Protectia Mediului

Chapter Seven The Ozone Depletion Focal Area

1. OPERATIONAL STRATEGY

Ozone depletion is caused primarily by the atmospheric release of ozone depleting substances (ODS)— particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—used in such applications as: refrigeration and air conditioning, aerosols, solvents and foams. The GEF has developed a specific Operational Strategy for Ozone to address this issue, which is closely linked to the Montreal Protocol. (GEFDOC #12; See Box 7.1)

The Operational Strategy—built around the specific requirements and provisions of the Montreal Protocol—is designed to support short-term measures to phase out ODS. The strategy stresses support for country programmes that address the production and consumption of ODS. The GEF will provide assistance for preparing these programmes if a country does not yet have one.

The Operational Strategy outlines several criteria for funding of short-term ODS phaseout measures:

• cost-effectiveness;

• high likelihood of success;

• adequate country integration; and

• use of non-toxic ODS substitutes.

Additionally, the GEF will fund conversion to technologies with the least impact on global warming that are "technically feasible, environmentally sound and economically acceptable," in order to "avoid transfer of negative environmental impacts between focal areas." (GEFDOC #12)

The Strategy also calls for initial emphasis on projects that:

• achieve the greatest reduction of ODS at lowest cost;

• comply with the Montreal Protocol;

• enable complete phaseout of ODS in entire sectors or countries; and

• provide benefits in other GEF focal areas.

Box 7.1 The Montreal Protocol at a Glance

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is a legally binding international agreement committing over 160 countries to phase out key ozone depleting substances (ODS). The protocol mandates specific, quantitative targets (and associated timetables) for eliminating the production and consumption of these substances, with different schedules for developed and developing countries. A "Multilateral Fund"—jointly administered by the World Bank and UNEP—serves as the financial mechanism to assist developing country parties in fulfilling their commitments.

The GEF is used to complement the Multilateral Fund—providing assistance to (i) Central and Eastern European countries ineligible for Multilateral Fund support (i.e., if they exceed a threshold of 0.3 kg per capita of ozone depleting emissions); and (ii) developing countries that are eligible for Multilateral Fund support, provided GEF assistance is used for projects not eligible under the Montreal Protocol.

Box 7.2 The GEF's Ozone Portfolio at a Glance

(This table provides key statistics summarising the current ozone portfolio.)

Total allocated funding US $111 million

% of total GEF funds allocated to ozone work program 7.0%

Total projects approved for funding 11

• # of global projects (0)

• # of regional projects (1)

• # of national projects (10).

Source: GEF Quarterly Operational Report, June 1997. Aggregate figures for total funds disbursed in each focal area were not available at time of printing.

2. OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

Because of the short deadlines for phaseout of ODS mandated in the Montreal Protocol and its amendments, operational programmes for ozone depletion were not developed. All proposed projects will be considered under criteria for short-term response measures.

3. SUMMARY OF OZONE PORTFOLIO

The Pilot Phase. During the Pilot Phase, the GEF funded a very limited number of ozone projects.

Consequently, the Independent Evaluation (GEFDOC #27) paid minimal attention to the ozone portfolio, given the limited number of projects in the focal area. The main problem identified was:

Box 7.3 A Sampling of Ozone Projects Funded by the GEF

Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances (Poland). With $6 million in GEF allocations, and US $14 million in co-financing, this project aims to eliminate annual consumption of approximately 1,000 metric tonnes of weighted ozone-depleting potential through phase-out of CFCs in three refrigeration sub-projects, two sub-projects in foam-blowing industries and one in the medical aerosol industry.

Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances (Russian Federation). With US $35 million in GEF allocations, and US $22 million in co-financing, this project aims to eliminate annual consumption of approximately 11,000 metric tonnes of weighted ozone-depleting potential through replacing CFCs with hydrocarbon aerosol propellants and other alternatives in three refrigeration enterprises.

Ozone Depleting Substances Reduction (Slovak Republic). With US $3.5 million in GEF allocations, and US $2.5 million in co-financing, this project will eliminate annual consumption of 280 metric tonnes of weighted ozone-depleting substance potential through phasing out the use of CFCs in two refrigeration/freezer enterprises.

Monitoring and Research Network for Ozone and GHGs in the Southern Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay). With US $1.9 million in GEF financing, this Pilot Phase project is designed to improve data availability in the region through the establishment of three or four monitoring stations.

• Overlap. GEF activities seemed to overlap with those supported by the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund. Generally, this concern has been resolved by focusing GEF funds on countries with economies in transition, which are ineligible for support through the Multilateral Fund.

Examples of activities that could be funded through the GEF:

• Monitoring of ODS emissions.

• Development of country programmes to reduce ODS emissions.

• Specific ODS phaseout activities in various industrial sectors.

• Application of alternative production technologies for refrigeration, foam blowing and other areas.

4. NGO PERSPECTIVES

Some of the key NGO perspectives related to the GEF's ozone portfolio include:

Environmentally inappropriate technology. NGOs have criticised the GEF for violating its own Operational Strategy by transferring adverse environmental impacts between focal areas (i.e., by substituting ozone depleting technologies with technologies that contribute to climate change, the GEF is substituting one environmental problem with another).

Also, some NGOs have criticised the World Bank for promoting the proprietary, expensive and inappropriate technology of northern chemical companies without reaction or comment from the GEF Council. For example, in a proposed Slovak Republic project, a technology (HFC-134a) was selected because the joint venture partner had substantial experience with the substance. This is despite the fact that HFC-134a is a potent greenhouse gas. Alternatives to HFC-134a—which are cost-effective, non-proprietary and have significantly lower global warming potentials—are available. The project would have been approved if an NGO had not publicly confronted the Bank and the GEF Council by pointing out the policy violation.

This incident points to wider and more fundamental NGO concerns that GEF structures, designed to ensure project appropriateness and consistency with the GEF mandate (e.g., GEF Operations Committee, Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, and the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit) are either insufficiently independent and/or inadequately empowered to prevent powerful interests from promoting inappropriate technologies.

Transitional substances. Many NGOs have been critical of the short-term approach of the GEF's Ozone Operational Strategy because it funds the use of substances that deplete the ozone layer, although to a lesser extent than the substances they replace. These substances, deemed "transitional," will necessitate a second conversion at additional cost at a later date as required under the terms of the Montreal Protocol. However, the GEF does not require those promoting transitional substances to cost out the second conversion. By effectively ignoring the future costs of transitional technologies, their use can be falsely justified on cost-effective grounds.

Some NGOs believe that vested interests in the GEF are attempting to use the flawed short-term cost-effectiveness criteria to shut out more environmentally appropriate, widely available and non-proprietary alternatives. These technologies may be more expensive initially but over the longer term become much more cost-effective.