united nations development programme country: belarus project … · 2019-12-01 · united nations...

United Nations Development ProgrammeCountry: Belarus

PROJECT DOCUMENT1

Project Title: “Initial Implementation of Accelerated HCFC Phase Out in the CEIT Region”

UNDAF Outcome: 3. Environmental sustainability is increased

Expected CPD Outcome: 3.2. Sustainable use of the country’s natural resources promoted

Expected CPD Output: 3.2.2. Sound management of chemicals (SMC) promoted

Executing Entity: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus (MNREP)

Implementing Entity: UNDP

Brief DescriptionThe current FSP is a response to the obligations incurred by Belarus under the phase out schedule for HCFCs of the Montreal Protocol. Itis a timely capacity building effort (with investment elements for the servicing sector) designed to improve regulatory measures to helpaddress the accelerated HCFC phase-out in the medium and longer term, and to strengthen the country’s preparedness for the completephase-out of HCFCs from current use. The institutions in Belarus that were supported by the GEF for the past CFC-phase out efforts havebeen re-engaged in the proposal as much as possible.In the following document the two primary project components listed in the PIF are described along with their sub-components, namely:Component 1 “Regional information exchange and networking” addresses the barriers associated with incomplete knowledge andawareness and corresponds to the PIF Component 1; Outcomes 1(a-d).Component 2 “National capacity building and technical assistance” supports the adoption of the fully completed HCFC phase-out strategy(with selected legislative options to control HCFC import/use), capacity building and supply of analytical and servicing equipment/toolsfor the Environmental Inspectorate and Customs Departments and refrigeration technicians, technological conversions for solvents andrigid foams, modernization of HCFC re-use scheme in the country and demonstration of alternative technologies in refrigerationequipment and A/C sectors, pilot small-scale ODS destruction, the current absence of effective regulatory instruments and need to supportongoing institutional development. It is aligned with Outcome 2 (a) - Belarus.

Programme Period: 2011-2015

Atlas Award ID: 00070086Project ID: 00084272PIMS #: 4309

Start date: April 2013End date: June 2015Management Arrangements: NEX (reg DIM)

Total allocated resources: US$ 9,095,000

o GEF^ US$ 2,200,000Parallel financing:

o Government: US$ 1,050,000o Other: US$ 5,845,000

Ministry of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalProtection of the Republic of Belarus

Vladimir G. TsalkoMinister

Signature Date

UNDPSanaka SamarasinhaUNDP Resident Representative in Belarus

Signature Date

1 For UNDP supported GEF funded projects as this includes GEF-specific requirements

3

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

A/C Air ConditionerCEIT Countries with Economies in TransitionCFC ChlorofluorocarbonsCIS Commonwealth of Independent StatesEU European UnionExCom Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal

ProtocolGEF Global Environmental FacilityGDP Gross Domestic ProductGWP Global Warming PotentialHCFC HydrochlorofluorocarbonsHFC HydrofluorocarbonsHFO HydrofluoroolefinsHPMP HCFC Phase Out Management PlanDTIE Division of Trade Industry and Environment (UNEP)kw KilowattIA Implementing AgencyiPIC Informal Prior Informed ConsentMAC Mobile Air ConditioningMLF Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal ProtocolMP Montreal ProtocolMNREP Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of BelarusMSP Medium Size ProjectMT Metric TonneNOU National Ozone UnitODP Ozone Depleting PotentialODS Ozone Depleting SubstancePU PolyurethaneQPS Quarantine Pre-ShipmentRAC Refrigeration and Air ConditioningRMP Refrigerant Management PlanTA Technical AssistanceTEAP Technology and Economic Assessment PanelTEWI Total Equivalent Warming ImpactUNEP United Nations Environmental ProgrammeUNDP United Nations Development Programme

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 SITUATION ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................................................7

1.1 GLOBAL CONTEXT AND SIGNIFICANCE ..............................................................................................................71.1.1 ISSUE BACKGROUND AND BASELINE .........................................................................................................................................81.1.2 GLOBAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ..........................................................................................................................131.1.3 LINKAGES WITH CP, UNDAF AND CCA .............................................................................................................................151.2 KEY BARRIERS ................................................................................................................................................... 161.3 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 181.4 BASELINE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 21

2 STRATEGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 22

2.1 PROJECT RATIONALE AND POLICY CONFORMITY ....................................................................................... 22

3 PROJECT GOAL, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS/ACTIVITIES ................................. 24

3.1 COMPONENT 1 - REGIONAL ACCELERATED PHASE-OUT CAPACITY BUILDING (GEF FINANCING US$295,001 (INCLUSIVE OF REGIONAL PMC – US$ 45,000); NATIONAL CO-FINANCING US$ 450,000) ................ 253.1.1 OUTCOME 1A - LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY OPTIONS FOR HCFC PHASE-OUT AND CONTROL (US$ 55,556)253.1.2 OUTCOME 1B - CAPACITY BUILDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF HCFC CONTROL MEASURES BY CUSTOMSAND ENVIRONMENTAL/TECHNICAL INSPECTION AUTHORITIES (US$ US$ 55,556) ...........................................................253.1.3 OUTCOME 1C - CAPACITY BUILDING FOR THE REFRIGERATION SECTOR, INCORPORATION OF ENERGY-EFFICIENCY AND GHG REDUCTION ELEMENTS (US$ 111,111) ................................................................................................. 253.1.4 OUTCOME 1D - SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CAPACITY, ANDCOOPERATION (US$ 27,778).....................................................................................................................................................................253.1.5 OVERVIEW COMPONENT 1 - REGIONAL ACCELERATED PHASE-OUT CAPACITY BUILDING .............................263.2 COMPONENT 2A - HPMP, NATIONAL LEVEL CAPACITY STRENGTHENING AND HCFC PHASE-OUTINVESTMENT (GEF FINANCE – US$ 1,965,000; NATIONAL CO-FINANCE – US$ 6,115,000) .............................. 283.2.1 OUTPUT 2A.1: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROVED FORMAL HCFC PHASE-OUT STRATEGY AND ACTIONPLAN 283.2.2 OUTPUT 2A.2: TRAINED WORKING LEVEL CUSTOMS AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, AND REFRIGERATIONTECHNICIANS (USING RESOURCES (TRAINERS AND TRAINING MATERIALS) FROM COMPONENT 1 WITH RESPECT TOLEGISLATION, REGULATIONS, CUSTOMS CONTROLS, REFRIGERATION SERVICING TECHNIQUES, AND GENERALBEST PRACTICES) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................303.2.2.1 Customs and environmental control officials training and equipment support to enhance Customscontrol capability ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 303.2.2.2 Refrigeration technicians training and equipment support to enhance refrigeration-servicing practices 333.2.3 OUTPUT 2A3 – TARGETED PHASE-OUT INVESTMENT AND PILOT PROJECTS .......................................................343.2.3.1 PU Foam conversion project: The phase-out the use of HCFC-141b at MAZ Kupava ................................. 353.2.3.2 Solvents conversion project: Elimination of the use HCFC-141b at Atlant (David-GorodokElectromechanical Plant) as a solvent in assembling/manufacturing processes ................................................................... 363.2.3.3 Demonstration of natural cooling technologies for milk coolers and refrigerated equipment sectors ..... 373.2.3.4 Upgrade of HCFC re-use system through strengthening R/R/R centers and improving local distributionof bulk HCFC/HFCs in support of container import regulations ................................................................................................ 393.2.3.5 Destruction Pilot Project ........................................................................................................................................................... 413.3 COMPONENT 3 - MONITORING, LEARNING, AND ADAPTIVE FEEDBACK, OUTREACH AND EVALUATION433.4 PROJECT INDICATORS, RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................ 463.4.1 INCREMENTAL REASONING AND INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS............................................................................46

6

3.5 PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK.................................................................................................................... 513.6 TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN.................................................................................................................... 593.7 WORKPLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE................................................................................................... 62

4 MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS............................................................................................................. 66

5 LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................. 69

6 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................. 70

ANNEX 1 - RISK ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 70ANNEX 2 - AGREEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 71ANNEX 3 - TERMS OF REFERENCE:........................................................................................................................... 72PROJECT BOARD AND NATIONAL PROJECT MANAGER .................................................................................................................72PROJECT MANAGER - TENTATIVE TERMS OF REFERENCE ...........................................................................................................74ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCE ASSISTANT - TENTATIVE TERMS OF REFERENCE ..........................................................75ANNEX 4 - MAZ KUPAVA CONVERSION PROJECT (141B TO C-PENTANE) ........................................................... 78ANNEX 5. ATLANT/DAVID GORODOK SOLVENT CONVERSION PROJECT (FOR “ATLANT”)............................. 97ANNEX 6. PROVISION OF UNDP COUNTRY OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THEPROJECT “INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ACCELERATED HCFC PHASE OUT IN THE CEIT REGION”.......109

7

1 Situation Analysis

1.1 Global context and significance

HCFCs, a group of ozone-depleting chemicals, are used in a variety of applications such as refrigerants,foam-blowing agents, solvents, fire extinguishers and aerosols. In some cases HCFCs have replacedCFCs use due to their lower ozone depleting potential (ODP). The use of HCFCs is controlled by theMontreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol or MP).

The Montreal Protocol was designed to reduce the production and consumption of ozone depletingsubstances in order to reduce their abundance in the atmosphere, and thereby protect the earth’s fragileOzone Layer. The original Montreal Protocol was agreed on 16 September 1987 and entered into forceon 1 January 1989. The Montreal Protocol includes a unique adjustment provision that enablesthe Parties to the Protocol to respond quickly to new scientific information and agree to accelerate thereductions required on chemicals already covered by the Protocol. The Parties to the Montreal Protocolhave amended the Protocol to enable, among other things, the control of new chemicals and the creationof a financial mechanism to enable developing countries to comply. Specifically, four Amendments –the London Amendment (1990), the Copenhagen Amendment (1992), the Montreal Amendment (1997)and the Beijing Amendment (1999) have been made to the Protocol. Amendments must be ratified bycountries before their requirements are applicable to those countries2.

The Copenhagen Amendment of the Montreal Protocol of 1992 stipulated that Article 2 countries needto reduce their HCFC consumption to 65% of their baseline in 2004, to 35% of that level in 2010, to10% by 2015, to 0.5% in 2020 and finally achieve full phase out in 2030. The Beijing Amendment of1999 extended control measures for HCFCs to production with a freeze in production by 2004 at thebaseline. In September 2007, MOP 19 adopted the Montreal Adjustment on Production andConsumption of HCFCs, which entered into force on 14 May 2008. This requires that Article 2countries accelerate both HCFC consumption and production to 25% of the baseline in 2010.

A number of GEF CEIT countries fall under Article 2 of the Montreal Protocol, and Belarus is a part ofthis group.

Such countries are generally eligible for GEF funding in support of HCFC phase out, subject to havingratified the Copenhagen amendment, which Belarus did in 2006 as detailed below.

The Republic of Belarus was among the first countries to sign the Vienna Convention and the MontrealProtocol. By signing the Montreal Protocol on January 22, 1988 and ratifying it on October 31, 1988,Belarus undertook to reduce and phase out the consumption of ODS and continues to fully implementthese measures. The first of these obligations was practically assumed with the ratification of theLondon Amendment in 1996. On December 18, 2006, the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijingamendments to the Montreal Protocol were adopted under Law No. 184-3 of the Republic ofBelarus. The adopted amendments entered into force in the Republic on June 11, 2007.

Belarus is a developed country or Article 2 Party to the Montreal Protocol and all the amendments to it.As such it is subject to the phase out obligations so dictated, including those applied under Decision

2 http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php

8

XIX/6 as addressed in the draft HCFC phase-out strategy. At the present time, Belarus is in compliancewith all its obligations.

1.1.1 Issue background and baseline

Historically, the Republic of Belarus has never produced ODS, however, as in most industrializedcountries, Belarus has been a consumer of CFCs and more recently of HCFCs. As a result, thecountry’s main efforts have and continue to be aimed at reducing and eliminating the use of suchsubstances and replacing them with non-ODS alternatives. The main historical use of ODS has been inmanufacturing of refrigeration equipment (blowing agent in the production of foam products andassociated manufacturing, and/or as a solvent in metal parts and electronics cleaning duringmanufacturing processes), and in servicing refrigeration and air conditioning (RAC) equipment that wasboth manufactured in, or imported into the country.

The first stage of ODS consumption reductions was carried out between 1996 and 2000. In preparationfor this, between 1993 and 1995, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Protection of theRepublic of Belarus (MEPNR) with the assistance of the Danish Government and the InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) developed a National Program (Country Program)to end the use of ozone-depleting substances in Belarus, specifically in respect to the LondonAmendment and the Phase out of Annex A and B substances. This was formally adopted by Decree ofthe Cabinet of Ministers No. 115 in February 1996. It resulted in preparation of a GEF project entitled“Republic of Belarus: Ozone Depleting Phase Out Project”3 supported by a GEF project preparationgrant and was approved by the GEF and IBRD for implementation in May 1997. This project, whichinvolved US$6.9 million in GEF funding and US$7.9 million in national co-financing, was completedat the end of 20004.

The overall result of this project was the removal from use of more than 600 tons of Annex A ODS(CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-113) along with a significant improvement of the technological level andthe competitiveness of manufactured products with introduction of the latest technological equipment.It also supported the establishment of the national regulatory and licensing system. More specifically,the project implemented the following sub-projects:

Atlant CJSC (Minsk) converted from CFC-11 to cyclopentane in producing insulating foam andfrom CFC-12 to HCFC-134a (and subsequently R-600a) in the manufacture of domesticrefrigerators as well as purchased equipment for the repair of domestic refrigerators by servicecenters throughout the country;

Minsk Appliance Plant, Zavod Tsvetotron RUPP (Brest), Minsk Computer ProductionAssociation State Enterprise and Zavod Kamerton Unitary Enterprise (Pinsk), replaced cleaningof electronic components using CFC-113 and methyl chloroform with modern technologyinvolving such things as a water-soluble solder flux process and high purity aqueous cleaningsystems;

3 http://www.gefonline.org/ProjectDocs/Ozone%20Depletion/Belarus%20-%20Phaseout%20of%20Ozone%20Depleting%20Substances/Project%20Document.pdf4 http://www-ds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/07/27/000094946_01071404014660/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdfhttp://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/07/27/000094946_01071404014660/Rendered/INDEX/multi0page.txt

9

Beltorgprogress RPO acquired equipment for refrigeration equipment repair service centers andtechnicians for servicing commercial refrigeration throughout the country including: sixrecycling stations that recycle refrigerants for their subsequent reuse; a reclaiming station (finepurification of refrigerants); six ODS analyzers (gas analyzers); a gas chromatograph, and morethan 1500 pieces of equipment for technicians, along with the training of 1,050 technicians; and

Training in the recovery and replacement of halons in fire protection systems.

Overall, Belarus achieved the distinction of being the first country in the Former Soviet Union to meetits London Amendment obligations for Annex A and B ODS phase out and has generally been viewedas one of the most advanced countries in the region in addressing the ODS issue. Consistent with globalpractice, the replacement of CFC based technology has occurred in part through the use of HCFCs.

In terms of initial response to the GEF-4 cycle programme, a draft strategy document (HCFC phase-outstrategy for Belarus) was developed in conjunction with the Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus (MNREP). The main objective of the strategy wasto help ensure that the country be in respect of the obligations assumed under Decision XIX/6 of theParties to the Montreal Protocol on the accelerated phase of HCFCs. It has been prepared as part of aregional Global Environmental Facility (GEF) project with UNDP/UNEP assistance and forms the basisfor an intervention on continued capacity building of the country to implement the Montreal Protocoland investment support to strengthen national capabilities in dealing with HCFCs.

The HCFC consumption survey work, that was completed as a part of developing the draft phase-outstrategy, provides a detailed description of the country’s regulatory framework and specifically controlmeasures applied to HCFCs, and historical reporting of HCFC consumption based on the country’sestablished import licensing system. Using an analysis of regulatory control data related to HCFCconsumption and direct surveys applied to distributors and end users of HCFCs, consumption estimateswere updated and the nature of that consumption by application, sector and region were characterized.Likewise, analysis was undertaken for HCFC based equipment and products and on the utilization ofnon-ODS alternatives and technologies in the country.

The survey work conducted during the initial preparatory phase of the HCFC Phase-Out Strategy forBelarus indicated that the country was well advanced in terms of HCFC phase out relative to other CIScountries as some proactive actions such as HCFC import taxation had been implemented. The countryhas a strong regulatory framework in place, HCFC consumption is declining, remains well within thelimits set by Decision XIX/6, and the country can generally be projected to achieve full phase out wellin advance of 2020, when non-Article 5 countries must effectively achieve this status, if assistanceadditional to the previous CFC phase-out is provided to sustain the current capacities.

However, the country has some unique challenges imposed by its current Customs Union with theRussian Federation, something that has effectively negated its ability to comprehensively controlimports of HCFCs as well as HCFC containing equipment and products as they enter the country.Historically, this has led to substantial under reporting of HCFC consumption. In recognition of this,Belarus adopted a methodology for HCFC regulatory control and consumption estimation based on theapplication of license limits applied internally within the country to end users of HCFCs. This approachhas been used in 2009/2010 Montreal Protocol reporting and is recommended to be utilized in the

10

future, both for official reporting and establishing a phase-out schedule as the basis for HCFC phase-out.

In 2005, a study was undertaken for MNREP by the "Ekologia" Belarusian Research Center to evaluateconsumption of ODS and particularly HCFCs in the country5 at the time. It appeared from the findingsthat ODS consumption, principally HCFCs, was approximately 180-200 MT/year. 50.6% was HCFC-22, 23.4% were HCFC mixtures used as drop-in refrigerants in CFC-12 based equipment6, and 10.32%other HCFCs and mixtures, primarily HCFC-141b. This analysis demonstrated that the primary use ofODS was in the refrigeration and air conditioning sectors, mainly for servicing but with somemanufacturing consumption. An analysis of overall refrigerant use in the country indicated that ODSaccounted for 74% of all such use and with the elimination of residual CFC-12 use were effectively allHCFCs. The 16% share at that time for non-ODS refrigerants involved ammonia, HFC-134a and HFC-404a. Smaller but more easily addressed consumption also occurs in the manufacturing sector, namelyin the use of HCFC-141b in foam blowing and solvent applications.

The work undertaken to obtain estimates of actual HCFC consumption in the country was not definitivebut allowed the range of consumption to be defined and an approximate consumption amount to be usedfor purposes of more realistic reporting and for developing a phase out strategy. The upper limit ofHCFC consumption was assumed to be defined by the limits imposed by the licensing system applied toend users in the country. Given the official status of this information it can serve as an annualregulatory limit on consumption. In the absence of more accurate official data, this was used forreporting to the Ozone Secretariat, noting that it likely over reports actual consumption. This approachwas taken in the country’s 2009 reporting where 10.4 ODP MT of consumption along with 2.9 ODPMT of HCFC-141b in fully formulated polyol were reported. This compared to the actual reportedconsumption against the 2009 limit of 3.2 ODP MT or the amount of 2008 consumption identified fromdirect end user surveys of 4.1 ODP MT7. It should be noted that it is anticipated that both the reportingof actual consumption as determined by reporting against limits or direct end user survey work can stillbe expected to underestimate real consumption by some degree.

Current HCFC consumption in Belarus is capped by a limit of 10.4 ODP MT by both end users anddistributors. This trend would indicate that a complete phase out should be achievable by 2015, givenadequate external assistance to facilitate, and this was recommended as the target on which the nationalHCFC phase out strategy was to be based.

Analysis of the data obtained during the preparation of the Draft Strategy described above suggests thefollowing:

Belarus’ overall official reported consumption of HCFC’s, based on import licenses, has beengenerally declining since 2004. Reasons behind that are related to the introduction of HCFCtaxation on import and at the same time to underreporting due to inability to capture imports due thefunctioning of the Customs Union;

5RUP Belarusian Research Center “Ekologia”, Report No 93/3.8/47-2005, State Registration No 20052742)6 Primarily a proprietary Russian manufactured blend known as Astor 12 or C10M1 that is a mixture of HCFC-21, HCFC22 and HCFC-142b7 Made up of 3.7 ODOP MT from the end user survey results, 0.4 ODP MT of manufacturing solvent use.

11

Reporting on the basis of internal licensed limits applied to end users and distributors suggestssubstantially higher consumption, although the level remains in compliance, and if this does notincrease would be so through to 2015 after which potential non-compliance can be expected in ascenario that no action in the servicing sector is taken;

HCFC-22 has been the principal HCFC imported and used in the country although the officiallyreported amounts have dramatically declined since 2000/2001 to the point where HCFC-141b wasthe primary HCFC officially imported and reported;

Prior to 2004, consumption of the different types of HCFCs was consistent with a distribution ofmanufacturing and refrigeration servicing applications, notably a relatively high proportion ofHCFC mixtures characteristic of use as drop-in replacements for CFC-12, something that suggestedcontinued use of older inefficient CFC based equipment;

The above trends appear to continue based on corrected 2009 reporting

From an institutional point of view the previous capacity has degraded in recent years due to publicsector budgetary reductions imposed further to current global and local economic conditions. In 2002the Ozone Office was integrated into the Interregional Specialized Inspectorate for State Control overthe Protection of Air within MNEP and the national budget assumed responsibility for all functionsrelated to regulation, monitoring and international reporting related to ODS matters. This includeddedicated staff, which was essential for the implementation of CFC phase-out programme. In 2006, theSpecialized Inspection created a new department (4 persons) that were entrusted with the issues dealingwith air and ozone layer protection and functioned as the NOU and international focal point. In late2009, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Protection was reorganized and ozone layerprotection themes are now assigned to the Management of Regulatory Effects on Atmospheric Air andWater Resources. However, this was also associated with a substantial staff reduction.

In order to meet its Montreal Protocol obligations through effective HCFC phase-out, a Draft Strategyfor HCFC Phase-Out in Belarus was formulated that describes a number of actions to be pursued inorder to implement full phase out of HCFCs by 2015. These cover the following:

- Strengthening regulatory controls on HCFC consumption, limits and bans on import andlicensed use of HCFC based equipment and products and enhanced regulation of refrigerantdistribution and application practice;

- Strengthening institutional and technical capacity through training of environmentalenforcement, customs and refrigeration servicing personnel;

- Elimination of HCFC consumption in the manufacturing sector with investment in conversion tonon-ODS alternatives;

- Upgrading technical capability in the refrigeration servicing sector with investment inrefrigerant management equipment and infrastructure; and

- Implementation of demonstration projects for low GWP refrigerants and application ofincentives for HCFC equipment retrofit/replacement. It is anticipated that implementation ofthese actions will be supported by financing from a new GEF project, along with nationalfunding.

12

The current full-size proposal is a response to the obligations incurred by Belarus under the phase outschedule for HCFCs of the Montreal Protocol, as amended by the Copenhagen amendment and thesubsequent adjustment adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol at MOP 19 in September 2007.Respectively, it further incorporates above listed components and it is a timely capacity building effort(with investment elements for the servicing sector) that is well placed to improve regulatory measuresto help address the accelerated HCFC phase-out in the medium and longer term, and strengthen thecountry’s preparedness for the complete phase-out of HCFCs from current use.

In addition, as indicated below, there remain a number of significant issues that need to be addressed tosustain the positive progress toward eliminating HCFC consumption. It is expected that these willrequire a range of actions on the part of government and enterprises, forming the basis for the country’sphase out strategy:

Limitations on ability to control imports - Due to the Customs Union arrangements with Russia andnow Kazakhstan, Belarus presently has limited ability to control HCFC imports or apply availableeconomic instruments;

Under utilization of current limits regulations - While an excellent regulatory framework exists forapplication of limits to the sale, distribution and end use of HCFCs internally this needs to bemaintained and expanded to provide reliable ability to report and control HCFC;

Sustainability of institutional capacity - At a general level, the sustainability of Belarus’ goodperformance in ODS phase out requires maintenance of its historically strong institutional capacityin this area, something that has recently declined and could represent a significant risk to itsprogress in ODS phase out generally;

Manufacturing consumption - Residual HCFC consumption in the manufacturing sector usingoutdated technology remains and will likely diminish the competitiveness and export market accessof these enterprises in the future;

Refrigerant management capacity - Given that refrigeration servicing remains the dominantapplication for HCFC technology, the country’s overall capacity in refrigerant management needs tobe strengthened to ensure recovery and recycling is maximized, capacity for alternative technologiesexists, and ultimately management of “end of life” refrigerants is provided for and fully utilized;

Introduction of Low GWP Technologies - While Belarus has effectively introduced non-ODSalternatives in the form of HFC based technology, there is limited penetration of newer low-GWPtechnology, except in domestic refrigeration (hydrocarbons) and a few large industrial refrigerationapplications (ammonia). This technology will increasingly be the international standard in marketsin which Belarus will compete.

The country strategy that is adopted for HCFC phase out essentially involves addressing each of theabove issues. It is proposed that this be done with an overall strategic policy framework that setsspecific national phase out objectives, and establishes and implements an action plan that defines theactivities required to achieve this.

13

On the technical support level, the HCFC management plan, prepared in support of the HCFC phase-out strategy implementation and detailed in the current document, consists of two overall assistancecomponents:

(-) Component 1 is in essence an enabling activity conceived as a regional strategy (regionalcomponent – implemented by the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre in accordance with the respectiveUNDP rules and procedures) and includes four main sub-components;

(-) Component 2 is nationally oriented and includes capacity building, training, manufacturingsector phase-out and servicing infrastructure investment.

The regional component aims to provide common Russian language regulatory guidance, “train thetrainers” opportunities related to regulatory enforcement, customs control, expanded licensing andintegration of HCFC Phase-out with energy efficiency/GHG reduction, training materials for transfer tonational level programs, and expanded country exposure within the existing ECA network. It has beendeveloped to build on the tools and networks currently in place for some CEITs and the Article 5countries in the CIS and is to be accessible to all non-Article 5 CIS countries in the region, althoughdirect participatory funding support will be confined to the four countries participating in this project(Belarus, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan).

At the regulatory level, the country specific components will ensure the implementation of enhancedHCFC regulation/import control, enhanced licensing systems, and introduction of HFC monitoringinclusive of working enforcement level training. These components will be complemented by training,to strengthen enforcement (environmental and Customs officers to control HCFC end-use and imports)and operational refrigeration-servicing sectors (training, certification, RAC Association), includingpromotion of energy efficiency and GHG reductions during servicing.

In addition, under this component, investment programs will cover technological conversions in solventand rigid foam sectors, pilot retrofit/replacement incentive programs targeting priority high servicedemand sectors, and strengthening of refrigeration service capacity and optimizing chemicalsdistribution to allow control of container size, as well as preparing collection/storage modalities fordestruction facilitated by a pilot destruction project.

Where cost effective/economically sustainable opportunities are identified, pilot investments in directconsumption phase-out will be undertaken specifically in the foam, refrigeration and solvent sectors.

1.1.2 Global and environmental benefits

The principal global environmental benefit from the project is the phase-out of HCFCs import andconsumption in Belarus to assist the country to gradually reduce dependence on HCFCs and implementits obligations with respect of the Montreal Protocol.

This will be achieved directly during the project period by activities related to building the capacity ofthe country in better controlling the end use and imports of HCFCs and HCFC based equipment on oneside and handling the demand for HCFCs by implementing HCFC re-use system on the other.Component 1 will support the country in exchanging important experiences with other Governments inthe region, and, thus, improving HCFC management approaches at the national level. Component 2 willbuild the Government and private sectors’ capacity to reduce their dependence on imports of HCFCs

14

through technological conversions to low GWP technologies or closed loop processing (in case ofsolvents), strengthening the equipment maintenance practices and HCFC re-use scheme. Demonstrationof alternative technologies (HFC, ammonia through equipment retrofit/replacement) in various sectors,such as commercial milk cooling equipment, will help reduce barriers related to the acceptance of suchtechnologies on the national level (performance, costs of retrofits etc) and will also lead to energysavings to generate wider interest in these and incentivize larger scale technological transitions in futurewhen HCFCs import will be limited. ODS destruction project will assist the country in disposing ofobsolete ODS with the potential broader benefit of providing this capability regionally.

The following summarizes specific global environmental benefits attached to phase-out of HCFCs inBelarus that will be derived from the project:

Country’s compliance with the Montreal Protocol by phasing out the total available HCFCconsumption of 227.28 MT of HCFCs in an accelerated manner by 2015 and preparing thecountry’s capacity to sustain this achievement;

Strengthened institutional capacity of the country to improve decision-making related to HCFCphase-out approaches and to exercise effective regulatory controls over the end use and import ofHCFCs and HCFC based equipment. This will be achieved through regional experience exchangewith other Parties to the Montreal Protocol from the region, improvements in the current legislationas well as through building capacities of environmental inspectors to monitor and control HCFC enduse and of Customs to detect HCFCs/blends/equipment at the entry points and enforce regulatorymeasures as required by the law;

Resulting enhanced knowledge base in terms of information management and technical capacity tosustain planning, decision making and program execution related to HCFC phase-out, as well asengage in effective information exchange nationally and globally;

Technological conversions in the manufacturing sector with selection of low GWP technologiessuch as c-pentane;

Improved Recovery/Recycling/Reclaim infrastructure to help strengthen the HCFC re-use schemein the country to minimize the need for HCFC import and reduce HCFC emissions into theatmosphere;

Strengthened unwanted ODS waste storage capacity at the level of service centers in support ofHCFC re-use scheme and to capture unusable quantities of HCFCs and unrecognizable blendscontaining HCFCs;

Pilot destruction demonstration project aiming to destroy unusable and/orcontaminated/unrecognizable blends. This capacity will in addition provide regional destructioncapability within the Customs union with Russia and Kazakhstan; Improved HCFC/blendsanalytical capacity at the country level to resolve arguments on the content of incoming refrigerantgas in case of mislabeling of packaging and in support of the HCFC re-use system to certify thequality of purified refrigerants;

Demonstration of strong synergies between the ozone layer depletion (HCFC phase-out) andclimate change benefits (reduced HCFC emissions and energy-savings) when piloting alternativetechnologies retrofits/replacement) in the refrigeration and A/C sectors and testing the system ofHCFC re-use/unwanted ODS storage;

15

Creating a high level of awareness by policy makers, stakeholders and the public on the need forHCFC phase-out, which will stimulate sustained attention to the issue and timely responses

In the context of inter-departmental cooperation, the project will improve collaboration between keyGovernmental departments (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Customs) tostrengthen overall sound chemicals management concepts. The principal global environmental benefitfrom the project is estimated to be the amount of avoided consumption, which would occur byachieving compliance as opposed to a base case of no action and continued growth in consumption.

1.1.3 Linkages with CP, UNDAF and CCA

This project seeks to give input to the preparation and implementation of formal HCFC Phase outstrategy and action plan consistent with Decision XIX/6 and which serve as direct input to the updatingof the existing Country Program.

The formal adoption of Decision XIX/6 control measures within the country’s legal and regulatorysystem, will give practical substance to being able to achieving and maintaining country compliance ascommitted to by countries through their ratification of current amendments to the Montreal Protocol.

The Republic of Belarus was among the first countries to sign the Vienna Convention and the MontrealProtocol. By signing the Montreal Protocol on January 22, 1988 and ratifying it on October 31, 1988,Belarus undertook to reduce and phase out the consumption of ODS and continues to fully implementthese measures. The first of these obligations was practically assumed with the ratification of theLondon Amendment in 1996. On December 18, 2006, the Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijingamendments to the Montreal Protocol were adopted under Law No. 184-3 of the Republic ofBelarus. The adopted amendments entered into force in the Republic on June 11, 2007. Belarus is adeveloped country or Article 2 Party to the Montreal Protocol and all the amendments to it. As such it issubject to the phase out obligations so dictated, including those applied under Decision XIX/6 asaddressed in this strategy. At the present time, Belarus is in compliance with all its obligations.

The project is aligned with the Country Programme in ODS phase-out - specific policy priorities andcommitments related to ODS phase-out are defined by Decree of the President of the Republic ofBelarus No. 502 of October 15, 2007 "About the prohibitions and restrictions on the transfer of certaintypes of goods across the customs border of the Republic of Belarus" and Article 48 of the CustomsCode of the Republic of Belarus. In parallel, the country has made similar policy commitments to anumber of other chemicals related environmental conventions and agreements. These include theStockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2004), and the Basel Convention on theControl of Trans-boundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and its Disposal (1999). The country hasalso subscribed to the 2008 Dubai Declaration on a Strategic Approach to International ChemicalsManagement (SAICM).

It fits with the country’s evolving priorities associated with sound chemicals management as reflectedin the other priority environmental management initiatives related to addressing national prioritiesassociated with other POPs issues, hazardous waste management and SAICM that are being supportedby the Government.

16

The project is consistent with UNDAF through the following outcomes and outputs:

UNDAF Outcome 3. Environmental sustainability is increased:

National system for sound management of chemicals is strengthened. Health system capacity to better assess and address environmental determinants of health is

strengthened. Mechanisms of cross-sectoral cooperation and partnerships towards sustainable development are

developed. National cleaner production (CP) capacities are strengthened by fostering dialogue between

industry and government, by enhancing investments for transfer and by development ofenvironmentally sound technologies.

1.2 Key Barriers

Belarus, while proactively assuming national obligations under the Montreal Protocol has faced somegaps related to lack of technical assistance to continue with the successful implementation of suchobligations that emphasizes the need to international support. At a more specific level, the followingmajor barriers can be identified and which are being explicitly targeted in the project’s design:

Advanced Accelerated HCFC Phase Out: Being in part geographically and economically driven,the country in effect would be attempting to rapidly harmonize its HCFC phase out performancewith that of the European Union, which legislated phase out of new HCFCs in 2010. Therefore, inthe proposed draft HCFC phase-out strategy, the country would like to opt for the phase out HCFCstotally by a date earlier than 2020 something that current trends would indicate would also beachievable, albeit likely with proactive action being taken in a number of areas. Based on theseintentions, the project will help in removing those barriers listed below which prevent the countryfrom doing as well as to remove the need to rely on additional technical assistance in future.

Sustainability of institutional capacity: At a general level, the sustainability of Belarus’ goodperformance in ODS phase out requires maintenance of its historically strong institutional capacityin this area, something that has recently declined and could represent a significant risk to itsprogress in ODS phase out generally. This limits the country from participating in regionalknowledge sharing platforms and collaboration with other Governmental partners to assimilate andimplement best available approaches in controlling HCFC import and phase-out. In order to help thecountry stay up-to-date with the current developments in the Montreal Protocol, assistance isrequired to continue regional and sub-regional cooperation of NOOs and other project partners suchas Customs and refrigeration association.

HCFC consumption in the manufacturing sector that requires technical assistance: HCFC-141b, inthe annual quantity of up to 60-65 metric tons, is consumed in the manufacturing sector in Belarusin terms of foam blowing and solvent agents. While the consumption of HCFC-141b in themanufacturing sector is rather minimal in comparison with HCFC use in servicing sector, thedependence on HCFC-141b cannot be removed without technical assistance in this area. Suchresidual HCFC consumption in the manufacturing sector using outdated technology remains, whichwill diminish the competitiveness and export market access of these enterprises in the future.

17

Refrigerant management capacity: The large majority of HCFC consumption is in the refrigerationservicing sector (96%) involving primarily HCFC-22 but also a significant consumption of HCFCmixtures used in obsolete old CFC-12 based equipment. Unlike many countries, the majority ofidentified service demand is for commercial refrigeration equipment (70%) rather than A/Cequipment, although the significant unaccounted for consumption in the A/C sector exists and isbeing sustained by new HCFC equipment imports is in the A/C sector, specifically for smallerdomestic units. Given that refrigeration servicing remains the dominant application of HCFCtechnology, the country’s overall capacity in refrigerant management needs to be maintained andstrengthened to ensure recovery and recycling is maximized, capacity for alternative technologiesexists, and ultimately management of “end of life” refrigerants is provided for.

Absence of ability to effectively limit import of HCFC containing equipment that creates a long-term HCFC “consumption bubble”: The system of import permitting as a control mechanism ismore effective for HCFC containing equipment and products but it will also be substantiallyundermined by the Customs union with Russia which is a major supply route for refrigerationequipment (originating in Asia), particularly used equipment that would logically be targeted forlimits and potentially bans under current regulations as a main method of phasing out HCFCconsumption.

Current Import Licensing System is ineffective and unsuitable for Consumption Reporting: While anominally comprehensive import licensing system is in place for HCFC chemicals, it is effectivelynot functional because of the absence of any effective customs control at the countries border withRussia which has led to the majority of HCFCs and essentially all refrigerants (which account forvirtually all HCFCs actually consumed) now entering the country without permits to avoid theenvironmental taxation on ODS. In any event, the creation of a formal Customs Union with Russiaand Kazakhstan in 2010 effectively eliminates the feasibility of import control by alicensing/customs control mechanism. Given that import licenses have historically been used as thebasis for officially reported consumption to the MP Ozone Secretariat, it is imperative that anothermethod be selected and officially adopted to more accurately report consumption for compliancepurposes, such as HCFC sale, distribution and use permits. As noted in the draft outline of HCFCphase-out strategy, this does produce much more reliable information related to ODS consumptionbut remains limited by a combination of lack of awareness on the part of stakeholders, and MNEPresources to do so, particularly to establish a comprehensive registry of end users of refrigerationand A/C equipment using HCFCs for servicing, and implementing effective reporting from them.

Lack of ability to monitor the incoming ODS materials in gas containers: Due to challengesdescribed above (Customs Union) as well as reported accumulation of emptied single-use containerswith residual amounts of HCFC gas, one of the regulatory options the country would like to adoptand implement is the ban on use of such HCFC containing single-use containers. In support of thismeasure it is planned to establish a system of HCFC re-use with a limited scale, pilot destructioncapability for the unwanted quantities of ODS. This will help in preparing the country’s capabilityfor a full-cycle ODS management at national level.

Limited availability of technical tools to test gas composition and quality as well as to limitemissions of HCFCs during equipment maintenance: In combination with previously discussedmeasures to control consumption of HCFCs at sale, distribution and end-user level, and as there is arange of chemicals (HCFCs, HFCs and their blends) that may enter the country (from Ukraine, orother borders than with the Russian Federation), additional (universal) analytical equipment shouldbe supplied to Customs to deal with a range of these chemicals as well as various mixtures. There

18

are gaps in technical capacity in the form of required analytical capability to test the content andquality of incoming HCFCs as single substances and in blends. Previously supplied portableanalytical equipment is outdated due to elapsed operational time since its supply in the beginning ofthe previous decade.

Introduction of Low GWP Technologies: While Belarus has effectively introduced non-ODSalternatives in the form of HFC based technology, there is limited penetration of newer low GWPtechnology, except in domestic refrigeration (hydrocarbons) and a few large industrial refrigerationapplications (ammonia). This technology will increasingly be the international standard in marketsin which Belarus will compete. Such limited exposure to low GWP alternative technologies andunderstanding of energy-saving aspects of new modern equipment operational on new technologiesare the main barriers in the equipment installation and servicing sector. A range of demonstrationprojects in this area should be planned for.

Lack of capability to address the growing amounts of unwanted ODSs: Country has been estimatinga growth in obsolete ODSs, and expects that the HCFC phase-out process will further facilitate anincrease in stockpile of HCFCs and their mixtures not suitable for recycling and re-use. Apart fromthat waste coming from the re-use system (accumulation rate is expected to reach 0.5 tons/year),approximately five thousand (5,000) cylinders are considered to be a reasonable amount forcollection within an easier reach – around capital area (based on interviews with larger importers),though the work shall be legislatively mandated to take better effect. Sixty (60) percent account forHFCs and forty (40) percent for HCFCs (with 30% for HCFC-22 and the rest for its mixtures).Provided the minimum contained, non-evacuated fractions on the average representing 200g percylinder (reaching 350g/unit), the content of halocarbons is expected to reach one (1) metric ton.There is an experience in the country of incinerating unwanted ODSs domestically, however,technologically it was found not be sound and safe. With further accumulation of such waste, thecountry requires capability to address these growing stocks through improved storage andaccumulation capacity and then local level, limited scale destruction.

1.3 Stakeholder analysis

During the formulation of the HCFC phase-out strategy a stakeholder analysis was performed which issummarized below.

Name of the institution, organization Description of the role and activitiesMinistry of Natural Resources andEnvironment

Control of the use and consumption of ODS, licensing,formulation of legal-normative documents

"Ekologia" Belarusian Research Center Scientific support in the area of control over the handling of ODS

Ministry of Agriculture and FoodProducts

Implements the state policy in the area of the consumption of ODSby subordinate agricultural enterprises, as well as investing intothe modernization of equipment

Ministry of Industry Implements state policy in the area of consumption of ODS bysubordinate industrial enterprises (as part of solvents, foam-forming materials)

19

Name of the institution, organization Description of the role and activitiesMinistry of Trade Implements state policy in the area of consumption of ODS by

subordinate retail enterprises in the citiesState Customs Committee Provides control of the implementation of Council of Ministers

Resolution No. 1397 during customs clearance of goods importedinto (exported from) the country (ODS and ODS-containingproducts)

Belarusian Republican Union ofConsumer Societies

Implements state policy in the area of the consumption of ODS bysubordinate retail enterprises in rural settlements

Belarusian Railwayas the part of the Ministry of Transportand Communications

Coordinates the consumption of ODS by its structural units

Belarusian State Concern for Oil andChemistry

Coordinates the consumption of ODS by enterprises in its group

Institute of Power and NuclearResearch-Sosny of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of Belarus

Research into the characteristics of refrigerants, their applicationin various equipment.

Association of Microclimate and ColdIndustry Enterprises APIMH (non-profitorganization)

Activity is related to production, design, delivery, maintenance ofrefrigeration and air conditioning equipment

Belarusian National TechnicalUniversity, Faculty of Heat andVentilation

Provides training in the field of refrigeration equipment andtechnology

Mogilev State Food University HVACFaculty

Provides training in the field of refrigeration equipment andtechnology

Polotsk State University Provides training in the field of refrigeration equipment andtechnology

Minsk State Vocational School No. 38of Processing Industry

Provides trade training in the field of refrigeration equipment andtechnology

Potolsk Commerce and TechnologyCollege of the Belarusian RepublicanUnion of Consumer Societies

Provides trade training in the field of refrigeration equipment andtechnology

Kholodon CJSC, including its affiliates: Assembly of commercial refrigeration equipment and air-conditioning systems, sale, supply, installation, repair,maintenance, control, including remote control of the work ofrefrigeration equipment, supply of refrigerants, production ofrefrigeration units of various power configurations and for variouspurposes.

Ostrov JLLC Assembly of industrial compressor and condensing units.Performs work on designing and manufacturing various modelsand configurations of refrigeration units on the basis of componentparts from the world's leading manufacturers, as well as thecompletion, installation and implementation of commissioning.

Government enterpriseTORGTEHNIKA and affiliates

Repair of commercial refrigeration equipment

Stokfer LLC Delivery of refrigerants, sales of air conditioners, wholesale tradeBravo LLC Supply and sale of commercial refrigeration equipmentSIBRO-INVEST LLC Supply and sale of Freon gas

20

Name of the institution, organization Description of the role and activitiesTODO Rostok Supply and sale of Freon gas, repair of refrigeration equipmentKholodilnoye OborudovanyeALC (Refrigeration Equipment)

Trade, manufacture, supply, installation of refrigerationequipment, supply of CFCs

Agroprom-kholod Private Enterprise Trade, manufacture, supply, installation of milk-coolers and othercommercial refrigeration equipment

Belfriteks LLC Refrigeration equipment, manufacture, supply, installation ofindustrial refrigeration equipment, liquids cooling systems,equipment for fruit and vegetable storage

Brimstone-Bel JLLC Equipment for trade, refrigeration equipment, manufacture ofcommercial refrigeration equipment of ТМ Golfstream withremote and built-in cold

Atlant CJSC Production, sale, repair of household and commercialrefrigerators, Production of refrigeration compressors

Nesvizhskiy Tayagroservis OJSCformerly Nesvizhskaya RAPT

Production of milk-cooling systems for agriculture, reconstruction,repair, conversions to ozone-friendly refrigerants

The project will be implemented in close coordination and collaboration with relevant governmentinstitutions, regional authorities, industries, public and local authorities and NGOs, as well as with otherrelated relevant projects in the region through enhanced networking. Organizations taking part in thepilot projects are responsible for custom clearance of the equipment and materials procured within therespective pilots.

There are a number of related international initiatives in Belarus and regionally with which this projectwill coordinate activities.

The following lists these specific initiatives:

Regional MSP GEF/UNDP/UNIDO/UNEP/WB : “Preparing for HCFC phase out in CEITs: needs,benefits and potential synergies with other MEAs: Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Tajikistan,Belarus, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation” which has been instrumental incollecting HCFC consumption related data and formulating draft outlines of HCFC phase-outstrategies for the involved countries;

Regional FSP GEF/UNDP: “Initial Implementation of Accelerated HCFC Phase Out in the CEITRegion: Ukraine, Belarus, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan” is currently under formulation (last stage) andhelps develop approaches to HCFC phase-out in the region through future regional information andexperience exchange;

MLF/UNDP/UNEP project on implementation of HPMP (HCFC phase-out management plan) inKyrgyzstan (Stage 1 until 2015), which was approved in 2010 and is currently underimplementation. The project has been designed to explore similar activities;

MLF/UNIDO project on implementation of HPMP in Turkmenistan (Stage 1 until 2020) which wasapproved in 2010 and is currently under implementation. The project has been designed to exploresimilar activities;

21

MLF/UNDP/UNEP project on implementation of HPMP in Armenia (Stage 1 until 2015), whichwas approved in 2010 and is currently under implementation. The project has been designed toexplore similar activities;

MLF/UNDP project on implementation of HPMP in Moldova (Stage 1 until 2015), which wasapproved in 2010 and is currently under implementation. The project has been designed to exploresimilar activities;

MLF/UNDP project on implementation of HPMP in Georgia (Stage 1 until 2020), which wasapproved in 2010 and is currently under implementation. The project has been designed to exploresimilar activities;

MLF/UNDP PRP for formulation of ODS waste destruction project in Georgia;

The project will also cooperate with other HCFC phase-out initiatives in the region once those areformulated and approved for implementation.

1.4 Baseline analysis

In the absence of international assistance and specifically GEF funding, it is reasonable to assume thatprogress on the implementation of the HCFC phase-out strategy in the country would expectedly slowdown with limited activities initiated to modernize HCFC use legislation and capacity, though withcontinued strategic orientation, in the view of proximity to, towards experiences on HCFC phase-outapproaches and practices adopted in the European Union.

The currently applied approaches to monitor and control HCFCs imports (heavily levied as compared toHFCs substitutes) will continue to be substantially weakened by inability to register and regulate HCFC(and equipment) imports which, in their vast majority, originate coming through the RussianFederation. In result of current implications coming from the introduction of Customs’ Union betweenBelarus and Russia, growth in HCFCs imports and increase in HCFCs based refrigerated equipmentbanks are both expected which will undermine the ability to reduce HCFC consumption in the short tomedium term. Institutional gaps, which appeared after recent post-restructuring cuts in ozone-programassociated office personnel (whose current tasks focus more on air protection law enforcementactivities) will undermine the efficiency of HCFC phase-out activities. GEF co-financing will helpsustain a degree of political interest in the accelerated HCFC phase-out and keep required staff in placeand in tune with the Montreal Protocol obligations incurred by the country. Finally, limitations in skillsand modern HCFC/HFC recovery/re-use equipment/tools in the servicing sector will further reduce thepreparedness of the country in successfully addressing the HCFC phase-out and environmentally safelyhandling HFCs as well as low GWP technologies serving HCFC substitute purposes.

The eventual, delayed replacement of HCFCs largely with HFCs and their blends, comparably toprevailing trends in EU countries, is the most realistic longer term scenario for the country. Withoutadvanced legislative improvements to control handling of HCFCs on the end user level, in a manner asmuch as possible mirroring requirements of the EU F-Gas regulation despite recently reportedimplementation gaps8, and skilled law enforcement backed by increased and sustained capabilities ofHCFC users to minimize leakage, increase HCFC re-use rates, and easier adoption of alternatives, the

8 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/f-gas/index_en.htm

22

HCFC phase-out is unrealistic to achieve. Coupled with other legislative improvements such as forwardlooking bans on assembly and installation of used and new HCFC-based equipment, especially largeunits, and technician skills certification, the phase-out process will become more sustainable. Theinformation exchange platform, which is planned for the regional cooperation with other partnercountries, will greatly assist in more effective policy developments to better control HCFCs import anduse in national settings.

In response to these challenges (baseline), GEF assistance will serve to support HCFC phase-out in thecountry, as was the case in the past with CFC phase-out.

2 Strategy

2.1 Project Rationale and Policy Conformity

The project is designed to be aligned with GEF strategic programs and priorities, and specifically theGEF Operational Strategy for ODS. This project is a response to the obligations incurred by Belarus asCEITs (non-Article 5) under the phase-out schedule for HCFCs of the Montreal Protocol, as amendedby the Copenhagen amendment and Decision XIX/6.

At a high level, the project directly supports the overarching GEF goal for the ODS focal area to protecthuman health and the environment by assisting countries to phase out consumption and production, andprevent releases of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) according to their commitments to the MontrealProtocol phase-out schedules, while enabling energy-efficient alternative technologies and practices,and consequently contribute generally to capacity development for the sound management ofchemicals. In meeting this overall objective, the project was designed to address the ODS focal area’sstrategic programme, which is aimed at phasing out of HCFC (from production and consumption) andstrengthening of capacities and institutions in participating countries. More specifically, this is inreference with the GEF Focal Area Strategy and Strategic Programming for GEF-4 document on Ozone(GEF/C, 31/10 May 11, 2007), which contains the following main objective:

For the period of GEF-4, the GEF will assist eligible countries in meeting their HCFC phase outobligations under the Montreal Protocol, and strengthening capacities and institutions in thosecountries that still are faced with difficulties in meeting their reporting obligations.

More specifically, the project addresses the following two Outcomes of Strategic Program 1 on phasingout HCFCs and strengthening of capacities and institutions for GEF-4:

(a) HCFCs are phased-out according to Montreal Protocol schedule, or faster, in GEF-eligiblecountries;

(b) GEF-eligible countries meet their reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol

The GEF goal and its strategic objective are directly addressed in the project objective and its overalldesign. Similarly the project outcomes and the indicators match the impacts and main indicators definedin the GEF strategy as related to HCFCs, and the project meets the requirements of the StrategicProgram 1 in the following Indicators:

23

(a) ODP adjusted tons of HCFCs phase-out from consumption – For Belarus, the project willachieve the reduction of 10.5 ODP tons of HCFCs which will represent the total HCFCphase-out in 2015 in advance of MP stipulated HCFC consumption reduction steps(inclusive of managing the latent demand of 67 MT (3.7 ODP)/annually);

(b) Percentage reduction in HCFC consumption in the participating countries - the project willachieve country’s early compliance with the Montreal Protocol by phasing out 100% ofremaining HCFC consumption;

(c) Percentage of GEF-funded countries that meet their reporting obligations under the MontrealProtocol – Belarus will have sufficient capacity to meet its reporting obligations under theMontreal Protocol, thus, reducing the number of eligible countries.

In line with the GEF’s requirements for the type of projects to be supported, the present project is of adual nature: (1) enabling-type of activities (such as regional Component 1 on experience exchange andnetworking as well as the full formulation and adoption of the HCFC phase-out strategy) and (2)technical assistance and capacity building activities (technological conversions in the manufacturingsector, tools supply to environmental and Customs inspectors, and technicians with required trainings,modernization of R/R/R capacity for larger service centers and Refrigeration Association, establishmentof destruction pilot demonstration project, and demonstration of alternative technologies in theservicing sector through limited end-user equipment retrofits for milk cooling sector).

Through the combination of two such approaches (regional and national), the project is expected toachieve the GEF-4 indicators listed out above, and thus facilitate the country’s compliance with theMontreal protocol’s requirements.

The project is also consistent with GEF strategic objectives related to linkages to the Climate ChangeFocal area through promotion of low GWP alternatives, and preparation for potential future controlmeasures on HFCs.

An additional aspect that needs to be considered is the integration of HCFC Phase out with other globalenvironmental priorities as promoted by both Decision XIX/6 and the GEF-4 Operational Strategy forthe Ozone Focal Area9 and looking forward to the GEF-5 Chemicals Focal Area Strategy10 that ODSinterventions are a part of. The project is aligned with and reinforces broader global environmentalpriorities related to climate change and the principles of sound chemicals management.

Minimizing climate change impacts as part of HCFC phase out will generally involve the integration ofthe use of low GWP non-ODS alternative technology, and implementation of phase out measures thatenhance energy efficiency such that the lowest Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) is achieved.This will mean that in the near term HFC based technologies with relatively high GWP will inevitablybe utilized. This effectively mirrors the past and current experience in advanced non-Article 5countries. However, the anticipated rapid commercialization of a number of low GWP options in thesecountries, particularly the EU, will create opportunities to introduce and demonstrate these technologiesas they become more widely used and increasingly cost competitive in more mature markets.

9 http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/GEF_4_strategy_ODS_Oct_2007.pdf10 http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/GEF5%20Focal%20Area%20Strategies.pdf

24

Additionally, the strategy’s emphasis on upgrading refrigeration-servicing capacity capitalizes on thelinkage between improved maintenance and recovery practice with lower leakage rates (hence GHGemissions) and improved energy efficiency. ODS waste destruction will also provide benefits to climatechange by reducing amount of ODSs reaching atmosphere.

3 Project Goal, Objectives, Outcomes and Outputs/Activities

The Project aims to speed up the phase out of facilitate phasing out ozone depleting substances,particularly HCFCs and their substitution with modern alternative substances in accordance with therespective Belarus’ obligations under the Montreal Protocol, along with strengthening the system ofimport control and management of HCFCs in Belarus.

The project task is to ensure Belarus’ compliance with the timetable for HCFCs phasing out establishedby the Montreal Protocol and compliance with the European Union requirements with respect to the useof ozone depleting substances to ensure free access for Belarusian manufacturers of refrigerating andother equipment and vehicles.

The overarching theme that underlies the GEF Project Scenario described below is providing thecountry with the tools to achieve effective compliance with respect its obligations in front of theMontreal Protocol and the objective of protecting human health and the environment by assistingcountries to phase out consumption and production, and prevent releases of ozone-depleting substances.

The project design has been developed to specifically address the principal barriers identified abovewithin the overall project component framework set out in the original PIF but with appropriate furtherelaboration and, where required, expansion of outcomes and outputs based on the PPG work.

In the following the two primary project components listed in the Project Framework are describedalong with the sub-components each of which are aligned with the outcomes and outputs as elaboratedin Annex A:

Component 1 (Regional information exchange and networking component). It addresses barriersassociated with incomplete knowledge and awareness and is aligned with the PIF Component 1;Outcomes 1(a-d).

Component 2 (National capacity building and technical assistance component) targets support tothe adoption of the fully completed HCFC phase-out strategy (with selected legislative optionsto control HCFC end use), capacity building and supply of analytical and servicingequipment/tools for Customs Department and refrigeration technicians, technologicalconversions in the manufacturing sector (MAZ-Kupava and Atlant/David-Gorodok)modernization of HCFC re-use scheme in the country and demonstration of alternativetechnologies in refrigeration equipment and A/C sectors, ODS destruction, the current absenceof effective regulatory instruments and need to support ongoing institutional development and isaligned with Outcome 2 (a) - Belarus.

25

3.1 Component 1 - Regional accelerated phase-out capacity building (GEF financing US$295,001 (inclusive of regional PMC – US$ 45,000); National co-financing US$ 450,000)

The component common across the four beneficiary countries consists of four sub-outcomes to clearlyidentify the institutional capacity building efforts through regional networking with non Art 5 and Art 5countries.Activities are in full alignment with the PIF design. These are listed below and their details areprovided in the table following this list.Given that activities above are interlinked with similar activities in the rest of participating countries inthis regional project, it is expected to achieve savings in some of the budget items such as translation ofmaterials (in case if materials are homogeneous in thematic focus and the language of translation iscommon) and further publication at one source. In this sense, it is planned to utilize the remainingresources at the end of the project more flexibly giving priority to the support of additional participationof NOUs in the network meetings. This component will ensure that Belarus will be able to meet itsobligations under the Montreal Protocol with respect to accelerating the phase out of HCFCs.

3.1.1 Outcome 1a - Legislative and Policy Options for HCFC phase-out and control (US$55,556)

The countries are provided with information resources and the necessary level of decision makerawareness to undertake national level updating of ODS legislation, regulations, licensing and reportingsystems, economic instruments and qualification requirements necessary to ensure control of HCFCimport and use consistent with phase-out obligations (inclusive of quota systems).

3.1.2 Outcome 1b - Capacity Building for Enforcement of HCFC control measures by customsand environmental/technical inspection authorities (US$ US$ 55,556)

Russian language resource documentation and national trainers will be prepared for undertakingnational working level training in Component 2 to equip customs and environmental/ technicalinspection authorities in the enforcement of HCFC control measures related to import and application ofHCFCs and HCFC containing equipment.

3.1.3 Outcome 1c - Capacity Building for the Refrigeration Sector, Incorporation of Energy-Efficiency and GHG reduction elements (US$ 111,111)

User awareness tools, training modules and national trainers delivered for undertaking national workinglevel training in Component 2 refrigeration technicians related to HCFCs and alternatives, takingEnergy efficiency and GHG reductions into consideration, and enhancing the sustainability of suchtraining by embedding it in national institutions

3.1.4 Outcome 1d - Support for the development of regional institutions, capacity, andcooperation (US$ 27,778)

Regional cooperation, information exchange, and joint initiatives in areas of collective interest andconcern, namely:

Development of a regional network of RAC associations; Data collection and regional planning for ODS destruction; Development of robust Prior Informed Consent (PIC) mechanisms across the region; Ongoing and expanded participation of non-Article 5 countries in the ECA regional network.

26

3.1.5 Overview Component 1 - Regional accelerated phase-out capacity building

Outcome/Output Description Budget(US$)

Outcome 1(a) - Legislative and Policy Options for HCFC phase-out and control 55,556Output 1a.1 Preparation ofRussian language resourcematerials

The materials will be prepared for use by NOUs, customs authorities and other stakeholder governmentagencies on the legislative and regulatory actions required for HCFC phase-out (i.e. step down quotas,bans, single use and container size restrictions, prior informed consent measures, proof of origindocumentation, certification systems for technicians, and fiscal instruments to promote priceequalization). In addition an assessment of the different modalities for ensuring the rapid and effectiveincorporation of HCFC phase-out elements and HFC monitoring in national ODS licensing mechanismsand associated regulations will be undertaken for each country.

10,000

Output 1a.2Awareness training on legislativeand regulatory actions

Training sessions for national decision-makers and NOUs respecting legislative and regulatory actionsrequired for HCFC phase-out will be carried out in each of the four countries once yearly. Anenvironmental expert (International Consultant) will be requested to prepare the required materials to bedelivered during an intensive training seminar. The costs associated cover fees, travel and home basedwork for international expertise and costs associated with local organization of the workshops.

14,556

Output 1a.3Regional networking

Regional networking between countries on implementation experience, consistency and cross borderimpacts related to HCFC control measures.

31,000

Outcome 1b - Capacity Building for Enforcement of HCFC control measures by customs andenvironmental/technical inspection authorities

55,556

Output 1b.1Russian language resourcedocumentation and Training ofNational Trainer

Russian language resource documentation and national trainers will be prepared and delivered forundertaking national working level training in Component 2 to equip customs and environmental/technical inspection authorities in the enforcement of HCFC control measures related to import andapplication of HCFCs and HCFC containing equipment.

10,000

Output 1b.2Awareness raising activities

These will take place at the management level of enforcement authorities on CFC entry-point controlmeasures, major enforcement issues involved (packaging, labeling, identification, container sizes) andcollectively identify the detailed scope, trainee numbers and supporting equipment requirements forComponent 2.

15,000

Output 1b.3Training of Trainers

This activity aims to establish national cadres of trainers via ”TOT” training of customs andenvironmental authority decision-making staff to enforce the HCFC control measures related toimport/export, distribution, and application of HCFCs and HCFC containing equipment.

10,000

Output 1b.4PIC Network

Technical support for comprehensive PIC network for ODS import/transit/export in the region linkedbilaterally with major producing countries.

5,556

Output 1b.5Regional networking

Networking will be implemented through exchanges between countries on implementation experience,consistency and cross border impacts related to import/export issues and related enforcement. It isexpected that one cross fertilization workshop will take place per year which will allow for allparticipants to learn from successes and challenges in order to facilitate

15,000

27

Outcome 1c - Capacity Building for the Refrigeration Sector, Incorporation of Energy-Efficiency and GHG reductionelements

111,111

Output 1c.1 Preparation ofRussian language trainingmanuals and informationmaterials

Preparation (and publishing and/or procuring ready sufficient number of copies in Russian) of thesematerials will take place in support of targeted national awareness on HCFCs and energy efficiency forleaders in the refrigeration sector (major users and service sector association representatives), NOUs andagencies responsible for certification on:

(i) Addressing long-term HCFC demand, and benefits of energy-efficient retrofit/replacementand the use of ‘natural’, low GHG refrigerants;(ii) Identifying the scope, trainee numbers and supporting equipment requirements for nationallevel training for technicians in Component 2;(iii) Strengthening of Refrigeration Associations;(iv) Enhanced certification of service organizations and technicians; and(v) Sustainable mechanisms for future training.

85,000

Output 1c.2ToT on Best RefrigerationPractices

Enhanced general best practices “TOT” training at the regional level for selected principal staff fromtechnical universities and training centers involved in educational programmes for refrigerationtechnicians to incorporate handling of HCFCs, promotion of ‘natural’/low GHG alternatives, energyefficiency aspects etc, with commensurate updating of national certification training curricula.

26,111

Outcome 1d - Support for the development of regional institutions, capacity, and cooperation 27,778Output 1d.1Preparation of Russian languageinformation materials

These will be prepared on RAC technical issues, PIC, ODS destruction and other subjects of collectiveinterest.

5,000

Output 1d.2Promotion of Informationexchange mechanisms

These will be actively promoted between RAC associations (i.e. web site, workshops,training/certification practice) and with major international networks and resources (i.e. IIR, AREA,ASHRA).

2,778

Output 1.d3:Facilitation ofregional dialogue

This will focus in particular on and plans for ODS destruction including requirements for capture andsecure storage and linkages to general chemicals waste management (specifically POPs/chemicalsdisposal) in the region.

20,000

Project Management for regional component 45,000GEF financing of this component will be directed to international experience inputs as required, contractual services for compilationand translation of the documents as requested by the country, publication of materials in local language and facilitation of regionaldialogues and networking with partner countries (including attendance of CAP assisted networks and sub-regional meetings).

National co-financing will be provided through staff and coordination logistics related cost contributions (for example when/if thecountry plays the role of a host country for any of thematic sub-meetings for the rest of participating non Art 2 countries) fromprincipal institutional stakeholders in the government (Ministry of Natural Resources and Customs) involved in regulatory and importcontrol of ODS, as well as from higher education institutions which will be responsible for technician trainings in the country in longterm.

28

The following section details work to be undertaken under Component 2 and has been numbered asper the approved PIF which alphabetically assigned Component 2(a) to Belarus, Component 2(b) toTajikistan, Component 2(c) to Ukraine and, finally, Component 2(d) to Uzbekistan.

3.2 Component 2a - HPMP, National Level Capacity Strengthening and HCFC Phase-OutInvestment (GEF finance – US$ 1,965,000; National co-finance – US$ 6,115,000)

This Component constitutes the major component of the project for Belarus and it is directed toachieve the following goals:

A finalized and adopted HPMP based on an accelerated phase-out strategy; Implementation of national level training for the servicing sector and customs/enforcement

authorities; and Targeted HCFC phase out investment demonstrations projects/pilots undertaken in priority

areas as described below

It is fully aligned with Outcome 2a and is further expanded based on work undertaken during PPGphase and related to detailed discussion with national level project partners.

The Component 2 will result: Modernization of the technological processes of industrial plants in the refrigeration and

transport sectors to insure that the plants’ products can enter international markets. Register of refrigeration equipment, conditioning systems and technological processes using

HCFCs. ODS-free and energy efficient refrigeration equipment widely used in the agricultural,

transport, industrial, trading and other sectors; capacity built to distribute, collect andregenerate HCFCs for their further use.

Improved service of refrigerating equipment resulted in decrease in the HCFC use and importin Belarus, increase in HCFCs reuse.

Reduced pollutant emission from Belarusian plants in the atmosphere.

3.2.1 Output 2a.1: Implementation of the approved formal HCFC Phase-out strategy andaction plan

During the previously completed regional MSP project on developing the outlines of HCFC phase-outstrategies for several non Art 5 countries in the region, GEF/UNDP assisted Belarus with the HCFCdata collection and formulation of an advanced draft of the HCFC Action Plan. The adoption of theHCFC strategy and its follow-up implementation will depend on organization of final strategyconsultation and awareness raising workshop(s) which will ensure cross-participation of variousinvolved line Ministries and other important stakeholders who are considered to be directly orindirectly be affected by HCFC phase-out measures.

Amongst the actions considered in the approved HCFC phase-out strategy are the strengthening of thecapacities of Customs and environmental enforcement officials, and refrigeration technicians via

29

training (training of trainers) and equipment/tools supply, as well as specific investment activities anddemonstration projects. An important place in the strategy will be taken by practical introduction ofcertain provision of EU F-gas regulation (also in light of currently accumulated experience in itsapplication) as it is equally applicable to HCFC handling in the servicing sector, and then with furtherextension to HFCs which are considered to come as main replacement for HCFCs in this importanteconomic sector. These modern time requirements will be backed for implementation through theadoption of the HCFC phase-out strategy.

With the full deployment of the activities contemplated in this strategy, the country expects to have anintegral control system for HCFCs and ODS in general, monitoring the substances from importauthorization and through sale, distribution, handling, storage, treatment and recycling, among otherstages. A registry of refrigeration equipment, conditioning systems and technological processes usingHCFCs that would allow the in situ monitoring of the management and handling of these substanceswill complement the control system, as well as a certification scheme for technicians developed on thebasis current EU systems with appropriate adjustment to local conditions.

The main activities under this output will serve to facilitate information exchange platform (workshop)for the main line-ministries and their relevant staff and will support endorsement of a finalized HPMP,based on the accelerated phase out strategy. This will include finalization of the strategy with updatedinformation, translation of materials and support costs to ensure the full participation of stakeholders.

The cost estimate for this activity is provided below.

US$ GEF Co-Financing TotalCost estimate for Output 15,000 50,000 65,000

GEF financing will provide assistance for national level to support the implementation of the approvedstrategy on HCFCs, which will include information such as:

(-) latest HCFC consumption trends,(-) inputs from the regional component on final legislative options to control HCFCs importand use (HCFC equipment import quotas, improvement of inter-departmental cooperation onHCFC control between NOU and Customs, update of Customs codes etc),(-) results of regional cooperation on thematic areas (such as illegal trade, mislabeling of gascanisters, ODS destruction etc),

GEF finance will support translation of the documentation into local language and wider stakeholderdiscussions on adopting the strategy in terms of draft legislation for formal approval by theGovernment.

National co-financing will be based on the Governmental support to the implementation of the HCFCphase out strategy through allocation of legal personnel to draft required legislation and detailedconsultations at line-Ministries’ level as well as defense of the legislation at the decision-making levelof authority (Cabinet of Ministers, Parliament). Overall institutional coordination role of theGovernment is provided to support this output.

30

3.2.2 Output 2a.2: Trained working level Customs and enforcement officials, and refrigerationtechnicians (using resources (trainers and training materials) from Component 1 with respect tolegislation, regulations, customs controls, refrigeration servicing techniques, and general best practices)

The draft HCFC phase-out strategy specifies the need for additional HCFC management capacitybuilding in Belarus. Apart from filling in gaps in HCFC import control and re-use capabilities, anessential element for HCFC control in the servicing sector is considered to be the type of instrumentthat is contemplated by existing EU’s F-gas regulation. This regulation, though aimed at HFCs in thefirst place, provides a good foundation with comprehensive requirements for refrigerants handling withthe main purpose of accurate reporting on the consumption and reducing emissions. These importantaspects will form a part of comprehensive capacity building in the country for more effective controlof HCFC use.

In order to improve HCFC import and use control capabilities for Customs, environment enforcementofficials and refrigeration technicians, the national component will, based on the directions set by thestrategy and inter-regional consultations held in the regional capacity strengthening component,provide for trainer-to-audience workshops and tools (both analytical and servicing) supply in supportof the practical implementation of such hands-on trainings. This will be done using resources (trainersand training materials) from Component 1 with respect to HCFC import and management controllegislation and regulations (HCFC and HCFC equipment import quota system, HCFC use andregistration controls at end-user level, safety standards for alternative technologies, equipmentlogbooks), refrigeration equipment servicing techniques (certification of technicians, equipmentrepair/maintenance standards, R/R/R equipment requirements), and general best equipment servicingpractices. In-country training capability for involved audience will be established and furtherstrengthened where necessary with update of training programs will be updated.

The cost estimate for the proposed GEF support is presented in the summary table below. Each of sub-items is discussed in the following sections.

US$ GEF Co-Financing TotalCost estimate for Output 2a.2 588,200 1,400,000 1,988,200

Customs and enforcementofficials

151,500 400,000 551,500

Technicians 436,700 1,000,000 1,436,700

Details by sub-component and associated breakdown budgets are provided in sections below.

---

3.2.2.1 Customs and environmental control officials training and equipment support to enhanceCustoms control capability

US$ GEF Co-Financing TotalCost estimate for Output

Customs and enforcementofficials

151,500 400,000 551,500

31

Training 23,000Equipment 118,500TA (nat/int) 10,000

The HCFC Phase Out strategy preparatory work and the PPG’s FSP formulation activities revealedgaps in the current capacity at the Customs and environment enforcement levels. For the latter group,the HCFC use control function becomes considerably more important in the view of HCFC importcontrol limitations. These relate to:

lack of regular training of Customs and environment enforcement officers on newdevelopments in the area of HCFC and HCFC-based equipment import and use controlmeasures/procedures for packaging and equipment checks at the border (and installed)which deteriorates the national level capacity to implement new coming legislation insupport of the accelerated HCFCs phase-out;

outdated information and training materials; lack of equipped training classes in support of improving officer qualifications; and outdated/out-of-order CFC/HCFC and lack of HFC portable analytical equipment

In order to fill in the identified gaps that prevent from effective implementation of Customs’ functionto control the import of HCFCs, PPG team had detailed discussions with the Customs office andagreed on the following assistance package.

For Customs, fifteen (15) advanced refrigerant identifiers will be provided for use at the principalpoints of entry (at borders not related to Russia such as Ukraine where illegal imports are suspected totake place), as well as an additional identifier for use in the Customs Training Institute for hands-ontraining for the Customs border officers. This would also improve the capacity of Customs to supportimplementation of Green Customs initiative as related to the Montreal Protocol’s objectives.

Ten (10) more identifiers will be supplied to regional (territorial) Environmental Inspectorates,inclusive of central authorities and inspectors training facility located at the Ministry of NaturalResources (Ministry of Environment educational centre), for monitoring of HCFCs on the domesticmarket in support of application of prototype F-gas regulation’s requirements to HCFC handling anduse (with follow-on extension of the system to HFCs which is currently considered to become theprincipal resource of refrigerants in line with EU experience). The supply of this equipment will besupported by some spares such as a limited number of back-up accumulators, filters, connecting hoses,sampling tips, piecing pliers in sufficient quantities so as to ensure their successful and continued usefor the duration of the project.

In order to support the sustained trainings of environmental inspectors and Customs officers, two (2)complete sets of training equipment (gas cylinders for practice, LCD and laptop) will be supplied tothe MNR and Customs Training Institutes to equip two (2) dedicated classrooms. This will fit wellregular trainings of new staff, as well as serve for regular updating of previously trained ones. Theimplementing partners have committed to allocate such a space in the Institutes, equip them withrequired furniture for trainings, and also to ensure that a new study curricula be developed and adoptedin each Institute (in coordination with the Ministry of Education) to continue with essential personneltraining, even in the time beyond the project duration. The Training Institutes will allocate trainers,

32

and in combination with established training curriculum, this will make any future training ofenforcement officers more sustainable as compared to one-time trainings, which prevailed in the past.

The training component will feature three important elements:

Training-of-trainers by international Customs specialist (both for environmental inspectors andCustoms officers);

Immediate training (by trainers) for up to 40 working level environmental inspectors (10) andCustoms officers (30) who operate in main territorial Environment and Customs departmentsand main posts affiliated with those offices;

Regular training of staff by the Training Institutes (mandatory for all new staff and regularqualification of existing staff).

The training sessions will be from 3 to 5 days long to ensure quality delivery and practical experiencewith use of all materials, tools and equipment.

The equipment supply will be preceded by the initial TOT trainings for 2 – to - 5 trainers (two ofwhich will come from the MNR and Customs training institutes) as supported by the regionalComponent. A number of workshops then (five) will be supported by the project in order to deploy thetrained personnel to the regions and train personnel in each province.

This will be supported using resources (trainers and training materials) from Component 1 with respectto HCFC import and end-use control legislation and regulations, Customs controls on illegal trade andmislabeling, and general information for environmental inspectors on general best-practice standardsin servicing HCFC equipment and handling HCFC stocks (similar to F-Gas regulation’s requirements).

GEF financing will provide assistance for capacity building and technical assistance to the MNR andCustoms Departments (and their dedicated Training Institutes) to enhance the training of enforcementofficers, equip the departments with required tools to effectively implement HCFC import and end-usecontrols.

National co-financing will focus on allocating classrooms in the Training Institutes (and utility fees),the inter-departmental coordination for adoption of an updated training curriculum, providing trainersfrom the Training Institutes and their salaries during and beyond the project duration for thesustainable training of enforcement officers after the project’s closure, additional investment co-finance on improving general incoming goods scanning capacity (through parallel Customsmodernization programs on establishing scanners for selective identification of goods imported in bulk– in trucks - which may contain HCFC cylinders and equipment), and allocating of a warehouse to bespecifically dedicated to ODS materials/equipment. The MNR and Customs Departments will engageinto inter-departmental coordination work on the implementation of HCFC Phase Out strategy.

33

3.2.2.2 Refrigeration technicians training and equipment support to enhance refrigeration-servicing practices

US$ GEF Co-Financing TotalCost estimate for Output

Technicians 436,700 700,000 1,136,700Training 80,000Equipment 326,700TA (nat/int) 30,000

The project will support the continued training and equipment supply (tools and equipment kits) fortechnicians (also those working for service centers) and ensure the sustainability of future trainings ofrefrigeration mechanics. The programme will be closely tied to developing regulations by theBelarusian side on application of EU-prototype HCFC/HFC handling requirements (for instance, F-Gas directive). Appropriate certification and licensing will form an integral part of this component.

A network of current training centers (technical universities, vocational schools and a training centerof MNREP) will be deployed for this purpose. Apart from the training center at the Ministry of NaturalResources, the following higher level and vocational type of education institutions are currently activein the country:

Minsk National Technical University;

Mogilev State University of Food Technologies;

Polotsk Trade Technological College;

Pinsk State College of Meat and Dairy Industry.

The listed training centers will receive a set of modern teaching equipment (laptop with software, LCDprojector and white screen). Standard servicing tools for hands-on training will be provided too.Representatives of the institutions will participate in the train-the-trainers component proposed inComponent 1.

The training modules will be designed with help of the Association and the trainings will be deliveredwith practical field trips to functional service centers for hands-on experience. Upon completion oftrainings, the Association will issue certificates to endorse qualification of technicians, and on the basisof such confirmations MNREP will then print an official work license, which will include provision ofa minimal tool kit and a training certificate.

It is expected that with the above, 800 technicians in Minsk and other regions will be trained. Theduration of the trainings will be from 3 to 4 days.

Finally, there are currently an estimated number of four (4) operational service centers in Belarus,which employ from 30 to 50 technicians (and above in some cases) each. These service centers, alongwith the identified training institutions and Refrigeration Association, will provide support in trainingtheir staff or allocating available classrooms in distant regions for the specialized trainings deliveredby trainers.

34

In total it is expected that around 150 kits will be procured for distribution to technicians and these willinclude a set of basic tools (manifold and hoses, piercing pliers, tube benders, leak detector,thermometer, voltmeter, etc.) as well as equipment (portable recovery unit, leak detector, portablerecycling kit, reusable recovery cylinder, etc.) in support of best refrigeration practices.

GEF financing will support trainings, national expertise for the implementation of train-the-trainerelement of the project and monitoring of basic equipment use by individual technicians and technicalcenters. Further, the support will cover the supply basic tools for refrigeration servicing sector,upgrade of one classroom at the Training Institute, strengthening of the Refrigeration Association andupdate of the training curriculum for technicians.

National co-financing will be attached to the GEF support in terms of allocation of training rooms(staff time, furniture, coordination of trainings, utility fees) at the Training Institute and technicalcenters. The trainings of technicians will be supported beyond the project duration to ensuresustainability of results on a self-sustained basis. Technical service centers will co-finance the projectby supporting complementary equipment (basic tools) purchase, maintenance and operational costs forthe tools and equipment (inclusive spare parts), and self-training of their staff beyond the projectduration on recovery/best practices in preparing refrigerated equipment – the training will involve thecost of technician certification during the project and beyond. Some of technical centers will serve asmodel centers for improving hands-on experience of technicians in training to demonstrate bestrefrigeration practices and HCFC re-use scheme.

3.2.3 Output 2a3 – Targeted Phase-Out Investment and Pilot Projects

Another principal component of the project is the investment programme that was developed insupport of:

The phase-out the use of HCFC-141b at MAZ Kupava enterprise used in the manufactureof commercial trailers, vehicles, tourism vehicles and insulated trailers;

The elimination of the use HCFC-141b at Atlant (David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plant)as a solvent in assembling/manufacturing processes;

The updated and expanded HCFC Recycling and Reclaim (HCFC re-use scheme) capacityat the level of larger equipment service centers and Refrigeration Association;

The unwanted ODS Pilot Destruction Project; and

Demonstration of natural cooling technologies for milk coolers and refrigerated equipmentsectors.

This Output will result in a foam conversion project with transition from HCFC-141b to c-pentane,the elimination of HCFC-141b in parts cleaning solvent applications with alternative chemical-basedmethods, and to the improvement of the HCFC re-use system through supply of modern Recycling andReclaim equipment which is critically important at a stage when HCFC supplies will be more andmore limited. It will additionally demonstrate possibilities and benefits of HCFC equipmentretrofit/replacement in the refrigeration (commercial/agricultural) sector to disseminate information on

35

opportunities to reduce dependence on the HCFCs in longer term and will overall show linkages toclimate change focal area in terms of achieving better energy-efficiency of new system set-ups on alimited basis. The project will also help demonstrate the full life-cycle management of HCFCs throughpilot unwanted ODS destruction in its geographic location.

The cost estimate for the proposed GEF support is presented in the summary table below. Each of thesub-items is discussed in the following sections.

US$ GEF Co-Financing TotalCost estimate for Output 2a.3 1,361,800 4,965,000 6,326,800Implementation of a foam conversion project at MAZKupava 547,800 2,715,000 3,262,800

Implementation of a solvent conversion project atDavid Gorodok Electromechanical Plant 176,000 700,000 876,000

Demonstration of refrigeration equipment replacementwith alternative low GWP technologies 260,000 300,000 560,000

Upgrades of HCFC re-use system 181,000 850,000 1,031,000Unwanted ODS destruction Pilot project 197,000 400,000 597,000

----

3.2.3.1 PU Foam conversion project: The phase-out the use of HCFC-141b at MAZ Kupava

The objective of this investment sub-project project is to phase-out the use of HCFC-141b mixed inpolyols in the manufacture of commercial trailers, vehicles, tourism vehicles and insulated trailers atMAZ Kupava enterprise.

Automobile trailers and bodies plant “MAZ-Kupava” Ltd (MAZ Kupava) was founded in 1990. Thecompany is 100% locally owned and is the only PU foam manufacturing company operational inBelarus. The enterprise started the production of traveler trailers in 1990 with Slovenian designtechnology. Presently, MAZ Kupava manufactures more than 100 models and modifications of trailersand vans.

Its annual PU foam production capacity is 550 tons. In 2009 and 2010, the foam production was 338tons and 392 tons respectively, which consumed 55.8 tons and 56.1 tons of HCFC-141b respectively.The company is economically stable, has prospects of development and is ready to take part and co-finance the project on HCFC phasing out. The company plans to increase its production volume by to2-3 times in coming years.

The project has been designed for the enterprise to replace the current use of HCFC-141b with c-pentane technology with very low GWP characteristics. The total investment from the GEF is expectedto be US$ 540,780. The layout of the project is presented in Annex 4 to this document, which has beenprepared in line with applicable ExCom funding threshold standards.

GEF finance will cover standard technology replacement costs (capital) and technical assistance for theimplementation of the project and for covering technical expertise provided for preparation of design

36

documentation, installation and tuning up of new equipment, along with training of the MAZ-Kupavastaff on new equipment operation and adherence to the explosion and fire safety standards in theprocess of cyclopentene use. International consultants will also provide expert support to preparationof tender documentations for new equipment procuring.

National co-finance will address local engineering works to prepare the enterprise for the newflammable technology: modifications of presses and assembly tables, electric grounding, anti-staticflooring, exhaust ventilation system and back-up electricity supply system. Further, the enterprise willcover the costs of civil works (local clearances, land excavation, soil transportation, establishment ofpentane storages, ducting for polyol supply, steel/mineral wool insulation, ventilation enclosures, andbuilding modifications). It will invest in regular training of personnel in equipment use and safetyprocedures; monitoring of equipment performance and maintenance/repairs as required, PR campaignson the use of ozone- and climate friendly technology in products after the conversion.

US$ GEF Co-Financing Total

Cost estimate for OutputImplementation of a foam conversion project atMAZ Kupava 547,800 2,715,000 3,262,800

3.2.3.2 Solvents conversion project: Elimination of the use HCFC-141b at Atlant(David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plant) as a solvent in assembling/manufacturing processes

The objective of this project is to eliminate the use of 7.33 T HCFC-141b in assembling/manufacturingprocesses at the David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plant manufacturing protection relay parts for thehousehold fridge manufacturing plant “Atlant” (through its machine building branch at Baranovichiplant).

The application of HCFC-141b at the Atlant factory for degreasing of metal parts and compressorsspares and inlets started with the purchase of used machinery in 1995. After 10 years operation withthe equipment installed at Atlant in the capital city and due to emissive use of HCFC-141b, it wasdecided to relocate the operations to Atlant’s branch called Baranovichi machine-building factory in2007 (western part of the country). This factory then in line with the Government programme tosupport the development of small towns and industries has leased the equipment out to a sub-contractor plant in David-Gorodok town – David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plant. The equipmentwas handed over on the conditions of lease, and the owner has been kept to be the Baranovichimachine-building factory – a branch of Atlant starting from 2005. The company is economicallystable, has prospects of development and is ready to take part and cofinance the project on HCFCphasing out.

The ODS consumption in solvents sector (at the factory) constituted 3.98 metric tons of HCFC 141b in2008 with an ODP value of 0.0438 tons. In 2009, this was already 6.81 metric tons with an ODP valueof 0.749 tons and for 2010 it was 7.33 metric tons of HCFC 141b with an ODP value of 0.806 tons.The 2011 (projection) is 8.24 metric tons of HCFC 141b with an ODP value of 0.906 tons.

37

Replacement of HCFC-141b is planned with alternative chemical of a trans-blend group (see Annex5). The project will be accomplished by (1) replacing the current cleaning methods with vapordegreasing units of closed cycle (to substantially minimize volatile emissions of newly selectedsolutions), with recycling capability and (2) using an alternative solvent. Annex 5 contains a separateproject document for this project sub-component.

Given the scale of assistance to the company it is considered as a cost effective measure in line withthe expressed company plans to expand and improve its industrial safety practices. The company is inthe process of investing in expansion of its infrastructure to increase production processes.

GEF finance will support the procurement of closed-cycle vapour degreasing equipment for thecompany along with the technical advice on the use of new equipment and safety standards. It will alsobe used for covering technical expertise provided for preparation of design documentation, installationand tuning up of new equipment, along with training of the David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plantstaff on new equipment operation and application of alternative solvents. International consultants willalso provide expert support to preparation of tender documentations for new equipment procuring.

National co-financing (Atlant and Baranovichi) will relate to the local engineering works to prepareplatforms for the new equipment, introduce safety standards (with procurement of PPE), installdouble-stage ventilation systems and area access signs, cover utility fees, maintain the equipment byadequate use and procurement of spare parts and constantly train staff on the safe use of thisequipment. Operating expenses will be covered by the company.


Cost estimate for OutputImplementation of a solvent conversion project atAtlant/David Gorodok Electromechanical Plant 176,000 700,000 876,000

3.2.3.3 Demonstration of natural cooling technologies for milk coolers and refrigeratedequipment sectors

HCFC consumption in agricultural and processing industry sub-sector in 2009 constituted 30% ofHCFC-22 and blends of total demand for HCFCs in the country. This is the important sector ofeconomy of the country as it is considered as important milk product producer in the region. Theproject therefore will aim at demonstrating alternative – primarily, natural cooling – technologies inthis sector as larger in size equipment has been historically involved. Additional sectors forconsideration are A/C or refrigerated equipment dependent sectors (buildings and facilities) wherealternative non-ODS/low-GWP technologies could be demonstrated and promoted in order tomaximize the capital, operational costs, performance and energy savings where those can be achievedand proved.

In particular, such demo projects could include CO2 - NH3 - HFC - HC based refrigerated packagesthrough supply of new equipment or retrofit of applications in existing systems, where technicallyfeasible. Apart from technological and energy-saving improvements, this component will directly

38

serve to increase the capacity of the equipment assembling, nationally based companies (who are alsoequipment servicing centers) to handle new technologies in the country.

A first selection process (through UNDP tender procedures) will be carried out to identify companiesthat can design, assemble and provide the necessary technical support to ensure the maintainedoperation of the new systems developed around centralized unit clusters. A second tender process toselect the recipient enterprises will be carried out and will include conditions that recipients financetechnology design, local engineering works, installation and maintenance, while the project willprovide new equipment operating on alternative technologies. National expertise (collection oftechnology related data, support to IC, monitoring of equipment use and performance, report 1yr/parttime), as well as international TA, trials, testing and audit & reporting will all be included in theproject.

Demonstrations will be carried out on refrigeration systems and these will be replicated in similar orequivalent units such as A/Cs.

Illustrative manuals for training sessions (combined with technician training components and fieldtrips) will be produced in national language. This will demonstrate new approaches to widercommunity of technicians and demonstrate proper installation/use and maintenance of such equipmentand technologies in support of improved maintenance practices and standards.

Reporting on achieved results to highlight benefits and disadvantages and these pilot demonstrationprojects will be widely disseminated in workshop and publications and will include the results of closemonitoring of the energy efficiencies obtained. In order to ensure this result, data loggers will besupplied to maintain a proper/verifiable registry of energy consumption.

GEF financing will be designed to cover the procurement costs of refrigerated equipment packagesdesigned to work with CO2 - NH3 – HC (natural refrigerants), in some cases, geared towards two-stage refrigeration systems with the use of HFCs – this is the case of CO2 systems, along withcovering technical expertise provided for preparation of design documentation, installation and tuningup of new equipment, along with training of the respective organizations staff on new equipmentoperation. International consultants will also provide expert support to preparation of tenderdocumentations for new equipment procuring. It will further support national/international expertise tohelp with monitoring of equipment performance and safety audits, and a workshop to disseminate theresults of the demonstration project.

National co-finance will involve local level support by the recipients of such equipment which willinvolve allocation of commercial/public areas to accommodate new technologies, technology designcosts, all local engineering works in support of the project’s objectives, installation of equipment andmaintenance costs to ensure effective use of the new technology during the project and beyond.Selected recipients of equipment will ensure required performance data reporting to the Governmentand provide staff for the coordination of all works.

39


Cost estimate for OutputDemonstration of refrigeration equipmentreplacement with alternative low GWP technologies 260,000 300,000 560,000

Equipment 210,000TA (nat/int) 40,000Regional workshop 10,000

---

3.2.3.4 Upgrade of HCFC re-use system through strengthening R/R/R centers and improvinglocal distribution of bulk HCFC/HFCs in support of container import regulations

Given that refrigeration servicing remains the dominant application of HCFC technology, thecountry’s overall capacity in refrigerant management needs to be maintained and strengthened toensure recovery and recycling is maximized, capacity for alternative technologies exists, andultimately management of “end of life” refrigerants is provided for. It is understood from previousexperience that it is at this point in time that such a system, coupled with market forces (the country, ascompared to Art 5 countries in the region, slowly approaches final stages of eliminating import andconsumption of HCFCs), demonstrates its full potential and in general results in substantial HCFC re-use rates.

The idea behind the strategy developed under this component is not to focus simply onrecovery/recycling but to develop an integrated approach that encompasses the full life cycle ofrefrigerants in general for the country - from transfer of bulk containers into smaller use ones, all theway to destruction (see next section, below) with a network of recycling centers in support of it. Theestablishment of such system will also support the previous component on technician training,certification and tooling as well will serve to complete the establishment of HCFC/HFC re-use schemein the country.

There are current limitations in technical capability and modern equipment to support effectivemanagement of HCFCs used in servicing and this project proposes the strengthening of four (4)existing recovery and recycling (R&R) and service centers, and establishing one new (1) regeneration(reclaim)/storage and destruction facility for ODS based gases used in refrigeration and airconditioning. With the future coming import limitations for HCFCs, the gas recycling and re-usescheme is in high demand as it was noted during the field survey of service centers. Therefore, theGEF assistance will be geared towards modernization of identified technical centers which deal withinstallation, maintenance and repairs of ODS based refrigeration equipment.

It should be noted that partial assistance to such centers in terms of basic gas recovery machines andservicing tools will come from the previously described component of tools supply for refrigerationtechnicians. Such tools will be distributed to mobile servicing brigades and as stationary tools to thecenters.

40

The following two (2) primary Recycling centers and two (2) smaller sized technical service centerswill be strengthened and will receive HCFC re-use equipment11:

Holodon (recycling function)

Laminar (recycling function)

AgroPromHolod (advanced recovery equipment with recycling element)

HladAgent (advanced recovery equipment with recycling element)

A reclaim center (with GC and related equipment such as moisture meter) will be established, and itwill demonstrate a model approach for integrated ODS management. Being the most expensive andsophisticated set of equipment, this center will be tendered out to a qualified servicing company withsubstantial record of activities in such area of work and will be combined with the following section ondeploying a small-scale ODS destruction unit. This practical demonstration will help establish bestpractices on the full life-cycle management of ODS chemicals.

The Recovery/Recycling (service centers) and Reclaim Center(s) are expected to assist in meeting thedemands of recycled and reclaimed refrigerants and is such a way to help facilitate the successfulphase-out and as such to cover the end of HCFC phase-out in Belarus. Furthermore, these centers willbe adequately equipped to assist with the HCFC based equipment retrofit/replacements to improvepractical skills and experience and promote themselves as centers of excellence to backstop any futureequipment retrofits in the time beyond the project’s duration.

As one of the important parts of country’s HCFC phase-out strategy is related to the ban on single-useHCFC containers, and import HCFC in bulk multi-use containers, it will be imperative to supply two(2) HCFC-22 re-filling lines (on a tender basis) for gas importers and distributors in order to allow theestablishment of HCFC re-use system in the country in its full strength. This measure would promote amore centralized distribution system that would be easier to monitor and control. It would also fostermore value added activity in the country by local filling, something that would also require some localinfrastructure development. This approach will also facilitate penetration of reusable containers intothe market, as well as eventually allow local importers to recondition large cylinders (13.6 kg andmore) that they might import, into smaller sized canisters, in accordance with the needs of the marketat any given time.

Overall, this project aims to strengthen the existing HCFC management capacities, and to buildnecessary future capacity, in order to ensure the country has the required tools and equipment to reduceits dependence on HCFC imports.

GEF financing will support the establishment of such R/R/R infrastructure across the country andimplementation support through deployment of a part-time national expert to help monitor theequipment distribution and use, and one short-term international expert for development of the HCFCre-use system and procurement of specialized equipment.

11 Additionally, a refrigerated train depot of Minsk and Molodecheno will be considered for assistance during project implementation

41

National co-financing will be geared towards allocation of protected facilities by each of theparticipating service centers to place the R/R/R equipment and re-filling stations, utility charges,equipment maintenance, and staff costs to operate it. The centers will be planning to procure requiredspare parts to keep the equipment operational for the longer term – beyond the project duration.Additionally, centers have committed to regularly train their staff on the adequate use of thissophisticated equipment. The main part of co-finance is also coming from the centers’ plans tocomplementarily equip their mobile equipment maintenance brigades with basic tools mentioned in thetechnicians training component - those who will not receive assistance from the GEF – approximately50% of brigades will be equipped by the hosting centers. Companies will commit to procure additionallarger size multi-use gas containers as required by the operation of HCFC re-use scheme and withoutadditional assistance from the GEF. Technical centers will ensure that reports on R/R rates arecompiled regularly by their staff and presented to the Government.


Cost estimate for OutputUpgrades of HCFC re-use system 181,000 850,000 1,031,000

Training (supplier as part of tender) 0Equipment 161,000TA (nat/int) 20,000

3.2.3.5 Destruction Pilot Project

In line with current Government rules, all enterprises dealing with ODS are obliged to ensurecollection and disposal of ODS chemicals received during maintenance, repairs or de-commissioningof ODS based refrigerated equipment. However the enforcement of such regulations has proven to bechallenging, as there is for example not yet a centralized storage facility established to accept andhandle this and other types of waste ODS gases.

Although some progress has been achieved in the validation of a cold-plasma technology prototypehazardous waste destruction equipment, which is in place in a laboratory setting in the capital, thisequipment is not suitable for certified destruction. Indeed, as its primary design and function has beenfor test/trials objectives, it has no residual emission controls and is not certified by the NationalStandardization Committee. Therefore, although results from the trials will be useful in determiningthe applicability of the technology, the existing equipment is not suitable for processing of unwantedODS stocks.

The current estimates of the rate of unwanted ODS accumulation represent as a reported minimum of0.5 MT/annually (as determined by MNREP and corroborated by experts based on data from selectedservice centers12). In addition, a particular problematic is represented by the very large number ofdiscarded “empty” single-use cylinders still containing fractions of refrigerants and/or blends. In somecases, depending on the quality of the recovery equipment or transfer pumps, this can represent from0.15 to 0.30 Kg (150 to 300g) per cylinder, and although a final tally is not as of yet available, it wasreported that one importer had a stock of close to 5,000 “empty” cylinders awaiting disposal. Sixty(60) percent of the stock is represented by remaining fractions of HFCs and blends, and forty (40)percent – by HCFCs (30%) and blends (10%).

12 Initial survey data indicated presence of 0.8 MT of C10M1 mxture

42

At present the baseline scenario is no or limited action, and/or lack of enforceability of theGovernment norms and in this perspective, the government is convinced that with renewedenforcement of regulations on HCFC use licensing (and also that of the previously mentionedregulations), combined with the presence of ODS destruction capability in the country, the situationhas the potential to dramatically change.

In addition it is expected that this RRRD (Recover, reuse, reclaim, destruction) capacity will furthercontribute to the strengthening and improvement of the HCFC re-use/recycle scheme. In addition it isexpected that the facility will start receiving and storing amounts of obsolete/unusable HFCs, whichcould also be potentially destroyed13

The NOU has requested UNDP to plan for inclusion of a mobile plasma arc-type destruction pilot intothis project and further to this, UNDP held initial exploratory discussions with the GEF and it wasdetermined at that stage that a pilot project, whose experience and results could be shared regionally,and specifically as an initial demo approach within the Customs Union, could be explored. Given themobility of the technology, if necessary this will be deployed to the different storage facilitiesthroughout the regions, depending on need/costs. The government strongly believes that in situdestruction of contaminated/unusable ODS is a cost effective and replicable technology that must betested.

Measures will be put in place to ensure that the operation of the machine complies with all the localenvironmental and health and safety standards and regulations. In particular regarding wastewaterdischarge, the plasma arc machine has been found to meet with local standards. This pilot will help todemonstrate how to further reduce the operation costs through economies of scale and by increasinglabor and machine productivity through efficient management and minimization of down time.

There are approximately 3.47 kg of CaF2 & CaCl2 generated for every kg of CFC-12 or 2 kg ofHCFC-22 destroyed. In a year, there are about 16.6 tons of CaF2 & CaCl2 generated if 4.8 t of CFC-12 or 9.6 t HCFC-22 are destroyed from one plasma arc machine. As there is no market for these by-products, the CaF2 & CaCl2 could either be land-filled or mixed with concrete cement as is thepractice, for instance, in Japan. One plasma arc machine could annually destroy 4,800 kg of CFC-12 or9,600 kg of HCFC-22 over a 20-hour/day batch.

In future, a workshop to share results, in agreement with UNEPs DTIE could be organized in thecontext of one of the UNEP Regional network Meetings, which could be designed to focus on thesubject of destruction.

GEF financing of this component will be directed to procurement of a mobile ODS destruction unit,spares for 1 year of operation, consultations at the stages of design documentation preparation andinstallation, technical assistance from a supplier of the technology to commission installation andmonitor the performance. A regional workshop will be further arranged with GEF funds to report onthe results in linkage to UNEP-CAP MLF sponsored ECA network meetings. International consultantswill provide expert input to preparation of tender documentation for procuring the mobile unit.

13 EU F-Gases report estimates that facilities are “unable to reclaim about 1/3rd of HFC gases collected” see (EC) No 842/2006 Sept 2011http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/f-gas/docs/2011_study_en.pdf

43

National co-finance will support the allocation of facility (on a tender basis) to host the ODSdestruction center, staff and utility costs to operate it in longer term, also beyond the project duration.Furthermore, local facility design, engineering works and safety measures will be covered by nationalco-finance as well as EIA costs and coordination efforts within the Governmental structures. Thegovernment will also be responsible for utilization costs of resulting waste products and strictemission/release controls during the operation of the station. All staff will be trained to handle theequipment. Maintenance costs after the first year of operation will also represent national co-finance.


Cost estimate for OutputUnwanted ODS destruction Pilot project 197,000 400,000 597,000

Equipment 155,000TA (nat/int) 27,000Regional workshop 15,000

3.3 Component 3 - Monitoring, learning, and adaptive feedback, outreach and evaluation(GEF US$ 35,000)

This component links to Outcome 3, namely that the project results are sustained and replicablewith outputs being i) M&E and adaptive management applied to project in response to needsand extract lessons learned (Output 3.1) and ii) Lessons learned and best practices are replicatedat the national level (Output 3.2). Details are provided in Part I Section H: Budgeted Monitoringand Evaluation plan.

= = =

44

The table below provides a summary cost estimate covering the proposed GEF scenario by Component and Sub-Component described above:

Cost (US$)

Project Outcome Outputs GEF National Total

Component 1: Reducing the HCFC Servicing Demand - Regional Accelerated Phase-out Capacity Building

Outcome 1a: Legislativeand Policy Options forHCFC phase-out and

control

Output 1a.1: Preparation of Russian languageresource materials

55,556Output 1a.2: Awareness training on legislative andregulatory actions

Output 1a.3: Regional networking

Outcome 1b: CapacityBuilding for Enforcementof HCFC control measures

by customs andenvironmental/technical

inspection authorities

Output 1b.1: Russian language resourcedocumentation and Training of National Trainer

55,556Output 1b.2: Awareness raising activities

Output 1b.3: Training of Trainers

Output 1b.4: PIC Network

Output 1b.5: Regional networking

Outcome 1c: CapacityBuilding for the

Refrigeration Sector,Incorporation of Energy-

Efficiency and GHGreduction elements

Output 1c.1: Preparation of Russian languagetraining manuals and information materials

111,111Output 1c.2: ToT on Best Refrigeration Practices

Outcome 1d - Support forthe development of

regional institutions,capacity, and cooperation

Output 1d.1: Preparation of Russian languageinformation materials

27,778Output 1d.2: Promotion of Information exchangemechanismsOutput 1d.3: Facilitation of regional dialogue

Project management for Regional component 45,000Total for Regional Component 295,001 450,000 745,001

Component 2(a): National HPMP, National Level Capacity Strengthening and HCFC Phase-out Investment -Belarus

Outcome 2(a): Finalizedand adopted HCFC phase-

out strategy and actionplan, implementation of

national level training forthe servicing sector andcustoms/ enforcement

authorities, and targetedphase-out investment

demonstrations undertakenin priority areas

Output 2a.1: Formal HCFC Phase-out strategy andaction plan developed and endorsed 15,000 50,000 65,000

Output 2a.2: Trained working level Customs andenforcement officials, and refrigeration techniciansusing resources (trainers and training materials)from Component 1 with respect to legislation,regulations, customs controls, refrigerationservicing techniques, and general best practices

588,200 1,100,000 1,688,200

Customs/environmental inspectors trainingand equipment support to enhanceenforcement control capability

151,500 400,000 551,500

Refrigeration technicians training andequipment support to enhance refrigerationservicing practices

436,700 700,000 1,136,700

45

Output 2a.3 - Targeted HCFC Phase-outInvestment Program and Demonstration projects 1,361,800 4,965,000 6,326,800

Implementation of a foam conversion projectat MAZ Kupava 547,800 2,715,000 3,262,800

Implementation of a solvent conversionproject at Atlant/David GorodokElectromechanical Plant

176,000 700,000 876,000

Demonstration of benefits of natural coolingin one or two sectors such as agriculturalmilk coolers

260,000 300,000 560,000

Upgrade of HCFC re-use system throughstrengthening R/R/R centers and improvinglocal distribution of bulk HCFC/HFCs insupport of container import regulations

181,000 850,000 1,031,000

Pilot unwanted ODS Destruction Project 197,000 400,000 597,000Sub-total 1,965,000 6,115,000 8,080,000

Component 3(a): Monitoring, learning, adaptive feedback, outreach and evaluation - Belarus

Output 3.1: M&E and adaptive managementapplied to project in response to needs and extractlessons learned 35,000 0 35,000Output 3.2: Lessons learned and best practices arereplicated at the national level

Sub-total 35,000 0 35,000Total for National Component (w/o PMC) 2,000,000 6,115,000 8,115,000Project Management for National Component 200,000 330,000 530,000Total for National Component (with PMC) 2,200,000 6,445,000 8,645,000Project Management for Regional Component 45,000

Total PMC (regional and national) 245,000Total Project Costs 2,495,001 6,895,000 9,390,001

46

3.4 Project Indicators, Risks and Assumptions

The project Indicators, Risks and Assumptions are fully represented in the Strategic Results Framework (AnnexA) as well as the Risk Identification and Mitigation tables in corresponding GEF CEO Endorsement Document(Section G). It is suggested to refer to these indicated annexes and sections of the CEO endorsement documentfor details.

3.4.1 Incremental Reasoning and Incremental Cost Analysis

International institutional and capacity building assistance for Belarus on ODS phase out began as early as 1996(as detailed in previous sections) and this was instrumental in addressing the CFC phase-out challenge andstrengthening the institutional capacity of the country to coordinate the implementation of the MontrealProtocol.

However, it was not designed to prepare the country to address HCFC phase-out and as a result, there is aserious technical and institutional capacity gap. The initial effort related to latter group of ODS substances tookthe form of a regional MSP project to enable the collection of HCFC consumption data and prepare the outlineof HCFC phase-out strategies to amend the existing, outdated Country Programme on the Implementation of theMontreal Protocol. The project started at the end of 2008 and was finalized for Belarus end of 2010. Specificassistance to prepare for HCFC phase out was provided under the regional GEF MSP with a national allocationof US$75,000 (both for UNDP and UNEP with UNDP funds almost fully disbursed) and by a follow-onpreparations for a regional GEF Full Scale Project (FSP) entitled “Initial HCFC Phase Out Implementation inthe CEIT Region”14 that was included in the GEF-4 pipeline.

The formulated HCFC strategy can be considered as a full-fledged strategy given the initial objectives of theMSP for Belarus were exceeded. The strategy sets clear directions for the country on how to effectively addressthe growth in HCFC consumption and relies on the technical assistance provided through the GEF, as nocapacity building action has been taken to upgrade the existing CFC management potential of the country whichhas become redundant in the absence of CFC related challenges in the servicing sector. As such all GEF fundingand associated co-financing is considered incremental. In the current project formulated in line with the HCFCphase-out strategy forming the Government’s action plan to eliminate dependence on HCFCs, GEF funds are tobe directed to achieving project outcomes which meet the project environmental objective – avoided HCFCconsumption and compliance reporting to the Montreal Protocol authorities - and which result in importantglobal environmental benefits. In terms of the project’s design, the outcomes and the resultant globalenvironmental benefits match with the GEF goals, objectives and strategic programs for the ODS Focal Areaduring GEF-4 as described previously.

In the absence of GEF assistance, it would not have been possible to leverage substantial co-finance resources insupport of achieving HCFC phase-out in line with Montreal Protocol reduction milestones in 2015 and furtherpreparing the country to sustain the phase-out beyond 2020. Further, the country would not be able to advancethe HCFC phase-out to 2015 stage as planned by the Government by pioneering updated HCFC controlapproaches adopted in developed non-Art 5 countries and which effectively emulate those adopted in the EU.

It is acknowledged that there are national benefits from the project overall and from the GEF’s contribution,which both relate to enhanced institutional and technical capacity to be in position to address the country’sdependence on HCFC imports as well the pursuit of linkage to climate change mitigation benefits at the nationallevel (through better energy efficient approaches) by primarily addressing HCFC (ODS) dependence challenge

14 http://www.gefonline.org/projectDetailsSQL.cfm?projID=4102

47

with an element of information dissemination in the regional/sub-regional contexts. These benefits also applyequally in a regional and global context.

Technical and regulatory strengthening financed by the GEF brings additional benefits related to the capacityand knowledge to improve the general environmental protection system as it functions as of now in the country.It will involve inter-departmental cooperation on solving complex environmental challenges such as soundchemical management.

The level of global environmental benefit in terms of reduction in and further elimination of import andconsumption of HCFC would not occur in the absence of the GEF’s intervention as the HCFC phase-outStrategy will not be initiated for implementation and no technical assistance will be provided geared towardsthis strategy. Therefore, this programme is considered as incremental.

The Incremental Cost Matrix prepared in CEO endorsement document provides an overall summary of theincremental costs, both the GEF and co-financing estimated for the project, linked specifically to the projectoutcomes from Annex A of CEO Endorsement, the baseline, and global environmental benefits.

Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness

Belarus is a signatory and/or Party to a wide range of international agreements and conventions related to theenvironment. The principal ones with some relation to ozone protection issues are listed below.

Convention/Agreement Signature Ratification/Acceptance (at)/ Accession (ac)

Vienna Convention 22/03/1985 20/06/1986 (at)Montreal Protocol 22/01/1988 31/10/1998– London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol n/a 07/01/1998 (ac)– Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol n/a 18/12/2006– Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol n/a 18/12/2006– Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol n/a 18/12/2006

The overall legal framework applicable to protection of the environment in Belarus is provided in Constitutionof the Republic of Belarus, the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Environmental Protection" (November 26,1992 as amended as of December 31, 2009), and the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On protection of theAtmospheric Air” (April 15, 1997). This overarching commitment along with detailed aspects has beenformalized in the form of national legislation and supporting government statements or resolutions addressingspecific CFC/HCFC related issues. Details of such legislation are provided in the outline of the HCFC phase-outStrategy.

Overall, Belarus has a relatively comprehensive legal and regulatory framework that allows MNREP theauthority and administrative flexibility to fully control ODS generally and specifically Annex C ODS (i.e.HCFCs). This includes:

Regular reporting of data on the types and quantities of ODS produced, imported, consumed, andexported ODS and ODS containing products and submission of an annual report to the OzoneSecretariat of the Montreal Protocol as required under Article 7;

Establishment of a licensing system applicable to the import, export, retail trade, and use of HCFCs andHCFC containing products which in the case of imports can range from bans (as is the case for Annex A

48

and B to quotas or annual limits as is the case for Annex C (HCFCs), and extended toequipment/products containing ODS (Annex D);

Application of economic instruments through the license fees and environmental charges on HCFCs andHCFC containing products upon production, import and/or sale;

Authority to require record keeping and reporting on the consumption of ODS from all stakeholders andto prescribe technical alternatives to ODS; and

Elimination of new uses of ODS (including HCFCs).

Belarus completed phase out of Annex A substances in 2000 and Annex B substances in 2001 and hasmaintained compliance with the London Amendment control measures since that time. The only currentconsumption of ODS in the country is HCFCs, in the form of HCFC-141b in the manufacturing sector (PUfoams and solvents) to small extent and HCFC-22 utilized for refrigeration servicing as the main consumingsector in the country.

The table below provides additional information on ratification of other chemical related MEAs:

Convention/Agreement Signature Ratification/Accession (a) /Approval (aa)

/Acceptance (A)Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants - 03/02/2004 (a)Basel Convention on the Trans-boundary Movement of HazardousWaste and their Disposal

- 10/12/1999 (a)

Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent for CertainChemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

n/a n/a

UNECE Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution 14/11/1979 13/06/1980– Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication, and

Ground-Level Ozonen/a n/a

– Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants n/a n/a– Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals n/a n/aConvention on Access to Information, Public Participation in DecisionMaking, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters

16/12/1998 09/03/2000 (aa)

– Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers n/a n/aESPOO Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context

26/02/1991 10/11/2005 (A)

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 11/06/1992 11/05/2000 (aa)– Kyoto Protocol - 26/08/2005 (a)

The project is specifically aligned with the outline of HCFC phase-out strategy, which was prepared for Belarus.

Type of Financing Support Provided

The project is designed to provide continuity with the initial GEF regional HCFC survey project.

The financing support provided will be in the form of a grant that will cover costs where foreignexpenditures are required, recognizing the limited government and enterprise resources available toaddress HCFC phase-out. However, the GEF grant will leverage significant cash co-financing for theproject that would otherwise not be channeled towards this global issue. This type of Grant funding isconsistent with the GEF Focal Area Strategy as described above.

49

Sustainability

The principal sustainability requirement for the project is the upgraded capacity of the country that willbe used to effectively control the import and use/re-use of HCFCs to stay in compliance with theMontreal Protocol’s obligations on phasing-out HCFC imports.

In terms of its design, the project aligns the technical assistance in specific sub-components to thenational institutions and private sector that have accumulated CFC phase-out expertise and strengthenthe overall system to address HCFC challenge. By doing so, the project will ensure that a requiredlevel of ownership is achieved to ensure sustainable results.

The project will also re-establish connections to the current regional, Montreal Protocol relatedinformation exchange platforms which involve a number of Art 5 countries from Europe/CIS, to helpwith adopting more effective HCFC control measures based on other country experiences.

Within the above framework, the detailed project design, at the component and sub-component level,has a number of features that are intended to promote sustainability as noted below:

The project places emphasis on the regional information exchange and assistance in support ofeffective HCFC import and consumption regulatory controls, training of trainers to furtherdisseminate knowledge and strengthen skills of Customs, environmental inspectors, refrigerationtechnicians, as well to provide support to the establishment of Refrigeration Association. RequiredRussian/local language materials will be formulated to help improve practical working level skills inODS management and control. High degree of interconnection to the so far accumulated materialsunder MLF assistance in the region will be ensured to bring in best practices. The materials that willbe developed will also be of use to Art 5 countries in the region, where HPMP implementationstarted in 2011.

The emphasis is also placed for hands-on training of relevant project partners at the national level insupport of the implementation of the national component. All training (regional and national)conducted under the project will utilize written and replicable training materials and a “train thetrainer” approach. The new and updated training modules will be introduced into the studycurriculum of national training institutions in the country such as the MNR and Customs trainingacademies.

HCFC consumption in the manufacturing sector will be substituted with non-ODS and low-to-zeroGWP alternative technologies. In the case of solvents, the project plans commissioning of closed-cycle operation equipment to minimize emissions of new substitutes. Participating companiescommit not to use HCFCs after completion of technical assistance projects.

Changes in HCFC handling practices will require strengthening basic capacities of individualtechnicians and technical centers in terms of availability of equipment servicing tools, somethingthe project will provide the basis for through procurement and supply of such instruments. Upon theclosure of the project, the tools/machinery will be transferred to reliable users to make sure thecapacity is sustained beyond the projects duration.

50

The project will contribute to strengthen and sustain the capacity for HCFC phase-out in the longerterm through its support to the implementation of the HCFC phase-out strategy and which willprovide the Government with a “road map” in addressing future HCFC related challenges.

An appropriate level of international expertise and technology transfer will be facilitated with GEFsupport to provide the country with sustaining capacity in HCFC management.

The programme will assist in improving the capability of the country to re-use HCFCs anddemonstrate best practices in managing end-of-life HCFCs in order to address its HCFC consumptionin a comprehensive manner. ODS destruction capability will address unwanted ODSs and demonstrateexperience in the regional context.

Demonstration of energy efficient equipment working on alternatives and promotion of natural coolingtechnologies will be essential in order to assist the country, and other countries in the region, to makethe appropriate and most efficient choices to ensure that low/non ODP and low/no GWP technologiesare demonstrated in practice

Replicability

As mentioned above, the country is approaching the final HCFC phase-out dates, with 75% reductionin the HCFC consumption as compared to the baseline in 2010 and further 90% reduction to beachieved by 2015. Through the successful implementation of this technical assistance project thecountry will be able to provide a useable example to other CIS countries in particular as regards theaccelerated phase-out by 2015 and challenges/achievements possible in relation to EU harmonization.This accumulated experience will also be available to other countries in the region that operate bothunder non-Art 5 status as well as Art 5. The regional information exchange component will ensure allreplicable results of the project are shared with interested countries on the regional basis.

51

3.5 Project Results Framework

This project will contribute to achieving the following Country Programme Outcome as defined in CPAP or CPD:3.2: Sustainable use of the country’s natural resources promoted.

Country Programme Outcome Indicators:Indicator: A Road Map for mainstreaming the priority SMC issues in Belarus’ decision-making officially adopted by the GovernmentBaseline: NoneTarget: SMC is being mainstreamed into national decision in accordance with the adopted Road Map.

Primary applicable Key Environment and Sustainable Development Key Result Area (same as that on the cover page, circle one):

Applicable GEF Strategic Objective and Program

Objectives: To protect human health and the environment by assisting countries to phase out consumption and production and prevent releases ofODS according to their commitments to Montreal Protocol phase-out schedules, while enabling low-GHG (Greenhouse Gas) alternative technologiesand practices.

Program: For the period of GEF-4, the GEF will assist eligible countries in meeting their HCFC phase-out obligations under the Montreal Protocol,and strengthening capacities and institutions in those countries that still are faced with difficulties in meeting their reporting obligations.Applicable GEF Expected Outcomes:

(1) HCFCs are phased-out according to Montreal Protocol schedule, or faster, in GEF-eligible countries(2) GEF-eligible countries meet their reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol

Applicable GEF Outcome Indicators:

(1) Indicators for Outcome 1:(a) ODP adjusted tons of HCFCs phased-out from consumption (GEF-4 replenishment target: HCFCs: 50-70 ODP tons)(b) Percentage reduction in HCFC consumption in the participating countries

(2) Indicators for Outcome 2:(a) Percentage of GEF-funded countries that meet their reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol

52

Project Strategy Objectively verifiableindicators

Baseline Target Sources ofverification

AssumptionsObjective: to speedup the phase out offacilitate phasing outozone depletingsubstances,particularly HCFCsand their substitutionwith modernalternativesubstances inaccordance with therespective Belarus’obligations under theMontreal Protocol,along withstrengthening thesystem of importcontrol andmanagement ofHCFCs in Belarus.Also the project aimsto achievecompliance ofBelarus with theacceleratedMontreal ProtocolHCFC phase-outrequirementsthrough stabilizationand progressivereduction of HCFCconsumption.

Belarus is incompliance with the MPobligations for 2015 and2020, or accelerates thephase-out earlier thanMP requirements areenforced

Approved HCFC phase-outstrategy; Customs union with theRussian Federation that results inuncontrolled import of HCFCsand HCFC based equipment; Gaps in institutional capacityand HCFC use control system; Weak HCFC re-use capacityand low-level of technicalknowledge and instrumentation toaddress HCFC in the servicingsector Limited technical knowledgerelating to good refrigerationpractices as regards alternativerefrigerants (non-ODS/low GWPsuch as ammonia, carbon dioxide,etc) No current informationproducts and programs Limited availability oftechnical tools to test gascomposition and quality as wellas to limit emissions of HCFCsduring equipment maintenance Limited exposure to alternativetechnologies and understanding ofenergy-saving aspects of newmodern equipment operational onnew technologies

HCFC phase-out strategy fullyformulated and recommended foradoption and implementation; Effective regulatoryinstruments to control HCFC use,and thus, import of HCFCs andHCFC containing equipment inplace and effectivelyimplemented; Printed materials on variousaspects related to HCFC phase-out (policy control options,enforcement and illegal trade,alternative technologies andenergy-efficiency, ODSdestruction, best refrigerationpractices etc) available Current capacities of projectstakeholders strengthened throughcapacity building and investmentsupport in manufacturing andservicing sectors

Status of HCFCphase-out strategy asa formal governmentstrategic document; National legal andregulatory registers Art 7 reporting toOzone Secretariat onHCFC import andmonitoring of HCFCimport reduction; Project Progressand M/E reports

Overall governmentcommitment andassumption ofappropriateresponsibility; Regulatoryenforcement resourcesand capacity available; Project stakeholdersactively participate inthe projectimplementation andrealization of HCFCphase-out strategy; Accurate monitoringand reporting.

53



Assumptions

Outcome 1: Regional accelerated phase-out capacity building (containing four sub-components)

Outcome 1 (a):Legislative and PolicyOptions for HCFCphase-out and control

Russian languageresource materials onHCFC control optionsprepared Awareness training fordecision-makers onlegislative and regulatoryactions accomplished Regional networking onthe country with Art 5 andother non Art 5 countriesin the region is supported

Key stakeholders generally havelimited awareness of the issue oractions required on the higher ortechnical level to address HCFCphase-out; Decision-makers fromenforcement department (MNR,Customs) have limited knowledgeand lack practical skills on theregulatory approaches to effectivelycontrol HCFC related challenges; Limited number or lack of trainedtrainers on enforcement and bestrefrigeration aspects; Required materials in Russian orlocal languages, on HCFC controloptions, Customs enforcementapproaches and methodologies,refrigeration sector capacitybuilding, energy-efficiency,alternative technologies and theirapplication, illegal trade and PIC,technician certification and ODSwaste management related issues arelimited in availability or absent; Regional networking with otherpartner countries in the region islacking which prevents informationand experience exchange [see topicsabove]; Cooperation between non-Art 5countries on effective actionstandards is minimal or absent.

Availability of key guidancedocumentation in Russian, or locallanguages, where required, on HCFCcontrol options, Customsenforcement approaches andmethodologies, refrigeration sectorcapacity building, energy-efficiency,ODS destruction etc; High-level decision-makers ofMNR, Customs, territorialinspectorates, other Governmentalagencies such as Ministry ofEducation, StandardizationCommittee are well informed andsupport the objectives of HCFCconsumption phase-out andmeasures to address this process; Training of a selected number oftrainers on the technical level(Customs controls and refrigerationpractices) is complete on regionallevel to initiate trainings on nationallevel Regional networking with non Art5 and other Art 5 countries re-established, contacts re-engaged, andoverall supports accelerated capacitybuilding of the country as well asessential experience exchange onimportant HCFC phase-out relatedtopics

National legal andregulatory registers Equivalencecomparison tointernational standards Number ofregional/sub-regionalmeetings attended byeach country, andspecific department(organized byMLF/UNEP-CAP teamor by the currentproject) Number of materials,in Russian, or locallanguages, prepared andused by the countries Number ofinvolved/traineddecision makers andtrainers trained in eachcountry Monitoring of pressand media coverage Project Progress andM/E reports

In-country interagencycoordination is sustainablethrough high-levelGovernment support andallows for timelyparticipation of variousdepartments in regionalmeetings MLF/UNEP-CAP andother regional and sub-regional conferences andmeetings are organized onHCFC phase-out subjectsetc Trainers are furtherdeployed for the training atnational level Any additional trainingwill be organized atnational level (with or w/oparticipation ofinternational trainer)

Outcome 1 (b):Capacity Building forEnforcement of HCFCcontrol measures bycustoms andenvironmental/technicalinspection authorities

Russian languageresource documentation Awareness raisingactivities Training of Trainers PIC Network Regional networking

Outcome 1 (c):Capacity Building forthe RefrigerationSector, Incorporation ofEnergy-Efficiency andGHG reductionelements

Preparation of Russianlanguage training manualsand information materials ToT on BestRefrigeration Practices

Outcome 1 (d): Supportfor the development ofregional institutions,capacity, andcooperation

Preparation of Russianlanguage informationmaterials Promotion ofInformation exchangemechanisms Facilitation of regionaldialogue

Outcome 2: National level phase-out capacity building

54



Assumptions

Outcome 2 (a –Belarus): HPMP,National LevelCapacity Strengtheningand HCFC Phase OutInvestment

Formal HCFC Phase-outstrategy and action plandeveloped and endorsed

No formal HCFC strategy isadopted and enforced throughregulatory measures Inter-agency coordination toaddress HCFC phase-out is limited No updated HCFC and HCFCequipment import quota and usesystem is in place Low level of awareness related toHCFC phase-out across stakeholdersand general public No current information productsand programs

HCFC phase-out strategy fullyformulated, packaged as draftlegislation for Government approvaland cleared by lineMinistries/departments for finalendorsement Widely accessible information onHCFC phase-out strategy and itselements Inter-agency coordination relatedto HCFC phase-out is improved Effective regulatory measures(quotas etc) are updated andenforced Main stakeholders are informedabout HCFC phase-out strategy andregulatory measures related toHCFC import and use control

National legal andregulatory registers Equivalencecomparison tointernational standards Confirmationcorrespondence fromGovernment to UNDP Monitoring of pressand media coverage Project Progress andM/E reports

Governmentcommitment to timelyprocessing of requiredHCFC action plan andregulations Art 7 compliancereporting to OzoneSecretariat Interagency coordinationis sustainable throughhigh-level Governmentsupport Stakeholders supportupdated regulations

Trained and equippedworking level Customs andenforcement officials, andrefrigeration techniciansusing resources (trainersand training materials)from Component 1 withrespect to legislation,regulations, customscontrols, refrigerationservicing techniques, andgeneral best practices

Key Government stakeholders aswell as working level officials havelimited awareness of HCFC phase-out issue, challenges to address itand skills/tools to enforce HCFCcontrol measures in practice Limited active educational effortsor tools are available Illegal trade in ODS continuesunregistered and unnoticed No current information productsand programs Lack of portable HCFC analyticalequipment and skills to control enduse and illegal imports General absence of basic servicingtools to strengthen HCFC re-usesystem

Inclusion of HCFC control issuesinto curricula of Customs andenforcement officials’ traininginstitutions Update of study plans forrefrigeration technicians atspecialized training centers andtechnical universities, vocationalschools, MNR institute forinspectors training Well informed stakeholdercommunity engaged in addressingHCFC phase-out issue with requiredlevel of understanding and technicalcapacity Re-tooling (basic portableanalytical and instrumentation forservicing sector) of main stakeholdergroups implemented Illegal trade is registered andstopped at entry points

Prepared andregistered educationalcurricula Attendance at traininginformation sessionsand events Customs reportinginformation Procurementdocuments on supply ofequipment Project Progress andM/E reports

Interagency coordination(Ministry of Education issupportive of changes tocurricula) is sustainablethrough high-levelGovernment support Sustaining interest andcapacity in educationalinstitutions to maintaineducational programs Active participation andpartnership with educationinstitutions and large scaleattendance of trainingevents

Targeted HCFC Phase-out Investment Programand Demonstrationprojects

55



Assumptions

Implementation of afoam conversion

project at MAZ Kupava

MAZ-Kupava (foam productmanufacturer) depends on HCFC-141b in manufacturing processes; Alternative technologies arescarcely available to the companyfor access and transfer, not tested atthe facility and lack processing andsafety instrumentation for practicalintroduction Refrigerated trucks with foaminsulation continue to bemanufactured with the use ofHCFCs

MAZ-Kupava technologicallyconverted to non-ODS/ low GWPtechnology (HCFC-141b basedpolyols to c-pentane) HCFC use at MAZ Kupavastopped and company committed notto use HCFCs any longer Technical staff is knowledgeableon correct use of new technology

Procurementdocuments on supply ofequipment Mission and site visitsreports of internationaland national consultants Company’s writtencommitments to stopusage of HCFCs inmanufacturing processes Project Progress andM/E reports

Government requiresregular reporting andperforms monitoring ofworks Supplied equipment isadequately maintained andused by company Company continues toco-finance the project asspecified in the co-financecommitments

Implementation of asolvent conversionproject at DavidGorodokElectromechanicalPlant

Atlant/David-Gorodok (solventusers) depends on HCFC-141b inmanufacturing processes and this isa high emissive use of HCFCs; Alternative technologies arescarcely available to the companyfor access and transfer, not tested atthe facility and lack processing andsafety instrumentation for practicalintroduction Spares (compressors and others)for refrigerators continue to bemanufactured with the use ofHCFCs as degreasing agent

Atlant/David-Gorodoktechnologically converted to non-ODS technology (HCFC-141b totransblends based on HFCs – closedloop cycle and minimization ofagent use reduce emissions) HCFC use at Atlant/David-Gorodok stopped and companycommitted not to use HCFCs anylonger Technical staff is knowledgeableon correct use of new technology

Procurementdocuments on supply ofequipment Mission and site visitsreports of internationaland national consultants Company’s writtencommitments to stopusage of HCFCs inmanufacturing processes Project Progress andM/E reports

Government requiresregular reporting andperforms monitoring ofworks Supplied equipment isadequately maintained andused by company Company continues toco-finance the project asspecified in the co-financecommitments

56



Assumptions

Demonstration ofbenefits of naturalcooling in one or twosectors such asagricultural milkcoolers

Limited proliferation of low GWPalternatives (NH3, CO2 doublestage, HCs etc) to HCFCs inrefrigerated equipment; Safety standards for new lowGWP alternatives do not exist Generally low awareness on newalternative technologies in theservicing sector and benefits inenergy savings (co-benefits foreconomic operations as well as forclimate change); No current information productsand programs; Lack of experience with,knowledge of and skills to assemble,install, operate and maintain HCFC-free commercial/industrialequipment using non-ODS/low-zeroGWP technologies; Low readiness for/acceptance ofnew technologies by end-users.

Non-ODS/low-zero GWP (NH3,CO2 double stage, HCs etc)technologies in the servicing sectordemonstrated and promoted throughawareness raising; Stakeholder community(private/public HCFC equipmentuser sector) well informed aboutnew alternative technologies andtheir benefits; Local engineering companies gainknowledge and skills to assembleand operate such technologies infuture; Safety standards for newalternatives reviewed and adopted; Performance of new equipment isregularly recorded; Market is more prepared for theacceptance of new alternatives.

National legal andregulatory registers onsafety standards Equivalencecomparison tointernational standards Procurementdocuments on supply ofequipment Mission and site visitsreports of internationaland national consultants Monitoring of pressand media coverage Project Progress andM/E reports

Interagency coordination(StandardizationCommittee is supportive ofchanges to standards) issustainable through high-level Government support Costs of new equipmentdoes not exceed projectbudget Project participantsmaintain their interest inthe use of new equipmentand co-finance localdesign, installation andmaintenance works

Upgrade of HCFC re-use system throughstrengthening R/R/Rcenters and improvinglocal distribution ofbulk HCFC/HFCs insupport of containerimport regulations

HCFCs are not re-useddomestically – lack of acomprehensive HCFC re-use system,and country depends on imports HCFC re-cycling and reclaimequipment, or network, is generallyoutdated and not suited for HCFCsin the former case and is absent inthe latter Analytical equipment for servicingsector does not exist to ensurequality of re-cycled/reclaimedHCFC refrigerants and improveconfidence of buyers (servicingcenters/technicians or end-users) Limited active educational effortsor tools on best refrigerationservicing practices are available

Regulatory measures to ban singleuse containers are effected and allowto create HCFC distribution systemin country; HCFC re-use system upgradedthrough strengthening R/R/R centers– country’s technical capacity isimproved; HCFC re-use system isimplemented in practice allowing toreduce dependence on import ofHCFCs; Technical center staff is trained onadequate use of equipment and bestrefrigeration practices in equipmentmaintenance and retrofits; Well informed stakeholdercommunity engaged in addressingHCFC phase-out issue with requiredlevel of understanding and technicalcapacity.

Attendance oftechnical centers’ staffand other technicians attraining and informationevents; Procurementdocuments on supply ofequipment; Mission and site visitsreports of internationaland national consultantson refrigerantrecovery/recycling andreclamation rates; Project Progress andM/E reports.

Government informs thestakeholder community onHCFC restrictions, HCFCphase-out strategy andfurther limits HCFC andHCFC equipment imports; Government requiresregular reporting andperform monitoring ofworks; Supplied equipment isadequately maintained andused by company.

57



Assumptions

Pilot unwanted ODSDestruction Project

Gradual accumulation of obsoleteODS waste (unusable mixtures andemptied HCFC cylinders with ODSfractions) and the acute need todispose of such wastes; Only prototype laboratoryequipment on hazardous wasteprocessing exists with no emissioncontrols in place; Small quantities of obsolete ODSwaste to generate interest for exportto major hazardous waste destructionsites Lack of integration of ODSdisposal into HCFC re-use system tocomplete ODS management cycle Generally lack of appropriateODS destruction experience inCentral Asia region

Small-scale obsolete ODSdestruction capacity established on apilot basis to re-enforce the HCFCre-use system and a planned ban onsingle use containers; Staff trained to operate andmaintain equipment; Stockpiles of obsolete ODSdestroyed by supplied technology; Country is fully equipped tohandle full-cycle of ODSmanagement with demonstrationelement; Dissemination of resultsperformed on the regional scale.

Procurementdocuments on supply ofequipment Mission and site visitsreports of internationaland national consultantson refrigerantdestruction rates Project Progress andM/E reports

Government supportsthe acceptance of ODSdestruction technology andsupervises its applicationand performance byequipment recipients; Equipment recipients areavailable and willing tooperate the technologywith co-financecommitments ready

Outcome 3:Monitoring, learning,adaptive feedback,outreach andevaluation

M&E and adaptivemanagement applied toproject in response toneeds, mid-term evaluationfindings with lessonslearned extracted.

No Monitoring and Evaluationsystem No evaluation of project outputand outcomes

Monitoring and Evaluation systemdeveloped during year 1. Mid-term-evaluation of projectoutput and outcomes conducted withlessons learnt at 30 months ofimplementation. Final evaluation report ready inthe end of project

Project documentinception workshopreport. Independent mid-termevaluation report. Final evaluationreport

Availability of referencematerial and progressreports Cooperation ofstakeholder agencies andother organizations.

Outcome 1 (a): Legislative and Policy Options for HCFC phase-out and controlOutput 1a.1: Russian language resource materials on HCFC control options preparedOutput 1a.2: Awareness training for decision-makers on legislative and regulatory actions accomplishedOutput 1a.3: Regional networking on the country with Art 5 and other non Art 5 countries in the region is supportedOutcome 1 (b): Capacity Building for Enforcement of HCFC control measures by customs and environmental/technical inspection authoritiesOutput 1b.1: Russian language resource documentationOutput 1b.2: Awareness raising activitiesOutput 1b.3: Training of TrainersOutput 1b.4: PIC NetworkOutput 1b.5: Regional networkingOutcome 1 (c): Capacity Building for the Refrigeration Sector, Incorporation of Energy-Efficiency and GHG reduction elementsOutput 1c.1: Preparation of Russian language training manuals and information materialsOutput 1c.2: ToT on Best Refrigeration Practices

58

Outcome 1 (d): Support for the development of regional institutions, capacity, and cooperationOutput 1d.1: Preparation of Russian language information materialsOutput 1d.2: Promotion of Information exchange mechanismsOutput 1d.3: Facilitation of regional dialogueOutcome 2 (a – Belarus): HPMP, National Level Capacity Strengthening and HCFC Phase Out InvestmentOutput 2a.1: Formal HCFC Phase-out strategy and action plan developed and endorsedOutput 2a.2.: Trained and equipped working level Customs and enforcement officials, and refrigeration technicians using resources (trainers and trainingmaterials) from Component 1 with respect to legislation, regulations, customs controls, refrigeration servicing techniques, and general best practicesOutput 2a.3: Targeted HCFC Phase-out Investment Program and Demonstration projectsOutcome 3a: Monitoring, learning, adaptive feedback, outreach and evaluationOutput 3a.1: M&E and adaptive management applied to project in response to needs, mid-term evaluation findings with lessons learned extracted.Output 3a.2: Lessons learned and best practices are replicated at national level

59

3.6 Total Budget and Workplan

GEF Outcome/Atlas Activity

ResponsibleParty/

FundID

DonorName

AtlasBudgetaryAccount

Code

ATLAS BudgetDescription

AmountYear 1(USD)

AmountYear 2(USD)

AmountYear 3(USD)

Total (USD)See

BudgetNote:Implementing

Agent

OUTCOME 1: Regional accelerated phase-out capacity building (to be implemented by UNDP Regional Center in Slovakia)

OUTCOME 2: HPMP, National Level Capacity Strengthening and HCFC Phase Out Investment

Output 2.1: Formal HCFC Phase-out strategy andaction plan developed and endorsed NIM 62000 GEF

72100Contractual services

(workshops, rent,equipment, etc)

$9,000 $0 $0 $9,000 x

72100 Contractual services(publications etc) $6,000 $0 $0 $6,000 x

Sub-total $15,000 $0 $0 $15,000

Output 2.2.: Trained and equipped working levelCustoms and enforcement officials, and

refrigeration technicians using resources (trainersand training materials) from Component 1

NIM 62000 GEF

72200 Equipment (Customsand technicians) $100,000 $214,000 $95,200 $409,200 x

72100Contractual services(Training of Customs

and technicians)$40,000 $48,000 $0 $88,000 x

72200Office equipment

(Training equipment forinstitutions)

$36,000 $0 $0 $36,000 x

71200International

Consultants (to delivertrainings)

$15,000 $0 $0 $15,000 x

71300 National consultant $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 x

72100 Contractual services(publications etc) $5,000 $5,000 $0 $10,000 x

Sub-total $206,000 $277,000 $105,200 $588,200

Output 2.3: Targeted HCFC Phase-out InvestmentProgram and Demonstration projects

Implementation of a foam conversion project atMAZ Kupava NIM 62000 GEF 71200 International

Consultant (TA) $20,000 $10,000 $0 $30,000 x

60

71300 National consultant $5,000 $5,000 $0 $10,000 x

72200 Equipment $407,800 $100,000 $0 $507,800 x

Sub-total $432,800 $115,000 $0 $547,800

Implementation of a solvent conversion project atDavid Gorodok Electromechanical Plant NIM 62000 GEF

71200 InternationalConsultant (TA) $10,000 $10,000 $0 $20,000 x

71300 National consultant $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 x

72200 Equipment $151,000 $0 $0 $151,000 x

Sub-total $166,000 $10,000 $0 $176,000

Demonstration of benefits of natural cooling in oneor two sectors such as agricultural milk coolers NIM 62000 GEF

72200 Equipment $0 $100,000 $110,000 $210,000 x

71200 InternationalConsultant (TA) $0 $15,000 $5,000 $20,000 x

71300 National consultant $0 $5,000 $15,000 $20,000 x



$0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 x

Sub-total $0 $130,000 $130,000 $260,000

Upgrades of HCFC re-use system NIM 62000 GEF

72200 Equipment $50,000 $111,000 $0 $161,000 x

71200 InternationalConsultant (TA) $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000

71300 National consultant $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 x

Sub-total $60,000 $116,000 $5,000 $181,000

Unwanted ODS Pilot Destruction Project NIM 62000 GEF

72200 Equipment (withsupport form supplier) $0 $0 $155,000 $155,000 x

71300 National consultant $0 $0 $7,000 $7,00071200 International expert $0 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000



$0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 x

Sub-total $0 $10,000 $187,000 $197,000

Total Outcome 2 $879,800 $658,000 $427,200 $1,965,000

61

OUTCOME 3: Monitoring, learning, adaptive feedback, outreach and evaluation - Belarus

OUTCOME 3: Monitoring, learning, adaptivefeedback, outreach and evaluation - Belarus NIM 62000 GEF

71200 InternationalConsultants $0 $15,000 $20,000 $35,000 x

Total M & E $0 $15,000 $20,000 $35,000

Project Management Budget (PMB) NIM 62000 GEF

71300 Local Consultants $30,000 $45,000 $45,000 $120,000 x

71600 Travel $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $45,000 x

72200 Equipment $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 x

74500Miscellaneous (office

supplies,communication)

$5,000 $2,000 $2,000 $9,000 x

74500 Miscellaneous (audit) $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 x

Total Managementnational $77,000 $64,000 $59,000 200,000

PROJECT TOTALnational w/o PMC $879,800 $673,000 $447,200 $2,000,000

PROJECT TOTALnational $956,800 $737,000 $506,200 $2,200,000

62

3.7 WorkPlan Implementation Schedule

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

OUTCOME 1: Regional accelerated phase-out capacity building (containing four sub-components)OUTCOME 1a:Legislative andPolicy Optionsfor HCFC phase-out and control

InternationalConsultants

OUTCOME 1b:Capacity Buildingfor Enforcementof HCFC controlmeasures bycustoms andenvironmental/technical inspectionauthorities

Contractualservices(workshops, rent,equipment, etc)

OUTCOME 1c:Capacity Buildingfor theRefrigerationSector,Incorporation ofEnergy-Efficiency andGHG reductionelements

Contractualservices(publications etc)

OUTCOME 1d:Support for thedevelopment ofregionalinstitutions,capacity, andcooperation

Travel(travelandDSA)

63

OUTCOME 2: HPMP, National Level Capacity Strengthening and HCFC Phase Out Investment (containing four outputs)

Output 2.1:Formal HCFCPhase-outstrategy andaction plandeveloped andendorsed

Contractualservices(workshops,rent,equipment, etc)Contractualservices(publicationsetc)

Output 2.2.:Trained andequippedworking levelCustoms andenforcementofficials, andrefrigerationtechniciansusingresources(trainers andtrainingmaterials)fromComponent 1

Equipment(Customs andtechnicians)Contractualservices(Training ofCustoms andtechnicians)Officeequipment(Trainingequipment forinstitutions)InternationalConsultants (todelivertrainings)

Nationalconsultant

Contractualservices(publicationsetc)

64

Output 2.3: Targeted HCFC Phase-out Investment Program and

Demonstration projects (containingfour sub-components)

Implementationof a foamconversion projectat MAZ Kupava

InternationalConsultant(TA)Nationalconsultant

Equipment

Implementationof a solventconversion projectat David GorodokElectromechanicalPlant

InternationalConsultant(TA)Nationalconsultant

Equipment

Demonstrationof benefits ofnatural cooling inone or two sectorssuch as agriculturalmilk coolers

EquipmentInternationalConsultant(TA)NationalconsultantContractualservices(workshops,rent,equipment,etc)

Upgrades ofHCFC re-usesystem

Equipment

InternationalconsultantNationalconsultant

Unwanted ODSPilot DestructionProject

EquipmentNationalconsultantContractualservices(workshops,rent,equipment,etc)

65

OUTCOME 3: Monitoring, learning, adaptive feedback, outreach and evaluationInternationalConsultants

Overall ManagementComponents

LocalConsultantsTravelEquipmentMiscellaneous(office supplies,communication)Miscellaneous(audit)

Belarus Refrigerant Management Plan

66

4 Management Arrangements

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Belarus (Ministry ofEnvironment) acting as an executing agency for this project will take responsibility for overallcoordination of project implementation, efficient use of project resources and achievement all theplanned project results. The executing agency closely cooperates with UNDP to ensure successfulimplementation of all the projects activities and achievement of all the objectives and tasks. Theexecuting agency (Ministry of Environment) will assign a senior official as the Project Director who willprovide general coordination and support to the project on behalf of the Ministry of Environment.

The project organization structure (summarized in the figure below) will consist of a Project Board,Project Assurance, and a Project Implementation Unit (PIU).

A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established at the inception phase of the project to monitorthe project progress, to guide its implementation and to support the project in achieving its listed outputsand outcomes. It will be chaired by the Project Director and include representatives from the mainstakeholders, including the Ministry of Environment the State Customs Committee, APIMH, MAZ-Kupava, David-Gorodok Electromechanical and UNDP. Other members can be invited at the decision ofthe PSC on an as-needed basis, but taking due regard that the PSC remains sufficiently lean to beoperationally effective. The project manager will participate as a non-voting member in the PSC meetingsand will also be responsible for compiling a summary report of the discussions and conclusions of eachmeeting. The final list of the PSC members will be completed at the outset of project operations and willbe approved by UNDP and the Ministry of Environment. The first PSC meeting will take place within 6months from the project start date. The PSC will meet at least twice a year to discuss the issues related toproject implementation. The PSC could meet more often if it will be deemed necessary.

PIU

Project BoardThe key national andinternational stakeholders Ministry of Environment UNDPProject AssuranceResponsible UNDPProgramme Officer

Project Organization Structure

Expert TeamComponent 1

Expert TeamComponent 2


67

The Project Assurance role supports the Project Board Executive by carrying out objective andindependent project oversight and monitoring functions. The Project Assurance role will rest with theUNDP Belarus Environment Focal Point.

The day-to-day management of the project will be carried out by a Project Implementation Unit under theoverall guidance of the Project Steering Committee. The PIU will include Project Manager, ScientificCoordinator, who will provide scientific support to the project activities, including development andofficial approval of the a register of refrigeration equipment, conditioning systems and technologicalprocesses using HCFCs, Administrative and Financial Assistant and Procurement Specialist. The PIU staffwill be selected through an open competitive process in accordance with the respective UNDP rules andprocedures taking into account consultations with the Ministry of Environment. Effectiveness of the PIUstaff work will be evaluated annually by the UNDP Belarus. Based on the evaluation results andconsultations with the Project Director, a decision will be made on renewal/non-renewal of the PMcontract. Tentative ToR for the PM presented in Annex 3.

A work plan for the first year of project implementation will be developed and approved by the Ministryof Environment and UNDP during the project inception stage. Work plans for the second and subsequentproject implementation years will be prepared during the last month of an on-going year.

The UNDP Belarus will maintain the oversight and management of the overall project budget. It will beresponsible for monitoring project implementation, timely reporting of the progress to the donor/donors. Itwill also support the executing agency in the procurement of the required expert services and other projectinputs and administer the required contracts. Furthermore, it will support the co-ordination and networkingwith other related initiatives and institutions in the country. The description of UNDP Country Officesupport services is provided in Annex 6.

For successfully reaching the objective and outcomes of the project, it is essential that the progress ofdifferent project components will be closely monitored both by the key local and internationalstakeholders and, starting with the finalization of the detailed, component-specific work plans andimplementation arrangements and continuing through the project’s implementation phase. The purpose ofthis is to facilitate early identification of possible risks to successful completion of the project togetherwith adaptive management and early corrective action, when needed. During the implementation, propercare will be taken to have adequate communication and co-ordination mechanisms in place to ensure thatareas of common interest can be addressed in a cost-efficient way.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The project will be monitored through the following M& E activities. The M& E budget isprovided in the table below. Further explanatory details are provided in the regional (umbrella)project document.

Recruitments of M&E experts will be managed regionally through COA codes provided byUNDP Country Office.

M&E Work Plan and budget

Type of M&Eactivity

Responsible Parties Budget US$ Time frame

InceptionWorkshop andReport

Project Manager UNDP CO, UNDP GEF International Technical

Staff timeWithin first twomonths of projectstart up


68

Type of M&Eactivity

Responsible Parties Budget US$ Time frame

Support/Safeguards ExpertMeasurement ofMeans ofVerification ofproject results.

UNDP GEF RTA/ProjectManager will oversee thehiring of specific studies andinstitutions, and delegateresponsibilities to relevantteam members.

NoneStart, mid and endof project (duringevaluation cycle)and annually whenrequired.

Measurement ofMeans ofVerification forProject Progresson output andimplementation

Oversight by ProjectManager

Project teamNone

Annually prior toARR/PIR and to thedefinition of annualwork plans

ARR/PIR Project manager and team UNDP CO UNDP RTA UNDP EEG

None Annually

Periodic status/progress reports

Project manager and team None Quarterly

Mid-termEvaluation

Project manager and team UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e.

evaluation team)

Indicative cost:15,000

At the mid-point ofprojectimplementation.

Final Evaluation Project manager and team, UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e.

evaluation team)

Indicative cost:20,000

At least threemonths before theend of projectimplementation

Project TerminalReport

Project manager and team UNDP CO local consultant International Technical

Support/Safeguards Expert

Staff time

At least threemonths before theend of the project

Audit UNDP CO Project manager and team

None (cost in PMBudget)

Yearly

Visits to fieldsites

UNDP CO UNDP RCU (as appropriate) Government representatives

For GEF supportedprojects, paid from IAfees and operationalbudget

Yearly

TOTAL indicative COSTExcluding project team staff time and UNDP staffand travel expenses

US$ 35,00015

15 Costs only for International Consultant supporting M&E as part of Technical support/safeguards monitoring. It is estimated that additionalUS$15,000 from project management salaries will be devoted to M&E activities. Audit costs in the Project Management component areUS$6,000.


69

5 Legal Context

This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the SBAA between theGovernment of the Republic of Belarus and UNDP, signed on September 24, 1992.Consistent with the Article III of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, the responsibility for thesafety and security of the executing entity and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in theexecuting entity’s custody, rests with the executing agency.

The executing entity shall:a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the

security situation in the country where the project is being carried;b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the executing agency’s security, and the full

implementation of the security plan.

UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the planwhen necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereundershall be deemed a breach of this agreement.The executing entity agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP fundsreceived pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associatedwith terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on thelist maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The listcan be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision mustbe included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document.

Audit Clause: The Audit will be conducted in accordance with UNDP Financial Regulations and Rulesand applicable audit policies on UNDP projects.


70

6 Annexes

Annex 1 - Risk Analysis

Use the standard UNDP Atlas Risk Log template. For UNDP GEF projects in particular, please outlinethe risk management measures including improving resilience to climate change that the project proposesto undertake.

The Project Indicators, Risks and Assumptions are fully represented in the Strategic ResultsFramework (Annex A) as well as the Risk Identification and Mitigation tables in the correspondingGEF CEO Endorsement Document (Section G). It is suggested to refer to these indicated annexesand sections of the CEO endorsement document for more detailed information.


71

Annex 2 - Agreements

Any additional agreements, such as cost sharing agreements, project cooperation agreements signed withNGOs16 (where the NGO is designated as the “executing entity”, letters of financial commitments, GEFOFP letter, GEF PIFs and other templates for all project types) should be attached.

GEF OFP Endorsement letter is attached to the submission package

16 For GEF projects, the agreement with any NGO pre-selected to be the main contractor should include the rationale for having pre-selectedthat NGO.


72

Annex 3 - Terms of Reference17:

Project Board and National Project ManagerPROJECT BOARD

Composition and organization: The Project Board includes representatives (1) Ministry of Environment (2)UNDP and (3) main stakeholders (individual or group of individuals representing the interests of those whowill ultimately benefit from the project).

I. Specific responsibilities

1. Initiating a project:

Agree on PM’s responsibilities, as well as the responsibilities of the other members of the ProjectManagement team;

Delegate any Project Assurance function as appropriate;

Review and appraise detailed Project Plan and AWP, including Atlas reports covering activity definition,quality criteria, issue log, updated risk log and the monitoring and communication plan.

2. Running a project:

Provide overall guidance and direction to the project, ensuring it remains within any specified constraints;

Address project issues as raised by the Project Manager;

Provide guidance and agree on possible countermeasures/management actions to address specific risks;

Agree on Project Manager’s tolerances in the Annual Work Plan and quarterly plans when required;

Review the Project Annual Review Report, make recommendations for the next AWP, and inform theOutcome Board about the results of the review.

Review and approve end project report, make recommendations for follow-on actions;

Provide ad-hoc direction and advice for exception situations when project manager’s tolerances areexceeded;

Assess and decide on project changes through revisions;

3. Closing a project:

Assure that all Project deliverables have been produced satisfactorily;

Review and approve the Final Project Review Report, including Lessons-learned;

Make recommendations for follow-on actions to be submitted to the Outcome Board;

Commission project evaluation (only when required by partnership agreement)

Notify operational completion of the project to the Outcome Board.

National Project Director

As a representative the Executing Entity, the National Project Director has the main responsibility toensure that the project is executed in accordance with the project document and the UNDP guidelines fornationally executed projects.

17 TORs for technical personnel will be formulated at implementation stage


73

His/her main duties and responsibilities include:

Supervising the work of the Project Manager through meetings at regular intervals to receive projectprogress reports and provide guidance on policy issues;

Certifying the annual and, as applicable, quarterly work plans, financial reports, ensuring theiraccuracy and consistency with the project document and its agreed amendments;

Unless otherwise agreed, chairing the Project Steering Committee and representing the project in otherrequired meetings;

Taking the lead in developing linkages with the relevant authorities at national, provincial andgovernmental level and supporting the project in resolving any institutional or policy related conflictsthat may emerge during its implementation;


74

Project Manager - tentative Terms of Reference

I. Position InformationPosition Title:SC range:Project Title:Duration of the service:

Work statusReports To:

Project ManagerSC-9

1 year (with possible extension subject to satisfactoryperformance)Full-timeHead of Environment and Energy Unit

II. Background

Under supervision of UNDP Belarus, manages the project

III. Functions / Key Outputs Expected

Responsible for day-to-day management, administration and decision-making for the project;

Oversees strategic planning process for the project and ensures its implementation in accordance withthe signed project document;

Responsible for ensuring that the project produces the results specified in the project document, to therequired standard of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost;

Manage the realization of project outputs through activities;

Ensures that project contributes to the promotion of gender equality by reaching, involving andbenefiting both women and men in its activities (gender mainstreaming);

Provide direction and guidance to project team(s)/ responsible party (ies);

Identifies partnership strategies with regard to providers of specialised expertise and possible co-financiers, and assists in resource mobilisation for project components;

Identify and obtain any support and advice required for the management, planning and control of theproject;

Liaise with any suppliers;

Perform other duties related to the scope of work of the PM as required

Running a project

Plan the activities of the project and monitor progress against the initial quality criteria;

Mobilize goods and services to initiative activities, including drafting TORs and work specifications;

Manage requests for the provision of financial resources by UNDP, using advance of funds, directpayments, or reimbursement;

Manage and monitor the project risks, submit new risks to the Project Board for consideration anddecision on possible actions if required; update the status of these risks by maintaining the ProjectRisks Log;

Be responsible for managing issues and requests for change by maintaining an Issues Log;

Prepare the quarterly and annual financial and progress reports and submit the reports to the ProjectBoard, UNDP and GEF, reports for the executing agency;

Monitors the implementation of project components, analyses problems that hamper theirimplementation and takes appropriate measures to ensure timely delivery of required inputs and


75

achievement of project-wide results;

Monitors and reports to UNDP on all financial and procurement matters of the project, includingproper utilization of funds and delivery, budget revisions, availability of funds, reconciliation ofaccounts, establishment of internal control mechanisms. Acts as a focal point to liaise with auditors andensures follow-up actions. Ensures the accuracy and reliability of financial information and reporting;

Monitors and facilitates advocacy and mass media outreach activities, writing of success stories,newspapers coverage, PR campaigns;

Organize workshops, seminars and round tables to introduce project outputs to all stakeholdersinvolved. Render support to related UNDP thematic activities such as publications, sharing ofknowledge and group discussions;

Liaises with other UNDP and UNDP-GEF funded projects to implement possible synergies.

Closing a Project

Ensure proper operational, financial and programmatic closure of the project;

Prepare Final Project Review Reports to be submitted to the Project Board and the Outcome Board;

Identify follow-on actions and submit them for consideration to the Project Board;Manage the transfer of project deliverables, documents, files, equipment and materials to nationalbeneficiaries;

Prepare final CDR for signature by UNDP and the Implementing Partner.

IV. Recruitment Qualifications

Education:Masters degree in any of the following areas: Chemicals, Natural ResourcesManagement, Business Administration, Management or a related field.

Experience:At least 5-years relevant experience. Working experience in internationalorganizations is an advantage.

Language Requirements:Excellent command of spoken and written English, Byelorussian andRussian are essential

Others:

Understanding of development issues, national public institutionalarrangements, knowledge of and experience in gender mainstreaming is anasset;Initiative and strong leadership skills;Result and client-orientations;Strong analytical, communication and management skills; Excellentinterpersonal and cross cultural communication skills, ability to work in ateam and to work under pressure and with tight deadlines, ethics andhonesty;Ability to use information and communication technology as a tool andresource

Administrative and Finance Assistant - tentative Terms of ReferenceI. Position InformationPosition Title:SC range:Project Title:Duration of the service:

Work statusReports To:

Administrative and Finance AssistantSC-6

1 year (with possible extension subject to satisfactory performance)Full-timeProject Manager

II. BackgroundUnder direct supervision of Project Manager, AFA is fully responsible for operational and programmatic


76

management of the project according to the project document, UNDP corporate rules and procedures andfor fulfilling the following functions.

III. Functions / Key Outputs Expected

Be responsible for logistics, procurement, finance and recruitment for the project, in accordance withcorporate UNDP rules and regulations;

Prepare all financial and administrative documents related to the project implementation;

Develop quarterly and annual budget plans for recruitment of personnel; maintain financial records andmonitoring systems to record and reconcile expenditures, balances, payments and other data for day-to-day transaction and reports;

Advise and assist Project staff, experts and consultants on all respects of allowances, salary advances,travel claims and other financial and administrative matters, and calculate and authorize payments duefor claims and services;

Prepare detailed cost estimates and participates in budget analysis and projections as required to handleall financial operations of the project office and reconcile all accounts in required time frame;

Maintain, update and transmit inventory records of non-expendable equipment in accordance withUNDP rules;

Perform cash custodian’s duties being primarily responsible for project’s cash disbursements andmaintain project’s petty cash book and payrolls related to the regional offices;

Ensure leave monitoring of project staff, check the accuracy and proper completion of monthly leavereports;

Analyze the potential problems concerning administrative-financial issues and take respectivemeasures to provide adequate project’s resources in time for implementation of the project activities;

Define the cost-effective measures for optimal use of resources of the project;

Ensure full compliance of administrative and financial processes and financial records with UNDPrules, regulations, policies and strategies;

Encourage awareness of and promotion of gender equality among project staff and partners;

Perform other duties related to personnel, administrative and financial issues of project as required.

IV. Recruitment Qualifications

Education: Higher education in any of the following areas: Economics, Finance,Business administration, Management or a related field.

Experience:At least 3-years relevant experience. Working experience in internationalorganizations is an advantage.

Language Requirements: Fluency in English, Russian and Byelorussian

Others:

Strong analytical, communication and management skills, result and client-orientation, ability to work in a team;Ability to work under pressure and with tight deadlines, ethics and honesty;Ability to use information and communication technology as a tool andresource;Experience in handling web-based management systemsAbility to handle multiple tasks simultaneously and ability to prioritize

Experience:

At least 3 years of progressive work experience relevant to the aboverequirements, including experience of arranging and providing mediacoverage of round-tables/seminars. Working experience in internationalorganizations is advantage. Experience in web content development isan asset


77

Language Requirements: Proficient in English, Russian and Byelorussian

Others:

Strong analytical, communication and management skills, client-orientation, ability to work in a team;Initiative, analytical judgment, ability to work under pressure and withtight deadlines, ethics and honesty;Ability to use information and communication technology as a tool andresource.


78

Annex 4 - Maz Kupava Conversion Project (141b to c-pentane)

PROJECT COVER SHEET – NON-MULTI-YEAR INVESTMENT PROJECTS

COUNTRY:PROJECT TITLE IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

NATIONAL CO-ORDINATING AGENCY:LATEST REPORTED CONSUMPTION DATA FOR ODS ADDRESSED IN PROJECTA: ARTICLE-7 DATA (ODP TONNES)

B: SECTORAL DATA (ODP TONNES, 2008)

HCFC consumption remaining eligible for funding : not yet establishedCURRENT YEAR BUSINESS PLAN:

ODS USE AT ENTERPRISE 56.1 ODS tODS TO BE PHASED OUT: 56.1 ODS tODS TO BE PHASED IN 0 ODP tPROJECT DURATION: 36 MonthsPROJECT COSTS:Incremental Capital Cost US $ 498,000Contingency (10%) on the requested grant US $ 49,800Incremental Operating Cost (not eligible for funding) US $ 93,687Total Project Cost US $ 547,800LOCAL OWNERSHIP: 100 %EXPORT COMPONENT: 0 %REQUESTED GRANT: US $ 547,800COST- EFFECTIVENESS: US$/kg ODP

US$/kg ODSN/A9,76

TOTAL COST OF PROJECT TO GEF: US $ 547,800STATUS OF COUNTERPART FUNDING: Enterprise Commitment receivedPROJECT MONITORING MILESTONES INCLUDED: Included

PROJECT SUMMARYUnder this project, MAZ Kupava will phase out the use of HCFC-141b in its production of insulated vehicles (REEFERS). Thetechnology chosen is cyclo-pentane for the insulation foam. The company’s aim is to accelerate the phase-out of HCFC-141bfoaming agent.

IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON COUNTRY’S MONTREAL PROTOCOL OBLIGATIONS:This project eliminates 56.1 t ODS which will contribute to the Belarus’s efforts to fulfill its commitment under the MontrealProtocol..

Prepared by: Risto Ojala Date: 08.11.2011

MAZ KUPAVA - Conversion from HCFC-141b to c-pentane in the manufacture ofcommercial trailers, vehicles, tourism vehicles and insulated trailers (REEFERS)

UNDP

HHHCCCFFFCCCsss

ODS Name Subsector/quantity Subsector/quantity Subsector/quantity Subsector/quantity.HCFC-141b Foams: 56.1 (2010)


79

1.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to phase-out the use of HCFC-141b in the manufacture ofcommercial trailers, vehicles, tourism vehicles and insulated trailers at MAZ Kupava and in thisway contribute to Belarus’s compliance with the Montreal protocol HCFC consumption reductionrequirements applicable to 2010 and 2015 targets (non Art 5 country’s obligation), and to do sosuch that it also will facilitate step-by-step elimination the use of high GWP HCFC-141b blowingagent.

2.0 SECTOR BACKGROUND

MAZ Kupava is the only PU foam manufacturing companies in Belarus.

3.0 ENTERPRISE BACKGROUND

Automobile trailers and bodies plant “MAZ-Kupava” Ltd (MAZ Kupava) was founded in 1990.The company is 100% local owned.

The enterprise started the production of traveler trailers in 1990 with Slovenian traveler trailerproduction technology. Presently MAZ Kupava manufactures more than 100 models andmodifications of trailers and vans. Its annual PU foam production capacity is 550 tons. In 2009and 2010, the foam production was 338 tons and 392 tons respectively, which consumed 55.8tons and 56.1 tons of HCFC-141b respectively. 55% and 62% of the total production of thevehicles was exported to Russia, Ukraine and other neighboring countries in 2009 and 2010.

From 2009 to June 2011, the information of production of foam insulation panels and HCFC-141b consumption by the company is below.

Table 1: Consumption of HCFC-141b.

Year Pre-blendedPolyol (ton)

Massfraction of

HCFC-141bin blendedpolyol (%)

HCFC-141b inpre-blendedpolyol (ton)

TotalConsumption of

HCFC-141b（ton）

2009 161 30% 55.8 20.362010 187 30% 56.1 30.04

2011 (first 6months)

102.9 30% 30.9 46.71

Project site information:

Minsk, Babushkina Street, 14a; Industrial area Kolyadichi; industrial area – 5,200 m2

Address:


80

18 Mashinostroitelej str, 220118 Minsk, Republic of Belarushttp://www.maz-kupava.comDirector General - Livshits Semen BorisovichТel. +375 17 217 94 07Fax. +375 17 242 98 [email protected]

Contact person for the project:Mr. Sergeev Pavel Evgenievich – Deputy Chief Engineer – Head of the Technical centreТеl. +375 17 217 91 73Fax. +375 17 242 98 [email protected] density of the rigid PU foams produced depends on the exact product and ranges between 39and 55 kg/m³.

The production process is briefly described below.

Insulated trailer body parts fabrication:

Pre-painted Steel Sheet in roll is cut to size in thickness of 0.45 - 0.7 mm which is the basic raw-material for fabrication of outer and inner sheets of the sandwich panels used for the wall, roofand floor of the insulated vehicle parts.

Insulation /Foaming:

Inner sheets and outer sheets are positioned on the mowing assembly table of 3 meters in widthand 14 meters in length, which is used as a mold for the sandwich panel manufacturing. Theinsulation space varies for different models from 25 to 150 mm. The maximum size of thesandwich panels to be manufactured is the said 3 meters x 14 meters. The actual size of thepanels to be manufactured varies according to the insulated vehicle or trailer size. The press ispreheated by means of hot water circulation. Later the assembly table/frame is loaded into thepress. After selecting the desired program from the respective control panel, the required amountof material is laid-down by means of traversing movement of the mixing head in to the emptycavity of the wall / roof or floor panels subject to manufacturing by using high pressure PUFoaming Machine of Enersa HGM-300 MQ of capacity of 300 kg/min. The upper facing sheet inthe press is kept in its position by means of vacuum through the upper press plate.

The photos below provide more of the process.


81

Mixing head’s start and end position The press from the other end

Control board of the EnerSa unit Day tanks and pump units of the FM

Table 2: Basic production equipment.

Type ofequipment

Model Serialnumber

DesignCapacity

Type Date ofmanufacture

EnerSa HGM-300MQ

N.A 300kg/min High pressure 2000

One daylightpress

EnerSa N.A 3 x 14 m Hydraulic 2000

Storage of raw materialsPolyols, blended Polyols and MDI are stored in a warm warehouse nearby. The raw materials aresupplied mainly by Dow, Basf and Huntsman.Foam Product specificationsThe size of polyurethane insulation panels according to different models required by the clients arefrom 25 mm in thickness up to 150 mm (in practice 120). The maximum size in width is 3 metersand in length 14 meters.Production capacityAt present, the company can make 5 foamings / day.Working hours per day: 7 hours.Working days per year: 300 days.


82

The production capacity per year: 5 panels x 300 days = 1,500 panels

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

MAZ Kupava intends to convert its foam operation from the current use of HCFC-141b to cyclo-pentane. The conversion plan includes:

The use of cyclo-pentane as an alternative-blowing agent for the insulation, which will resultfollowing changes:

1. The foaming reaction parameters will change. The change of mixing ratios will reduce thedispenser output and increase viscosities, which will reduce the flowability of thechemical mixture.

2. The miscibility of cyclo-pentane with polyol is significantly less than that of HCFC-141b.3. Cyclo-pentane based foam will have a reduced thermal conductivity in relation to that

produced with HCFC-141b. The impact on performance will be assessed to ensure thatthe present energy consumption is not increased. It is, however, assumed that thethickness of the insulation will remain as is.

4. Modifications to the plant and processes will have to be carried out to ensure safeoperation (e.g. electrical installations meet area classification, ventilation, gas monitoringand other safety systems).

The impact on the foam production process due to the use of cyclo-pentane as an alternativeblowing agent, as described above, would need to be addressed through plant modifications andthrough the installation and introduction of new equipment, components and processes, which arelisted as below:

1. Cyclo-pentane of the required purity/grade is available through imports. A safe, reliable,convenient and economical storage, delivery and handling system for cyclo-pentane is required.

The drum storage facility, which is designed to be used with 1000 liter accumulator storage tank,the tank will be specially designed for storage of pentane, according to the physical and chemicalproperties of pentane. The tank shall be designed for the drum storage facility use. The supplyshall also include all required flanges, pentane delivery pumps designed for explosive liquids andgas mixtures, explosion proof level gauges and controls (including current level control),saturators, safety valves, to avoid overfilling and over-pressure, remote operated valves etc.Prevention against static electricity must be installed. Velocity of liquid entering the tank shouldbe reduced to max. 6 m/s in any case.

a. Delivery: Delivery of pentane can be accommodated by means of positive pressure ofnitrogen in the accumulator tank or special designed pumps for cyclo-pentane will have tobe installed, one operating and one standby. The electric drive motors are required to haveexplosion proof rating.

b. Piping and fittings for carrying the cyclo-pentane from the storage tank to the pre-mixingunit. Also, piping and fittings for receipt of supply of cyclo-pentane, including gas returnand pressure relief lines, will be required.


83

2. As polyols cannot be delivered pre-blended with cyclo-pentane from the local polyolsupplier, the existing arrangement for chemicals is not suitable for ensuring efficient and safehandling of cyclo-pentane in the polyol. A new pre-mixing station for handling of cyclo-pentanewill need to be installed.

a. Hydrocarbon sensor to be supplied as a package via safety panel.b. Electrical components are Ex-I (Intrinsically safe instruments and electrical barrier

protection).c. Blended polyol tank with relief and safety valves, explosion proof level, magnetic-drive

agitator and gas sensor.

3. The retrofitting of the existing sandwich panel production line has been examined. This wouldinvolve the following for enabling the dispenser to process the cyclo-pentane formulations:

a. Replacement of EnerSa high pressure foaming unit for cyclo-pentane (max output 300liters/min). The original foaming machine could not be converted into cyclo-pentanesystem equipment due to its age and software design.

b. Install ventilation box for the foaming machine and premixing unit.c. Modification and provision of ventilation enclosure for the entire existing press to meet

the requirements for the cyclo-pentane foaming.d. Move electrical parts out of the dangerous zone. Modify instruments to make it

intrinsically safe.e. On request, control panels can be pressurized with dry air.f. Constant emissions of gaseous cyclo-pentane (CP) are present. Dilute the concentration

(CP) into the external environment through the extract ventilation system. Monitorventilation efficiency via differential pressure switch. Install gas sensors with 2 alarmsystem, warning at 20% LEL (Low Explosion Limit), emergency at 40% UEL (UpperExplosion Limit). Install enclosure. The aim is to define the zone so that any releases offlammable gas are contained within the enclosed area.

g. Polyol tanks must have nitrogen blanketing for oxygen elimination.h. Properly earth all the metal parts. Metering units, mixing heads, fixtures must be properly

grounded to a common earth to avoid electrostatic sparks.i. Re-installation of some of the high pressure and recirculation lines and components for

safe operation.j. Introduction of explosion-proof electrical, in place of the existing ones consistent with the

electrical classification of areas.k. Recalibration and additional trials.

4. Additional necessary changes:a. A water chilling unit with necessary controls, with capacity adequate to cover the cooling

requirements for the pre-mixing buffer tank and component day tanks on the dispenser,and circulation pump.

b. Interconnecting steel piping, valves, fittings and the necessary insulation for circulation ofhot and cold water to the pre-mixing station, foam dispenser and press.

5. A ventilation and exhaust system for maintaining safe concentrations of cyclo-pentane will berequired. This will involve sheet metal ducting and blowers/fans for supply of air as well as forexhaust of air extracted from the following vulnerable locations:

a. The pre-mixing station area;


84

b. The foam dispenser area andc. The sandwich panel foaming area and around the whole press

6. A safety system for detection and monitoring of cyclo-pentane concentrations and forprevention of fire and explosion hazards will be required. This will consist of the following:

a. cyclo-pentane sensors/detectors (about 8 Nos. at assorted locations).b. Alarm and control systemc. Water sprinkler system for fire extinguishing, covering the vulnerable areas and about 15

portable fire extinguishers for areas unsegregated from the vulnerable areas.d. A nitrogen system for blanketing the pentane tanks, premixer tank and polyol work tank.

A packaged nitrogen generating plant is recommended, meeting the capacity required forthe existing production lines.

e. Anti-static flooring for the vulnerable areas amounting to about around 100 sq. m.

7. Electrical works for the conversion complying with safety regulations pertaining to areashandling flammable/explosive substances, will be required, covering the following:

a. A main control panel and local distribution panels for the new electrical equipment(cyclo-pentane pump motors, pre-mixing station pump motors, dispenser pump motors,water pumps motors, fan motors, compressor motor, etc.)

b. Power cabling, earthing and terminations.c. Control and interlocking wiring for the safety systems.d. Back-up AC electric power (EPS) covering the requirements of the ventilation, fire

extinguishing, alarm and nitrogen systems.

8. Civil and miscellaneous works will be required covering the following:a. Cyclo-pentane storage facility foundations and housing.b. Miscellaneous civil works for pipe/duct/cable support installation, making and refinishing

wall/floor openings, floor finishing, relocation of the dispenser, supports/foundations forinstallation of new equipment, etc.

9. Technical assistance from the equipment suppliers (or other external foam experts), toimplement the new formulations and to ensure smooth transition to the new technology, will beneeded.

10. Trials will be needed for validation of the new formulations and the new equipment. Thiswill cover the cost of chemicals, raw materials/consumables and utilities required during the trialsand commissioning.

11. On commissioning the plant, a safety audit will be required and be carried out and the plantwill need to provide safety certificates issued by a competent authority through inspection.

13. The production personnel in the enterprises will be required to be trained by equipmentsuppliers to be able to work with the new formulations. Additionally, training for establishingsafe practices in handling flammable/explosive cyclo-pentane will be required and provided bythe chemical supplier. Such training will either be secured from specialized agencies (thesuppliers) or through pre-trained officials of the enterprise.


85

These changes will also result in incremental operating costs. Incremental operating costsoriginate from the following:

1. The cost of polyol for cyclo-pentane is higher than for HCFC-141b, resulting in increasedconsumption of polyurethane chemicals.

2. There would also be additional increased operating costs on amount of increasedelectricity consumption (due to the introduction of new equipment such as cyclo-pentane pumps, ventilation fans/blowers, water pumps, etc.), increased maintenancecosts and increased insurance costs.

The ExCom’s guidance on HC safety (UNEP/Ozl.pro/ExCom/25/54) will be adhered to as muchas possible.

5.0 TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW AND SELECTION FOR REPLACEMENT OF HCFC-141B INTHE MANUFACTURE OF COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATORS AND SANDWICHPANELS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

To replace HCFCs in the production of PU insulation foams, following criteria ideally wouldapply:

A suitable boiling point with 250C being thetarget,Low thermal conductivity in the vapor phase,Non flammable,Low toxicity,Zero ODP,Low GWP,Chemically/physically stable,

Soluble in the formulation,Low diffusion rate,Based on validated technology,Commercially available,Acceptable in processing,Economically viable.

No current replacement technology meets all of these criteria and compromises will be necessary.The actual choice will be impacted under others, by application, technical proficiency, plantlayout and—investment as well as operating—costs. In the case of domestic refrigerators,maintaining product density and insulation value are of crucial importance and limit the choice tothe technologies discussed below.

5.2 ALTERNATIVES

Following is a list of the main alternatives—validated, under validation or still underdevelopment—to replace HCFCs in rigid insulation foams. The molecular weight is mentionedas an indication of blowing efficiency and the incremental GWP as an indication how thetechnology performs compared to HCFC-141b on this environmental parameter:

SUBSTANCE GWP1 MOLECULARWEIGHT

INCREMENTALGWP2 COMMENTS

HCFC-141b 725 117 Baseline


86

CO2 1 44 -725 Used direct/indirect(from water)

Cyclopentane Negligible 72 -718 Extremelyflammable

HFC-245fa 1,030 134 443HFC-365mfc 794 148 279HFC-134a 1,430 102 522Methylformate Negligible 60 -725

Methylal Negligible 76 -725 Reported for co-blowing only

Acetone Negligible 58 -725 Used in flexibleslabstock

FEA-1100 5 1644 -718 Under developmentHFO-1234ze 6 114 -719 Recently introducedHBA-2 <15 <134 >-708 Under developmentAFA-L1 <15 <134 >-708 Under development

1 Unless otherwise indicated, taken from IPCC’s Fourth Assessment (2007)2 Derived from comparing GWPs compared to the baseline on an equimolar base. It should be noted that in practice formulatorsmay makechanges such as increased water or ABA blends that impact the global warming effect

4 Calculated from published formulationsGreen = beneficial GWP effect; red = unfavorable GWP effect

These technologies are described in more detail below.

CARBON DIOXIDE - The use of carbon dioxide derived from the water/isocyanate chemicalreaction is well researched. It is used as base blowing agent in almost all PU foam applicationsand as sole blowing agent in many foam applications that have no/ minor thermal insulationrequirements. The relatively emissive nature of CO2 in closed-cell foam is, however, achallenge. To avoid shrinkage, densities need to be relatively high which has a detrimental effecton the operating costs up and above mitigating poor insulation values. Increased use ofwater/CO2 has been—and still is—an important tool in the HCFC phaseout. There is notechnological barrier. However, the use of water/CO2 alone will at this time be limited to foamssuch as integral skin foams (with restrictions when friability is an issue), open cell rigid foams,and spray/in situ foams for non/low thermal insulation applications.

Some chemical manufacturers have proposed enhancing water based systems through theaddition of formic acid under strictly controlled conditions (the reaction of MDI with formic acidcreates equal amounts of CO2 and CO, with the latter being toxic).

Carbon dioxide can also be added directly as a physical blowing agent through the use of super-critical CO2. The reported finer cell structure would improve the otherwise poor insulationvalue. UNDP is in the process of assessing this option for MLF projects.

HYDROCARBONS (HCs) - There have been many HC-based/MLF-supported CFC-phaseoutprojects in refrigeration and in panel applications. The minimum economic size has beenhistorically ~50 ODP t/y or US$ 400,000 US$ with (higher cost) exceptions for domesticrefrigeration. Smaller projects were discouraged for reasons of cost and technological


87

complexity. Consequently, there is hardly any use of HCs in SMEs. In addition, the technologywas deemed unsafe for a multiple of applications such as spray and in situ foams. Generally,cyclopentane has been used for refrigeration and n-pentane for panels. Fine tuning through HCblends (cyclo/iso pentane or cyclopentane/isobutane) is are now standard in non-A5 countries isnot widely spread in A5’s. Consequently, the investment costs are the same as at the time ofphasing out CFCs and the technology will continue to be too expensive for SMEs and restrictedto the same applications as before. There are, however, options to fine-tune project costs andinvestigate other applications:

The introduction of HC blends that will allow lower densities (lower IOCs)Addition of methylal to decrease cell size and improve insulation value (better performance)Direct injection (lower investment)Low-pressure/direct injection (lower investment)Centralized preblending by system houses (lower investment)Application-specific dispensing equipment (lower investment)

UNDP has initiated a study of these options with the goal to decrease the minimum economicsize to ~25 t/y or US$ 200,000. Although this goal has not yet been achieved, the study showsencouraging results for centralized preblending as well as direct injection. Complete results areexpected around for the 65th ExCom in November 2011.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) - Current HFC use in A5 countries is relatively insignificant. Thelow cost of HCFC-141b is just too compelling! These chemicals have, however, played a majorrole in the replacement of HCFCs in foam applications in non-A5 countries, despite their highGWP potentials. Formulations are frequently not straightforward molecular replacements.Generally, the use of water has been maximized and sometimes other co-blowing agents havebeen added. Therefore, an assessment of its environmental impact has to be based on actual,validated, commercial blends. There are currently three HFCs used in foam applications.Following table includes their main physical properties:

Parameter HFC-134a HFC-245fa HFC- 365mfcChemical Formula CH2FCF3 CF3CH2CHF2 CF3CH2CF2CH3Molecular Weight 102 134 148Boiling point (0C) -26.2 15.3 40.2Gas Conductivity (mWm0K at 100C)

12.4 12.0 (20 0C) 10.6 (25 0C)

Flammable limits in Air (vol. %) None None 3.6-13.3TLV or OEL (ppm) 1,000 300 Not establishedGWP (100 y) 1,410 1,020 782ODP 0 0 0

METHYL FORMATE (MF) - also called methyl-methanoate, is a low molecular weightchemical substance that can be used as a blowing agent for foams. Following data on physicalproperties have been reported:


88

Property Methyl Formate HCFC-141bAppearance Clear liquid Clear liquidBoiling point 31.3 oC 32 oCLEL/UEL 5-23 % 7.6-17.7Vapor pressure 586 mm Hg @ 25 oC 593 mm Hg @ 25 oCLambda, gas 10.7 mW/m.k @ 25 oC 10.0 mW/m.k @ 25 oCAuto ignition >450 oC >200 oCSpecific gravity 0.982 1.24Molecular weight 60 117GWP 0 630

TLV (USA) 100 ppm TWA/150 ppm STEL 500 ppm TWA/500 ppmSTEL

In the USA, MF is not treated as a volatile organic component (not a smog generator) and isSNAP (USEPA’s Significant Mew Alternatives Program) approved. In Europe it is compliantwith the RoHS (Restriction on Hazardous Substances) and WEEE (Waste Electrical andElectronic Equipment) directives. Acute toxicity is reported low with no special hazards. TheMSDS mentions R12 (extremely flammable but not explosive); R20/22 (harmful by inhalationand if swallowed) and R36/37 (irritating to eyes and respiratory system). UNDP reports showprocess emissions to be much lower than 100 ppm (which is the STEL and TWA). Therefore nospecial precautions for MF blends in the manufacturing area are required. MF is normally sold asa system, which would allow restricting flammability issues to the supplier. Shipping of systemsin the USA is possible without red (“flammable”) tags. The ExCom reviewed the outcome oftwo pilot projects to assess the use of methyl formate in all potential applications andrecommended that countries will include this technology in their choices of HCFC replacementtechnologies.

METHYLAL (ML) – Methylal’s primary use is as a solvent. It is soluble in water and misciblewith most common organic solvents. The use of Methylal as a co-blowing agent in conjunctionwith hydrocarbons and HFCs for rigid PU foam applications (domestic refrigeration, panels, pipeinsulation and spray) has been described in the literature. It is claimed to improve the miscibilityof pentane, promotes blending in the mixing head, foam uniformity, flow, adhesion to metalsurfaces and insulation properties. The addition of a low percentage of Methylal to HFCs (245fa,365mfc or 134a) makes it reportedly possible to prepare pre-blends with polyols of lowflammability with no detrimental effect on the fire performance of the foam. Despite allliterature references, public knowledge of Methylal’s industrial performance as blowing agent islimited. To alleviate this, the ExCom approved in July 2009 a UNDP pilot project to assess itsuse as a possible replacement of HCFCs for MLF projects in developing countries. Theassessment in integral skin/microcellular foams is already completed and resulted in safe(flammability, toxicity) blends that create excellent foams compared with HCFC-141b. Theassessment in rigid PU applications is ongoing.

Property Methylal HCFC-141bAppearance Clear liquid Clear liquidBoiling point 42 oC 32 oCLEL/UEL 2.2-19.9 % 7.6-17.7


89

Vapor pressure 400 mm Hg @ 20 oC 593 mm Hg @ 25 oCLambda, gas Non available 10.0 mW/m.k @ 25 oCAuto ignition 235 oC >200 oCSpecific gravity 0.821 @ 20 oC 1.24Molecular weight 76.09 117GWP Negligible 630

TLV (USA) 1000 ppm TWA 500 ppm TWA/500 ppmSTEL

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES - Since early 2008, a flood of new blowing agents for PU foamshave been proposed by major international manufacturers of halogenated compounds. Four ofthem are worth mentioning:

HFO-1234ze

HBA-2 FEA-1100 AFA-L1

Chemical Formula CHF=CHF3 n/k n/k n/kMolecular Weight 114 <134 161-165 <134Boiling point (0C) -19 >15 <32 >25 >10 <30Gas Conductivity (mWm0K at10 0C) 13 n/k 10.7 10

Flammable limits in Air (vol.%) None None None None

TLV or OEL (ppm; USA) 1,000 n/k n/k n/kGWP (100 y) 6 <15 5 NegligibleODP 0 0 0 0Manufacturer Honeywell Honeywell DuPont Arkema

These technologies are all geared towards replacement of HFCs and sometimes called “secondgeneration” or “unsaturated” HFCs, although the name HFOs (hydrofluoroolefins) appears to bea more distinctive description. They share low/no flammability, zero ODP and insignificantGWPs:

Except HFO-1234ze, all these substances still are in the process of toxicity and applicationtesting and will therefore not appear in the market in commercial quantities before around 2015.

5.3 SELECTION

MAZ-Kupava selected cyclo-pentane as potential HCFC replacement candidates as

Water-based technology does not perform well on cost, density and insulation value; HFCs are too expensive in operating costs and have too high GWPs; Trials showed that methyl formate is not yet ready for their kind refrigeration

applications.


90

6.0 PROJECT COSTS

6.1 CALCULATION OF INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST

The GEF investment costs are US$ 547,800. This includes a 10% contingency for items to befunded by GEF. Details of incremental capital costs are provided in Annex-1.

6.2 CALCULATION OF INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST

Incremental Operating Costs are US$ 93,687 for one year operation. The calculation is detailed inAnnex-2. Incremental operating costs are not eligible for funding, and thus, this expense will beborne by the beneficiary company MAZ Kupava.

6.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS (CE) (Phased-out US$ / HCFC kgs/a)

Cost-effectiveness is calculated based on the actual capital cost of the proposed grant (See para6.4). CE is US$ 547,800/56,100 kgs HCFC 141b = US$9.76/kg

6.4 PROPOSED GEF FUND GRANT

The proposed grant request, which is calculated according to the Montreal Protocol ExecutiveCommittee Decision 55/47 - Guide for Costing, totaling US$ 547,800, and representing 20% ofinvestment cost US$ 2,715,000 from the side of MAZ-Kupava. MAZ-Kupava has provided aformal co-finance commitment letter.

7.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING

The project will be implemented using UNDP’s National Execution Modality. Implementation istargeted as follows:

Activity (per quarter) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

MF Project approval XSubmit Project doc. forsignature

X

Project document signature XEquipment specification XEquipment procurement X XInstallation of equipment X XTraining XTesting and trials XProduction Start-up X XPhase-In X XProject completed XHOP signature X


91

MILESTONES FOR PROJECT MONITORING (measured from project approval)

TASK MONTH(a) Project document submitted to beneficiary 2(b) Project document signature 3(c) Bids prepared and requested 4(d) Contracts Awarded 6(e) Equipment Delivered 15(f) Training Testing and Trial Runs 21(g) Commissioning 32(h) HOP signature 36


92

7PROJECT IMPACT

Direct Benefits: This project will eliminate the use of 56.1 metric tonnes HCFC-141b, atbaseline conditions. The project employs commercially available and environmentally superiortechnology effectively anticipating future control measures and addressing issues related toclimate change impacts. The project also provides a key element of Belarus’s HCFC phase outstrategy as being developed in its HPMP to meet HCFC reduction steps in 2015 and onwards.

Indirect Benefits: The new technology will allow Maz Kupava to retain and expand itscompetitive position and serve as a demonstration of accelerated adoption of low GWPtechnology in a smaller scale regional producer of commercial refrigeration equipment similar tothat which exists in many Article 5 countries as well as Article 2 CEITs in the immediate region.

Furthermore, early conversion of this company will reduce the rate of increase in the banks ofHCFC-141b based foams in the country thereby reducing future emissions of HCFCs into theatmosphere or “end of life” environmentally sound disposal costs.


93

CALCULATION OF INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COSTS

Pos Item In US$ Counterpartfunding (InUS$)

1 Pentane drum storage facility 32,0002 Premixing unit facility 85,0003 Replacement of EnerSa 300 kg/min by means of High

Pressure foaming machine of similar capacity230,000

4 Modification of existing press 150,0005 Modification of PU feeding 5,0006 Modification of assembly table 60,000

Plant Safety7 Exhaust ventilation at the foaming area 6,0008 Exhaust ventilation from around and underneath the

press and provision of enclosure around the entire press45,000

9 Gas detection system for the press area, premixer,foaming machine and pentane storage

18,000

10 Safety management system and connection to the gasdetection system

25,000

11 Fire protection & sprinklers 12,00012 Antistatic floor 5,00013 Electrical grounding and other electrical safeguarding

of all relevant equipment20,000

16 Nitrogen generator 40,00017 Standby electric generator 15,00018 Safety Audit 15,000

General19 Development and approval of civil works and project

documentation in accordance with national industrialand safety standards

100,000

20 Civil works (local preparations, land excavation, soiltransportation, ducting for polyol supply, steel/mineralwool insulation, ventilation enclosures, buildingmodifications, other outside infrastructure)

500,000

20 Technology transfer 30,00021 Trials and commissioning 20,000

Sub-total 498,000 915,00022 Contingency 10% 49,800 -

Total 547,800 915,000

In-cash (GEF grant): US$ 547,800


94

In-cash, parallel financing - (MAZ Kupava): US$ 915,000In-kind (MAZ Kupava): US$ 300,000 (regular training of personnel in equipment use and safetyprocedures; monitoring of equipment performance and maintenance/repairs as required, PRcampaigns on the use of ozone- and climate friendly technology in products after the conversion)Add-on (MAZ Kupava): US$ 1,500,000 (general upgrade and improvements of the buildingwhere the technology is located)


95

CALCULATION OF INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS

FoamingTechnology

HCFC-141b

Cyclo-pentan

e

HFC Water

Blowing agents 1.9 1.99 10 naPolyols 2.14 2.45 2.45 2.22

(withoutblowing agent)

MDI 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96

Item

HCFC-141bsystem

Cyclo-pentanesystem

HFC-245fasystem

Water systemfoam

Parts Price Parts Price Parts Price Parts Price(kg) (US$) (kg) (US$) (kg) (US$) (kg) (US$)

Polyols

100 214 100 245 100 245 100 222(without blowing

agent)HCFC-141b 30 57

Cyclo-pentane 12 23.88HFC-245fa 25 250

MDI 121.5 359.64 135 399.6 132.5 392.2 155 458.8Subtotal 251.5 630.64 247 668.48 257.5 887.2 255 680.8

Foam usage 1 1 1 1.1Foaming Price

($/kg) 2.51 2.71 3.45 2.94Ratio of HCFC-

141b

0.119 0.049in the rowmaterial

IOC(US$/kgHCFC-

141b) 1.67 7.86 3.60

Total HCFC-141b phase out

56,100 kg xUSD1.67/kg =

93,687


96

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Impact on the Environment based on CDM methodology

Name of IndustrySubstance GWP

Mtonnes/

year

CO2-eq (Mtonnes/year)

Before Conversion

Rigid PU Foam HCFC141b

630 56.1 35,343

Total CO2 emission in MT 35,343

After conversion to c-pentane in the rigid PU insulation

Rigid PU Foam c-pentane 25 22.4 560Total CO2 emission inMT

560

Net Impact fromconversion

34,783


97

Annex 5. Atlant/David Gorodok Solvent Conversion Project (for “Atlant”)

THE MONTREAL PROTOCOLON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER

PROJECT COVER SHEET

COUNTRY: Belarus

PROJECT TITLE: Elimination of ODS (HCFC 141b ) used in theProduction Line at Atlant/David-GorodokElectromechanical Plant (for “Atlant”).

SECTOR COVERED: Solvent

ODS USE IN SECTOR: 7.33 t (ODS) of HCFC 141b solvent projected usein 2010 and growing

PROJECT IMPACT: Eliminate 7.33t/y (2010 data) of HCFC-141b

PROJECT DURATION: 2 years from the date when grant is in place

TOTAL PROJECT COST: Capital Cost: US$ 158,400Incremental Operating Cost: US$ 66,07318

Contingency: US$ 17,600Total Cost: US$ 176,000

COST EFFECTIVENESS: US$ 24/kg of HCFC-141b (GEF grant)

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: UNDP

PROJECT SUMMARY

This project will phase out HCFC-141b used to clean metal parts and assemblies at the David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plant.

Replacement of ODS cleaning positions in the production processes will be accomplished byreplacing the current cleaning methods with vapor degreasing units and using an alternativesolvent.

Prepared by: Steve Cook

18 Covered by enterprise


98

1. PROJECT OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to eliminate the use of 7.33 MT (2010 data) HCFC-141b inassembling/manufacturing processes at the David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plantmanufacturing protection relay parts for the household fridge manufacturing plant Atlant(through its machine building branch at Baranovichi plant).

2. SECTOR BACKGROUND

The ODS consumption in solvents sector (at the factory) constituted 3.98 metric tons of HCFC141b in 2008 with an ODP value of 0.0438 tons. In 2009, this was already 6.81 metric tons withan ODP value of 0.749 tons and for 2010 it was 7.33 metric tons of HCFC 141b with an ODPvalue of 0.806 tons. The 2011 (projection) is 8.24 metric tons of HCFC 141b with an ODP valueof 0.906 tons.

This is the only application of solvents identified in the country.

HCFC-141b, being ODS with highest ODP among HCFC group of chemicals, requires thatHCFC consumption in this sector be reduced as soon as possible, which is in conformance to thestrategy that employs a focused, simultaneous approach on both the large scale users and thesmall and mid-sized users. This is technologically feasible since alternative processes exist.

3 ENTERPRISE BACKGROUND

The plant is located at No.68 Kalinina Str., David-Gorodok, 225540, in the Republic of Belarus,and the company employees over 500 people. The company produces electrical relays forrefrigeration valves as their sole product. The company was founded in 1988. Their annualusage of HCFC 141b increased by 50% over the past four years.

Main data of the factory is as follows:

The production output in 2008 was 2,474 units;Projected total number of units produced in 2011 is 5,093

The application of HCFC-141b at the Atlant factory for degreasing of metal parts andcompressors spares and inlets started with the purchase of used manufacturing machinery in1995. After 10 years operation with the equipment installed at Atlant in the capital city and due toemissive use of HCFC-141b, it was decided to relocate the operations to Atlant’s branch calledBaranovichi machine-building factory in 2007 (western part of the country). This factory then inline with the Government programme to support the development of small towns and industrieshas leased the equipment out to a sub-contractor plant in David-Gorodok town – David-GorodokElectromechanical Plant. The equipment was handed over on the conditions of lease, and theowner has been kept to be the Baranovichi machine-building factory – a branch of Atlant startingfrom 2005. The company is economically stable, has prospects of development and is ready totake part and cofinance the project on HCFC phasing out.


99

The company is 100% Belorussian.

4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1 Process Soils

The cleaning processes used at the The David-Gorodok factory are designed to clean the start-upand protection relays for refrigeration and freezers manufactured at the factory “Atlant”.

The main soils removed from the miscellaneous parts are primarily the coolant used for metalcutting, steel chips and dirt.

4.2 Present Process

Cleaning process

The David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plant currently cleans eight (8) different parts. All ofthese parts must be critically clean as they are spot welded after cleaning. The welding process isan electrical impulse spot weld. This weld is so finite that requires the parts be critically clean orthe weld will not adhere. Using this manufacturing process on an experimental basis is how theydetermined that certain DuPont, and Solvay blends were inefficient cleaners. Neither of theproducts cleaned as efficiently as 100% HCFC 141b.

All products are purchased so the actual contaminants are not known. Upon inspection bothvisually and physically it was determined that the contamination was a light duty cutting fluid.

All of the products cleaned are metal as they do not clean any plastic parts. The metal beingcleaned is:

Steel coated with a silver alloy Brass Copper Soft steel

All parts are being cleaned at one central location.The setup at this location is:

Two ultrasonic cleaners. Two vent hoods; one over each ultrasonic cleaner. One chemical scrubber as the vapor phase of the solvent that is pulled up through the vent

hoods go through a chemical filter to capture any solvent prior to being ventilated into theatmosphere.

Two drums of solvent:o One newo One reclaimed


100

New clean white napkins for cleanliness testing upon removing the parts from theultrasonic cleaner.

Various size baskets for placement of the contaminated parts. Various size baskets for placement of the clean parts.

This entire cleaning setup was purchased as one unit from SANYO in 1994.

The parts cleaning process is:

All parts are cleaned using an ultrasonic unit. The metal parts are placed in a basket that is the appropriate size for the ultrasonic unit. The basket is then placed into the ultrasonic unit tank. The ultrasonic unit is then filled with the cleaning solvent.

o One liter of spent solvent and one liter of virgin solvento 100% reclaim leaves slight residue

The lid is then placed on the ultrasonic unit to limit solvent loss in the vapor phase. The ultrasonic unit is then turned on and ran for a fifteen minute cycle. Upon completion of the cycle the basket is lifted out of the solution and the excess solvent

is shaken off allowing it to fall back into the solvent tank. The parts are then transferred to a second larger basket and spread out. The parts are then checked for cleanliness both visually and manually by rubbing the parts

with a clean white “napkin” and visually inspecting for residue. The parts are then placed in an oven (at an offsite location) and dried at 55°C for 15

minutes. The solvent is changed out when it is discolored or when it no longer cleans efficiently

(usually after two to three cycles). Both tests are visual inspection.


101

4.3 Proposed Alternative Process

The equipment will be changed to vapor degreasing low emission machines. The partscan go through a process of dip into hot ultrasonic solvent---raise and hold in vapor spacesurrounded by cooling coils where the vapor condenses on the piece(s) to be cleaned--move into vapor free zone where the piece(s) dries, and finally exits with little carry-out(primarily vapor).

Install proper ventilation systems, vent hoods, for the cleaning process to limit thechemical exposure that the workers are being subjected to.

Install a fixed bed adsorbing unit in line with the ventilation system. Recycle, via distillation, the solvent once it no longer cleans sufficiently. One distillation unit can serve the entire facility. The unit can be centrally located for

increased efficiency. As this is a closed loop system no excess ventilating systems arerequired.

o The solvent can be decanted into an appropriate vessel and transferred to thedistillation unit.

o Upon distillation and reclamation the recycled solvent may be used.o Periodically check the solvent for acidity before returning it to the process

Use either virgin or a blend of the recycled and virgin solvent. These parts have to becritically clean, so this can only be determined experimentally.

5 TECHNOLOGY PROPOSAL

The desired solvent characteristics as defined by The David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plant atthe factory Atlant are:

Cost needs to be close to HCFC 141b.

The second criterion is that the solvent would be nonflammable.

A third would be relatively low toxicity; time weighted average (TWA).

A fourth requirement is that it has to clean as good as or better than 141b for theaforementioned reasons. The ideal product would be a better cleaner than 141b in ashorter time.

A fifth requirement is that the cleaning solution cannot react with any of the metals beingcleaned.

A sixth, no ozone depletion potential. This is particularly important because HCFC-141bis being phased out because it has an ODP value of 0.11. The ideal replacement shouldhave a minimal potential to avoid future government intervention and negative ecologicalimpact.


102

A seventh requirement of the cleaning solution is that it has to have an evaporation ratecloser to 141b than to other products. They stated that each employee is required toproduce 10,000 parts per day with 20 working days in a month.

The eighth requirement is the solvent must have a low enough surface tension toefficiency clean all of parts. Although there are only four different metals there are eightdifferent parts designs being cleaned. Some parts have very little space around thecomponents leaving little room for the solvent to penetrate for effective cleaning.

A ninth criterion would be a solvent that is classified as a low VOC. A Volatile OrganicCompound (VOC) is any volatile compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide,methane, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, ammonium carbonate, metallic carbides orcarbonates, and exempt compounds. VOC’s and the secondary photochemical oxidantproducts have a potential to cause damage to the environment and human health.

A tenth criterion is a solvent with a low Global Warming Potential (GWP). This is howmuch a given mass of a chemical contributes to global warming over a given time periodcompared to the same mass of carbon dioxide. All GWP values shown are calculatedover a 100-year time horizon. As CO2 is the standard it is assigned a value of 1, and wateris assigned a value of 0. Most Hydro fluorocarbons (HFC) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) have GWP’s ranging from 93 to 12,100.


103

HCFC 141b Relative Comparison

*141b given a cleaning value of 1** Suspected carcinogen

Globally, the primary solvent that has been used to replace HCFC 141b for general cleaning isTrans-1, 2- Dichloroethylene (Trans). The VOC and GWP values for Trans blends are slightlyhigher than HCFC 141b. Control measures can be put into place to offset these differences. Othersolvents exists that have the same cleaning efficiency are all suspected carcinogens (**).Therefore, the latter group will not be a recommended replacement. The recommended solventreplacement for general cleaning will be a Tran’s blend. Solvents that could be tested for generalcleaning are the following blends containing Tran, for instance, are: Vertrel SFR; SDG; SMT;MCA; MCA plus; 71DA, and 71DE. One hundred percent (100%) of Trans-1, 2-Dichloroethylene is flammable; however, all recommended Trans blends are not. Nor will theybecome flammable with extended use. The permissible exposure level of 1, 2-Transdichloroethylene is lower than that of HCFC 141b; however, the volatility of Trans is lessthan that HCFC 141b. Low emission vapor degreasing units will be used. These systems aredesigned with cooling coils in the upper side walls, and ends to depress any escaping vapor.

Criteria Solvent(Pure orBlend)

141b TransBlend

HCFCAK225

VertrelKCD-9587

nPB TCE Hydro-carbon

1 Cost (relativeto 141b)

- Higher MuchHigher

SlightlyHigher

SlightlyHigher

Lower Lower

2 NonFlammable √ √ √ √ √ √ X

3 ToxicityTWA (ppm) 500 200 50 200 25 100 50

4

CleaningEfficiencyRelative to141b

1* 1.32 0.70 0.65 1.36** 1.34** 1.35

5 Metalcompatibility √ √ √ √ √ √ √

6 ODP 0.11 0 0.03 0 0.006 0 0

7RelativeEvaporationRate <=TCE

0.27 0.44 0.31 0.19 0.6 1 2.04

8 SurfaceTension 18.4 21.8 16.2 14.1 25.9 29.5 28

9 VOC content Exempt 1024 Exempt 446 1330 1462 69010 GWP 630 790 370 1500 0 0 0


104

Secondly the lids fit tightly on the machines allowing no vapor release when the machine is inuse. A third safety control will be ventilation systems, vent hoods, above the units. Eachventilation system will eventually exhaust into the atmosphere. These additional controlmeasures will offset the lower permissible exposure level of Trans based products.

The VOC and GWP values for Trans blends are slightly higher than HCFC 141b. Operationalcontrols such as the fixed bed adsorbing units (activated charcoal beds) can be put in line with theexhaust ducts to capture any vapor emissions preventing any chemical vapor release prior toventing into the atmosphere.

The equipment will be changed to low emission machines. The parts can go through a process ofdip into hot ultrasonic solvent---raise and hold in vapor space surrounded by cooling coils wherethe vapor condenses on the piece(s) to be cleaned--move into vapor free zone where the piecedries, and finally exits with little carry-out. This will compensate for the increased VOC andGWP values of the Trans blends.

In addition to the training of the operators, the site should also be prepared and modified. Ateach cleaning cell extra space will be needed for the vapor degreasing unit, and the ventilationsystems.

6 PROJECT COSTS

6.1 Total Project Costs

As described below and presented in detail in the relevant annexes, the total project cost is US$176,000 and has been calculated as the financial capital cost.

6.1a Capital Costs:

As detailed in Annex 1, total investment cost is US$ 176,000 including contingencies.

6.1b Incremental Operating costs:

A net incremental operating cost is US$ 66,073 (as detailed in Appendix 2). Company will coverthese costs of new materials as a contribution to the project to leverage additional co-finance.

6.1c Contingencies

Contingencies are estimated at 10% of the subtotal cost for all goods and services and representUS$ 17,600. This amount is included to ensure that the project receives the necessary fundingdue to escalation, and in case unforeseen costs arise.

7. PROJECT IMPACT

This project will eliminate 7.3 MT of HCFC-141b/year (2010 data) at the David-GorodokElectromechanical Plant.


105

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Under the current proposal the David-Gorodok Electromechanical Plant will use non-ODSdepleting processes including vapor degreasing cleaning process to replace their current ODSemitting process. The cleaning process will include low emission machines where parts can gothrough a process of dip into hot ultrasonic solvent---raise and hold in vapor space surrounded bycooling coils where the vapor condenses on the piece(s) to be cleaned--move into vapor free zonewhere the piece dries, and finally exits with little carry-out. The factory will provide properprovisions of exhaust, and will have to obtain the applicable permits required by the Governmentto ensure that the operation of the new equipment conforms to regulations.


106

9. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The project will be implemented using UNDP’s National Execution Modality. Implementation istargeted as follows:

Activity (per quarter) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

Project approval XSubmit Project doc. forsignature

X

Project document signature XTesting of Alternatives X XEquipment and processspecification

X

Equipment procurement X XInstallation of equipment XTraining XTesting and trials XProduction Start-up X XPhase-In X XProject completed XHOP signature X

10. MILESTONES FOR PROJECT MONITORING (measured from project approval)

TASK MONTH(a) Project document submitted to beneficiary 2(b) Project document signature 3(c) Testing of alternatives 5(d) Bids prepared and requested 7(e) Contracts Awarded 10(f) Equipment Delivered 16(g) Training Testing and Trial Runs 18(h) Commissioning 19(i) HOP signature 21


107

CALCULATION OF INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COSTS

Pos Item In US$ Counterpartco- funding(In US$)

Equipment1 2 Vapor Degreasing Units 70,0002 1 Distillation Unit for Reclamation 40,0003 2 Fixed Bed Adsorbing Unit 10,000

Plant Safety4 2 Ventilation Hoods and Ducting 10,0005 Plant safety 60,0006 Safety Audit 10,000

General7 Development and approval of civil works and project

documentation in accordance with national industrialand safety standards

100,000

8 Civil works (local preparations, upgrade of storage areafor new chemical, safety signs and trainings forpersonnel, PPE, installation of ducting, building/sitemodifications, other outside infrastructure, equipmentmaintenance)

363,927

9 Technology transfer 18,40010 Trials and commissioning 10,000

Sub-total 158,40011 Contingency 10% 17,600

Total capital 176,000 533,927Operating costs 66,073Total 176,000 600,000

In-cash (GEF grant): US$ 176,000In-cash (Atlant for internal modernization as described and for the new chemical): US$ 600,000

BREAKDOWN OF INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS

ITEM Costs

Solvent Costs7,330 kg/yr 141b ($1.9/kg) $13,9272,000 kg/yr Trans ($40/kg) $80,000


108

TTOOTTAALL PPRREE--PPRROOJJEECCTT CCOOSSTTSS PPEERR YYEEAARR:: $$1133,,992277

TTOOTTAALL PPOOSSTT PPRROOJJEECCTT CCOOSSTTSS PPEERR YYEEAARR:: $$8800,,000000

TTOOTTAALL AANNNNUUAALL IINNCCRREEMMEENNTTAALL CCOOSSTT:: $$6666,,007733


109

Annex 6. Provision of UNDP country office support services in implementation of theproject “Initial Implementation of Accelerated HCFC Phase Out in the CEIT Region”

The UNDP country office may provide at the request of the Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection of Belarus the following Implementation Support Services (ISS) for the activitiesof the project:

Payments, disbursements and other financial transactions Recruitment of project personnel and consultants Procurement of goods and services Organization of training activities, conferences and workshops

The support services provided by the UNDP country office shall be in accordance with the UNDPregulations, rules, policies and procedures. Direct project costs incurred with regards to UNDP supportservices are to be recovered to UNDP.

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA) between theGovernment of Belarus and UNDP, signed on 24 September 1992, and provisions of the project document,the provisions on liability and privileges and immunities shall apply. The Government shall retain overallresponsibility for the nationally managed project through its Executing Entity. The responsibility of theUNDP country office for the provision of the support to the Executing Entity shall be limited to the servicesdetailed in the table below.

Any claim or dispute arising under or in connection with the provision of support by the UNDP countryoffice shall be handled pursuant to the relevant provisions of the SBAA.

In accordance with the provisions of the project document “Initial Implementation of Accelerated HCFCPhase Out in the CEIT Region”, the UNDP country office shall provide support at the request of theMinistry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Belarus as described in the table below.Cost-recovery by UNDP country office for direct project costs shall be funded from the project budget usingthe following method:

Fee based ISS method, when UNDP Country Office charges the project for provided services based onnumber of transactions and transaction fee in accordance with the country office pricelist.

Schedule for the provision of ISS, cost and method are described in the table below.

Support ServicesSchedule for theprovision of thesupport services

Cost to UNDP of providing suchsupport services (where

appropriate)

Amount and method ofreimbursement of UNDP (where

appropriate)

Processing of paymentsdisbursements and other financialtransactions

Based on request forpayment

transaction fee in accordancewith the country office pricelist

periodic billing based on actualnumber of transactions

Procurement of goods andservices

Based on request andproject annual workplan



Project personnel andconsultants selection andrecruitment process

Based on requestand project annualwork plan



Travel arrangementsBased on requestand project annualwork plan




110

General administration (pouchservice, visa support, customsclearance, etc)

Based on requestand project annualwork plan



IT servicesBased on request andproject annual workplan



Communications serviceBased on UNDPcountry officecommunication plan

1% of the UNDP resourcescontributed to a project Billing once a year

If the requirements for support services by the country office change during the life of a project, the annexmay be revised with the mutual agreement of the UNDP Resident Representative and the Ministry of NaturalResources and Environmental Protection of Belarus.

International Public Sector Accounting Standards are financial reporting standards used in UNDP.The UNDP country office may provide support in execution of the project activities:

united nations development programme country: belarus project … · 2019-12-01 · united nations...

Documents