GWP Financial Overview 2009 to 2013

349 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
349
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

GWP Financial Overview 2009 to 2013

  1. 1. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW – Lessons learned 2009 - 2013
  2. 2. 2009-2013 63 MILLION EURO
  3. 3. Globally Raised Locally Raised In Kind 40 million 10 million 12.6 million (48 million) (6.4 million) (?? million) 35 m core 35 m core 4 RWP 84% 3 RWP  62%
  4. 4. Globally Raised40 million 465 23 781 74 0 400 1,900 525 2,212 1,088 0 434 30 935 496 0 400 2,600 0 2,297 379 3,648 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Austria China Denmark European Commission France - secondments Germany Netherlands Norway Sweden Switzerland UK 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 3 donors  2/3 of Globally raised 3 donors  70% of coreNEW LOST
  5. 5. Locally Raised10 million 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 CACENA CAF CAM CAR CEE CHINA EAF MED SAM SAS SAF SEA WAF 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Vs 13.5 million core funds
  6. 6. In Kind12.6 Million 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 CAM CAR CEE CHINA SAM SAS SEA Cacena CAF WAF EAF MED SAF GWPO 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
  7. 7. 2009-2013 63 MILLION EURO Prepared > 200 Budgets and Work Plans Produced > 400 financial reports + locally raised Survived > 100 annual audits + CIDA audit Closed > PAWDII Programme, USAID, PIWAG Programme, FWG… Started > WACDEP, SITWA, ......
  8. 8. 8 FUTURE -> -> ->-> -> -> -> -> -> 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 B2014 E2015 E2016 8,545 7,311 5,412 7,488 11,432 17,250 20,000 20,000 1,765 996 2,972 2,337 2,100 3,000 4,000 5,000 GLOBALLY RAISED LOCALLY RAISED
  9. 9. 9 LESSONS LEARNED ????????????????????? Core funds to remain/decrease  project funding? The global funding base is vulnerable  broaden the base? Bilateral donors only + EC  need to change to become attractive? Network´s fundraising skills uneven  allocate resources + incentives? All time low/all time high = organizational stress  stability priority? Start up & implementation of projects  learn from the past Governance Review to provide some answers
  10. 10. 10
  11. 11. EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20% 21% 18% 20% 17% 5% 5% 7% 8% 6% 5% 7% 8% 8% 7% 28% 33% 30% 36% 47% 22% 18% 2% 1% 5% 18% 12% 33% 24% 15% Programme activities Locally raised Programme activities Designated funds Programme activities Regional core Network Operations Global Tec&/Knowledge M. Governing bodies Global Secretariat

×