INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME Annual … · Related documents: TC 66/3 and TC 66/4 1...

https://edocs.imo.org/Final Documents/English/TC 66-3-ADD.1 (E).docx

E

TECHNICAL COOPERATION COMMITTEE 66th session Agenda item 3

TC 66/3/Add.1 5 August 2016

Original: ENGLISH

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME

Annual Report for 2015 Annex 2: Overview of financial resource delivery

Note by the Secretariat

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document provides the overview of financial resource delivery for the Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme during 2015, as annex 2 of the Annual Report for 2015

Strategic direction: 3.2, 4.0, 7.2, 9.0

High-level action: 3.2.1, 4.0.1, 7.2.3, 9.0.1

Output: 3.2.1.2, 4.0.1.2, 7.2.3.1, 9.0.1.1

Action to be taken: Paragraph 4

Related documents: TC 66/3 and TC 66/4

1 Document TC 66/3 provided annex 1 of the Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme (ITCP) Annual Report for 2015, which contained the Organization's ITCP implementation results for 2015. 2 That document also informed the Committee that annex 2 to the annual report, on the overview of financial resource delivery, was dependent on the receipt of the 2015 audited accounts, and would be submitted under document TC 66/3/Add.1 once the audited data was available. 3 Accordingly, annex 2 on the overview of financial resource delivery is submitted under this document, and provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the financial data recorded against IMO's technical cooperation activities delivered during 2015. Action requested of the Committee 4 The Committee is invited to take note of annex 2 to the ITCP Annual Report for 2015 and to make such comments and decisions as it deems appropriate.

***

TC 66/3/Add.1 Annex 2, page 1


ANNEX 2

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME

Annual Report for 2015

Overview of financial resource delivery



Table of Contents

DELIVERY OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3

General ITCP implementation trends ...................................................................... 3

PROFILE OF RESOURCE DISBURSEMENT ...................................................................... 6

Expenditure sources ................................................................................................ 7

The TC Fund .......................................................................................................... 8

Other donors ........................................................................................................... 8

DISBURSEMENT BY REGION ........................................................................................... 10

DISBURSEMENT BY DISCIPLINE ...................................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………….. 13

Tables

Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2015 in $ – comparison with previous years ......................... 4

Table 2: Profile of donor expenditure for 2015 ................................................................ 6

Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2015 – comparison with 2014 ............ 10

Table 4: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2015 – comparison with 2014 ........ 12

Charts

Chart 1: Comparative expenditure 2011-2015 .................................................................. .4

Chart 2: Expenditure trend 2006-2015 ............................................................................. 4

Chart 3: Resources and expenditure 2006-2015 .............................................................. 5

Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since 2006 ........................................................ 5

Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure 2011-2015 ............................................................ 8

Chart 6: Annual TC Fund expenditure as percentage of overall expenditure, 2011-2015.. 8

Chart 7: Major donors with expenditure over $300,000 in 2015 – comparison with 2014.. 8

Chart 8: Other donors with expenditure in 2015 between $40,000 and $250,000 .............. 9

Chart 9: Regional and global distribution of expenditure for 2015

– in comparison with 2014 ................................................................................. 10

Chart 10: Disaggregated regional expenditure in 2015 – identifying

core ITCP activities .......................................................................................... 11

Chart 11: Relative distribution of global expenditure in 2015 - percentage………………. 11

Chart 12: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2015 – comparison with 2014 ........ 12

Appendix: Regional and Global programmes of the ITCP in 2015 …………….… ................. 14



DELIVERY OVERVIEW Introduction 1 The overview of financial resource delivery provides a comprehensive review of the 2015 financial data recorded against the implementation of IMO's technical cooperation (TC) activities. The data is disaggregated by region, discipline and funding source in order to provide baseline comparators for establishing the trends in the delivery of the Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme (ITCP). This enables detailed analyses and a composite review with a presentation of the achievements from various perspectives, both for the year under review and over a longer period of time. 2 The ITCP structure is comprised of regional and global programmes. The individual programmes are planned annually and prepared within the Programme Implementation Documents (PIDs), designed for this purpose. As such, each PID framework provides an efficient and flexible operational mechanism for carrying out the delivery of the TC activities encompassed within its respective programme. The findings presented in this report on 2015 are therefore primarily measured against the specified objectives and budgets of the individual activities under the PID structures. 3 The appendix to this annex supplements the information in the financial overview with financial details of the respective programmes operational during 2015. The composite results are collated from the respective activities implemented in 2015 and are presented according to the programmatic structure of the ITCP. 4 IMO adheres to International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), and thus the baseline comparators for monitoring expenditure ensure precision and transparency. IPSAS also ensures that the figures represent the technical cooperation expenditure of the actual delivery achieved within the allotted time frame, and the results, including any related adjustments, are reflected in this report for 2015. Furthermore, a time lapse between the completion of delivery and receipt of charges through the UNDP service-clearing account means that a certain percentage of funds committed during 2015 will be reflected in the budget and final expenditure of 2016. 5 In accordance with technical cooperation operational procedures, although resources are made available in different currencies depending on the donor source, all budgetary and expenditure figures in this report are expressed in United States dollars.

6 It should be noted that the ITCP delivery results presented in this annex provide complementary information to the financial reports submitted to the Council,1 and may include variances arising from adjustments made subsequent to the completion of the Council documents.

General ITCP implementation trends

7 During 2015, some $13 million was delivered against programmed donor contributions of $16.7 million, representing a delivery rate of 78%. This was $800,000 less than the expenditure of $13.8 million recorded in 2014, although the percentage of delivery is 2 percentage points higher, as the allocated funds were $1.3 million less than in 2014. Table 1 presents these budget and expenditure figures for 2015, as well as the figures for the previous four years for comparative purposes. The expenditure over the five-year period from 2011-2015 is presented visually in chart 1.

1 C 116/5(b), Resource Management: Accounts and audit: accounts for the financial period 2015 and transfers

within the 2016 budget.



Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2015 in $ – comparison with previous years

Year Budget Expenditure

2015 16,756,516 12,999,949

2014 18,129,341 13,767,582

2013 17,526,268 15,275,944

2012 21,241,029 17,274,535

2011 17,862,287 15,477,016

Chart 1: Comparative expenditure 2011-2015

8 In chart 2, which traces the annual volume of expenditure since 2006, the trend can be viewed over a decade. From $12 million in 2006, expenditure increased to $13.5 million in 2007. A sharp decline to $10.3 million followed in 2008, which was principally due to the winding-down of a large-scale environmental programme and its associated donor resources. Following yearly increases from 2009 to 2012, when the all-time high expenditure of $17.3 million was reached, the 2015 expenditure of $13 million continues the decrease from that peak, which began in 2013.

Chart 2: Expenditure trend 2006-2015

9 Chart 3 displays the correlation between programmed resources and expenditure from 2006 to 2015. As can be seen, the expenditure level is generally linked to the availability of financial resources in any given year. The only exception to this was in 2011, when a decrease in programmed resources actually resulted in an increase in expenditure. For the rest, the expenditure level has risen or fallen in direct proportion to the amount of resources available.

15,477 17,275

15,27613,768 13,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exp

en

dit

ure

US

$'0

00

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Exp

en

dit

ure

US

$ '000



Chart 3: Resources and expenditure 2006-2015

10 From another perspective, chart 4 traces the delivery rate progression over the decade. In percentage terms, the total delivery recorded against the contributions programmed for 2015 was 78%. This is an increase of 2 percentage points from the expenditure recorded the previous year, and a decrease of 9 percentage points from the all-time high delivery rate of 87% achieved in 2013. It is similar to the rates achieved in most years, apart from the unusually high delivery rates recorded in 2011 and 2013.

Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since 2006

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

US

$ '0

00

Donor Resources

Donor Contributions Expended

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



PROFILE OF RESOURCE DISBURSEMENT

Table 2: Profile of donor2 expenditure for 2015

Source of funding Funds programmed

for 2015

Expenditure 2015

Percentage of 2015 budget spent

Donor percentage

of total expenditure

TC Fund 7,617,578 6,563,298 86% 50%

IMO Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund

1,951,897 1,174,945 60% 9%

IMO West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund

1,312,581

1,060,745 81% 8%

Norad

1,527,530

992,851 65% 8%

UNEP (including external sources)

651,275 625,120 96% 5%

UNDP/GEF

699,975 464,338

66% 4%

IMST Fund

480,589

407,891 85% 3%

European Union

977,503

379,877 39% 3%

Republic of Korea

351,744

308,520 88% 2%

IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund

256,200

245,407 96% 2%

International SAR Trust Fund

206,000

200,241 97% 2%

Canada

190,379

176,992 93% 1%

Norway

145,469

132,280 91% 1%

GIA

109,386 72,575 66% 1%

United Kingdom

77,768

60,307 78% 0.5%

LC/LP TC Trust Fund

68,985

43,320 63%

Less than 0.5 %

France

36,359

36,359 100%

IMO Model Courses Development Trust Fund

63,998

25,532 40%

Egypt

20,000

20,000 100%

International Transport Workers' Federation

11,300

9,351 83%

Total in $ 16,756,516 12,999,949 78%

2 For the purposes of budgeting and expenditure of the ITCP, the TC Fund is categorized as a "donor", as are

the other IMO multi-donor trust funds.



Expenditure sources 11 Table 2 records the individual funding sources from donor countries and organizations against the overall expenditure in 2015. For the purposes of reporting, groupings of merged resources or multi-donor funds are categorized as single donors without listing the individual source of contributions. Such funding amalgams categorized in this manner include, inter alia, the TC Fund, the IMO West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund, the IMST Fund and the LC/LP TC Trust Fund.

12 The figures in table 2 reflect the donor disbursement recorded against activities. They are not intended to provide the cash-flow status of any given trust funds, but represent donor expenditure that has been actually invoiced and registered by IMO during 2015. As previously mentioned in paragraph 4, a number of activities that were ongoing during 2015 may have a completion date beyond the end of the calendar year and will therefore be reflected in the 2016 annual report, as will any relevant invoices and other adjustments not received before closure of 2015 accounts. 13 Conversely, it may be noted that the total disbursement of $13 million recorded against programmed donor contributions in 2015 inevitably included a few activities and the related budgets originally programmed for 2014. This minor proportion of expenditure was primarily relevant to activities that were operational in 2014 but full implementation had not been completed by 31 December 2014. 14 Additionally, it should be noted that the 2015 budgets were amended as and when required to accommodate additional funds and activities that were allocated during the course of the year. This was not unique to 2015 but is a regular occurrence each year due to the specific terms and timing of confirmation of funds relating to individual donor contributions. 15 Table 2 also features a scale of 20 donor sources of funding and expenditure for 2015, one less than the 21 sources of funding recorded in both 2014 and 2013, and a decrease from previous years as well. This trend of a decline in number of funding sources may be explained partly through certain donor contributions being recorded to the multi-donor trust funds, as discussed in paragraph 11. 16 An expenditure level over $100,000 was credited to the top 13 donor sources in 2015 as illustrated in table 2. The highest figure of $6.5 million was attributed to the TC Fund, representing 50% of the total expenditure. This was followed by the IMO Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund with an expenditure of $1.17 million, accounting for 9% of total expenditure, a significant decrease from the 28% this trust fund accounted for the previous year. The IMO West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund, with expenditure just over $1 million, and Norad, with expenditure just under $1 million, each accounted for 8% of total expenditure. The next nine donors on the scale comprised 23% of the total expenditure, ranging from $100,000 to $600,000 and included UNEP, UNDP/GEF, the IMST Fund, the European Union, the Republic of Korea, the IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund, the International SAR Fund, Canada and Norway. The remaining 2% consisted of expenditure under $100,000 from a total of seven other donors.



The TC Fund 17 The TC Fund maintains the top position on the scale of donor funding presented in table 2 by supporting implementation in 2015 with expenditure of $6.5 million. This figure represents 50% of the total expenditure, emphasizing the importance of the TC Fund to the delivery of the ITCP. Chart 5 displays TC Fund expenditure over five years, showing a high of $8 million in 2012, then decreasing to $7.3 million in 2013 and $5.8 million in 2014, and now increasing to $6.5 million in 2015. The TC Fund expenditure as a percentage of the overall expenditure can be seen in chart 6, which compares the years 2011 to 2015.

Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure 2011-2015

Chart 6: Annual TC Fund expenditure as percentage of overall expenditure, 2011-2015

Other donors 18 Chart 7 displays the group of 7 donor entities that recorded expenditure between $300,000 and $1.2 million in 2015 and provides a comparison with 2014. These results show a notable decrease in expenditure from the Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund, and a significant increase in expenditure from both the West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund and Norad. Levels for other major donors remained generally consistent with 2014 expenditure.

7,386 7,986

7,322

5,842 6,563

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Exp

en

dit

ure

US

$'0

00

Annual TC Fund Expenditure

48%46%

48%

42%

50%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



Chart 7: Major donors with expenditure over $300,000 in 2015 – comparison with 2014

19 Chart 8 illustrates that other donors with expenditure over $100,000 were the IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund, the International SAR Trust Fund, Canada and Norway. GIA, the United Kingdom and the LC/LP TC Trust Fund all registered expenditure between $40,000 and $75,000.

Chart 8: Other donors with expenditure in 2015 between $40,000 and $250,000

20 Further information on the donor entities and their support to the respective constituent programmes of the ITCP is presented in the appendix, together with the related total budget and expenditure recorded against each regional and global programme for 2015.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

DC

oC

WC

A

No

rad

UN

EP

UN

DP

/GE

F

IMS

T

EU

Ro

K

Exp

en

dit

ure

US

$'0

00

2014

2015

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

IMO

M&

SS

Tru

st

Fun

d

SA

R F

und

Can

ad

a

Norw

ay

GIA

Unite

dK

ing

do

m

LC

/LP

TC

Tru

st

Fun

d

Expenditure

US

$'0

00



DISBURSEMENT BY REGION

Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2015 – comparison with 2014

Region 2015 2014

Africa 3,205,328 2,654,360

Arab States and Mediterranean 1,101,365 1,354,327

Asia and Pacific 2,720,494 1,716,664

CIS and Eastern Europe 37,324 300,782

Latin America and Caribbean 1,490,813 1,373,346

Global 4,444,625 6,368,103

Total in US$ 12,999,949 13,767,582

21 The total regional and global expenditure distribution for 2015 is presented in table 3. The figures for 2014 are indicated for comparison only. For the purpose of accuracy, the analysis of the distribution of regional expenditure was not only based on the activities of the regional programmes, but also, as far as possible, on the disaggregated data from the global programmes. For example, many of the activities of the global programmes: Support to SIDS and LDCs for their shipping needs; MDG 3: Strengthening maritime resource development; Partnerships and emerging issues; the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme; Safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh, inter alia, are included in the regional statistics. By contrast, those activities providing benefits worldwide remain categorized as global. Hence, the results expressed in table 3 were identified by the recipient region of the respective activities, and as a consequence, do not correlate to the global and regional programmes summarized in the appendix.

Chart 9: Regional and global distribution of expenditure for 2015

– comparison with (2014)

Note: Percentages in brackets are for 2014.

22 Chart 9 illustrates the regional and global distribution for 2015 by percentage. The Africa region accounted for 25% of the total expenditure; the Asia and Pacific region for 21%; Latin America and Caribbean region for 11%; Arab States and Mediterranean for 8% and the CIS and Eastern Europe region for 0.3% of total expenditure. The remaining activities comprised the balance under the global category with 34% of the total expenditure. The

Africa25% (19%)

Arab States and Mediterranean

8% (10%)

Asia and Pacific21% (13%)CIS and Eastern

Europe0.3% (2%)

Latin America and Caribbean

11% (10%)

Global34% (46%)



increase in spending in the Africa region, which continues the trend from the previous year, is partly due to the multi-year EU-funded programme on support for FSI and PSC in Africa which began in 2014 and remained ongoing in 2015. The increase in the Asia and Pacific region is due in part to several long-term projects dedicated to marine environment protection which are now underway in the region. 23 The ITCP regional and global programmes are the foundation of IMO's technical cooperation, and it can be informative to view expenditure on these core programmes distinguished from that of several large-scale marine environmental programmes. Although the expenditure from these large-scale programmes has decreased in recent years due to the completion of several projects, the large-scale marine environmental programmes remain significant to the ITCP delivery results. For example, during 2015 REMPEC3 comprised 55% of the expenditure attributed to the Arab States and Mediterranean region and the GloBallast programme accounted for 11% of global expenditure. A more accurate perspective of the comparative delivery of the basic ITCP regional structure is established by viewing the core programmes separated out from the large-scale environmental programmes, as shown in chart 10. Chart 10: Disaggregated regional expenditure in 2015 – identifying core ITCP activities

24 For the activities framed under the global programmes that cannot be disaggregated into the regions, the global category remains. This category covers a diverse range of maritime subjects across the globe and they are represented in chart 11 through their respective thematic fields. It should be noted that for 2015, the Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund was brought under the global programme on the Enhancement of Maritime Security, so does not appear as a separate programme as was done in previous years. Additionally, a new global programme for long-term marine environmental projects funded by Norad was created in 2015. A global programme for the Impact Assessment Exercise 2012-2015, which occurs every four years, was also created in 2015.

3 Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea.

3,205

501

2,720

37

1,491

3,946

600 498

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Africa Arab States/Mediterranean

Asia andPacific

CIS/EasternEurope

Latin Americaand Caribbean

Global

Ex

pe

nd

itu

re U

S$'0

00

Core ITCPactivities

Large-scaleenvironmentalprogrammes



Chart 11: Relative distribution of global expenditure in 2015 – percentage

Note: This chart represents those activities under the global programmes which were not disaggregated into recipient regions. They do not represent the total expenditure on all global programmes.

DISBURSEMENT BY DISCIPLINE 25 Table 4 below presents the distribution of delivery by maritime discipline for 2015, as compared with 2014. The same disbursement is shown as a percentage of the total expenditure in chart 12. For the purpose of this analysis, the discipline of maritime safety and security has been separated into the categories of maritime safety and maritime security to acknowledge the importance attributed to each distinct subject. The activities under the Djibouti Code of Conduct programme, responding to the major threat of piracy facing the maritime world, have been categorized as maritime security.

Table 4: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2015 – comparison with 2014

Discipline 2015 2014

Maritime safety 2,394,431 2,536,575

Maritime security 3,015,362 4,820,700

Marine environment protection 3,568,778 3,417,023

Maritime legislation 380,926 129,520

Facilitation of international maritime traffic 106,971 116,571

General maritime sector 3,533,481 2,747,193

Total in $ 12,999,949 13,767,582

26 During 2015, maritime safety registered 18%, maritime security 23% and marine environment protection activities 28% of total delivery. Maritime legislation accounted for 3% and facilitation of international maritime traffic accounted for 1% of total expenditure. The general maritime sector, which includes fellowships and activities related to maritime transport policy, the audit scheme and the implementation of IMO instruments, as well as other aspects of maritime training, made up 27% of all 2015 expenditure. On the whole, these distributions are consistent with previous years, with slight increases in expenditure allocated to the protection of the marine environment, maritime legislation and the general maritime sector, and a moderate decrease in expenditure related to maritime security.

Enhancement of maritime security 36%

Capacity building and training 26%

Review of and support to WMU

14%

GloBallast 11%

Partnerships and emerging issues 6%

Maritime technology transfer 3%

VIMSAS1%

other global programmes 4%



Chart 12: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2015 – comparison with (2014)

Note: Percentages in brackets are for 2014.

27 When looking at the discipline of marine environment protection, consideration should be given to the impact of several large-scale marine environmental programmes. REMPEC and GloBallast were financed through external funding entities, such as UNEP, UNDP/GEF and GIA, and included staff cost components. Although these programmes have decreased from previous years following the completion of several projects, they account for 31% of all expenditure related to the marine environment for 2015, equal to $1.1 million. This compares with 50% of expenditure on environmental programmes in 2014, amounting to $1.7. CONCLUSION 28 In conclusion, expenditure trends for 2015 showed general consistency with 2014, both in terms of regional expenditure totals and the allocation of resources by discipline. The TC Fund continues to play an extremely important role in the financing of the ITCP, as it has since its creation. The introduction of the mandatory IMO Member State Audit Scheme in January 2016 will lead to an increase in technical assistance requests and impact on the TC Fund.

Marine environment

protection28% (25%)

Facilitation of international

maritime traffic1% (1%)

General maritime sector

27% (20%)

Maritime legislation 3% (1%)

Maritime safety 18% (18%)

Maritime security 23% (35%)

TC 66/3/Add.1

ANNEX 2, page 14

Appendix detail for Regional and Global

Programmes of the ITCP in 2015

executed or sponsored through IMO - in US dollars

Programme Title Budget ExpenditureDelivery

rateDonor/s

Africa

Support to maritime development, Africa 1,873,596 1,613,335 86% TC Fund, Norway, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, IMO Djibouti

Code of Conduct Trust Fund, International SAR Trust Fund

Support to FSI and PSC in Africa 977,503 379,877 39% European Union

Arab States and Mediterranean

Support to maritime development, Arab States and

Mediterranean

253,879 253,879 100% TC Fund, Egypt

REMPEC (Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response

Centre for the Mediterranean Sea)

620,540 600,523 97% UNEP

Asia and Pacific

Support to maritime development, Asia 789,755 789,755 100% TC Fund, Norway, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom

Support to maritime development, Pacific Islands 439,668 371,707 85% TC Fund

Malacca and Singapore Straits cooperative mechanism 256,200 245,407 96% Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund

CIS and Eastern Europe

Support to maritime development, CIS/Eastern Europe 100,862 37,221 37% TC Fund

Latin America and Caribbean

Support to maritime development, Latin America 559,672 519,504 93% TC Fund

Support to maritime development, Caribbean 479,000 434,368 91% TC Fund

REGIONAL PROGRAMMES

H:\TC\66\3 -Add 1 - Appendix

Appendix

Regional and Global Programmes of the ITCP in 2015

executed or sponsored through IMO - in US dollars

TC 66/3/Add.1

ANNEX 2, page 15

Programme Title Budget ExpenditureDelivery

rateDonor/s

Technical advisory services 4,206 4,206 100% TC Fund

Support to SIDS and LDCs for their special shipping needs 137,980 123,914 90% TC Fund

MDG 3: Strengthening maritime resource development 688,096 499,218 73% TC Fund, France, Republic of Korea

Capacity building and training 1,531,074 1,130,508 74% TC Fund, Canada, Norway

Partnerships and emerging issues 392,414 379,401 97% TC Fund, Norad, Republic of Korea, International Transport

Workers' Federation

Enhancement of Maritime Security 4,123,581 3,015,362 73% TC Fund, Norway, IMO Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund, IMO

West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund, IMST Fund

Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme 243,350 243,350 100% TC Fund, Republic of Korea

Effective implementation and enforcement of energy efficiency

measures for ships

22,853 22,853 100% TC Fund

Model Courses 63,998 25,532 40% IMO Model Courses Development Trust Fund

London Convention and London Protocol 141,237 82,641 59% Canada, Republic of Korea, LC/LP TC Trust Fund

Review of and support to WMU 612,101 611,862 100% TC Fund

Safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh 469,194 335,854 72% Norad

Long-term marine environmental projects funded by Norad 933,228 531,889 57% Norad

Impact Assessment Exercise 2012-2015 46,000 37,866 82% TC Fund

Globallast Partnerships 770,914 498,466 65% GIA, UNDP/GEF

Global Partnership on Marine Litter 30,735 24,597 80% UNEP

Projects relating to maritime technology transfer 194,880 186,854 96% Canada, UNDP/GEF

GLOBAL PROGRAMMES

___________

H:\TC\66\3 -Add 1 - Appendix

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME Annual … · Related documents: TC 66/3 and TC 66/4 1...

Documents

Transcript of INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME Annual … · Related documents: TC 66/3 and TC 66/4 1...