Quota Review. World Conference Document No 11

Transcription

1 Quota Review World Conference Document No 11 ewagggs 35th World Conferenc HONG KONG 2014

2 Quota Review 1. SUMMARY 1.1 At the 34 th World Conference in Edinburgh in 2011 the World Board committed to undertake a review of the quota system in the following triennium to ensure that the fairest method is used to obtain a contribution from our s. 1.2 This paper describes the rationale behind the current and an alternative method of calculating individual s Quota/Membership fees. Both would generate the same income to WAGGGS. 1.3 Conference is asked to choose between the two possible methods and approve the Quota (or Membership) Fee that each (MO) will be required to pay during the triennium. Delegates are also asked to consider other proposals on how such fees shall be determined in the future. 1.4 The paper includes detailed information on the impact of each method on individual MOs fees. It also explains the purpose and operation of a new Quota Support Fund that has been included in the proposed budget for It includes a further proposal that would impact on the calculation of MOs Quota/Membership fees in the Triennium and beyond essentially ensuring that there would be no increases resulting from membership growth. This is aimed at removing any financial disincentive for MOs to grow their membership and encouraging them to provide accurate membership numbers. 1.6 Overall it is proposed to collect 5.157m through Quota/Membership fees (before applying the Quota Support Fund) during the triennium. This is a real-term reduction of 11.5 per cent over the amount agreed for The intention of the proposals in this paper is to further reduce WAGGGS reliance on its Members fees in future years. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The current method for calculating MOs Quota Fees was approved at the 32 nd World Conference in 2005 and has been used since the beginning of the triennium. 2.2 The starting point is the World Conference agreeing the total amount of money that needs to be raised through Quota. This is then divided up between MOs, broadly on the basis of the number of members they had at the start of the preceding triennium and the relative wealth of the country they are in. 2.3 The total amount to be raised should not be more than the amount agreed for the previous triennium, adjusted for UK inflation over the intervening period, as defined by the UK Consumer Price Index (CPI). 2.4 The membership numbers used to calculate Quota Fees are those provided by MOs through the census that takes place every three years, in the first year of a triennium. Where no information is provided, the figures from the previous census are used. 2.5 The wealth of a country is determined by its Gross National Income Per Capita (GNI-PC) as described in the World Bank Atlas (see below for further information). MOs are assigned to wealth bands ; currently A to F.

3 2.6 The minimum Quota fee for any Full Member is GBP 130 per year. Associate Members are entitled to a reduction of 50 per cent in the membership numbers on which the Quota is calculated. 2.7 MOs in band A only pay the minimum Quota regardless of their size (so currently GBP 130 per annum for Full Members and GBP 65 for associate Members). 2.8 MOs in bands B to E receive a discount on their Quota of between 92.5 per cent and 15 per cent. Those in band F receive no discount. This is subject to them paying at least the minimum fee. 2.9 For the purposes of calculating Quota, the membership numbers of MOs in bands B to D are capped at 500,000. Currently the MOs in India and the Philippines are the only ones affected by this Adjustments are made to ensure that no MO pays more than 55 per cent of the total amount of Quota to be collected and to phase the imposition of any large (33 per cent or more) increases in Quota. This is called Transitional Relief. 3. REVIEWING THE QUOTA METHOD 3.1 After the 34 th World Conference the World Board agreed a brief for the review. This was to identify a new method for determining Quota Fees that: Is simpler and more transparent Might reduce the emphasis on each MO s exact membership numbers Would not require detailed information from each individual Member Organisation 3.2 They also agreed to consider other measures of a country s relative wealth that might prove to be fairer than GNI-PC. However, any such measure would need to be from an internationally recognised and respected source, with data being readily available on a publicly accessible website. 3.3 The Board engaged an independent consultant to assist with the review. This was Crowe Clark Whitehill (CCW), our UK external audit firm. CCW has a good knowledge of WAGGGS and the MO network and extensive experience with other international and UKbased membership organisations. 3.4 A number of MOs were invited to complete a questionnaire and provide their comments and suggestions on a new methodology. These were those with the highest number of members and those paying the highest amounts of Quota under the current method. Measuring national wealth: Gross National Income Per Capita The GNI per capita is the dollar value of a country s final income in a year, divided by its population. It reflects the average income of a country s citizens. GNI comprises the total value of goods and services produced within a country together with its income received from other countries (notably interest and dividends), less similar payments made to other countries. For example, if a Britishowned company operating in another country sends some of their incomes (profits) back to UK, UK s GNI is enhanced. Similarly, a British production unit of a US company sending profit to the US will affect the British GNI but will not reduce it since it is not included in the first place. GNI per capita in US dollars is converted using the World Bank Atlas method, which dampens variability caused by fluctuations in exchange rates. 3.5 With regards relative wealth, CCW identified a number of alternative measures. However, they recommended that there was not a strong enough rationale for replacing the GNI-PC measure with any of them. 3.6 It was also clear, though, that there was a high degree of perceived unfairness regarding the 4 April 2014~14:49~AM R:\Final Docs\Hong Kong World Conference\WC Quota paper - Final - ENGLISH.doc

4 apportionment of discount rates between wealth bands. In particular, it was noted that moving from band D to band E involved a substantial reduction in discount (from 75 per cent to just 15 per cent), which made things very difficult for the poorest MOs in band E. 3.7 With regards the use of membership numbers to (in part) determine Quota Fees, the majority of MOs who responded to the consultation said that membership numbers should be a factor. A majority also said that all MOs should pay a fee, but not at the same level. 3.8 The consultants considered models in which set fees would be applied to MOs within a membership range and in the same wealth band. Whilst this model was simpler in concept and potentially more transparent than the current system it would be difficult to implement; determining and securing agreement of the membership bands and fee level for each band would be far from straightforward and there would inevitably be many potential winners and losers. Furthermore, it would not address the core issue of removing any disincentive for membership growth and/or accurately reporting membership numbers. It was therefore agreed not to take this model any further. 4. PROPOSALS FOR 35 TH WORLD CONFERENCE 4.1 The World Board considered the outcomes of CCW s work very carefully. They concluded that, whilst some valuable intelligence had been gathered and some interesting concepts developed, further work needed to be done to develop a method that would truly meet the expectations and needs of MOs. 4.2 Moreover, they concluded that what is required to make a meaningful difference is a substantial reduction in WAGGGS real-term dependency on income from Quota/Membership Fee. Without that there will always be losers from any substantive change in the method. 4.3 Whilst noting that the budgeted requirement for Quota income in is, for the first time, lower than in the preceding triennium, it is still not sufficient to be able to make a real difference to Quota. The World Board believes that this can only happen once our Fund Development strategy is fully embedded and generating sustainable and sizeable results it is expected that this will be by However, the Board believes there are some things that could be done for this triennium to address some of the concerns expressed by MOs. 4.5 Alternative calculation method The Board was keen to identify an option that would address the problems of some MOs in wealth band E (see above) and go some way to further improving the transparency of the system. They have therefore developed a number of measures to be put to conference as a package (rather than as individual measures) that would essentially be a variation of the current model, rather than a replacement of it These measures are: a) To expand the number of wealth bands to address the problems of poorer MOs in Band E b) To partially mitigate the overall loss of income this would generate by adding a new premium band for MOs in very wealthy countries c) And also by phasing large (33 per cent or higher) reductions in Quota/Membership Fee as well as increases; i.e. Transitional Relief in reverse d) To improve transparency by stopping the practice of simply setting the gross amount of Quota to be collected and then dividing it up between MOs e) And instead set a standard rate-per-girl, any increase to which would need to be approved by World Conference. Based on the proposed budget, the standard rate for would be GBP 0.40 (40 UK pence)

5 f) Because this would no longer be a Quota to be collected from members, to call the resulting charge a Membership Fee. This also ties in with the Membership Development Strategy and makes it clearer that WAGGGS is providing services in return for this fee With regards a) above an additional set of bands would be inserted in between the current bands D and E so that the jump in Membership Fee for MOs moving upwards out of band D is not as severe. Under the alternative method the number of wealth bands increases from 6 to 10 and the change in discount from one band to the next is never more than a 15 per cent. Those MOs in the new premium band J (see b above) would pay Membership Fees based on 110 per cent of the standard rate-per-girl Both the proposed alternative and current bands are shown in the table below, including the associated GNI-PC thresholds. So if a country s GNI-PC, as assessed by the World Bank, is $14,467, they would be in Band E under the current method (and receive a 15 per cent discount) and Band F under the alternative method (and receive a 45 per cent discount). a) Alternative method Band Discount GNI-PC upper threshold US$ (actual) GNI-PC upper threshold US$ (proposed) Per Cent A Standard charge per cent B 92.5 per cent per cent C 85.0 per cent 995 1, per cent D 75.0 per cent 3,945 4, per cent E 60.0 per cent N/A 7,000 N/A F 45.0 per cent N/A 12,615 N/A G 30.0 per cent N/A 15,000 N/A H 15.0 per cent 12,195 35, per cent I None N/A 60,000 N/A J Minus 10 per cent N/A N/A N/A b) Current method Band Discount GNI-PC upper threshold US$ (actual) GNI-PC upper threshold US$ (proposed) Per Cent A Standard charge per cent B 92.5 per cent per cent C 85.0 per cent 995 1, per cent D 75.0 per cent 3,945 4, per cent E 15.0 per cent 12,195 12, per cent F None N/A N/A N/A There would be no changes to the other aspects of the current method, for example: The 500,000 cap on membership in bands B to D The cap of 55 per cent of the total income to be paid by any one MO Transitional relief (phasing) on increases of 33 per cent or more The minimum charge (GBP 130 per annum) The 50 per cent reduction in Membership Fee for Associate Members 4 April 2014~14:49~AM R:\Final Docs\Hong Kong World Conference\WC Quota paper - Final - ENGLISH.doc

6 4.6 Impacts of the current and alternative methods The impacts of the current and alternative method on s charges for are shown and explained in the Appendices. It should be noted that the Appendices only include information for MOs that were Full or Associate Members of WAGGGS before the start of the 35 th World Conference. All those who were Associate Members are shown as being charged 50 per cent of what would otherwise be their expected Quota/Membership Fee; this includes any that may be proposed for Full Membership at this Conference Appendix 1 sets out the information that was used to calculate Quota/Membership Fees under both methods: The GNI-PC of each country for 2012 and the change since 2009 The resulting wealth bands and discounts The declared membership figures for 2009 and 2012 and any changes Appendix 2 shows the amounts that each MO would pay in each year of the new triennium under both methods. It includes the Transitional Relief that would accrue under the current method, or phased increases or decreases that would be applied under the alternative method. It also shows the 2014 charge as a comparison Appendix 3 provides the explanations for any material changes between what an MO will have paid in 2014 and what their 2015 annual charge would be (before transitional relief/phasing) under the current and alternative method To summarise the above: Under the current method: - 26 MOs move into higher wealth bands in Five of these move from band D to band E and so their discount is reduced from 75 per cent to 15 per cent - Two MOs move into lower wealth bands - 33 MOs receive an annual increase of greater than GBP 100, before transitional relief - 25 MOs receive an annual increase of over 33 per and are eligible for transitional relief Using the alternative method: - 64 MOs receive a higher discount than they would under the current method - Six MOs move into the new super band and pay a 10 per cent surcharge - 24 MOs receive an increase of over 33 per cent in their annual charge and are eligible for transitional relief - 25 MOs receive a reduction of over 33 per cent in their annual charge and so the reduction is phased over the triennium - 61 MOs pay more over the whole triennium than they would do under current method; 54 pay less - Of those that pay more, 40 pay at least GBP 100 more; 22 pay at least GBP 1,000 more; four pay at least GBP 5,000 more - For 52 MOs that pay more, the difference is less than 6 per cent - Of those that pay less, 47 save at least GBP 100 over the triennium; 23 save at least GBP 1,000; six save over GBP 5,000 - For 53 of those that pay less, the reduction is greater than 6 per cent - 30 MOs experience no change: these are those on the minimum payments plus Girl Scouts USA 4.7 Voting at the 35 th World Conference Because both the alternative and current methods would generate the same income in the World Board is not making a recommendation on which should be adopted. Delegates are asked simply to vote on whether they wish to adopt the alternative method.

7 4.7.2 If a two-thirds majority is not secured then the current method will remain. This would then require conference to vote on the following (which will need to be taken as a package ): a) The total amount to be collected from Quota in It is proposed this should be 5,157,414 (before application of the Quota Support Fund). Whilst a reduction in the overall amount to be collected through Quota was not an objective of the review, the World Board has been able to propose such a reduction due to the success and future expectations of our Fund Development Strategy. This is 3.36 per cent less, in absolute terms, than the total of 5,336,665. However, taking into account that costs in the UK (where much of WAGGGS expenditure is incurred) have increased by over 9 per cent in the last 3 years (based on the UK CPI), the real reduction is around 11.5 per cent b) The wealth band thresholds for It is proposed these should be as per the table shown above c) The standard minimum charge It is proposed that there should be no change to the standard minimum charge of GBP Conference should note that, in the event that the above fails to secure a two-thirds majority, then we will automatically revert to the same total Quota income as was agreed at the 34 th World Conference (5,336,665) and the same wealth band thresholds. This would inevitably require most MOs to pay more than they would if one of the above motions had been approved. 4.8 Quota Support Fund Within the proposed budget for the Board has included GBP 150,000 for a new Quota Support Fund. This money would be used to provide assistance to MOs that are finding it hard to meet their Quota requirement, for example because they have experienced significant membership growth or are in a country where there has been economic or political upheaval If the budget is approved by Conference (under a separate motion), MOs that wish to benefit from the Quota Support Fund will be asked to contact their Regional Director or Chair. Proposals will be considered by the Finance Committee, Chairman s Team and/or World Board before the end of 2014 so any adjustments can be made before the invoices for 2015 Quota/Membership Fee are sent out Quota The World Board is proposing that, in order to remove any on-going disincentive for MOs to grow their membership or report accurate membership figures, there should be no increase to any s Quota (or Membership Fee) in 2018 to 2020 as result of an increase in their membership since the 2012 census There would still be increases for MOs moving into higher wealth bands, just not for any membership increase. MOs suffering a reduction in their membership would still have their Quota/Membership Fee reduced to reflect that reduction Conference is asked to vote on this proposal under this agenda item Further work As has been stated, the World Board considers the above to be interim measures only. They wish to continue to explore options for making substantive changes to the way Quota or Membership Fees are set, that would take account of a broader range of issues such as 4 April 2014~14:49~AM R:\Final Docs\Hong Kong World Conference\WC Quota paper - Final - ENGLISH.doc

8 where the MO gets its money from (e.g. individual subscriptions or a fixed sum from the government), and the volatility of national currencies However, this work needs to be done alongside an on-going evaluation of the success of our Fund Development strategy The World Board is therefore proposing, during the remainder of 2014 and 2015, it and the World Bureau continue to explore alternative funding sources to reduce reliance on Quota (or Membership Fees); and if alternative funding sources can be confidently estimated to work together with Regions and s to develop an approach to determining Quota (or Membership Fees) that: Supports growing Member Organisations Helps make Girl Guiding / Girl Scouting more affordable Supports WAGGGS values and the achievement of our strategic aims PROPOSED MOTIONS (Full Member vote, two-thirds majority required) 1. To adopt the alternative method of calculating s Membership Fees as described in paragraph 4.5 of this paper 2. (Only to be taken if motion 1 is lost) a) That the amount to be collected through Quota during should be 5,157,414 b) That the wealth band thresholds should be as set out in the table in paragraph b) of this paper c) That there shall be no change to the standard minimum charge of GBP That there shall be no increase to any s Quota (or Membership Fee) in 2018 to 2020 as result of an increase in their membership since the 2012 census. Any increases due because an MO moves to a higher wealth band would continue to be applied. And That, during the remainder of 2014 and 2015, the World Board and World Bureau continue to explore alternative funding sources to reduce reliance on Quota (or Membership) Fees. That if alternative funding sources can be confidently estimated the World Board and World Bureau works together with Regions and s to develop an approach to determining Quota (or Membership) Fees that: Supports growing Member Organisations Helps make Girl Guiding / Girl Scouting more affordable Supports WAGGGS values and the achievement of our strategic aims

9 NOTES TO APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 This shows the data that has been used to calculate the annual Quota or Membership charges: The World Bank's Gross National Income Per Capita (GNIPC) figures for 2009 and It should be noted that, in some cases (e.g. San Marino, Taiwan), figures are not available for 2012 and so the 2009 figure has been used The wealth bands discounts that each MO currently receives now, and what they will recieve in under each of the two methods The membership figures that have been used as the basis of Quota / Membership Fee calculations. It should be noted that those for India and the Phillipines are capped at 500,000. Additionally, some MOs figures have been adjusted since the start of (e.g. France) and it is the adjusted figure that is shown here. This shows the new annual Quota or Membership charges that each MO will need to pay under eah method. It compares the basic charges for 2015 with that for 2014 and indicates whether the MO is eligible for transitional relief or (under the alternative method) if a reduction in Membership fee is going to be phased. It shows the amount to be paid in each year of the triennium and compares the total charges for the whole of the triennium. This shows the reasons for any differences between 2014 and the base charge for 2015 (befoere any transitional relief or phasing) under both methods; and also for any differences between the two methods. It shows how much of the difference is due to: The change in the 'rate-per-girl' The change membership numbers The change in the discount the MO is eligible for The figures in the "other" columns are mainly due to an MO only being required to pay the standard minimum charge in one or both years. The one exception is in respect of the USA, where the figures are to adjust the Quota / Membership Fee so that they do not pay more than 55 per cent of the total for all MOs. 4 April 2014~14:49~AM R:\Final Docs\Hong Kong World Conference\WC Quota paper - Final - ENGLISH.doc

10 AFRICA REGION BENIN % C 85.0% C 85.0% C 85.0% 2,000 2, % BOTSWANA 6,260 7,720 1,460 23% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 9,825 9, % BURKINA FASO % B 92.5% B 92.5% B 92.5% 12,753 16,333 3,580 22% BURUNDI % A 100.0% A 100.0% A 100.0% 11,034 12,929 1,895 15% CAMEROON YES 1,190 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 1,033 5,350 4,317 81% CENT AFR REP % B 92.5% B 92.5% B 92.5% 8,879 7,125-1,754-25% CHAD % B 92.5% C 85.0% C 85.0% 6,450 7, % CONGO BRAZZAVILLE 2,080 2, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 2,145 5,770 3,625 63% COTE D'IVOIRE 1,070 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 1,900 4,146 2,246 54% D R CONGO % A 100.0% A 100.0% A 100.0% 11,797 13,958 2,161 15% GAMBIA THE % A 100.0% B 92.5% B 92.5% 17,104 17, % GHANA 1,190 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 13,467 19,191 5,724 30% GUINEA YES % A 100.0% A 100.0% A 100.0% 3,489 4,880 1,391 29% KENYA % C 85.0% C 85.0% C 85.0% 158, , % LESOTHO 980 1, % C 85.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 4,312 6,172 1,860 30% LIBERIA % A 100.0% A 100.0% A 100.0% 1,995 7,297 5,302 73% MADAGASCAR % A 100.0% A 100.0% A 100.0% 30,499 44,048 13,549 31% MALAWI % A 100.0% A 100.0% A 100.0% 49,538 54,144 4,606 9% MAURITIUS 7,250 8,570 1,320 18% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 1, % NAMIBIA 4,270 5,670 1,400 33% E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 1,198 1, % NIGERIA 1,190 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 133, ,000-13,326-11% RWANDA % B 92.5% B 92.5% B 92.5% 11,140 12,492 1,352 11% SENEGAL 1,040 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 2,071 5,121 3,050 60% SIERRA LEONE % A 100.0% B 92.5% B 92.5% 2,026 1, % SOUTH AFRICA 5,760 7,610 1,850 32% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 28,139 27, % SWAZILAND 2,470 2, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 3,604 3, % TANZANIA % B 92.5% B 92.5% B 92.5% 71,065 71, % TOGO % A 100.0% B 92.5% B 92.5% 3,080 3, % UGANDA % B 92.5% A 100.0% A 100.0% 112, ,219 61,848 36% ZAMBIA 970 1, % C 85.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 23,418 23, % ZIMBABWE % A 100.0% B 92.5% B 92.5% 15,278 24,270 8,992 37% 43,360 53,490 10, % 754, , ,659 15% ASIA-PACIFIC REGION AUSTRALIA 43,770 59,570 15,800 36% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 29,046 25,077-3,969-16% BANGLADESH % B 92.5% C 85.0% C 85.0% 58,535 93,323 34,788 37% BRUNEI DARUSSALAM 12,196 12, % F 0.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% 1,677 1, % CAMBODIA % B 92.5% C 85.0% C 85.0% 3,546 4,551 1,005 22% COOK ISLANDS YES 10,726 14,917 4,191 39% E 15.0% F 0.0% F 45.0% % FIJI 3,840 4, % D 75.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 2,828 5,531 2,703 49% HONG KONG 31,420 36,560 5,140 16% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 56,618 59,030 2,412 4% INDIA 1,180 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 500, , % Quota Review - APPENDIX 1 Country Wealth Bands and Discounts Gross National Income Per Capita (US$) Membership actual current alternative method method % Band Discount Band Discount Band Discount %

11 JAPAN 38,080 47,870 9,790 26% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 42,742 34,927-7,815-22% KIRIBATI YES 1,830 2, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 690 2,833 2,143 76% KOREA 19,830 22,670 2,840 14% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 55,466 45,139-10,327-23% MALAYSIA 7,350 9,800 2,450 33% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 71,764 52,858-18,906-36% MALDIVES 3,970 5,750 1,780 45% E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 7,068 9,474 2,406 25% MONGOLIA YES 1,630 3,160 1,530 94% D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 921 1, % NEPAL % A 100.0% B 92.5% B 92.5% 20,794 22,061 1,267 6% NEW ZEALAND 26,830 30,620 3,790 14% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 15,037 13,220-1,817-14% PAKISTAN 1,000 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 51, ,826 59,498 54% PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1,180 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 1,985 3,410 1,425 42% PHILIPPINES 2,050 2, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 500, , % SINGAPORE 37,220 47,210 9,990 27% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 11,494 9,268-2,226-24% SOLOMON ISLANDS YES 910 1, % C 85.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% % SRI LANKA 1,990 2, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 22,381 32,817 10,436 32% TAIWAN 12,195 12, % E 15.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 20,260 17,436-2,824-16% THAILAND 3,760 5,210 1,450 39% D 75.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 29,566 57,731 28,165 49% TONGA YES 3,260 4, % D 75.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 260 2,238 1,978 88% 267, ,368 64, % 1,505,314 1,606, ,010 7% ARAB REGION BAHRAIN 25,420 16,050-9,370-37% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 2,407 2, % EGYPT 2,070 3, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 39,995 39, % JORDAN 3,980 4, % E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 9,080 9, % KUWAIT 43,930 44, % F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 9,025 15,000 5,975 40% LEBANON - Federation 8,060 9,190 1,130 14% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 6,772 6, % LIBYA 12,020 12, % E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 4,325 4, % MAURITANIA YES 960 1, % C 85.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% % OMAN 17,890 19,120 1,230 7% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 7,991 15,580 7,589 49% QATAR 41,000 78,720 37,720 92% F 0.0% F 0.0% J -10.0% 2,515 2, % SUDAN 1,220 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 6,242 3,480-2,762-79% SYRIAN ARAB REP YES 2,410 2, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 1,341 1, % TUNISIA 3,720 4, % D 75.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 7,336 7, % UNIT ARAB EMIRATES 23,950 36,040 12,090 50% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 4,980 5, % YEMEN 1,060 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 13,972 11,765-2,207-19% 187, ,615 46, % 116, ,716 9, % Quota Review - APPENDIX 1 Country Wealth Bands and Discounts Gross National Income Per Capita (US$) Membership actual current alternative method method % Band Discount Band Discount Band Discount %

12 EUROPE REGION ARMENIA YES 3,100 3, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 1,240 1, % AUSTRIA 46,450 48,160 1,710 4% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 10,075 9, % BELARUS 5,560 6, % E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 1,425 1, % BELGIUM - Federation 45,270 44, % F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 60,924 56,879-4,045-7% CYPRUS 26,940 26, % F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 1,754 1, % CZECH REPUBLIC 17,310 18, % F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 19,737 19, % DENMARK - (Federation) 59,060 59, % F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 17,576 17, % ESTONIA 14,060 15,830 1,770 13% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% % FINLAND 45,940 46,940 1,000 2% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 26,994 23,450-3,544-15% FRANCE - Federation 42,620 41, % F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 41,333 41, % GEORGIA YES 2,530 3, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% % GERMANY - Federation 42,450 44,010 1,560 4% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 51,719 51, % GREECE 29,040 23,260-5,780-20% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 8,756 6,589-2,167-33% HUNGARY 12,980 12, % F 0.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% % ICELAND 43,430 38,710-4,720-11% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 1,926 2, % IRELAND Federation 44,280 38,970-5,310-12% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 15,439 15, % ISRAEL 25,790 28,930 3,140 12% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 11,268 11, % ITALY - Federation 35,110 33,840-1,270-4% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 85,052 86,114 1,062 1% LATVIA 12,390 14,180 1,790 14% F 0.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% % LIECHTENSTEIN 113, ,920-6,290-6% F 0.0% F 0.0% J -10.0% % LITHUANIA 11,410 13,850 2,440 21% E 15.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% % LUXEMBOURG 76,710 76, % F 0.0% F 0.0% J -10.0% 1,869 1, % MALTA 16,690 19,760 3,070 18% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 1,139 1, % MONACO 203, ,920-96,980-48% F 0.0% F 0.0% J -10.0% % NETHERLANDS 48,460 48, % F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 53,308 53, % NORWAY-Federation 84,640 98,860 14,220 17% F 0.0% F 0.0% J -10.0% 12,968 11,792-1,176-10% POLAND 12,260 12, % F 0.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% 47,409 49,304 1,895 4% PORTUGAL 21,910 20,580-1,330-6% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 3,011 3, % ROMANIA 8,330 8, % E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 1,014 1, % RUSSIA 9,340 12,700 3,360 36% E 15.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% 1,997 1, % SAN MARINO 50,670 50, % F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% % SLOVAK REPUBLIC 16,130 17,170 1,040 6% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 2,675 2, % SLOVENIA 23,520 22, % F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 4,234 4, % SPAIN 32,120 30,110-2,010-6% F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 6,785 6, % SWEDEN 48,840 56,210 7,370 15% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 39,166 28,546-10,620-37% SWITZERLAND 65,430 82,730 17,300 26% F 0.0% F 0.0% J -10.0% 19,338 19, % TURKEY 8,720 10,830 2,110 24% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 14,457 14, % UKRAINE YES 2,800 3, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% % UNITED KINGDOM 41,370 38,250-3,120-8% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 516, ,939 38,202 7% 1,450,770 1,387,460-63, % 1,084,665 1,103,986 19, % Quota Review - APPENDIX 1 Country Wealth Bands and Discounts Gross National Income Per Capita (US$) Membership actual current alternative method method % Band Discount Band Discount Band Discount %

13 WESTERN HEMISPHERE ANTIGUA & BARBUDA 12,130 12, % E 15.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% % ARGENTINA 7,550 12,615 5,065 67% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 4,080 4, % ARUBA YES 12,196 12, % F 0.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% % BAHAMAS 21,390 21, % F 0.0% F 0.0% H 15.0% 2,646 2, % BARBADOS 12,196 12, % F 0.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% 3,290 2, % BELIZE 3,740 4, % D 75.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% % BOLIVIA 1,630 2, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% % BRAZIL 8,040 11,630 3,590 45% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 9,899 10, % CANADA 41,980 50,970 8,990 21% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 90,052 90, % CHILE 9,470 14,280 4,810 51% E 15.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% 17,289 19,337 2,048 11% COLOMBIA 4,990 6,990 2,000 40% E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% % COSTA RICA 6,260 8,740 2,480 40% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 5,503 5, % DOMINICA 4,900 6,460 1,560 32% E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% % DOMINICAN REP 4,550 5, % E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% % ECUADOR 3,970 5,190 1,220 31% E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% % EL SALVADOR 3,370 3, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% % GRENADA 5,580 7,110 1,530 27% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 1,518 2, % GUATEMALA 2,650 3, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% % GUYANA 1,450 3,410 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 1,121 1, % HAITI % B 92.5% C 85.0% C 85.0% 1,701 1, % HONDURAS 1,800 2, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 5, , % JAMAICA 4,590 5, % E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 5,903 6, % MEXICO 8,960 9, % E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 6,926 2,514-4, % NETH ANTILLES 12,196 12, % F 0.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% % NICARAGUA YES 1,000 1, % D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% 2,645 2, % PANAMA 6,570 9,910 3,340 51% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% 956 1, % PARAGUAY 2,250 3,290 1,040 46% D 75.0% D 75.0% D 75.0% % PERU 4,200 5,880 1,680 40% E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 2,989 2, % ST CHRIS & NEVIS YES 10,150 13,330 3,180 31% E 15.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% % ST LUCIA 5,190 6,530 1,340 26% E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 1, % ST VIN & GRENADINES 5,130 6,380 1,250 24% E 15.0% E 15.0% E 60.0% 1,685 2, % SURINAME YES 4,760 8,480 3,720 78% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% % TRINIDAD & TOBAGO 16,700 14,400-2,300-14% F 0.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% 3,743 2, % URUGUAY YES 9,010 13,510 4,500 50% E 15.0% F 0.0% G 30.0% % USA 46,360 50,120 3,760 8% F 0.0% F 0.0% I 0.0% 3,334,946 3,169, ,575-5% VENEZUELA 10,090 12,470 2,380 24% E 15.0% E 15.0% F 45.0% % 317, ,393 63, % 3,511,095 3,337, , % TOTAL 2,267,145 2,389, ,181 5% 6,972,463 7,040,531 68,068 1% Quota Review - APPENDIX 1 Country Wealth Bands and Discounts Gross National Income Per Capita (US$) Membership actual current alternative method method % Band Discount Band Discount Band Discount %

14 AFRICA REGION BENIN % % % BOTSWANA 3,269 3, % - 3,165 3,165 3,165 9,494 2,162-1, % - YES 2,900 2,531 2,162 7,592-1, % BURKINA FASO % , % , % BURUNDI % % % CAMEROON YES % YES % YES % CENT AFR REP % % % CHAD % YES % YES , % CONGO BRAZZAVILLE % YES , % YES , % COTE D'IVOIRE % YES % YES , % D R CONGO % % % GAMBIA THE % YES , % YES , % GHANA 1,318 1, % YES 1,485 1,651 1,818 4,954 1, % YES - 1,518 1,719 1,919 5, % GUINEA YES % % % KENYA 9,326 9, % - 9,061 9,061 9,061 27,182 9, % - - 9,564 9,564 9,564 28,692 1, % LESOTHO % YES , % YES , % LIBERIA % % % MADAGASCAR % % % MALAWI % % % MAURITIUS % % - YES % NAMIBIA % YES , % % NIGERIA 13,049 11,368-1, % - 11,368 11,368 11,368 34,105 12,000-1, % ,000 12,000 12,000 36,000 1, % RWANDA % , % , % SENEGAL % YES , % YES , % SIERRA LEONE % % % SOUTH AFRICA 9,364 8, % - 8,842 8,842 8,842 26,525 6,039-3, % - YES 8,256 7,147 6,039 21,442-5, % SWAZILAND % , % , % TANZANIA 2,087 2, % - 2,025 2,025 2,025 6,074 2, % - - 2,137 2,137 2,137 6, % TOGO % % % UGANDA 3, , % , % - YES 2,243 1, ,559 3, % ZAMBIA 1,375 2, % YES 1,660 1,945 2,229 5,834 2, % YES - 1,701 2,027 2,353 6, % ZIMBABWE % YES , % YES , % TOTAL AFRICA 47,659 45,796-1, % 43,141 44,468 45, ,405 43,391-4, % 45,727 44,559 43, , % ASIA PACIFIC REGION AUSTRALIA 11,371 9,503-1, % - 9,503 9,503 9,503 28,509 10,031-1, % ,031 10,031 10,031 30,092 1, % BANGLADESH 1,719 5,305 3, % YES 2,914 4,109 5,305 12,328 5,599 3, % YES - 3,012 4,306 5,599 12, % BRUNEI DARUSSALAM % , % , % CAMBODIA % YES % YES % COOK ISLANDS YES % % % FIJI 277 1,782 1, % YES 779 1,280 1,782 3, % YES ,047-1, % HONG KONG 22,165 22, % - 22,369 22,369 22,369 67,108 23,612 1, % ,612 23,612 23,612 70,836 3, % INDIA 48,936 47,369-1, % - 47,369 47,369 47, ,106 50,000 1, % ,000 50,000 50, ,000 7, % JAPAN 16,733 13,236-3, % - 13,236 13,236 13,236 39,707 13,971-2, % ,971 13,971 13,971 41,912 2, % KIRIBATI YES % YES % YES % KOREA 21,714 17,105-4, % - 17,105 17,105 17,105 51,316 15,347-6, % ,347 15,347 15,347 46,042-5, % MALAYSIA 23,881 17,026-6, % - 17,026 17,026 17,026 51,078 11,629-12, % - YES 19,797 15,713 11,629 47,139-3, % MALDIVES 2,352 3, % - 3,052 3,052 3,052 9,155 1, % - YES 2,073 1,795 1,516 5,384-3, % MONGOLIA YES % % % NEPAL % YES , % YES , % NEW ZEALAND 5,887 5, % - 5,010 5,010 5,010 15,029 4,495-1, % - - 4,495 4,495 4,495 13,484-1, % PAKISTAN 5,024 10,499 5, % YES 6,849 8,674 10,499 26,023 11,083 6, % YES - 7,044 9,063 11,083 27,189 1, % PAPUA NEW GUINEA % YES % YES % PHILIPPINES 48,936 47,369-1, % - 47,369 47,369 47, ,106 50,000 1, % ,000 50,000 50, ,000 7, % SINGAPORE 4,500 3, % - 3,512 3,512 3,512 10,536 3, % - - 3,707 3,707 3,707 11, % SOLOMON ISLANDS YES % % % SRI LANKA 2,190 3, % YES 2,496 2,803 3,109 8,408 3,282 1, % YES - 2,554 2,918 3,282 8, % TAIWAN 6,742 6, % - 6,607 6,607 6,607 19,822 6, % - - 6,974 6,974 6,974 20,923 1, % THAILAND 2,894 18,596 15, % YES 8,128 13,362 18,596 40,085 9,237 6, % YES - 5,008 7,123 9,237 21,368-18, % TONGA YES % YES % YES % TOTAL ASIA PACIFIC 226, ,987 7, % 215, , , , ,639-3, % 219, , , ,010-8, % Quota Review - APPENDIX Annual Charge New annual charge CURRENT METHOD ALTERNATIVE METHOD Difference: Alternative vs Transitio New Transitio change Actual charges TRIENNIUM annual change Phased Actual charges TRIENNIUM Current Method nal nal TOTAL charge Down? TOTAL ( ) Relief? Relief? % 2,015 2,016 2,017 % %

15 ARAB REGION BAHRAIN 942 1, % - 1,003 1,003 1,003 3, % , % EGYPT 3,914 3, % - 3,789 3,789 3,789 11,367 4, % - - 4,000 4,000 4,000 11, % JORDAN 3,022 2, % - 2,925 2,925 2,925 8,774 1,453-1, % - YES 2,499 1,976 1,453 5,928-2, % KUWAIT 3,533 5,684 2, % YES 4,250 4,967 5,684 14,901 6,000 2, % YES - 4,355 5,178 6,000 15, % LEBANON - Federation 2,253 2, % - 2,181 2,181 2,181 6,544 1, % - YES 1,999 1,744 1,490 5,233-1, % LIBYA 1,439 1, % - 1,449 1,449 1,449 4, % ,970-1, % MAURITANIA YES % % % OMAN 3,128 5,904 2, % YES 4,053 4,979 5,904 14,936 5,297 2, % YES - 3,851 4,574 5,297 13,722-1, % QATAR % ,956 1, % - - 1,144 1,144 1,144 3, % SUDAN % % - YES , % SYRIAN ARAB REP YES % % % TUNISIA 718 2,363 1, % YES 1,266 1,815 2,363 5,444 1, % YES ,022 1,174 3,066-2, % UNIT ARAB EMIRATES 1,950 1, % - 1,940 1,940 1,940 5,821 2, % - - 2,048 2,048 2,048 6, % YEMEN 1,367 1, % - 1,115 1,115 1,115 3,344 1, % - - 1,177 1,177 1,177 3, % TOTAL ARAB 23,992 29,799 5, % 25,417 27,608 29,799 82,824 26,152 2, % 24,487 25,319 26,152 75,958-6, % EUROPE REGION ARMENIA YES % % % AUSTRIA 3,944 3, % - 3,783 3,783 3,783 11,349 3, % - - 3,993 3,993 3,993 11, % BELARUS % , % - YES % BELGIUM - Federation 23,851 21,554-2, % - 21,554 21,554 21,554 64,663 22,752-1, % ,752 22,752 22,752 68,255 3, % CYPRUS % , % , % CZECH REPUBLIC 7,727 7, % - 7,254 7,254 7,254 21,763 6,509-1, % - - 6,509 6,509 6,509 19,526-2, % DENMARK - (Federation) 6,881 6, % - 6,595 6,595 6,595 19,785 6, % - - 6,961 6,961 6,961 20,884 1, % ESTONIA % % % FINLAND 10,568 8,886-1, % - 8,886 8,886 8,886 26,659 9,380-1, % - - 9,380 9,380 9,380 28,140 1, % FRANCE - Federation 16,182 15, % - 15,664 15,664 15,664 46,992 16, % ,534 16,534 16,534 49,602 2, % GEORGIA YES % % % GERMANY - Federation 20,247 19, % - 19,610 19,610 19,610 58,831 20, % ,700 20,700 20,700 62,099 3, % GREECE 3,428 2, % - 2,497 2,497 2,497 7,491 2,240-1, % - YES 3,032 2,636 2,240 7, % HUNGARY % % - YES % ICELAND % , % , % IRELAND Federation 6,044 6, % - 6,039 6,039 6,039 18,116 6, % - - 6,374 6,374 6,374 19,122 1, % ISRAEL 4,411 4, % - 4,270 4,270 4,270 12,810 3, % - - 3,831 3,831 3,831 11,493-1, % ITALY - Federation 33,297 32, % - 32,633 32,633 32,633 97,898 29,279-4, % ,279 29,279 29,279 87,836-10, % LATVIA % % % LIECHTENSTEIN % % % LITHUANIA % % - YES % LUXEMBOURG % , % , % MALTA % , % , % MONACO % % % NETHERLANDS 20,869 20, % - 20,386 20,386 20,386 61,158 21, % ,518 21,518 21,518 64,555 3, % NORWAY-Federation 5,077 4, % - 4,469 4,469 4,469 13,406 5, % - - 5,188 5,188 5,188 15,565 2, % POLAND 18,561 18, % - 18,684 18,684 18,684 56,051 13,805-4, % ,805 13,805 13,805 41,415-14, % PORTUGAL 1,179 1, % - 1,151 1,151 1,151 3,454 1, % - - 1,033 1,033 1,033 3, % ROMANIA % , % % RUSSIA % , % , % SAN MARINO % % % SLOVAK REPUBLIC 1, % , % , % SLOVENIA 1,658 1, % - 1,657 1,657 1,657 4,971 1, % - - 1,487 1,487 1,487 4, % SPAIN 2,656 2, % - 2,571 2,571 2,571 7,714 2, % - - 2,307 2,307 2,307 6, % SWEDEN 15,333 10,817-4, % - 10,817 10,817 10,817 32,452 11,418-3, % ,418 11,418 11,418 34,255 1, % SWITZERLAND 7,571 7, % - 7,268 7,268 7,268 21,804 8, % - - 8,439 8,439 8,439 25,316 3, % TURKEY 4,811 4, % - 4,657 4,657 4,657 13,970 3,181-1, % - YES 4,268 3,724 3,181 11,172-2, % UKRAINE YES % % % UNITED KINGDOM 202, ,294 7, % - 210, , , , ,976 19, % , , , ,927 35, % TOTAL EUROPE 423, ,063-6, % 417, , ,063 1,251, ,522 1, % 426, , ,522 1,276,859 25, % Quota Review - APPENDIX Annual Charge New annual charge CURRENT METHOD ALTERNATIVE METHOD Difference: Alternative vs Transitio New Transitio change Actual charges TRIENNIUM annual change Phased Actual charges TRIENNIUM Current Method nal nal TOTAL charge Down? TOTAL ( ) Relief? Relief? % 2,015 2,016 2,017 % %

16 WESTERN HEMISPHERE ANTIGUA & BARBUDA % % % ARGENTINA 1,358 1, % - 1,554 1,554 1,554 4,663 1, % - - 1,062 1,062 1,062 3,185-1, % ARUBA YES % % % BAHAMAS 1, % , % , % BARBADOS 1,288 1, % - 1,011 1,011 1,011 3, % - YES 1, , % BELIZE % % % BOLIVIA % % % BRAZIL 3,294 3, % - 3,475 3,475 3,475 10,426 2, % - - 2,374 2,374 2,374 7,121-3, % CANADA 35,254 34, % - 34,349 34,349 34, ,046 36,257 1, % ,257 36,257 36, ,770 5, % CHILE 5,753 7,328 1, % - 7,328 7,328 7,328 21,983 5, % - - 5,414 5,414 5,414 16,243-5, % COLOMBIA % % % COSTA RICA 1,831 1, % - 1,744 1,744 1,744 5,232 1, % - YES 1,618 1,404 1,191 4,213-1, % DOMINICA % % - YES % DOMINICAN REP % % % ECUADOR % % % EL SALVADOR % % % GRENADA % YES , % , % GUATEMALA % % % GUYANA % % YES % HAITI % % % HONDURAS % % - YES % JAMAICA 1,964 2, % - 2,070 2,070 2,070 6,211 1, % - YES 1,652 1,340 1,028 4,021-2, % MEXICO 2, , % , , % - YES 1,721 1, , % NETH ANTILLES % % % NICARAGUA YES % % % PANAMA % % % PARAGUAY % % % PERU % , % - YES , % ST CHRIS & NEVIS YES % % % ST LUCIA % % - YES % ST VIN & GRENADINES % , % - YES , % SURINAME YES % % % TRINIDAD & TOBAGO 1,465 1, % - 1,094 1,094 1,094 3, % - YES 1,246 1, , % URUGUAY YES % % % USA 978, ,526-32, % - 945, , ,526 2,836, ,526-32, % , , ,526 2,836, % VENEZUELA % % - YES % TOTAL WESTERN HEMISPHERE 1,039,990 1,005,524-34, % 1,005,369 1,005,446 1,005,524 3,016, ,866-40, % 1,004,073 1,001, ,866 3,005,909-10, % TOTAL 1,761,522 1,732,168-29, % 1,706,108 1,719,138 1,732,168 5,157,414 1,717,569-43, % 1,720,707 1,719,138 1,717,569 5,157, % Quota Review - APPENDIX Annual Charge New annual charge CURRENT METHOD ALTERNATIVE METHOD Difference: Alternative vs Transitio New Transitio change Actual charges TRIENNIUM annual change Phased Actual charges TRIENNIUM Current Method nal nal TOTAL charge Down? TOTAL ( ) Relief? Relief? % 2,015 2,016 2,017 % %