How ADB Can Improve Its Technology Transfer Operations by Harvey F. Ludwig

7/31/2019 How ADB Can Improve Its Technology Transfer Operations by Harvey F. Ludwig

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/how-adb-can-improve-its-technology-transfer-operations-by-harvey-f-ludwig 1/13

How ADB Can Improve Its Technology Transfer OperationsHarvey F. Ludwig

[email protected]

1. This paper is based on my experience as a senior environmental engineering expertconsultant with some 60 years total experience, focusing on design/evaluation ofenvironmental engineering infrastructure projects (mostly in urban water supply andwaste management), about 30 years on how to do this properly in the affluentindustrialized countries (ICs) like the USA, the other half (since circa 1973) on how todo the best you can in the relatively very poor developing countries (DCs) where youhave to tackle the same problems but with only a fraction of the budget levels usedin the ICs.

2. My consulting practice in the last 3 decades in the DCs, which I have done from my

office headquarters in Bangkok, has involved key participation (as the environmentalexpert) in some 100 infrastructure projects sponsored by the various InternationalAssistance Agencies (IAAs) including the World Bank (ADB), ADB, and other MDBs,the various U.N. agencies (UNDP, WHO, UNEP, et al), and numerous bilateralsincluding USAID, CIDA, Danida, et al. This includes some 30 ADB projects.

3. In doing these many projects in the DCs, which have involved many projectssponsored by ADB (and other IAAs), I have learned many lessons on how the ADBoperates, how the ADB despite its great number of projects intended to control

environmental degradation in the DCs, has failed to give the assistance needed bythe DCs, and specifically what the ADB should do to change the existing syndromeso that environmental system investments in the DCs will change from grossinadequacies/wastage to a system where the investment projects actually do theirintended jobs. If ADB and the other IAAs continue to operate along presentpractices, the IAAs will continue to fail in their efforts to help the DCs to control grossenvironmental degradation.

4. The time element is critical because, if degradation continues along present lines, by

mid-Century 21 the DC world have lost the bulk of their precious natural resourcesincluding forests/wetlands, and the DCs will be plagued by huge new urban mega-city slums (to accommodate mass rural to urban migration). For example, thetropical rain forests of the world, mostly located in the DCs, will be mostly gone andwith this massive loss of wildlife habitat, decrease in base river/stream flow volumes,and intensified massive flooding of villages by debris washed downhill during storms.On the social side people living in massive urban slums will be without adequate

The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the

Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee

the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use.

Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.



greatly valuable for public health protection, does not result in visible cash returnrecognized in national accounting systems. Other sector investment projects

(highways, ports, airports, etc.) are money-earning so these do get ample attention(except for their environmental degradation aspects which are often ignored). Theproblem for environmental infrastructure is how to reorient IAA practices so thissector gets the needed attention.

7. Here is my list of recommended revisions in IAA practices so that these investmentswill be much less wasteful and much more meaningful:(a) Require post-construction monitoring of performance of the systems which are

built. This is basic standard engineering practice and such performance

monitoring is routine in the ICs, to determine how effective the investment is,and what needs to be done to improve planning/design practices so thesystems will become more effective. Despite this fundamental fact, ADB et alhave persistently refused to require performance monitoring, hence the ADBstaff have not found out how to improve their practices in planning/design.Such monitoring will reveal deficiencies in design and in provisions for O&M(See Annex I-5).

(b) For each type of sector investment (water supply, sewerage, air pollutioncontrol, etc.), cease common ADB practice of designing systems which followIC design criteria and matching environmental standards, and figure out foreach sector for the particular DC what the appropriate/affordable environmentalstandards and matching design criteria should be, in recognition that themonies available will be only a fraction of that spent in the DCs for managingthe same problem. This recommendation is illustrated in Annex I-1 attached.This is crucial but cannot be done by “Environmental Generalists” or “EngineerGeneralists” but can be done by skilled sanitary engineers knowledgeable bothin IC practices and how to modify these to suit DC conditions. Most of the ADB

project staff with whom I have worked have not had the needed skills inappropriate IC vs DC practices.

(c) Ensure that the recommended system is realistic with respect to the O&Mlimitations in the DCs. Most IAA projects have not done this but havepretended to do it. The Feasibility Study reports commonly include a chapteron O&M which simulates IC practices - even though the writers know the DCscannot/will not implement it. This practice is not only counterproductive but isgrossly unprofessional. The reason for the malfunctioning mentioned in Item 6

above sometimes is poor design, but even with good design the system oftenwill not function effectively due to lack of adequate O&M. Usually the DCgovernment (and the IAA sponsors) are not aware of this became of the lack ofperformance monitoring. Sometimes the DC officials involved may insist onincluding components in the project which shouldn’t be there (such as a highlymechanized sewage treatment plant). Never mind, their “money need” must beaccommodated but they take only a part of the total project budget The goal



budget for the expats by about 10% to enable the expat experts to have thetime to utilize the project for training purposes.

(e) ADB should recognize that Environmental Technology has been developedprimarily in the ICs, but in the DCs, because of the non-money making natureof most environmental/sanitary infrastructures, the DC governments/ universities are generally not knowledgeable on appropriate sanitaryengineering design technology. Often the practitioners and universityprofessors have only academic backgrounds in affluent IC practices and arenot at all capable of doing the thinking shown in Annex I-1. This applies also tomost IAA staff. Annex I-2 shows that most DC (and many IAA) staff have not

had the needed apprenticeship. The result is the poor design noted in Items(b) and (c) above. How to correct this very basic problem? Severalapproaches are feasible:(e.1) Incorporate TT into the investment project program as noted in Item (d)

above.(e.2) Prepare textbook or manuals on appropriate DC design criteria (and

matching environmental standards), which can guide DC/IAA designersto produce a project which works, such as I have just done for theMunicipal Sewerage Sector as explained in Annex I-3. To myknowledge this is the only environmental engineering design textbookyet produced which is appropriate for DC application. As noted in thePreface (Annex I-3), this Sewerage textbook is “just for starters”, toillustrate this approach. Similar textbooks are needed for all sectors(municipal water supply, highways, ports, etc.) so that projects in allsectors will be economically cum environmentally sound.

(e.3) Established graduate training programs on IC versus DC designpractices for all types of investment, to ensure appropriate design

practices (and matching environmental standards) for all types ofenvironmentally-sensitive projects, as explained in Annex I-4, leading touniversity graduate degrees on Economic-cum-Environmental (E-c-E)Development in the DCs, to be attended by both DC and IAA personnel.This approach is the most basic—to give attention to the need for E1-cum-E2 project design for all sector projects as part of the graduateeducation program. ADB should take the lead to establish at least onesuch university program, somewhere in a qualified university.

(e.4) Promote establishment of an Environmental Engineering Journal, i.e., aprofessional magazine in which each issue will feature projects whichdiscuss specific examples or case studies of illustrative DC projectswhich explain how IC practices were modified to suit DC conditions

(e.5) Furnish copies of selected IC textbooks/manuals which, despite their ICorigins, nevertheless can be very useful to DC practitioners (who withrare exceptions cannot afford to buy them) translated into the local DC



State Regional Water Quality Control Boards. This not only achievesreal world training but doesn’t require the organization to which the

individual is assigned to make any special preparations. The bestagencies for this purpose in my view in the environmental engineeringfield are the California Regional Boards for regulation procedures, andthe Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts for management of liquidand solid wastes.

(e.7) Plan Technology Transfer projects, not in the usual way as a singleevent operation, but spread this over a period of training series withenough time between to permit the student to absorb the lessons from

each session. The IAAs like the single-event approach because it“saves” travel costs, without realizing that their approach is noteffective. Might as well cancel the project and save all of its cost.

(e.8) Use retired expat experts to give hands-on training, where a singleexpert, say in community water supply systems, visits each of say 10systems every month. The big advantage of this approach is that theexpert catches the DC-er at the moments when he has a seriousproblem, hence listens carefully to the expert’s advice. This is farsuperior to use of academic classroom textures.

8. I hope that my remarks may be useful to ADB. Thank you for this opportunity topresent my views and recommendations.

Annexes(I) Illustrative information:

(I-1) DC versus IC practices(I-2) Developing expertise:

(I-2.1) Role of apprenticeship

(I-2.2) Doctorate-sans-apprenticeship syndrome(I-3) Textbook on municipal sewerage:

(I-3.1) Textbook of appropriate sewerage technology for developingcountries

(I-3.2) Preface for sewerage textbook(I-4) DC versus IC graduate training(I-5) Performance monitoring



ANNEX I-1

At (A): 85% of total protection

at 15% of total protection costs

Cost

Where (B) represents today’s USA practices and standards (very expensive).

Point (A) represents 1946 practices and standards which are recommended for

use in DCs. (These correspond to USA standards circa 1940).

APPROPRIATE PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DCs

D e g r e e o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l

P r o t e c t i o n

0 15 100

100

85 (A)

(B)

0



ANNEX I-2.1

HFL/Dec. 2000

NOTES:

BC = Apprenticeship, meaning not the time put in, but the time spend working under the

critical supervision of experts. Most DC environmental “experts” are not experts

at all because they have never had the opportunity to work under real EIA experts.

STEPS IN GAI NING EXPERTI SE

A B C

Academic training Apprenticeship



ANNEX I-2.2





ANNEX I-3.1



ANNEX I-3.2

HFL/22 May 05

PREFACE FOR SEWERAGE TEXTBOOK

1. When Dr. Harvey F. Ludwig retired as President of Engineering-Science, Inc., a

major American environmental engineering consulting firm which he established

following World War II, which focused on projects in the USA and the Western

hemisphere, he decided to begin a new career in (and learn about) the Asian part of

the world. Selections of Bangkok to be his operating headquarters was easy—His

wife (Vanida) is a Bangkok Thai. Dr. Ludwig’s first assignment in Thailand,

beginning in 1972, funded by USAID, under the aegis of the National Research

Council, was to evaluate the need for the Thai government to establish a national

environmental protection agency—This was recommended and was duly established

in 1975 as the National Environment Board,. It was during this initial project inThailand that Ludwig saw the potentials for putting his environmental engineering

expertise to work in the developing countries (DCs) of Asia where the concept of

protecting precious environmental resources as an essential aspect of sustainable

economic development was just beginning to be understood.

2. In 1973 Ludwig established his new company, Seatec International (SI) with

headquarters at Bangkok with a staff comprising both expatriate and Asian personnel.

Over the subsequent 31 year period SI, under Ludwig’s management, has carried out

some 200 projects in Asia (including practically all of the developing countries (DCs)of Asia. These have focused on environmental engineering projects including (i)

design of sanitary engineering systems (urban water supply and environmental

pollution control using environmental standards and matching infrastructure design

criteria appropriate for use in DCs), (ii) development and use of environmental

impact assessment (EIA) guideline manuals appropriate for evaluating environmental

performance of infrastructure investments in DCs, and (iii) development of

mechanics for modifying conventional methodology for economic developmentplanning in DCs to incorporate the environmental parameter, to be integrated with the

economic parameter and thus result in economic-cum-environmental sustainable

development.

3. This work by Ludwig/SI is described in some 170 professional publications

discussing the “lessons learned” in the work noted above. Unfortunately most



also the need for a national sewerage/water pollution control agency in every DC

with responsibility for promulgating use of the appropriate designs best suited to the

particular country, for evaluating the total need for municipal sewerage systems in thecountry and prioritizing these to give attention to the most urgent needs, for

establishing a meaningful system for periodic monitoring of system performance, and

urges the DC governments to seek technical assistance grants form the IAAs to

finance projects for preparing the best plan for establishing such national agencies in

the DC. Similar textbooks are needed for virtually all types of investments in DC

infrastructure, including municipal water supply, municipal solid waste management,

DC road and highway design, etc. The present textbook is an intended to be an

illustrative “starter”.

4. While Dr. Ludwig is the senior author of the present textbook, its preparation has

incorporated invalued collaborative inputs from three co-authors, namely Bert

Fennerty, Sow Kim Leng, and Kumar Mohit. The combined experience of the 4

authors in sewerage engineering technology per se is estimated to total some 60 man-

years (720 man-months), comprising about 20 and 40 years in IC and DC systems

respectively. Detailed information on all 4 authors is given in Chapter 1 of the

textbook.5. Dr. Ludwig is a member of USA’s National Academy of Engineering—one of the

few Academy members with residence in the DCs.



ANNEX I-4

ASEP Newsletter, December 1988

NEW APPROACH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY GRADUATE STUDY FOR

DEVELOPING COUTNRIES

Based on some 15 years experience in living and working in developing countries (DCs) on numerous

problems of environmental technology, some definitive conclusions may be drawn on the major constraints

which inhibit progress in environmental protection and development in the DCs, and what can be done to

assist the DCs in solving these problems. One of the most basic needs is for a marked reorientation in the

nature of graduate academic training in Environmental Technology, so that the lessons learned will be muchmore appropriate for meaningful application in the DCS.

Environmental Technology is literally a brand new field, having emerged form its beginnings with the

advent of the Environmental Movement in the USA in the 1960s. this in turn led to the UN Stockholm

Conference of 1972, following which most DCs established their own National Environmental Protection

Agency. Unfortunately, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) had pioneered in this

field, many counterpart agencies in developing countries tended to try to emulate the USEPA, without

realizing that the situation in an industrialized country (IC) like the USA is vastly different, in terms of

environmental protection, from that of most DCs. The USEPA has, from its beginning, been blessed with

very ample funds and very strong enforcement powers, hence its actions and programs have not had to bemuch concerned with costs to the national establishment, and effects on its economy; indeed the value of the

imposed correction actions for protecting environment has often been simply assumed to equal the cost.

From the DC point of view, economics is and will continue to be a controlling factor over the

foreseeable future; hence environmentalism must be sold as a cost-effective part of an overall plan for

achieving desirable economic-cum-environmental development, both on a project basis and on a regional

planning basis. This means that the DC environmentalist, while depending on the reservoir of Environmental

Technology developed in the ICs, must be careful to adjust this to obtain guidelines which fit the local

situation.

The critical need is for understanding of the problem, of the need to adapt IC technology to DCconditions, and to implement effective means to enable DCs to do this. Up to now, virtually all

Environmental Technologies have had academic study limited essentially to IC technology, simply because

this is what is taught by universities everywhere in both ICs and DCs. Hence the developing country

environmental “Think Tanks”, namely the universities and other research centers, tend to think in terms of

using IC technology which is often inappropriate and counterproductive. For example, indiscriminate

adoption of IC approaches in planning and conducting Environmental Impact Assessments and in devising

and promulgating environmental standards has been prevalent in many DCs.

Clearly, there is a need for a new approach to graduate academic training for DC Environmental

Technologists (and also for IC and international assistance agency staff engaged in DC operations). Thesuggested approach is to reorient the present masters/doctorate programs to make them balanced (“50-50”) as

far as IC and DC environmental technologies are concerned, so that the student will have a clear

understanding of the great difference between the two. When the DC student returns home, with this

understanding in hand, he will then be able to contribute to devising and using technology which isappropriate for use in his country.

A trial effort of such a 50-50 graduate course was made by the Environmental/Civil Engineering group



16

A N

NE X I - 5

(1) Environmental Protection Action = Laws/Regulations x Enforcement

(EPA) (L/Rs) (E)

(2) Enforcement = Effective Monitoring x Stiff Penalities

(E) (EM) (SPs)

(3) Effective Monitoring

(EM)

(3.1) Review of project feasibility study, to ensure inclusion of EIA constraints including use of appropriate environmental

standards AESs).

(3.2) Review of project's final design, to ensure inclusion of EIA constraints including environmental controls to befollowed by construction contractor.

(3.3) Monitoring of construction contractor's operations to ensure compilance with environmental controls.

(3.4) Inspection of final construction to ensure compilance with environmental construction (before releasing contractor).

(3.5) Periodc monitoring of project operations to ensure implementation of prescribed EPMs, including sampling and

analyses, to evaluate project's actual environmental impacts, with follow-up to obtain needed corrections.

NOTES

(i) Symbol X means multipled by.

(ii ) In USA and other industrialized countries, L/R, EM and SP are adequate, hence EPA is real.

(iii) In DCs, while many have adequate L/Rs, practically none as yet practice meaningful systematic monitoring or

enforcement of meaningful penalties.

(iv) Effective monitoring is technicall y complex, because the data must be statistically sufficient to prove non-compilance.

The saying in California is "No monitoring, no compliance action".

(v) Even with good monitoring there wil be little compilance unless penaltis are stiff enough to be "painful".

Environmental Protection Action versus Enforcement

Documents

How ADB Can Improve Its Technology Transfer Operations by Harvey F. Ludwig