Presented by Mark Wagner ICF International November 2012 E VALUATION OF THE F INANCIAL M ECHANISM OF THE M ONTREAL P ROTOCOL

O VERVIEW OF E VALUATION P ROCESS  Evaluation requested by the Parties in decision XXII/2, and carried out according to the TOR in Annex 1 of that decision  Evaluation independently conducted by ICF International from July 2011 through September 2012  Evaluation guided by Steering Panel representing Austria, Canada, Colombia, India, Japan, Nigeria, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the United States  Evaluation finalized in September 2012 incorporating comments on the Draft received from Parties submitted after 32 nd OEWG in Bangkok 2

E VALUATION T IMELINE 3 July - Aug 2011 Evaluation methodology finalized First meeting with Steering Panel Sept – Dec 2011 Conduct evaluation Attend 31st OEWG and 23rd MOP for interviews Jan 2012 Deliver preliminary draft report for Steering Panel comments Feb – Mar 2012 Panel comments incorporated Final draft report submitted to Panel Apr – Jun 2012 Next round of Panel comments incorporated Final evaluation report submitted to 32nd OEWG Sep 2012 Incorporated comments from Australia, Canada, China, EU, Norway, and US Delivered Final Evaluation to Ozone Secretariat on 28 September 2012

P ARTIES I NTERVIEWED  Article 5 Parties interviewed:  Non-Article 5 Parties interviewed:  Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Italy, France, Latvia, the Czech Republic 4 RegionCountries Consulted Africa Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, and Mozambique West AsiaJordan and Kuwait Latin America & CaribbeanSt. Lucia, Mexico, and Paraguay South Asia & South East Asia Mongolia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Fiji Central & Eastern EuropeArmenia and Kyrgyzstan

S ECTIONS OF THE E VALUATION R EPORT U PDATED /A DDED  Section Lessons learned in view of the future challenges of the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund (Updated)  Section 6.2 – Lessons learned from other international environmental institutions and agreements (Updated)  Section 7.2 – Recommendations (Updated)  Appendix C – Comments Received on Draft Report (Added)  Final Report (28 September 2012) available on the Ozone Secretariat website – 24 th MOP documents. 5

K EY F INDINGS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS IN THE F OLLOWING A REAS  Results  Policies and Procedures  Other Issues  Lessons Learned 6

NEW LESSON–L ESSONS LEARNED IN VIEW OF FUTURE CHALLENGES OF THE M ONTREAL P ROTOCOL AND THE MLF 7 collaborative  Some of the key features of how the MLF operates have been instrumental to its success, including:  a compliance-oriented approach,  straightforward and relatively fast access provided to project funds,  consistent application of the principle of incremental costs,  a transparent and business planning process,  continued support for institutional strengthening and capacity building efforts, and  decision-making informed by comprehensive technical analysis.

NEW LESSON–Lessons learned from other international environmental institutions and agreements  Private entity and government sustainability and commitment are critical drivers in the success of GEF investments in the ODS focal area, as they also are in the MLF. Strong private sector involvement, including through providing co-financing, contributed to the rapid and enduring phase-out of ODS.  In CEITs, the national ozone units ceased to function after GEF support ended, which may prevent measures being put in place to address the remaining threats to the ozone layer, including the phase-out of HCFCs and destruction of unwanted ODS stockpiles.  GEF operations have been less cost-effective than those of the MLF, in part because GEF projects did not always adhere to incremental financing procedures. 8