integrated technical cooperation …...activities under the pid structures. 3 the appendix to this...

https://edocs.imo.org/Final Documents/English/TC 65-3(a)-Add.1 (E).docx

E

TECHNICAL COOPERATION COMMITTEE 65th session Agenda item 3(a)

TC 65/3(a)/Add.1

14 May 2015 Original: ENGLISH

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME

(a) Annual Report for 2014 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 2014, as annex 2 of the Annual Report for 2014

Strategic direction: 3.2, 3.5

High-level action: 3.2.1, 3.5.3

Planned output: 3.2.1.2, 3.5.3.1

Action to be taken: Paragraph 4

Related document: TC 65/3(a)

1 Document TC 65/3(a) provided annex 1 of the Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme (ITCP) Annual Report for 2014, which contained the Organization's ITCP implementation results for 2014. 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 2014 audited accounts, and would be submitted under document TC 65/3(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 2014. Action requested of the Committee 4 The Committee is invited to take note of annex 2 to the ITCP Annual Report for 2014 and to make such comments and decisions as it deems appropriate.

***

TC 65/3(a)/Add.1 Annex 2, page 1


ANNEX 2

INTEGRATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME

Annual Report for 2014

Overview of financial resource delivery



Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Donors .......................................................................................................... 8

DISBURSEMENT BY REGION ............................................................................................. 9

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

Tables

Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2014 in $ – comparison with previous years ......................... 4

Table 2: Profile of donor expenditure for 2014 ................................................................ 6

Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2014 .................................................... 9

Table 4: Relative distribution of global expenditure in 2014 ………………….................. 11

Table 5: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2014 ............................................... 12

Charts

Chart 1: Comparative expenditure 2010-2014 ................................................................ .4

Chart 2: Expenditure trend 2005-2014 ........................................................................... 4

Chart 3: Resources and expenditure 2005-2014 ............................................................ 5

Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since 2005 ...................................................... 5

Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure 2010-2014 .......................................................... 8

Chart 6: Major donor trust funds with expenditure over $300,000

in 2014 .............................................................................................................. 8

Chart 7: Other donor trust funds with expenditure in 2014

between $60,000 and $150,000 ......................................................................... 9

Chart 8: Regional and global distribution of expenditure in 2014 ................................... 10

Chart 9: Disaggregated regional expenditure in 2014 – identifying

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

Chart 10: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2014 ............................................... 12

Appendix: Regional and Global programmes of the ITCP in 2014 …………….… ................. 14



DELIVERY OVERVIEW Introduction 1 The overview of financial resource delivery provides a comprehensive review of the 2014 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 2014 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 2014. The composite results are collated from the respective activities implemented in 2014 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 2014. 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 2014 will be reflected in the budget and final expenditure of 2015. 5 In accordance with technical cooperation operational procedures, although resources are made available in different currencies depending on the donor source, all budgetary and expenditure figures in this report are expressed in United States dollars. 6 It should be noted that the ITCP delivery results presented in this annex provide complementary information to the financial reports submitted to the Council,1 and may include variances arising from adjustments made subsequent to the completion of the Council documents. General ITCP implementation trends

7 During 2014, some $13.8 million was delivered against programmed donor contributions of $18.1 million, representing a delivery rate of 76%. This was $1.5 million less than the expenditure of $15.3 million recorded in 2013. Table 1 presents these budget and expenditure figures for 2014, as well as the figures for the previous four years for comparative purposes. The expenditure over the five-year period from 2010-2014 is presented visually in chart 1.

1 C 114/4(b), Resource Management: Accounts and audit: accounts for the financial period 2014 and transfers

within the 2014 budget.



Table 1: ITCP expenditure 2014 in $ – comparison with previous years

Year Budget Expenditure

2014 18,129,341 13,767,582

2013 17,526,268 15,275,944

2012 21,241,029 17,274,535

2011 17,862,287 15,477,016

2010 18,345,528 14,766,736

Chart 1: Comparative expenditure 2010-2014

8 In chart 2, which traces the annual volume of expenditure since 2005, the trend can be viewed over a decade. From $13 million in 2005, the expenditure dipped to $12 million in 2006 before increasing to $13.5 million in 2007. A sharp decline to $10.3 million followed in 2008, which was principally due to the winding-down of a large-scale environmental programme and its associated donor resources. Following yearly increases from 2008 to 2012, when the all-time high expenditure of $17.3 million was reached, the 2014 expenditure of $13.8 million shows a decrease from that peak, which began in 2013.

Chart 2: Expenditure trend 2005-2014

14,767 15,477 17,275

15,27613,768

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Exp

en

dit

ure

US$

'00

0

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Exp

en

dit

ure

US$

'00

0



9 Chart 3 displays the correlation between programmed resources and expenditure from 2005 to 2014. 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, while the reverse was true in 2014.

Chart 3: Resources and expenditure 2005-2014

10 From another perspective, chart 4 traces the delivery rate progression over the decade. In percentage terms, the total delivery recorded against the contributions programmed for 2014 was 76%. This is a decrease of 11 percentage points from the all-time high delivery rate of 87% achieved in 2013, and is similar to the rates achieved from 2007 to 2009.

Chart 4: Rate of annual financial delivery since 2005

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

US$

'00

0

Donor Resources

Donor Contributions Expended

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014



PROFILE OF RESOURCE DISBURSEMENT

Table 2: Profile of donor2 expenditure for 2014

Source of funding Funds

programmed for 2014

Expenditure 2014

Percentage of 2014 budget spent

Donor percentage

of total expenditure

TC Fund 6,843,292 5,841,568 85% 42%

IMO Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund 5,011,035 3,834,551 77% 28%

UNEP (including external sources) 1,849,739 1,055,058 57% 8%

GEF 775,061 588,255 76% 4%

EC 428,526 428,526 100% 3%

Norad 1,161,023 418,513 36% 3%

Republic of Korea 406,817 404,208 99% 3%

IMST Fund 341,592 341,592 100% 2%

IMO West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund

141,775 141,775 100% 1%

IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund

329,700 137,549 42% 1%

United Kingdom 197,810 133,520 67% 1%

International SAR Trust Fund 91,660 85,837 94% 0.6%

Norway 78,141 78,141 100% 0.6%

Research and Development Trust Fund 95,201 74,665 78% 0.5%

GloBallast Partnerships - GIA 86,486 68,308 79%

less than 0.5% each

IMO Model Courses Development Trust Fund

167,600 42,733 25%

LC/LP TC Trust Fund 34,996 34,896 100%

Canada 25,337 25,337 100%

International Transport Workers' Federation

22,241 22,241 100%

Netherlands 10,309 10,309 100%

Oman 31,000 0 0%

Total in $ 18,129,341 13,767,582 76%

Expenditure sources 11 Table 2 records the individual funding sources from donor countries and organizations against the overall expenditure in 2014. 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 2014. As previously mentioned in paragraph 4, a number of activities that were ongoing during 2014 may have a

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.



completion date beyond the end of the calendar year and will therefore be reflected in the 2015 annual report, as will any relevant invoices and other adjustments not received before closure of 2014 accounts. 13 Conversely, it may be noted that the total disbursement of $13.8 million recorded against programmed donor contributions in 2014 inevitably included a few activities and the related budgets originally programmed for 2013. This minor proportion of expenditure was primarily relevant to activities that were operational in 2013 but full implementation had not been completed by 31 December 2013. 14 Additionally, it should be noted that the 2014 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 2014 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 21 donor sources of funding and expenditure for 2014, the same number as recorded in 2013, and a decrease from the 22 recorded in 2012 and 23 recorded in 2011. 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 IMO Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund, the IMST Fund, the LC/LP TC Trust Fund and the IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund. 16 An expenditure level over $100,000 was credited to the top 11 donor sources in 2014 as illustrated in table 2. The highest figure of $5.8 million was attributed to the TC Fund, representing 42% of the total expenditure. This was followed by the IMO Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund with an expenditure of $3.8 million, accounting for 28% of total expenditure. UNEP occupied the next level with $1 million, accounting for 8% of total expenditure. The next eight donors on the scale comprised 18% of the total expenditure, ranging from $133,500 to $588,000 and included GEF, the European Commission, Norad, the Republic of Korea, the IMST Fund, the IMO West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund, the IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund and the United Kingdom. The remaining 4% consisted of contributions under $100,000 from a total of ten 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 2014 with expenditure of $5.8 million. This figure represents 42% 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 steady increase from $6.5 million in 2010 to nearly $8 million in 2012, and then decreasing to $7.3 million in 2013 and $5.8 million in 2014.



Chart 5: Annual TC Fund expenditure 2010-2014

Other Donors 18 Chart 6 displays the group of 7 donor entities that recorded expenditure between $300,000 and $4 million in 2014 and provides a comparison with 2013. These results show similar levels to those recorded in 2013, with moderate decreases in expenditure from the IMO Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund, UNEP, the Republic of Korea and the IMST Fund, and moderate increases in expenditure from GEF and the EC, as well as the addition of Norad to this list of major donors.

Chart 6: Major donors with expenditure over $300,000 in 2014 – comparison with 2013

19 Chart 7 illustrates that other donors with expenditure over $100,000 were the IMO West and Central Africa Maritime Security Trust Fund, the IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund and the United Kingdom. The SAR Fund, Norway, the Research and Development Trust Fund and the Global Industry Alliance all registered expenditure between $60,000 and $90,000.

6,530

7,386 7,986

7,322

5,842

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Exp

en

dit

ure

US

$'0

00

Annual TC Fund Expenditure

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

DCoCTrust Fund

UNEP GEF EC Norad RoK IMSTTrust Fund

Exp

end

itu

re U

S$'0

00 2013 2014



Chart 7: Other donor trust funds with expenditure in 2014 between $60,000 and $150,000

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 2014. DISBURSEMENT BY REGION

Table 3: Distribution of expenditure by region in 2014 – comparison with 2013

Region 2014 2013

Africa 2,654,360 2,507,740

Arab States and Mediterranean 1,354,327 1,897,099

Asia and Pacific 1,716,664 2,314,354

CIS and Eastern Europe 300,782 218,890

Latin America and Caribbean 1,373,346 1,709,380

Global 6,368,103 6,628,481

Total in US$ 13,767,582 15,275,944

21 The total regional and global expenditure distribution for 2014 is presented in table 3. The figures for 2013 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; Enhancement of maritime security; 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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

IMO

WC

AM

S TF

IMO

M&

SSTr

ust

Fu

nd

Un

ite

dK

ingd

om

SAR

Fu

nd

No

rway

R&

D T

rust

Fun

d GIA

Exp

end

itu

re U

S$'0

00



Chart 8: Regional and global distribution of expenditure for 2014 – comparison with 2013

Note: figures in brackets are for 2013

22 Chart 8 illustrates the regional and global distribution for 2014 by percentage. The Africa region accounted for 19% of the total expenditure; the Asia and Pacific region for 13%; the Arab States and Mediterranean region and the Latin America and Caribbean region each for 10%; and the CIS and Eastern Europe region for 2% of total expenditure. The remaining activities comprised the balance under the global category with 46% of the total expenditure. The increase in spending in the Africa region is partly due to the creation of a new EU-funded programme in 2014 relating to support for FSI and PSC in Africa. 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 2014 REMPEC3 comprised 77% of the expenditure attributed to the Arab States and Mediterranean region and the GloBallast programme accounted for 10% 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 9.

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

Africa19% (16%)

Arab States and Mediterranean

10% (13%)

Asia and Pacific13% (15%)

CIS and Eastern Europe2% (2%)

Latin America and Caribbean

10% (11%)

Global 46% (43%)



Chart 9: Disaggregated regional expenditure in 2014 – identifying core ITCP activities

24 For the activities framed under the global programmes that cannot be disaggregated into the regions, the global category remains. This category covers a diverse range of maritime subjects across the globe and they are represented in table 4 through their respective thematic fields. Two new global programmes were created in 2014: Review of and support to WMU and Safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh. The impact of these programmes can be seen in the slightly higher percentage of funds allocated to global programmes in 2014 compared with previous years.

Table 4: Relative distribution of global expenditure in 2014 – in US$

Global programmes 2014

expenditure

Percentage of global

expenditure

Djibouti Code of Conduct 3,834,551 60%

Capacity building and training4 894,712 14%

GloBallast 656,563 10%

Partnerships and emerging issues 328,534 5%

Enhancement of maritime security 269,681 4%

Effective implementation and enforcement of energy efficiency measures for ships

169,213 3%

MDG 3: Strengthening maritime resource development

89,424 1.4%

Model Courses 42,733

less than 1% each

Review of and support to WMU 32,351

Safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in Bangladesh

24,682

London Convention and London Protocol 18,105

Global Partnership on Marine Litter 7,554

4 While the activities within this programme are categorized as global, they include fellowships at the

international maritime training institutions, with the recipients from various developing countries

2,654

307

1,717

301

1,373

5,712

1,047 656

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Africa Arab States/Mediterranean

Asia andPacific

CIS/EasternEurope

Latin Americaand

Caribbean

Global

Ex

pe

nd

itu

re U

S$

'00

0

Core ITCP

activities

Large-scale

environmental

programmes



DISBURSEMENT BY DISCIPLINE 25 Table 5 below presents the distribution of delivery by maritime discipline for 2014, as compared with 2013. The same disbursement is shown as a percentage of the total expenditure in chart 10. 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 5: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2014 – comparison with 2013

Discipline 2014 2013

Maritime safety 2,536,575 2,474,263

Maritime security 4,820,700 5,320,455

Marine environment protection 3,417,023 3,779,591

Maritime legislation 129,520 162,948

Facilitation of international maritime traffic 116,571 329,875

General maritime sector 2,747,193 3,208,812

Total in $ 13,767,582 15,275,944

26 During 2014, maritime safety registered 18%, maritime security 35% and marine environment protection activities 25% of total delivery. Facilitation of international maritime traffic and Maritime legislation both accounted for 1% of total expenditure. The general maritime sector, which includes fellowships and other aspects of maritime training, made up 20% of all 2014 expenditure.

Chart 10: Distribution of expenditure by discipline in 2014 – comparison with 2013

Note: figures in brackets are for 2013

27 When looking at the discipline of marine environment protection, consideration must be given to the impact of several large-scale marine environmental programmes. REMPEC and GloBallast were financed through external funding entities, such as UNEP, GEF and GIA, and included staff cost components. Although these programmes have decreased from

Marine environment

protection25% (25%)

Facilitation of international

maritime traffic1% (2%)

General maritime sector

20% (21%)

Maritime legislation 1% (1%)

Maritime safety 18% (16%)

Maritime security 35% (35%)



previous years following the completion of several projects, they still account for 50% of all marine environment protection expenditure for 2014, equal to $1.7 million, similar to the amount recorded in 2013. For comparison purposes, in 2012 these same large-scale programmes accounted for $5.2 million in expenditure, making up 72% of marine environment protection expenditure in that year. 28 In conclusion, expenditure trends for 2014 showed great consistency with 2013, both in terms of regional expenditure totals and the allocation of resources by discipline. The biggest change in recent years has been the completion of several large-scale marine environmental projects, including SAFEMED and the Marine Electronic Highway, as discussed above, which has resulted in lower expenditure related to the marine environment, as compared with previous years. The TC Fund continues to play an extremely important role in the financing of the ITCP, as it has since its creation.

TC 65/3(a)/Add.1

Annex 2, page 14

APPENDIX

Detail of ITCP Regional and Global Programmes in 2014

executed or sponsored through IMO - in US dollars

Programme Title Budget ExpenditureDelivery

rateDonor/s

Africa

Support to maritime development, Africa 1,783,640 1,519,272 85% TC Fund, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, SAR Fund

Support to FSI and PSC in Africa 295,194 295,194 100% EC

Arab States and Mediterranean

Support to maritime development, Arab States/

Mediterranean

637,725 359,799 56% TC Fund, Oman

REMPEC (Regional marine pollution emergency

response centre for the Mediterranean Sea) 1,810,000 1,047,504 58% UNEP

Asia and Pacific

Support to maritime development, Asia 641,230 458,787 72% TC Fund, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom

Support to maritime development, Pacific Islands 164,739 112,786 68% TC Fund

Malacca and Singapore Straits cooperative mechanism 329,700 137,549 42% IMO Malacca and Singapore Straits Trust Fund

CIS/Eastern Europe

Support to maritime development, CIS/Eastern Europe 326,792 255,534 78% TC Fund, Republic of Korea

Latin America and Caribbean

Support to maritime development, Latin America 463,120 463,121 100% TC Fund

Support to maritime development, Caribbean 518,591 510,463 98% TC Fund

REGIONAL PROGRAMMES

APPENDIX

Detail of ITCP Regional and Global Programmes in 2014

executed or sponsored through IMO - in US dollars

TC 65/3(a)/Add.1

Annex 2, page 15

Programme Title Budget ExpenditureDelivery

rateDonor/s

Technical advisory services 42,775 41,111 96% TC Fund

Support to SIDS and LDCs for their special shipping

needs

289,107 228,405 79% TC Fund

MDG 3: Strengthening maritime resource development 467,684 467,684 100% TC Fund, Republic of Korea

Capacity building and training 943,150 894,712 95% TC Fund

Partnerships and emerging issues 826,686 818,233 99% TC Fund, Norad, Republic of Korea, ITF

Enhancement of Maritime Security 954,647 954,649 100% TC Fund, Norway, IMST Fund, IMO West and Central Africa

Maritime Security Trust Fund

Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme 270,824 278,823 103% TC Fund, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom

Effective implementation and enforcement of energy

efficiency measures for ships

311,533 265,289 85% TC Fund, EC, Research and Development Trust Fund

Model Courses 167,600 42,733 25% IMO Model Courses Development Trust Fund

London Convention and Protocol 60,333 60,233 100% Canada, LC/LP TC Trust Fund

Review of and support to WMU 144,758 32,351 22% TC Fund

Safe and environmentally sound ship recycling in

Bangladesh

767,192 24,682 3% Norad

GloBallast Partnerships 861,547 656,563 76% GEF, GIA

Global Partnership on Marine Litter 39,739 7,554 19% UNEP

Djibouti Code of Conduct 5011035 3834551 77% IMO Djibouti Code of Conduct Trust Fund

GLOBAL PROGRAMMES

____________