1. EVALUATION OF METHYL BROMIDE PROJECTS POST HARVEST, STORAGE AND STRUCTURES SUB-SECTOR Ansgar Eussner Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Multilateral Fund Montreal April 4, 2006 Based on Documents UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/46/07 Final Report on the Evaluation of Methyl Bromide Projects and decision 46/05

2. EVALUATION OF METHYL BROMIDE PROJECTS Table 1: Projects Evaluated during the Field Study in May 2005 Project number, country and status Commodities included Alternatives chosenImplementin g agency IRA/FUM/29/INV/57 Iran, ongoing investment project (about 30 months delay) Dates and figs, nuts, pistachio, grain and seeds Fumigation with solid phosphine formulations in bag stacks and chambers UNIDO KEN/FUM/21/DEM/12 Cancelled Cereal grainDemonstration on the use of CO 2 in combination with phosphine in silos and permanent sheeting of grain bag stacks Australia KEN/FUM/26/DEM/20 Kenya, ongoing (?) demonstration project (about 50 months delay) Cereal grainUse of diatomaceous earth formulations in an IPM (integrated pest management) scheme Environme nt Canada SYR/FUM/24/DEM/30 Syria, completed demonstration project (with a delay of 13 months) Cereal grainFumigation with solid phosphine formulations, cylinderized phosphine, and cylinderized CO 2 UNIDO SYR/FUM/34/INV/80 Syria, ongoing investment project (about 12 months delay) Cereal grainFumigation of bag stacks with solid phosphine formulations UNIDO TUR/FUM/31/INV/69 Turkey, ongoing investment project (about 27 months delay) Dried figsPhosphine fumigation, CO 2 treatment in pressure chambers, Volcani cubes World Bank Ansgar Eussner Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer

3. 3 I – Main Findings 1)During implementation high priority was given to technical issues such as purchasing and installing equipment, comparing the effect of different treatments on target pests, checking possible side effects on commodities, fine tuning of application techniques, etc., while no detailed reports on economic assessments have been provided during the missions. Economic studies should not only compare cost of different alternatives (e.g. comparison of gas prices) but also study the impact of new technologies on the relevant business. Questions such as the following should be analyzed: a)What additional cost is involved in a treatment that takes longer than a MB application (possible cost of the time factor)? b)What is the possible intrinsic cost (or perhaps short term advantage?) of continued use of MB for a company, a whole industry or the economy of a country? c)How can medium and long term business opportunities arising from a shift to safer alternatives be evaluated in economic terms? Ansgar Eussner Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer

4. 4 I – Main Findings (Cont’d) 2)Throughout the field evaluation it was obvious that needs and wishes of beneficiaries had not been sufficiently considered. Local expertise was often not consulted to the necessary extent. This contributed to a number of problems such as: a)choice of alternatives that were not well adapted to the needs (especially in Kenya, and to some extent also in Iran and Turkey) problems to find a suitable partner organization (Syria) b)frustration of specialists once they have the feeling that their expertise has not been adequately taken into account c)insufficient acceptance of sound MB alternatives by users as information transfer and training was not intensive enough and time to adapt to new procedures was too short (in all four countries) d)Significant implementation delays Ansgar Eussner Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer

5. 5 II - Recommendations 1)Technical issues such as choice and potential of different MB alternatives do not require much testing anymore 2)Preparatory project missions should be undertaken by multi-disciplinary teams 3)A workshop should be organized with major stakeholders to develop the frame for the future project 4)Project design should include some flexibility that allows reaction towards new experiences and developments. Continuous monitoring and step wise planning of activities 5)External coaching may be helpful to support this approach Ansgar Eussner Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer

6. 6 II. Recommendations (cont’d) 6)It is strongly recommended that project designs take all dimensions of a problem sufficiently into account (technical, environmental, economic, social etc.). In particular, all projects should have substantial components on awareness raising, information transfer and training. Training of trainers should be included if there is a perspective for them to transmit their knowledge to beneficiaries 7)Implementing agencies such as UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO and the World Bank are encouraged to create a forum for better information transfer from project to project and other interested institutions and persons (preferably a Website) 8)Individual projects should not become playgrounds for ambitious scientific or technical experts but be focused on real needs and potentials Ansgar Eussner Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer