The Twenty-third Meeting of the Executive Committee decided to adopt the format for project completion reports on investment projects, subject to the following provisions (Annex XI.5 as revised by Decisions 30/8 (a) and 32/18(a)):
(a) that the key project milestones should be included in the completion reports themselves;
(b) that the ODS phase-out should be related to national consumption/phase-out;
(c) that the relevant country should also be asked to endorse the report and space should be left for its comments;
(d) that the glossary of terms in Appendix III to the “Format of Project Completion Reports” should be appended to the reports for information purposes but that it should not be formally approved;
(e) that the Implementing Agencies should be encouraged to describe the lessons learned from a project and therefore their statements in this regard should not be qualified as “brief”;
(f) that reference should be made to “local executing agency/financial intermediary”, rather than “local executing agency”, and that this term should be defined in the glossary;
(g) that the Monitoring and Evaluation Officer should develop criteria for the section on overall assessment of the project and that these should be used by all Implementing Agencies;
(h) that the Executive Committee should approve the foregoing criteria in order to ensure that the assessment process was open and transparent;
(i) that reports should be submitted within a maximum period of six months after completion of the project on the basis of provisional financial figures, on the understanding that final financial figures would be prepared by the Implementing Agencies subsequently and that, if the final financial figures differed significantly from the completion report, they could subsequently be brought to the Executive Committee’s attention;
(j) that the Monitoring and Evaluation Officer should submit a consolidated report to the Executive Committee at its third meeting each year, and should submit a status report to other meetings of the Executive Committee indicating the number of investment project completion reports received;
(k) that in 1998 Implementing Agencies should submit their investment project completion reports on projects completed through 1995, together with reports on projects completed in 1996 and 1997, in time for the Executive Committee to receive a first consolidated report at its second meeting in 1998, while the report to be submitted to the third meeting of the Executive Committee in 1998 would cover completion reports on projects completed by the end of 1996.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/23/68, Decision 23/8, para. 21).
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/30/41, Decision 30/8, para. 25(a)).
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/32/44, Decision 32/18, para. 29(a)).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/30/7).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/32/19, Corr.1 and Add.1).
The Twenty-fifth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:
(a) to request the Secretariat to develop operational guidelines to ensure that in the future project completion reports were prepared in a consistent manner by all Implementing Agencies;
(b) to request UNDP to submit copies of its project completion reports as soon as possible.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/25/68, Decision 25/11, para. 33).
The Thirtieth Meeting of the Executive Committee decided:
(a) to approve the revised PCR format for investment projects (Annex XI.5);
(b) to take note of the proposed revised overall assessment scheme for investment projects (Appendix to Annex I to UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/30/7);
(c) to agree on the principle of a quantification and the three indicators proposed (ODS phase-out, cost and implementation delays) (Appendix to Annex I to UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/30/7);
(d) to request that the Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, in association with the Implementing Agencies, continue refining the content and wording of the assessment scheme and report on the results to the Thirty-second Meeting of the Executive Committee;
(e) to request the Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer to continue dialogue with the Implementing Agencies and National Ozone Units, including through the use of network meetings, on the suggested format for terminal reports and extension requests for institutional strengthening projects, to see how the process could be further streamlined and how the work could be divided between the Implementing Agencies and the National Ozone Units so that there would be no additional burden on the National Ozone Units;
(f) to request the Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer to indicate the differences between existing report formats and proposed formats so that members of the Sub-Committee on Monitoring and Evaluation and Finance might compare the work involved in completing each version of the reports;
(g) to request that future proposals for country programme updates be accompanied by an assessment of the results achieved under the approved country programme.
(UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/30/41, Decision 30/8, para. 25 (a)).
(Supporting document: UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/30/7).