Evaluation of the financial mechanism of the montreal protocol
Download
1 / 8

Evaluation of the Financial Mechanism of the Montreal Protocol - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 107 Views
  • Uploaded on

Evaluation of the Financial Mechanism of the Montreal Protocol. Presented by Mark Wagner ICF International 12-14 November 2012. Overview of Evaluation Process. Evaluation requested by the Parties in decision XXII/2, and carried out according to the TOR in Annex 1 of that decision

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Evaluation of the Financial Mechanism of the Montreal Protocol' - alize


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Evaluation of the financial mechanism of the montreal protocol

Evaluation of the Financial Mechanism of the Montreal Protocol

Presented by Mark Wagner

ICF International

12-14 November 2012


Overview of evaluation process
Overview of Evaluation Process Protocol

  • Evaluation requested by the Parties in decision XXII/2, and carried out according to the TOR in Annex 1 of that decision

  • Evaluation independently conducted by ICF International from July 2011 through September 2012

  • Evaluation guided by Steering Panel representing Austria, Canada, Colombia, India, Japan, Nigeria, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the United States

  • Evaluation finalized in September 2012 incorporating comments on the Draft received from Parties submitted after 32nd OEWG in Bangkok



Parties interviewed
Parties Interviewed Protocol

  • Article 5 Parties interviewed:

  • Non-Article 5 Parties interviewed:

    • Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Italy, France, Latvia, the Czech Republic


Sections of the evaluation report updated added
Sections of the Evaluation Report Updated/Added Protocol

  • Section 6.1 -- Lessons learned in view of the future challenges of the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund (Updated)

  • Section 6.2 – Lessons learned from other international environmental institutions and agreements (Updated)

  • Section 7.2 – Recommendations (Updated)

  • Appendix C – Comments Received on Draft Report (Added)

  • Final Report (28 September 2012) available on the Ozone Secretariat website – 24th MOP documents.


Key findings and recommendations in the following areas
Key Findings and Recommendations in the Following Areas Protocol

  • Results

  • Policies and Procedures

  • Other Issues

  • Lessons Learned


New lesson lessons learned in view of future challenges of the montreal protocol and the mlf
NEW ProtocolLESSON–Lessons learned in view of future challenges of the Montreal Protocol and the MLF

  • Some of the key features of how the MLF operates have been instrumental to its success, including:

    • a compliance-oriented approach,

    • straightforward and relatively fast access provided to project funds,

    • consistent application of the principle of incremental costs,

    • a transparent and business planning process,

    • continued support for institutional strengthening and capacity building efforts, and

    • decision-making informed by comprehensive technical analysis.

collaborative


New lesson lessons learned from other international environmental institutions and agreements
NEW LESSON–Lessons Protocollearned from other international environmental institutions and agreements

  • Private entity and government sustainability and commitment are critical drivers in the success of GEF investments in the ODS focal area, as they also are in the MLF. Strong private sector involvement, including through providing co-financing, contributed to the rapid and enduring phase-out of ODS.

  • In CEITs, the national ozone units ceased to function after GEF support ended, which may prevent measures being put in place to address the remaining threats to the ozone layer, including the phase-out of HCFCs and destruction of unwanted ODS stockpiles.

  • GEF operations have been less cost-effective than those of the MLF, in part because GEF projects did not always adhere to incremental financing procedures.


ad