Extra-budgetary activities

(A) Trust-fund activities

(A1) At its 36th session (September 1972: CO-ORDINATION/R.960, para. 43) CCAQ requested its secretariat to study the implications of a JIU report on trust funds (JIU/REP/72/1). At the 37th session (March 1973: CO-ORDINATION/R.985, paras. 23-26) it noted that the report implied CCAQ action on:

(a) Clarification of the meaning of "trust fund" and related terms in the preparation of common texts of financial regulations;

(b) Steps to obtain ACC agreement on uniform classes and categories of trust funds and non-monetary contributions;

(c) Steps to ensure that technical assistance-type projects financed by trust funds for implementation in developing countries were properly co-ordinated with UNDP-supported projects in these countries;

(d) Development of a system for overhead costs of trust funds and non-monetary contributions which would be consistent with and related to the new system for agency overhead costs for UNDP programmes.

As regards (a) and (b), preliminary studies showed that there were wide differences of approach to the definition and classification of the various types of extrabudgetary funds. The CCAQ secretariat was asked to ascertain the views and practices of the organizations on this question. Point (c) concerned programme co-ordination. As to (d), organizations concurred with the comments made in UN document A/CN.1/L by the Secretary-General and the Administrator of UNDP, who had welcomed to JIU suggestion.

(A2) At the 39th session (March 1974: CO-ORDINATION/R.1032, paras. 14-18) CCAQ studied a number of questions relating to the administration of trust funds. It concluded, first, that there was little hope of achieving a common policy on the charging of support costs on trust funds until further information became available from its cost-measurement system. Secondly, it endorsed the practice of the majority of organizations in requiring trust-fund contributions to be paid in convertible currencies while making exceptions where justified. It also noted that most organizations made an appropriate credit to trust funds for interest earned through investing their balances.

(A3) For the question of special audits of trust funds, first discussed at the 42nd session, see section 17.5.

(A4) At the 46th and 47th sessions (March and September 1977) the Committee, resuming its work on classes of extrabudgetary funds, examined possible approaches to this subject; it agreed at the 47th session (CO-ORDINATION/R.1238, para. 35) that the general-purpose monies of voluntarily funded bodies such as UNICEF, UNDP and UNFPA could not be regarded as trust funds for the purpose of a CCAQ definition, nor should support costs. It further agreed that the use of the term "funds in trust" should be discontinued.

(A5) At the 55th session (September 1981) the Committee examined a draft agreement proposed to several organizations by the Federal Republic of Germany to cover trust funds made available by it. The Committee believed that a concerted response would be desirable and decided to refer the matter to a special working party to meet in December 1981. Having considered the draft, the working party was to go on to formulate general principles for agreements concerning trust funds and other special funds (ACC/1981/30, paras. 57-60). At the 56th session (March 1982: ACC/1982/6, paras. 15 and 16) the Committee noted the recommendations of this Working Party on Extrabudgetary Activities with regard both to the draft agreement and to general principles. It agreed that a revised draft prepared by the Federal Republic of Germany following past deliberations in the Committee should be circulated to the organizations for comment and urged all organizations to adhere to the general principles in all new trust-fund agreements.

These principles, as stated in the Working Party's report (ACC/1981/FB/59, para. 19) were as follows:

(a) The agreement should contain a description of the project, normally in the form of a project document. It should refer to the donor government, the executing agency and, as appropriate, the recipient government. It should define the executing agency's responsibility for project execution;

(b) It should state the amount of the contribution and specify the currency of payment. It should set out a payment schedule. It should mention the regulations, rules and directives under which the fund was to be established and administered. It should provide as appropriate for separate accounting arrangements and specify the currency of account;

(c) It should provide for payment by the donor of support costs in respect of the operations to be carried out;

(d) It should establish financial and administrative conditions for the commencement and continued conduct of operations and indicate the procedures to be followed for any unforeseen expenditures, including those resulting from possible revisions of the project;

(e) It should make provision for the ownership and disposal of property purchased by the executing agency with funds provided by the donor;

(f) It should provide for the evaluation of activities in accordance with the project document;

(g) It should specify the internal and external audit procedures to be followed;

(h) It should provide for the submission of interim and final statements of account;

(i) It should set out a procedure to be followed upon completion of operations;

(j) It should set out a procedure for termination of the agreement.

(k) It should provide for financial closing and the disposition of any surplus funds;

(l) It should state the date of entry into force of the agreement. In addition, the Working Party had endorsed a model provision for trust-fund agreements which had been recommended by the Panel of External Auditors, and which was in the following terms:

"The trust fund will be subject exclusively to the internal and external auditing procedures laid down in the financial regulations, rules and directives of (designation of executing agency)" (ibid., para. 20).

(A6) At a special session held in June 1982 the Committee stated its understanding that the form of any new trust-fund agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany would remain provisional until a definitive standard text was accepted by CCAQ. It expressed willingness to formulate a text reflecting the principles which it had agreed (ACC/1982/17, para. 10).

(A7) At the 57th session (September 1982) the Committee studied a new revised version, prepared by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the draft standard agreement. The Committee reaffirmed the understanding referred to in paragraph 6 above. Since the revised text did not yet appear to take account of all the comments and principles formulated by CCAQ, the Committee asked its secretariat to prepare a version reflecting the organizations' requirements, and to attempt to obtain acceptance of it by the competent authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany. In this matter the secretariat would be its sole authorized representative vis-à-vis the authorities (ACC/1982/25, paras. 19-23).

(A8) At the 58th session (March 1983) the Committee approved, with some amendments, the model agreement drawn up by the secretariat, designed to take account both of the requirements of the organizations and of those of the Government. It was hoped that discussions with the Government on this text could be rapidly completed (ACC/1983/11, paras. 11-14). At the 59th session (September 1983), a new compromise text was approved, and the secretariat was requested to inform the organizations by correspondence of the outcome of further discussions with the Government. The Committee considered that any model text agreed with the Government would have to be subject to ad hoc adjustments as required to take account of the characteristics of individual projects or activities and the circumstances of individual organizations. The negotiation of agreements with the Federal Republic of Germany concerning trust funds for purposes other than technical co-operation projects was left to the individual organizations concerned (ACC/1983/21, paras. 22-24).

(A9) At the 61st session (September 1984), having been informed of developments concerning the model agreement, the Committee agreed that further discussions of it were not required at present. However, consideration of matters relating to trust-fund agreement should be regularly provided for in the agendas of future sessions of CCAQ (ACC/1984/17, paras. 54-55).

(A10) At the 62nd session (March 1985) the Committee noted that the CCAQ text for the model trust-fund agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany had been accepted, subject to certain understandings. It was agreed that the CCAQ secretariat should acknowledge receipt of the Government's message, indicating that it had been brought to the attention of the members of CCAQ (ACC/1985/7, para. 53).

(A11) At the 64th session (March 1986) the Committee discussed the multiplicity of financial reports required for different trust funds and the possibility of finding common denominators among them. It requested ILO and FAO to make available the results of the work that they had undertaken in this area (ACC/1986/4, para. 44). The statements being worked out by these two organizations were examined at the 65th session (September 1986), at which time it was agreed that other organizations interested in developing similar material should explore the matter further with them (ACC/1986/12, para. 54).

(A12) At the 70th session (March 1989), noting the delays and extra costs which arose when donors wished to limit organizations' flexibility in making transfers within project budgets, the Committee agreed that in this matter it was in the organizations' collective interest to apply common standards. In this connection it decided to consider at its next session trust fund arrangements for activities financed by the European Economic Community (ACC/1989/7, para. 57). It further decided to address at that session the growth of extrabudgetary as opposed to regular budget activities, and of programmes that could be assimilated to such activities in organizations financed by voluntary contributions (ibid., para. 58). (The latter information was subsequently submitted to the Committee in ACC/1989/FB/R.42 of 18 August 1989.)

(A13) Organizations' observations on the difficulties encountered in trust-fund arrangements with the EEC were available at the Committee's 72nd session (March 1990), and it was agreed that a common approach should be made to the Community with a view to developing arrangements that would be simpler, more workable and more compatible with the financial regulations and procedures of organizations of the UN system. High-level representations would be needed, and UN undertook this responsibility on the Committee's behalf. At the same session the Committee agreed that at an early date contacts should be made with the projected European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which could become an important source of trust-fund financing (ACC/1990/5, paras. 49-51).

(A14) At the 73rd session (September 1990) the Committee endorsed a UN suggestion that it make a common approach to the EEC in a letter setting out the main problems encountered by the organizations (e.g. difficulties in obtaining payments in advance; absence of mechanisms for dealing with programme and cost changes; requirements for performance guarantees and penalties; project audits) and outlining possible solutions (ACC/1990/12, paras. 48, 49).

(A15) As a result of the approach to the EEC (see para. (A14) above) the Committee was informed at the 77th session (August-September 1992) that UN had been invited to a meeting with EEC officials in Brussels (ACC/1992/25, paras. 30, 31). Earlier, at the 76th session (March 1992) the Committee had suggested that in any negotiations account be taken of certain questions not specificially mentioned in the UN letter, such as support costs and supporting voucher requirements for payments. In general, the Committee believed that agreements concluded with the World Bank would provide a satisfactory model (ACC/1992/11, paras. 37, 38).

(A16) At the 78th session (March 1993) UN briefed the Committee on the status of its contacts with the Commission of the EEC, which had included a meeting in Brussels, and which were intended to lay the foundation for a form of agreement acceptable as a model throughout the system. The Committee was also informed of action under way in other organizations, or mandated by their governing bodies, to reach satisfactory arrangements with this potentially important source of funding. The Committee believed that a basis for such arrangements might now be in a place and expressed the desire to follow developments closely (ACC/1993/7, paras. 52-55). A further review of action under way was held at the 79th session (August-September 1993), during which participants also exchanged information on the audit and procurement provisions in agreements proposed by the Commission or signed with it (ACC/1993/23, paras. 51-52).

(A17) CCAQ(FB) continued to hold exchanges of information on the state of organizations' negotiations of framework agreements for activities financed by the European Union at its 80th, 81st, 82nd, and 83rd sessions (ACC/1994/5, para. 53, ACC/1994/15, para. 39, ACC/1995/6, para. 54, ACC/1995/20, para. 65).

(A 18) At its 84th Session, February 1996, the Committee continued its regular discussions on relations with the Commission, both with regard to negotiations of general agreements and individual project agreements. It was advised that an agreement on cooperation between UNESCO and the European Commission would be signed shortly. UNESCO had ensured that the agreement incorporated text on audit access as previously agreed by the United Nations on behalf of the system as a whole.

(A 19) At its 85th Session, August 1996 the Committee was informed that the agreement negotiated by the United Nations with the Commission of the European Union had been extended for a further year. The Committee was also briefed on the status of current negotiations with the World Bank on new standard pro forma agreements. An agreement had been finalized with regard to services provided on a sole source basis.

(A 20) At its 86th Session, February 1997, the Committee was briefed on the outcome of discussions recently held in Brussels by organizations which had encountered problems of suspension of payments for activities financed by the European Commission. The Committee expressed its appreciation to Mr. David Woodward of the Panel of External Auditors who had assisted with the negotiations with regard to interpretation of the "audit access" clause in agreements signed by the Commission. The United Nations confirmed that a proposal had been made to the Commission for an indefinite extension of the agreement covering the audit clause and that it was expected that there would be a two-year extension. It was agreed that there had been a satisfactory resolution to the recent disagreement and that organizations should pay special attention to keeping each other informed of any developments in this area. There was an exchange of information about problems encountered when negotiating with certain donor governments, especially with regard to provisions insisting on audit access or requirements for copies of all transaction documents. It was agreed that with increasing levels of extra-budgetary financing there would be increasing problems of this kind and the subject should be kept as a standing item on the Committee's agenda. Organizations were requested to keep each other informed at the next session of the Committee and in between sessions to communicate important developments to the secretariat, which would act as a clearing house.

(A 21) At its 87th Session, August 1997, the Committee was briefed on recent correspondence between the United Nations and the European Commission. It noted that there continued to be pressure from some donors whose contributions were subject to conditions governing such matters as audit access, tied procurement or tied recruitment, staggered payment schedules and holdback provisions, and that it was necessary for organizations to present an united front in negotiations. It was agreed that the United Nations would continue to act as focal point on the above issues. As there would only be one session of the Committee in 1998, it was more important than ever that members keep each other informed of any developments, using the secretariat as a clearing house.

(A 22 ) At its 88th Session, 4 September 1998, the Committee was briefed ( see also Document: ACC/1998/FB/88/CRP.11 ) on the status of negotiations between the United Nations and the European Commission. It recalled that it had earlier been agreed that the United Nations would continue to act as focal point on this matter and noted that the negotiations between the European Commission and the United Nations had been conducted. This did not include the participation of any specialized agencies. It was also noted that there was a tentative schedule for a meeting with the European Commission in September. Some organizations which had not concluded agreements with the Commission were of the opinion that high priority should be given to concluding these negotiations but that it was essential that they should be invited to participate in such a meeting in order that their concerns be taken into account. It was requested that the United Nations include interested specialized agencies in its negotiations with the European Commission, especially if it were the intention of the Commission to apply any agreement concluded with the United Nations, Funds and Programmes to those agencies, which did not already have the benefit of a formal agreement with the Commission.

(A23) At its 89th session (February 1999: ACC/1999/6, paras. 3, 46-49), after a briefing on correspondence between the United Nations and the European Commission (EC), the Committee added a fifth issue 'audit access' to the four on which the United Nations had intended to concentrate. The negotiations would then focus on (a) Schedule of payments, (b) Indirect costs, (c) Tied procurement, (d) Tied recruitment and (e) Audit access. Other interested organizations recalled their previous request to be included in the negotiations, especially if the EC intended to apply any agreement concluded with the United Nations to those agencies that did not already have the benefit of a formal agreement with the Commission. It was agreed that any organizations that wished their views to be taken into account should provide their inputs through the secretariat to the United Nations representative in the negotiations.

(A24) The Committee considered that high priority should be given to concluding these negotiations and was of the opinion that a joint approach with the United Nations taking the lead was the sensible way to proceed. Given the considerable time spent so far on negotiations and the political sensitivity of the matter, the Committee recommended to ACC that the issue continue to be handled at the highest levels within the United Nations and, given the importance of a mutually acceptable agreement between the European Commission and United Nations system organizations, underlined the need for a flexible solution.

(A25) At its 90th session (August-September 1999: ACC/1999/14, paras. 44-47) the Committee was briefed on the recent signature of a framework agreement (and side letter) between the United Nations and the EC. It recalled that from the beginning this had been a joint inter-organization process and that participants had in several earlier sessions agreed that the United Nations would continue to act as focal point on this matter. This was with the understanding that the concerns of member organizations would be taken into consideration and that organizations would be kept fully informed of the status of negotiations, with prior consultation as appropriate. While noting in the case of the current negotiations that the United Nations funds and programmes, which were covered by the agreement, had been involved, the representatives of several funds and programmes felt that their concerns had not been adequately reflected in the framework agreement. Some specialized agencies indicated that while they had specifically communicated to the United Nations the key issues of concern to their organizations and their interest in being kept informed of developments, with prior consultation as appropriate, their concerns had not been addressed and prior consultation had not occurred. The Committee noted that the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Management intended to travel in early September to Brussels, with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, to discuss with the EC the immediate establishment of the EC-UN working group referred to in the side-letter to the agreement.

(A26) Some organizations that had not concluded agreements with the Commission considered that it was essential, even at this late stage, that they should be invited to participate in this process in order that their concerns be fully taken into account. Although, on a strictly legal basis, the framework agreement did not cover organizations other than the United Nations, Funds and Programmes, it would be unrealistic to expect that such a framework agreement would not set a precedent for any future agreement between the EC and other UN system organizations. The Committee therefore urged that the United Nations include interested specialized agencies in its negotiations with the EC, especially if it were the intention of the EC to apply any agreement concluded with the United Nations, Funds and Programmes to those agencies that did not already have the benefit of a formal agreement with the Commission. This might be done by including one representative of the interested organizations in any working group being set up. The Committee noted that paragraph 4 of the side-letter indicated that the "verification" agreement concerning audit access remained in force and recalled that the successful negotiation of that agreement had required the involvement of all organizations, presenting a common position vis-à-vis European Commission demands. A similar concerted approach to negotiations was essential at this time. One organization briefed the Committee on a recent visit of auditors from the Commission who had been refused access to conduct an "audit." The Committee reiterated the importance of being consistent in interpreting and applying the "verification" agreement, which did not cover any financial audit nor permit direct access to organizations' records.

(A27) At the same session (ibid., para. 48) the Committee exchanged information about how different organizations had met, or proposed to meet, World Bank "audit" requirements. It recalled the "single audit" policy, which had been officially endorsed by the Board of Auditors, ACC, ACABQ and the General Assembly, and urged all organizations to ensure that this policy was followed strictly.

(A28) At its 91st session (August-September 2000: ACC/2000/6, paras. 33-34) the Committee was briefed on the follow up to the signature in 1999 of a framework agreement (and side letter) between the United Nations and the European Commission. Several meetings had since been held with members of the Commission but with little progress, key "sticking points" including the verification clause and the timing of payments by the European Commission. Participants recalled that from the beginning this had been a joint inter-organization process and that particular attention was necessary to the verification clause. It recalled the "single audit" policy, which had been officially endorsed by the Board of Auditors, ACC, ACABQ and the General Assembly and urged all organizations to ensure that this policy was followed strictly. Members had at previous sessions noted that while the United Nations was negotiating with the EC on behalf only of the United Nations, Funds and Programmes, any agreement reached would undoubtedly have an influence on the working arrangements or agreements of other UN system organizations with the EC. Accordingly, there had been an understanding that the concerns of member organizations would be taken into consideration and that organizations would be kept fully informed of the status of negotiations, with prior consultation as appropriate. At the last session the ILO had been designated to represent the particular interests of the specialized agencies and was requested to attend any negotiating sessions as an observer. As the ILO expressed its inability to continue with this responsibility, it was agreed that WHO would take over the role. Interested organizations were requested to communicate to the WHO designated focal point any views or concerns so that these would be taken into account in future negotiations. It was understood that a further meeting with the EC was planned for some time in September 2000. The Committee also exchanged information about how different organizations had met, or proposed to meet, World Bank "audit" requirements.

(A29) At its October 2002 session (CEB/2002/5, para. 41) HLCM, in the context of auditing requirements for European Union (EU) contributions and after a briefing on reporting arrangements for contributions received from EU, noted that a number of agreements had already been reached with the EU regarding arrangements for their contributions and agreed that it was important for organizations to "march in step" and in the same direction in terms of their responses to EU reporting requests, especially in the context of future EU donations. To this end, organizations agreed to share information through the CEB secretariat on any pertinent development.

(A30) It was reported that the sixth meeting of the FB Network in August 2006 (CEB/2006/HLCM/34, paras.84-92) that in spring 2006 a Financial Management Framework Agreement, broadly acceptable to all United Nations organisations, had been agreed with World Bank.  Subsequent discussions would involve UNDG agencies and the UN negotiation team speaking with the World Bank.  In this, the Network affirmed it was important that information was shared and the appropriate financial input sought, when conclusions had far-reaching implications for contracts already agreed. 

(A31) At the seventh session of the FB Nework (CEB/2007/HLCM/FB/10 23, paras. 107-119), it was agreed that the CEB Secretariat would carry out a data collection exercise focused on EC contributions to UN system organizations for the period 2002-2005. Organizations would be provided with the figures obtained from the EC, as well as with those available in the UN/DESA database (as reported to UN/DESA by the receiving UN organization), for verification and confirmation.
This opportunity would also be taken to ask information – which has not already been collected by UN/DESA - on resources contributed to the UN system by other major non- state donors.
The data collected would be posted after appropriate clearance on the Finance and Budget Network website.

(A32) At the FB Network’s eight session in March 2008 ((CEB/2008/HLCM/FB/4, paras. 4-14), organizations agreed that further negotiations with the EC should take into consideration the difficulties that may be encountered by the EC to completely remove the clause from the Agreement, as part of its own Financial Regulations and Rules, and the need by UN system organizations to find appropriate mechanisms to implement the clause in a manner that is compatible with the single audit principle and with their internal financial management requirements.

In order to develop a common position of UN system organizations to be presented at the up coming 5th meeting of the FAFA working group on 10-11 April, Geneva, a preparatory meeting would be held on 9 April, in Geneva. In preparation for the FAFA meeting, organizations should provide the Office of the UN Controller with information on the latest developments in their internal financial control systems.

(A33) At the same session (CEB/2008/HLCM/FB/4, paras.60-62), organizations were requested to check and provide clearance on data contained in the CEB draft report on "Contributions from the EC and from other non-state Donors to the UN system". A comprehensive report would then be published by the CEB Secretariat on the CEB website, in compliance with the requirements of the FAFA.

(B) Extrabudgetary activities

Development finance activities - including agreements with World Bank

(B1) At the 61st session (September 1974) the Committee discussed financial arrangements for projects financed by IBRD and IDA, on the basis of background documentation by the secretariat and a statement by UN. It expressed satisfaction with the blanket withdrawal procedure made available to the organizations for such projects. After a discussion of difficulties encountered with the projects and remedial measures adopted or contemplated, it was agreed that a paper on these issues should be considered at a forthcoming session (ACC/1984/17, paras. 51-53). This paper was submitted at the 63rd session (September 1985). It was noted that the Bank, in addition to offering the blanket withdrawal procedure, was making efforts to reduce delays in disbursements on behalf of governments, to delegate responsibility for the management of loan documentation to local officers and to simplify procedures generally. Members drew attention to factors differentiating the organizations from commercial contractors and mentioned certain continuing problems which they hoped could be gradually overcome, such as delayed payment or non-payment by borrowers, borrowers' demands for bank guarantees or provisions for non-performance penalties and changes in contractual conditions during the duration of a project (ACC/1985/17, paras. 41-43).

(B2) At the 64th session (March 1986) the Committee was provided with preliminary information on the revision of the Bank's guidelines for withdrawals under IBRD loans and IDA credits. The revision made no change in the special procedures established for organizations of the system. The Committee reaffirmed its interest in these matters and in representation of the Bank at its sessions, and agreed that an item on development finance should appear regularly in its future agendas (ACC/1986/4, para. 45).

(B3) At the 65th session (September 1986) the Bank provided copies of its new Disbursement Handbook and of its Guidelines for the special procedure for withdrawal (Form 1903) in favour of UN agencies (the former "blanket withdrawal" procedure). It also informed the Committee of the status of its model management services agreement, which had already been concluded with four organizations in provisional form. After a discussion of problems related to Bank-financed activities, it was agreed that a new seminar on Bank procedures would be organized for representatives of the organizations in the spring of 1987. Individual briefings would also be provided on request

(B4) At its 83rd session, CCAQ(FB) was informed about the status of negotiations between a number of organizations and the World Bank on a new standard pro forma agreement

(B5) At its 84th session the Committee was informed that a revised draft agreement had been provided to organizations in December 1995 following a meeting between representatives of the Bank and organizations with substantial Bank programmes. As the Bank wished to introduce the new agreement immediately, interested organizations should communicate any requests for substantive changes as soon as possible to the ILO.

(B6) At its 89th session UNICEF briefed the Committee on the World Bank's new Global Development Framework that will guide all spending. This could result in more involvement of United Nations system organizations as executing agencies, but World Bank financial procedures would require agreement to project "audits" . Such a requirement could conflict with organizations' policies based on the single audit principle, endorsed by the ACABQ, General Assembly and ACC, that only the Panel of External Auditors can audit United Nations system organizations' activities. While special examinations may be conducted by the Board of Auditors, such examinations should only be carried out at the request of the organization concerned. Participants agreed that, even where donors agreed to pay the costs of such specific examinations, these should be strongly resisted. Special examinations increased organizations' costs by diverting staff resources and attention from programme priorities. Accepting a request for such examinations from one donor could create an unfortunate precedent with respect to the requests of other donors.

(B7) It was reported at the FB Network meeting of August 2006 (CEB/2006/HLCM/34, paras.84-92) that the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Working Group established under article 13.1 of the Financial and Administrative Framework Agreements (FAFA) between the European Communities and the UN on 29 April 2003 took place in April 2006. To strengthen the Agreement, a draft version of Reporting Guidelines had been prepared as well as a Concept Note on UN/EC joint training initiatives. In addition to the growing interest in reporting, the contentious issue remained on verification. The Network stressed the UN position that verification was NOT an audit. The 3rd meeting of the FAFA working group had agreed to develop standard ToR for verifications. The Network stressed the need for UN organizations to collectively hold a firm position in support of the single audit principle, especially in connection with the upcoming discussions on the standard Terms of Reference for verification activities.   

(B8) In reference to the development of a financial management framework agreement with the World Bank, the Committee acknowledged at its 13th session (CEB/2007/3, paras. 119-121) the significant progress already made with respect to this matter thanks to the March 2006 Agreement, developed under the leadership of the UN Assistant Secretary-General, Controller.
The Committee further agreed that a Working Group be established under the guidance of the Finance and Budget Network, to lead a joint effort for the development of a new financial management framework agreement with the World Bank to be subscribed by all interested organizations.

(B9) At the seventh session of the FB Network (CEB/2007/HLCM/FB/10 23, paras. 120-123), it was recalled that the HLCM at its March 2007 meeting had agreed that the Finance and Budget Network would guide a joint effort for the development of a new Financial Management Framework Agreement with the World Bank to be subscribed by all interested organizations.
Legal officials in interested organizations were working on the drafting of a new Agreement.