UNDP RESOURCES TRENDS & DIRECTIONS DRM/Partnerships Bureau RBEC DRR/DCD MEETING 17 DECEMBER 2008 *1

Overall resources picture Composition of Resources Sources/Contributors Past Trends Future Direction – SP Ambition – Changing Aid Environment *2

UNDP’s average annual income over the past three years (2005/6/7): +/- $5 billion: UNDP is the largest UN entity in financial terms (after PKO) and represents close to 1/3 of the UN systems development resources In addition, UNDP administers a $3,3 billion portfolio of MDTFs and ‘Joint Programmes’ on behalf of the UN system (as of 31 August 2008) Total contributions to the UN’s operational activities for development exceeded $16 billion in 2006, making the UN system in development - with all its agencies taken together - the biggest multilateral development actor UNDP - Overall resources picture *3

Growth in UNDP Income Multilateral resources Bilateral donor resources Local resources Regular resources Administered funds *4

Growth in UNDP Income Source: UNDP *5

Regular Resources - ’Core’ What is ‘Core’ and why is it so critical? Current Core Donors & Contribution Trends Issues: Predictability, Vulnerability, Burden-Sharing Core to Non-Core Ratio *6

Source: OECD and UNDP UNDP Core vs Total ODA *7

Top 10 DonorsUS $% Norway131,606, % Netherlands124,885, % Sweden119,932, % United Kingdom109,931,0819.9% United States106,870,0009.6% Japan75,012,6676.7% Denmark69,693,7466.2% Spain60,888,9875.5% Canada56,726,9085.1% Germany45,876,9874.1% TOTAL901,424, % Top 10 Donors to UNDP Core: 2007 *8

Comparative Analysis on Core Contributions to UNDP, UNICEF, WFP: 2006 (Thousands of current United States dollars) UNDPUNICEFWFP US$% TotalUS$% TotalUS$% Total Contributing M/S963, %473, %241, % # Contributing M/S6534.0% %4724.6% Top 5 Contributors552, %302, %179, % Top 10 Contributors822, %402, %232, % DAC Member States946, %456, %238, % EU Member States421, %171, %115, % BRICS Member States8,0420.8%4,4230.9%1,8680.8% G8 Member States402, %217, %64, % G20 without G8 M/S137, %72, %56, % G20 Member States539, %289, %121, % Source: UNDESA (2007) Comprehensive statiscal analysis of the financing of operational activities of the United Nations system: 2006 update Concentration of Core in UNDP/UNICEF/WFP *9

UNDP CoreIDA (annualized) 2007 assessed contribution to UN regular budget (US$) Argentina 6,502,453 Brazil 42,050,665 62,055,474 17,526,612 China 3,350,000 3,400,000 9,934,530 53,360,129 Czech Republic 438, ,814 3,449,335 5,906,199 5,622,120 India 4,558,596 4,412, ,003,396 Indonesia 147,693 3,221,215 Kenya 200,076 Korea 1,000,000 62,732,039 92,580,931 43,476,401 Kuwait 1,710,000 9,650,332 14,200,118 3,641,374 Mexico 1,000,000 3,449,335 5,138,898 45,157,034 Nigeria 960,362 Poland 15,000 50,000 10,023,781 Russian Federation 1,100,000 19,515,333 35,336,233 24,009,056 Saudi Arabia 2,000,000 16,666,095 21,878,176 14,965,645 Singapore 300,000 9,650,332 8,803,770 6,942,619 South Africa 5,802,189 Thailand 865, ,721,403 Turkey 400,000 1,000,000 6,205,876 5,048,033 7,679,746 United Arab Emirates 324, , ,042,280 Venezuela 10,000 4,001,509 Comparison: UNDP Core – IDA (annualized) UN (assessed annualized) *10

Other Resources - ’Non-core’ What is non-core, why is it important, how is it mobilized Issues: Concentration, Delivery, Reporting, Potential Impact on Core Non-core: Bilateral and Multilateral Sources, Local resources Thematic non-core (e.g. thematic trust funds) Global, regional, multi-country and country-level non-core resources Non-core from the Private Sector, Foundations, CSOs *11

UNDP Non-Core vs Total ODA Source: OECD and UNDP *12

Top 10 DonorsUS $ million% of total United Kingdom % Norway % United States % Sweden % Netherlands % Canada % Spain % Japan % Italy % Germany % TOTAL % Concentration of Bilateral Non-Core Top 10 Donors in 2007 *13

Concentration of Multilateral Non-Core Top 5 donors in 2007 Top 5 donorsUS $ million% share European Commission % GEF % GFATM % UN System % World Bank % TOTAL % *14

Concentration of Bilateral and Multilateral Non-Core Contributions to UNDP % Share of Top Recipient Countries *15

*16 Resources from Countries in the RBEC Region (US $) RBEC Region CoreGLOCLocal resourcesBilateralCoreGLOCLocal resourcesBilateral Albania 366,36434,95786, ,571199,9500 Armenia 0256, ,0360 Azerbaijan 013,015, ,803,79810,000 Belarus 34,6211, ,780141,2530 Bosnia/Herzegovina 01,406, ,871,9000 Bulgaria 282,1673,283, ,9816,141,9920 Croatia 031,452230,000 1,107,6750 Cyprus 0 0 Czech Republic438, ,64271,178485,8140 1,053,901 Estonia33, , Georgia 05,135, ,678,6250 Hungary 0 010, Kazakhstan 114,97517, ,95470,0000 Kosovo 3,849,16363,241 4,013,7330 Kyrgystan Latvia ,5170 Lithuania 0386, ,5380 Macedonia 01,910, ,526,4670 Moldova 6,713530, ,7910 Montenegro 0 73,7460 Poland15,000 5,282,912150,30050,00009,116,84111,100 Romania 145,4553,494,89939, ,6674,429,5472,502 Russian Federation 1,100,00010,615,76650,0001,100,000780,8701,746,1020 Slovakia 03,689, ,8280 Slovenia25, , Tajikistan 30,000432, ,605319,3160 Turkey400,000751,5254,728,47457,5461,000,000845,3785,576,819678,346 Turkmenistan 050,88502,000 0 Ukraine 52,614744, ,456,7850 Uzbekistan 06,168, ,421,9600 Yugoslavia 013, ,537 TOTAL911,9132,899,43465,823,489543,2202,707,8142,560,80653,656,2192,101,386

‘Non-Core’ to RBEC Region: 2005 – 2007 (US $ million)

LOCAL RESOURCES in 2000 and 2007 Source: IMIS 2007: $1, million2000: $ million

Non-core Instruments Principal Instruments for Non-Core Resources: Financial/Legal agreements Partnership/Framework Agreements, MOUs Cost-sharing Trust Funds (open/closed) Special Case: Spain’s MDG Achievement Fund with UNDP Multi-Donor Trust Funds, Joint Programmes (UNDP as Administrative Agent for the UN system) *19

Comparison Trust Funds vs. Cost-Sharing Trust FundCost-Sharing Purpose Funding modality created on the basis of a TOR for global or country- wide programmes that usually consist of a number of projects Support to a specific project or part of country programme Financial and accounting A separate accounting entity; accounted for and reported separately to the Executive Board; complete commingling of funds Direct funding of projects, which can be received either from a single donor, or can combine resources of UNDP and various donors for a given set of project outputs. What does this mean for CO? Centralized signatory authority of the Associate Administrator; labor intensive due to administrative burden associated with accounting/administration Decentralized signatory authority to RR for standard agreements; less administrative burden Other Requires the designation of Trust Fund Manager Use of donor contributions is normally limited to the duration of a particular project. *20

Elements of a Changing Aid Environment Overall Aid Picture Non-DAC Aid Flows Increasing Prominence of NGOs High-Profile Foundations *21

Overall Aid Picture 1990s and early 2000s see DAC ODA routinely reach some 95% of all international aid – DAC likely to remain dominant, considering the ODA increases announced by most of its members Non-DAC donors are ‘(re-)emerging’ – magnitude hard to establish (reporting habits vary, definitions differ, aid often tied and bundled with economic interests) Clearest picture of Non-DAC ODA results from other reporting OECD members, reporting Arab states and EU accession countries Aid from increasingly visible donors such as China and India remains hard to interpret and often bundled with investment, trade etc Private aid flows, foundations in particular, are reporting very significant donations and achieve a lot of visibility, some are expected to disburse development aid at high levels in future years *22

Several emerging economies are known to channel substantial aid but most do not report/publish data systematically and/or do not follow DAC definitions e.g. China, India - or available data bundles aid with trade/investments. China stopped officially reporting aid in In that year, aid to African countries had amounted to $1.8 billion. By the end of 2005, China had forgiven debts totaling $1.38 billion by 31 African countries. China’s financial aid to Africa clearly accelerating, but hard to interpret. IMF: By end 2006, China loans and credit lines to Africa worth $19 billion. Only three Arab states report aid regularly. The Arab region has a strong aid tradition, but financial data for the wide range of national and regional Arab aid funds and foundations is in most cases not publicly available. Venezuela has offered at least US$ 1.1 billion since the beginning of 2005 in loans, donations and financial aid in the Latin America and Caribbean region, but also in to some African countries A number of the non-DAC OECD members in Eastern Europe report data on their net ODA flows regularly through the DAC and, thus, allow for an easier overview and analysis as is possible in other MICs/regions Non-DAC Aid Flows – Pieces of a Puzzle *23

Source: OECD DAC Final ODA flows in 2006 Net ODA Flows from reporting non-DAC Countries (millions of current US dollars) *24

Foundations – Key Examples Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grants since inception to September 2007: $997m for “Global Development” and close to $8.5 billion for “Global Health”. With the combined commitments of Gates and Buffet, the capital base is expected to reach $56 billion. The foundation is epected to be in a position (and under pressure) to award grants between $2.5 and $3 billion annually in coming years (equals total ODA of Canada, Norway or Denmark (WHO’s planned exp. 08/09: $2.1billion/p.a.) The Al Maktoum Foundation (Dubai) launched in May 2007 with a US$10 billion endowment supports initiatives to boost the knowledge capital of the region (funding research institutions, youth leadership programmes, scholarships and research grants). In 2007, Sheikh Al Maktoum launched a campaign to raise money to educate 1 million children in poor countries. The campaign is Dubai's contribution for providing Children's Primary Education to every child by The amount donated to this campaign has exceeded US$ 65 million six days after its launch. Soros Foundation and the Open Society Institute: expenditures currentlyaverage between $400 and $500 million annually The Aga Khan Foundation as part of the Aga Khan Development Network had a 2006 income of $254m and expenditures of $185m (capital base: $1.1 billion). It’s regional focus lies on Central Asia and the CIS *25

Aid paradigm changing across regions – traditional distinction between donor and recipient countries no longer applicable – need for a corporate strategy towards MICs and NCCs (Greentree meeting) Impact on UNDP presence/offices in different contexts and regions (financial, programmatic, political) - need for a corporate approach with tailor-made responses to regions and, when applicable, individual countries RBEC: Early engagement through BRC with the changing environment in Eastern Europe, in particular – need to build on it in cross-bureau cooperation (capacity development, aid effectiveness, multilateral donorship, ODA management) UNDP and the Changing Aid Environment *26