Discussion Note on Financial Reporting to Steering ... · Discussion Note on Financial Reporting to...
Transcript of Discussion Note on Financial Reporting to Steering ... · Discussion Note on Financial Reporting to...
1
Discussion Note on Financial Reporting to Steering Committee (version 20 Nov 2015) (Input for PAGE technical meeting, 1-2 December 2015) The following note is an input for discussion during the PAGE Technical Team meeting. The background note lays down options to address the requests by some Steering Committee members for additional financial information about PAGE summarizing potential decisions in the table at the end. The objectives of the discussion to be held during the upcoming Technical Team meeting are: => To reach agreement on financial reporting to PAGE steering committee => To initiate the process for compiling financial information for the DSC meeting in January 2016 1) Background 1.1 Requests from DSC members on financial reporting In previous DSC meetings, members of the DSC have requested more detailed information on the expenditures going beyond an aggregated presentation of income and expenditures by funding source. We have recorded the following requests in the PAGE Secretariat on financial reporting:
- show expenditures against the global work plan - by countries and global activities - written comments by NORAD after November 2014 DSC meeting and NORAD comments on 29 April 2015 DSC meeting
- show more details on country budgets and global activities, beyond lump sums in global 2014 -2015 work plan – Finland, April 2015 DSC meeting
- provide more details on expenditures and transaction costs—DSC, Summary of Meeting, PAGE Donor Steering Committee Meeting, April 2015
- report in-kind contributions by agencies – Finland, since the time it signed contribution agreement to PAGE, and noted in November 2014 DSC meeting
- report on co-financing by governments and other partners for PAGE activities - noted in 11 November 2015 DSC meeting.
Related to these requests, donors have mentioned that they do not expect a certified financial report providing these details - meaning certified by agencies’ finance departments - but a financial overview or analysis provided by PAGE Secretariat. 1.2. Financial reporting documents that donors have received so far
a) We are obliged to provide donors who have signed contribution agreements to PAGE with 10% programme support cost (PSC) a yearly consolidated trust fund statement of the PAGE trust fund. See Annex 1 (PAGE trust fund annual statement) This trust fund statement is issued by the UNEP finance department in Nairobi and provides very aggregated information on income, expenses, assets and liabilities. Expenses in this statement are only disbursements. This means all transfers from UNEP to other agencies under interagency agreements only show as expenses once the agreements are fully finalized and all expenditures reported back to UNEP. Otherwise they show as advance
2
transfers, even if part of the funds have already been reported back by the agencies. Usually the statement is issued after closing of accounts towards the end of the 1st quarter of the following year. For 2015 it was delayed and we just received it in October. It has not yet been shared with any of the donors. The insight that donors get through this statement on the programme’s expenditures, transaction cost or delivery rate is obviously very limited. But purely following the legal requirements, this is the only statement that donors that signed with 10% PSC rate; this is currently the case for Finland and Korea.
b) Donors that have signed their contribution agreement at 13% PSC can request specific
financial reporting on their contribution following UNEP standard financial reporting templates. These reports can be requested at different points in the year (not necessarily only at year end) and are needed for donors with multi-year contributions in order to trigger the payment of a new installment. The UNEP standard reporting template breaks down expenditures by broad budget categories: staff, consultants, travel, contractual services, meetings and trainings, equipment and premises, miscellaneous component and shows expenditures as disbursements as well as commitments.
See Annex 2 as sample (report that Norway requested in November 2014 for its annual
bilateral review meeting with UNEP) Financial reports of this kind have so far been prepared for Norway and Sweden, which pay 13% PSC. They were also prepared for Finland, despite the fact that it only pays 10% PSC. It turned out that Finland could only pay a new installment under its multi-year contribution with proof in hand that the previous installments had been used (and this information is not shown in the consolidated annual trust fund statement – Annex 1). These specific financial reports have so far not been linked to requests for specific narrative reports by donors. All donors have accepted the consolidated annual narrative report as the main progress report for PAGE.
The information that donors receive through the specific financial reports on the delivery rate and transaction costs is still limited. But the specific financial reports are still useful for the donor’s financial administration, as it allows them to monitor, how much of their contribution was used and whether a new installment would be justified. While PAGE works with the idea of a trust fund and pooled funding, some donors’ financial administration is focused on monitoring their specific contribution. Given this situation, each donor contribution is kept in a separate account under one umbrella project document for PAGE.
2. Possible ways forward to meet the requests from donors on financial reporting For the last Technical Team meeting in June 2015, the PAGE Secretariat prepared an overview that reported 2014 and 2015 expenditures (up to June 2015) against allocations provided in the global PAGE 2014-2015 work plan. All agencies provided inputs to the overview and were able to report and disaggregate their expenditures, including staff and consultant costs, against the country budgets and budgets for global activities. This exercise showed that – provided that all agencies provide inputs in a similar manner – the PAGE Secretariat will be able to compile expenditure reporting against the global work plan with aggregated figures by country and global activity.
See Annex 3 (overview table shared in June 2015 technical meeting) In the overview prepared for the technical meeting in June, we were for example
3
able to show the following information:
Allocated to Peru in 2014-2015 work plan: USD 1,160,000
Spent by Dec 2015 for all agencies together: USD 775,787
Remaining in June 2015 USD 384,213
Allocated to GE Academy in 2014-2015 work plan: USD 350,000
Spent by June 2015 for all agencies together: USD 304,633
Remaining in June 2015 USD 45,367
Allocated to practitioners guide on green industrial policies in 2014-2015 work plan USD 200,000
Spent by June 2015 for all agencies together: USD 107,028
Remaining in June 2015 USD 92,972
This gives the PAGE team and potentially the donors an overall idea on the use of the funding and can help to identify areas where too much or too little budget has been allocated to activities and make decisions on necessary reallocations and future budgets. The overview can be the basis to sum up expenditures by outcomes and it also allows us to derive some conclusions on our current balance of funds used in global activities vis-a-vis funds used for country level work. The new tables introduced for ‘uncertified’ financial reporting in the annexes of the interagency agreements (for the amendments and new agreements) should help to facilitate compiling this information. However, some additional efforts may still be needed by each agency to disaggregate the data further for specific sub-outputs or activities.
See Annex 4 (Annex for financial reporting in IAs) 3. Possible ways to further elaborate the financial reporting against the global work plan The current overview on expenditures reporting against the global 2014-2015 work plan only shows total figures for countries and global activities. There could be several ways to further detail the figures, for example:
a) By what each agency spent in a country or on a global activity.
=> This information is easily available, as each agency provides its figures, which are then added up into a total For example (Peru):
Allocated to Peru in 2014-2015 work plan: USD 1,160,000
Spent for Peru by Dec 2015 for all agencies together: USD 775,787 UNIDO: xx USD UNDP: xx USD UNITAR: xx USD UNEP: xx USD ILO: xx USD
Remaining in June 2015 USD 384,213
4
b) By input cost, meaning e.g. by staff, consultants, grants, travel, meetings, etc.
=> To do this, each agency would need to further detail its expenditures along an agreed set of budget categories and then agency figures would be aggregated into one figure showing, e.g. the staff, consultants, grants, etc. for one country or global activity. This is something that members of the DSC are interested in to understand how much of the funds were given to institutions in the country, or how much of the funds for one country was used for staff or consultants. For example (Peru):
Allocated to Peru in 2014-2015 work plan: USD 1,160,000
Spent by Dec 2015 for all agencies together: USD 775,787 Staff (national): xx USD Staff (international): xx USD Consultants (national); xx USD Consultants (international): xx USD Sub-contracts (nat. institutions): xx USD Sub-contracts (int. institutions): xx USD Travel: xxx USD National meetings: xx USD Other: xx USD
Remaining in June 2015 USD 384,213
c) By outputs and work streams for the country budgets or by bigger sets of activities for global activities (e.g. cost for work streams on green buildings, GE modelling, or sustainable procurement in Mongolia or cost for development of GE Academy and on-line trainings and cost of their implementation). This is how currently the country budgets are prepared by allocating budgets against
specific work streams and related outputs (which then are led by an agency). Reporting could be done for country level activities along these lines.
For example (Mongolia):
Allocated to Mongolia in 2014-2015 work plan: USD 960,000
Spent by Dec 2015 for Mongolia for all agencies together: USD 750,708 Outcome 1: Green jobs survey: xx USD Green economy indicators: xx USD Etc. Outcome 2 Waste inventory/recycling: xx USD Green financing : xx USD Etc. Outcome 3 National PAGE coordinator: xx USD Etc. Overall coordination: xx USD
Remaining in June 2015 USD 209,292
See Annex 5 (for a sample of a current country budget, Mongolia)
5
ILO provided a sample for the reporting that another NORAD funded ILO project prepares. This sample provides financial reporting (i) by country, detailing the expenditures for each country in to different staff and consultant classes, subcontracts, operating expenses, seminars etc., and (ii) for global activities, which are all other expenses, also detailed by input cost. This is an example for how the reporting could be done if we follow above mentioned option b). However, we need to take into consideration that currently we do not have the funds for PAGE programmed by country in the financial system. Country budgets could not be generated by the UNEP financial system and would need to be compiled manually with inputs from each agency.
See Annex 6 (sample that ILO provided for financial reporting to NORAD) 4. Other possible ways to present the financial reporting Another possibility could be to provide additional financial details but not report against the global PAGE work plan and related allocations for countries and global outputs. UNDP provided an example for financial reporting from a UNEP-UNDP joint programme which is managed through the Multi-partner Trust Fund (MPTF) and can be accessed through the MPTF Office Gateway. Information provided incudes:
- Aggregated information on contributions and use of funds - Details on contributions received by donors - Interest earned - Transfer of funds to partner agencies - Expenditures separated by agencies and a delivery rate calculated by comparing
expenditures reported by participating agencies against ‘net funded amount’ (the amount transferred to the agency less refunds)
- Aggregated expenditures by all participating agencies by UNDG budget categories (such as staff materials, contractual services, travel, transfers and grants, etc.=
See Annex 7 (sample provided by UNDP for MPTF financial reporting)
This report does not provide insight into the amounts used for countries or activities but does detail the amount that each agency received and spent and the related delivery rates. It also provides an aggregated overview on the income and input cost of the project. The information can be easily generated from the information that agencies currently report to the PAGE Secretariat, but it would not respond to the requests by donors to provide information on the amounts spent by countries. 5. Other financial details requested by donors
a) In-kind contributions by agencies In DSC meetings funding partners have also repeatedly requested that PAGE provide information on in-kind contributions by PAGE agencies. So far we have provided information in an aggregated manner on the total in-kind contribution by PAGE partners, estimated at USD 1,200,000 in 2014. This figure can easily be broken down into in-kind contributions by agencies. With the new financial reporting templates in Annex 4 of the interagency agreements agencies are requested to report back on their in-kind contributions (uncertified) and it will be possible to present
6
and sum-up these figures in the next financial report. The reporting is based on estimates mainly of how much staff time of core funded staff was used for PAGE delivery. But it could also be for activities that were funded out of core budget that contributed to PAGE outcomes.
b) Co-financing by government and other technical cooperation partners Funding partners have also requested that PAGE provide information on co-funding received from Governments or from other technical cooperation partners. So far there is no mechanism in PAGE to systematically record these contributions, while they do exist in some countries. An example for a co-financing by a technical cooperation partner is the contribution that the AFD provides to the waste feasibility study in Mauritius.
c) Funding that is provided alongside PAGE country work plans
Other funds that could be monitored for PAGE countries are funds applied by other programmes in the countries alongside PAGE work plans. This could include for example funds that are used in the country by GIZ aligned with the PAGE country work plan, the funds aligned with PAGE by other PAGE partners programmes or by other joint initiatives, such as UN-REDD, PEI etc. Questions for Discussion and Decisions on Financial Reporting to Steering Committee
Decision Options Example and additional questions
Decision 1: Do we provide aggregated expenditure information against the global workplan?
Yes or no Expenditure summary presented in June 2015 technical team meeting (Annex 3)
Decision 2: If yes to 1, decision 2: Do we provide further details beyond total figures by country and global output?
Yes or no
Decision 3: If yes to 2, decision 3: What additional details do we provide to report against workplan?
a) By amount agency spent in a country or global activity
b) By input cost (staff, consultants, meetings, etc.)
c) By outputs and work streams for countries or broader sets of global activities
ILO report to NORAD-funded project (Annex 6)
7
Decision 4: If no to 1, decision 4: Do we provide additional financial detail but not report against work plan?
Include info such as: - details on contributions
received, - interest earned, - transfer of funds to partner
agencies, expenditure by agency and delivery rate, aggregated expenditures by budget categories (staff, travel, etc.)
MPTF financial report (shared by UNDP) (Annex 7)
Decision 5: Do we provide requested in-kind and co-financing information?
a) In-kind contributions by agencies
b) Co-financing by gov. and tech cooperation partner
c) PAGE-aligned funds applied by other programmes
Questions: On option a) Do we further details in-kind contributions, e.g. by staff positions, percentages of staff time, core-funding support to meetings, etc.)? On option b) 1) Do we start recording co-
financing from governments and technical cooperation agencies?
2) How to present info (part of country budgets, part of the agency reporting, other)?
On option c) 3) Do we start monitoring and
compiling information on funds that are aligned with PAGE activities in PAGE countries?
4) How do we define the funds that we call as ‘aligned’ with PAGE in the countries?
8
Annex 1 – PAGE TCTF Statement 2014
9
Annex 2 – Norway Financial Report 31.10.2014
10
Annex 3 – Budget Expenditures 2014-2015 June
2014-2015 Operating Plan Budget and Expenditures 2014-2015
UNDER Discussion
ACTVITIES 2014 alloc.
2015 alloc.
Total for activity, country
2014/2015 Agency
Commitme
nts, Expenditur
es 2014
Commitments,
Expenditures up to
May/June 2015
unspent funds from
2014 allocation
unspent funds from total allocation Agency
Budget 2nd half 2015 (from 2014 rem.+ 2015 add. funds)
Agency leads**
Output 1-3, country level
UNITAR Mongolia 760,000
200,000
960,000
UNEP 78,582
109,500 UNEP
ILO 46,115
21,739 ILO
UNIDO 2,716
37,056 UNIDO
45,000
UNITAR 200,000
180,000 UNITAR
80,000
UNDP* UNDP
11
75,000
Total 327,413
423,295
9,292
209,292 Total
125,000
ILO Peru 810,000
350,000
1,160,000
UNEP 195,908
46,000 UNEP
ILO 219,979
149,382 ILO
UNIDO 70,370
19,148 UNIDO
78,000
UNITAR UNITAR
UNDP 75,000 UNDP
Total 486,257
289,530
34,213
384,213 Total
78,000
UNEP Mauritius 510,000
100,000
610,000
UNEP 81,395
18,923 UNEP
ILO 13,000
33,980 ILO
UNIDO 26,127
22,346 UNIDO
72,000
UNITAR UNITAR
UNDP 75,000 UNDP
Total 120,522
150,249
239,229
339,229 Total
72,000
ILO Senegal 510,000
100,000
610,000
UNEP - UNEP
5,000
ILO 78,282
106,922 ILO
UNIDO 2,716
43,705 UNIDO
15,000
UNITAR UNITAR
12
10,000 5,000
UNDP 75,000 UNDP
Total 90,998
225,627
193,375
293,375 Total
25,000
UNIDO Ghana 510,000
300,000
810,000
UNEP 2,336 UNEP
ILO 10,500 ILO
UNIDO 128,300
88,112 UNIDO
110,000
UNITAR 5,000
30,000 UNITAR
25,000
UNDP 75,000 UNDP
Total 143,800
195,448
170,752
470,752 Total
135,000
UNEP Burkina Faso
400,000
-
400,000
UNEP 8,534
28,780 UNEP
ILO 10,800
41,800 ILO
UNIDO 2,716
17,468 UNIDO
10,000
UNITAR 2,000 UNITAR
8,000
UNDP 50,000 UNDP
Total 22,050
140,048
237,902
237,902 Total
18,000
ILO South Africa -
300,000
300,000
UNEP 3,390 UNEP
ILO ILO
13
10,402
UNIDO 8,822 UNIDO
35,000
UNITAR 10,000 UNITAR
60,000
UNDP UNDP
Total -
32,614
(32,614)
267,386 Total
95,000
UNEP China - 300,000
300,000
UNEP 5,251 UNEP
ILO ILO
UNIDO 2,003 UNIDO
20,000
UNITAR UNITAR
UNDP UNDP
Total -
7,254
(7,254)
292,746 Total
20,000
Subtotal
3,500,000
1,650,000
5,150,000
1,193,756
1,464,066
842,178
2,492,178
Output 3 - global level
UNITAR
On-line training activities
200,000
200,000 UNITAR
71,000
32,000
97,000
97,000
97,000
2014 two GE On-line trainings (English)
Translation of GE online
14
course (French or Spanish)
Advanced GE on line training (fiscal policy)
UNITAR
Development of GE training package
30,000
30,000 UNITAR
5,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
UNITAR
1 global workshop with CB institutions
160,000
160,000 UNITAR
160,000
160,000
160,000
CB workshop development
CB workshop implementation
ILO
Training package green jobs assessment
100,000
20,000
120,000 ILO
4,485
24,485
Development training package
5,886
21,254
15
Delivery of trainings
15,098
53,277
ILO
2014 Global Green Economy Academy
350,000
-
350,000
UNEP 14,058
ILO 253,283
(138)
UNIDO 15,599
1,831
UNITAR 20,000
UNDP
Total 302,940
1,693
45,367
45,367
UNITAR
2015 Implementation of GE on-line trainings (1 in English 1 in French)
90,000
90,000 UNITAR
40,000
90,000
50,000
UNITAR
Advanced training material on incl. GE (EC, earmarked)
120,000
120,000 UNITAR
120,000
124,000
ILO
Regional GE learning Forum, Francophone Africa or LAC
100,000
100,000 ILO
100,000
16
UNEP
Development and implementation of training on GE and trade (SECO, earmarked)
100,000
100,000 UNEP
10,000
90,000
UNEP
UNITAR 42,000
Subtotal
840,000
430,000
1,270,000
399,924
173,224
266,852
696,852
Output 4
UNITAR
Guidance note for country support
30,000
30,000 UNITAR
15,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
2 knowledge products on green industrial policy (280k)
UNIDO
Practitioners guide (UNIDO)
150,000
50,000
200,000 UNIDO
66,181
40,847
42,972
92,972
40,000
UNEP
Flagship report: industrial policy (UNEP)
124,000
124,000 UNEP
11,447
112,553
112,500
112,500
17
Flagship report: industrial policy (contribution by ILO)
6,000
6,000 ILO
3,000
3,233
(233)
(233)
Total: 280,000
(2014) and 330,000
(2015) Total 80,628
44,080
155,292
205,292
UNEP
Review and improvement of modelling/assessment tools (220k)
Manuals on modeling tools and assessment, Improvement of modelling (T21)/assessment tools (UNEP)
189,000
189,000 UNEP
53,455
81,828
53,717
53,717 UNEP
53,000
18
Support to training/video (UNITAR)
31,000
31,000 UNITAR
15,000
10,000
6,000
6,000 UNITAR
6,000
Total:
220,000 Total 68,455
91,828
59,717
59,717
ILO
Guide: Methodologies for GJ assessment
30,000
30,000 ILO
39,600
UNEP
1 Global PAGE Conference
UNEP 121,137
ILO
18,858
UNITAR 10,000
150,000
150,000 Total
149,995
5
UNDP
Development of lessons learned from country experiences (EC, earmarked); 238,000 received from EC funds
270,000
270,000 UNDP
238,000
32,000
45,000
19
UNEP
GE indicators /index work (EC, earmarked)
200,000
200,000 UNEP
5,297
161,501
33,202
58,364
UNITAR
PAGE operational guidance on coordination and joint programme management (EC, earmarked)
36,000
36,000 UNITAR
36,000
UNEP
Development of guidelines and manuals on trade and GE (SECO, earmarked)
150,000
150,000 UNEP
17,000
133,000
37,000
Subtotal
710,000
706,000
1,416,000
319,375
602,009
(211,384)
494,616
UNEP PAGE Communication
150,000
56,000
206,000
UNEP 101,344
74,947
ILO
20
support, material, tools
27,078 562
UNITAR 5,000
5,000
5,000
UNIDO
Total 133,422
80,509
(63,931)
(7,931)
Technical / FOP meetings
50,000
50,000
UNEP 31,922
ILO 22,499
UNIDO 4,839
13,951
30,000
UNDP 5,000
UNITAR 10,000
10,000
15,000
Total 69,260
28,951
(48,211)
(48,211)
Outreach side events
30,000
30,000 UNEP
39,633
(9,633)
(9,633)
Subtotal
230,000
56,000
286,000
242,315
109,460
(121,775.49)
(65,775.49)
Subtotal all activities
5,280,000
2,842,000
8,122,000
2,155,370
2,348,760
775,870
3,617,870
UNEP
PAGE Sectretariat
360,000
200,000
560,000 UNEP
277,017
116,307
(33,324)
166,676
360,000
Total allocated
5,640,000
3,042,000
8,682,000
2,432,387
2,465,067
742,546
3,784,546
*
21
Amounts for UNDP show what was allocated to country offices but not what was spent by country offices
Exp 2014
Prov. exp 2015
Total prov. Exp up to June 2015
ILO Total w/o PSC
724,378
482,015
1,206,393
2015: 33198 not allocated in work
plan
515,213
Total 2015 exp. 515,213
PSC (10%)
72,438
Total
796,816
UNEP Total w/o PSC -
569,813
484,509
1,054,322
22
act.
UNITAR Total w/o PSC
366,000
344,000
710,000
PSC (10%)
36,600
Total
402,600
UNIDO Total w/o PSC
323,638
295,289
618,927
PSC (10%)
32,363.80
Total
356,001.80
UNDP Total w/o PSC
668,000
668,000
-
-
PAGE Secretrariat
277,017
116,307
23
UNEP PAGE Coms+ tech. meetings
172,899
74,947
-
-
Total: 2,433,745
2,465,067
4,898,812
24
Annex 4 – Uncertified Expenditure Report by outcome and country
(A) UNCERTIFIED Expenditure Report by Outcome and Country
(Includes both disbursements and commitments/obligations)
PAGE Outcome Country X
(pls specify)
Country Y
(pls specify)
Country Z
(pls specify)
Global/ General
costs
Total outcome for all countries
Outcome 1:
Countries are implementing evidence based sectoral and thematic reforms in line with national IGE priorities policies
N/A
Outcome 2:
Countries have reinforced and integrated inclusive green economy (IGE) goals and targets into SDG aligned national economic and development planning through multi-stakeholder collaboration
N/A
Outcome 3:
Individual, institutional and planning capacities for IGE action strengthened at the national and global level
Outcome 4:
Countries have improved their knowledge base for advancing IGE
Total
(B) UNCERTIFIED Partner’s In-Kind Contribution
Type 2015
Staff time
Activity costs
Other cost
Total in-kind contribution
(C) Cash flow statement:
Installment Date Amount USD
1st installment
[when received]
[2nd installment]
[when received]
[3rd installment]
[when received]
etc Balance remaining with UNEP:
25
Annex 5 – Mongolia PAGE Country Budget Template
PAGE Budget for Country Mongolia (2015 allocation and unallocated funds from 2014 allocation)
Balance from 2014 allocation 0 (only stating the really unallocated balance, which can still be newly programmed; only to be include in the new template if activities can be suggested that can still be implemented in 2015)
Addtional allocation to country in 2015 200,000
Total available
200,000
Activity / cost description Global output
reference
UNEP Budget
ILO Budget
UNIDO Budget
UNITAR Budget
UNDP Budget
Total for activity
workstream
Outcome 1: GE goals and targets in national dev planning processes
Green jobs survey in national labor survey, 2nd half 2015 1.1 25,000 25,000
Green economy indicators workshop, Oct 2015 1.2 5,000 5,000
Green policy assessment workshop, November 2015 1.2 5,000 5,000
… 0
Outcome 2: Sectoral policy reform
Additional support for waste inventory/recycling 1.2 5,000 5,000
Green financing 2.2 15,000 15,000
National workshop on green entrepreneurship and TOT workshop on greener business options (GBO) with focus on green construction/buildings
2.2 20,000 20,000
Outcome 3: Institutional and individual capacity building and planning
National PAGE Coordinator Mongolia + Travel 3.1 28,000 28,000
Preparation, Logistics and Travel for PAGE Week, June 2015
3.2 35,000 35,000
Preparation of 2016-2018 National Programme Document 3.2 5,000 5,000
26
Implementation of Green Economy Learning Strategy 3.1 5,000 5,000
Preparation/Participation in PAGE Workshop, January 2016 3.2 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 20,000
… 0
Total 20,000 45,000 10,000 88,000 5,000 168,000
Overall coordination lead agency (32k flatrate) 32,000
Total 20,000 45,000 10,000 120,000 5,000 200,000
Balance 0
Notes:
The budget for an activity or work stream is done on full costing basis. This means the budget for an activity shown in this table includes the staff time attributed to the implementation of the activity, related travel, related publication cost (such as editing, printing or translations for reports), consultants supporting and implementing the activity. A general rule applies of not adding more that 25% of staff cost to the direct cost of an activity. Detailed calculations for the activity budgets are done by the agency leading the activity or workstream.
A flat rate for the overall coordination of the country work can be charged by the lead agency. Maximum amount for this is 32,000 equivalent to two generic staff. Other agencies do not charge general coordination cost.
Transfers by UNDP cables to be reflected under the agency that is reponsible for the activity and not under UNDP.
27
Annex 6 – Example Financial Statement ILO
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Annex 7 – Example GEJP Final Financial Report
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47