صندوق سرمایه چند جانبه پروتکل مونترال و توسعه پایدار

The 1987 Montreal Protocol is widely seen as a global environmental accord that has produced tangible results in terms of reductions in ozone-depleting substances. In addition, there have been other benefits, largely unrecognized and undocumented, that can best be characterized in a sustainable development framework based on a review of 50 out of 931 projects implemented over a 13 year period by one of the four implementing agencies of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. All investment projects have reduced ozone depleting potential and global warming potential. Some projects have reduced atmospheric emissions and contamination of groundwater. Other projects have increased the competitiveness of enterprises in domestic and international markets and have sustained and in a few cases created employment opportunities. Others, fewer in number, have potentially contributed to environmental problems, have initially created difficulties in maintaining productivity and quality standards and have decreased the number of employment opportunities because of the need to rationalize manufacturing processes. The potential contributions from Multilateral Fund investment projects to sustainable development could probably have been amplified with project design guidance for the technical staffs of all three implementing agencies executing investment projects. In thinking about other multilateral environmental agreements, one can see the need for similar guidance for Global Environment Facility funded projects supporting the focal areas of climate change, international waters, ozone depletion and persistent organic pollutants. Some of them have the potential to generate multiple beneficial impacts in addition to their stated environmental objective if designed and implemented within a sustainable development framework.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) is widely seen as a global environmental accord that has produced tangible results (Anderson and Sarma, 2002). Implementation of the Protocol has reduced the consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) by more than 90% (UNEP/OS, 2004). By the end of 2002, industrialized countries have reduced their ODS consumption by more than 99% and developing countries have reduced their consumption of ODS by slightly more than 50%. Most of the reduction in ODS consumption in developing countries is attributable to projects implemented by the four multilateral implementing agencies (UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO and World Bank) of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (MLF). What is surprising in reading about the impacts of the MLF in reducing consumption of ODS in developing countries is how narrowly focused are the descriptions of the results of ODS phase out projects. The reports that are available from the Executive Committee of the MLF and the three agencies executing MLF funded investment projects, UNDP, UNIDO and World Bank, focus almost exclusively on the amount of ODS consumption reduced and the costs and cost effectiveness of various measures. The annual reports of the MLF Executive Committee, the latest is November 2003, describe total reductions in ODS consumption and costs as well as a host of fund raising and administrative matters (UNEP, 2003); the sectoral evaluations undertaken by the MLF Secretariat over the past few years (aerosols, compressors, foams, solvents and refrigeration) only mention in passing other environmental issues and economic (productivity) and social aspects of ODS phase out projects (UNEP/MLF, 1999, UNEP/MLF, 2001a, UNEP/MLF, 2001b, UNEP/MLF, 2001c and UNEP/MLF, 2002). The World Bank, which has received the most funding from the MLF, has only recently evaluated its implementation of MLF projects (World Bank, 2004) (Table 1). The focus of its evaluation is almost exclusively on administrative matters, particularly those with financial intermediaries that disperse investment funds for plant level conversions. The initial report by UNIDO on its 10 year history in implementing MLF funded projects focused almost exclusively on the effectiveness and efficiency of UNIDO's sectoral programmes for phasing out ODS in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors (UNIDO, 2002 and UNIDO, 2003). The United Nations Development Programme, which uses the Office of Programme Services to disperse funds for plant level conversions, is only now undertaking a review of its implementation of MLF funded projects (Carvalho, 2004). In all of these published or planned reports, there is virtually no mention of the other environmental impacts or of potential economic and social benefits or dis-benefits of plant level conversions. The lack of descriptions and reporting on the part of the implementing agencies is even more surprising given the decade long attention to sustainable development, particularly the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio, 1992) and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002).Several articles and at least three books have reviewed the achievements of the Protocol and in particular the varied issues associated with its implementation in industrialized and developing countries. The three books (Benedick, 1998, Anderson and Sarma, 2002 and Parson, 2003) are comprehensive reviews of the history of the international effort to reduce ODS. More focused reviews that address in varying degrees implementation issues in developing countries are Biermann and Simonis (1999), Brown et al. (1999), French (1997), Gray (2003), Oberthuer et al. (2000), O'Connor (1991) and Zhao and Ortolano (1999). As with the case of the MLF and Implementing Agencies reports, the books and some articles discuss the reductions in ODS consumption and production. However, there is little mention of the other environmental impacts or of the economic and social implications resulting from the implementation of MLF funded investment projects. In light of the relatively narrow focus on the results of MLF funded investment projects, UNIDO decided to complement its ongoing technology focused 10-year review by documenting examples of the wider range of potential sustainable development benefits and dis-benefits that have resulted from the implementation of a number of MLF projects. Unlike the World Bank, which disburses MLF funds for plant level conversions to developing country, financial institutions that are responsible for plant level conversions and UNDP, which mainly contracts out the design and implementation of plant level conversions to the UN Office of Programme Services, UNIDO has a unique in-house and hands on approach to implementation of MLF funded projects that gives it considerable knowledge of the wider implications of the projects it had implemented. UNIDO's technical personnel collect baseline economic and employment information as part of their project preparation and often advise plants, in light of the Organization's mandate, about transforming the manufacturing process into a more productive and market oriented operation. The initial contact with plants allowed for follow up on some projects with changes in baseline performance of their manufacturing and agricultural operations. The wider review examined 50 projects of the total of 931 UNIDO projects funded by the MLF and drew to a limited extent on the sectoral evaluations undertaken by the MLF cited above. The 50 projects selected, approximately 5% of the total number of UNIDO MLF funded projects, were those with reasonably complete pre-project preparation worksheets and documented post performance economic and employment performance. Forty-four of the 50 projects were investment projects which were about 10% of the total number of investment projects; they accounted for about 21% of the amount of investment funds disbursed and about 28% of ODP tons phased out. (Annex 1 lists all the UNIDO projects included in the review; numbers in brackets throughout the article refer to individual projects included in the review.) The broader review of UNIDO projects, undertaken by the authors of this article, examined a range of environmental, economic and social implications in light of UNIDO's mandate to enhance the contribution of industry to sustainable development. Industry contributes to sustainable development where there is a pattern or patterns of development that balance a country's concern for a competitive economy, for productive employment and for a sound environment, collectively identified as the three Es of sustainable industrial development. Either absolutely or comparatively, such development should accomplish three things: (i) it encourages a competitive economy with industry producing for export as well as the domestic market; (ii) it creates productive employment with industry bringing long-term employment and increased prosperity and (iii) it protects the environment with industry efficiently utilizing non-renewable resources, conserving renewable resources and remaining within the functional limits of the ecosystem (UNIDO, 1998) In practice, UNIDO technical cooperation projects, such as MLF funded investment projects, foster sustainable development by targeting at least one of the three dimensions of sustainable development while at the same time contributing to or at least taking into consideration the other two dimensions.

UNIDO executed MLF projects have contributed as expected to reducing the threat of ozone depletion. In addition, they have contributed to other aspects and dimensions of sustainable development. Some projects have reduced the potential for other environmental risks, increased the competitiveness of enterprises in domestic and international markets and sustained and in a few case created employment opportunities. Others, probably fewer in number, have initially created difficulties in maintaining the quality of products or have reduced employment opportunities in those conversions requiring rationalization of manufacturing processes. Associated training programmes in some cases have contributed to strengthening of management and technical skills needed to absorb and adopt new information. In light of these findings, one needs to ask why there have not been any other efforts to document the full range of environmental, economic and social implications of MLF funded investment projects. Given additional reflection, one should not be surprised by the lack of documentation for at least four reasons. First, post-hoc project evaluations of the sustainable development impacts of individual conversion projects require considerable time and financial resources, often in situations with incomplete project completion reports and loss of key plant personnel who was involved in the conversion project.13 Ideally, performance changes in converted plants would be compared with a control group of plants. The objective of the Montreal Protocol, the total phase out of ODS, would have prevented it even if it had been possible. Second, the executive committee of the MLF does not require the three implementing agencies executing MLF funded investment projects to provide economic and social baseline information in their requests for investment funds for subsidized plant level conversions in developing countries. The information required is ODS consumption by the manufacturer(s), technology options, incremental investment and operating costs and amount of ODS eliminated. Third, there is no project design guidance for the staffs of the three implementing agencies executing MLF funded investment projects on how to maximize associated benefits i.e. sustainable development impacts, at no additional (incremental) expense to the MLF. So whenever these other benefits result, and they do, they happen mainly as a result of individual initiatives by staffs of the implementing agencies and enterprises concerned about their economic future. The potential contributions from MLF investment projects to sustainable development would probably have been amplified with explicit project design guidance on sustainability potential for the technical staffs of all three implementing agencies executing investment projects.14 The project design guidance would have made explicit the need to consider potential associated benefit as long as achieving these benefits did not entail any additional cost to the MLF nor impinge upon the ODS phase out objective. Specifically, the guidance would have required additional factors to be considered in project documents and project completion reports. Factors to be included would have been other positive and negative environmental consequences, proposed supplemental investments by plants, current and estimated future changes in productivity, current and estimated future domestic and market shares and current and estimated future technical skills of plant personnel. In addition, plants would have been required to maintain records on changes resulting from the investment project, such as air emissions and hazardous wastes, market shares, employment and levels. In thinking about other and yet-to-be implemented multilateral environmental agreements, one can see the need for expanded project design guidance for Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded projects, particularly those that support the focal areas of climate change, international waters, ozone depletion and persistent organic pollutants (GEF, 2002).15 There is a need for a generic review of potential positive socio-economic benefits and potential negative environmental impacts from investment projects in each of these focal areas, for training and experience sharing among the technical staffs of the implementing agencies in project design and monitoring, and for use of agreed upon indicators that measure potential changes in the wide range of sustainable development impacts. Lastly, there would appear to be the need for guidance if the GEF supports capacity building for the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol.16 If these changes are made, many more GEF projects in these focal areas would have the potential to generate multiple beneficial impacts in addition to their stated environmental objective.