Po W Budgets Proposal 2022 2023 Corporate Services

Po. W Budgets Proposal 2022 -2023 Corporate Services Division 13 October 2020

• Budget Envelopes Meeting Agenda • Environment Fund Allocations • Wholistic View of Resources • Resource Mobilization Strategy

• Budget Envelopes Meeting Agenda

2022 -2023 BUDGET ENVELOPES Ø Historical Trends Ø Internal factors • Strategic Priorities • Resource Mobilization Ø External factors • MS Guidance • COVID-19

2022 -2023 BUDGETS BY FUNDING SOURCE $272 M, [PERCENTAGE] Global Fund $200 M, [PERCENTAGE] Env. Fund E] AG T ] EANGE T C N E ERC[PER C P [ S M, , RB P $47 M 2 $3 $322 M, [PERCENTAGE] Earmarked Fund Environment Fund Earmarked Funds Programme Support Funds UN Regular Budget Global Funds

Meeting Agenda • Environment Fund Allocations How did we distribute the funds across the (sub/)programmes?

The allocation of Environment Fund is based on a review of core mandates and priorities while allowing flexibility to react to emerging issues and budget shortfalls. Executive Direction & Management / Policy Making Organs Programme Management & Support • Allocated the amount of $ 12 M as compared to $11. 2 M in the 2020 -2021 Po. W. Increase of $400 K mainly due to staff incremental costs • Increased by 1% for a $14 M requirement Increase considers reduction in PSC owing to foreseen decrease in earmarked resources & expected strengthening of UNEP’s accountability systems

87% of EF budget is allocated to the Programme of Work & fund programme reserve Action Pillars • Equal allocation of 12% ($24 million) of its overall budget for each of the climate, nature, and chemicals & pollution action subprogrammes. Foundational & Enabling • The Environmental Governance & Science Policy foundational subprogrammes, and the Finance & Economic Transformations enabling subprogramme, are allocated an equal share of 13% each. Digital Transformations subprogramme is allocated 7%.

Chemicals & Pollution; 12% Digital Transformation; 7% Climate; 12% Action Pillars Science Policy; 13% Environmental Governance; 13% Nature; 12% Finance & Economic Transformation; 13%

Meeting Agenda • Wholistic View of Resources Considering all funding sources and their associated target budgets, how will the resources be broken across the (sub/) programmes?

Overall Target Distribution of Resources Across the Subprogrammes nom ic , 9% 5. Chemicals and al Pollution Action , t n me % n 14% o r i , 7 v e n c E 4. ernan v Go nce cie 7. S y , 6% ic Pol 6. Tra Finan nsf orm ce and atio Eco n 1. Climate Action , 26% 2. Dig ital T ransfo rmatio n, 5% 3. Nature Action , 23% 2020 -2021 Proposed Po. W Budget by Sub Programme

EXECUTIVE DIRECTION & PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT BUDGET EXECUTVE DIRECTION & MANAGEMENT Regular budget 39% Environmen t Fund 53% PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT Programm e support cost 38% Earmarke d Funds 8% Environment Fund Global Funds Regular budget Earmarked Funds Programme support cost Environmen t Fund 33% Regular budget 6% Global Funds 19% Environment Fund Global Funds Regular budget Earmarke d Funds 4% Earmarked Funds Programme support cost

2020 -21 & 2022 -23 COMPARATIVE BUDGETS BY FUNDS

2020 -21 & 2022 -23 COMPARATIVE STAFFING COMPLEMENTS Staffing resources (number of posts) E. Regular budget 113 D. Programme support costs 90 95 C. Global funds 88 101 250 B. Earmarked funds A. Environment Fund 422 113 252 431 2020 -2021 2022 -2023

Meeting Agenda • Resource Mobilization What were the main outcomes of the survey? What are we doing?

Resource Mobilization Survey - Key findings UNEP on right track with strategy to increase and balance funding • Wide support for actions needed to increase total core funding and number of MS that contribute to the Environment Fund: • • • more info on Environment Fund (results, allocations, spending) more visibility of UNEP with decision makers / in capitals public appreciation & visibility of contributors to Environment Fund better explanation on benefits of core funding etc. • To shift tightly earmarked funding to softly earmarked MS find the following important: • provide options for thematic funding • decrease programme support costs for softly earmarked funds • more info on benefits of softly earmarked funds vs tightly earmarked funds (both for UNEP and for MS)

Resource Mobilization Survey - Key findings (Cont. ) Support for ‘fair share’/VISC as tool • • • Large majority (85%) support ‘fair share’ as a tool 82% agreed the tool is ‘fair’ -- it shares responsibility across membership 43% say tool ‘not fair’ in their case (doesn’t consider latest situation) ‘Fair share’ easier to understand than VISC (67% agreed/12% disagreed) A majority (67%) agree that everyone should contribute their ‘fair share’ – 15% disagreed • More information on ‘fair share’/VISC would be useful (51%) Possible effect of COVID-19 on Member States’ funding of UNEP: • 13% respondents said their Government likely to increase funding • 66% respondents said their Government likely to maintain funding • 12% respondents said their Government likely to decrease funding

New strategies for Resource Mobilization UNEP is exploring and asking Member States to support High quality Funding • Attracts loosely earmarked funding at the subprogramme level. Long Term Agreements • Provides secure multi-year funding for the EF to cover the MTS period Hybrid Agreements • Allows Members States to include their pledges for the Environment Fund into their current earmarked legal instruments and agreements.

Sonja Leighton-Kone Director, Corporate Services Division Mobile No: +254 -741 -604 -440 Email: sonja. leighton-kone@un. org . Any Questions? Thank you