Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Ozone Depleting Substances Phase-out


  
1. Project Data:   
ES Date Posted:
09/14/2000   
PROJ ID:
P008871
Appraisal
Actual
Project Name:
Ozone Depleting Substances Phase-out
Project Costs(US $M)
 6.2  6.1
Country:
Turkey
Loan/Credit (US $M)
   
Sector, Major Sect.:
Other Environment,
Environment
Cofinancing (US $M)
 6.2  6.1
L/C Number:
     
   
Board Approval (FY)
  94
Partners involved
Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol  
Closing Date
12/31/1996 12/31/1999
         
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Group Manager: Group:  
Andres Liebenthal
John R. Heath Alain A. Barbu OEDST

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
The objective of the project was to assist ozone-depleting substances (ODS) using industries in Turkey to effectively and efficiently phase out ODS usage through the adoption of policy, technological and monitoring measures.

b. Components
(i) investment projects for ODS phaseout in the refrigerator sector, including; (a) introduction of ODS-free technologies in the production of domestic refrigerators; (b) establishment of a program for the recovery and recycling of ODS refrigerants for domestic refrigerators in the Istanbul area; and (c) implementation of the recovery and recycling of ODS from domestic refrigerators being serviced or rebuilt at a refrigerator production plant;

(iv) preparation of further ODS phaseout projects to demonstrate ODS phaseout in areas of strategic significance;
(v) institutional and management support for the GOT Action Plan for ODS Phaseout.

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates
The closing date of the project was extended by three years due to delays caused by frequent changes in the GOT, the lengthy effort required to achieve policy consensus on a ban on ODS imports; and a longer-than expected period required to develop proposals for the funding of future projects.


3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

The project achieved its objective efficiently without major shortcomings.

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

(i) Turkey's main refrigerator producer phased out its consumption of ODS completely, reducing ODS consumptions by 937 tons (vs. 858 tons estimated at appraisal) at an average cost of $5.63/kg (vs. $6.25/kg estimated at appraisal);
(ii) about 21 demonstration projects were prepared for funding under a follow-on project (PODS-II);
(iii) institutional and management component of the project supported the formulation and implementation of
  • a National Ozone Policy and associated regulations to phase out imports of ODS and the production of ODS-using products under an accelerated phase out schedul (relative to requirements under the Montreal Protocol)
  • a data base and monitoring system to track imports and the use of ODS.

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

(i) the ICR provides no information on the establishment of a program tor the recovery and recycling of ODS refrigerants for domestic refrigerators in the Istanbul area; (ii) the recovery and recycling of ODS from domestic refrigerators being serviced or rebuilt at a production plant was terminated because it was not economically viable.

6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
Outcome:
Highly SatisfactoryHighly Satisfactory
Institutional Dev.:
HighHigh
Sustainability:
Highly LikelyHighly Likely
Bank Performance:
SatisfactorySatisfactory
Borrower Perf.:
SatisfactorySatisfactory
Quality of ICR:
Satisfactory

7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

As indicated by the ICR and the Borrower, gaps in the Proposal Evaluation Guidelines have contributed to delays in the approval by the Executive Committee of the Montreal Protocol of (refrigeration conversion) subprojects. Aside from possibly leading to increased ODS use by Turkey in the year 2000, this also provides a disincentive for other countries to accelerate their phaseout schedule. This points to the risks of excessive centralization of subproject approval authority by the Executive Committee, to the detriment of the overall objective.

8. Audit Recommended?  No

          Why?  

9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

The ICR is satisfactory. However, its quality could have been improved by
  1. a discussion of the experience and results of the program for the recovery and recycling of refrigerants from domestic refrigerators in the Istanbul area;
  2. an indication of the significance of the ODS phaseout attributed to the project in relation to the aggregate consumption and phaseout schedule for the country, complemented by statistical time trends (as in Annex A of Project Document);
  3. a discussion of the operating experience of the revolving fund established under the project, and the rationale for funding future subprojects from the follow-on PODS-II, rather than the revolving fund.

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