integrated technical co-operation programme (a) interim report on 2012-2013 … · 2015-03-23 ·...

I:\TC\63\3(a) Add-1.doc

E

TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION COMMITTEE 63rd session Agenda item 3(a)

TC 63/3(a)/Add.1

16 May 2013 Original: ENGLISH

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION PROGRAMME

(a) Interim report on 2012-2013 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 Co-operation Programme during 2012 as annex 2 of the Interim report on 2012-2013

Strategic direction: 3.2, 3.4, 3.5

High-level action: 3.2.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.3

Planned output: 3.2.1.2, 3.4.1.2, 3.5.1.1, 3.5.3.1

Action to be taken: Paragraph 4

Related document: TC 63/3(a)

1 Document TC 63/3(a) provided annex 1 of the "Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme (ITCP) – Interim report on 2012-2013", which was comprised of the Organization's ITCP implementation results for 2012. 2 That document also informed the Committee that annex 2 of the Interim report, on the overview of financial resource delivery was dependent on the receipt of the 2012 audited accounts, and would be submitted under document TC 63/3(a)/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 analyses of the financial data recorded against IMO’s technical co-operation activities delivered during 2012. Action requested of the Committee 4 The Committee is invited to take note of annex 2 of the Interim report on the ITCP for 2012-2013 and make such comments and decisions as it deems appropriate.

***

TC 63/3(a)/Add.1 Annex 2, page 1


ANNEX 2

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION PROGRAMME

Interim report on 2012-2013

Overview of financial resource delivery



Table of Contents DELIVERY OVERVIEW 2012 3 Introduction 3 General ITCP implementation trends 3 PROFILE OF RESOURCE DISBURSEMENT 2012 7 Expenditure Sources 7 The TC Fund 8 Other Donors 9 DISBURSEMENT BY REGION 2012 11 DISBURSEMENT BY DISCIPLINE 2012 13 Tables: Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2012 in US$ - comparison with previous years 4 Table 2: Profile of donor expenditure for 2012 7 Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2012 11 Table 4: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2012 13 Charts: Chart 1: Comparative expenditure 2008-2012 4 Chart 2: Expenditure trend 2003-2012 5 Chart 3: Resources and expenditure – decade 2003-2012 6 Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since 2003 6 Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure 2008-2012 9 Chart 6: Major donor trust funds with expenditure over US$300,000 in 2012 – comparison with previous year 9 Chart 7: Other donor trust funds with expenditure in 2012 between US$50,000 and US$300,000 10 Chart 8: Regional and Global distribution of expenditure in 2012 11 Chart 9: Disaggregated regional expenditure in 2012 identifying core ITCP activities 12 Chart 10: Relative distribution of Global activities in 2012 13 Chart 11: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2012 14 Chart 12: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2012 15 without large-scale marine environmental programmes Chart 13: Disaggregated expenditure by discipline in 2012 15 Appendix: Regional and Global programmes of the ITCP in 2012 16



DELIVERY OVERVIEW – 2012

Introduction

1 The overview of financial resource delivery provides a comprehensive review of the 2012 financial data recorded against the implementation of IMO's technical co-operation (TC) activities. The data is disaggregated by region, by discipline, and by funding source in order to provide baseline comparators for establishing the trends in the Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme (ITCP) delivery. 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 2012 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 2012. The composite results are collated from the respective activities implemented in 2012 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 co-operation expenditure of the actual delivery achieved within the allotted time frame, and the results, including any related adjustments, are reflected in this report on 2012. Furthermore, a time-lapse with the completion of delivery and receipt of charges through the UNDP service-clearing account ensures that a certain percentage of funds committed during 2012 will be reflected in the budget and final expenditure of 2013.

5 In accordance with technical co-operation 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 Council1, and may include variances arising from adjustments made subsequent to the completion of the Council documents.

General ITCP implementation trends

7 During 2012, some US$17.3 million was delivered against programmed donor contributions budget of US$21.2 million. The expenditure of US$17.3 million delivered in 2012 was US$1.8 million higher than the expenditure of US$15.5 million reached in 2011. In percentage terms this represents an increase of 11.6%. Table 1 presents these budget and expenditure figures for 2012 as well as the figures for the previous four years for comparative purposes.

1 C 110/4(b), Resource Management – Accounts and audit: accounts for the financial period 2012 and

transfers within the 2012 budget.



TABLE 1: ITCP EXPENDITURE 2012 IN US$ – COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS YEARS

Year Budget Expenditure

2012 21,241,029 17,274,535

2011 17,862,287 15,477,016

2010 18,345,528 14,766,736

2009 15,131,162 11,659,688

2008 13,472,749 10,340,878

8 Chart 1 illustrates the comparative expenditure over the same five-year period from 2008 to 2012. The volume of expenditure was US$10.3 million in 2008. The results of improved delivery mechanisms introduced by the Organization can be clearly identified in the chart by the subsequent increases in expenditure levels: US$11.7 million in 2009, US$14.8 million in 2010, and US$15.5 million in 2011. Then, for the third year in a row, the expenditure level once again reached the highest level ever recorded for IMO's technical co-operation delivery with US$17.3 million in 2012.

CHART 1: COMPARATIVE EXPENDITURE 2008-2012

9 In chart 2, which traces the annual volume of expenditure since 2003, the trend can be viewed over a decade. From expenditure of US$12 million recorded in 2002, the level rose steadily through 2003 and 2004 to a record high at that time of US$14 million, followed by dips in the trend in 2005 and 2006 before the next increase in 2007 to a level of US$13.5 million. A sharp decline to US$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. The substantial year-on-year increases since 2008, cumulating at an expenditure level of US$17.3 million in 2012, can be attributed to the success of the Organization's efforts to achieve more efficient implementation of TC activities in accordance with IMO's High-level Action Plan (resolution A.1012(26) refers).



CHART 2: EXPENDITURE TREND 2003-2012

10 In this regard a number of measures taken by the Organization have proved effective. For instance, IMO's capacity to deliver the ITCP was enhanced through endeavours to increase the formal cooperation with IMO’s many regional partners. In addition, the regional presence offices directly implementing activities increased the Organization’s delivery capacity. 11 A further development towards achieving more efficient implementation was the introduction, within the Secretariat, of Status reports on the delivery of ITCP activities. These reports are updated and circulated to IMO staff concerned with implementation on a quarterly basis. The practical effect has been to heighten awareness of obstacles to the delivery of planned activities, and thus enable a prompt response and mitigation through either re-scheduling or taking contingency action when necessary. 12 Perhaps the most effective measure pertaining to improvement in the ITCP delivery has been the institution of a more flexible operational mechanism for the TC Fund budgeting. This change has only been possible since IMO became IPSAS-compliant in 2010. In practice, it has effectively enabled the transfer of funds between programmes, as and when required, during the course of a year. Permitting practical budget adjustments has enabled IMO staff to manage changing circumstances effectively without causing disruption and delays to the implementation of the priority activities of the programmes. 13 Chart 3 displays the correlation between the programmed resources and the expenditure from 2003 to 2012. As the expenditure level is generally linked to the availability of donor resources in any given year, the trend illustrated over the period is not entirely consistent and indicates that other factors are at play. For example, the chart illustrates that the expenditure between 2008 and 2010 has risen in direct proportion to the availability of programmed donor resources. However, a decrease in programmed resources was coupled with an increase in expenditure in 2011, suggesting a strong correlation to the success of measures taken by IMO to improve the ITCP delivery (paragraphs 9 to 12 refer). The delivery ratio of resources and expenditure was at its lowest in 2003 with the greatest margin between resources and expenditure, and at its highest in 2011 with the smallest margin.



CHART 3: RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURE – DECADE 2003-2012

14 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 2011 reached a record high of 87 per cent indicative of the effect of the improved operating mechanisms for the delivery of TC activities. Despite the significantly improved volume of delivery in 2012, the trend demonstrates that the delivery rate of the programmed resources has not continued to rise. It has dropped by six percentage points to 81 per cent, still one percentage higher than the level achieved in 2010, and maintaining a healthy delivery rate at the second highest achieved in ITCP delivery.

CHART 4: RATE OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL DELIVERY SINCE 2003

15 Bearing in mind the inconsistent trends apparent in 2012, referred to in the previous two paragraphs, it is prudent to note with caution at this point that increased programmed funds do not automatically result in increased expenditure in any given year. Indeed, it may suggest a need for a corresponding increase in capacity of non-financial resources in order to achieve a match of the increased programmed funds and increased expenditure.



PROFILE OF RESOURCE DISBURSEMENT – 2012

TABLE 2: PROFILE OF DONOR2 EXPENDITURE FOR 2012

Expenditure sources 16 Table 2 records the individual funding sources from donor countries and organizations against the overall expenditure in 2012. 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 are categorized in this manner, for example, inter alia, the TC Fund and the IMST Fund. Nonetheless, it is worthy

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 3 Japan's contribution to the Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund, comprises approximately 90 per cent of total funds as

at 31 December 2012 4 Global Industry Alliance

Source of funding Funds

Programmed for 2012

Expenditure 2012

Percent-age of 2012

budget spent

Donor Percentage

of total expenditure

TC Fund 8,907,476 7,985,970 90% 46.2%

EC 3,489,117 2,918,491 84% 16.9%

Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund3 4,201,178 2,712,066 65% 15.7%

UNEP (including external sources) 836,667 836,667 100% 4.8%

World Bank 670,993 670,993 100% 3.9%

GEF 965,912 657,435 59% 3.8%

IMST Fund 452,274 391,155 86% 2.3%

Republic of Korea 245,512 236,303 96% 1.1%

United Kingdom 246,362 208,131 84% 1%

LC/LP TC Trust Fund 189,967 162,007 85% 0.9

Canada 200,559 151,469 76% 0.9

India 85,500 81,510 95%

Less than 0.5%

Norway 78,709 77,049 98%

IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund

382,900 53,037

14%

IMO Model Course Trust Fund 47,000 43,239 92%

China 25,000 25,000 100%

Israel 21,958 21,958 100%

GloBallast partnerships - GIA4 149,970 18,331 12%

Australia 10,848 10,873 100%

IACs 6,787 6,070 89%

ITF 25,000 5,458 22%

United States 1,340 1,323 99%

Total in US$ 21,241,029 17,274,535 81%



of mention that approximately 90 per cent of the contributions to the Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund were received from the Government of Japan. 17 The figures in table 2 reflect the donor disbursement recorded against the 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 2012. As previously mentioned in paragraph 4, a number of activities that were ongoing during 2012 may have a completion date beyond the end of the calendar year and will therefore be reflected in the annual report on 2013, as will any relevant invoices and other adjustments not received before closure of 2012 accounts. 18 Conversely, it may be noted that the total disbursement of US$17.3 million recorded against programmed donor contributions in 2012 inevitably included a few activities and the related budgets originally programmed for 2011. This minor proportion of expenditure was primarily relevant to activities that were operational in 2011 but full implementation had not been completed by 31 December 2011. 19 Additionally it should be noted that the 2012 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 2012 but is a regular occurrence each year due to specific terms and timing of confirmation of funds relating to particular donor contributions. 20 Table 2 features a scale of 22 donor sources of funding and expenditure for 2012 – a drop from 23 recorded in 2011, 28 recorded in 2010, and 32 recorded in 2009. The trend of the sources of funding over a four-year period showing a decline in number may be explained partly through certain donor contributions being recorded to the multi-donor trust funds, particularly the Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund, the IMST Fund, the LC/LP TC Trust Fund and the IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund. 21 An expenditure level over US$100,000 was credited to the top eleven donor sources in 2012 as illustrated in the profile in table 2. The highest figure of US$7.9 million was attributed to the TC Fund representing 46 per cent of the total expenditure and was followed by the EC registering expenditure of US$2.9 million which accounted for more than 17 per cent of the total. The Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund occupied the next level with US$2.7 million, a substantial 16 per cent of the total expenditure. The next eight donors on the scale comprised 19 per cent of the total expenditure, ranking between US$837,000 and US$150,000 and included the World Bank, GEF, the IMST Fund, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and the LC/LP TC Trust Fund. 22 The remaining 2 per cent consisted of contributions under US$100,000 from a total of eleven other donors. Notably, within that range, the contributions from India, Norway and IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund registered expenditure above US$50,000. The remaining eight donors contributed US$132,000 to the ITCP delivery. The TC Fund 23 The TC Fund maintains the top position on the scale of donor funding presented in table 2 by supporting the implementation in 2012 with expenditure just below US$8 million. This figure represents 46 per cent of the total expenditure – the largest proportion of the ITCP expenditure, which once again emphasises the dependency of the ITCP delivery on the TC Fund.



CHART 5: ANNUAL TC FUND EXPENDITURE – 2008-2012

24 TC Fund expenditure is displayed in chart 5 over five years, showing a steady increase from 2008 when the level reached was US$4.6 million. This level rose to US$5.7 million in 2009, to US$6.7 million in 2010, to US$7.4 million in 2011, and then to almost US$8 million in 2012. The considerable increase from 2009 to 2012 represents a 73 per cent rise over the 2008 level and an average annual increase of 18 per cent. The year-on-year increases reflect a similar trend presented in the ITCP expenditure (charts 1 and 2 refer), and the steady rise can be attributed to the same reasons explained in paragraphs 8 to 12. In financial terms, the volume achieved in 2012 is a substantial increase of half a million over the US$7.4 million reached in 2011. Other Donors

CHART 6: MAJOR DONOR TRUST FUNDS WITH EXPENDITURE OVER US$300,000 IN 2012 – COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS YEAR



25 Chart 6 displays the group of donor entities that recorded expenditure between US$300,000 and US$3 million in 2012 and provides a comparison with 2011. The pattern produced in these results highlight fluctuations from the individual expenditure levels recorded in 2011, with significant rises in the EC and the World Bank, and a decrease in UNEP. Other donors such as GEF and International Maritime Security Trust Fund remain relatively constant while the Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund increased.

CHART 7: OTHER DONOR TRUST FUNDS WITH EXPENDITURE IN 2012 BETWEEN US$50,000 AND US$300,000

26 Chart 7 illustrates that other donors with expenditure over US$200,000 were the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom, while Canada, India and Norway show significant expenditure levels. A number of member States made substantial contributions to the IMO Malacca Straits and Singapore Trust Fund and the LC/LP TC Trust Fund, with the latter expenditure level over US$160,000. 27 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 2012. 28 As evidenced in table 2, the financial delivery rates of some of the donor Trust Funds are less than that of the TC Fund. In order to streamline and improve the delivery rate of the donor Trust Funds, the Secretariat proposes to introduce quarterly status reports on the delivery of all activities under the donor Trust Funds. Like is done for the TC Fund activities, these reports will be updated and circulated to IMO staff concerned with implementation on a quarterly basis. This will facilitate heightened awareness of obstacles to the delivery of planned activities, and thus enable prompt responses and mitigation through liaising with donors to either re-schedule or take contingency actions.



DISBURSEMENT BY REGION - 2012

TABLE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE BY REGION IN 2012

Discipline 2012

Africa 2,571,029

Arab States and Mediterranean 4,110,287

Asia and Pacific 3,176,222

CIS/Eastern Europe 365,217

Latin America and Caribbean 1,379,720

Global 5,672,060

TOTAL in US$ 17,274,535

29 The total regional and global expenditure distribution for 2012 is presented in table 3. For the purpose of accuracy, the analysis for 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: Technical Advisory Services, Support to Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries for their special shipping needs; the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme, 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 to this annex.

CHART 8: REGIONAL AND GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE IN 2012

30 Chart 8 illustrates the regional and global distribution for 2012 by percentage. The Africa region accounted for 15 per cent of the total expenditure; the Arab States/Mediterranean region for 24 per cent and the Asia and Pacific region for 18 per cent, both of which included large-scale marine environmental programmes financed by external donors. The CIS/Eastern Europe region registered 2 per cent and the Latin America and Caribbean region 8 per cent. The remaining activities comprised the balance under the global category with 33 per cent of the total expenditure.



31 The ITCP regional and global programmes are the foundation of IMO's technical co-operation. The distribution of expenditure on activities under the core ITCP programmes has been distinguished from the large-scale marine environmental programmes in chart 9. Given that SAFEMED5 and REMPEC6 comprise 87 per cent of the expenditure attributed to the Arab States/Mediterranean region, and the MEH7 and Malacca Straits and Singapore projects together accounted for 31 per cent of the Asia and Pacific region, the impact on the results of each of those regions is significant. 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. By focusing on the regional distribution, chart 9 provides a comparison and demonstrates the high priority given to the Africa region, in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly, as well as IMO through resolution A.986(24).

CHART 9: DISAGGREGATED REGIONAL EXPENDITURE IN 2012

IDENTIFYING CORE ITCP ACTIVITIES

32 For the activities framed under the global programmes that cannot be disaggregated into the regions, the global category remains. That category covers a diverse range of maritime subjects across the globe and they are represented in chart 10 through their respective thematic fields. Therefore, the total global category covers a varying selection of activities from the respective programmes for Partnerships and emerging issues, Maritime security, Capacity-building and training, London Convention and Protocol, Djibouti Code of Conduct, Mitigation of climate change and GloBallast in the proportion shown in the chart.

5 Euro-med Cooperation on Maritime Safety and Prevention of Pollution from Ships 6

Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea 7 Marine Electronic Highway



CHART 10: RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF GLOBAL ACTIVITIES IN 2012

33 In the global analysis, the Djibouti Code of Conduct activities represented US$2.7 million in 2012, reflected as 50 per cent of the total in the global category and the Capacity-building and training programme comprised 22 per cent of the global category (chart 10 refers). Furthermore, although the activities within the programme are categorized as global, they include fellowships at the international maritime training institutions, with the recipients from various developing countries. The category of global activities of less than 1 per cent of the total, which were not reflected in chart 9, included a number of activities under the MDG3: Strengthening Maritime Resource Development, the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme, the Impact Assessment Exercise and the Model Courses Programme. DISBURSEMENT BY DISCIPLINE - 2012

TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE BY DISCIPLINE IN 2012

Discipline 2012

Maritime safety 3,017,417

Maritime security 3,499,047

Marine environment protection 7,186,174

Maritime legislation 144,975

Facilitation of international maritime traffic 69,413

General maritime sector 3,357,509

TOTAL in US$ 17,274,535

34 The distribution of delivery by allocation to the maritime disciplines for 2012 is presented in table 4 and the same disbursement is shown as a percentage of the total expenditure in chart 11. Maritime safety comprised 18 per cent, maritime security 20 per cent and marine environment protection activities registered 42 per cent of the total disbursement, all significantly exceeding the volume recorded in 2011. Maritime legislation almost doubled



the figure registered in 2011 although this category is displayed as only 1 per cent of the total. Furthermore a number of activities from other disciplines included maritime legislation components. The category of facilitation of international maritime traffic8 increased in volume with a sharp rise from 2011 volume and registered as 0.5 per cent in 2012. The general maritime sector, which includes fellowships and other aspects of maritime training, accounted for 19 per cent of the total.

CHART 11: DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE BY DISCIPLINE IN 2012

35 For the purpose of this analysis on 2012 expenditure, 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. 36 With an analysis of the discipline of marine environment protection, consideration must be given to the impact of the large-scale marine environmental programmes. SAFEMED, REMPEC, MEH and GlobBallast programmes were financed through external funding entities, such as GEF, UNEP, EC and the World Bank, and included staff cost components. As a consequence, the largest proportion of the total delivery for 2012 – 42 per cent was attributed to that discipline (chart 11 refers). This distinct group of large-scale programmes represented some 72 per cent of the total marine environment protection category and accounted for US$5.2 million in expenditure for 2012. 37 A more useful view of the distribution by discipline can be shown by discounting the large-scale marine environmental programmes, referred to in paragraph 36 above, thus allowing the distortion to be removed. To this end, chart 12 provides the adjusted results to reflect a more equitable comparison of the distribution for the core activities of the ITCP. In this illustration, the marine environment protection category represents 17 per cent of 2012 expenditure.

8 The Facilitation category does not appear in chart 11, as the total was less than 1 per cent.



CHART 12: DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE BY DISCIPLINE IN 2012

WITHOUT THE LARGE-SCALE MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMMES

38 A different perspective is displayed in chart 13 by representing such environmental programmes as a distinct category alongside the ITCP marine environment protection activities, thereby enabling a visual comparison between the disciplines under the core funding of the ITCP delivered in 2012 in relation to the distinct large-scale marine environmental programmes.

CHART 13: DISAGGREGATED EXPENDITURE BY DISCIPLINE IN 2012

***

Appendix

Regional and Global Programmes of the ITCP in 2012

executed or sponsored through IMO - in US dollars

TC 63/3(a)/Add.1

ANNEX 2, page16

Programme Title Budget ExpenditureDelivery

rateDonor/s

Africa

Support to maritime development in Africa 2,025,737 1,666,715 82% TC Fund, China, Republic of Korea, UK

Arab States and Mediterranean

Support to maritime development, Arab

States/Mediterranean

554,705 414,080 75% TC Fund, Israel

REMPEC (Regional marine pollution emergency

response centre for the Mediterranean Sea)

836,667 836,667 100% UNEP

SAFEMED (Euro-med Cooperation on Maritime Safety

and Prevention of Pollution from Ships)

2,755,355 2,720,060 99% EC

Asia and Pacific

Support to maritime development, Asia 1,097,489 1,000,215 91% TC Fund, India, Republic of Korea

Support to maritime development, Pacific Islands 593,581 593,581 100% TC Fund, Australia, UK

Marine Electronic Highway 738,140 738,140 100% Republic of Korea, World Bank

Malacca and Singapore Straits cooperative mechanism 1,116,682 251,468 23% IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund

CIS/Eastern Europe

Support to maritime development, CIS/Eastern Europe 361,936 285,686 79% TC Fund

Latin America and Caribbean

Support to maritime development, Latin America 542,977 522,778 96% TC Fund

Support to maritime development, Caribbean 439,946 386,615 88% TC Fund, UK

REGIONAL PROGRAMMES

I:\TC\63\3-a Add 1 appendix Appendix

TC 63/3(a)/Add.1

ANNEX 2, page17

Appendix

Regional and Global Programmes of the ITCP in 2012

executed or sponsored through IMO - in US dollars

Programme Title Budget ExpenditureDelivery

rateDonor/s

Technical advisory services 324,388 265,101 82% TC Fund, IACS

Support to SIDS and LDCs for their special shipping

needs

421,000 389,079 92% TC Fund

MDG 3: Strengthening maritime resource development 483,967 483,967 100% TC Fund, Republic of Korea

Capacity-building and training 1,261,643 1,224,452 97% TC Fund

Partnerships and emerging issues 450,675 409,447 91% TC Fund, Republic of Korea, ITF

Enhancement of maritime security 996,880 877,163 88% TC Fund, Canada, IMST Fund

Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme 254,604 203,437 80% TC Fund, UK

Mitigation of climate change 308,727 294,589 95% TC Fund, Norway

Model courses 47,000 43,239 92% IMO Model Course Trust Fund

London Convention and Protocol 237,461 207,953 88% LC/LP TC Trust Fund, Canada, Norway, Republic of Korea, UK, US

GloBallast Partnerships 1,115,882 675,766 61% GEF, GloBallast Corporate Donors

Impact Assessment Exercise 74,409 72,267 97% TC Fund

Djibouti Code of Conduct Programme 4,201,178 2,712,068 65% Djibouti Code Trust Fund, Republic of Korea

`

____________

GLOBAL PROGRAMMES

I:\TC\63\3-a Add 1 appendix Appendix