Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Ods Phaseout (gef)


  
1. Project Data:   
ES Date Posted:
08/13/2001   
PROJ ID:
P044729
Appraisal
Actual
Project Name:
Ods Phaseout (gef)
Project Costs(US $M)
 15.72  14.75
Country:
Belarus
Loan/Credit (US $M)
   
Sector, Major Sect.:
Pollution Control / Waste Management,
Environment
Cofinancing (US $M)
 6.9  6.8
L/C Number:
     
   
Board Approval (FY)
  97
Partners involved
GEF 
Closing Date
08/29/2000 12/29/2000
         
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Group Manager: Group:  
William B. Hurlbut
Andres Liebenthal Alain A. Barbu OEDST

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
"Assist with the rapid phaseout of ozone-depleting substance (ODS) consumption in a manner consistent with international efforts and within internationally agreed timeframes." This was to include (i) assistance for a transition to the use of non-ODS materials by Belarus enterprises and (ii) technical assistance and institutional strengthening of an Ozone Office in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (MNREP).

b. Components
Technology Conversion


    Refrigeration manufacturing (US$4.3 million) -- Conversion of Atlant, a refrigerator manufacturer, to non-ODS materials, phasing out 282 tons/year of ODS and 62 tons/year of ODS in the service sector.
    Refrigeration servicing (US$1.5 million) -- Establish a recover, recycle, and reclaim program in the industrial, commercial, and transportation refrigeration sector, phasing out 256 tons/year of ODS consumption.
    Solvents (US$0.7) -- Conversion of four electronics industry manufacturers to non-ODS solvents, phasing out 90 tons/year of of ODS solvents.
Technical Assistance and Training
    Institutional Strengthening (US$154,000) -- Support for operation of the Ozone Office in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Projection.
    Fire Protection Technology (US$30,000) -- Funding for a workshop on alternatives to halon-based fire retardants.

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates
1. Project costs not funded by GEF (US$8.8 million at appraisal, US$8 million actual) were financed by the beneficiary enterprises. 2. Local currency devaluation during project implementation resulted in net loss of grant funds but did not affect project needs.
3. Savings on some project components were used to expand technical assistance to address a need (identified during supervision) for special assistance in converting and retrofiting milk coolers. Savings were also used to publish training and public awareness materials encouraging the public to use properly trained refrigeration technicians and the publication of training materials for service technicians.
4. The high implementation capacity of the Ozone Office and the enterprises involved helped make this the only ODS phaseout project to close within the three-year project implementation period.


3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

The technology conversions were all completed successfully and the recover, recycle, reclaim program is operational. The Ozone Office is well-established within the MNREP and has served as a model for similar agencies in the region. Although the focus of the workshop on halon alternatives had to be changed, it resulted in a conclusion that the country needs to develop a recycling system for halon.

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

1. Refrigerant consumption reduced by 600 tons.
2. Solvent consumption reduced by 90 tons.
3. More than 200 refrigerator service technicians trained; continuation of training program ensured by government.
4. Technology conversion resulted in unanticipated improvement in health and safety at several plants. In one plant it resulted in a significant reduction of injuries to female employees.
5. The Ozone Office has been strenthened on procurement and financial management. It is performing well and has become a model for the region. Institutional development within the enterprises assisted by the project has been improved, particularly in the areas of procurement skills and environmental safety.

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

The government remains concerned about the phase-out of halon in fire-fighting equipment and of CFC-12 in commercial and agricultural equipment. Currently there are no funds to address these problems. The ICR notes that, in hindsight, the project should have considered investment in halon phase-out.

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

7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

The ICR lists many lessons. Among them:
1. A good monitoring system and continuous dialogue can help ensure that the financial viability of enterprises is maintained.
2. Combining investments in phase-out with legislative controls to discourage the use of ODS was effective.
3. The clear, detailed procurement plan of this project worked better than less clear or more flexible plans in other projects in the country.
4. Information transfer between Belarus and the Ukraine and Russia projects and Central European projects helped build a more cohesive regional program.
5. Training resident mission staff and having them spend time with the headquarters project team helped build long-term capacity in the resident mission and assisted in supervision.

8. Audit Recommended?  No

          Why?  

9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

A very good ICR. It includes thorough descriptions of the subprojects, each prepared using completion reports prepared by the enterprises themselves.

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