid the comparison, the letter codes used in Step 3 to describe the corresponding environmental impacts and the overall economic viability of the proposed technology should be transferred to the worksheets for Step 4. Thus, for each of the environmental endpoints and for the economic viability, the conclusions reached in Step 3 should be transferred to the column labelled "Impact or viability of assessed technology". In each case the descriptor will be one of the following, as appropriate to the context:
As noted above, the environmental impacts and economic viability for each of the alternative technologies are expressed relative to the level of impacts and economic viability identified for the assessed technology. A five point scale (much worse, slightly worse, similar, slightly better, much better) is used. Guidance on the categories of environmental impacts can again be obtained by consulting Worksheet A. It should be noted that this evaluation of each alternative technology is a very simplified analysis - described in Section 2.8 as the "Short Form". Where appropriate, each alternative technology should be evaluated to the same extent as the proposed technology, through the completion of Steps 1 to 3 - described in Section 2.8 as the "Long Form". d. Conclusions regarding alternative technology interventions As a result of this rapid comparative analysis it may be possible to reach a consensus regarding the performance of an alternative technology, in terms of the goals to be satisfied, the environmental outcomes and the economic performance. Provision is made for an elaboration of the information gaps and associated uncertainties in the assessment. This information is used when arriving at a decision as to whether it is possible to reach a consensus regarding the relative performances of the alternative technology options. If the information gaps, the uncertainties or other considerations make it impossible to reach a consensus it may be appropriate to conduct a more comprehensive assessment for one or more of the alternative options - that is, use the "Long Form" of the assessment procedures.
|
