45th Meeting of the Executive Committee

The Executive Committee decided:

(a) To take note of the report on the evaluation of customs officers training and licensing system projects contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/45/11, including the recommendations in Section V of the document;

(b) To request the Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer to revise the language of the recommendations to make them less prescriptive and more general and to include a section on conclusions;

(c) To request the Secretariat:

(i) To draft a covering note, for submission to the Parties, reflecting the comments on the report made by members of the Executive Committee at the 45th Meeting, to which the revised report would be annexed;

(ii) To post a revised version of the report on its intranet to enable the members to review the text and send in their comments; and

(iii) To submit the revised report and the covering note, after approval by the Chair of the Executive Committee, to the 25th Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. 

(Decision 45/10)

 

The Executive Committee decided:

(a) To take note of the extended desk study on the evaluation of national phase-out plans contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/45/12, including the proposed evaluation issues and approach for the second phase of the evaluation;

(b) That the follow-up phase of the evaluation should continue as proposed, with the following amendments:

(i) The evaluation should take into account:

 i. The fact that in many countries, delays were caused by administrative problems which the country had to deal with by developing new processes and procedures;

 ii. The cost of independent verification and the possibility of using more cost-effective  alternatives;

 iii. The fact that the levels of phase-out of ODS were not directly proportionate to the levels of disbursement;

 

(ii) The evaluation report should include a section on conclusions highlighting the achievements of the national phase-out plans;

(iii) The list of evaluation issues should also include the following questions:

i. Whether the country felt that there was still a project-by-project approach when several implementing agencies were involved, or whether the national plan approach predominated;

 ii. How the country-driven approach had created a stakeholder buy in; and

 iii. Whether the sequence of activities had been implemented as planned, and if not, why not.

(Decision 45/11)