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
Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES
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.
Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES
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.
Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES
List of countries eligible for financial support
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.
Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES
List of countries eligible for financial support
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
Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES
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.
Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES
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;
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 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.
Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme
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.
Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme
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);
…
Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme
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);
…