FINAL Compendium 2012

8/12/2019 FINAL Compendium 2012

1/28

Compendium of Contributionsby Main Donors

2012


2/28

Front Cover: UNICEF/NYHQ2012-1850/Tanya Bindra

A smiling girl attends class at her school in the village of Bladier, in the rural municipality ofOulessbougou, in the western Koulikoro Region. By late November 2012 in Mali, the occupation of much

of the countrys north by rebel forces had displaced an estimated 198,558 people and forced more than

200,000 to seek refuge in neighbouring countries. Additionally, Mali remains one of eight countries in theSahel region also including Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania, Niger and the northern parts of Cameroon,

Nigeria and Senegal facing a severe food and nutrition crisis. The emergency is the result of repeateddrought-related food shortages, from which people have had insufficient time to recover before being again

affected. Conditions have improved since the height of the crisis in early 2012. Still, an estimated 10.3

million people throughout the Sahel are expected to face food insecurity in 2013, with 5 million pregnantwomen and children under age 5 expected to suffer from malnutrition. This includes some 660,000 under-

five Malian children who are expected to be acutely malnourished. In northern Mali, the pairing of foodshortages with increased conflict has already exposed some 510,000 people to food insecurity. Vulnerability

is highest among displaced populations, children under age 5 and women and is increasing within hostcommunities. Limited access to basic services, including water, sanitation and hygiene, is another key

concern, as is the conflicts effects on childrens rights, including to be educated. Some 25,000 internally

displaced students in the countrys south are in need of access to education. To respond to these and otherneeds throughout 2013, UNICEF together with 54 humanitarian partners, including other United Nations

organizations and NGOs, have called for over US$370 million in the 2013 Consolidated Appeal for Mali.

UNICEFs portion of the appeal is approximately US$84.7 million.


3/28

A Note of Thanks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3

Top 20 Public and Private Sector Donors to UNICEF, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4

Top 20 Government Donors to UNICEF, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..5

Top 20 National Committee Donors to UNICEF, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6

Total Revenue by Type of Donor, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7

Regular Resources (RR) Revenue by Type of Donor, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8Other Resources (OR) Revenue by Type of Donor, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9

Other Resources Regular (ORR) Revenue by Type of Donor, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Other Resources Emergency (ORE) Revenue by Type of Donor, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Regular Resources and Other Resources, 2003-12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Regular Resources the vital funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Trends in Total Contributions by Category, 2003-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Contributions received through Inter-organizational Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Breakdown of Thematic Revenue, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Thematic funds highest quality earmarked funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Top Ten Donors to Thematic Funding, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Total UNICEF Contributions, 2011-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Member Governments,

Regular Resources Revenue to UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Member Governments,Total Revenue to UNICEF Compared to ODA, ODA Per Capita and GNIPer Capita, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

2012Compendium of Contributionsby Main DonorsContents


4/28

A Note of Thanks

Dear Partner,

Thank you for your continued commitment to our shared goal: achieving results in the lives of the worlds

most vulnerable children. UNICEFs ability to reach the children, families, and communities in greatestneed is dependent on our donor partners. In a continued austere economic situation worldwide the mostdisadvantaged members of our society need our solidarity even more. UNICEF truly values the efforts by our

donor partners to sustain the support to our joint commitments.

There is much progress to celebrate. Through our continuous partnership it has been possible for morechildren in more countries worldwide to receive clean water, basic sanitation, education, safe places to learn

and thrive, as well as crucial vaccines. Also, together we supported children in need during emergencies likelast years nutrition crisis in the Sahel or the continued turmoil in Syria.

In support of our joint efforts, UNICEF draws on several comparative advantages: our mandate, our technical

capacity and experience, our global presence and sincere local knowledge in more than 150 countries, ourability to convene key actors locally, regionally and globally as well as partnerships on various levels and

building on the strengths of UN coherence. These advantages also allow UNICEF to appreciate the challengesthat remain, reaching particularly those children who are most disadvantaged and excluded as we approach the

2015 target for the Millennium Development Goals.

We can only achieve results in the most fragile settings and for the most disadvantaged children by walkingthe extra mile through efficiency, innovation and strong partnerships. The UNICEF Virtual Integrated System

of Information (VISION) and the move to the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) inJanuary 2012 are examples of our efforts to endorse and practice efficiency. VISION provides a platform forresults-based management and offers financial and programme information in one system. IPSAS improves

the quality of organizational-level financial reporting by ensuring improved accountability and transparency.In 2012 UNICEF joined the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). In the spirit of accountability and

transparency, UNICEF also makes itself readily available for assessments by its donors, such as the MultilateralOrganization Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN).

Yet, the foundation for the organizations efficiency lies in its funding structure. The important Regular

Resources or funds without restrictions to their use allow UNICEF to streamline business practices and

programming, reduce transaction costs, and maintain maximum flexibility in order to reach those children mostin need. In this context, the growing imbalance between Regular and earmarked resources is of great concern.Global thematic funds complement Regular Resources and are the ideal option for soft earmarking that allowdonor partners to direct the use of funds according to their priorities, but that also directly support UNICEFs

strategic objectives.

We look forward to innovating and strengthening our partnership in support of governments in their efforts toachieve the Millennium Development Goals, and as we work with all to shape the Post-2015 agenda and better

future for children.

Sincerely,

Elhadj As Sy

Director

Public-Sector Alliances andResource Mobilization Office (PARMO)

New York, May 2013

2


5/28

The Compendium of Contributions 2012 comprisesinformation on contributions from public and privatesector donor partners to UNICEF1. Information

presented in the Compendium demonstratesthe results of extensive policy and programme

partnerships between UNICEF and its donor partners.The Compendium is not an official UNICEF financial

document, but it draws largely on financial data and ispredominantly intended as a practical and illustrativereport for donor partners.

In 2012, the total revenue to UNICEF was $3,958

million. Regular Resources (RR) revenue amountedto $1,260 million, and Other Resources (OR) revenue

amounted to $2,698 million. Of the total revenue,$2,621 million or 66 per cent was contributed by thepublic sector including 51 per cent from government

donors, 6 per cent from inter-governmental

organizations, and 9 per cent from inter-organizationalarrangements. Private sector revenue was $1,261 or 32per cent of the total UNICEF revenue including 24 per

cent from National Committees, 6 per cent from GlobalProgramme Partners and Partnerships, and 2 per centfrom UNICEF country office fundraising.

The proportion of Regular Resources has been steadily

decreasing from approximately 50 per cent in 2000to 32 per cent in 2012. This has resulted in increased

challenges for UNICEF to pursue longer term objectivesand deliver on its mandate and priorities due to themore restricted nature of non-core funding. In addition,

the institutional structure and resources allocatedfor the core mandate become overstretched when

required to support the activities financed by non-corefunding, especially when cost recovery is insufficient.

As recognized in the resolution 67/2262of the GeneralAssembly, the need to address the imbalance between

core and non-core resources and encourages MemberStates to make core contributions which are key toachieving the internationally agreed development goals,

and reducing transaction costs.

As reinforced by the General Assembly resolution,optimizing the proportionality and complementarity

between RR and OR is important to achieve predictableresults for the most vulnerable and marginalizedpopulations, particularly children and women. UNICEFs

thematic funding provides an opportunity to provide

high quality earmarked funding allowing long-termplanning, sustainability and savings in transaction costs

for both UNICEF and donors. However, thematic fundingconstituted only 11 per cent of total Other Resources

income in 2012. This is a worrying trend and UNICEFlooks to work with its donor partners to reverse this

trend in seeking also to enhance efficiency in its funding,programme implementation and quality results reporting.

UNICEF moves to IPSAS

United Nations system organizations, including UNICEF,have prepared their financial reporting in accordance

with United Nations Systems Accounting Standards(UNSAS) since 1993. Through a General Assemblyresolution, member states requested UN organizations

to adopt International Public Sector FinancialReporting Standards (IPSAS) to enhance the quality

of organizational-level financial reporting by ensuringimproved transparency, accountability and governance.

UNICEF adopted IPSAS effective January 1, 2012.

A meaningful analysis of trends in revenue from one

period to the next requires comparable data. The changein accounting standards in 2012 from UNSAS to IPSAS

may not allow meaningful comparisons between 2012figures and previous years. Under IPSAS, revenue is

recorded at the earlier of either cash received or signatureof a formal agreement with the donor. In addition:

Where the donor indicates the year of use of the

contribution, revenue is not recorded until the yearof use is reached;

Where the agreement has legislative, termination

or reduction clauses, revenue is no longer recordeduntil UNICEF is notified of the legislative approval,or when cash is received;

Where the agreement has a performance clause,revenue is no longer recorded until UNICEF

has performed its obligation. In most cases, aperformance clause represents a requirement forUNICEF to provide the donor with a financial or

narrative report or an official request for paymentbefore additional funds are released to UNICEF.

Executive Summary

1 All figures in this reports analysis have been rounded.

2 The General Assembly resolution (67/226) on the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR) of UN operational activities fordevelopment adopted on 21 December 2012.

UNICEF Compendium of Contributions 2012


6/28

The top 20 donors contributed $2,760 million or 70 per centof the total revenue to UNICEF. These donors provided 72per cent of total Regular Resources (RR) revenue and 68per cent of total Other Resources (OR) revenue. Revenuereceived through inter-organizational arrangements isexcluded from this ranking as it originates primarily from thesame group of major UNICEF government donors.Of the top 20 donors, 72 per cent belonged to public sector

(governments and inter-governmental organizations) whilethe remaining 28 per cent were private sector donors (Global

Programme Partnerships and NatComs). All governmentdonors in this list belong to the OECD DevelopmentAssistance Committee (DAC).In 2012, the top five donors were all public sector donors.These comprised four government donors including UnitedKingdom, United States of America, Norway, and Japan,and one inter-governmental organization, the EuropeanCommission. These five donors contributed almost half of

the total contributions of all top 20 donors.

Top 20 Public and Private Sector Donors to UNICEF, 2012

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

United Kingdom

United Statesof America

Norway

EuropeanCommission

Japan

Canada

Sweden

Japan NC

Netherlands

France NC

Germany NC

Australia

Bill & MelindaGates Foundation

United Statesof America NC

Netherlands NC

Sweden NC

Republic ofKorea NC

Germany

UnitedKingdom NC

Denmark

US$ thousands

Regular Resources

Other Resources (Regular)

Other Resources (Emergency)

Rank DonorsRegular

Resources (US$)Other Resources(regular) (US$)

Other Resources(emergency) (US$)

Total (US$)

1 United Kingdom 63,492,400 213,791,582 57,218,787 334,502,769

2 United States of America 131,755,000 115,989,899 86,352,545 334,097,444

3 Norway 80,545,500 141,049,325 12,688,570 234,283,395

4 European Commission - 137,868,990 89,977,613 227,846,604

5 Japan 17,300,374 59,116,958 120,994,614 197,411,946

6 Canada 18,000,000 113,957,010 47,559,465 179,516,475

7 Sweden 69,974,400 59,040,371 32,317,050 161,331,821

8 Japan NC 129,923,654 14,722,201 6,334,752 150,980,606

9 Netherlands 42,288,520 73,603,394 8,571,427 124,463,34110 France NC 69,393,474 16,127,223 9,942,647 95,463,344

11 Germany NC 47,422,248 31,690,150 9,779,862 88,892,260

12 Australia 35,594,944 33,714,951 18,707,638 88,017,533

13 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - 84,627,476 - 84,627,476

14 United States of America NC 19,899,939 51,051,190 9,071,498 80,022,628

15 Netherlands NC 53,481,916 16,095,125 7,339,232 76,916,273

16 Sweden NC 34,805,625 28,977,541 1,105,394 64,888,560

17 Republic of Korea NC 43,066,582 19,967,335 1,234,480 64,268,398

18 Germany 8,076,870 12,528,910 39,997,163 60,602,943

19 United Kingdom NC 17,829,794 30,891,938 9,186,899 57,908,631

20 Denmark 29,054,750 10,409,093 14,448,672 53,912,515

4


7/28

Top 20 Government Donors to UNICEF, 2012*

The top 20 government donors contributed $1,979 million or50 per cent of the total revenue to UNICEF. These donorsprovided 47 per cent of total Regular Resources revenue and52 per cent of total Other Resources revenue. Of these top20 donors, all except one (Saudi Arabia) belong to the OECDDevelopment Assistance Committee. Contributions receivedthrough inter-organizational arrangements are excluded from

this ranking as they originate primarily from the same groupof major UNICEF government donors.In 2012, the top five donors in this category included UnitedKingdom, United States of America, Norway, Japan andCanada. These five donors contributed 65 per cent of thetotal contributions of all top 20 government donors.

Rank DonorsRegular

Resources (US$)Rank

Other Resources(regular) (US$)

RankOther Resources

(emergency) (US$)Rank Total (US$)

1 United Kingdom 63,492,400 4 213,791,582 1 57,218,787 3 334,502,769

2 United States of America 131,755,000 1 115,989,899 3 86,352,545 2 334,097,444

3 Norway 80,545,500 2 141,049,325 2 12,688,570 9 234,283,395

4 Japan 17,300,374 12 59,116,958 6 120,994,614 1 197,411,946

5 Canada 18,000,000 11 113,957,010 4 47,559,465 4 179,516,475

6 Sweden 69,974,400 3 59,040,371 7 32,317,050 6 161,331,821

7 Netherlands 42,288,520 5 73,603,394 5 8,571,427 11 124,463,341

8 Australia 35,594,944 6 33,714,951 8 18,707,638 7 88,017,533

9 Germany 8,076,870 14 12,528,910 11 39,997,163 5 60,602,943

10 Denmark 29,054,750 7 10,409,093 13 14,448,672 8 53,912,515

11 Finland 21,144,260 10 10,999,659 12 9,313,613 10 41,457,532

12 Belgium 24,747,565 8 6,151,529 16 8,128,631 12 39,027,725

13 Switzerland 21,598,200 9 8,957,840 14 1,959,072 17 32,515,112

14 Ireland 10,991,936 13 13,960,397 10 1,329,215 19 26,281,548

15 France 1,328,020 20 16,500,656 9 1,368,856 18 19,197,532

16 Saudi Arabia 1,000,000 23 7,600,013 15 5,360,962 15 13,960,976

17 Spain 3,808,218 16 219,193 33 8,008,608 13 12,036,019

18 Italy - - 5,906,453 17 5,953,594 14 11,860,047

19 Luxembourg 3,519,253 17 3,971,193 19 638,969 22 8,129,415

20 New Zealand 4,535,160 15 1,511,431 23 408,495 24 6,455,086

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

United Kingdom


Norway

Japan

Canada

Sweden

Netherlands

Australia

Germany

Denmark

Finland

Belgium

Switzerland

Ireland

France

Saudi Arabia

Spain

Italy

Luxembourg

New Zealand

US$ thousands

Regular Resources



* Excludes Inter-governmental Organizations.



8/28

Top 20 National Committee Donors to UNICEF, 2012

There are 36 UNICEF National Committees (NatComs)throughout the industrialized world. They are non-profit, non-governmental entities established according to national laws,and are instrumental in mobilizing private sector resources forUNICEFs work.In 2012, the top 20 NatComs contributed $911 million or23 per cent of the total revenue to UNICEF. These donorsprovided 43 per cent of total Regular Resources revenue and

14 per cent of total Other Resources revenue. Of the top20 donors, all except one (Hong Kong) belong to the OECDDevelopment Assistance Committee.

The top five NatCom donors included the NatComs ofJapan, France, Germany, United States of America and theNetherlands. These five donors contributed 54 per cent of thetotal contributions of all top 20 NatCom donors.

Rank DonorsRegular

Resources (US$)Rank

Other Resources(regular) (US$)

RankOther Resources

(emergency) (US$)Rank Total (US$)

1 Japan 129,923,654 1 14,722,201 9 6,334,752 7 150,980,606

2 France 69,393,474 2 16,127,223 7 9,942,647 1 95,463,344

3 Germany 47,422,248 4 31,690,150 2 9,779,862 2 88,892,260

4 United States of America 19,899,939 9 51,051,190 1 9,071,498 4 80,022,628

5 Netherlands 53,481,916 3 16,095,125 8 7,339,232 5 76,916,273

6 Sweden 34,805,625 6 28,977,541 4 1,105,394 15 64,888,560

7 Republic of Korea 43,066,582 5 19,967,335 5 1,234,480 14 64,268,398

8 United Kingdom 17,829,794 10 30,891,938 3 9,186,899 3 57,908,631

9 Italy 27,452,050 8 19,869,676 6 3,760,492 8 51,082,218

10 Spain 30,601,465 7 11,346,444 11 6,338,331 6 48,286,240

11 Switzerland 5,831,830 18 11,613,207 10 1,301,878 13 18,746,916

12 Finland 13,291,035 11 4,613,257 16 516,477 19 18,420,769

13 Denmark 9,268,513 12 7,064,558 12 1,084,272 16 17,417,342

14 Australia 6,835,048 16 5,482,412 14 3,601,606 9 15,919,066

15 Belgium 8,018,537 13 5,127,511 15 1,956,296 11 15,102,344

16 Hong Kong 7,114,188 15 5,947,790 13 221,014 27 13,282,992

17 Canada 7,166,999 14 2,949,978 18 2,396,493 10 12,513,470

18 Norway 6,007,319 17 3,512,214 17 237,517 24 9,757,050

19 Austria 4,691,475 19 1,081,247 23 609,467 17 6,382,189

20 Portugal 3,204,129 21 1,272,564 21 330,753 20 4,807,445

0 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000

Japan

France

Germany


Netherlands

Sweden

Republic of Korea

United Kingdom

Italy

Spain

Switzerland

Finland

Denmark

Australia

Belgium

Hong Kong

Canada

Norway

Austria

Portugal

US$ thousands

Regular Resources



6


9/28

Total Revenue by Type of Donor, 2012

The total revenue to UNICEF was $3,958 millionin 2012. Regular Resources revenue amountedto $1,260 million, and Other Resources revenueamounted to $2,698 million. Of the total revenue,$2,621 million or 66 per cent was contributed by thepublic sector including 51 per cent from governmentdonors, 6 per cent from inter-governmentalorganizations, and 9 per cent from inter-organizationalarrangements. Private sector revenue was $1,261

million or 32 per cent of the total UNICEF revenueincluding 24 per cent from NatComs, 6 per cent fromGlobal Programme Partners and Partnerships, and 2per cent from UNICEF country office fundraising.The world economy continues to struggle withhigh unemployment, weak aggregate demandcompounded by fiscal austerity, a high burden ofpublic debt, and a weakened financial sector in manyOECD DAC countries1. Depreciation of the Euro vis--vis other major currencies was the defining trend inglobal foreign exchange markets for the first half of2012, driven by the escalation of the debt crisis in theEuro zone.

1 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2013 Global Outlook, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, December 2012.

2 Inter-governmental Organizations include: African Development Bank, African Union Commission, Asian Development Bank, European Commission, Inter-American Development Bank, OPEC Fund, Secretariat of Pacific Community and UNITAID.

3 Revenue from Private Sector includes global funds, foundations, non-governmental organizations, National Committees and country office private sectorfundraising.

4 Other - Interest and miscellaneous income, which includes gains/losses on foreign exchange transactions.

5 Inter-organizational arrangements include: FAO, IOM, PAHO, UNAIDS, UNDG, UNDP, UNDPKO, UNDSS, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UN HumanSecurity Trust Fund, UNMAS, UN Office - Geneva, UNOCHA, UNOPS, UN Secretariat, UN Women, WFP, WHO, World Bank (including the Global Partnership forEducation), as well as UN Joint Programme where UNICEF is the Administrative Agent.

6 Total revenue includes financial adjustments and refunds.

Governments andInter-governmental

Organizations2

$2,271M

57%

Private Sector3

$1,261M

32%

$76M

2%

$350M

9%

Inter-organizationalarrangements5

Other4

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201

Public Sector

Private Sector

Other

US$million

s

TOTAL:US$3,958 million6

UNICEF Contributions Trend by Donor Category, 2003-12

ChangeinaccountingpolicyfromUNS

AStoIPSASmaynotallow

meaningfulcomparisonsbetween20

12figuresandprioryears.



10/28

Regular Resources Revenue (RR) by Type of Donor, 2012*

Regular Resources allow UNICEF to maintain a globalpresence, reach those most in need, respond rapidlyto emergencies and implement programmes withpredictability and continuity. The total RR revenue toUNICEF was $1,260 million in 2012. Of this, $601 millionor 48 per cent was contributed by government donorswhile private sector revenue was $583 or 46 per cent ofthe total RR revenue.

The top 20 donors to RR contributed $994 million or79 per cent of the total RR revenue to UNICEF.Of these donors, 54 per cent belonged to governmentdonors while the remaining 46 per cent were private sectordonors. All government donors in this ranking belong to theOECD Development Assistance Committee.In 2012, the top five RR donors were comprised of threegovernment donors including United States of America,Norway and Sweden, and two NatCom donors includingJapan Committee for UNICEF and French Committee forUNICEF. These five donors contributed almost half of thetotal RR contributions of all top 20 RR donors.

2012 Top 20 Donors for RRDonor RR (US$)

1 United States of America 131,755,000

2 Japan NC 129,923,654

3 Norway 80,545,500

4 Sweden 69,974,400

5 France NC 69,393,474

6 United Kingdom 63,492,400

7 Netherlands NC 53,481,916

8 Germany NC 47,422,248

9 Republic of Korea NC 43,066,582

10 Netherlands 42,288,520

11 Australia 35,594,944

12 Sweden NC 34,805,625

13 Spain NC 30,601,465

14 Denmark 29,054,750

15 Italy NC 27,452,050

16 Belgium 24,747,565

17 Switzerland 21,598,200

18 Finland 21,144,260

19 United States of America NC 19,899,939

20 Canada 18,000,000

* Change in accounting policy from UNSAS to IPSAS may not allow meaningful comparisons between 2012 figures and prior years.

1 Revenue from Private Sector includes global funds, foundations, non-governmental organizations, National Committees and country office private sectorfundraising.

2 Other - interest and miscellaneous income, which includes gains/losses on foreign exchange transactions.

3 Inter-governmental Organizations include: African Development Bank, African Union Commission, Asian Development Bank, European Commission, Inter-American Development Bank, OPEC Fund, Secretariat of Pacific Community and UNITAID.

4 Total RR includes financial adjustments and refunds.


Organizations3

$601M

48%

Other2

$76M6%

Private Sector1

$583M

46%


Organizations

$646M

60%

$55M

5%

OtherPrivate Sector

$377M

35%

TOTAL RR:US$1,260 million4

TOTAL RR:US$1,078 million

Regular Resources Contributions by Typeof Donor, 2011

Regular Resources Contributions by Typeof Donor, 2012

8


11/28

Other Resources (OR) Revenue by Type of Donor, 2012*

Other Resources are received for a specific programme purposeor for strategic priorities. These are further categorized as OtherResources - Regular (ORR) and Other Resources Emergency (ORE).In 2012, the total OR revenue to UNICEF was $2,698 millionconstituting $1,861 million or 69 per cent in ORR and $837 millionor 31 per cent in ORE. Of this, $2,020 million or 75 per centwas contributed by the public sector including 62 per cent fromgovernment and inter-governmental donors, and 13 per cent from

inter-organizational arrangements. Private sector donors contributed$678 or 25 per cent of the total OR revenue including 14 per centfrom NatComs, 8 per cent from Global Programme Partners andPartnerships, and 3 per cent from UNICEF country office fundraising.The top 20 donors to OR contributed $2,073 million or 77 percent of the total OR revenue to UNICEF. Of these top 20 donors,84 per cent belonged to public sector donors while the remaining16 per cent were private sector donors.

The top five OR donors were comprised of four governmentdonors including United Kingdom, United States of America,Japan and Canada, and one inter-governmental organization, theEuropean Commission. These five donors contributed almost half

of the total OR contributions of all top 20 OR donors.

2012 Top 20 Donors and Funding Sources - ORDonor OR (US$)


2 European Commission 227,846,604


4 Japan 180,111,572

5 Canada 161,516,475

6 Norway 153,737,895

7 UNOCHA 130,597,715

8 UNDP5 115,168,534

9 Sweden 91,357,421

10 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 84,627,476



13 Germany 52,526,073

14 Australia 52,422,589

15 Germany NC 41,470,013

16 United Kingdom NC 40,078,837

17 Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria6 38,315,224

18 Rotary International 30,377,908

19 Sweden NC 30,082,935

20 World Bank7 27,312,055


1 Inter-governmental Organizations include: African Development Bank, African Union Commission, Asian Development Bank, European Commission, Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank, OPEC Fund, Secretariat of Pacific Community and UNITAID.

2 Income from Private Sector includes global funds, foundations, non-governmental organizations, National Committees and country office private sector fundraising.

3 Inter-organizational Arrangements include: FAO, IOM, PAHO, UNAIDS, UNDG, UNDP, UNDPKO, UNDSS, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UN Human SecurityTrust Fund, UNMAS, UN Office - Geneva, UNOCHA, UNOPS, UN Secretariat, UN Women, WFP, WHO, World Bank, as well as UN Joint Programme where UNICEFis the Administrative Agent.

4 Total OR includes financial adjustments and refunds.

5 Inter-organizational Arrangement (including MDFTs and Delivering as One funding and contribution from the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malariareceived via UNDP).

6 Funds received as the Principal Recipient.

7 Including contributions from the Global Partnership for Education.


Organizations1

$1,671M

62%

Private Sector2$678M

25%

$350M

13%

Inter-organizationalArrangements3


Organizations

$1,614M

61%

Private Sector

$712M

27%

$307M

12%

Inter-organizationArrangements

TOTAL OR: US$2,698 million4

TOTAL OR: US$2,633 million

Other Resources Contributions by Typeof Donor, 2012

Other Resources Contributions by Typeof Donor, 2011



12/28


13/28

Other Resources Emergency (ORE) Revenue by Type of Donor, 2012*

In 2012, the total ORE revenue to UNICEF was $837million. Of this, $754 million or 90 per cent was contributedby the public sector including 69 per cent from governmentand inter-governmental donors, and 21 per cent from inter-organizational arrangements. Private sector contributed$83 million or 10 per cent of the total ORE revenueincluding 10 per cent from NatComs, and 0.3 per cent fromUNICEF country office fundraising.

In 2012, UNICEF requested humanitarian funding through20 Consolidated Appeal Processes (CAP), 4 flash appeals,15 non-CAP countries named in Humanitarian Action forChildren 2013, and 3 other crises requiring humanitarianassistance. Overall, UNICEF sought $1.49 billion in 2012 forits humanitarian interventions.The top 20 donors to ORE contributed $767 million or 92per cent of the total ORE revenue to UNICEF. Of these top20 donors, 95 per cent belonged to public sector donorswhile the remaining 5 per cent were private sector donors.

The top five ORE donors were comprised of threegovernment donors including Japan, United States of

America and United Kingdom, one inter-organizationalarrangement - UNOCHA, and one inter-governmentalorganization, the European Commission. These five donorscontributed 63 per cent of the total ORE contributions of alltop 20 ORE donors.

2012 Top 20 Donors and Funding Sources - OREDonor ORE (US$)

1 UNOCHA5 130,587,715

2 Japan 120,994,614

3 European Commission 89,977,613



6 Canada 47,559,4657 UNDP6 43,925,288

8 Germany 39,997,163

9 Sweden 32,317,050

10 Australia 18,707,638

11 Denmark 14,448,672

12 Norway 12,688,570

13 France NC 9,942,647

14 Germany NC 9,779,862

15 Finland 9,313,613

16 United Kingdom NC 9,186,899



19 Belgium 8,128,63120 Spain 8,008,608


1 Inter-governmental Organizations include: African Development Bank, African Union Commission, Asian Development Bank, European Commission, Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank, OPEC Fund, Secretariat of Pacific Community and UNITAID.

2 Income from Private Sector includes global funds, foundations, non-governmental organizations, National Committees and country office private sector fundraising.

3 Inter-organizational Arrangements include: FAO, IOM, PAHO, UNAIDS, UNDG, UNDP, UNDPKO, UNDSS, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UN Human Security TrustFund, UNMAS, UN Office - Geneva, UNOCHA, UNOPS, UN Secretariat, UN Women, WFP, WHO, World Bank (including the Global Partnership for Education), as wellas UN Joint Programme where UNICEF is the Administrative Agent.

4 Total ORE includes financial adjustments and refunds.

5 Contributions received through UNOCHA mostly originate from the same group of major UNICEF government and inter-governmental donors and mainly CERF funding.

6 Inter-organizational Arrangements (including MDFTs and Delivering as One funding and contribution from the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malariareceived via UNDP).


Organizations1

$577M

69%

Private Sector2

$83M10%

$177M

21%

Inter-organizationalArrangements3


Organizations

$610M

63%

Private Sector

$190M20%

$163M

17%

Inter-organizationaArrangements

TOTAL ORE: US$837 million4

TOTAL ORE: US$963 million

Other Resources (Emergency) contributionsby Type of Donor, 2012

Other Resources (Emergency) contributionsby Type of Donor, 2011



14/28

Regular Resources and Other Resources, 2003-12

The growth in earmarked funding (Other Resources) hassurpassed the growth of un-earmarked funding (regularresources) by manifolds during the past 10 years. As aresult, the RR proportion of contributions has been steadilydecreasing from approximately 50 per cent in 2000 to32 per cent in 2012. This has resulted in increased challengesfor UNICEF to pursue longer term objectives and deliver onits mandate and priorities due to the more restricted nature

of non-core funding. In addition, the institutional structureand resources allocated for the core mandate becomeoverstretched when required to support the activities financedby non-core funding, especially when cost recovery isinsufficient. Optimizing the proportionality and complementaritybetween RR and OR is important to drive predictable results fothe most vulnerable and marginalized populations, particularlychildren and women.

* Includes contributions from global funds and foundations.

Contributions from all Donors

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201

Regular Resources Other Resources Total

1,688 1,978

2,761 2,7813,013

3,390 3,256

3,682 3,7113,958

9561,187

1,9491,725

1,907

2,305 2,190

2,717 2,633 2,698

732

791 8121,056 1,106 1,085 1,066 965 1,078

1,260US$millions

Share

RR/OR 43%/57% 38%/62% 33%/67% 32%/6

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201

493 555

1,164

800 868

987 916

1,1881,089

1,261

201 263

875

400476

626533

853

712678

292 292 289400 392 361 383 335

377

583

US$millions

RegularResources

Other

Resources

Total

59%/41% 50%/50% 42%/58% 46%/5

Share

RR/OR

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201

1,1591,361

1,543

1,792

1,969

2,295 2,251

2,440 2,568 2,621

755 923

1,074

1,326 1,431

1,679 1,6571,864 1,921

2,020

403 438 469 466 538 616 594 576

646 601

US

$millions

Regular Resources Other Resources Total

35%/65% 26%/74% 26%/74% 23%/7

Share

RR/OR

Contributions from Public Sector: Governements, Inter-governemental Organizationsand Inter-organizational Arrangements

Contributions from National Committees, Non-governmental Organizationsand Other Private Sector Sources*

C

hangeinaccountingpolicyfromUNSASto

IP

SASmaynotallowmeaningfulcomparisons

between2012figuresandprioryears.

Changeinaccou

ntingpolicyfromUNSASto

IPSASmaynotallowmeaningfulcomparisons


ChangeinaccountingpolicyfromUNSASto

IPSASmaynotallowmeaningfu

lcomparisons

between2012figuresandp

rioryears.

12


15/28

Regular Resources (RR) that is, funds without

restrictions on their use provide the important backbonefor UNICEFs extensive operations worldwide.

RR means steady and predictable funding which allows

UNICEF and partners to undertake our work with ameasure of certainty and continuity. RR helps ensureUNICEFs independence, neutrality, and role as a trusted

partner to all parties, including national governments andcivil society actors. RR funds enable the organization to

focus on delivering the best quality services for children.

As RR is un-earmarked, it can be easily moved fromprogramme to programme, or within programmes, coveringessential supplies, services, and technical expertise that

may not be addressed by restricted donations. This hasbeen the case with UNICEFs equity agenda, whereby tens

of millions of dollars have been directed to focus on theneeds and rights of the most marginalized children. As an

example, RR funded the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveysand other essential tools that have facilitated the monitoringof results for equity, which is central to the success of the

equity agenda.

In 2012, RR amounted to $1,260 million, representing32 per cent of the total UNICEF revenue; yet, RR did

decrease by 7 per cent when compared to 2011. UNICEFis especially thankful to all the donor partners that havebeen able to sustain their contributions to RR, despite

the continued austere global economic climate. UNICEFalso welcomes the General Assembly resolution 67/226

(2012 Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review) and the

concern expressed by member states for the decliningshare of RR to the United Nations funds and programmesand the imbalance between core and non-core resources.

With less RR, UNICEF faces increasing difficulties fulfillingour mandate for childrens rights. RR is what allows us to

most efficiently reach the most vulnerable children.

Please visit www.unicef.org/parmoto see the

Regular Resources videoas shown at the 1stRegularSession of the UNICEF Executive Board in 2013.

Regular Resources the vital funds

UNICEF together with partners depend on RR to:

Maintain a global presence

Be strategic and implement the - ExecutiveBoard approved - Mid-Term Strategic

Plan (MTSP) Ensure equity - the needs and rights of themost marginalized children

Quickly respond to changing circumstances

and emerging challenges

Advocate for childrens rights, influencingglobal agendas

Keep transaction costs to a minimum

and deliver greatest value for money

Innovate and advance solutions on behalf

of children and invest in new projects thatcan be brought to scale to reachmore children

In 2012 RR enabled us to:

BENIN: strengthen the Expanded Programme onImmunization, with more than 1,000 communityhealth workers delivering services to remote and

disadvantaged communities.

BURUNDI:the right to education of hundreds ofthousands of Burundi children was fulfilled thanksto the equity-based education strategy, focusing

on the most hard-to-reach communities.

COSTA RICA: provide migrant children and theirfamilies with legal status and, consequently,essential social services.

MADAGASCAR:respond to Cyclone Giovanna a category 4 cyclone which affected nearlya quarter million people.

http://www.unicef.org/parmohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohyT5QO-wQ4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohyT5QO-wQ4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohyT5QO-wQ4http://www.unicef.org/parmo


16/28

Trends in Total Contributions by Category, 2003-12

Contributions from All Donors

Overall UNICEF income has been growing over the last tenyears. 2005 is marked by a deviation in the proportion ofORE to the total income due to the unprecedented responseof the donor community to the Indian Ocean Earthquake and

Tsunami. The surge in 2010 ORE was largely due to privatesector funding for the earthquake in Haiti, and that of 2011 isattributed to increased funding for the Horn of Africa crisis.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Contributions 1,688 1,978 2,761 2,781 3,013 3,390 3,256 3,682 3,711 3,958

OR (Regular) 515 796 820 1,126 1,378 1,570 1,527 1,694 1,670 1,861

1,688

1,978

2,761 2,781

3,013

3,3903,256

3,682 3,711

3,958

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

US$millions

Regular Resources



443

515

730

391

796

791

1,129

820

812

599

1,126

1,056

529

1,378

1,106

735

1,570

1,085

663

1,527

1,066

1,023

1,694

965

963

1,670

1,078

838

1,861

1,260

RR 730 791 812 1,056 1,106 1,085 1,066 965 1,078 1,260

OR (Emergencies) 443 391 1,129 599 529 735 663 1,023 963 838

100

500

900

1,300

1,700

2,100

2,500

2,900

3,300

3,700

4,100

4,500

Regular Resources



Total

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

US$millions

ChangeinaccountingpolicyfromUNSAStoIPSASmaynotallow

meaningfulcomparisons


Changeinaccountingpolic

yfromUNSAStoIPSASmaynotallow

meaningfulcomparisonsbetween2012figuresandprioryears.

14


17/28

Contributions received through Inter-organizational Arrangements*;**

UNICEF continued its participation in the UN coherenceand inter-organizational partnership arrangements through avariety of pooled funds and Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs).Contributions from inter- organizational arrangements

continues to grow and has doubled from $178 million in 2006to $350 million in 2012. The leading contributors includeUNOCHA, UNDP, World Bank, UN Joint Programme, andUNAIDS. Funding received from CERF totaled $129 million.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

178

234

256

296

356

307

350

128

175165

156 160 163

177

50 59

91 140

196

145

172US$millions



Total

TOTAL IN 2012:US$350 million


** Inter-organizational Arrangements include: FAO, IOM, PAHO, UNAIDS, UNDG, UNDP, UNDPKO, UNDSS, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UN HumanSecurity Trust Fund, UNMAS, UN Office - Geneva, UNOCHA, UNOPS, UN Secretariat, UN Women, WFP, WHO, World Bank (including the Global Partnership forEducation), as well as UN Joint Programme where UNICEF is the Administrative Agent.

44.2

21.9

17.7

7.8

5.6

5.1

3.4

1.4

0.80.8 0.8 0.6

0.1

0.1

Common Humanitarian Funds

One Funds

MDG Achievement Fund

Joint Programmes via MPTFO

Emergency Response Fund

Peace Building Fund

Iraq Trust Fund

DRC Stabilization andRecovery Fund

Nepal UN Peace Fund

UN Partnership - Rights of Persowith disabilities MDTF

Sierra Leone MDTF

UN Action against Sexual Violen

Darful Peace & Stability Fund

UN IndigenousPeople's Partnership

Cape Verde Transition Fund

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

59

99

98

256

296

356

307

350

93

109

94

137

121

98

101

102

104

110

110

129

Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF)

Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs)

Other Inter-organizational Arrangements

Inter-organizational Arrangements2008-12 (US$ millions)

Multi-Donor Trust Funds, 2012 (excluding CERF)(US$ millions)

ChangeinaccountingpolicyfromUNSAStoIPSASm

aynotallow

mea

ningfulcomparisonsbetween2012figuresandprioryears.



18/28

Breakdown of Thematic Revenue, 2012 (US$ millions)

Thematic funds directly support achievement of the MTSPkey results and humanitarian response by allowing long-term planning, sustainability and savings in transaction costsfor both UNICEF and donors. Overall thematic funding forthe five MTSP focus areas was $198 million, and thematichumanitarian assistance was $89 million. Basic Education andGender Equality received the highest funding, with Norwayproviding 75 per cent of the overall funding for this focus area.

Thematic funding constituted only 11 per cent of total ORincome in 2012. This is a worrying trend and UNICEF looksto work with its donor partners to reverse this trend inseeking also to enhance efficiency in its funding, programmeimplementation, and quality results reporting.

Thematic Revenue, 2012 Thematic Revenue by MTSP Focus Areas, 2012

Young ChildSurvival andDevelopment

Policy Advocacyand Partnerships

HumanitarianResponse

$89M

31%

Basic Educationand Gender

Equality

$122M43%

$6M

2%

HIV/AIDSand Children

$11M

4%

ChildProtection

$18M

6%

$41M

14%

Young ChildSurvival andDevelopment

Policy Advocacyand Partnerships

$6M

3%

HIV/AIDSand Children

$11M

6%

ChildProtection

$18M

9%

$41M20%

Basic Educationand Gender

Equality

$122M

62%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

$1,725M $1,907M $2,305M $2,190M $2,717M $2,633M $2,698M

82% 85% 85% 87% 79% 86% 89%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

8% 4% 6% 3%12%

7%3%

9% 11% 9% 11% 9% 7% 7%

Themaitc ORR

Thematic ORE

Non-thematic

TOTAL:US$287 million TOTAL:US$198 million

OR Contributions 2006-12: Thematic vs Non-thematic

Changeinaccountingpolicy

fromUNSAStoIPSASmaynotallow

meaningfulcomparisonsbe

tween2012figuresandprioryears.

16


19/28

Thematic funding is UNICEFs preferred approach whendonor partners want to earmark funds. The thematic

funding windows, aligned with the organizations fiveMid-Term-Strategic-Plan (MTSP) focus areas as wellas humanitarian assistance*, offer an option for soft

earmarking and complementarity, while allowing donorpartners to direct the use of funds according to their

own priorities.

Thematic funding can be provided at the global, regionalor country level. Contributions from all donors to the sameFocus Area are co-mingled in an account with the same

duration, which streamlines financial management andreduces transaction costs. Thematic donors receive one

annual consolidated high-quality narrative report and oneconsolidated financial report that are the same for all donors.

The Multilateral Organization Performance AssessmentNetwork (MOPAN) in 2012 highlighted these reports asUNICEFs best performance reporting as they link thematic

information to the organisation-wide results framework moreeffectively than other reports produced by the organization.

In 2012, overall thematic funding for the five thematic areas

was $198 million, and thematic humanitarian assistancewas $89 million. While UNICEF is grateful for thesignificant contributions it continues receiving from donor

partners, the decline in thematic funding relative to thetotal earmarked contributions and in absolute value in the

past years is of great concern. Thematic funding currentlyaccounts only for approximately 11 per cent of UNICEFs

total Other Resources (OR).

UNICEF welcomes the General Assembly resolution67/226 (2012 Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review)and the aim expressed by member states to continuously

reduce transaction costs. As per the UNICEF ExecutiveBoard decision 2013/5 thematic funding will also continue

to benefit from lower recovery costs compared with otherearmarked funding.

In the coming year UNICEF will work with its donors tofind suitable ways to increase flexible funding for our

programmes including through the thematicfunding modality.

UNICEF together with partners depend

on thematic funds to:

Complement Regular Resources and promoteorganizational long term priorities

Scale up programmes with clear, measurableobjectives

Respond to emergencies swiftly

Strengthen and support the efforts toenhance accountability, transparency,

efficiency, coherence and results-basedmanagement

Reduce transaction costs for UNICEF and

donors, thereby allowing for preferentialcost-recovery rates

In 2012 thematic fundingassisted us to:

BURKINA FASO, ETHIOPIA, GHANA, HAITI,NEPAL and others: coordinate advocacyefforts and implement and monitor evidencebased nutrition interventions in the framework

of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement.

BANGLADESH:advocate government to

expand policy on universal pre-school, adding ayear of pre-primary to government schools.

ETHIOPIA:support the revision and updateof the national girls education strategy in acontext where 65% of girls are currently not

attending school.

Thematic funds highest quality earmarked funding

*Donors can allocate Thematic funds to the five MTSP focus areas and humanitarian response as follows:

1: Young Child Survival and Development

2: Basic Education and Gender Equality

3: HIV/AIDS and Children

4: Child Protection from Violence, Exploitation and Abuse

5: Policy Advocacy and Partnerships for Childrens Rights

6: Humanitarian Response



20/28

Top Ten Donors to Thematic Funding, 2012

The top 10 donors contributed $247 million or 86 per centof the total thematic revenue to UNICEF. These donorsprovided 89 per cent of total thematic funding for the MTSPFocus Areas and 80 per cent of Humanitarian Responsethematic funding.

Of the top 10 donors for both MTSP focus areas as well ashumanitarian response, 64 per cent belonged to governmentdonors while the remaining 36 per cent were NatCom

donors. All government donors (except Brazil) in this listbelong to the OECD Development Assistance Committee.The top three donors comprised two government donorsincluding Norway and Sweden, and one NatCom donor,the Korean Committee for UNICEF. These three donorscontributed 59 per cent of the total contributions of all top 10donors to thematic funding (including humanitarian response).

MTSP Focus Areas Humanitarian Response

Norway

Sweden

Republicof

KoreaNC

NetherlandsNC

United

KingdomN

C

ItalyNC

Brazil

SpainNC

Luxembourg

Japan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10097.5

30.6

18.1

7.05.2 4.7

3.4 3 .3 3.3 3.1

US$millions

Norway

GermanyNC

Finland

SpainNC

United

KingdomN

C

FranceNC

JapanNC

UnitedStatesof

AmericaNC

NetherlandsNC

ItalyNC

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

11.7

9.6

9.3

7.8

6.56.3 6.3

6.0

4.0

3.2

US$millions

18


21/28

2011 2012*

1. Government Donors:(Including Inter-governmental Organizations)**

2,260 2,271

a) Regular Resources (Net) 646 601

b) Other Resources 1,614 1,671

i. Regular 1,004 1,093

ii. Emergencies 610 577

2. National Committees, Non-governmental,and Other Private Sector Sources:

1,089 1,261

a) Regular Resources 377 583

b) Other Resources 712 678

i. Regular 522 595


3. Inter-organizational Arrangements*** 307 350

a) Regular Resources

b) Other Resources 307 350

i. Regular 145 172


SUB-TOTAL INCOME 3,656 3,882

4. Other Income, net (interest, exchange ratefluctuations, support costs and misc.)

55 76

GRAND TOTAL INCOME 3,711 3,958


** Inter-governmental Organizations include: African Development Bank, African Union Commission, Asian Development Bank, European Commission, Inter-American Development Bank, OPEC Fund, Secretariat of Pacific Community and UNITAID.

*** Inter-organizational Arrangements include: FAO, IOM, PAHO, UNAIDS, UNDG, UNDP, UNDPKO, UNDSS, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UN HumanSecurity Trust Fund, UNMAS, UN Office - Geneva, UNOCHA, UNOPS, UN Secretariat, UN Women, WFP, WHO, World Bank (including the Global Partnership forEducation), as well as UN Joint Programme where UNICEF is the Administrative Agent.

Total UNICEF Contributions, 2011-12 (US$ millions)



22/28

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Member Governments, RegularResources (RR) Revenue to UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA, 2012

UNDP* UNICEF UNFPA*

Donor Governments US$millions% oftotal Rank

** US$millions

% oftotal Rank

** US$millions

% oftotal Rank

**

Australia 21.6 2.6 12 35.6 5.9 6 14.9 3.4 12

Austria 2.4 0.3 20 1.5 0.2 19 - N/A N/A

Belgium 27.8 3.3 10 24.7 4.1 8 7.4 1.7 13

Canada - N/A N/A 18.0 3.0 11 17.4 4.0 10

Denmark 57.7 6.8 8 29.1 4.8 7 44.0 10.1 4

Finland 24.9 2.9 11 21.1 3.5 10 36.0 8.2 5

France 18.3 2.2 13 1.3 0.2 20 0.5 0.1 19

Germany 29.0 3.4 9 8.1 1.3 14 20.7 4.7 9

Greece - N/A N/A - N/A N/A - N/A N/A

Ireland 11.9 1.4 14 11.0 1.8 13 4.2 1.0 15

Italy - N/A N/A - N/A N/A - N/A N/A

Japan 80.5 9.5 4 17.3 2.9 12 24.9 5.7 8

Luxembourg 3.9 0.5 18 3.5 0.6 17 3.4 0.8 16

Netherlands 71.4 8.4 6 42.3 7.0 5 49.0 11.2 3

New Zealand 6.5 0.8 16 4.5 0.7 15 5.0 1.1 14

Norway 137.8 16.3 1 80.5 13.4 2 59.4 13.6 2

Portugal 0.6 0.1 26 0.2 0.0 31 - N/A N/A

Republic of Korea 5.0 0.6 17 3.2 0.5 18 0.1 0.0 27

Spain 8.0 0.9 15 3.8 0.6 16 1.9 0.4 17

Sweden 103.4 12.2 2 70.0 11.7 3 66.3 15.2 1

Switzerland 58.1 6.9 7 21.6 3.6 9 15.1 3.5 11

United Kingdom 87.3 10.3 3 63.5 10.6 4 31.8 7.3 6

United States of America 78.4 9.3 5 131.8 21.9 1 30.2 6.9 7

Total DAC 834.5 98.6 592.6 98.6 432.2 98.9

Total Non-DAC 11.6 1.4 8.2 1.4 4.8 1.1

Total Contributions 846.1 600.8 437.0

* Provisional 2012 data provided by respective agencies for revenue.

** Ranking denotes rank among DAC countries by contribution to regular resources only. Within each of the above agencies, non-DAC donor countries mayhave higher ranking than some of the DAC donors shown.

20


23/28

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New

Zealand

Norway

Portugal

RepublicofKorea

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

UnitedKingdom

UnitedStates

ofAmerica

Non-DAC

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

UNDP

UNICEF

UNFPA

UNICEF

32%

UNFPA

23%

UNDP

45%

UNICEF

33%

UNFPA

20%UNDP

47%

Comparative RR Funding from DACcountries, 2012

Regular Resources Contributions to UN Agencies by Donor DACand Non-DAC countries (US$ millions)

Comparative RR Funding fromNon-DAC countries, 2012



24/28

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Member Governments, Total Revenueto UNICEF Compared to ODA, ODA Per Capita and GNI Per Capita, 2012*

This table is ranked by total contribution to UNICEF per capita.Total UNICEF contributions include government and NatComsources for any given country. In 2012, Norway maintained

the first position with a $48.81 per capita contribution,with Sweden in second position with $23.81 per capitacontribution, following Luxembourg with $21.08 per capita.

102,23755,736

86,400

57,781

46,589

46,122

36,639

87,215

38,839

51,135

45,370

65,987

48,837

36,111

42,067

41,995

22,795

50,765

27,749

47,279

33,279

19,626

21,862

NorwaySweden

Luxembourg

Denmark

Netherlands

Finland

Ireland

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Canada

Belgium

Australia

Japan

New Zealand

Germany

France


Republic of Korea

Spain

Austria

Italy

Portugal

Greece

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,00

48.823.8

21.1

12.7

12.1

11.1

6.7

6.7

6.2

5.5

5.0

4.5

2.8

2.4

1.8

1.8

1.5

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.0

0.5

0.4

01020304050

Per Capita Revenue to UNICEF, 2012(US$ millions)

Gross National Income Per Capita, 2012(US$ millions)

* The population figures are from the State of World Population Report 2012.** Weighted average GNI per capita 2012.*** www.oecd.org accessed on April 5, 2013.

GovtUS$

NatComUS$

TotalUS$

Total ODAUS$ millions

ODA per capitaUS$

GNI per capitaUS$

ODA as %of GNI

Donor Country 2012 2012 2012 2012*** 2012 2012** 2012***

Norway 46.86 1.95 48.81 4,754 951 102,237 0.93

Sweden 16.98 6.83 23.81 5,242 552 55,736 0.99

Luxembourg 16.26 4.82 21.08 432 864 86,400 1.00

Denmark 9.63 3.11 12.74 2,718 485 57,781 0.84

Netherlands 7.45 4.61 12.06 5,524 331 46,589 0.71

Finland 7.68 3.41 11.09 1,320 244 46,122 0.53

Ireland 5.71 1.03 6.74 809 176 36,639 0.48

Switzerland 4.22 2.43 6.66 3,022 392 87,215 0.45

United Kingdom 5.33 0.92 6.25 13,659 218 38,839 0.56

Canada 5.17 0.36 5.53 5,678 164 51,135 0.32

Belgium 3.61 1.40 5.01 2,303 213 45,370 0.47

Australia 3.84 0.70 4.54 5,440 238 65,987 0.36

Japan 1.56 1.19 2.76 10,494 83 48,837 0.17

New Zealand 1.43 0.97 2.41 455 101 36,111 0.28

Germany 0.74 1.08 1.82 13,108 160 42,067 0.38France 0.30 1.50 1.81 12,000 189 41,995 0.45

Republic of Korea 0.13 1.32 1.45 1,551 32 22,795 0.14

United States 1.06 0.25 1.31 30,460 96 50,765 0.19

Spain 0.26 1.03 1.29 1,948 42 27,749 0.15

Austria 0.46 0.76 1.22 1,112 132 47,279 0.28

Italy 0.19 0.84 1.03 2,639 43 33,279 0.13

Portugal 0.02 0.45 0.47 567 53 19,626 0.27

Greece 0.01 0.39 0.40 324 28 21,862 0.13

Average Total 2.05 0.95 2.99 125,559 130 44,853 0.29

Total revenue to UNICEF per capita

22


25/28

Glossary

Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) - The CAP is aprogramming process through which national, regionaland international relief systems (including UN operational

agencies and, where appropriate to the situation, theInternational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the

International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties (IFRC), the International Organization for

Migration (IOM), NGOs, bilateral donors as well as

appropriate national and regional structures) are able tomobilize and respond selectively to major or complex

emergencies that require a system-wide response tohumanitarian crises.

Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) - Anemergency fund administered by the UN Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), fromwhich UN agencies can receive advances for financing

emergency operations.

Inter-organizational Arrangements - Inter-organizational

Arrangements are a growing source of income to UNICEF.Inter-organizational Arrangements include, among others,contributions received through UNAIDS, UNDG, UNDP,UNESCO, UNFPA, UN Human Security Trust Fund, UNOCHA,

WHO, and the World Bank. Funding from these sourcesare mostly directed to humanitarian responses and include,

among other sources, income from various pooled fundingmechanisms, such as grants from the UNOCHA managed

CERF (see above); and multi-donor trust fund contributions.

International Public Sector Financial ReportingStandards (IPSAS)- UNICEF adopted IPSAS effectiveJanuary 1, 2012. IPSAS are credible, high-quality,

independently produced accounting standards,underpinned by a strong due process and supported

by Governments, professional accounting bodies,and international organizations. These standards arespecifically tailored to the public sector and integral to UN

management reform.

Medium Term Strategic Plan (MTSP) The MTSPis UNICEFs strategic plan of action that outlines the

organizational priorities, key results areas and targetsacross the five focus areas for programming. The fivefocus areas are Young Child Survival and Development,

Basic Education and Gender Equality, HIV/AIDS and

Children, Child Protection from Violence, Exploitation andAbuse, and Policy Advocacy and Partnerships.

Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) The Multi DonorTrust Fund is a funding mechanism which: a) receives andpools contributions from more than one donor; b) holds

the funds in trust; c) allocates funds through a designatedgovernance structure; and d) disburses funds through an

Administrative Agent/Fund Manager to a numberof recipients.

Other Resources (OR) - Earmarked contribution forprogrammes that is supplementary to the contribution forRegular Resources (RR) and is made for a specific purpose

such as a particular programme or strategic priority or anemergency response (ORE).

Other Resources Emergency (ORE) - ORE are fundsspecifically provided by donors for UNICEFs humanitarianaction and post-crisis recovery activities. In addition toUNICEFs traditional donors, important sources of funding for

ORE are the inter-organizational arrangements including theCERF, and the Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) among others

Funding for ORE is raised through the UN Consolidated Appea(CAP) and Flash Appeals in response to the needs outlined in

the UNICEF Humanitarian Action Report and other appeals.

Other Resources Regular (ORR) - ORR are funds forspecific, non-emergency programme purposes andstrategic priorities. ORR allow UNICEF to implement the

activities of approved country programmes, the MTSP

priorities and specific projects at global, regional, andcountry levels. The effective use of increases in ORRdepends on commensurate increases in the Regular

Resource base. ORR that UNICEF needs most are thosethat are flexible both in their purpose and in their duration.

Private Sector Income - Income received from a groupingof donors that includes UNICEFs National Committees,

non-governmental organizations, foundations andcorporate donors and individuals.

Public Sector Income - Income received from agrouping of donors and sources of funding that includes

governments, inter-governmental bodies, and inter-organizational arrangements.

Regular Resources (RR) - RR are unearmarked, coreresources that help sustain UNICEF assisted programmesand enable UNICEF to carry out its mission to improvethe lives of children and women. They include income

from voluntary annual contributions from governments,un-earmarked funds contributed by National Committees

and the public, as well as the net income from UNICEFgreeting card sales.

Thematic Funding - Thematic funds are contributions that

donors earmark geographically for one of the five MTSPfocus areas or humanitarian response.

UNICEF National Committees (NatComs) - There are 36UNICEF National Committees throughout the industrialized

world. They are registered non-profit structures, mostlycategorized as non- governmental entities establishedaccording to national laws. Committees play a key role

in advocating for childrens rights everywhere and areinstrumental in mobilizing resources for UNICEFs work.



26/28

ADB Asian Development Bank

AGFUND Arab Gulf Programme for United NationsDevelopment Organizations

CAP Consolidated Appeals Process

CERF Central Emergency Response Fund

DAC Development Assistance Committee

EC European Commission

ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aidand Civil Protection

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

GAVI Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization

GNI Gross National Income

HAC Humanitarian Action for Children

IGOs Inter-Governmental Organizations

ILO International Labour Organization

IOM International Organization for Migration

IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standards

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund

MTSP Medium-Term Strategic Plan

NATCOM National Committee for UNICEF

NC National Committee for UNICEF

NGO Non-governmental organization

ODA Official Development Assistance

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment

OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

OR Other Resources

ORE Other Resources-Emergency

ORR Other Resources-Regular

OSCE Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe

PAHO Pan American Health Organization

QCPR Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review

RR Regular Resources

UN United Nations

UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

UNDG United Nations Development Group

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNDPKO United Nations Department of PeacekeepingOperations

UNDSS United Nations Department of Safety and Security

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalDevelopment

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNMAS United Nations Mine Action Service

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

UNICEF United Nations Childrens Fund

UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency forPalestine Refugees

UNSAS United Nations System Accounting Standards

US Fund US Fund for UNICEF

VISION Virtual Integrated System of Information

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

Abbreviations and Acronyms

24


27/28


28/28

Public-Sector Alliances and ResourceMobilization Office (PARMO)3 United Nations Plaza, H-12A

New York, NY 10017, USA

www.unicef.org/parmo

For the online version, scan this QR code or go to United Nations Childrens Fund

M 2013

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	javier-quintana
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

FINAL Compendium 2012

Documents