Decision XXII/2: Terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol
- To approve the terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol contained in the annex to the present decision;
- To set up a steering panel of eight members to supervise the evaluation process, to select an evaluator to carry out the evaluation, to act as a point of contact for the evaluator during the evaluation and to ensure that the terms of reference are implemented in the most appropriate manner possible;
- To select from among the parties to the Montreal Protocol the following eight parties to serve as the members of the steering panel: Austria, Canada, Colombia, India, Japan, Nigeria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the United States of America, thereby ensuring that the appointed panel has equal representation of individuals selected by parties operating under paragraph 1of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol and parties not so operating;
- To request the Ozone Secretariat to finalize the procedure for the selection of the qualified external and independent evaluator: on the basis of submitted proposals, the Secretariat shall prepare a shortlist of qualified applicants and facilitate the review of relevant proposals by the steering panel;
- To instruct the steering panel to organize its meetings with the assistance of the Ozone Secretariat with dates and venues selected, as far as possible, to coincide with other Montreal Protocol meetings, thereby reducing related costs;
- To approve a total budget for the evaluation of up to 200,000 United States dollars, with the amount of $70,000 to start the application bidding process to come from the 2011 budget of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on the understanding that the parties will decide in 2011 on the funding source for the balance of the budget;
- To ensure that the final report and recommendations of the evaluator are made available to parties for consideration at the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties;
Annex to decision XXII/2
Terms of reference for an evaluation of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol
- The achievements of the financial mechanism of the Montreal Protocol have often been recognized by the international community, and there is no doubt that the mechanism is both a cornerstone of the Protocol and an outstanding example of multilateral cooperation. Indeed, by the end of 2009 the Multilateral Fund had approved projects to phase out the consumption and production of about 458,000 ozone-depleting-potential (ODP) tonnes of ozone-depleting substances in developing countries, and over 85 per cent of this amount had already been phased out. As a result of those activities, nearly all parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol are in compliance with their obligations under the Protocol, while most of their consumption and production of ozone-depleting substances, except for hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), has been eliminated.
- 2. The financial mechanism was established by Article 10 of the Montreal Protocol to provide financial and technical cooperation to parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to enable their compliance with the Protocol's control measures. The Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol recognized the need to review periodically the operation of the financial mechanism to ensure maximum effectiveness in pursuing the goals of the Montreal Protocol. Since its inception in 1991, the mechanism, which includes the Multilateral Fund, an Executive Committee, a Secretariat and implementing and bilateral agencies, has been evaluated twice by the parties, in 1994-1995 and 2003-2004.
- The year 2010 is a landmark year in the history of both the Montreal Protocol and the financial mechanism, as virtually all remaining production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons and carbon tetrachloride was to be phased out by 1 January 2010. In the light of this major milestone, it is particularly timely for the parties to the Protocol to take a retrospective look at the achievements of the financial mechanism, the challenges that it has faced, the manner in which they have been addressed and the lessons that have been learned, with a view to ensuring that the mechanism is well placed to address the challenges of the future effectively. Those challenges include phasing out HCFCs and the remaining consumption of methyl bromide and implementing ozone-depleting substance destruction pilot projects.
- In the light of the above, and considering that it has been more than five years since the last evaluation was conducted, the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties decided that it was appropriate to evaluate and review the financial mechanism with a view to ensuring its effective functioning in meeting the needs of parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and parties not so operating in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol. The study should be based on the present terms of reference, defined by the scope described below and carried out by an independent evaluator and completed by May 2012, in time for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at its thirty-second meeting.
- In carrying out the study, the evaluator should consider the results, policy framework, organizational structure and lessons learned associated with the financial mechanism as follows:
- Results of the financial mechanism:
- Extent to which both investment and non-investment projects approved under the Multilateral Fund have contributed to phasing out ozone-depleting substances in parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 in accordance with Montreal Protocol compliance targets;
- (Total reductions of ozone-depleting substances in ODP-tonnes and metric tonnes resulting from Multilateral Fund activities;
- (Analysis of other environmental and health co-benefits, including climate benefits, as well as adverse effects resulting from activities funded by the Multilateral Fund to phase out ozone-depleting substances;
- Comparison of ozone-depleting substance phase-out planned in approved projects and ozone-depleting substance phase-out achieved;
- Comparison of planned cost-effectiveness of approved projects and actual cost-effectiveness;
- Comparison of planned project implementation time and implementation time achieved;
- Effectiveness of capacity-building provided, including institutional strengthening and compliance assistance;
- Policies and procedures:
- Effectiveness of timing between meetings, submission deadlines and reporting deadlines;
- Effectiveness, consistency and efficiency of procedures and practices to develop, review and approve project proposals under the Multilateral Fund;
- Ability of the project and activity planning and implementation process to ensure compliance;
- Effectiveness and efficiency of monitoring, reporting procedures and practices;
- Ability and efficiency of internal evaluation and verification mechanisms to monitor and confirm results, including an analysis of existing databases;
- Extent to which policies and procedures are adapted or improved based on experiences and relevant circumstances;
- (c) Other issues:
- Review of the distribution of funding among regions where parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 are located, as well as between low-volume consuming countries and non-low-volume consuming countries;
- Extent to which programmes and projects approved under the financial mechanism have facilitated the implementation of the technology transfer provisions under Articles 10 and 10A of the Montreal Protocol and related decisions of the Parties, taking into account the geographical origin by region of technology provided in a representative sample of projects;
- Lessons learned:
- Lessons learned in view of the future challenges of the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund;
- Lessons learned from other international environmental institutions and agreements.
- Results of the financial mechanism:
D. Form and presentation of the study
- The study shall be presented using a practical, easy-to-use and easy-to-read layout, and should include a comprehensive summary for policymakers of some 30 pages and a detailed index followed by the body of the study and its annexes.
E. Conclusions and recommendations
- In carrying out the study, the evaluator will identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with the financial mechanism and, where relevant, make recommendations suggesting possible improvements with regard to: results achieved; organizational effectiveness and decision-making processes; effectiveness of technology transfer; information dissemination and capacity-building activities; cooperation with other organizations; and any other area of particular relevance.
F. Sources of information
- The Multilateral Fund Secretariat, the Ozone Secretariat, the Executive Committee, the implementing and bilateral agencies, the Treasurer, ozone offices, recipient countries and companies are invited to cooperate with the evaluator and to provide all necessary information including information on cost-effectiveness. The Multilateral Fund Secretariat is invited to provide all necessary data related to the items listed above in paragraphs 5 (a) (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi). The evaluation should take into account the relevant decisions of the Meeting of the Parties and the Executive Committee.
- The evaluator should widely consult relevant persons and institutions and other relevant sources of information deemed useful.
G. Time frame and milestones
- The following table presents a tentative time frame and milestones for the study.
|Approval of the terms of reference by the Meeting of the Parties
|Selection of a steering panel by the Meeting of the Parties
|Finalization of the criteria and procedure for the selection of the qualified external and independent evaluator
|Analysis of bids by the Ozone Secretariat and, on the basis of the criteria, recommendations to steering panel
|Independent evaluator selected by the panel
|Evaluator provides an inception report and meets the steering panel to discuss study modalities and details
|Mid-term review: preliminary draft report submitted to and reviewed by the steering panel
|Final draft report submitted to and reviewed by the steering panel
|Final draft report submitted to the Open-ended Working Group at its thirty-second meeting
|Final report submitted to the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Parties