|
The Twenty-seventh Meeting of the Executive Committee decided to request
the Sub-Committee on Monitoring, Evaluation and Finance to discuss how to deal
with all the consequences of project cancellation at its next meeting and to
report back to the Executive Committee.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/27/48, Decision 27/9, para. 29).
The Twenty-eighth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:
(a) to clarify the technical
reasons involved when referring to projects that had been cancelled because the
funding level originally approved had been determined to be insufficient due to
technical reasons;
(b) to determine the potential
frequency of such projects, given the assumption that they would be rare;
(c) to establish the financial
implications of allowing such projects to be resubmitted;
(d) to request the Secretariat, in
consultation with the Implementing Agencies, to prepare a document on these
issues; and
(e) to request the Sub-Committee on Monitoring,
Evaluation and Finance to consider the recommendation further at its Ninth
Meeting, taking into account the above points, and to report back to the
Executive Committee at its Twenty-ninth Meeting.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/28/57,
Decision 28/19, para. 34).
The Twenty-eighth Meeting of the Executive Committee also decided to
request the representatives of the Implementing Agencies to identify the
reasons for which projects had been cancelled or for which it was proposed to
cancel projects.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/28/57,
Decision 28/20, para. 35).
The Twenty-ninth Meeting of the
Executive Committee decided:
(a) that no reapplication for assistance from the
Multilateral Fund should be allowed for projects that had been cancelled for the
following reasons:
(i) transfer of ownership to a non-Article 5
country;
(ii) bankruptcy.
(b) that reapplication for assistance from the
Multilateral Fund at a level of funding no greater than that previously
approved, following a new decision to be taken on a case-by-case basis, should
be allowed for projects that had been cancelled for other reasons such as:
(i) request of the company/financial situation;
(ii) persistent project delays (after making sure
that the causes of earlier delays had been removed);
(iii) lack
of response from the beneficiary.
In cases where reapplication was
allowed pursuant to subparagraph (b) above, it could not take place within 24
months from cancellation.
Furthermore, second requests for project preparation, pursuant to
subparagraph (b) above, could be considered as eligible incremental costs on a
case-by-case basis, but should not exceed 30 per cent of initial project
preparation funds.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/29/65,
Decision 29/8, para. 26).
The Fortieth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided that enterprises
with cancelled projects eligible for resubmission pursuant to Decision 29/8 may
be allowed to submit a request to reinstate the cancelled projects with the
incremental costs adjusted by the amount of funds disbursed on the cancelled
projects, and the level of phase-out based on the original approval as modified
by Decision 39/13(b).
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/40/50,
Decision 40/16, para. 55 (e).
|