Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Technical Support and Investment Project for the Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances

1. Project Data:   
Project ID:
Project Name:
Technical Support and Investment Project for the Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances
Czech Republic
Pollution Control / Waste Management, Environment
L/C Number:
Partners Involved:
Prepared By:
Andres Liebenthal, OEDST
Reviewed By:
Patrick G. Grasso
Group Manager:
Alain Barbu
Date Posted:

2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs, and Components:

The objective was to assist the Czech Republic to phase out the production and consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS) by 1996. The total project cost of $4.1 million was financed by a Global Environmental Facility (GEF) grant of $2.4 million, and counterpart funds of $0.1 million from the Czech government and $1.6 million from participating enterprises. Components included: (i) engineering assistance for the shutdown of ODS production, (ii) establishment of a national recovery, reclamation and recycling (3R) program for ODS used in refrigeration, (iii) introduction of non-ODS refrigerants for refrigerated trucks and buses, and (iv) introduction of low-ODS and non-ODS technologies for the production of foamed insulation panels.

3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

The production and consumption of virgin ODS was phased out through the implementation of the project and the enactment of relevant legislation prior to the project. The retrofit of refrigerated trucks and buses with non-ODS refrigerants was successful. The introduction of low-ODS and non-ODS technologies for the production of foamed insulation panels has encountered technical problems, but they are being resolved. A national recovery, reclamation and recycling(3R) scheme was established under the project, but the reclamation center is not yet commercially viable.

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

This was the first ODS phaseout project in Eastern and Central Europe, and it involved the successful transfer and adaptation of new technologies that are being disseminated to other countries in the region.

5. Significant Shortcomings (include non-compliance with safeguard features):

The ODS reclamation center is not yet commercially viable.
6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
Institutional Dev.:
Bank Performance:
Borrower Perf.:
Quality of ICR:

7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

The project established an ODS reclamation center that is not yet commercially viable because refrigeration technicians find it more attractive to bypass the reclamation step and simply reuse the ODS without reclaiming (cleaning) it, with increased costs for the end-users. This points to the need to be take financial incentives for all relevant economic actors into account in the design of such schemes.

8. Audit Recommended?  No


9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

The ICR is well written and presents an interesting overview of the implementation experience of the project. However, its quality could have been substantially improved through a more rigorous coverage of the following evaluative aspects:
    (i) Relevance: the ICR needs to evaluate the objectives of the project and the strategy within which it was embedded, on the basis of their relevance to the country assistance strategy and the Bank's broad goals, such as protecting the environment For this project, a broad interpretation of the strategic objective should have been something like (in the words of the Vienna Convention) "to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting from modifications of the ozone layer". A minimum interpretation should cover the legal obligations of the country under the Montreal Protocol (MP), as specified in the ODS country program (CP). After all, the project was approved on the basis of a commitment that the the full CP would be implemented. The ICR's interpretation of the objective as being solely to stop CFC production and imports, and lack of evaluation of the complementary elements of the CP, is inadequate for maximizing the learning from the experience with the project for the benefit of future sector strategies and project design.
    (ii) Efficacy: the ICR needs to evaluate the efficacy of the project on the basis of the results that were achieved (impacts, outcomes and outputs). For this project, the minimum expectation is that the ICR should assess its efficacy as an instrument to support the country's compliance with its legal obligations under the MP as specified in the CP. The ICR's focus on project outputs only is inadequate for evaluating the significance of its contribution within the broader context of the ODS economy of the country.
    (iii) Cost Effectiveness: Given the global nature of the ODS problem, and the limited grant funds available to address it, cost effectiveness is a matter of global strategic interest. It is also an explicit project selection criterion for the GEF (see GEF Operational Strategy, p.38). On this basis, OED would expect the ICR to include a discussion of the project's cost effectiveness, including comparisons with MP thresholds and other ODS projects.
    (iv)Sustainability: since the ICR makes specific recommendations to the country to improve the sustainability of the ODS reclamation center, it should also provide a clear indication of the country's response.
    (v) Monitoring indicators: the ICR needs to provide adequate statistical information on the impacts, outcomes and outputs of the project to underpin its evaluation, such as estimates of ODS stocks, consumption and trade (including illegal trade) before and after the project. It would also be desirable for it to discuss the status of, and results from, the MP compliance verification process.

© 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions