integrated technical cooperation …...table 2: profile of donor2 expenditure for 2016 source of...

I:\TC\67\TC 67 3(a)-Add.1.docx

E

TECHNICAL COOPERATION COMMITTEE 67th session Agenda item 3(a)

TC 67/3(a)/Add.1

8 June 2017 Original: ENGLISH

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME

(a) Annual Report for 2016 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 2016, as annex 2 of the Annual Report for 2016

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 document: TC 67/3(a)

1 Document TC 67/3(a) provided annex 1 of the Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme (ITCP) Annual Report for 2016, which contained the Organization's ITCP implementation results for 2016.

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 2016 audited accounts, and would be submitted under document TC 67/3(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 analysis of the financial data recorded against IMO's technical cooperation activities delivered during 2016.

Action requested of the Committee

4 The Committee is invited to take note of annex 2 to the ITCP Annual Report for 2016 and comment as it deems appropriate.

***

TC 67/3(a)/Add.1 Annex 2, page 1


ANNEX 2

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME

Annual Report for 2016

Overview of financial resource delivery



Table of Contents Page

DELIVERY OVERVIEW

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

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

PROFILE OF RESOURCE DISBURSEMENT

Expenditure sources .................................................................................................. 6

The TC Fund ............................................................................................................ 7

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

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

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

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Tables

Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2016 in $ – comparison with previous years ......................... 4

Table 2: Profile of donor expenditure for 2016 ................................................................. 6

Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2016 – comparison with 2015 ............ 10

Table 4: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2016 – comparison with 2015 ........ 12

Charts

Chart 1: Comparative expenditure 2012-2016 .................................................................... 4

Chart 2: Expenditure trend 2007-2016 .............................................................................. 4

Chart 3: Resources and expenditure 2007-2016 ............................................................... 5

Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since 2007 ......................................................... 5

Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure 2012-2016 ............................................................. 8

Chart 6: Annual TC Fund expenditure as percentage of overall expenditure 2012-2016... 8

Chart 7: Major donors with expenditure over $400,000 in 2016 – comparison with 2015 . 9

Chart 8: Other donors with expenditure in 2016 between $60,000 and $275,000 .............. 9

Chart 9: Regional and global distribution of expenditure for 2016 .................................... 11

Chart 10: Identifying core ITCP activities in 2016 ............................................................. 11

Chart 11: Relative distribution of global expenditure in 2016 – percentage …………. ..... 12

Chart 12: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2016 – comparison with 2015 . ..... 13

Chart 13: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2016 showing only core ITCP ….. .. 14

Appendix: Regional and Global programmes of the ITCP in 2016 …………….… ................. 15



DELIVERY OVERVIEW Introduction 1 The overview of financial resource delivery provides a comprehensive review of the 2016 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 appendix to this annex supplements the information in the financial overview with financial details of the respective programmes operational during 2016. The composite results are collated from the respective activities implemented in 2016 and are presented according to the programmatic structure of the ITCP. 3 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 2016. 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 2016 will be reflected in the budget and final expenditure of 2017. 4 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.

5 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 6 During 2016, some $13.8 million was delivered against programmed donor contributions of $15.3 million, representing a delivery rate of 90%. This was $800,000 more than the expenditure of $13 million recorded in 2015, even though the donor contributions in 2016 were $1.4 million less than the $16.7 million available in 2015. Table 1 presents these budget and expenditure figures for 2016 as well as the figures for the previous four years for comparative purposes. The expenditure over the five-year period from 2012-2016 is presented visually in chart 1.

1 C 118/4(b), Resource Management: Accounts and audit: accounts for the financial period 2016 and transfers

within the 2016 budget.



Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2016 in $ – comparison with previous years

Year Budget Expenditure

2016 15,266,703 13,798,322

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

Chart 1: Comparative expenditure 2012-2016

7 In chart 2, which traces the annual volume of expenditure since 2007, the trend can be viewed over a decade. From $13.5 million in 2007 there was a sharp decrease to $10.3 million 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 period 2012 to 2015 recorded annual decreases but the 2016 expenditure of $13.8 million shows a moderate increase from the previous year, and is similar to the expenditure seen in 2014.

Chart 2: Expenditure trend 2007-2016

8 Chart 3 displays the correlation between programmed resources and expenditure from 2007 to 2016. As can be seen, the expenditure level is generally linked to the availability of financial resources in any given year. However in 2016 and 2011, a decrease in

17,275 15,276

13,76813,000

13,798

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Exp

en

dit

ure

US$

'00

0

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Exp

en

dit

ure

US$

'00

0



programmed resources actually resulted in an increase in expenditure, while in 2014 the reverse was true, showing that expenditure level is not always directly proportional to the amount of resources available.

Chart 3: Resources and expenditure 2007-2016

9 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 2016 was 90%. This is an increase of 12 percentage points from the expenditure recorded the previous year, and is the highest ever delivery rate, surpassing even that of 87% achieved in 2013. In part, this can be explained by a more efficient use of resources and a concerted effort to reprogramme available funds when planned activities are postponed or cancelled. 10 It should be noted that the increased delivery rate in 2016 can largely be attributed to the strategy introduced during that year of programming at the beginning of the year only funds for those activities which were ready to be implemented and for which the host country had been identified, rather than programming all allocated funds in January. This meant that funds were programmed throughout the year as and when preparations were finalized, reducing the number of activities which needed to be postponed or cancelled and increasing the percentage of programmed funds which were expended.

Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since 2007

Note: for the years 2007 to 2015, all allocated funds for the given year were programmed at the start of the year, while in 2016, the funds programmed were less than the funds allocated for the year, based on the programming strategy described in paragraph 10 above.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US$

'00

0

Donor Resources

Donor Contributions Expended

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016



PROFILE OF RESOURCE DISBURSEMENT Expenditure sources 11 Table 2 records the individual funding sources from donor countries and organizations against the overall expenditure in 2016. 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.

Table 2: Profile of donor2 expenditure for 2016

Source of funding Funds programmed

for 2016

Expenditure 2016

Percentage of 2016 budget spent

Donor percentage

of total expenditure

TC Fund 7,457,258 7,388,074 99% 54%

Norad 1,634,983 1,081,017 66% 8%

UNDP-GEF 1,561,718 865,590 55% 6%

UNEP (including external sources) 759,682 759,682 100% 6%

Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund 619,906 619,906 100% 4%

European Union (represented by the European Commission)

616,526 610,986 99% 4%

West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund 706,565 602,860 85% 4%

Republic of Korea 491,411 484,762 99% 4%

IMST Fund 270,491 270,491 100% 2%

China 220,603 220,603 100% 2%

IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund 179,426 179,392 100% 1%

International SAR Fund 164,007 165,494 101% 1%

Canada 156,433 154,678 99% 1%

United Kingdom 92,983 89,853 97% 0.7%

LC/LP TC Trust Fund 87,165 72,788 84% 0.5%

Netherlands 60,526 60,526 100%

Less than 0.5%

Global Industry Alliance (GIA) 62,313 60,326 97%

IMO/REMPEC Trust Fund 44,877 41,128 92%

Malaysia 35,218 35,218 100%

Norway 21,581 21,581 100%

IMO Model Courses Development Trust Fund 16,590 6,926 42%

Germany 3,997 3,997 100%

International Transport Workers' Federation 2,444 2,444 100%

Total in $ 15,266,703 13,798,322 90%

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.



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 2016. As previously mentioned in paragraph 3, a number of activities that were ongoing during 2016 may have a completion date beyond the end of the calendar year and will therefore be reflected in the 2017 annual report, as will any relevant invoices and other adjustments not received before closure of 2016 accounts. 13 Conversely, it may be noted that the total disbursement of $13.8 million recorded against programmed donor contributions in 2016 inevitably included a few activities and the related budgets originally programmed for 2015. This minor proportion of expenditure was primarily relevant to activities that were operational in 2015 but full implementation was not completed until 2016. 14 Additionally, it should be noted that the 2016 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 2016 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 features a scale of 23 donor sources of funding and expenditure for 2016, an increase of three from the 20 sources of funding recorded in 2015. This marks a change in the declining number of funding sources which has been seen in recent years. 16 An expenditure level over $100,000 was credited to the top 13 donor sources in 2016 as illustrated in table 2. The highest figure of $7.4 million was attributed to the TC Fund, representing 54% of the total expenditure, followed by Norad with an expenditure of nearly $1.1 million, accounting for 8% of total expenditure. At the next level were UNDP-GEF and UNEP, each with 6% of overall expenditure, and the Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund, the European Union, the West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund and the Republic of Korea, each accounting for 4% of total expenditure. The next five donors on the scale comprised 7% of the total expenditure, ranging from $150,000 to $300,000 and included the IMST Fund, China, the IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund, the International SAR Fund and Canada. The remaining 2% consisted of expenditure under $100,000 from 10 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 2016 with expenditure of $7.4 million. This figure represents 54% 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 nearly $8 million in 2012, then decreasing to $5.8 million in 2014, and now increasing again to $7.4 million in 2016. The TC Fund expenditure as a percentage of the overall expenditure can be seen in chart 6, which compares the years 2012 to 2016, and shows a steep increase in the percentage of total expenditure coming from the TC Fund.



Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure 2012-2016

Chart 6: Annual TC Fund expenditure as percentage of overall expenditure 2012-2016

Other donors 18 Chart 7 displays the group of seven donor entities that recorded expenditure between $400,000 and $1.1 million in 2016 and provides a comparison with 2015. These results show a notable increase in expenditure from UNDP-GEF and the European Union, both of which include funds for newly established major environmental projects, as well as moderate increases from Norad, UNEP and the Republic of Korea. A significant decrease in expenditure can be seen from the Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund and the West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund.

7,986 7,322

5,842

6,563

7,388

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Ex

pe

nd

itu

re U

S $

'00

0

Annual TC Fund Expenditure

46%48%

42%

50%

54%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016



Chart 7: Major donors with expenditure over $400,000 in 2016 – comparison with 2015

19 Chart 8 illustrates that other donors with expenditure over $100,000 were the IMST Fund, China, the IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund, the International SAR Fund and Canada. Those donors registering expenditure between $60,000 and $90,000 were the United Kingdom, the LC/LP TC Trust Fund, the Netherlands and GIA.

Chart 8: Other donors with expenditure in 2016 between $60,000 and 275,000

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 2016.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

No

rad

UN

DP

/GEF

UN

EP

DC

oC

EU

WC

A

Ro

K

Exp

en

dit

ure

US$

'00

02015

2016

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp

end

itu

re U

S$'0

00



DISBURSEMENT BY REGION 21 The total regional and global expenditure distribution for 2016 is presented in table 3. The figures for 2015 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; SDG 5: Strengthening the maritime sector; the Enhancement of maritime security; the IMO Member State Audit Scheme; Safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh; and Long-term marine environmental projects funded by Norad, 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. It should be noted that for 2016, in response to comments from some delegates at TC 66, the regional distribution for the Asia and Pacific region has been split into separate figures for Asia and for the Pacific Islands, while the regional distribution for Latin America and Caribbean has been split into separate figures for Latin America and for the Caribbean. As this is the first year the figures have been split that way, the comparative 2015 figures shown are available only as the combined total.

Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2016 – comparison with 2015

Region 2016 2015

Africa 3,055,832 3,205,328

Arab States and Mediterranean

1,057,474 1,101,365

Asia and Pacific split as shown

below 2,720,494

Asia 2,602,753 counted under Asia and Pacific Pacific Islands 728,002

CIS and Eastern Europe 73,354 37,324

Latin America and Caribbean split as shown

below 1,490,813

Latin America 472,537 counted under Latin America and

Caribbean Caribbean 650,053

Global 5,158,317 4,444,625

Total in $ 13,798,322 12,999,949

22 Chart 9 illustrates the regional and global distribution for 2016 by percentage. The Africa region accounted for 22% of the total expenditure; Asia for 19%; Pacific Islands for 5%; Latin America 3%; Caribbean for 5%; Arab States and Mediterranean for 8% and CIS and Eastern Europe for 1% of total expenditure. The remaining activities comprised the balance under the global category with 37% of the total expenditure.



Chart 9: Regional and global distribution of expenditure for 2016

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 2016 REMPEC3 comprised 76% of the expenditure attributed to the Arab States and Mediterranean region and the GloBallast and GloMEEP programmes accounted for 12% and 9% of global expenditure, respectively, while the newly created EU-IMO Climate Change Mitigation project accounted for 5% 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: Identifying core ITCP activities in 2016

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

Africa22%

Arab States / Mediterranean

8%

Asia19%

Pacific Islands

5%Caribbean

5%Latin

America 3%

CIS / Eastern Europe

1%

Global 37%

3,055

257

3,330

73

1,122

3,839

800

1,319

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Africa Arab States/Mediterranean

Asia andPacific

CIS/EasternEurope

Latin Americaand Caribbean

Global

Exp

en

dit

ure

US

$'0

00

Core ITCP

activities

Large-scale

environmental

programmes



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 2016, the programme on the Djibouti Code of Conduct was separated from the programme on the Enhancement of maritime security, while these were reported together in 2015.

Chart 11: Relative distribution of global expenditure in 2016 – 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 2016, as compared with 2015. 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.

Capacity building and

training44%

GloBallast12%

Djibouti Code of Conduct

11%

GloMeep9%

Partnerships and emerging

issues8%

EU-IMO Climate Change

Mitigation5%

SDG 53%Energy

efficiency for ships

3%

Enhancement of maritime

security2%

Other global programmes

3%



Table 4: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2016 – comparison with 2015

Discipline 2016 2015

Maritime safety 2,671,600 2,394,431

Maritime security 1,638,019 3,015,362

Marine environment protection 4,672,418 3,568,778

Maritime legislation 274,959 380,926

Facilitation of international maritime traffic 86,154 106,971

Member State Audit 242,250

Included under General Maritime

Sector

General maritime sector 4,212,922 3,533,481

Total in $ 13,798,322 12,999,949

26 During 2016, marine environment protection activities registered 34% of delivery, maritime safety 19% and maritime security 12%. Maritime legislation and Member State Audit each accounted for 2% 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 and the implementation of IMO instruments, as well as other aspects of maritime training, made up 30% of all 2016 expenditure. It should be noted that fellowships made up nearly half of all expenditure under the general maritime sector, amounting to some $2 million in 2016. On the whole, these distributions are consistent with previous years, with a moderate increase in expenditure allocated to the protection of the marine environment and the general maritime sector, and a decrease in expenditure related to maritime security.

Chart 12: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2016 – comparison with 2015

Note: Percentages in brackets are for 2015.

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, GloBallast, GloMEEP and the EU-IMO Climate Change Mitigation project were financed through external funding entities, such as UNEP, UNDP-GEF and GIA, and included staff cost components. Although the GloBallast project is concluding, the other projects are ongoing, and together they accounted for 45% of all expenditure related to the marine environment for 2016, equal to some $2 million. Chart 13 below shows the proportion of activities from the core ITCP related to each maritime discipline, if these large-scale projects are not included.

Marine environment

protection34% (28%)

Facilitation of international

maritime traffic1% (1%)

General maritime sector30% (27%)

Maritime legislation 2% (3%)

Maritime safety

19% (18%)

Maritime security

12% (23%)

Member State Audit

2%



Chart 13: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2016 showing only core ITCP

CONCLUSION 28 In conclusion, expenditure trends for 2016 showed general consistency with previous years, 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 done since its creation.

Marine environment

protection22%

Facilitation1%

General maritme sector36%

Maritime legislation

2%

Maritme safety23%

Maritime security

14%

Member State Audit

2%

APPENDIX

Detail for Regional and Global Programmes of the ITCP in 2016

executed or sponsored through IMO - in US dollars

TC 67/3(a)/Add.1

Annex 2, page 15

Programme Title Budget ExpenditureDelivery

rateDonor/s

Africa

Support to maritime development, Africa 1,767,409 1,764,996 100%TC Fund, China, United Kingdom, Djibouti Code of

Conduct Trust Fund, International SAR Fund

Support to FSI and PSC in Africa 372,758 372,759 100% European Union

Arab States and Mediterranean

Support to maritime development, Arab States and

Mediterranean 155,459 155,461 100% TC Fund

REMPEC (Regional marine pollution emergency response

centre for the Mediterranean Sea)804,559 800,810 100% UNEP, IMO/REMPEC Trust Fund

Asia and Pacific

Support to maritime development, Asia 911,713 914,347 100%TC Fund, China, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands,

Republic of Korea

Support to maritime development, Pacific Islands 471,490 471,490 100% TC Fund, China, United Kingdom

Malacca and Singapore Straits project 179,426 179,392 100% IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund

CIS/Eastern Europe

Support to maritime development, CIS/Eastern Europe 32,921 32,922 100% TC Fund

Latin America and Caribbean

Support to maritime development, Latin America 435,383 435,382 100% TC Fund, Malaysia

Support to maritime development, Caribbean 444,024 441,334 99% TC Fund

REGIONAL PROGRAMMES

I:\TC\67\TC 67 3(a)Add1 - appendix

TC 67/3(a)/Add.1

Annex 2, page 16

APPENDIX

Detail for Regional and Global Programmes of the ITCP in 2016

executed or sponsored through IMO - in US dollars

Programme Title Budget Expenditure Delivery

rate

Donor/s

Technical advisory services 17,851 9,651 54% TC Fund

Support to SIDS and LDCs for their special shipping needs106,966 99,296 93% TC Fund

SDG 5: Strengthening the maritime sector 675,524 675,524 100% TC Fund

Capacity-building and training 2,334,972 2,334,972 100% TC Fund, Norway

Partnerships and emerging issues 455,534 455,535 100%

TC Fund, China, Republic of Korea, International

Transport Workers' Federation

Enhancement of Maritime Security 463,827 463,828 100% TC Fund, IMST Fund

IMO Member State Audit Scheme 234,757 234,757 100% TC Fund, Republic of Korea

Effective implementation and enforcement of energy

efficiency measures for ships186,357 186,357 100% TC Fund

Model Courses 16,590 6,926 42% IMO Model Courses Development Trust Fund

London Convention and Protocol 100,570 76,910 76% Republic of Korea, LC/LP TC Trust Fund

Review of and support to WMU 40,838 40,838 100% TC Fund

Djibouti Code of Conduct 573,370 573,370 100% Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund

West and Central Africa Maritime Security 706,565 602,860 85% West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund

Safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh 703,450 413,699 59% Norad

Long-term marine environmental projects funded by Norad 931,533 667,318 72% Norad

Impact Assessment Exercise 2012-2015 118,625 68,767 58% TC Fund

Globallast Partnerships 769,503 601,203 78% Canada, GIA, UNDP-GEF

GloMEEP Project 1,010,961 479,391 47% UNDP-GEF

EU-IMO Climate Change Mitigation Project 243,768 238,227 98% European Union

GLOBAL PROGRAMMES

I:\TC\67\TC 67 3(a)Add1 - appendix ___________

integrated technical cooperation …...table 2: profile of donor2 expenditure for 2016 source of...

Documents