Funding and Financial Analysis

OCHA’s strategic framework remains the foundation for its programme planning. The annual costs outlined in the associated budget reflect OCHA’s corporate priorities and objectives.

During the year, OCHA maintained strict budget discipline, aligning its extrabudgetary programme budget with projected donor income. To meet the humanitarian community’s demands to see OCHA more active on the ground and provide global services to support more effective humanitarian action, OCHA’s total programme budget (funded from the regular budget and extrabudgetary income) requirements in 2012 grew by $19 million to reach $268 million by December. The extrabudgetary component of the total programme budget reached $254.6 million. Click below for a detailed breakdown of OCHA’s programme and administrative budgets. 




OCHA’s budget covers two types of activities: the programme budget, which covers all programme activities necessary to achieve OCHA’s mandate, and the administrative budget, which covers OCHA’s indirect costs as well as administrative and financial management activities.


The programme budget is funded from the United Nations regular budget and from extrabudgetary income (donor contributions). However, the regular budget only covers 71 staff posts at headquarters, plus non-staff costs. This is paid for by the assessed contributions of Member States to the United Nations Secretariat. There is no Programme Support Cost (PSC) applied to the regular budget. Voluntary contributions are sought to cover the remaining 95 per cent of OCHA’s programme budget, called the extrabudgetary (XB) programme budget. This budget includes a mandatory PSC levy of 13 per cent on most activities. The XB programme budget is exclusively funded from voluntary contributions.


The administrative budget is paid for out of the above-mentioned PSC levy on programme expenditures. OCHA does not raise funds for this budget since PSCs fully cover the administrative budget.


Two thirds of the budget growth in 2012 has been in the field, as OCHA expanded its footprint in countries facing acute crises. The largest budget increases were in the offices in Syria, the Regional Office for West Africa (covering the Sahel), Mali, Yemen, the Philippines, South Sudan and Myanmar. At the same time, budget reductions took place in field operations in reaction to changing crises and risk dynamics, primarily in Sudan, Somalia, Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti and Pakistan. By the year’s end, OCHA closed its offices in Libya and Iraq after a handover to the respective Government and other partners.

A $4.3 million budget increase was made in 2012 to support the Transformative Agenda from headquarters. This allowed a scale-up of OCHA’s work to strengthen leadership in the field, and to reinforce key elements of the HPC, notably needs assessments, inter-cluster coordination, information management and coordinated humanitarian planning. Additional small budget increases were granted to support the WHD campaign, and initiate the strengthening of OCHA’s partnership work.

Income in 2012

The 2012 UN regular budget covered $13.4 million in headquarters’ expenditures. Donor income increased to $230.6 million in 2012 ($17.3 million more than 2011). This was a continued sign of confidence in OCHA’s leading role to make humanitarian response more effective. Click here for a breakdown of 2010-2012 Donor income.

Budget Total for 2012 Original Midyear Final
Regular budget activities (funded from assessed contributions) 14,562,850 13,434,500 13,434,500
Extrabudgetary Programme budget (funded from voluntary contributions) 234,392,427 254,199,578 254,617,435
Total Programme Budget 248,955,277 267,634,078 268,051,935
Extrabudgetary administrative budget funded from Programme support cost 36,444,603 37,261,588 37,159,128





OCHA maintained strong partnerships with its donors in 2012. The organization relies extensively on voluntary contributions to fulfill its mandate. OCHA’s donors come together in an informal group, the OCHA Donor Support Group (ODSG), which gives financial, political and technical support in all areas of OCHA's work. The group is an important sounding board and source of advice, and is used to exchange views on the challenges facing OCHA and OCHA’s strategic priorities. The group discusses measures that may be taken individually or collectively by ODSG members to help OCHA achieve its goals. In 2012, ODSG members provided 95 per cent of OCHA’s voluntary contributions, as well as considerable policy and advocacy support.


The ODSG meets regularly at the expert level in Geneva and New York, and annually at the high level. The group currently comprises Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States and the European Commission. The group welcomes new members who are committed to principled and coordinated multilateral humanitarian action.


In addition, miscellaneous income[1] reached $23.9 million upon closure of annual accounts and comprised savings on prior period ($17.3 million), other net adjustments ($3.5 million) and investment income ($2.3 million). It also included $2.1 million in foreign-exchange gains. This brought OCHA’s total programme income to $267.9 million. Part of the 2012 donor income was received for activities to be implemented in 2012-2013, which has been carried forward to start 2013 operations.

Total direct expenditure amounted to $246.5 million, including $212.6 million in programme activities and $33.9 million in administrative activities.

On the administrative budget, OCHA’s direct expenditure on programme activities generated $25.7 million in PSC levies. Supplemented by $3 million in other income and adjustments, this brought total administrative revenue to $28.7 million. A total of $33.9 million was spent on administrative and indirect support costs activities, including central human resources, finance, procurement, resource mobilization and field-level administrative support. As a result, the carry over on the Programme Support Account (which can only finance indirect and administrative costs) was reduced to $44.8 million.

How and where OCHA spent its budget in 2012

Total programme and administrative direct expenditure was $246.5 million (compared with $222.6 million in 2011). A total of 74 per cent of OCHA’s expenditure was on activities supporting field-based humanitarian coordination and advocacy, with 59 per cent spent directly in the field. A total of 10 per cent of the spending was on OCHA’s other core functions which have a global reach: policy development, partnerships, and communications and information management. A total of 6 per cent covered OCHA’s executive management, and 10 per cent went to administrative activities mainly funded from programme support charges. Expenditure by Programme and Administrative activities is outlined in the charts below.

As a coordinating agency, OCHA delivers its mandated operations through its staff. In 2012, 69 per cent of OCHA’s total expenditure was on staff costs and 31 per cent on non-staff costs.

As field vacancy rates decreased to 7 per cent in 2012, the average expenditure rate reached 89 per cent (in 2011 it was 88 per cent). The tables in annex I show a detailed breakdown of expenditure for Programme and Administrative activities.

Cash management and closing balance 2012

The flexibility and timeliness of OCHA’s donor income are key determinants for effective cash management. Early payments reduce administrative transaction costs and facilitate programme implementation. At the beginning of the year, OCHA needs a sufficient cash balance to renew contracts and ensure a seamless transition of activities. OCHA aims to have enough cash in its reserves at any one time to cover six months of staff costs and three months of operating costs.

The closing balance across OCHA’s budgeted programme activities was $159.3 million. Of this total, 58 per cent consisted of earmarked and unearmarked funds received in 2012 for activities to be implemented in 2012/2013. These funds were subsequently used to cover headquarters and field activities from January to April 2013. A further 37 per cent remained in OCHA’s cash reserve, of which 16 per cent was used to cover field activities from January to April 2013, pending the conversion of 2013 earmarked pledges into cash, and 21 per cent was kept to support emergency scale-up and other priority operations in between disbursements of donor funding and to cover the mandatory reserve. The balance of 5 per cent includes unallocated unearmarked funds, unpaid earmarked pledges, and dormant accounts.

For the second year, the closing balance of OCHA’s administrative budget decreased by $4.5 million to $39.8 million. OCHA spent $8.2 million more on these activities than it generated in PSC income. This was in line with the organization’s strategy to reduce the closing balance in the Programme Support Account to match expected annual administrative expenditure. The table below outlines the detailed financial status at 31 December 2012.

[1] Miscellaneous income includes transfers of PSC from other trust funds and transfers from dormant accounts, Specially Designated Contributions and ISDR; interest and miscellaneous income; adjustments, transfers, refunds, foreign-exchange adjustments and savings on prior period unliquidated obligations.





To enable the allocation of funds where and when they are needed, OCHA needs a degree of flexibility in the contributions it receives. Some donors’ policies allow, or indeed favour, the allocation of unearmarked funding to humanitarian organizations in return for corporate-performance commitments and an expectation that funds will be internally allocated where they are most needed, including during a sudden-onset emergency. The following ODSG members have provided a majority or the totality of their funding unearmarked: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea and Sweden. 


However, other donors’ funding policies do not allow them to provide corporate funding, and they need to earmark contributions for specific projects or activities. ODSG donors such as Austria, Canada, the European Commission, Italy, Poland, the Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland, the UAE and the United States provided the majority or totality of their funding for specific activities.


In recognition of the challenge this places on financing the activities of an organization whose main expenditure relates to staff costs, OCHA needs to maximize the funding it can obtain from all existing funding sources. Therefore, while OCHA’s policy is to maximize the amount of unearmarked funding, it also seeks earmarked support to cover its planned expenditure. OCHA, however, does not fundraise for earmarked grants where these are not required. When targeting donors for earmarked funds, OCHA considers each donor’s funding mechanisms and the potential alignment of interest between a specific donor and a specific country office, regional office or headquarters’ activity.


OCHA values donors’ efforts to consult prior to making earmarking decisions, to ensure there is an even spread of funds. To ensure full coverage of its planned expenditure, OCHA will continue to ask relevant donors to provide earmarked support for its priority activities and response to sudden-onset emergencies. This will complement the sustained and predictable unearmarked support also provided to OCHA.



A key element of OCHA’s resource mobilization strategy is to secure increases in unearmarked funding from donors and, where possible, secure those commitments on a multi-year basis. Unearmarked funds give OCHA flexibility in allocating its resources. For the second time, over half of donor contributions were unearmarked (52 per cent).

OCHA achieved an overall net increase of $36 million in fully unearmarked funding compared with 2010. In addition, Canada and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency provided flexible earmarked funding. This gave OCHA the flexibility to allocate funds to field offices in line with cash requirements.

On balance, earmarked funds remain overwhelmingly targeted at country and regional offices (85 per cent). This is slightly less than in 2011 (94 per cent). The higher interest for earmarking headquarters activities (14 per cent of earmarked contributions) reflects donors’ active support for the Inter-Agency Transformative Agenda, including humanitarian leadership, inter-cluster coordination and needs assessments. The most popular recipients of earmarked funding were OCHA offices in high-visibility crises and new emergencies. The majority of earmarked funds went to Africa (44 per cent), followed by the Middle East (18 per cent), Asia and the Pacific (6 per cent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (3 per cent). For a breakdown of donor earmarking, click here. 

Predictability and Timeliness

Given the uncertainties associated with working in an unpredictable environment, prudent budget management and predictable extrabudgetary income are essential to ensure that resources can be programmed with reasonable confidence that activities will not be interrupted due to underfunding. Timeliness of payments is essential to maintain activities during the year and begin new activities as early as possible in the year. To this end, OCHA has prioritized securing as much of its income as possible in the form of multi-year funding commitments. The predictability and timeliness of OCHA income significantly improved in 2012. For the first time, 90 per cent of requirements were covered by the third quarter, allowing for rapid scale-up in sudden-onset emergencies. This also resulted in lower transaction costs and a high expenditure rate while preserving OCHA’s year-end cash liquidity in a healthy position. Where donors cannot commit to fixed sums, OCHA has also negotiated donor commitments in the form of flexible and timely disbursements.

OCHA has multi-year funding and partnership agreements with 11 donors (Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). This helps to ensure reliable, year-on-year funding for OCHA’s activities. While only eight of these agreements include predictable funding volumes, the others foresee more timely and flexible funding, whether unearmarked or broadly earmarked.


OCHA’s activities derive from its mandate, as enshrined in General Assembly resolution 46/182. However, the UN regular budget only contributed $13.4 million in 2012 (or 0.5 per cent of the total regular budget) to finance those mandated activities. This amount is clearly not sufficient to finance the range of activities the Member States expect OCHA to deliver, especially as none of the regular budget resources directly finance activities in the field. OCHA therefore seeks significant voluntary contributions from Member States and other donors. In 2012 OCHA received voluntary contributions from 39 donors (six less than in 2011).

Besides the contributions from all UN Member States received via the regular budget, the overwhelming majority (95 per cent) of voluntary contributions were provided by countries and donors from the Western European and Others Group. This is similar to the level of contributions received in previous years. The Asia-Pacific and Eastern European Group provided another 4 per cent and 1 per cent respectively. The Latin American and Caribbean Group provided less than 1 per cent.

Sharing the cost of coordination

OCHA’s mandate is to support the coordination of humanitarian aid provided by the international community. Global humanitarian aid volumes were estimated at over $12.7 billion[2] in 2012, and are donated by a wide range of stakeholders from Member States to civil society and the private sector to a large number of regional, multilateral and non-governmental organizations. Despite such a diverse and large donor community, OCHA’s ability to fulfill its coordination mandate depends on the financial support of a small group of donors – the OCHA Donor Support Group (ODSG). If all Member States contributed just 2 per cent of their recorded humanitarian spending to OCHA, the organization would have been fully funded.

To show their support for principled and well-coordinated humanitarian action, ODSG members gave OCHA the equivalent of 2.5 per cent of their total humanitarian spending. But there is a wide disparity in the range of funding set aside for OCHA’s coordination work from this group. Some supporters of coordination significantly exceeded these averages, while many paid significantly less. In recognition that multilateral coordination also enables more effective bilateral aid, OCHA encourages donors who prioritize direct implementation over multilateral aid, to take on a greater share of OCHA’s costs.

[2] Financial Tracking System (

Annex - Specially designated Contributions and Other Trust Funds

Specially Designated Contributions

Specially Designated Contributions (SDCs) are earmarked by donors for humanitarian projects implemented by third parties (UN partners and NGOs). OCHA channels income for such activities in the form of grants. SDC activities are not included in the OCHA Annual Plan and Budget. In­come towards SDCs is not counted in the OCHA total do­nor income nor in its donor-ranking tables.

SDCs comprise UNDAC Mission accounts, natural disaster activities (emergency cash grants), relief stock items, ERFs and the ProCap and GenCap projects.

PSCs levied from expenditure for SDC projects are spent on administrative overheads. In most cases these charges are levied at 3 per cent on SDCs.

UNDAC Mission Accounts: Member States deposit fund­ing with OCHA, which is then used to deploy their nation­als on UNDAC missions. Thirty-four Member States cur­rently hold UNDAC Mission Accounts with OCHA.

Natural Disaster Activities: These extrabudgetary funds are held in pre-positioned accounts that have been used primarily to provide emergency cash grants to UN agen­cies and NGOs in natural disasters, supplementing the emergency cash grants funded from the regular budget. The regular pre-positioned funds are being wound down in view of diminishing donor interest. This will leave only the Italian Bilateral Emergency Fund, which is used to channel Italian contributions for allocation subject to Ital­ian approval.

Relief Stock Items: These funds are used to purchase and manage OCHA relief stocks held in the UN Humanitarian Response Depot.

The ProCap and GenCap Projects: This is flow-through funding for the Protection Standby Capacity (ProCap) and Gender Standby Capacity (GenCap) projects covering the Norwegian Refugee Council’s management and de­ployment of senior protection officers and senior gender advisers. Both projects are governed by their respective inter-agency steering committees, and daily management is undertaken by the ProCap and GenCap Support Unit. The unit is hosted by HCSS. Its costs appear in the OCHA budget (O292) as they are not flow-through costs. In 2012, total spending on the two projects’ management of the rosters and deployments was approximately $5.5 million (ProCap $2.7 million and GenCap $2.8 million).

In 2012, ProCap deployed 16 senior protection officers to 15 countries hosted by four UN agencies. While report­ing to specific agencies, the experts have an inter-agency role, and all requests for their support are acknowledged by the RC/HC in-country. In several cases over the last year, such as Libya, Côte d’Ivoire and Chad, their role revolved around stepping up the ef­fectiveness of Protection Cluster coordination to maximize the protection of displaced people and other vulnerable groups. In other cases, namely Philippines, Papua New Guinea and the Southern Africa Region, ProCap officers were assigned to integrate protection agendas into country and regional disaster preparedness planning. In 2012, ProCap continued its engagement with WFP where ProCap officers helped WFP in DRC and South-East Asia to mainstream protection into organizational policy and programming. ProCap continued its support to the cluster leads and inter-cluster coordination mechanism at the global level through the deployments of three ProCap officers in support of the Global Protection Cluster and the Global Food Security Cluster.

In 2012, 15 countries, regions and global clusters request­ed the support of GenCap advisers to ensure that the dif­ferent needs of women, girls, boys and men are effectively met through gender-sensitive humanitarian programming. Two GenCap advisers worked at the global level to strengthen gender aspects within the cluster approach and other strategic humanitarian processes. Notably, in 2012 GenCap stepped up its support to di­saster response preparedness, with deployments to the Pacific and Southern African regions. GenCap advisers provided extensive support to the development and im­plementation of the IASC Gender Marker, which was mandatory for all 16 CAPs countries and has been used in five pooled funds.

The GenCap Project supported a review of cross-cutting issues conducted by an external consultant. The review is expected to be completed and it recommendations endorsed by the IASC in 2013.

An external evaluation of the GenCap and ProCap proj­ects delivered at the close of 2011 concluded that both projects continue to be highly relevant and should con­tinue for the medium-term future.

OCHA Specially Designated Contributions

  UNDAC Mission Accounts Natural Disaster Activities Relief Stock items ERFs ProCap and GenCap Rosters Other Specially Designated Contributions Total Specially Designated Contributions
Opening Balance - 1 January 2012 1 1,931,229 929,421 2,321,151 83,856,129 736,187 220,472 89,994,588
2012 Donor Contributions2 594,026 2,000,000 362,733 84,532,536 5,872,554 136,332 93,498,181
Available funds 20123 2,525,255 2,929,421 2,683,884 168,388,665 6,608,741 356,804 183,492,771
Transfer of PSC4 (57,727) (54,443) (15,537) (3,567,932) (166,500) (20,624) (3,882,764)
Direct Expenditure5 (444,056) (1,541,753) (517,912) (116,286,948) (5,550,000) (158,646) (124,499,315)
Total Expenditure6 (501,783) (1,596,196) (533,449) (119,854,880) (5,716,500) (179,270) (128,382,079)
Net available funds before other Income, adjustments, transfers and refunds7 2,023,472 1,333,225 2,150,435 48,533,785 892,241 177,534 55,110,692
Other income, adjustments, transfers and refunds8 71,954 (250,553) 31,068 90,960,698 1,898,937 (7,577) 92,704,526
Closing Balance - 31 December 20129 2,095,426 1,082,671 2,181,503 139,494,483 2,791,178 169,957 147,815,218
Increase/(Decrease) in opening balance10 164,197 153,250 (139,648) 55,638,354 2,054,991 (50,515) 57,820,629
Reserves for Allocations11 - 368,323 - 12,159,300 - - 12,527,623
Available Balance for Spending12 2,095,426 714,348 2,181,503 127,335,182 2,791,178 169,957 135,287,595

1) The opening balance reflects the situation as at 1 January 2012.
2) For Special Designated Activities, includes paid contributions and unpaid pledges of $ 11.5 million.
3) = 1 + 2.
4) Programme support cost (PSC) levied on SDC expenditure and transferred to the Administrative Account to cover cost of administrative activities.
5) Includes disbursements and unliquidated obligations as at 31 December 2012 of which $32,041,277 is for the CHF for Somalia and $1,132,645 related to the CHF for the ERF in DRC. Contributions for these two projects are computed under “Other income”. (See footnote 8.)
6) = 4 + 5. For SDC activities, expenditure charged is the direct SDC expenditure plus programme support transfers.
7) = 3 +6.
8) Includes interest and miscellaneous income; foreign exchange adjustments; transfers, refunds and savings on prior period unliquidated obligations; contributions channelled through OCHA to NGOs and non-UN partners via the CHF for Somalia. In 2012, these funds amounted to $ 62,566,465.85. It also includes $1,000,000 received from the Common Humanitarian Fund for the ERF in DRC.
9) 7 + 8. Includes Reserves for Allocations that were not available for spending in 2012.
10) Closing balance (9) less Opening balance (1).
11) Reserves mandated under the UN Financial Regulations and Rules for extrabudgetary activities.
12) Closing balance (9) less Reserves for Allocations (11).


Specially Designated Contributions by Donor

United Kingdom 24,007,235
Germany 15,591,629
Sweden 13,037,736
Denmark 9,844,492
Netherlands 6,428,571
Norway 6,049,051
Australia 3,802,587
Spain 2,822,981
Switzerland 2,679,020
Ireland 2,217,750
Russian Federation 2,100,000
African Union 1,999,965
United States 850,000
Korea, Republic of 500,000
Canada 437,676
Italy 362,733
Luxembourg 332,005
Poland 167,716
Estonia 66,401
Latvia 55,844
Romania 50,000
UN and Other Agencies 50,000
Brazil 20,000
Mexico 15,000
Japan 9,212
Private Donations 577
Grand Total 93,498,181

Country-Based Pooled Funds

Emergency Response Funds:  ERFs are country-level pooled funds managed under OCHA auspices. The HC is the overall custodian of ERFs where grants are allocated to NGOs, UN agencies, the International Organization for Migration and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement for response to rapidly evolving needs. The funds are unearmarked, and decisions for fund allocations are made at the country level in a timely, flexible and coordinated manner. In 2012, OCHA managed ERFs in 13 countries: Afghanistan, Colombia, DRC, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Myanmar, oPt, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

The funding for ERFs increased by 16 per cent in 2012 from the $73 million received in 2011. The $84.5 million contributed in 2012 was critical in meeting new developments, including response to the conflict in Syria. The ERF in Syria was established in March 2012 to respond to the crises in the country and the neighbouring countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. The total ERF expenditure in 2012 was $119.8 million. Of this total, the largest amount went to the water and sanitation and health sectors. NGOs received 70 per cent of the total allocations.

OCHA in 2012 further strengthened its efforts in enhancing management of the pooled funds through systematization, standardization, performance measuring, risk management and accountability mechanisms for greater transparency and improved coherence among the funds. OCHA finalized the global guidelines for ERFs, which will help OCHA country offices to better support the HCs in managing the funds, as well as developing guidelines for Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs). OCHA developed a monitoring and reporting framework for the funds, and closely follows recommendations from various evaluations and reviews. OCHA also initiated the development of a global grant management database.

Common Humanitarian Fund for Somalia: The Somalia CHF is a multi-donor humanitarian fund under the HC’s authority. The fund’s key objective is to improve the timeliness and coherence of the humanitarian response through an inclusive process allocating funds to priority needs. Unlike CHFs in other countries (CAR, DRC, Sudan and South Sudan), OCHA is responsible for the financial management of funds allocated to NGOs.

In 2012, the Somalia CHF received $62.6 million from donors. The decrease from the previous year’s contributions is in relation to the end of the famine that struck Somalia in 2011. International and national NGOs received 66 per cent of funds.

Other Trust Funds


Afghanistan Emergency Trust Fund – AXB Statement of Income and Expenditure 2012 (US$)

Opening Balance 1,175,879
Adjustments -
Income from Contributions -
Transfers, Refunds, Savings -
Other Funds Available 8,884
Total Funds Available 1,184,763
Expenditure -
Closing Balance 1,184,763
Closing balance consisting of: Outstanding Advances 109,306
Closing balance consisting of: Balance of Funds for liquidation of liabilities during closure 1,075,457
Closing Balance 1,184,763

Tsunami Trust Fund

Opening Balance 2,946,798
Adjustments 858,6711
Income from Contributions -
Transfers, Refunds, Savings -
Other Funds Available 29,624
Total Funds Available 3,835,093
Expenditure 228,490
Closing Balance 3,606,603

1) Adjustments include allocation to UN agencies excluded in prior Annual Report.

The Afghanistan Emergency Trust Fund was established in June 1988 by the Secretary-General to support various humanitarian activities in Afghanistan. This included providing grants to NGOs and financing some economic development initiatives through the Office of the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. In 2012, there was no expenditure from this trust fund. Therefore, OCHA had expected to settle most of the remaining financial charges pending the receipt of related expenditure reports from the executing agencies in order to close the fund. As of 31 December 2012, the outstanding closing balance was $101,466. OCHA is in contact with the implementing agencies, but has not yet received the final expenditure reports to facilitate the closure of this fund.

The Tsunami Trust Fund was established following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The fund financed activities undertaken in the course of coordinating humanitarian activities. This included providing relief to victims and longer-term infrastructure development. During the trust fund’s closing stages, remaining funds supported UNDP’s development activities. OCHA anticipated closing this fund in 2011. However, it was unable to achieve this goal because there were outstanding and/or overdue expenditure reports from UN agencies that were not received as expected. The closing balance of this trust fund as at 31 December 2012 was $3,606,603. OCHA will ask the respective donors to allow the reprogramming of the re­maining funds to other humanitarian activities.

Click here for a detailed breakdown of for in-kind contributions and Associate Experts.