Agenda item 6a and 6b Financial and budgetary arrangements: Budget and expenditure Trust Fund Document IPBES/3/10 and non papers (7 and 13 January)

Item 6 - Financial and budgetary arrangements In decision IPBES-2/6, the Plenary  Invited “pledges and contributions to the trust fund as well as in-kind contributions from Governments, UN bodies, the GEF, other intergovernmental organizations and other stakeholders, including the private sector and foundations” to support the work of the Platform  Requested the secretariat to “inform the Plenary at its third session on the status of the implementation of the work programme in relation to the budget” IPBES/3/10Budget and expenditure for Non Paper (7 January)Updated income and expenditure for 2014 Non Paper (13 January)Update on IPBES financial rules and procedures

Country Total contributions received ( ) Total outstanding pledges ( ) Total contributions + pledges (31 December 2014) Australia Canada Chile China Denmark Finland France Germany India Japan Latvia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Republic of Korea South Africa Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Total Item 6 – Contributions and pledges (as at 31 December 2014)

Item 6 - In-kind contributions received in 2014 (1/2) Technical support  China, Norway, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, FAO, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, IUCN Support to work programme meetings  Brazil, China, Germany, Norway, Republic of Korea, UNESCO Support to additional meetings and activities  Germany, Philippines, Monaco, USA

Item 6 - In-kind contributions received in 2014 (2/2) Additional in-kind offers received: 12 Governments: Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, Norway, Monaco, Netherlands, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Switzerland and United States of America 24 organizations: Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Australia; FAPESP Research Programme on Biodiversity Characterization, Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use (BIOTA-FAPESP) and State University of Campinas, Brazil; Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Arctic Council; Cropper Foundation; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Global Biodiversity Information Facility; Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network; Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, Brazil; International Council for the Exploration of the Sea; International Council for Science; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; International Union for Conservation of Nature; National Biodiversity Institute of Costa Rica; Network of Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas, France; Society for Conservation Biology; Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network, Australia; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification; United Nations Development Programme; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Item expenditures as at 30 November 2014 Budget item 2014 approved budget 2014 expenditure Balance Meetings of the Platform bodies Work programme Secretariat interim technical support arrangements (25 738) Outreach and communications Travel Secretariat operating costs61 745(61 745) Programme support costs (8%) Contribution to working capital reserve (10%)  Total

Item 6 - Proposed revised budget 2015 Budget items 2015 InitialRevisionRevised Meetings of Platform bodies Implementation of work programme Professional personnel Administrative personnel Operating costs (non-personnel) Total requirements Programme support costs (8%) Total cost to the trust fund Contribution to working capital reserve (10%)  Grand total

Item 6 - Proposed budget and indicative budget 2018 Budget items Meetings of the Platform bodies Implementation of the work programme Secretariat personnel Secretariat operating costs (non-personnel) Total requirements Programme support costs (8 %) Total cost to the trust fund Contribution to working capital reserve (10 %)  (-) Total

Item 6 – Anticipated available funds for 2015 Total contributions received as at 31/12/ Total expenditures incurred from 2012 to 30/11/ Anticipated further 2014 expenditures Anticipated funds carried over to Outstanding pledge as at 01/01/ Total resources available as at 01/01/

Item 6 – Overall situation Total cost of work programme approved Total additional costs proposed ( ) Total revised cost proposed Amount already spent ( ) Total resources available as at 01/01/2015* Amount to be raised for programme completion * This figure may be adjusted as a result of the amendment to the IPBES Financial Rules and Procedures proposed by the Bureau to the third session of the Plenary

Agenda item 6a and 6b Eligibility for financial support from the Platform Trust Fund Document IPBES/3/2/Add.1/Rev.1

Item 6 – Eligibility for financial support from the Platform trust fund Document 3/2/Add.1/Rev.1 presents suggestions by the Bureau regarding:  adding IPBES to the list of international organisations eligible for official development assistance (ODA) as determined by the OECD  guidance on the eligibility of participants for financial support

Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES Adding IPBES to the list of international organisations eligible for official development assistance (ODA) as determined by the OECD  Once a year the OECD Development Assistance Committee reviews applications for addition to the list of eligible international organizations. Working on the basis of an agreed methodology, the Committee allocates a coefficient corresponding to the extent to which the funds are considered ODA relevant.  The Plenary is asked to approve the suggestion that the Platform be added to the list of ODA-eligible international organizations in order to allow the secretariat, under the guidance of the Bureau, to prepare an application for 2015

Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES Guidance on the eligibility of participants for financial support  The Platform is to provide financial support to developing countries but −No further indication has been given as to which countries are to be covered. −A number of ambiguous cases have been encountered where it has proved difficult to make a clear decision on eligibility of an expert.  Draft guidance provided by the Bureau to allow for a consistent approach to matters related to eligibility for financial support: −Prioritized list defining countries are eligible for financial support −Rules for determining eligibility for financial support in ambiguous cases.

Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES List of countries eligible for financial support  The Bureau suggests that the OECD Development Assistance Committee list of ODA recipients, in accordance with the rules of the Platform restricted to States members of the United Nations only, be used to define which countries are eligible for financial support in the context of the Platform.

Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES List of countries eligible for financial support  Using the adapted OECD Development Assistance Committee list of ODA recipients to define eligibility for financial support has implications with regard to current practices (Annex of IPBES/3/2/Add.1/Rev.1). −To date, following the practice applied by the interim secretariat of the Platform provided by tUNEP, and in line with the practice of tIPCC, all countries of the Eastern European region have been eligible for financial support within the context of the Platform. −The OECD Development Assistance Committee list of ODA recipients, however, explicitly excludes members of the G-8, members of the European Union and countries with a firm date for entry into the European Union.

Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES List of countries eligible for financial support  In the light of this, Plenary is invited to decide whether the practice of considering all countries of the Eastern European region as eligible for financial support should be continued or not, considering the following implications:  Risks related to regional balance: Eastern European region representation in 2015 has been 11% (compared with the ideal 20%), half of which from members of EU and G8. Discontinuing financial support to those countries might lead to an even weaker representation  Costs: continuing financial support to all countries of the Eastern European region is estimated to amount to approximately US$0.5 - US$1 million  ODA eligibility of the Platform trust fund: difference of an estimated 2.5 % in the co-efficient determining the rate of ODA eligibility of the trust fund

Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES Rules to determine eligibility for financial support in ambiguous cases  ambiguous cases have been encountered where it has proved difficult to make a clear decision on the eligibility of an expert.  ambiguity results from the fact that the term “developing country” can be interpreted as referring to the Government or organization making the nomination, to the nationality of the expert, or to the place where the expert works.

Item 6 – Formalising ODA status of IPBES Rules to determine eligibility for financial support in ambiguous cases  In order to allow for a consistent approach, it is suggested that experts eligible for support would be those that are either: −nationals of a developing country; −employed by a developing country institution; or −nominated by a developing country.

Agenda item 6c Financial and budgetary arrangements: Technical support units Document IPBES/3/INF/13

Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme Technical Support Units (TSUs) located outside of and reporting directly to the Executive Secretary of IPBES, for the implementation of specific deliverables  Norwegian Environment Agency in Trondheim, Norway, to support the work of the task force on capacity building (deliverable 1(a) and 1(b)), providing two full-time professional positions and one full-time administrative position;  UNESCO in Paris, France, to support the work of the task force on indigenous and local knowledge systems (deliverable 1(c)), providing two part-time professional positions and two part-time administrative positions;

Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme Technical Support Units (TSUs) located outside of and reporting directly to the Executive Secretary of IPBES, for the implementation of specific deliverables  Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea and the National Institute of Ecology (NIE) in Seocheongun, Republic of Korea, to support the work of the task force on knowledge and data (deliverable 1(d)), providing one full-time and one part-time professional positions and part- time administrative support; and  Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) in Bilthoven, The Netherlands, funded by three Ministries, to support the work of the expert group delivering the methodological assessment on scenario analysis and modelling (deliverable 3(c)), providing three full-time staff including professional and administrative positions.

Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme Technical support, located within and reporting to the Secretariat, for the implementation of specific deliverables  A consultant to support the delivery of the regional/subregional assessments (deliverable 2(b)), through in-kind contribution from China;  A consultant to support the delivery of the assessment on pollination and pollinators associated with food production (deliverable 3(a)), covered by the work programme budget as no specific in-kind offer was received.

Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme Generic terms of reference for a technical support unit  The technical support unit would:  Work as a part of the Secretariat under the direction of the Executive Secretary, supporting the IPBES work programme deliverable (X);  Work with the Secretariat, Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel to ensure the overall timing and delivery of deliverable (X) is followed and met;  Work with the Secretariat to ensure that all relevant processes and procedures adopted by the Plenary are addressed in carrying out their work, and that relevant IPBES operating principles are addressed;  Provide progress reports as required for the Plenary, Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel, and support the Secretariat in tracking progress in implementation of the deliverable (X);  …

Item 6c – Technical support to the work programme Generic terms of reference for a technical support unit (Appendix 1)  The technical support unit would:  Work as a part of the Secretariat under the direction of the Executive Secretary, supporting the IPBES work programme deliverable (X);  Work with the Secretariat, Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel to ensure the overall timing and delivery of deliverable (X) is followed and met;  Work with the Secretariat to ensure that all relevant processes and procedures adopted by the Plenary are addressed in carrying out their work, and that relevant IPBES operating principles are addressed;  Provide progress reports as required for the Plenary, Bureau and Multidisciplinary Expert Panel, and support the Secretariat in tracking progress in implementation of the deliverable (X);  …