| United Nations | E/1997/65/Add.1 |
Economic and Social Council
Distr. GENERAL
1 June 1997
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Substantive session of 1997
Geneva, 30 June-25 July 1997
Item 3 (b) of the provisional agenda *
* E/1997/100.
OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION: FOLLOW-UP TO POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Addendum
Trends in core and non-core resources
Report of the Secretary-General
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1 - 8 3
I. STATUS OF CORE AND NON-CORE RESOURCES ................. 9 - 26 5
A. Core resources .................................... 13 - 18 5
B. Non-core resources ................................ 19 - 26 7
II. ANALYSIS .............................................. 27 - 41 8
Annex. Note on terminology of non-core funding modalities of United
Nations funds and programmes ................................... 13
Tables
1. Contributions of 15 major donors to core resources ............... 15
2. Contributions to United Nations funds and programmes, 1991-1995 .. 16
3. Contributions to the United Nations Development Programme,
1991-1995 ........................................................ 17
4. Contributions to the United Nations Population Fund, 1991-1995 ... 19
Figures
I. United Nations Development Programme core and other resources .... 18
II. United Nations Development Programme-administered funds core and
other resources .................................................. 18
III. United Nations Population Fund core and other resources .......... 19
INTRODUCTION
1. The question of increasing resources in relation to the growing needs of
recipient countries and making the funding system more predictable has remained
a continuing concern of the General Assembly and an essential part of the
overall reform process of the United Nations development system. As far back as
1977, the General Assembly, in its resolution 32/197 of 20 December 1977, on
restructuring the economic and social sectors of the United Nations system,
called for a real increase in the flow of resources for such activities on a
predictable, continuous and assured basis. Several resolutions have
subsequently addressed the three related areas of governance, funding and
efficiency and the impact of operational activities for development, and a
number of further resolutions have dealt with those three interrelated issues,
including in the context of several triennial policy reviews, which commenced in
1980.
2. More recently, in paragraph 32 of its resolution 48/162 of 20 December 1993
on further measures for the restructuring and revitalization of the United
Nations system in the economic, social and related fields, the General Assembly
stressed that, in particular, as part of the overall reform process, there is a
need for a substantial increase in resources for operational activities for
development on a predictable, continuous and assured basis, commensurate with
the increasing needs of developing countries. The Assembly requested the
Secretary-General to review and analyse possible changes and improvements in the
current funding system, including but not limited to multi-year negotiated
pledges. The Assembly also recommended that the process include informal
consultations and negotiations on prospective new modalities for financing at
the level of the General Assembly.
3. Accordingly, the Secretary-General issued a comprehensive report on the
funding of operational activities for development within the United Nations
system (A/48/940), which the General Assembly considered at open-ended
consultations on prospective new modalities for financing held at its resumed
forty-eighth session. The consultations met several times, with inconclusive
results (for the Chairman's summary of the consultations, see A/49/749). The
comprehensive report reviewed various modalities and mechanisms that might
achieve the goal of increasing resources and providing greater predictability.
It also offered practical steps to strengthen the current voluntary system.
4. In response to the initial consultations, the Secretary-General issued a
follow-up report on the funding of operational activities for development within
the United Nations system in January 1995 (A/49/834). The report considered,
inter alia, methods of determining resource targets. It concluded that the
resource targets, including existing operational practices and levels of
financing and operational and administrative costs, were not based on
quantifiable needs of recipient countries, and that there were no workable
methods available at the global level. The report further assessed funding
options and possible new funding modalities, and offered ideas on how best to
place programmes and funds on a sounder financial basis.
5. Subsequently, the Secretary-General, in paragraphs 90 and 91 of his report
on an agenda for development (A/49/665), noted that United Nations development
activities were in financial difficulties, and that reliance on voluntary
contributions alone was no longer feasible. The report suggested that a blend
of assessed, negotiated and voluntary contributions might provide the most
logical and appropriate means of financing the United Nations.
6. During the 1995 triennial comprehensive policy review of operational
activities for development, the General Assembly considered the three
interrelated areas of governance, resources and the policy directions of
operational activities, and noted with regret, in paragraph 4 of its resolution
50/120, that although significant progress had already been made on the
restructuring and rationalization of the governance and functioning of the
United Nations development funds and programmes, there had not been, as part of
the overall reform process, any substantial increase in resources for
operational activities for development on a predictable, continuous and assured
basis, nor had the consultations on prospective new modalities for financing
reached a conclusion. Further, in paragraph 5 of the same resolution, it
strongly reaffirmed that the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the
operational activities of the United Nations system must be enhanced by,
inter alia, a substantial increase in their funding on a predictable, continuous
and assured basis, commensurate with the increasing needs of developing
countries, as well as through the full implementation of resolutions 47/199 and
48/162. In paragraph 10 of the same resolution, the Assembly called for
intensified consultations and negotiations on prospective and specific
modalities for financing operational activities for development.
7. The next step was General Assembly resolution 50/227, in which, in
paragraph 9, the Assembly stressed that within the context of the efforts to
provide the operational activities of the United Nations system with resources,
in particular core resources, on a predictable, continuous and assured basis,
and taking into account that voluntary contributions from official sources
should remain the main source for funding of those activities, all aspects of
funding of United Nations operational activities and options presented in the
reports of the Secretary-General (A/48/940 and A/49/834) and other reports
subsequently presented, which include the three funding mechanisms (voluntary,
negotiated and assessed), as well as their expected impact, should be examined
by the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council in accordance with
their respective mandates.
8. The Economic and Social Council, in its resolution 1996/42, strongly
reaffirmed that the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the operational
activities of the United Nations system must be enhanced by, inter alia, a
substantial increase in their funding and through the full implementation of
General Assembly resolutions 47/199, 48/162, 50/120 and 50/227. It requested
the Secretary-General to include in his progress report on the implementation of
resolution 50/120 an analytical assessment of the implications for operational
activities for development of the recent trends in core and non-core resources,
and to make a recommendation on how to increase core resources and effectively
implement section 1 of General Assembly resolution 50/227. The present report
has been prepared in accordance with that request, taking into account the
legislative history described above, including the fact that previous reports on
the subject have yet to be considered in depth by either the Council or the
Assembly.
I. STATUS OF CORE AND NON-CORE RESOURCES
9. The United Nations funds and programmes - the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Food
Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) - are the
principal avenues through which the operational activities of the United Nations
system are financed. Their resources are provided in two broad categories:
core and non-core (for terminology of non-core modalities, see annex). Combined
total resources channelled through the funds and programmes in 1994, 1995 and
1996 are estimated at US$ 4.5 billion, US$ 4.3 billion and US$ 4.5 billion,
respectively.
10. WFP works in both development and relief, and it receives its
contributions both in cash and in kind. Funding over the past several years has
seen an increase in the overall level of funding since 1991 ($1.4 billion in
1991, $1.7 billion in 1992, $1.4 billion in 1993, $1.5 billion in 1994 and
$1.3 billion in 1995), accompanied by a shift in the proportion of funds
provided for development activities and emergency relief operations. In 1991,
funding for development stood at $488 million and funding for relief at
$586 million; in 1994, the corresponding figures were $311 million and
$874 million, respectively; and in 1995, they were $340 million and
$613 million.
11. WFP had been facing increasing difficulty in securing the necessary mix of
cash, commodities and service. That situation was exacerbated by the upsurge of
complex emergency humanitarian crises that emerged in the late 1980s and
continue to this date. Complicating elements included the practice by donors of
increasingly tying and designating their funding to particular operations or
target populations, resulting in a loss of flexibility; the scope for and
willingness of donors to support emergency operations with funding drawn from
budget-line items; and the effort to use scarce resources in the most effective
manner, such as using food aid to save lives in emergency humanitarian
situations in a way that was at the same time as relevant as possible to
development.
12. In November 1995, the governing body of WFP approved new resource and
long-term financing policies, which the Secretariat has been implementing on a
trial basis since 1 January 1996; the policies aim to overcome external
constraints, provide more predictable and flexible resources, and ensure full
cost recovery, while at the same time preserving the multilateral nature of WFP
over the long term.
A. Core resources
13. Core resources are generally understood as those contributed voluntarily
to the funds and programmes for general resources, to be utilized according to
their mandates, without any constraints or conditions. Within that broad
understanding, there are subtle but significant differences. UNDP core
resources are entirely contributed by Governments; UNICEF obtains its core funds
or general resources both from Governments and non-governmental sources, such as
national committees. UNFPA core funds are almost but not exclusively government
funds; a minuscule amount comes from non-governmental private donations. WFP
receives most of its contributions from Governments in cash and in kind. In
1996, approximately 40 per cent of overall contributions to WFP were made in
kind, the remainder in cash. WFP core resources are received through the
multilateral funding window for its four programme categories (development,
rehabilitation and disaster preparedness; protracted relief operations;
emergencies; and special operations).
14. A notable feature of core funding of funds and programmes is that a small
number of countries contribute close to 90 per cent of such funding. In 1996,
15 countries contributed over 95.9 per cent of UNDP resources, 98.5 per cent of
UNFPA resources, 95.2 per cent of UNICEF resources and 94.2 per cent of WFP
resources. The steady decline of core funding and its overwhelming dependence
on a few countries indicate the potential for instability and vulnerability.
Annual voluntary contributions to UNDP core resources 1/ declined from
US$ 1,074 million in 1992 to US$ 844 million in 1996; over the same period,
non-core resources increased from US$ 382 million to US$ 1.27 billion.
Consequently, the share of core resources in total income has decreased from
approximately 76 per cent in 1992 to approximately 45 per cent in 1996. Pledges
and estimated contributions for 1997 indicate a continuation of that declining
trend, which should be viewed in the light of the initial figure of
US$ 3.3 billion for core resources, which was adopted for planning purposes by
the UNDP Executive Board (see para. 7 of UNDP decision 95/23) for the three-year
period beginning in 1997.
15. In 1996, 58 per cent - or $551 million of total income - was received as
general resources which UNICEF allocated to Board approved programmes supporting
children and women, guided by a needs-based formula (size of child population,
under-five mortality rate, per capita gross national product (GNP)). The
remaining income comes as supplementary funds or emergency contributions for
specific programme components.
16. UNFPA total income in 1996 was estimated at approximately US$ 309 million,
a decrease from the 1995 income level of US$ 337 million pledged by 95
Governments. Fifteen major donors, whose contributions equalled or exceeded
US$ 1 million, contributed US$ 297.8 million - or more than 98 per cent - to
total UNFPA core resources. Current projections indicate that in 1997, UNFPA
income may again exceed the US$ 300 million mark. The uncertainty inherent in
voluntary contributions is exemplified by the fact that in 1996, over
33 per cent of the total sum pledged to UNFPA was still outstanding for the last
quarter of the year, causing serious cash-flow problems and adversely affecting
programming confidence.
17. Some US$ 1.5 billion was contributed to WFP in 1996, 28 per cent for
development work, 46 per cent for emergency operations and 24 per cent for
protracted relief. In addition, US$ 28 million (2 per cent) was pledged in
support of special operations. The sharp decline in development contributions
made it difficult to meet commitments, and reinforced the need to introduce the
development dimension into relief effort.
18. Donors met most of the estimated requirements for WFP relief activities.
There were, however, a small number of emergencies for which adequate levels of
resources were not forthcoming. Most contributions for relief activities were
directed towards specific operations or in response to particular appeals. The
picture for resources for development is different. There has been a continuing
decline in the level of resources available for development. That trend has
been accompanied by an increase in the proportion of development resources that
have conditions on their use. In 1996, approximately 50 per cent of WFP
resources were core resources.
B. Non-core resources
19. The importance of non-core resources as a means of funding operational
activities was recognized by the General Assembly in its resolution 44/211, in
which it recognized the value of special-purpose grant resources provided that
they were designed as a means to ensure additional resource flows and that their
projects were coherently and effectively integrated in the technical cooperation
programme of the United Nations system, in conformity with each country's
development plan.
20. Non-core resources are far more varied, and definitions and the
composition of non-core funding also differ among organizations (see annex).
For example, UNDP includes trust funds as part of its non-core funding, whereas
UNICEF does not.
21. In the case of UNDP, non-core resources are constituted by funds
contributed by governmental or private sources and intended for specific
purposes, i.e., identified projects or programmes, or assistance within
geographic or thematic areas. Non-core resources are contributed generally
through two modalities: (a) cost-sharing of projects or programmes, provided
either by programme country Governments (so-called government cost-sharing) or
by other Governments (so-called third-party cost-sharing); and (b) trust funds
as receptacles for funds contributed by one donor or by several donors for a
common purpose.
22. UNDP non-core resources have increased from US$ 382 million in 1992 to
US$ 1.27 billion in 1996, of which cost-sharing represented US$ 957.6 million in
1996 (compared to US$ 271.9 million in 1992), with government cost-sharing
representing 71.8 per cent and third-party cost-sharing 28.2 per cent (compared
to 62.2 and 37.8 per cent, respectively, in 1992).
23. In its decision 95/23, the UNDP Executive Board stressed that
contributions to core resources should remain the central efforts of all donors,
and in paragraph 9 of that decision, it also recognized the importance of
non-core resources, including cost-sharing and non-traditional sources of
financing, as a mechanism for enhancing the capacity and supplementing the means
of UNDP to achieve the goals and priorities specified in Executive Board
decision 94/14. Those non-core resources are now reflected in the new country
cooperation frameworks under resource mobilization targets, and are mobilized
both within the priorities defined by the programme countries themselves and
within the goals and priority areas determined in Executive Board decision
94/14.
24. In the case of UNICEF, non-core resources, i.e., supplementary funds, are
divided into emergency and regular supplementary-funded programmes. Each
Executive Board approved country programme of UNICEF includes programme
components for which general resources are not available, but for which regular
supplementary funding is sought from the donor community, particularly donor
Governments. Such supplementary funding comes from Governments' bilateral
official development assistance (ODA) budgets, national committees or private-
sector contributions mobilized for specific programmes. General resources come
from donor Governments' multilateral ODA budgets and from the private sector,
particularly through sales of cards and products.
25. Non-core funds of UNFPA for 1996 are estimated at US$ 49.3 million, an
increase of 16.4 per cent over the 1995 level of US$ 33.2 million. Each country
programme provides a multi-bilateral component to be used for separate projects
or in conjunction with core-funded projects. Multi-bilaterally funded projects
entail considerable staff work. The European Commission has recently agreed to
channel US$ 30 million for reproductive health programmes in Asia, which is
indicative of the trend to use the expertise and infrastructure of the United
Nations system to channel bilateral resources to developing countries.
26. Non-core resources are a major source of financing for WFP, amounting to
some 50 per cent of total resources. Most of the non-core resources are
directed to emergency relief operations. In 1996, some 28 per cent of
development resources were classified as non-core resources. The new resource
and long-term financing policies adopted by WFP are designed, in part, to
reflect that reality in a way that maximizes the opportunity for donors to
support WFP activities and for WFP to manage them.
II. ANALYSIS
27. The steady but small increase in total resources, declining core funds and
the small number of countries from which the vast bulk of contributions is
emanating may necessitate new approaches to achieve the goal of increasing core
resources. Viewed against the backdrop of the overall development aid context,
important strands are emerging that have a bearing on that subject. In the
mid-1980s, ODA was the major part of resource flows to developing countries. In
the mid-1990s, private flows have been exceeding official sources: ODA has
shrunk to an all time low of 0.27 per cent of GNP, and a growing portion is
going to meet humanitarian needs (rising from US$ 1 billion in 1990 to
US$ 3 billion in 1993, peaking in 1994) and debt relief. Resources channelled
through multilateral institutions now account for 10 per cent of total flows to
developing countries, and those that are made available to the United Nations
development system are stagnant. The relative stagnation of core resources to
UNFPA has coincided with the growth of total ODA funding for population
assistance. In 1994, approximately US$ 1.4 billion out of total ODA was devoted
to population activities, and it is estimated that about US$ 2 billion was
committed in 1995. Less ODA is flowing to economic infrastructure and
production, and more to social sectors. Membership of the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has increased, and some developing
countries are graduating from the position of recipient to net donor countries.
At a time of declining core resources, United Nations funds and programmes have
been charged with the added responsibility of implementing global plans of
action. Core funds remain the indispensable foundation of the funds and
programmes, both to meet national demands and to respond to global trends.
There is a need for an appropriate balance between the growth in core and
non-core funds.
28. Normally, the same countries provide core funding and special purpose
funds. Countries that contribute to non-core resources also contribute to core
resources, and often vice-versa, and there is no discernible link between the
two. Although both core and non-core resources are related to established
mandates and financial rules, some aspects of non-core resources are outside the
direct decision-making of the executive boards. If taken to an extreme,
excessive reliance on non-core resources could distort national and global
priorities and affect the multilateral and universal character of the United
Nations system. Since contributions to core funds and/or non-core funds are
influenced by domestic political and budgetary considerations, some countries
may find it more convenient to contribute to two different funding windows. The
task is how best to maintain policy and programme balance between the various
approaches.
29. Faced with that situation, United Nations funds and programmes are
adopting a three-pronged approach to enhancing core resources by (a) enhancing
the efficiency and transparency of their operations; (b) obtaining a larger
share from existing traditional sources; and (c) developing new sources of
funding. United Nations funds and programmes continue to seek larger shares
from existing resource pools. They have streamlined their operations and cut
costs and administrative budgets. They are also engaged in a dialogue with
traditional donors to understand their concerns better and reorient their work.
As stated by the UNDP Administrator in his 1996 Annual Report, the UNDP focus on
sustainable human development and on low-income countries reflects the aid
objectives of those countries. A leaner, more efficient and more accountable
organization is the goal of UNDP. UNDP core resources are more apt to be
directed towards a smaller group of countries and a smaller number of activities
related to sustainable human development. An instance of that trend is that, as
of 1995, one-third of UNDP resources were allocated for governance, a relatively
new development area. UNICEF is working with donors to identify contributions
that can be allocated to core instead of non-core resources and is in touch with
national committees in that regard. Accountability, cost-effective programme
delivery and timely implementation are the watchwords of UNICEF to attract
larger resources. UNFPA has also concentrated on increasing efficiency,
strengthening management and maximizing funds for country programmes.
30. The General Assembly is pursuing intergovernmental reform, enhancing
efficiency and funding as interconnected and mutually reinforcing processes.
Although according to its own assessment in paragraph 4 of Assembly resolution
50/120, significant progress has been made in the restructuring and
rationalization of the governance and functioning of the funds and programmes,
there has not been any substantial increase in resources on a predictable,
assured and continuous basis. Moreover, the informal consultations of the
General Assembly on that subject have failed to reach any conclusion. It is
necessary to review the reasons for that failure and identify ways to achieve
the desired results.
31. General Assembly decisions in the context of the triennial comprehensive
policy review of the United Nations system operational activities (resolutions
44/211, 47/199 and 50/120) were designed to enhance greater coherence within the
United Nations system at the country level and integration into national
processes. Enhancing efficiency is not only meant to respond to concerns of
Member States but it should also reflect concerns about the system's relevance
and responsiveness to the increasingly country-specific demands of Member
States. Greater sensitivity to both concerns can lead to greater confidence and
larger resource inflows. Transforming the governing councils of funds and
programmes into executive boards was designed to make governance more effective.
More stable and increased funding would have a direct bearing on enhanced
efficiency and effectiveness, as strongly reaffirmed by the General Assembly in
paragraph 5 of its resolution 50/120.
32. It is also important to note that recipient countries also make a
substantial contribution to the financing of development activities supported by
the United Nations funds and programmes, particularly under national execution
modalities. All WFP development activities are executed nationally.
33. The situation of 15 countries, all belonging to OECD, contributing almost
90 per cent of core funds of funds and programmes must be addressed. The
traditional donor base has been static despite changes in the determinants and
geography of the global economy. East Asian countries, some South American
nations and even some low-income countries with large economies may be in a
position to contribute at higher levels. The declining public support and
public funds for official development assistance in a number of important donor
countries makes a compelling case for enlarging the donor base. Some new donor
countries are already contributing to the "soft windows" of regional development
banks. Some have started significant bilateral aid programmes and established
aid infrastructures. A new rationale may be established with incentives, such
as representation in senior management and economic returns to encourage and
accelerate the process. In addition, the desire to contribute to their more
needy partners in developing countries should be a powerful motive force.
34. The General Assembly has reaffirmed three fundamental characteristics of
the financing of operational activities as voluntary, neutral and multilateral;
any proposals to enhance core funding must be based on these fundamentals.
Although the Assembly has emphasized the need for both substantial additionality
and security and stability and predictability, these may not always be realized
together. Particularly when some donor countries who are contributing more than
their proportionate shares insist on equitable burden-sharing, mechanisms could
result such as negotiated instruments of commitment and multi-year
contributions, without political will, in less, not more, resources. The
difficulties experienced in IDA's eleventh replenishment and of IFAD underscore
this concern. Furthermore, many countries operate on the basis of annual
budgets, reinforcing their natural reluctance to commit to increased funding;
nevertheless, the concept of negotiated multi-year contributions requires a
further careful look.
35. That issue was reviewed in the Secretary-General's reports on funding
operations (A/48/940 and A/49/834). Funding, particularly voluntary, is always
a function of political choice. In an era of perceived resource scarcity and
competitive environment, it also becomes a matter of public perception. A more
informed and enlightened public can create a constituency for a stronger shared
commitment.
36. The other challenge of increasing resource flows is how to optimize the
use of existing funds in tandem with other partners under national leadership.
Given the growing convergence of bilateral and multilateral agendas and the
unquestioned advantages of United Nations neutrality and legitimacy, United
Nations funds and programmes are performing important aid coordination
functions. Currently, those functions are often at the level of information
exchange, and there is potential for them to be enlarged to include programmatic
cooperation, which in turn could enhance donor confidence and lead to larger
contributions.
37. The growing development consensus that the over-arching objective of
development cooperation should be poverty eradication offers an opportunity to
enhance core contributions by encouraging the donor community and new potential
donors to shift some of the non-core contributions or bilateral aid to other
sources to increase core funding; most of the core-funded projects and special-
purpose-funded activities can be related to that broad theme. At the country
level, the same project is often funded from resources drawn from both sources.
The possibility of combining the universality of core funds and the special
character of trust funds at the global-programme level may be considered.
Public support for funding such special-purpose activities may be stronger.
38. In reviewing financing modalities, it may be useful to note the implicit
link between influence in governance and voluntary contributions. For countries
to transfer resources from bilateral and other multilateral avenues to the
United Nations development system, it is necessary to offer a credible case.
That some donors are utilizing their experience and management capacities, such
as field-level facilities and managerial structure, illustrates the potential
technical assistance role of the United Nations development system vis-a`-vis
bilateral donors.
39. For many years, a number of Member States have complained about the
inefficiency of the current holding of United Nations pledging conferences for
development activities. The main argument has been that, at the pledging
conferences, the contributions announced have amounted to not more than
40 per cent, and usually less, mainly because for many potential donors, the
fiscal year starts later and they are not in a position to announce their
pledges before parliamentary approval. As a result, it is clear that pledging
conferences, as they exist now, can play a role for procedural purpose but have
become inadequate as a fund-raising mechanism.
40. A proposal has even been made to abolish pledging conferences altogether,
but the General Assembly, in annex I, paragraph 16 of its resolution 50/227,
postponed a decision on the future of pledging conferences, including a decision
on whether to effect changes in their scheduling, pending the results of its
review of funding modalities. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether pledging
conferences are to be continued and whether they would be any more productive if
held in February and March.
41. In view of the above-mentioned postponement, whether or not the review of
funding modalities is completed by the end of the fifty-second session of the
General Assembly, a decision on whether to effect changes in pledging
conferences will need to be made at that time.
Annex
NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY OF NON-CORE FUNDING MODALITIES OF UNITED
NATIONS FUNDS AND PROGRAMMES
UNDP co-financing modalities is an umbrella term for several modalities,
including cost-sharing, trust funds, UNDP-administered funds, government cash
counterpart contributions, parallel financing and management support agreement.
Cost-sharing funds can come from two major sources:
(a) Recipient Government (government cost-sharing);
(b)Donor government and International Financial Institute (IFI) grants
(third party cost-sharing, with funding direct to UNDP).
Trust funds can be established for a specific purpose, covering specific
particular projects, one or more countries, or regional and global programme
interests, and can be limited to one donor or open to multiple donors.
UNDP-administered funds include the United Nations Capital Development
Fund, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, the United Nations Fund for
Science and Technology for Development, and the Office for Desertification and
Drought. Those funds are established for special programme purposes of global
and regional interest, have voluntary contributions as core funds, and may
include participation in sub-trust funds and cost-sharing.
Under the modality of the government cash counterpart contribution,
recipient Governments are required to meet certain obligations towards UNDP-
assisted projects, either through contributions in cash or in kind.
Parallel financing is an arrangement in which at least two parties join in
a common programme but make separably administered contributions. Following a
joint programming exercise, both UNDP and the donor(s) finance and execute their
specific segment separately but in continuous coordination.
Management support agreements provide support services at the request of
a recipient Government or bilateral and multilateral development agencies. They
are not a form of co-financing but a mechanism to procure goods and services for
a donor's or Government's programme. Management support services are also
provided by UNDP country offices when they are called upon to assist in the
implementation of national execution projects and IFI loan implementation.
In the case of UNFPA, non-core resources or multi-bilateral arrangements
play an important but mostly supplementary role. The percentage of third-party
cost sharing has remained small, not exceeding 5 per cent of total
contributions. Recently, UNFPA signed a partnership agreement with the European
Commission that will contribute over $30 million from the European Commission to
reproductive health programmes in Asia. If those arrangements prove to be
successful, UNFPA envisages that the European Commission may contribute more
funding for that area of its work.
Non-core or other resources are identified in UNICEF as non-emergency
supplementary funds, which have almost doubled during the five years since 1991.
Emergency supplementary funds contributions, subject to much greater
variability, currently exceed 1991 levels, but are lower than in any year
between 1992 and 1994.
The supplementary funding process is the most common relationship with
bilateral donors at the country level. That process provides essential
resources for UNICEF-supported programmes. It also involves UNICEF in a
reporting relationship with bilateral donors, and supports a reasonable level of
both policy and technical dialogue among UNICEF, key bilateral donors and the
line ministries of Governments. The dialogue can have the effect of improving
UNICEF accountability, and sometimes provides for exchanges of experience on
innovative programming techniques.
The new resourcing and financing structure implemented by WFP from the
beginning of 1996 consists of four programme categories (development,
rehabilitation and disaster preparedness; protracted relief operations;
emergencies; and special operations) and three funding windows (multilateral,
directed multilateral and bilateral), under which WFP receives its
contributions. Contributions through the multilateral funding window provide
WFP with the flexibility to allocate resources in a timely and appropriate
manner consistent with the guidance provided by the Executive Board. Resources
made available through the directed multilateral window enable donors to direct
contributions to specific projects or operations. In addition, WFP provides
bilateral services in which the activity is not associated with WFP-assisted
operations but is nevertheless consistent with WFP's mission statement. That
model enables a more clear distinction to be drawn between core and non-core
resources.
Table 1. Contributions of 15 major donors to core resources
(Millions of United States dollars)
UNDP UNFPA UNICEF 1995
Countries 1995 1996 1995 1996 Govern. Nat. Total
Com
Japan 105.1 110.1 51.8 54.4 29.4 29.4 58.9
Denmark 105.4 97.8 27.6 47.0 31.4 1.9 33.3
Netherlands 103.1 98.1 35.9 44.8 26.3 8.8 35.1
Germany 94.1 88.5 32.6 30.8 6.5 41.3 47.7
Norway 78.9 77.8 29.1 28.3 39.4 1.4 40.8
Sweden 65.4 69.2 25.9 17.5 40.3 1.6 41.9
United States 113.4 50.4 35.0 22.8 100.0 7.9 107.9
Switzerland 45.2 43.4 7.2 7.0 13.3 11.5 24.8
United Kingdom 38.7 36.9 11.7 16.5 13.5 1.7 15.2
Canada 31.9 31.9 7.0 7.0 10.5 3.2 13.7
Italy 18.6 21.8 1.3 1.7 12.4 29.3 41.7
Belgium 22.4 21.2 2.3 2.5 2.3 6.5 8.8
France 19.8 18.4 0.7 0.8 1.4 31.3 32.7
Australia 13.5 14.1 2.0 2.2 3.3 1.2 4.4
Austria 14.0 14.0 0.7 0.7 2.0 1.7 3.7
Finland 12.8 13.0 11.7 13.9 10.4 2.3 12.7
Total 882.4 806.5 282.4 297.8 342.5 181.1 523.6
Share of total
core b/ 96.2 95.9 92.6 98.5 96.6
UNICEF 1996 WFPa
Countries Govern. Nat. Total 1996
Com
Japan 30.9 34.3 74.2 32.4
Denmark 31.5 1.9 33.4 42.5
Netherlands 29.9 23.9 53.8 45.0
Germany 8.1 39.9 48.0 67.0
Norway 39.6 1.6 41.2 22.4
Sweden 42.5 1.9 44.4 26.8
United States 100.0 8.2 108.2 316.2
Switzerland 13.2 11.7 24.9 20.6
United Kingdom 13.1 2.0 15.1 7.8
Canada 10.5 3.1 13.6 41.8
Italy - 18.8 18.8 3.5
Belgium 2.6 5.0 7.6 3.1
France 9.6 29.9 39.5 3.1
Australia 3.6 1.0 4.6 21.8
Austria 2.0 2.7 4.7 3.9
Finland 12.6 2.1 13.7 10.9
Total 349.7 188.0 537.7 668.8
Share of total
core /b 95.2 94.2
a/ The European Union is a major contributor to WFP core resources, contributing
$32.3 million in 1996.
b/ Percentage.
Table 2. Contributions to United Nations funds and programmes, 1991-1995
(Millions of United States dollars)
UNDP UNDP admin. Subtotal %
1991 Core 1 022.0 63.5 1 085.5 81
Other 220.0 39.8 259.8 19
Total 1 242.0 103.31 345.3
1992 Core 1 073.8 55.9 1 129.7 76
Other 408.0 30.3 438.3 24
Total 1 481.8 86.2 1 568.0
1993 Core 909.0 47.3 956.3 66
Other 409.3 24.2 433.5 34
Total 1 318.3 71.5 1 389.8
1994 Core 942.8 63.6 1 006.4 60
Other 676.6 10.6 687.2 40
Total 1 619.4 74.2 1 693.6
1995 Core 911.0 78.1 989.1 58
Other 701.0 14.3 715.3 42
Total 1 612.0 92.4 1 704.4
UNFPA % UNICEF % WFP a/
1991 Core 219.3 98 590.0 63
Other 4.7 2 217.0 37
Total 233.0 807.0 1 401.1
1992 Core 233.2 98 707.0 58
Other 5.0 2 231.0 42
Total 238.2 938.0 1 734.9
1993 Core 217.0 99 588.0 59
Other 2.7 1 278.0 41
Total 219.7 866.0 1 435.1
1994 Core 254.5 96 679.0 53
Other 10.7 4 327.0 47
Total 265.2 1 006.0 1 515.0
1995 Core 305.0 91 541.9 54
Other 32.1 10 464.7 46
Total 337.1 1 006.6 1 282.4
a/ Core and other resources not available.
Table 3. Contributions to the United Nations Development
Programme, 1991-1995
(Millions of United States dollars)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
UNDP core 1 022.0 1 073.8 909.0 942.8 911.0
UNDP other resources a/ 220.0 408.0 409.3 676.6 701.0
Subtotal 1 242.0 1 481.8 1 318.3 1 619.4 1 612.0
UNDP admin. funds
core b/ 63.5 55.9 47.3 63.6 78.1
UNDP admin. funds
other resources a/ 39.8 30.3 24.2 10.6 14.3
Subtotal 103.3 86.2 71.5 74.2 92.4
Grand total 1 345.3 1 568.0 1 389.8 1 693.6 1 704.4
Source: Financial statements of the United Nations Development Programme.
a/ Including cost-sharing and government cash counterpart contributions.
b/ Including the Capital Development Fund, the Special United Nations Volunteer
Fund, the United Nations Fund for Science and Technology for Development, the
United Nations Development Fund for Women, and the Trust Fund for Sudano-
Sahelian Activities, as well as other funds, accounts and trust funds of UNDP,
including trust funds established by the Administrator, and contributions for
the Junior Professional Officers programme; also includes cost-sharing
contributions to those funds.
Figure I. United Nations Development Programme
core and other resources
(FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE)
Figure II. United Nations Development Programme-administered
funds core and other resources
(FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE)
Table 4. Contributions to the United Nations Population
Fund, 1991-1995
(Millions of United States dollars)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
UNFPA core 219.3 233.2 217.0 254.5 305.0
UNFPA other
resources a/ 4.7 5.0 2.7 10.7 32.1
Grand total 223.0 238.2 219.7 265.2 337.1
Source: UNFPA financial statements, 1995.
a Including contributions to trust funds and special population programmes of
UNFPA.
Figure III. United Nations Population Fund core and other resources
(FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE)
Notes
1/ Defined as amounts pledged for a given year, irrespective of the year in
which the amount is actually received.
-----
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.
Date last posted: 29 November 1999 12:16:05
Comments and suggestions: esa@un.org