INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME. Annual Report for 2015 Annex 2: Overview of financial resource delivery. Note by the Secretariat SUMMARY

Transcription

1 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, Output: , , , 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 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 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. ***

2

3 Annex 2, page 1 ANNEX 2 INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME Annual Report for 2015 Overview of financial resource delivery

4 Annex 2, page 2 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 DISBURSEMENT BY DISCIPLINE CONCLUSION.. 13 Tables Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2015 in $ comparison with previous years... 4 Table 2: Profile of donor expenditure for Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2015 comparison with Table 4: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2015 comparison with Charts Chart 1: Comparative expenditure Chart 2: Expenditure trend Chart 3: Resources and expenditure Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure Chart 6: Annual TC Fund expenditure as percentage of overall expenditure, Chart 7: Major donors with expenditure over $300,000 in 2015 comparison with Chart 8: Other donors with expenditure in 2015 between $40,000 and $250, Chart 9: Regional and global distribution of expenditure for 2015 in comparison with Chart 10: Disaggregated regional expenditure in 2015 identifying core ITCP activities Chart 11: Relative distribution of global expenditure in percentage. 11 Chart 12: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2015 comparison with Appendix: Regional and Global programmes of the ITCP in

5 Annex 2, page 3 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 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 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 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 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 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.

6 Expenditure US$ '000 Expenditure US$'000 TC 66/3/Add.1 Annex 2, page 4 Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2015 in $ comparison with previous years Year Budget Expenditure ,756,516 12,999, ,129,341 13,767, ,526,268 15,275, ,241,029 17,274, ,862,287 15,477,016 Chart 1: Comparative expenditure ,000 15,000 15,477 17,275 15,276 13,768 13,000 10,000 5, 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 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 Chart 2: Expenditure trend ,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6, Chart 3 displays the correlation between programmed resources and expenditure from 2006 to 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.

7 US$ '000 TC 66/3/Add.1 Annex 2, page 5 Chart 3: Resources and expenditure ,000 20,000 Donor Resources Donor Contributions Expended 15,000 10,000 5, 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 It is similar to the rates achieved in most years, apart from the unusually high delivery rates recorded in 2011 and Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since % 90% 80% 70% 60%

8 Annex 2, page 6 PROFILE OF RESOURCE DISBURSEMENT Table 2: Profile of donor 2 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 IMO West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund 1,312,581 Norad UNEP (including external sources) UNDP/GEF IMST Fund European Union Republic of Korea IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund International SAR Trust Fund Canada Norway GIA United Kingdom LC/LP TC Trust Fund France IMO Model Courses Development Trust Fund Egypt International Transport Workers' Federation 1,527, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,386 77,768 60,307 68,985 43,320 36,359 36,359 63,998 25,532 20,000 20,000 11,300 9,351 1,174,945 60% 9% 1,060,745 81% 8% 65% 8% 625,120 96% 5% 66% 4% 85% 3% 39% 3% 88% 2% 96% 2% 97% 2% 93% 1% 91% 1% 72,575 66% 1% 78% 0.5% 63% 100% 40% 100% 83% Total in $ 16,756,516 12,999,949 78% Less than 0.5 % 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.

9 Annex 2, page 7 Expenditure sources 11 Table 2 records the individual funding sources from donor countries and organizations against the overall expenditure in 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 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 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 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 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.

10 Expenditure US $'000 TC 66/3/Add.1 Annex 2, page 8 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 The TC Fund expenditure as a percentage of the overall expenditure can be seen in chart 6, which compares the years 2011 to Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure Annual TC Fund Expenditure 8,000 6,000 7,386 7,986 7,322 5,842 6,563 4,000 2, Chart 6: Annual TC Fund expenditure as percentage of overall expenditure, % 50% 45% 48% 46% 48% 50% 40% 42% 35% 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 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.

11 IMO M&SS Trust Fund SAR Fund Canada Norway GIA United Kingdom LC/LP TC Trust Fund Expenditure US$'000 DCoC WCA Norad UNEP UNDP /GEF IMST EU RoK Expenditure US$'000 TC 66/3/Add.1 Annex 2, page 9 Chart 7: Major donors with expenditure over $300,000 in 2015 comparison with ,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, 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, 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.

12 Annex 2, page 10 DISBURSEMENT BY REGION Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2015 comparison with 2014 Region 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, ,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, 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) Global 34% (46%) Africa 25% (19%) Latin America and Caribbean 11% (10%) CIS and Eastern Europe 0.3% (2%) Asia and Pacific 21% (13%) Arab States and Mediterranean 8% (10%) Note: Percentages in brackets are for 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

13 Expenditure US$'000 TC 66/3/Add.1 Annex 2, page 11 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 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 REMPEC 3 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 5,000 4,000 3,205 Core ITCP activities Large-scale environmental programmes 3,946 3,000 2,720 2,000 1,491 1, Africa Arab States/ Asia and Mediterranean Pacific 37 CIS/Eastern Europe Latin America Global and Caribbean 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 A global programme for the Impact Assessment Exercise , which occurs every four years, was also created in Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea.

14 Annex 2, page 12 Chart 11: Relative distribution of global expenditure in 2015 percentage Enhancement of maritime security 36% Capacity building and training 26% Review of and support to WMU 14% GloBallast 11% other global programmes 4% VIMSAS 1% Partnerships and emerging issues 6% Maritime technology transfer 3% 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 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 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, ,520 Facilitation of international maritime traffic 106, ,571 General maritime sector 3,533,481 2,747,193 Total in $ 12,999,949 13,767, 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.

15 Annex 2, page 13 Chart 12: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2015 comparison with (2014) Maritime safety 18% (18%) Maritime security 23% (35%) Maritime legislation 3% (1%) Marine environment protection 28% (25%) Note: Percentages in brackets are for 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 General maritime sector 27% (20%) Facilitation of international maritime traffic 1% (1%) 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.

16 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 Expenditure Delivery rate REGIONAL PROGRAMMES 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 Donor/s Support to FSI and PSC in Africa 977, ,877 39% European Union Arab States and Mediterranean Support to maritime development, Arab States and Mediterranean REMPEC (Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea) 253, , % TC Fund, Egypt 620, ,523 97% UNEP Asia and Pacific Support to maritime development, Asia 789, , % TC Fund, Norway, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom Support to maritime development, Pacific Islands 439, ,707 85% TC Fund Malacca and Singapore Straits cooperative mechanism 256, ,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, ,504 93% TC Fund Support to maritime development, Caribbean 479, ,368 91% TC Fund H:\TC\66\3 -Add 1 - Appendix

17 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 Expenditure Delivery rate GLOBAL PROGRAMMES Donor/s Technical advisory services 4,206 4, % TC Fund Support to SIDS and LDCs for their special shipping needs 137, ,914 90% TC Fund MDG 3: Strengthening maritime resource development 688, ,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, ,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, , % TC Fund, Republic of Korea Effective implementation and enforcement of energy efficiency measures for ships 22,853 22, % 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, , % TC Fund Safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh 469, ,854 72% Norad Long-term marine environmental projects funded by Norad 933, ,889 57% Norad Impact Assessment Exercise ,000 37,866 82% TC Fund Globallast Partnerships 770, ,466 65% GIA, UNDP/GEF Global Partnership on Marine Litter 30,735 24,597 80% UNEP Projects relating to maritime technology transfer 194, ,854 96% Canada, UNDP/GEF H:\TC\66\3 -Add 1 - Appendix