RESEARCH PROPOSAL FORM*

1. General information
Project title: Eco-industrial development: a new strategy for Kazakhstan
Project duration: 3 years
Location: Republic of Kazakhstan
Requested total budget in USD: US$1,980,875
Principal investigators, contact Professor Sarim al-Zubaidy, Nazarbayev University
details: sal-zubaidy@nu.edu.kz
and
Professor Anthony Clayton, University of the West Indies
anthony.clayton@uwimona.edu.jm

2. Project description
The section should include the following information: the purpose of the Project; scientific novelty and significance, the impact of
the results on the development of science and technology and the expected social and economic effects; a review of previous
research conducted in the world related to the topic under the study and their relationship with this Project.

Summary

Purpose
The purpose of this project is to map out a detailed development plan, showing how the Republic of Kazakhstan can utilize its
existing strengths, based on its large but finite hydrocarbon and uranium reserves, to become one of the world’s dominant energy
suppliers and market-makers for the indefinite future. This plan will support the further development of the existing energy
industry, while simultaneously minimizing environmental damage and also preparing for the next-generation energy technologies
that will eventually replace hydrocarbons. This will allow Kazakhstan to invest the revenues from its non-renewable energy
resources into an eco-industrial infrastructure that will sustain its economy far beyond the life of the existing reserves.

Scientific novelty, significance, impact, social and economic effects

The project is scientifically innovative, ambitious and significant. It will apply concepts of cleaner technology, industrial
symbiosis, renewable and low-carbon energy technologies, clustering and regional innovation systems, translate them into
Kazakhstan’s political and economic context, and develop a detailed map for national development.

This is a high-impact project. The goal is a social and economic transformation of Kazakhstan, reducing its dependence on finite
reserves and foreign investment, building human capital, strengthening the scientific and technical skill base, resolving economic
development constraints, protecting the environment and supporting environmental remediation of the regions of Kazakhstan that
have already been badly damaged. This will provide a basis for the sustainable development of Kazakhstan, combining economic
development and prosperity with a reducing rate of environmental harm.

Links to prior research

There is an extensive literature on cleaner technology, industrial symbiosis, renewable and low-carbon energy technologies,
clustering and regional innovation systems. These have not previously been combined into an integrated national development
plan. The project would therefore make Kazakhstan a world-leader in this regard.

*
NU requirement for the external peer review purposes: Research Proposal (including tables, charts and bibliography) should not exceed 15 pages limit.
Please submit complete proposals in PDF format. Proposal supporting data consists of a 2 page CV (also in PDF) of the Principal Investigator and possibly
other 1 page CV’s of other key personnel (Co-PI, etc.).

1
Proposal

Introduction

The global economic transition

There has been a dramatic shift in the global economy over the last two decades, with many manufacturing activities relocating to
developing economies. As a result, China’s GDP has increased 16-fold, and its share of global manufacturing has grown from 2.9%
to 20%. It has moved from being the 10th largest economy in the world to the second largest, and it is likely to overtake the USA as
the world’s largest economy within the next decade. However, the growth rates in BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and
China) have been surpassed by the ‘N-11’ group (Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines,
South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam) and the CIVETS group (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, and South Africa).
These rapidly growing economies are being followed, in turn, by an expanding and increasingly diverse group of countries,
including Uzbekistan, Thailand and Ghana; while of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world between 2000 and 2010, six
were African. As a result of these trends, by 2030 about half of world GDP will be generated in countries that are today still classed
as developing. This will be one of the fastest and most profound shifts in world economic power in human history.

The implications for energy and resources

As part of this economic transformation, the global pattern of resource demand and environmental impacts is changing with equal
speed. Current IEA projections indicate that world energy consumption will grow by about 50% by 2030, from 495 quadrillion
BTU (QBTU) to 739 QBTU, with developing countries creating about 75% of that increased demand. This is partly because of the
rapid development of countries such as China and India, and partly because 30% of the world’s population still does not have
reliable energy services, so far more energy will be needed in future as the world population is projected to be over 9 billion by
2070. If this demand continues to be met predominantly from hydrocarbons, demand for oil will increase by almost 40% and coal
by almost 75% over the same period. This will make it impossible to meet carbon reduction targets, resolve the problems of climate
change and meet national needs for energy security without very significant improvements in energy efficiency and productivity.

Climate change
The World Bank ‘Turn Down the Heat’ report (November 2012) concluded that the world’s average surface temperature is now
0.8° higher than the pre-industrial levels, primarily as a result of the emission of greenhouse gases, and that it could be 4°C higher
by 2060, even if current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission pledges and commitments are met in
full. Without a major change in policy, the temperature will continue to rise; it could be 6°C higher by 2100. This level is likely to
trigger ecological catastrophe, as many parts of the world will become effectively uninhabitable. Southern Europe, for exampl e,
would then have a similar climate to the Libyan Desert.

The main driver of climate change is the world’s high level of dependence on fossil hydrocarbons as fuel. This results in emi ssions
of carbon dioxide, currently 35 billion metric tons per year, and projected to rise to 41 billion metric tons per year in 2020. Recent
World Bank and International Energy Agency reports have warned that the continued commissioning of coal, oil and gas power
infrastructure will ‘lock in’ a path of increasing greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.

To put this in context; in order to ensure that the temperature rise remains below 2 degrees, IPCC estimates suggest that it would be
necessary for the OECD nations to peak their emissions by 2015/16 at the latest, and fully decarbonize their economies by 203 0,
and the non-OECD nations to peak by 2025, and fully decarbonize by 2050. This is unlikely to happen; China is now the world’s
largest carbon emitter, and its emissions are still rising. Recent assessments indicate that China’s carbon emissions will not peak
until 2030-2040, or perhaps 2050. The particular significance of this is that on business-as-usual growth projections, China will by
then be emitting almost as much carbon (equivalent) as the USA, India and the EU combined. This is why the world temperature
rise is now likely to be at least 4°C.

Future world
It therefore appears likely that national development options will be increasingly shaped by a small set of key factors, initially
including surging demand for energy and materials from emerging economies and potential shortages of some key resources, but
then followed by potential environmental disaster unless there are dramatic improvements in the efficiency with which energy and
resources are used. It is now clear that it will be impossible to meet carbon reduction targets, resolve the problems of climate
change and meet national needs for energy security without significant improvements in energy efficiency and productivity.

The world is making some progress. In 1980, the global energy system was just 34% efficient. Today, the global energy system is
39% efficient, but this still means that over 60% of total latent energy input is still being lost, rather than converted into useful
energy. About half of the ‘missing’ energy is lost in energy generation and transmission, the rest is lost as a result of leaky
buildings, inefficient appliances and so on. Current estimates suggest that greater efficiency in energy generation and transmission,

2
and more energy-efficient buildings, appliances, industrial processes and transport systems could make the global energy system
50-60% efficient by 2040.

There are many opportunities to improve efficiency. For example, buildings are responsible for more than one third of global
energy use. This includes the energy required in the mining, manufacturing, transport and assembly of building materials, and the
final demolition and recycling of structures, but the greatest demand is generated in the use and operation of the building. As a
result, buildings are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions. Building-related emissions were estimated at 8.6 billion
tons in 2004, and this is projected to double by 2030. The residential sector alone (i.e. not including office, industrial an d public
buildings) accounts for 25% of total end-use demand, and 19% of global GHG emissions. The paradox is that currently available
technologies could reduce energy consumption in buildings by about 30-50% without significantly increasing investment costs.
Even modest improvements in building efficiency could reduce world end-use demand for energy by 32 QBTU by 2020. For
example, in March 2008, the UK Government set a target of making all new schools and domestic buildings zero-carbon by 2016,
and all non-domestic buildings by 2019. On 23rd April 2009, the European Parliament agreed to amend the Energy Performance of
Buildings Directive to require that by 2019 all new buildings must be net zero energy; i.e. that they produce the same amount of
energy that they consume. This does not require buildings to be self-sufficient in power, but allows for cost-effective balancing of
supply and demand; buildings may purchase energy from the grid when their loads exceed their generating capacity, and sell
energy from their on-site generation technologies back to the grid when their loads are low.

In developing countries alone, an investment of $90 billion in energy efficient investments in buildings is expected to generate
savings of over $600 billion in avoided energy costs. An estimated 3.6 billion tons of greenhouse emissions could be avoided
through energy efficiency measures in buildings by 2050 at net zero cost, and significantly greater savings at moderate cost.
However, much more still needs to be done in order to avert the threat of climate change.

It is clear, therefore, that there is significant potential to use better design and improved technology to give much more efficient use
of energy, thereby improving economic productivity and helping to mitigate climate change.

The impact of technological change

It is also important to note, however, that every significant technological change has implications for the economy, as new
solutions eventually render previous designs and technologies redundant. The most immediate impact is usually on the labour
market, as new skills are required, while old skills lose their value. Most of these changes are very positive, overall, but some can
be negative (usually for the low-skilled), and typically difficult to predict in detail. For example, while early mechanization
replaced muscle-power with machines, and the development of information systems made it unnecessary to use people for many
basic data-collection and processing tasks, the current transition to intelligent software is now starting to make many formerly
skilled tasks redundant.

Some major technological changes can affect entire nations, especially those which are dependent on a relatively narrow economic
base. Countries that depend largely on a small range of commodity exports, for example, will prosper when prices are high, but
may then see their incomes collapse when world prices fall, or lower-cost suppliers enter the market, or when technological
substitution permanently reduces the need for a particular commodity. Another significant advance with the cost-effectiveness of
more energy-efficient solutions, or with new energy supplies (such as solar conversion or synthetic biofuels, for example), could
make many carbon-based fuel sources uneconomic, which would have dramatic effects on many national economies. A change of
fuel source has profound consequences for users as well. For example, experience in the EU with the transition towards greater use
of renewables has indicated that more decentralised energy production also requires the development of a smart electricity grid, and
that reliance on renewable sources also requires a new approach to energy security, energy reliability and risk, with the
development of new modes of backup.

These examples illuminate the complexity of technological choices; each choice has a different pattern of economic, social and
environmental outcomes. This highlights the vital importance of identifying those emerging technologies that can be most readily
assimilated and also support the development agenda of Kazakhstan. The task for Kazakhstan now is to find a development path
that reconciles human capital accumulation, sustained, high rates of economic growth, rising levels of resource efficiency and
increasing environmental protection.

Many sectors in Kazakhstan still have a large untapped potential for positive change, to become far more efficient in terms of
resource use, less environmentally intensive, and less costly. However, there are still several technological, economic and
marketing barriers to widespread uptake. This project will help to identify and then resolve those barriers.

The proposed project will map out a range of technological choice and development options that will support Kazakhstan’s
successful development and emergence as a leading, next-generation ‘green’ economy.

3
The Republic of Kazakhstan
The Republic of Kazakhstan has been independent since 1991. It is the largest economy and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases
in Central Asia, largely due to its large energy industries, relatively extreme temperature range and weather conditions, and
physical size.

Physical
Kazakhstan is the ninth largest country in the world, with a total area of 2.7 million square kilometers. About 66% of the total area
of Kazakhstan is prone to desertification; just 4.6% of the land area is forested. Agriculture generated about 6% of GDP in 2009 †.
The main agricultural products are grain, cotton and livestock. The climate is continental, with hot summers and cold winters. The
average temperature for January ranges between -18°C (in the North) to -3°C (in the South) and in July from 19°C (in the North) to
29°C (in the South). Part of the country borders the Caspian Sea. The population is about 16 million, so the population density is
less than 6 people per square kilometer‡. The population is predominantly urban (now some 56-57% of the total).

Energy
Kazakhstan has large reserves of oil, gas and other minerals. Most current production is exported, which has contributed
significantly to economic growth. According to 2010 BP estimates, the resource base includes 39.8 billion barrels of oil reserves
(about 3% of the world’s total), 1.82 trillion m 3 of natural gas (1% of global reserves) and 31.3 billion metric tons of coal reserves
(3.8% of the world’s total)§. The Republic of Kazakhstan is a major exporter of oil and coal, and to a lesser extent a gas exporter. In
2009, the country produced 1.68 million barrels oil/day, as well as 51.8 Mton of coal (of which 85.4% was exported) and 32.2
billion m3 of gas (of which 33% was exported). Kazakhstan has also very significant potential for renewable resource development,
especially wind and hydropower for electricity production; and biomass production and conversion for biofuels **.

Uranium
Kazakhstan has 15% of the world's uranium resources, second only to Australia, which has 23% of the world’s total resources.
However, Kazakhstan became the world's leading uranium producer in 2009, with almost 28% of world production, rising to 33%
in 2010 and around 35% in 2011 (when the country produced some 19,450 tonnes U). The uranium mining sector is continuing to
expand, and further production increases are scheduled up to 2018. By contrast, in 2010-11 Australia produced just 7,000 tonnes of
uranium oxide concentrate; just over one-third of Kazakhstan’s volume††. Kazakhstan’s high volume of production has allowed the
country to build a dominant share of the world market, but it also means that the reserves will be depleted more rapidly.

Kazakhstan does not currently have any operating nuclear power stations. A single nuclear power reactor operated from 1972 to
1999 in Aktau, generating electricity and potable water (60% of its power output was used for heat and desalination). However,
Kazakhstan now relies heavily on coal, with 82% of electricity production being from coal-fired power stations. This is because of
the strategic decision that the country should become a nuclear-free state in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union,
which had stationed a large part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal in Kazakhstan. The country got Western encouragement and
assistance in dismantling the nuclear weapons and facilities. The weapons were either destroyed or moved to Russia; the
Semipalatinsk nuclear testing site in western Kazakhstan was closed; and all intercontinental ballistic missile silos were destroyed.

Now that the immediate threat has been resolved, it is time to reconsider nuclear power as a carbon-free energy source. In 2007, a
report by the Committee on Science and Technology in Kazakhstan identified the following areas as possible priorities for
government support; research and development of nuclear science and technology, assessment of nuclear power facilities,
radioecology and uranium mining. President Nazarbayev subsequently announced ambitious targets for Kazakhstan’s nuclear
energy capacity. These included becoming the world’s largest uranium producer by 2010 (this was achieved a year earlier),
becoming a ‘significant’ supplier of nuclear fuel (although the country is heavily dependent on Russian expertise and facilities in
several parts of the nuclear fuel cycle) and developing a nuclear power capability, including 20 new, small capacity (50-100 MW)
plants for small Kazakh towns.

However, Kazakhstan’s nuclear ambitions have been seriously impeded by a number of critical gaps and obstacles, including:
 The lack of skilled workers.
 Negotiations with Russia, Japan and China have yet to yield the expected technology and skills transfers.

†
Ministry of Environment Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2010. "Annual report" (in Russian).
‡
National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2010. "Census2010", available at: http://www.eng.stat.kz/news/Pages/n1_12_11_10.aspx
§
Mark J. Kaiser, Allan G. Pulsipher, 2007. ‘A review of the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan’, 35, 1300-1314.
**
D. Kline, L. Vimmerstedt and R. Benioff, 2004. ‘Clean energy technology transfer: A review of programs under the UNFCCC’, Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, 9, 1-35.
††
Australia is the world's third-ranking producer, behind both Kazakhstan and Canada.

4
  Inadequate regulatory structures for dealing with environmental impacts and the disposal of intermediate and low level
radioactive wastes from mining and – eventually – the wastes from a new nuclear energy industry.
 Public concern about nuclear safety and disposal of radioactive waste (and the legacy of Semipalatinsk and Fukushima
mean that public opposition may be higher in future).
 The search for suitable sites at which to bury nuclear waste is also a perennial concern, and often brings governments into
conflict with local inhabitants.
 Kazakhstan does not have a national electricity grid, which would be necessary to support a large-scale nuclear
programme, although it would not preclude small reactors.
 Nuclear power is typically more expensive than coal-fired power stations, which may require the introduction of carbon
charges in order to reduce the disparity.

The government therefore recently reaffirmed their commitment to building a nuclear power plant, but rephrased this as a long-
term objective, and noted that no decisions have yet been made on the type of reactor, the site or the timing of the project.

The nuclear value chain

Kazakhstan currently exports its uranium as yellowcake, which contains 70-90% triuranium octoxide (U3O8). The plan, however, is
to become a leading producer of nuclear fuel, capturing more of the value added to its uranium resources. The lack of local
expertise in this field, however, means that Kazakhstan relies on agreements with other countries who possess the technical
knowledge. Kazatomprom, the majority owner of the Ulba Metallurgical Plant at Ust-Kamenogorsk where fuel pellets are being
manufactured, has said that it aims to supply up to one third of the world fuel fabrication market by 2030, with China to be an early
major customer. In June 2008 Areva, the major French nuclear engineering company, signed a memorandum of understanding to
provide engineering expertise to build a 1200 t/yr fuel fabrication plant as part of the Ulba complex, utilising the fuel pellets
produced there. It will include a dedicated 400 t/yr line (51% owned by Kazatomprom, 49% Areva) specifically for fuel for French-
designed reactors, including those in China, starting production in 2014. CGNP has confirmed that Kazatomprom is to become a
major nuclear fuel supplier. The other 800 t/yr line will be owned by Kazatomprom. Kazatomprom is also negotiating technology
transfer agreements to enable it to supply fabricated fuel for Westinghouse reactors, now that it owns a 10% stake in Westinghouse.

It is clear that if Kazakhstan is to capture more added value from its uranium resources, then significant policy decisions will have
to be made to overcome the considerable challenges to extending along the uranium fuel cycle. The fortunes of the uranium
industry are almost completely dependent on the financial viability of nuclear power and, ultimately, technological advances in the
electric power generating industry. Few independent studies have attempted to examine the true global resource implications of the
nuclear fuel cycle, and its life-cycle emissions footprint has not in the past been fully costed when comparing it with the major coal
and gas generating fuels, so it is not yet clear whether nuclear power does represent the best way forward. However, concerns about
energy security, increasing demand, climate change and carbon pricing have changed (and will continue to change) these dynamics.
In addition, the potential for the next generation of nuclear power reactors to be financially viable based upon a smaller scale
reactor than those of the current generation provides an opportunity for more flexibility in the generation mix.

Another possible future scenario is the transition away from uranium to thorium. Thorium-based fuel cycles have been researched
over the last three decades in the UK, USA, Germany, India, Japan and Russia, and there is now a very active research program in
China. Thorium is more abundant than uranium, and the thorium fuel cycle produces less plutonium and other radioactive
transuranic elements than uranium. In principle, however, thorium can be used in most reactor types, so an option here is to pursue
a ‘no regrets’ strategy, where a possible future conversion to the thorium fuel cycle is factored into every new reactor design.

As this example suggests, there are significant complications (and associated risks) with making decisions regarding massive
infrastructure requirements that are very long term in nature; and which will effectively lock the country into a particular
development pathway. This makes it essential to take into account skills shortages, the need to ensure non-proliferation of
weapons-grade material, and possible public opposition to nuclear power and radioactive waste disposal. This makes it very
important to base decisions on a broad, integrated analysis, taking into account regulatory and life cycle data, assessing different
possible future technology scenarios, and incorporating the relevant governance measures.

Environmental issues
The Ministry of Environment Protection has supported efforts to reduce emissions and to switch to more efficient and
environmentally-friendly technologies. However, a number of serious environmental problems still remain. As of January 2010,
Kazakhstan had more than 43 billion tons of waste (including about 600 million tons of toxic materials), and this is increasing by
almost 700 million tons each year. The waste accumulation rate per person far exceeds the waste accumulation rate in most
European countries, mainly because of the high proportion of heavy industry to the relatively small population.

5
Around 43 major enterprises discharge about 2 million tons of industrial waste in the air of the cities of Kazakhstan. This represents
about 85% of all emissions in the country. The problems with airborne emissions are aggravated, however, by motor vehicles,
which contribute some 70-80% of polluting air emissions inside the major cities‡‡. Parts of the country are contaminated to a
significant level with persistent organic pollutants, chromium, lead, cadmium, zinc and other heavy metals, in addition to radiation
from the nuclear tests that were conducted in Soviet times. There are regular discharges of untreated or inadequately treated
wastewater into rivers and lakes. Total discharges of wastewater reached about 3 million tons in 2009. Partly as a result, general
public access to high-quality potable water is a pressing problem.

One environmental problem also threatens the energy industry; 19 oilfields with a total of 1,485 wells are located in flood-prone
areas bordering the Caspian Sea; and there are 90 oilfields in the permanent flooding zones. These pose a serious threat of
extensive sea contamination.

The Aral Sea region

The Aral Sea region is known globally as one of the world’s worst environmental disaster areas. The Aral used to be the fourth
largest lake in the world, with an area of 68,000 square kilometres, and a thriving fishing industry. In the early 1960s, the Soviet
government diverted the two main rivers that supplied water to the Aral Sea, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, to irrigate the
desert in Uzbekistan in order to grow cotton §§. The loss of water caused the Aral Sea to start drying up ***. By 2007, the sea's total
area had shrunk by 90%, leaving two lakes; the North Aral, in Kazakhstan, and the South Aral, in Uzbekistan. Kazakhstan is now
trying to save and replenish the North Aral Sea. A dam project was completed in 2005, between 2007 and 2008 the water level in
the North Aral rose by 24m. This has reduced the salinity, and some fish stocks are starting to recover. By contrast, the South Aral,
which is in Uzbekistan, is continuing to disappear, and its salinity is now over 100 g/L (almost three times more salt than seawater).

The receding sea left vast plains covered with salt and toxic chemicals, including weaponized pathogens dumped at a former Soviet
bioweapons facility on an island in the Aral Sea †††, industrial waste, pesticides and fertilizer runoff. This toxic dust is spread by the
wind to the surrounding area. The people in the area suffer from high rates of certain forms of cancer and respiratory diseases,
tuberculosis (most of which is drug resistant), digestive disorders, anaemia, and infectious diseases, as well as liver, kidney and eye
problems. There is a high child mortality rate of 75 per 1,000, and maternity deaths of 12 per 1,000 women. The agricultural
industry has been badly affected by salt being deposited onto the land, and the fishing industry, which formerly employed 40,000
people and produced one-sixth of the Soviet Union's fish catch, has largely disappeared.

Environmental expenditure
The Kazakhstan Agency for Statistics reports that annual expenditure on environmental protection in Kazakhstan has increased
some five-fold over the past ten years. This is shown in the figure below. Over 90% of the increased expenditure was incurred in
the Aktobe, Atyrau, Karaganda, Kostanai, Mangistau, Pavlodar, and East Kazakhstan regions. These regions are the main resource-
producing areas, so there is a clear correlation between the resource-intensive pattern of economic development of the Republic of
Kazakhstan and rising expenditure on environmental protection.

‡‡
Carol Dahl, Karlygash Kuralbayeva, 2001. ‘Energy and the environment in Kazakhstan’, Energy Policy, 29, 429-440.
§§
Uzbekistan became one of the world’s largest cotton exporters, but the industry is inefficient; nearly 90% of the irrigation canals do not have water-proof
lining, so most of the water now taken by Uzbekistan leaks or evaporates, while monoculture and poor farm management in Uzbekistan has depleted the soil,
so large quantities of pesticides and fertilizer are now used, and these also run off into the Aral.
***
‘Soviet cotton threatens a region's sea - and its children’. New Scientist. 18 November 1989.
†††
The facility was used for the development, testing and dumping of pathogenic weapons, including weaponized smallpox. It was abandoned in 1992. In
2002, a joint USA-Uzbekistan program decontaminated the anthrax burial sites, but other contaminants remain.

6
 Expenses related to environmental protection in Kazakhstan (2002-2011).

Carbon emissions
The Republic of Kazakhstan emitted 245.9 million tons of greenhouse gas in 2008. It is the largest greenhouse gas emitter in
Central Asia‡‡‡.

Energy efficiency
Kazakhstan has started to focus on energy efficient measures and environmental protection. The country is a party to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2009. This came with a commitment to
reduce the impact of climate change, including decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 15% by 2020, and by 25% by
2050 (taking 1992 as the baseline). In 2012, the President addressed the need for more energy-efficient technologies to reduce
energy costs, and tasked the Government to develop a plan to develop energy-efficient, non-oil industries§§§. The national program
for industrial and innovation development (2010-2014) aims to produce 1 billion kilowatts of power per year by 2014 from
renewable sources, and up to 1% of total energy production by 2015. The Government also adopted a law on renewable sources of
energy that provides favorable conditions to build and operate infrastructure for renewable energy projects****. Key international
partners include UNDP and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). They have been working closely with the Ministry of Industry
and New Technologies and other national partners to encourage the development of renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and environmental pollution, diversify the energy sector and create a positive ‘eco-image’ for the Republic of
Kazakhstan. UNDP and GEF will assist by training local technical staff and experts in the field of wind-power development††††.

The Project
The long-term development of the Republic of Kazakhstan will increasingly depend in the national ability to innovate, develop,
adopt and disseminate clean energy technologies. That will support the further development of the existing energy industry, while
simultaneously minimizing environmental damage and also preparing for the next-generation energy technologies that will
eventually replace hydrocarbons.

It is essential to develop a long-term strategy for sustainable development, combining economic development with a steadily-

‡‡‡
Theresa Sabonis-Helf, 2003. ‘Catching air? Climate change policy in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan’, Climate Policy, 3, 159-170.
§§§
‘A review of the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan’, Report by a Panel of Experts to Second Preparatory Committee Meeting for United Nations Conference
on Sustainable Development, available at:
http://www.sueddeutsches-
institut.de/GE/UNEP%20%5B2011%5D%20The%20Transition%20to%20a%20Green%20Economy%20Benefits,%20Challenges%20and%20Risks.pdf#page
=41
****
Indira Netalieva, Justus Wesseler , Wim Heijman, 2005. ‘Health costs caused by oil extraction air emissions and the benefits from abatement: the case of
Kazakhstan’, Energy Policy, 33, 1169-1177.
††††
D. Kline, L. Vimmerstedt and R. Benioff, 2004. ‘Clean energy technology transfer: A review of programs under the UNFCCC’, Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 9, 1-35.

7
reducing rate of environmental harm. This strategy will require strong environmental controls, but must also generate the revenues
needed to support the environmental remediation of the regions of Kazakhstan that have been badly damaged.

The Republic of Kazakhstan therefore needs a plan for a new eco-economic development program. This plan must be clear,
sequenced and time-tabled, and capable of being implemented in time to allow the Republic of Kazakhstan to invest the revenues
from its non-renewable energy resources into an eco-industrial infrastructure that will sustain the energy economy of this country
far beyond the life of its fossil fuel supply. The Republic of Kazakhstan follows the vision of its leader, who has given the mandate
and the resources to support this advanced model of eco-economic development.

One key goal is to create a modern, efficient, diversified and environmentally sustainable energy sector. The specific goals for the
sector are that it should provide affordable and accessible energy supplies, ensure long-term energy security; contribute to
international competitiveness by reducing the cost of energy in the productive sectors of the economy; and improve the quality of
life for citizens. This will require implementing more energy-efficient solutions to meet human needs, and developing new, low-
carbon energy sources that can supply the volumes required.

This must be a long-term, sustained effort, because the energy sector is characterized by its long lead times and the high costs of
policy mistakes. Investments in energy infrastructure are typically amortized over three decades or more. This means that the sector
tends to be conservative, with a high level of inertia, as there are usually long lags before new solutions can be implemented. The
Government therefore has to make energy efficiency and renewable energy a high priority, and they must remain consistent in this
regard for many years so that they give the energy sector clear signals as to the way forward.

Smart design, improved insulation, low energy appliances, high efficiency ventilation and heating/cooling systems, and the
behavior of users can all be market-driven, and have a significant impact, but a systemic transformation of the urban and industrial
environment is unlikely to happen until governments establish a policy framework that rewards life-cycle approaches to energy,
water and resource efficiency, and allows for the transfer of costs and benefits between successive operators down the supply chain,
supported by tools that allow the effect of energy and resource efficiency measures to be measured and verified. This project will
link to national and regional policy processes to ensure that lessons learned are reflected in government policies on energy,
planning, building and industrial development. This project will therefore help the Republic of Kazakhstan to significantly reduce
its energy intensity, which will reduce the country’s vulnerability to energy price shocks and improve competitiveness, while also
reducing environmental impact.

Project targets
This project has two key targets:
 Target 1: To develop a national strategy for cleaner technology.
 Target 2: To develop renewable energy and low-carbon energy technologies

Target 1: A national strategy for cleaner technology

It now appears that human activity can, potentially, affect the global ecology in ways and to an extent not previously thought
possible. Global warming, ozone depletion, soil erosion, deforestation, desertification, and species extinctions are all indicators of
the extent to which human activity is now altering the conditions for life on Earth.

It is also clear, however, that the process of industrialization and the associated economic growth has brought widespread
improvements in social progress. World average life expectancy, for example, increased from 47 years in 1950 to 64 years in 1995,
as the increased generation of wealth supported a significant increase in the standard of living, better infrastructure and improved
health care. Yet there are now profoundly serious questions as to whether these developments can continue indefinitely, given the
indicators of growing environmental stress, and also the limits as to the extent of remaining global resources available for
acquisition. So the next phase of economic development and growth must be based on increasing productive efficiency, so that
increasing economic value can be generated from a diminishing resource base. This will involve eliminating waste, recovering and
re-using materials, and replacing high-impact industrial process with ecologically-benign processes.

Increasing efficiency
There is considerable scope for such improvements. Weizsäcker, Lovins and Lovins (1997) argued that economic and
environmental factors can be reconciled, that it is both necessary and possible to double total wealth while simultaneously halving
total resource use, and that this can be achieved by increasing energy and resource-use productivity by a factor of four. They
support this argument by providing more than fifty examples, from a wide range of industries, of similar or greater improvements
in energy and resource-use productivity, including several examples of ten to one hundred-fold improvements. They point out the
vast scope for savings, noting that some 97% of the fuel energy employed for lighting is wasted, for example, and that some 99%

8
of the original materials contained in or used in the production of goods made in the US becomes waste within six weeks of the sale
of the finished product. The authors estimated that this astonishing inefficiency cost the US about US $1 trillion per annum -and
that, globally, the figure could be as much as US$10 trillion per annum. They also highlighted the multiple benefits that could flow
from such enhanced resource productivity, including an improved quality of life, a reduced rate of pollution and resource depletion,
enhanced profitability, improved market and business efficiency, better use of scarce capital, increased security (by reducing
conflicts over resources), greater equity and increased employment.

There are many important questions, of course, as to how Governments can best promote and initiate improvements in this
direction. Regulation is the method by which most governments control development, but there are problems with this approach, as
excessive regulation can hinder economic development by diverting the resources needed for research, development and innovation
into compliance, by increasing the financial and other risks of innovation, and by modifying market structure (by, for example,
imposing an above-average burden on those firms who, by the nature of their activity, faced particularly tough regulation).

So it is important to have a more intelligent, pro-innovation approach to regulation. There are models of regulation that can
promote innovation, by encouraging research and development, sometimes in new areas, and by creating new markets and new
opportunities to make profits. For example:
 Industrial symbiosis involves creating a web of interconnected industries, processing all residues currently classed as
waste into further useful products, thus maximizing the overall efficiency of human resource use.
 Cleaner production involves a reassessment of every stage of production, from resource extraction to waste disposal. It
usually involves a life cycle assessment of existing products and subsequent re-engineering of products or processes or the
substitution of low-impact processes and products for some of the existing production lines.

Industrial symbiosis and cleaner production systems offer a more effective approach to environmental improvement than traditional
methods of applying clean-up or end-of-pipe controls to existing dirty industrial processes, partly because many end-of-pipe
controls displace problems, rather than solving them, and partly because end-of-pipe controls themselves consume energy and
resources, and can thus increase the total energy and resource demand associated with a particular industrial process. Cleaner
solutions, by contrast, tend to be addressed to solving problems at their source, with the aim of eliminating problems entirely or
even of converting them into positive assets, which is why they are strongly associated with innovation.

These approaches allow businesses to save costs through more efficient resource utilization and reduced waste disposal costs, as
well as reducing pollution, thus offering a win-win solution. A cleaner solution can therefore confer a range of both environmental
benefits and economic benefits (including both immediate economic benefits through direct cost savings and more long-term
economic benefits from the development of innovative solutions, products, processes, technologies and materials that allow a firm
to expand into new markets). In addition, the integration of pollution prevention with process design can help firms to reduce the
risk of making an inefficient investment in pollution control technology.

It is clearly important, therefore, to examine the potential role and scope of cleaner technologies and production systems in
Kazakhstan, and to ask whether they can enable the greening of industry, the reconciliation of economic development and
environmental protection, and the utilization of the industrial base as a force for environmental restoration and social development.
The project team has significant expertise in this area, including an EU-funded project on resolving the barriers to the adoption of
cleaner technologies across Europe‡‡‡‡.

Target 2: Developing renewable energy and low-carbon energy technologies

The second key target is to develop a large industrial sector based on renewable (RE) and low-carbon (LCE) energy technologies.
This is because the risk of global environmental catastrophe will force the nations of the world to accelerate their transition to low-
carbon energy technologies, so the countries that develop renewable energy supplies, skills and technologies will be well-placed to
become dominant suppliers and traders in future energy markets. In order to position Kazakhstan to take advantage of this change,
it is important to create the institutional and technical capabilities needed to develop and implement renewable and low-carbon
energy technologies, and to support the formation and growth of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), as strong clusters
of SMEs form innovation hubs that allow many technological options to be pursued and developed at the same time. Recent
examples of this include Denmark (wind), Germany (photovoltaics) and Iceland and Australia (geothermal). One key feature of the
plan for Kazakhstan therefore involves the development of both sector-specific and cross-sectoral clusters of business and
industrial activity. The rationale is explained in the text box below.

‡‡‡‡
A Clayton, G Spinardi and R Williams. Strategies for Cleaner Technology: a new agenda for government and industry. Earthscan, London. 1999.

9
 A successful SME cluster consists of a dense local network of venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and technical innovators.
Geographical closeness (in conjunction with a range of business and leisure meeting venues and opportunities) allows
numerous, frequent interactions between these players, which means that anyone with a good technical idea has ready access to
an entrepreneur and a venture capitalist, while investors can develop detailed, specialist knowledge of particular lines of
enquiry, know the individuals concerned, and are therefore able to spot potential commercial winners at an early stage. The
success of Silicon Valley can be attributed, in part, to the willingness of venture capitalists to take equity stakes on a long-term
basis and to retain a close involvement in the commercial development of software concepts, frequently with a mentoring role.
The number of formal and informal interactions provides a rich information environment. Important technical ideas and market
information can be derived from a range of different sources, and assembled into creative new opportunities for projects. This
combination greatly accelerates the rate of new business formation.

Clusters also represent a wider ‘gene pool’ of skills than can be located within any one company. This is especially important
in technology-driven, rapidly developing markets, as the economic terrain within which companies have to operate is
particularly fluid. A new opportunity or challenge might oblige a company to acquire new skills at short notice. In a successful,
dense cluster, these new skills can be rapidly traced and acquired.

As clusters become more successful, they tend to become magnets, drawing in an expanding group of people with similar ideas
and ambitions. The Silicon Valley cluster, for example, had a small original nucleus at Stanford University, but then expanded
enormously and spread widely across California and Oregon. As clusters become centres of excellence, developing and
extending their lead over other areas, their wealth, infrastructure, technical ability and sophistication multiply accordingly, thus
widening the gap still further. Thus leads, once established, can become relatively locked-in and stable.

The role of SME clusters in Kazakhstan

A focus on building up SME clusters would encourage local innovation and new business formation, and also allow Kazakhstan to
diversify into new areas of energy technology and gradually reduce its high level of dependence on centralized large-scale energy
technologies, which are typically associated with large multinational enterprises.

This will require a new set of innovation policies - and very different capacity development strategies. One possible approach here
is to pattern the next phase of Kazakhstan’s development on the transition in the UK’s North Sea oil fields from large, vertically
integrated operations to consortia of smaller, specialized firms. This would generate opportunities to develop local capacity and
reduce dependence on foreign firms.

The concepts of clustering and regional innovation systems are well-established in the EU and the USA, but it will be necessary to
translate them into Kazakhstan’s different political and economic context. The project team has significant expertise in this area,
including a UK Economic and Social Research Council-funded project on 'Building Renewable Energy Innovation Systems'.

3. Methodology and ethical considerations

The section should include the following information: description of research methods (justifying the ways of achieving the
objectives of the Project, justifying the chosen research approach); ensuring compliance with the principles of scientific ethics,
ethical management procedures, maintaining high standards of intellectual honesty and avoiding the fabrication of scientific data,
falsification, plagiarism, false co- authorship, etc.; the conditions of registration and division of intellectual property rights; risk
management: critical points, alternative ways of implementing the project.

Output
The main output from this project is a national plan for a new eco-economic development program. This plan will be clear,
sequenced and time-tabled, and will allow the Republic of Kazakhstan to invest the revenues from its non-renewable energy
resources into an eco-industrial infrastructure that will sustain the economy of the nation. This plan will have two key components:
a strategy for cleaner technology, and a strategy for the development of renewable energy and low-carbon energy technologies.
A national strategy for cleaner technology: methodology
 The first phase of this part of the program will involve a strategic mapping of Kazakhstan’s industrial sectors in order to
identify the potential for cleaner technology and industrial symbiosis. This will include an initial assessment of the

10
 viability of programs to eliminate waste, recover and re-use materials, replace high-impact industrial process with
ecologically-benign processes and for material, resources and component exchanges as well as the potential savings.
 The second phase will involve collaborative action research with stakeholders in order to explore opportunities, and
identify the barriers to progress and the reforms required.
 The third phase will involve drawing up policy recommendations for the regulatory, legislative and fiscal changes needed
to enable progress towards eco-industrial development.
Developing renewable energy and low-carbon energy technologies: methodology
This involves identifying the steps required to create the institutional and technical capabilities needed to develop and implement
renewable and low-carbon energy technologies, and to support the formation and growth of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
(SMEs) that can form innovation hubs. This will allow many technological options to be pursued and developed at the same time,
encourage local innovation and new business formation, and allow Kazakhstan to diversify into new areas of energy technology.
 The first phase of this part of the program will involve a strategic mapping of the energy industry and related sectors in
order to identify (proto) clusters.
 The second phase will involve collaborative action research with stakeholders in potential renewable energy clusters. This
will involve working with these groups in order to identify the barriers to development, and therefore the changes needed
to enable a rapid rate of new business formation in a range of specialized high-technology clusters.
 The third phase will involve codifying the findings from the initial exploratory phase, and using this to develop a
questionnaire that will be administered across a range of potential clusters, thereby verifying and scaling up results.
 The fourth phase will involve drawing up policy recommendations for the innovation and business development strategies
needed to support eco-industrial development.
The information from these two project components will then be used as the basis for the national development plan.
Deliverables
The main deliverables from this project are as follows:
 A national plan for a new eco-economic development program. This plan will be clear, sequenced and time-tabled, and
will allow the Republic of Kazakhstan to invest the revenues from its non-renewable energy resources into an eco-
industrial infrastructure that will sustain the economy of the nation. This plan will have two key components:
 One component is a strategy to create a modern, efficient, diversified and environmentally sustainable energy sector,
which can provide affordable and accessible energy supplies, ensure long-term energy security; contribute to international
competitiveness by reducing the cost of energy in the productive sectors of the economy; and improve the quality of life
for citizens. This will require implementing more energy-efficient solutions to meet human needs, and developing new,
low-carbon energy sources that can supply the volumes required.
 The second component is a strategy for increasing productive efficiency, so that increasing economic value can be generated
from a diminishing resource base. This will involve eliminating waste, recovering and re-using materials, and replacing high-
impact industrial process with ecologically-benign processes.
Project management and ethics
The proposed methods are clear, appropriate, and focused on achieving the objectives of the project. The Principal Investigators are
a highly experienced international team, with an exceptionally strong track record. All necessary steps will to taken to ensure that
all aspects of the projects are managed with integrity, intellectual honesty, and to the highest ethical standards.

11
4. Project plan and budget

The section should provide: project schedule, tasks and planned works, as well as the rationale for their importance; the
justification of the total project cost with obligatory detailed breakdown.

Months
Activity chart N
Activity 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Initial assessment of the viability
for material, resources and
1
component exchange as well as a
scope of potential savings
Strategic mapping of
2
Kazakhstan’s industrial sectors
Collaborative action research
3
with stakeholders
Drawing up policy
4
recommendations
Strategic mapping of the energy
5
industry
Identification of barriers to
6
development
Using findings to develop a
7
questionnaire
Administer questioners across a
8
range of potential clusters
Budget 9 Publications and outreach

PIs Acad. Staff costs Employee costs Equipment Project costs and consumables (books, Travel and Workshops,
(no.) staff (administrative support, (laptops, reports, office costs, vehicle hire, subsistence publications and
(FTE) survey team etc.) software) recruitment, advertising etc.) dissemination

NU (2) 1 70,000 * 3 = 15,000 * 5 * 3 = 225,000 1,000 * 5 = 5,000 * 3 = 15,000 5,000 * 3 =

210,000 5,000 15,000

UoS 1 70,000 * 3 = 15,000 * 1 * 3 = 45,000 2 * 3 = 6,000 2,000 * 3 =

(2) 210,000 6,000

UoE 2 140,000 * 3 = 15,000 * 1 * 3 = 45,000 2 * 3 = 6,000 4,000 * 3 =

(2) 420,000 12,000

UCL 0.5 35,000 * 3 = 15,000 * 1 * 3 = 45,000 2 * 3 = 6,000 2,000 * 3 =

(1) 105,000 6,000

UWI 1.25 87,500 *3 = 15,000 * 1 * 3 = 45,000 2 * 3 = 6,000 4,000 * 3 =

(2) 262,500 12,000

Totals 1,207,500 405,000 5,000 39,000 51,000 15,000

Project total: US$I,722,500

Overheads @ 15% = 258,375
Grand total: US$1,980,875

Notes
Project duration: 3 years
Overheads: 15%
Acronyms
NU - Nazarbayev University
UoS – University of Surrey
UoE – University of Edinburgh
UWI – University of the West Indies
UCL – University College London, School of Energy and Resources, Australia
PI – Principal Investigator
FTE – Full Time Equivalent

12
5. Research group

Please provide the information on the research team and qualifications of participants.

The research team are:

Prof. Sarim AL-Zubaidy, Vice Dean (T&L), School of Engineering, Nazarbayev University : Co-principal investigator; He will
co-lead the research team. He is a systems engineer with over thirty years’ experience in both senior academic and administrative
positions in a variety of higher education institutions around the world. His research interest is in power system design and
optimization, Environmental impact assessment and engineering education. He is a registered consultant, who has spent several
years advising industry and has initiated and attracted large sums of funding for research projects. He has initiated several
innovative postgraduate programs and fostered efforts to forge closer links between higher education and industry. At NU, he
serves as the Vice-Dean for Teaching and Learning.

Prof. Anthony Clayton, Institute for Sustainable Development, University of the West Indies: Co-principal investigator; He has
been a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Environmental Strategy in the School of Engineering at the University of Surrey and the
Institute for Studies of Science, Technology and Innovation in the School of Social and Political Studies at the University of
Edinburgh, Scotland. He is not only Adjunct Distinguished Professor of Sustainable Development in the Faculty of Business and
Management at the University of Technology (UTECH) in Jamaica, but Special Advisor to the President of UTECH. His regional
and international research positions include International Associate, Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research,
University of St Andrew; Honorary Fellow, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Edinburgh; and Fellow of the
Caribbean Academy of Science.
Professor Clayton is the member of several advisory groups serving the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery, United
Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the Fifth Summit of the Americas and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2009. He is also on
the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Chevening Scholarship Panel for Jamaica.
For his service and leadership excellence, he has been honoured with the 8th World Congress of Consuls Award of Excellence and
the Principal’s Research Award for ‘Leadership of the Team that Developed the Foresight-Based Model of Development Planning’.

Other members of the team include:

Professor Robin Williams, Director of Research Centre for Social Sciences, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies,
University of Edinburgh
Dr. Mark Winskel, Research Co-ordinator, UK Energy Research Centre, and Research Fellow, Institute for Energy Systems,
University of Edinburgh
Dr Geoffrey Gregson, Deputy Director, Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, and Lecturer in Innovation & Entrepreneurship,
University of Edinburgh Business School
Dr. Walter Wehrmeyer, Reader, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey
Professor Stefaan Simons, University College London School of Energy and Resources, Australia

6. Research environment and training for scientists

The section should include the following information: available equipment and required research infrastructure; the key domestic
and international communications and distribution activities; the use of domestic and foreign research infrastructure (laboratories),
explanation of benefits, justification of mobility. The section should also provide information on participation of young scientists,
PhD-students in the Projects.

The project will require access to information and interviews with key personnel in the relevant Ministries and industries in
Kazakhstan, as well as surveys of the wider business community. This will require logistical and administrative support from
Nazarbayev University, and endorsement from the Government of Kazakhstan. Assessment of the external business environment
and possible technological development trajectories will be carried out via international conferences and workshops organized by
the Principal Investigators, and supported by their universities. The proposed allocations in the budget will support the time
committed by the Principal Investigators, five support staff and a survey team of four. The survey team and some of the support
staff will be PhD students. The travel required is to allow the Principal Investigators to travel to Kazakhstan.

13
7. Expected results

The section reflects the following information: project expected results and socio-economic effect; the applicability of research
results; target consumers of the results; publications, obtaining a patent.

The goal of the project is a social and economic transformation of Kazakhstan, reducing its dependence on finite reserves and
foreign investment, building human capital, strengthening the scientific and technical skill base, resolving economic development
constraints, protecting the environment and supporting environmental remediation of the regions of Kazakhstan that have already
been badly damaged. This will provide a basis for the sustainable development of Kazakhstan, combining economic development
and prosperity with a reducing rate of environmental harm. The research results will be applicable at a national level in Kazakhstan,
and potentially transferable to a wide range of other industrializing countries, allowing Kazakhstan to take a leading role in the
further dissemination of strategies and technologies. The target consumers of the results in the first instance are the Government of
Kazakhstan and relevant industries; the results will also be of key interest to the international academic community and policy
practitioners. The project will be properly documented and all results published.

8. References
The section shall specify most relevant publications/research conducted on the topic of the Project.
*
Ministry of Environment Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2010. "Annual report" (in Russian).
*
National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2010. "Census2010", available at:
http://www.eng.stat.kz/news/Pages/n1_12_11_10.aspx
*
Mark J. Kaiser, Allan G. Pulsipher, 2007. ‘A review of the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan’, 35, 1300-1314.
*
D. Kline, L. Vimmerstedt and R. Benioff, 2004. ‘Clean energy technology transfer: A review of programs under the UNFCCC’,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 9, 1-35.
*
Carol Dahl, Karlygash Kuralbayeva, 2001. ‘Energy and the environment in Kazakhstan’, Energy Policy, 29, 429-440.
*
‘Soviet cotton threatens a region's sea - and its children’. New Scientist. 18 November 1989.
*
Theresa Sabonis-Helf, 2003. ‘Catching air? Climate change policy in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan’, Climate Policy, 3, 159-
170.
*
‘A review of the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan’, Report by a Panel of Experts to Second Preparatory Committee Meeting for
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, available at:
http://www.sueddeutsches-
institut.de/GE/UNEP%20%5B2011%5D%20The%20Transition%20to%20a%20Green%20Economy%20Benefits,%20Challenges
%20and%20Risks.pdf#page=41
*
Indira Netalieva, Justus Wesseler , Wim Heijman, 2005. ‘Health costs caused by oil extraction air emissions and the benefits from
abatement: the case of Kazakhstan’, Energy Policy, 33, 1169-1177.
*
D. Kline, L. Vimmerstedt and R. Benioff, 2004. ‘Clean energy technology transfer: A review of programs under the UNFCCC’,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 9, 1-35.
*
A Clayton, G Spinardi and R Williams. Strategies for Cleaner Technology: a new agenda for government and industry. Earthscan,
London. 1999.

14