GEFSEC P ROJECT ID: 2329
IA/ExA P ROJECT ID: GF/PHI/07/XXX
C OUNTRY : The Philippines/Global
P ROJECT T ITLE : Global Programme to Demonstrate the Viability and Removal of Barriers that Impede
Adoption and Successful Implementation of Available,
Non-Combustion Technologies for Destroying
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
GEF IA/ExA: UNIDO
O THER PROJECT EXECUTING AGENCY ( IES ):
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR)
D
URATION
: 4 years
GEF F OCAL A REA : Persistent Org. Pollutants
GEF S
TRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
: SP-3: Partnering in the Demonstration of Feasible, Innovative
Technologies and Best Practices for POPs Reduction
GEF O PERATIONAL P ROGRAM : OP 14
C OUNCIL A PPROVAL D ATE : 21 May 2004
C OUNCIL A PPROVED A MOUNT *: $4,565,000
CEO E NDORSEMENT A MOUNT *: $4,108,500
E XPECTED A GENCY A PPROVAL D ATE : September
2007
E
XPECTED
S
UBMISSION
D
ATE OF
M
ID
-T
ERM
R EPORT : February 2009
E XPECTED G RANT C LOSING D ATE : August 2011
E XPECTED S UBMISSION D ATE OF T ERMINAL
E
VALUATION
/ P
ROJECT
C
OMPLETION
R
EPORT
:
December 2011
Co-financing
UNIDO (in-kind)
Philippines (in kind)
Operating entity
(in kind/cash)
Private sector
(in cash)
EHF/NGOs (in kind)
4,108,500
(provide details in Section d): Cofinancing)
650,000
500,000
3,900,000
2,512,380
100,000
7,662,380
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
1 p c a f o i
t l a r e a l r m u
F o
*

(for all the tables, expand or narrow table items as necessary) a) PROJECT COST
Project Components/Outcomes Co-financing
($)
35,000
GEF
($)
66,000 1. Non-combustion technology selected and purchased through contractual arrangements
2. Site selected and Environmental Compliance
Certificate issued
3. Equipment for PCBs disposal purchased and installed
4. Destruction facility in operation, targeted PCBscontaining equipment and wastes destroyed, systems monitored and evaluated as well as active public participation
5. Lessons learning, Dissemination and adaptive management system in place
6. Project Management budget/cost*
4,552,380
2,310,000
170,000
330,000
265,000
253,500
2,423,000
501,000
575,200
289,800
Total
($)
101,000
4,805,880
4,733,000
671,000
905,200
554,800
Total Uses of Funds/project costs 7,662,380 4,108,500
This item is the aggregate cost of project management; breakdown of this aggregate amount
should be presented in the table b) below: b) P ROJECT MANAGEMENT B UDGET / COST
Component
Estimated
Staff weeks
GEF
($)
Other Sources
($)
Locally recruited personnel*
- National Project Manager
- Administrative staff
- UNIDO staff (part time)
- Government staff
Internationally recruited consultants* :
Programme Coordinator (part time)
- UNIDO Project Manager and other personnel (part time)
Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications
Travel
Experts (local /international)
UNIDO
NGO
Government
206
206
52
80
52
104
124,800
96,000
28,800
72,000
72,000
70,000
23,000
23,000
20,000
110,000
45,000
15,000
50,000
65,000
35,000
30,000
70,000
70,000
11,770,880
Project Total
($)
189,800
142,000
90,000
133,000
Total 700 289,800 265,000 554,800
* Local and international consultants in this table are those who are hired for functions related to the management of project. For those consultants who are hired to do a special task, they would be referred to as consultants providing technical assistance. For these consultants, please provide details of their services in c) below:
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
2

c) C ONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS :
Component
Personnel
Local consultants
International consultants
Total d) C O FINANCING
Estimated Staff
Weeks
104
449
172
725
GEF
($)
48,000
247,500
325,000
620,500
Other
Sources ($)
13,500
150,000
163,500
Name of Co-financiers
(source)
PNOC/PAFC
Private Sector
DENR
Classification Type
Private sector In kind/cash
Private sector In cash
Nat’l. Gov’t. in kind
At Concept
($)
3,900,000
1,972,000
500,000
At Work
Program ($)
3,900,000
2,512,380
500,000
Project Total
($)
48,000
261,000
475,000
784,000
At CEO
Endorsement
($)
3,900,000
2,512,380
500,000
Environmental Health
Fund (EHF)
UNIDO
UNDP
NGO
GEF IA/EA
GEF IA
In kind in kind
In kind
1,000,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
650,000
100,000
100,000
650,000
0*
Total Co-financing 7,622,000 7,762,380 7,662,380
* Following the new approach for inter-agency cooperation regarding joint implementation/execution between agencies and other internal reasons, UNDP decided to withdraw from the project as
Implementing Agency, knowing that UNIDO has gained full direct access to the GEF funding. When the GEF Council approved the non-combustion technology programme, UNIDO was on the status of
Executing Agency with expanded opportunities. Meanwhile, UNIDO has been able to develop a solid portfolio of POPs projects and when all the Stockholm Convention implementation tools (i.e. dioxin toolkit, BAT/BEP guidance, PCBs management guidelines, etc) have been endorsed by the
COP, UNIDO used its comparative advantage to expand for partnering with private sector and the industrial development partners. It is a timely decision by UNDP to entrust UNIDO the full implementation of the project following the on-going progress on the implementation of the Slovakia non-combustion technology project. Therefore, UNIDO would continue its effort to initiate noncombustion technology projects in China and Africa as fulfillment to the requirements laid down by the decision of the GEF Council to establish this programme.
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
3

OUNCIL COMMENTS OF
PRIL
Comments
FRANCE
The sustainability and success of the toxic waste management is based on how to charge the costs of recovery and destruction to the producer. The project is not addressing this issue properly. Who will pay for the recurrent costs and what basis?
The other main issue is regarding the assessment of alternative technologies to be used: this project should not be
“one technology oriented”, but instead should assess in professional, neutral and transparent the merits of the existing “no combustion” mature and well known technologies. The choice of the presented non-combustion should be justified from a detailed analysis (technical, economical and financial aspects) of the alternative technologies.
This project should fund research and bear early stage development costs.
Response
In addition to the operating entity, who committed to provide a co-financing of
US$3.9 million, other partners (licensed service providers) will be responsible for continuous and adequate supply of PCB to the operations through collection, transport and storage of PCB waste and PCB-containing equipment from all over the Philippines. The owners of the PCB wastes and PCB-containing equipment
(most importantly Meralco, a private and TransCo and NAPOCOR, public sector entities) will ultimately pay for the services. The estimated services charges to be paid by them would be about US$ 2.5 million. MoA signed between DENR and main owners of PCB transformers and capacitors will ensure payment by waste owners. Details of costs to be charged to waste suppliers will be established in comparison to the market price in the Philippines for exporting PCBs-containing equipment and wastes to Europe that is currently around US$ 10,000/ton. This cost must be lower than the cost of export for incineration to ensure that the waste owners will continue to utilize the facility.
On the basis of defined criteria and the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) amplification of those criteria, three technologies were identified for further consideration. Final choice of the appropriate technology would be driven by the nature of the stockpile to be addressed in relation to the comparative advantage of the three technologies identified by the TAG as meeting
Project Selection Criteria. Furthermore, based on current technological achievements, the selected technology should have demonstrated
Destruction Efficiency of at least 99.9999% for PCB waste matrices of the type found in the Philippines. It should be noted that the number of vendors that have shown interest in the Slovakia project is more than 10, therefore the Philippine project will not be “one technology oriented”.
Paragraph
Para 20 page 4 and para
26 page 6
Paras 53-54 pages 21-22
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
4

Comments
GERMANY
The aim of the project is to demonstrate the use of a noncombustion technology to destroy the defined amount of
4,547 tons of PCBs equipment in the Philippines. The project is part of the respective global programme covering in total four countries (Slovakia, the Philippines, China and as yet to be identified African country). The project is a contribution to meet the Stockholm Convention requirement to ensure the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) and
Best Environmental Practice (BEP). The barriers identified include inter alia lack of technical knowledge of noncombustion technology. The project operation should ensure that the findings and lessons learned during project implementation are communicated and discussed continuously, e.g. once a year, with the Expert Group on
BAT and BEP established by the INC/POPs related to
Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention, to facilitate fruitful exchange and synergy among related project and discussion processes going on and further developing in parallel during the course of the project implementation.
The private sector has committed co-financing of US$
6,412,380, i.e. more than 50% of total project financing. The project will be a useful case study to illustrate how to create joint GEF, government and private sector partnership for future efforts that will have to be undertaken to implement the Stockholm Convention on POPs. Annex 9: “Cofinancing Letters Confirmation” is not included in the PDF file provided on the GEF website and should be made available before the project starts to complete project documentation.
Recommendation: The proposed changes should be made during further planning steps and during project implementation. With these changes, the project is supported.
Response
One of the Outcomes of the project is documented and disseminated lessons learned and adaptive management system in place. The project will keep taking stock of the available information on innovative and costeffective technologies and practices. The BAT/BEP guidelines and guidance documents prepared by the BAT/BEP Expert Group and endorsed by COP-3 will also be taken into account and the BAT/BEP process will be followed up.
The project will continue the assessment of additional and emerging technologies that meet the project selection criteria. Close coordination and cooperation will be developed with STAP, UNEP, the Secretariats of Basel and Stockholm Conventions, the BAT/BEP Expert Group and industry (PC responsibility)
Paragraph
Outcome 5, Activities 5.2
& 5.3 pages 20-21
Project sustainability will be assured by stakeholders commitment, the creation of partnerships between and among the national government, the state owned entities, the private sector and civil society and the significant private sector investment.
The operating entity has committed US$3.9 million form its own resources, and will invite other private sector entities at the time of full project implementation for services related to identification, collection, interim storage, transport and appropriate handling of PCB-containing wastes at the
PCB owners place. The private sector entity will be required to meet all operating costs and recover it investment through the business operations, in the total co-financing amount of US$ 2,512,380.
Paras 71-74 pages 24-25
Co-finance Confirmation
Letters are included as
Annex 14.
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
5

Comments
SWITZERLAND
The overall success of the elimination of POPs mainly depends on the proper management of risks during: handling and preparing the wastes for transport (packaging, loading); transport; intermediate stocking; treatment (polyvalence of the process, technical reliability, control of releases, quality of residues and eliminating them (transferring – if not executed properly – part of the problems to landfills or into recycling activities).
Adopting “low cost” – technologies such as non-combustion technologies for destroying POPs may essentially increase the risks (especially steps 1, 4 and 5) and thus cancel the advantage (if ever there will be a significant one) of lower treatment costs.
The technical and economical feasibility and the practicability of certain non-combustion technologies are only proven under well-defined circumstances for selected wastes in small quantities. The circumstances in the
Philippines are hardly favourable for such a demonstration project and a variety of wastes have to be treated in bigger quantities.
Many of the results of the GEF-funded demonstration project underway in Slovakia may also be valid for the Philippines and other developing countries.
Response
According to the summary of PCBs inventory in the Philippines, the nature of PCB-containing equipment and wastes as well as other PCBs-containing matrices are different from those in Slovakia. In Slovakia, the main PCB wastes to be destructed during the demonstration phase are PCB manufacturing solid wastes and capacitors. In the Philippines, it is almost entirely transformer oils containing different concentrates of PCBs.
Therefore, the Philippines project has its own merit and added value to the global programme by demonstrating different technology from the ongoing project in Slovakia.
Main concerns:
Health risks to people manipulating the wastes.
Risks of transferring problems to other areas (water, air, landfills, new products containing recycled fractions).
Little relevance of the additionally gained knowledge and experience from this second demonstration project.
Based on extensive consultations with NGOs that have expertise in this field, it is expected that destruction technologies in this project will most easily win broad acceptance within civil society, if, at a minimum, can demonstrate two important characteristics:
Paragraph
Table 2, page 15
Paras 16-17 pages 3-4
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
6

Comments
Conclusions and recommendations :
In principle, we welcome the co-funding by GEF of specific
POP-destruction technologies applicable in developing countries and in countries of transition. But considering that the expected results from the project in Slovakia are already underway, we propose:
to postpone the project until essential results from the Slovakia project are known and base on this experience,
to reshape the project accordingly, focusing on the remaining problems that may mainly be related to the specific circumstances given in a developing country such as the Philippines.
Response
They operate in systems that are essentially closed. The collection, transport and temporary storage at the destruction site will be carried out in line with international standards. This also means that uncontrolled releases of POPs and other substances of concern can be avoided and all residues from the destruction process (gaseous, solid and/or liquid) will be contained, analyzed and, if necessary, further processed prior to release. It also means that the technology can avoid the periodic “upsets” that plague incinerators and other open destruction process; and
They can achieve total destruction efficiencies (Des) for POPs and other substances of concern that approach 100%. This means that they not only effectively eliminate gaseous, air-emissions of POPs and other toxic pollutants of concern but they also effectively eliminate releases of these pollutants as solid wastes and as liquid wastes.
The project has been designed to involve both national and international resources to monitor technology performance with particular reference to national EIA release standards and to the objective of the project.
Paragraph
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
7

Comments
USA
Summary:
The main focus of this project is to demonstrate the viability of available non-combustion technologies to destroy POPs, show how the barriers to the deployment of these technologies may be removed, and then deploy a noncombustion technologies in the Philippines to destroy 4,547 tons of PCB wastes. The project objective is good in principle but the document lacks adequate information about the scope of the PCB problems or hw the project addresses institutional and economic constraints to non-combustion incineration. Moreover, this is only the second POPs project to come to the Council, and both have been non-combustion demonstration projects. It was agreed that GEF would focus on other priorities, such as issues that facilitate implementation of the Stockholm Convention obligations, namely:
Implementation of action plan in accordance with
Article 5 to reduce releases from unintentional production of POPs – these efforts should be much broader than the current focus on non-combustion technology demonstrations.
Assisting countries in developing appropriate strategies to identify POPs stockpiles and to take measures to ensure wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner.
Facilitating execution of measures to meet Article 3 obligations as set out in countries’ implementation plans.
Response
The Philippines is one of the countries with serious interest to adequately address POPs problems with strong public involvement. Lack of adequate alternatives for the destruction of POPs (mainly PCBs equipment and wastes) has resulted in export of POPs wastes at very high cost, which is currently the only option in the country for proper management of PCBs wastes by the owners. Export prices are frequently more than US$10 per kg of PCBs wastes, with an average of well over US$5 per kg. Therefore, it is understandable that only very dedicated and financially strong companies can pay such disposal costs. Successful demonstration and transfer of a non-combustion technology will significantly contribute to achieving these goals by the virtual elimination of all PCBs stockpiles and materials containing PCBs in the Philippines.
Paragraph
Para 13-14 page 3; paras
24-31 pages 5-7 and
Annex 10 –
Environmental Impact
Assessment for handling and disposal
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
8

Comments
The project does not provide a description of the full extent of the problem in the Philippines related to PCBs and their handling and disposal. The project does not describe the functioning of the market for waste disposal. All of this is relevant for understanding how the project will overcome obstacles to destruction of PCBs.
Most co-financiers are providing in-kind contributions but not cash. What type of in-kind contribution? Which NGOs were consulted and what are they contributing to the project?
Response
Type/activities for in-kind contributions from co-financiers are detailed in page 29. Private sector and PCB owners like Meralco, TransCo and
NAPOCOR will pay for the transport, storage and final disposal of their
PCBs, to the co-financing amount of US$ 2,512,380.
The local representatives together with the private sector partners will create a strong public-private partnership support by the local Civil Society
(NGO community) who are represented by the Environmental Health Fund at international level. An example of NGO participation in project activities is that of the Greenpeace Philippines, a local NGO that has been involved in project discussions. Other local and regional NGOs have also been involved in project activities.
The project lists regulations that affect waste disposal but does not analyze how the regulatory framework is enforced by the government and its impact on the expected outcome of the project.
Regulatory framework: The “Toxic Substances and Hazardous and
Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990” that is the DENR Administrative
Order No. 29 Series 1992, Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
Republic Act 6969 and the CCO for PCBs that is the Philippine Chemical
Control Order, DENR Administrative Order No. 1 Series 2004 (Annex 6) in fact ban the incineration and import of PCBs in the Philippines. The relevant sections of the legislations are as follows:
The CCO in Section IV, Item 3 stated that “ The commercial and industrial owners and operators must comply with the requirements for transport, storage and disposal specified under Title III of the IRR for transportation, storage and disposal of PCB wastes ”.
The IRR under Title III, Section 30, in Table 3 listed “ commercial or industrial hazardous waste incinerator” , but this does not exist in the country.
Paragraph
Para 74 Financial
Sustainability, page 25 and Section D.1 page 29
Para 23 page 5
Annex 6
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
9

Comments
It is not clear what is the scale PCB production and contamination in the Philippines.
The partnering company, PPDC, has stockpiles of 1,350 tones of PCB oils. At the estimated rate (150-270 tones per year) it would take 6 years to destroy PPDC’s stockpile.
This is a 4 year project. Will stockpiles from other companies also be destroyed? Is it acceptable to have GEF funds subsidizing one company?
Response
The CCO in Section IV, item 6.1b stated that “All treatments and disposals must be approved by the Bureau and should be in conformance with RA 8749 otherwise known as the “Clean Air Act of the Philippines”. The referred Section 10 of RA No. 8749 bans the use of incineration, which process emits poisonous and toxic fumes.
The CCO in Section V, item 1b stated that “ All importation, sale, transfer or distribution of PCBs, PCB equipment, PCB-contaminated equipment, PCB wastes, PCB articles or PCB packaging shall no longer be allowed ”.
The CCO in Section IV, para 6.2 stated that “ If necessary, wastes containing high levels of PCBs must be exported in accordance with the provisions of Section IV item 6.1b of this Order and must meet the requirements for transboundary movement of wastes under the Basel
Convention”.
From the above citation, it is clear that in fact incineration of PCBs is banned in the Philippines because the combustion technologies that exist in the country are using processes that emit poisonous and toxic fumes.
Export is allowed as an option but it is an expensive proposition because the export costs are unreasonably high. The costs of exports are more expensive than in Europe due to the packaging, sanitation and shipping costs and averaging over US$ 5,000 per tonne.
It should be noted that as a support to the project, DENR has not issued export permits for PCBs since 2004.
The PCBs inventory in the Philippines has been changed during the preparatory phases of this project. The current known PCB inventories reported in the NIP of the Stockholm Convention dated January 2006 include 6,879 tonnes of PCB equipment and wastes comprising about
2,400 tonnes of PCBs oil. The original concept was that the demonstration project should destroy at least 1,000 tonnes of PCB-contaminated oil from transformers. However, based on the early experiences gained in
Slovakia, financial sustainability of the operations in the demonstration project can only be achieved if the total existing PCBs-containing equipment and wastes would be eliminated.
Paragraph
Para 26 page 6 and para
41 page 15
Para 41 page 15, para 74 page 25
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
10

Comments
The cost analysis needs to be developed further to demonstrate economic viability of non-combustion technology, particularly since the World Bank reviewer points out that incineration in Europe is cheaper. The response to this critique seems to say simply that the World
Bank is incorrect and exporting wastes is more costly than the technology solution proposed by the project. On what basis is the World Bank incorrect? In addition, Indonesia,
Malaysia and Thailand have incinerators that meet some international standards. What is the cost comparison to these? Would it be more efficient and cost effective to develop a regional incinerator?
The proposal mentions barriers to non-combustible technology. What are these? How will the project address these barriers?
Response Paragraph
In light of this, the total tonnage to be destroyed during the demonstration phase is 1,500 tonnes of PCB-containing equipment. The baseline scenario is clarified to include some 800 tonnes of PCBs equipment in the four-year demonstration phase as an average of 200 tonnes are exported each year.
Approximately 1,500 tonnes of contaminated PCB equipment and wastes
(500 tonnes PCB oil) will be destroyed during 2 years of the operation in terms of the project period. Based on the PCBs inventory presented in the
NIP this amount is immediately available. Projection of the destruction is done for years 2008 – 2014. Year 2014 is the deadline for use and storage of PCBs equipment and wastes in the Philippines, as stated in the CCO.
The proposed PCBs oil destruction capacity of the unit is in the range of
250 to 300 tonnes per year, which represent a yearly functional capacity to be a minimum of 750 tonnes of PCBs-containing equipment and wastes.
After completion of the demonstration project, equipment will be used to benefit continuous PCBs and other POPs disposal and the destruction of non-metallic toxic substances.
The projected cost to be charged to waste owners for PCB destruction is expected to be in the range of US$ 3.5 to US$ 5 per kg. Waste owners in the Philippines have recently paid an average of US$ 5,000 per tonne or more for PCB destruction through export for incineration. Therefore, as long as the destruction cost offered by the non-combustion unit remains lower than the export alternative, waste owners will continue to utilize the facility and thus ensure its long-term financial sustainability. A business plan to be elaborated at the end of the project demonstration phase will correctly estimate the financial performance and the cost-effectiveness of the unit. The risk that the cost charged to the waste owners will be higher than the cost of export for incineration is considered low based on expert estimates on operating costs and the fact that the most cost effective noncombustion technology in the Philippines context meeting project selection criteria will be deployed.
Paras 13, 26 & 59 pages
3, 6 and 22
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
11

Comments Response
The logframe has only one measurable indicator referring to the estimate that the project will destroy 4,457 tonnes of PCB wastes, although this would take 20 years at the cited throughput rates and it isn’t clear if there is a commitment to run the demonstrated technology for that period of time.
Does GEF have any view on how many companies would adopt this technology? How would it affect pollution levels in the Philippines? What are the costs to the economy versus the environmental benefits?
Based on legislation enforced in the country, the government has to approve the export of PCBs. However, no single export permit of PCBs wastes has been authorized since 2004 while the PCBs incineration has been banned. As inventory process continue, substantial amount of PCBscontaining equipment and wastes (6,879 tonnes according to NIP of
October 2006) will continue to grow. In short, all evidence points to the long-term financial sustainability of the project
US position: Recirculate prior to CEO endorsement.
Paragraph
Paras 26-28 pages 6-7
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
12

b) GEF S ECRETARIAT
All comments and recommendations of the GEFSEC review dated 24 March 2004 have been considered and duly taken into account.
Using a very similar language in the Slovakia and the Philippines project briefs can be justified by the fact that both are based on the deliberations of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meetings and during the preparatory stage of preparing the National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm
Convention in the respective countries. Moreover, the STAP technical workshop also discussed and reviewed both projects based on the presentation of UNIDO. But it should also be noted that this presentation of the projects led to the complete revision of the chapter on “Application of technology to developing countries” of the STAP report on “Review of emerging, innovative technologies for the destruction and decontamination of POPs and the identification of promising technologies for use in developing countries”.
The impression that no progress has been made conceptually might be true, but it should not be taken negatively. Since the submission of the first project in Slovakia to the GEF Council, significant progress has been achieved in understanding the nature and, based on this understanding, successfully developing public-private partnerships for project execution, in successfully mobilizing significant private sector co-financing in cash, and in attracting new stakeholders that would contribute to the project. These achievements, and particularly the public-private partnerships, have very positively impacted the project development and formulation and have been imbedded in the Executive Summary and the Project Brief, e.g. the envisaged exit strategy to use a bidding process for transfer of ownership of equipment, using international tendering for the technology selection and national bidding for the selection of operating entity and the local shipping company, adaptation of the technology for the selected hazardous wastes other than PCBs and regional diffusion and possible transfer of the technology.
The project document has been reviewed after receiving comments from UN Agencies and the
GEFSEC (July 2006) with the view to revise the document to ensure that the co-financing commitment forthcoming from the private sector is maintained. The host operating entity has meanwhile changed it management, which has required the approval by the Board of Directors of the company of all previous commitment letters as well as Memorandum of Agreement signed between the government and the company. The engineering services as well as product final disposal prices have also changed. After a series of technical and financial consultations, the government has fully accepted and endorsed the project document.
Meanwhile, the PCBs policy enacted through the Chemical Control Order (CCO) has been issued with particular reference to the collected and stored PCBs wastes to be urgently disposed of, whereby the project has consequently received the highest attention and priority from the government to start implementation. The document on PCBs Code of Practice has also been prepared in 2006 that describes in detail the requirements of managing and handling PCB-containing equipment and wastes in an environmentally sound manner. According to these two documents, all PCB wastes and retired
PCB-containing equipment should be stored in a new storage facility to be constructed in the host operating entity premises by March 2007. It might be worthwhile to note that the construction of this storage facility should commence in December 2006 and will be fully financed by the private sector.
The project will therefore be executed in the vicinity of the new storage facility and therefore the transport of hazardous PCBs wastes will not create an additional environmental burden. It should be noted that as support to the project, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has not issued export permits for PCBs since 2004.
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
13

As far as the technology selection is concerned, it is notable that the nature of PCB-containing equipment and wastes as well as other PCBs-containing matrices are different from those in Slovakia and China, hence it is very reasonable that the international tendering process will result in a different technology for their destruction. In Slovakia, the main PCB wastes to be destructed during the demonstration phase are PCB manufacturing solid wastes and capacitors. In China, mainly obsolete pesticides stockpiles and in the Philippines, it is almost entirely transformer oils containing different concentrates of PCBs. In addition, there are at least two major PCBs spills in the Philippines in which the soil is very heavily contaminated. Therefore, the Philippines project has its own merit and added value to the global programme by demonstrating a different technology from the ongoing project in
Slovakia and the forthcoming project in China.
The project after its demonstration phase will clear up two major spills as PCBs contaminated hotspots that have high political relevance in addition to properly addressing this obvious burden for human and environmental health.
UNDP and UNIDO have made serious efforts for years in responding to all enquiries of the GEF
Council and other IAs and EAs as well as the Philippine Government and the private industry. The project document has also been revised in view of the experience gained through the preparation of the project document for Slovakia. Stakeholder forum and Project Steering Committee meetings including participation of the host operating entity were held and views taken into consideration in the revision of the project document, which was submitted to the GEFSEC on 26 May 2006 for CEO endorsement. To address further comments and clarifications of the GEFSEC, a joint mission was undertaken by UNDP and UNIDO to the Philippines resulting in further confirmation of the co-financing and equipment ownership issues. Final revision was incorporated and the revised project document was resubmitted to the GEFSEC for clearance in November 2006.
Recently, UNDP has decided to withdraw its support to the project and due to this fact a gap has been created in relation to the availability of the local office facilities to the project management staff and additional administrative assistance that was agreed earlier with UNDP. The UNIDO Director-General will visit Philippines in the nearest future to meet with the Ministers of Environment and Industry, and will announce the opening of a new UNIDO office in Manila. In this case, the UNIDO in-kind contribution would partly be used to finance the office space and the remaining contribution should therefore come from the project budget. The government will provide for the meeting rooms and the private company will provide offices for the technical staff but not for administration.
In anticipation of CEO endorsement, frequent follow-up actions have been undertaken since the approval of the project by the GEF Council, including encouraging all government actions in establishing the PCBs legislation that is the required legal framework for the smooth start up of the project. Both the Government and the host operating entity are eager to start up implementation of this project, to demonstrate the viability and removal of barriers that impede adoption and successful implementation of available non-combustion technologies for use in the destruction of obsolete POPs stockpiles and wastes, more specifically PCB wastes.
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
14

EVIEW BY EXPERT FROM
OSTER
IF REQUIRED
See Annex 4 for response to comments
1
1 Provide justifications for any major amendments in the project, including an increase of project amount exceeding 5% from the amount approved by the Council. Justification for such amendments and the project document will be circulated to the
Council for a four-week review period. For procedures to the approval for major amendments, refer to the Council paper:
Project Cycle Update: Clarification of Policies and Procedures for Project Amendment and Drops/Cancellations,
GEF/C.24/Inf.5
UNIDO - NonComPhilippines- CEO endorsement
30Aug07
15