First Task Force on Financial Arrangements (TFFA) Geneva, 23 March 2004

First Task Force on Financial Arrangements (TFFA) Geneva, 23 March 2004

First Task Force on Financial Arrangements (TFFA) – Geneva, 23 March 2004

Non paper of the TFFA Presidency

I – Mandate of the Task Force (Ministerial decision I/13)

- “To consider the feasibility of and modalities for introducing a system of financial arrangements based on the UN scale of assessments or other appropriate scales;

- To explore the possibility of establishing stable and predictable financial arrangements;

- To develop recommendations with a view to their possible adoption at the second ordinary meeting of the Parties“ (Almaty, Kazakhstan, May 2005).

II – 4 identified options

 Option 1

Exclusively mandatory contributions (percentage from a scale of assessment or number of shares).

 Option 2 (EMEP model)

Mix of:

- mandatory contributions (percentage from a scale of assessment or number of shares) to finance the core requirements (to be defined) of the Convention,

- additional voluntary contributions (in kind or in cash, possibly earmarked)

 Option 3

Voluntary contributions based on an indicative scale of assessment or an indicative number of shares.

 Option 4

Purely voluntary contributions, with little or no guidance as to the amount (as it is today).

Questionsto be adressed by the Task Force:

(a) Does each of these 4 options respect the Lucca ministerial requirement of a “need for stable and predictable sources of funding” and of “ensuring that the necessary resources are available for implementing the core elements of the work programme“?

(b) What are the legal implications of these mandatory vs non mandatory options (need for a protocol; simple decision for adoption by the meeting of the Parties) ?

(c) What is the order of preference for each delegation and for which reasons?

III – Proposal for an “Aarhus scaleof assessments”

Preliminary observations:

- the proposed chart (annex) could be used either for options 1, 2 or 3 and does not prejudge the type of arrangements that may be established.

- as the General Assembly agreed on a new scale last year, the UN scale of assessments seems to be the most relevant and simplest basis for an “Aarhus scale”.

- all Parties and Signatories (44 States and the European Community) have been included in the chart.

- the percentage of contribution of the European Community (15%) is purely indicative but is based upon the actual contribution in 2003.

- the amount chosen in the chart ($ 700,000) is also purely indicative but close to the amount of the 2003 budget ($ 665,000).

Questions to be addressed by the Task Force:

(a) The advantages of a system based on a scale of assessments vs on shares: stability, predictability, accuracy, involvement of the maximum of actorsversus simplicity, flexibility, low targets for some traditionally large donors?

(b) Should all Parties and Signatories be included in the chart?

(c) What should be the percentage chosen for the European Community?

(d) Should specific thresholds and ceilings be adopted?

ANNEX
UN Asses. / Arrhus rate / Contributions / Arrhus rate / Contributions
Members / rate / without EC / without EC / with EC / with EC
% / % / US$ / % / US$
1 / Albania / 0.005 / 0.012 / 84 / 0.011 / 77
2 / Armenia / 0.002 / 0.005 / 35 / 0.004 / 28
3 / Austria / 0.859 / 2.224 / 15,568 / 1.890 / 13,230
4 / Azerbaidjan / 0.005 / 0.012 / 84 / 0.011 / 77
5 / Belarus / 0.018 / 0.046 / 322 / 0.039 / 273
6 / Belgium / 1.069 / 2.768 / 19,376 / 2.352 / 16,464
7 / Bulgaria / 0.017 / 0.044 / 308 / 0.037 / 259
8 / Croatia / 0.037 / 0.095 / 665 / 0.081 / 567
9 / Cyprus / 0.039 / 0.100 / 700 / 0.085 / 595
10 / Czech Rep. / 0.183 / 0.473 / 3,311 / 0.402 / 2,814
11 / Denmark / 0.718 / 1.859 / 13,013 / 1.580 / 11,060
12 / Estonia / 0.012 / 0.310 / 2,170 / 0.026 / 182
13 / Finland / 0.533 / 1.380 / 9,660 / 1.173 / 8,211
14 / France / 6.030 / 15.614 / 109,298 / 13.272 / 92,904
15 / Georgia / 0.003 / 0.007 / 49 / 0.006 / 42
16 / Germany / 8.662 / 22.430 / 157,010 / 19.065 / 133,445
17 / Greece / 0.530 / 1.372 / 9,604 / 1.166 / 8,162
18 / Hungary / 0.126 / 0.326 / 2,282 / 0.277 / 1,939
19 / Iceland / 0.034 / 0.088 / 616 / 0.074 / 518
20 / Ireland / 0.350 / 0.906 / 6,342 / 0.770 / 5,390
21 / Italy / 4.885 / 12.649 / 88,543 / 10.752 / 75,264
22 / Kazakhstan / 0.025 / 0.064 / 448 / 0.055 / 385
23 / Kyrgyzstan / 0.001 / 0.002 / 14 / 0.002 / 14
24 / Latvia / 0.015 / 0.038 / 266 / 0.033 / 231
25 / Liechtenstein / 0.005 / 0.012 / 84 / 0.011 / 77
26 / Lithuania / 0.024 / 0.062 / 434 / 0.053 / 371
27 / Luxembourg / 0.077 / 0.199 / 1,393 / 0.169 / 1,183
28 / Malta / 0.014 / 0.036 / 252 / 0.030 / 210
29 / Monaco / 0.003 / 0.007 / 49 / 0.006 / 42
30 / Netherlands / 1.690 / 4.376 / 30,632 / 3.720 / 26,040
31 / Norway / 0.679 / 1.758 / 12,306 / 1.500 / 10,500
32 / Poland / 0.461 / 1.193 / 8,351 / 1.015 / 7,105
33 / Portugal / 0.470 / 1.217 / 8,519 / 1.035 / 7,245
34 / Rep.Moldova / 0.001 / 0.002 / 14 / 0.002 / 14
35 / Romania / 0.060 / 0.155 / 1,085 / 0.132 / 924
36 / Slovenia / 0.082 / 0.212 / 1,484 / 0.180 / 1,260
37 / Spain / 2.520 / 6.525 / 45,675 / 5.547 / 38,829
38 / Sweden / 0.998 / 2.584 / 18,088 / 2.197 / 15,379
39 / Switzerland / 1.197 / 3.099 / 21,693 / 2.635 / 18,445
40 / Tajikistan / 0.001 / 0.002 / 14 / 0.002 / 14
41 / FYR Macedonia / 0.006 / 0.015 / 105 / 0.013 / 91
42 / Turkmenistan / 0.005 / 0.012 / 84 / 0.011 / 77
43 / Ukraine / 0.039 / 0.100 / 700 / 0.086 / 602
44 / United Kingdom / 6.127 / 15.866 / 111,062 / 13.486 / 94,402
Total / 38.617 / 100.256 / 701,792
45 / Europ. Community / 15.000 / 105,000
Grand total / 99.993 / 699,941