Agenda item 6a and 6b Financial and budgetary arrangements: Budget and expenditure 2014-2018 Trust...

Agenda item 6a and 6b

Financial and budgetary arrangements:Budget and expenditure 2014-2018

Trust Fund

Document IPBES/3/10 and non papers (7 and 13 January)

Item 6 - Financial and budgetary arrangements

In decision IPBES-2/6, the Plenary

Invited “pledges and contributions to the trust fund as well as in-kind

contributions from Governments, UN bodies, the GEF, other intergovernmental

organizations and other stakeholders, including the private sector and

foundations” to support the work of the Platform

Requested the secretariat to “inform the Plenary at its third session on the

status of the implementation of the work programme in relation to the budget”

IPBES/3/10 Budget and expenditure for 2014-2018

Non Paper (7 January) Updated income and expenditure for 2014

Non Paper (13 January) Update on IPBES financial rules and procedures

Country Total contributions received (2012-2014)

Total outstanding pledges ( 2013-2018)

Total contributions + pledges

(31 December 2014) Australia 97 860 0 97 860Canada 75 410 120 000 195 410Chile 0 30 000 30 000China 160 000 0 160 000Denmark 36 853 0 36 853Finland 302 510 0 302 510France 444 192 80 618 524 810Germany 4 886 168 5 200 000 10 086 168India 20 000 20 000 Japan 597 900 0 597 900Latvia 4 259 0 4 259Netherlands 678 426 0 678 426New Zealand 33 188 0 52 538Norway 8 300 692 0 8 300 692Republic of Korea 20 000 0 20 000South Africa 30 000 0 30 000 Sweden 422 717 0 422 717Switzerland 158 111 336 000 494 111United Kingdom 2 749 036 0 2 749 036United States of America 1 500 000 0 1 500 000Total 20 517 322 5 785 968 26 303 290

Item 6 – Contributions and pledges (as at 31 December 2014)

Item 6 - In-kind contributions received in 2014 (1/2)

Technical support China, Norway, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, FAO, UNDP,

UNEP, UNESCO, IUCN

Support to work programme meetings Brazil, China, Germany, Norway, Republic of Korea, UNESCO

Support to additional meetings and activities Germany, Philippines, Monaco, USA

Item 6 - In-kind contributions received in 2014 (2/2)

Additional in-kind offers received:

12 Governments:

Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, Norway, Monaco, Netherlands, Philippines, Republic of Korea,

Switzerland and United States of America

24 organizations:

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Australia; FAPESP

Research Programme on Biodiversity Characterization, Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use

(BIOTA-FAPESP) and State University of Campinas, Brazil; Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna,

Arctic Council; Cropper Foundation; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; German

Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Global Biodiversity Information Facility; Group on Earth

Observations Biodiversity Observation Network; Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research,

Brazil; International Council for the Exploration of the Sea; International Council for Science;

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; International Union for Conservation of Nature;

National Biodiversity Institute of Costa Rica; Network of Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas, France;

Society for Conservation Biology; Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network, Australia; United Nations

Convention to Combat Desertification; United Nations Development Programme; United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP); UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC),

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization; University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Item 6 - 2014 expendituresas at 30 November 2014

Budget item2014

approved budget

2014 expenditure Balance

Meetings of the Platform bodies 1 309 000 395 641 913 359

Work programme 3 056 250 1 604 895 1 451 355

Secretariat 1 154 520 504 854 649 666

interim technical support arrangements 280 000 305 378 (25 738)

Outreach and communications 60 000 46 477 13 523

Travel 120 000 88 267 31 733

Secretariat operating costs 61 745 (61 745)

Programme support costs (8%) 478 381 240 581 237 801

Contribution to working capital reserve (10%) 777 747 777 747

Total 7 235 898 3 247 838 3 988 061

Item 6 - Proposed revised budget 2015

Budget items2015

Initial Revision Revised

Meetings of Platform bodies 1 503 500 75 000 1 578 500

Implementation of work programme 5 439 750 579 000 6 018 750

Professional personnel 1 040 700 161 800 1 202 500

Administrative personnel 339 000 226 000 565 000

Operating costs (non-personnel) 100 000 119 500 219 500

Total requirements 8 422 950 1 161 300 9 584 250

Programme support costs (8%) 673 836 92 904 766 740Total cost to the trust fund 9 096 786 1 254 204 10 350 990Contribution to working capital reserve (10%) 62 710 62 710

Grand total 9 096 786 1 316 914 10 413 700

Item 6 - Proposed budget 2016-17 and indicative budget 2018

Budget items 2016 2017 2018

Meetings of the Platform bodies 1 515 900 1 633 850 1 668 200

Implementation of the work programme 5 791 750 5 711 370 4 332 250

Secretariat personnel 1 812 300 1 857 600 1 904 300

Secretariat operating costs (non-personnel) 227 500 217 500 211 000

Total requirements 9 347 450 9 420 325 8 115 750

Programme support costs (8 %) 747 796 753 626 649 260

Total cost to the trust fund 10 095 246 10 173 951 8 765 010

Contribution to working capital reserve (10 %) 173 003 (-) 1 013 459

Total 10 268 249 10 173 951 7 751 551

Item 6 – Anticipated available funds for 2015

Total contributions received as at 31/12/2014 20 517 322

Total expenditures incurred from 2012 to 30/11/2014 6 054 716

Anticipated further 2014 expenditures 400 000

Anticipated funds carried over to 2015 14 062 606

Outstanding pledge as at 01/01/2015 5 785 968

Total resources available as at 01/01/2015 19 848 574

Item 6 – Overall situation

Total cost of work programme approved 46

851 208

Total additional costs proposed (1 011

296)

Total revised cost proposed 45

839 912

Amount already spent (2012-2014) 6 454 716

Total resources available as at 01/01/2015* 19 848 574

Amount to be raised for programme completion 19

536 622

* This figure may be adjusted as a result of the amendment to the IPBES Financial Rules

and Procedures proposed by the Bureau to the third session of the Plenary

Agenda item 6a and 6b

Eligibility for financial support from the Platform Trust Fund

Document IPBES/3/2/Add.1/Rev.1

Item 6 – Eligibility for financial support from the Platform trust fund

Document 3/2/Add.1/Rev.1 presents suggestions by the Bureau

regarding:

adding IPBES to the list of international organisations eligible for

official development assistance (ODA) as determined by the OECD

guidance on the eligibility of participants for financial support

Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES

Adding IPBES to the list of international organisations eligible for

official development assistance (ODA) as determined by the OECD

Once a year the OECD Development Assistance Committee reviews

applications for addition to the list of eligible international organizations.

Working on the basis of an agreed methodology, the Committee

allocates a coefficient corresponding to the extent to which the funds

are considered ODA relevant.

The Plenary is asked to approve the suggestion that the Platform be

added to the list of ODA-eligible international organizations in order to

allow the secretariat, under the guidance of the Bureau, to prepare an

application for 2015


Guidance on the eligibility of participants for financial support

The Platform is to provide financial support to developing countries but

− No further indication has been given as to which countries are to be

covered.

− A number of ambiguous cases have been encountered where it has

proved difficult to make a clear decision on eligibility of an expert.

Draft guidance provided by the Bureau to allow for a consistent

approach to matters related to eligibility for financial support:

− Prioritized list defining countries are eligible for financial support

− Rules for determining eligibility for financial support in ambiguous

cases.


List of countries eligible for financial support

The Bureau suggests that the OECD Development Assistance

Committee list of ODA recipients, in accordance with the rules of the

Platform restricted to States members of the United Nations only, be

used to define which countries are eligible for financial support in the

context of the Platform.



Using the adapted OECD Development Assistance Committee list of

ODA recipients to define eligibility for financial support has implications

with regard to current practices (Annex of IPBES/3/2/Add.1/Rev.1).

− To date, following the practice applied by the interim secretariat of

the Platform provided by tUNEP, and in line with the practice of

tIPCC, all countries of the Eastern European region have been

eligible for financial support within the context of the Platform.

− The OECD Development Assistance Committee list of ODA

recipients, however, explicitly excludes members of the G-8,

members of the European Union and countries with a firm date for

entry into the European Union.



In the light of this, Plenary is invited to decide whether the practice of

considering all countries of the Eastern European region as eligible for

financial support should be continued or not, considering the following

implications: Risks related to regional balance: Eastern European region representation

in 2015 has been 11% (compared with the ideal 20%), half of which from

members of EU and G8. Discontinuing financial support to those countries

might lead to an even weaker representation

Costs: continuing financial support to all countries of the Eastern European

region is estimated to amount to approximately US$0.5 - US$1 million

ODA eligibility of the Platform trust fund: difference of an estimated 2.5 %

in the co-efficient determining the rate of ODA eligibility of the trust fund


Rules to determine eligibility for financial support in ambiguous

cases

ambiguous cases have been encountered where it has proved difficult

to make a clear decision on the eligibility of an expert.

ambiguity results from the fact that the term “developing country” can

be interpreted as referring to the Government or organization making

the nomination, to the nationality of the expert , or to the place where

the expert works.


Rules to determine eligibility for financial support in ambiguous

cases

In order to allow for a consistent approach, it is suggested that

experts eligible for support would be those that are either:

− nationals of a developing country;

− employed by a developing country institution; or

− nominated by a developing country.

Agenda item 6c

Financial and budgetary arrangements:Technical support units

Document IPBES/3/INF/13

Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme

Technical Support Units (TSUs) located outside of and reporting

directly to the Executive Secretary of IPBES, for the implementation

of specific deliverables

Norwegian Environment Agency in Trondheim, Norway, to support the

work of the task force on capacity building (deliverable 1(a) and 1(b)),

providing two full-time professional positions and one full-time

administrative position;

UNESCO in Paris, France, to support the work of the task force on

indigenous and local knowledge systems (deliverable 1(c)), providing

two part-time professional positions and two part-time administrative

positions;


Technical Support Units (TSUs) located outside of and reporting

directly to the Executive Secretary of IPBES, for the

implementation of specific deliverables Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea and the National

Institute of Ecology (NIE) in Seocheongun, Republic of Korea, to support

the work of the task force on knowledge and data (deliverable 1(d)) ,

providing one full-time and one part-time professional positions and part-

time administrative support; and

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) in Bilthoven, The

Netherlands, funded by three Ministries, to support the work of the expert

group delivering the methodological assessment on scenario analysis

and modelling (deliverable 3(c)), providing three full-time staff including

professional and administrative positions.


Technical support, located within and reporting to the

Secretariat, for the implementation of specific deliverables A consultant to support the delivery of the regional/subregional

assessments (deliverable 2(b)), through in-kind contribution from China;

A consultant to support the delivery of the assessment on pollination and

pollinators associated with food production (deliverable 3(a)), covered by

the work programme budget as no specific in-kind offer was received.


Generic terms of reference for a technical support unit The technical support unit would:

Work as a part of the Secretariat under the direction of the Executive

Secretary, supporting the IPBES work programme deliverable (X);

Work with the Secretariat, Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel to

ensure the overall timing and delivery of deliverable (X) is followed and met;

Work with the Secretariat to ensure that all relevant processes and

procedures adopted by the Plenary are addressed in carrying out their work,

and that relevant IPBES operating principles are addressed;

Provide progress reports as required for the Plenary, Bureau and

Multidisciplinary Expert Panel, and support the Secretariat in tracking

progress in implementation of the deliverable (X);

…


Generic terms of reference for a technical support unit (Appendix

1) The technical support unit would:

Work as a part of the Secretariat under the direction of the Executive Secretary,

supporting the IPBES work programme deliverable (X);

Work with the Secretariat, Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel to ensure

the overall timing and delivery of deliverable (X) is followed and met;

Work with the Secretariat to ensure that all relevant processes and procedures

adopted by the Plenary are addressed in carrying out their work, and that

relevant IPBES operating principles are addressed;

Provide progress reports as required for the Plenary, Bureau and

Multidisciplinary Expert Panel, and support the Secretariat in tracking progress

in implementation of the deliverable (X);

…

Agenda item 6a and 6b Financial and budgetary arrangements: Budget and expenditure 2014-2018 Trust...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda item 6a and 6b Financial and budgetary arrangements: Budget and expenditure 2014-2018 Trust...