United Nations
Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many Awaiting General Assembly Review Gao ID: GAO-07-14 October 5, 2006Despite various reform efforts, significant inefficiencies in United Nations (UN) management operations persist. In September 2005, heads of UN member states approved a resolution that called for a series of reforms to strengthen the organization. As the largest financial contributor to the UN, the United States has a strong interest in the progress of UN reform initiatives. GAO was asked to (1) identify and track the status of UN management reforms in five key areas and (2) identify factors that may affect the implementation of these reform initiatives. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed documents proposing UN management reform and interviewed U.S. and UN officials.
Most of the UN management reforms in the five areas GAO examined--management operations of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review of programs and activities, and human rights--are either awaiting General Assembly review or have been recently approved. In addition, many proposed or approved reforms do not have an implementation plan that establishes time frames and cost estimates. First, in July 2006, the General Assembly approved proposals to improve the management operations of the Secretariat, such as upgrading information technology systems and giving the Secretary-General some flexibility in spending authority. In addition, in fall 2006, the General Assembly will review other proposals, such as procurement and human resource reforms. Second, implementation of proposals to improve the UN's oversight capabilities, such as strengthening the capacity of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and establishing the Independent Audit Advisory Committee, are pending General Assembly review in fall 2006. Third, the UN established an ethics office with temporary staff in January 2006 that has developed an internal timetable for implementing key initiatives. However, it is too early to determine whether the office will be able to fully carry out its mandate. Fourth, UN member states agreed to complete a review of UN programs and activities in 2006, but progress has been slow and the results and time line for completion remain uncertain. Fifth, the General Assembly created a new Human Rights Council in April 2006, but significant concerns remain about the council's structure. GAO identified several factors that may affect the UN's ability to fully implement management reforms. First, although all UN member states agree that UN management reforms are needed, disagreements about the overall implications of the reforms could significantly affect their progress. Most member states are concerned that some of the reforms could increase the authority of the Secretariat at the expense of the General Assembly, thus decreasing their influence over UN operations. Member states also disagree on some of the specifics of the reforms in areas such as the review of programs and activities and the role of the Deputy Secretary-General. Second, the general absence of an implementation plan for each reform that establishes time frames and cost estimates could affect the UN's ability to implement the reform initiatives. Without establishing deadlines or determining cost estimates, it is difficult to hold managers accountable for completing reform efforts and ensure that financing will be available when needed. Third, administrative guidance, such as staff regulations and rules that implement General Assembly resolutions, could complicate the process of implementing certain human resource reform proposals. For example, according to the Secretary-General, the General Assembly established a number of conditions for outsourcing that severely restrict the circumstances under which it can be contemplated.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-14, United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many Awaiting General Assembly Review
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-14
entitled 'United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with
Many Awaiting General Assembly Review' which was released on October 5,
2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2006:
UNITED NATIONS:
Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many Awaiting General
Assembly Review:
GAO-07-14:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-14, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Despite various reform efforts, significant inefficiencies in United
Nations (UN) management operations persist. In September 2005, heads of
UN member states approved a resolution that called for a series of
reforms to strengthen the organization. As the largest financial
contributor to the UN, the United States has a strong interest in the
progress of UN reform initiatives.
GAO was asked to (1) identify and track the status of UN management
reforms in five key areas and (2) identify factors that may affect the
implementation of these reform initiatives. To address these
objectives, GAO reviewed documents proposing UN management reform and
interviewed U.S. and UN officials.
What GAO Found:
Most of the UN management reforms in the five areas GAO
examined”management operations of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical
conduct, review of programs and activities, and human rights”are either
awaiting General Assembly review or have been recently approved. In
addition, many proposed or approved reforms do not have an
implementation plan that establishes time frames and cost estimates.
First, in July 2006, the General Assembly approved proposals to improve
the management operations of the Secretariat, such as upgrading
information technology systems and giving the Secretary-General some
flexibility in spending authority. In addition, in fall 2006, the
General Assembly will review other proposals, such as procurement and
human resource reforms. Second, implementation of proposals to improve
the UN‘s oversight capabilities, such as strengthening the capacity of
the Office of Internal Oversight Services and establishing the
Independent Audit Advisory Committee, are pending General Assembly
review in fall 2006. Third, the UN established an ethics office with
temporary staff in January 2006 that has developed an internal
timetable for implementing key initiatives. However, it is too early to
determine whether the office will be able to fully carry out its
mandate. Fourth, UN member states agreed to complete a review of UN
programs and activities in 2006, but progress has been slow and the
results and time line for completion remain uncertain. Fifth, the
General Assembly created a new Human Rights Council in April 2006, but
significant concerns remain about the council‘s structure.
GAO identified several factors that may affect the UN‘s ability to
fully implement management reforms. First, although all UN member
states agree that UN management reforms are needed, disagreements about
the overall implications of the reforms could significantly affect
their progress. Most member states are concerned that some of the
reforms could increase the authority of the Secretariat at the expense
of the General Assembly, thus decreasing their influence over UN
operations. Member states also disagree on some of the specifics of the
reforms in areas such as the review of programs and activities and the
role of the Deputy Secretary-General. Second, the general absence of an
implementation plan for each reform that establishes time frames and
cost estimates could affect the UN‘s ability to implement the reform
initiatives. Without establishing deadlines or determining cost
estimates, it is difficult to hold managers accountable for completing
reform efforts and ensure that financing will be available when needed.
Third, administrative guidance, such as staff regulations and rules
that implement General Assembly resolutions, could complicate the
process of implementing certain human resource reform proposals. For
example, according to the Secretary-General, the General Assembly
established a number of conditions for outsourcing that severely
restrict the circumstances under which it can be contemplated.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations work with member states to
encourage the General Assembly and the Secretary-General to include
cost estimates and expected time frames for implementation and
completion for each reform as it is approved. GAO also recommends that
the Secretary of State‘s annual U.S. Participation in the United
Nations report to the Congress include a section on the status and
progress of the major UN management reforms. The Department of State
agreed with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-14].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202)
512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Management Reform Proposals in Five Areas Are Awaiting General Assembly
Review or Have Been Recently Approved:
Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of UN Management Reforms:
Conclusion:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Status of UN Management Reform Initiatives:
Appendix III: The UN Whistleblower Protection Procedure:
Appendix IV: Information on Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analyses:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Categories of Mandates Reviewed in Phase One:
Table 2: Additional Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management
Reform Initiatives, as of September 2006:
Table 3: Status of Major UN Management Reform Initiatives:
Table 4: Reviews, Assessments, and Cost-Benefit Analyses:
Figures:
Figure 1: Key Dates of Reform Initiatives to Improve the Management
Operations of the Secretariat:
Figure 2: Key Dates for Oversight Reform Initiatives:
Figure 3: Key Dates for the Ethics Office:
Figure 4: Key Dates for Review of Programs and Activities:
Figure 5: Distribution of UN Mandates by Renewal Classification:
Figure 6: Key Dates for the Human Rights Council:
Abbreviations:
ACABQ: Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions:
GA: General Assembly:
G-77: The Group of 77:
OIOS: Office of Internal Oversight Services:
UN: United Nations:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 5, 2006:
The Honorable Norm Coleman:
Chairman:
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Henry Hyde:
Chairman:
Committee on International Relations:
House of Representatives:
The United Nations (UN) has undertaken various reform efforts since its
creation in 1945. In 1997 and 2002, the UN began a series of reforms
that included proposed changes in human resources, budgeting, and human
rights programs and activities. In February 2004, we reported that
those reforms were progressing but that only about 50 percent were in
place.[Footnote 1] Despite the UN's efforts to improve its management
processes, several independent reports, such as the 2005 Independent
Inquiry Committee's investigation of the UN's Oil for Food
program[Footnote 2] and the Gingrich-Mitchell task force review in June
2005,[Footnote 3] found that inefficient UN management operations
persist. These reports highlighted the immediate need for management
reform given the growth in complexity and significance of UN worldwide
operations. In addition, inadequate oversight of the Oil for Food
program and corruption and mismanagement of UN procurement activities
have demonstrated the need for reform.
In September 2005, heads of member states held a World Summit to
address, among other issues, long-standing concerns about UN
management. The outcome document, the resolution approved by all member
state representatives at the Summit,[Footnote 4] recognized the urgent
need to improve management processes at the UN and called for the
Secretary-General and General Assembly to propose and approve reforms
to strengthen the organization.
As the largest financial contributor to the UN, the United States has
advocated the need for comprehensive management reform and has a strong
interest in the progress of reform initiatives.[Footnote 5] In response
to your request to monitor the progress of management and human rights
reform initiatives, we (1) identified and tracked the status of UN
management reform initiatives in five key areas--management operations
of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review of programs and
activities, and human rights and (2) identified factors that may affect
the implementation of these reform initiatives.[Footnote 6]
To address our objectives, we reviewed key documents proposing UN
management and human rights reform and interviewed key officials from
several UN departments in New York. We reviewed reports and bulletins
published by the UN General Assembly and Secretariat, relevant UN
resolutions, and related budget documents. The majority of the cost
estimates for the proposed reform initiatives are preliminary, and
detailed cost estimates are being developed; therefore, we did not
analyze the assumptions underlying these estimates to determine whether
they are reasonable and reliable. We met with officials from the
General Assembly Office of the President, the Office of the Deputy
Secretary-General, the Departments of Management and Policy and
Planning, the Office of Program Planning and Budget, and the Office of
Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). We also met with representatives
from several member states. We discussed the status of UN management
reforms with officials from the Department of State in Washington, D.C.
and New York City. We performed our work between January and September
2006 in accordance with generally accepted U.S. government auditing
standards. (App. I provides a detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology.)
Results in Brief:
Most of the UN management reforms in the five areas we reviewed--
management operations of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct,
review of programs and activities, and human rights--are either
awaiting General Assembly review or have been recently approved. In
addition, some proposed or approved reforms do not have an
implementation plan that establishes time frames and cost estimates.
* To improve the management operations of the Secretariat, in July
2006, the General Assembly approved several reforms, such as creating
the position of a chief information technology officer and upgrading
certain elements of the UN's computer systems. The General Assembly
also authorized funding of approximately $700,000 which UN officials
plan to use for six new temporary procurement positions for 6 months;
however, according to a senior U.S. official, these temporary resources
are not sufficient to address the weaknesses in the procurement system.
Further, the General Assembly is scheduled to review the Secretary-
General's proposals in the areas of procurement and human resources in
fall 2006. Moreover, the UN does not have implementation plans for some
reforms in this area.
* Reform proposals to create an independent oversight advisory
committee that could enhance the UN's oversight structures and to
strengthen the capacity of OIOS are awaiting review by the General
Assembly in fall 2006. In November 2005, the Secretary-General proposed
the creation of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee and drafted
provisional terms of reference. The General Assembly approved the
creation of the committee in December 2005 and requested an external
evaluation of the proposed terms of reference. In July 2006, the
Secretary-General released an independent external evaluation that
reviewed and proposed revisions to the terms of reference for the
committee and recommended its establishment. The external evaluation
also found that OIOS is not able to function effectively under its
current mandate and made 23 recommendations in nine areas to strengthen
its capacity. The external evaluation recommended shifting several
functions in OIOS, including investigations, to departments in the
Secretariat. However, according to some UN and U.S. officials, this
shift could significantly diminish the UN's oversight functions by
potentially compromising the independence of investigations.
* To promote the ethical conduct of its staff, the UN established an
ethics office with interim staff in January 2006 that has developed an
internal timetable for implementing key initiatives, but it is too
early to determine if the office will be able to fully carry out its
mandate. The office is responsible for (1) administering the UN's
financial disclosure program, (2) implementing the new UN whistleblower
protection policy, (3) providing guidance to staff on ethics issues,
and (4) developing ethics standards and training. The office is
operating with six interim staff and is currently in the process of
hiring six permanent staff to replace them. While the interim staff
have been undertaking activities consistent with the responsibilities
of the office, some experts, including members of a panel commissioned
by a UN staff union to review the UN's internal justice system, have
questioned the sufficiency of the number of assigned staff.
* UN member states agreed to complete a review of UN programs and
activities in 2006, but progress has been slow because member states
disagree on its scope and process, and its results and time line for
completion remain uncertain. In the September 2005 outcome document,
member states requested a review of all UN programs and activities, or
mandates, created 5 or more years ago. Member states agreed that the
purpose of the review is to strengthen and update UN programs and
activities to more accurately reflect the current needs of the
organization. In March 2006, the Secretariat identified more than 9,000
total UN mandates, but only about 6,900 are older than 5 years and
included in the review. The General Assembly began its first phase of
discussions on the review process in November 2005 and its first phase
of substantive discussions on specific mandates in April 2006. From the
outset of the review process, member states have disagreed on the
process for undertaking the review, which mandates could be eliminated
or combined, and what to do with savings generated by the potential
elimination or consolidation of mandates. As of September 2006, member
states continue to discuss the mandates and have agreed to set aside 74
completed mandates that require no further action, but have not agreed
to change, eliminate, or retain any other mandates. Given the volume of
mandates yet to be reviewed and the contentious nature of the process,
it is unlikely that the review will be completed in 2006 as agreed to
by member states.
* In March 2006, the General Assembly created a new Human Rights
Council, but significant concerns remain about the council's structure.
In the 2005 outcome document, UN member states agreed to replace the
Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council due to long-
standing concerns about the commission's credibility. For example,
members of the commission were elected by regional slates by the
Economic and Social Council rather than individually by the General
Assembly, and countries known to be human rights violators consistently
won membership. UN member states established the new council to address
these deficiencies and human rights issues more broadly. However, the
United States and other countries have expressed concerns about the
newly created council's structure. The United States advocated that
members of the council be elected by a two-thirds majority of the
General Assembly to make it more difficult for countries with
questionable human rights records to gain membership, but the General
Assembly voted that members would be elected by an absolute majority.
Despite objections to the council, nongovernmental organizations and
other UN members have stated that the council is better equipped than
the commission to address urgent, serious, and long-term human rights
situations worldwide. For example, the council will implement a new
mechanism through which all UN members will be subject to periodic
review of their human rights situations. In addition, the council will
hold more sessions throughout the year than the commission did and for
a longer total period of time each year, with meetings held at least
three times a year for a total of 10 weeks. It is too early to
determine the impact of the new council on the UN and human rights
worldwide.
We identified several factors that may affect the UN's ability to fully
implement management reforms. First, although all UN member states
agree that UN management reforms are needed, disagreements over the
overall implications of the reforms could significantly affect their
progress. The Group of 77 (G-77) countries[Footnote 7] are concerned
that some of the reforms could increase the authority of the
Secretariat at the expense of the General Assembly, thus decreasing the
member states' influence over UN operations. Member states also
disagree on some of the specifics of the reforms in areas such as the
review of programs and activities and the role of the Deputy Secretary-
General. Second, the general absence of an implementation plan for each
reform that establishes time frames and cost estimates could affect the
UN's ability to implement the reform initiatives. Without establishing
deadlines or determining cost estimates, it is difficult to hold
managers accountable for completing reform efforts and ensuring that
financing will be available when needed. Third, administrative
guidance, such as staff regulations and rules that implement General
Assembly resolutions, could complicate and sometimes restrict the
process of implementing certain human resource reform proposals, such
as a staff buyout, field staff realignment, and outsourcing
administrative services. For example, according to the Secretary-
General, the General Assembly established a number of conditions for
outsourcing that severely restrict the circumstances under which it can
be contemplated.
We are recommending that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the UN work with other member states to encourage the
General Assembly and the Secretary-General to include cost estimates
and expected time frames for implementation and completion for each
reform as it is approved. We are also recommending that the Secretary
of State's annual U.S. Participation in the United Nations report to
the Congress include a section on the status and progress of the major
UN management reforms.
We received written comments from the Department of State that we have
reprinted in appendix V. The Department of State generally agreed with
our findings and recommendations and commented on ongoing reform
efforts. The UN did not provide us with written comments.
Background:
Calls to reform the UN began soon after its creation in 1945.[Footnote
8] Despite cycles of reform, UN member states have had concerns about
inefficient management operations. As one of the 192 member states, the
United States played a significant role in promoting UN reform, calling
for financial and administrative changes. The United States, through
the Department of State and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations,
continues to take measures to advance reform of UN management processes.
In 1997 and 2002, the Secretary-General proposed two separate sets of
management reform initiatives in the areas of human resources,
budgeting, and human rights. In July 1997, the Secretary-General
proposed a broad reform program to transform the UN into an efficient
organization focused on achieving results as it carried out its
mandates. Although the Secretary-General does not have direct authority
over specialized agencies and many funds and programs, the reforms at
the Secretariat were intended to serve as a model for UN-wide reforms.
In May 2000, we reported that while the Secretary-General had
substantially reorganized the Secretariat's leadership and structure,
he had not yet completed reforms in human resource management and
planning and budgeting.[Footnote 9] In September 2002, to encourage the
full implementation of the 1997 reforms, the Secretary-General released
a second set of reform initiatives with 36 reform actions, some
expanding on previous reform initiatives introduced in 1997 and others
reflecting new priorities for the organization. In February 2004, we
reported that 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997
agenda and 38 percent of the 66 initiatives in the 2002 agenda were in
place.[Footnote 10]
In 2004-2005, a series of UN and expert task force reports recommended
the need for comprehensive reform of UN management and the UN human
rights apparatus. These studies included a 2004 report of a high-level
panel convened by the Secretary-General to recommend ways to strengthen
the UN,[Footnote 11] a March 2005 Secretary-General report to the
General Assembly,[Footnote 12] a June 2005 report by a task force
mandated by the U.S. Congress to recommend how to improve the
effectiveness of the organization,[Footnote 13] as well as several
reports of the Independent Inquiry Committee established to investigate
the Oil for Food Program.[Footnote 14]
In September 2005, world leaders gathered at the UN World Summit in New
York City to discuss global issues such as UN reform, development, and
human rights, as well as actions needed in each of these areas. The
outcome document from the World Summit,[Footnote 15] endorsed by all
members of the UN, outlines broad UN reform efforts in areas such as
oversight and accountability, and human rights. The document also
called for the Secretary-General to submit proposals for implementing
reforms to improve the management functions of the
Secretariat.[Footnote 16]
In April 2006, we reported on weaknesses in the UN's internal oversight
unit and procurement system, both of which have been identified as
important areas for reform.[Footnote 17] In the internal oversight
area, we found that UN funding arrangements adversely affect OIOS's
budgetary independence and compromise the office's ability to audit
high-risk areas. For example, OIOS depends on the resources of the
funds, programs, and other entities it audits, and the managers of
these programs can deny OIOS permission to perform work or not pay OIOS
for services. In the procurement area, we found that UN procurement
resources are vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse because of
weaknesses affecting the control environment. For example, the UN has
not established a single organizational entity or mechanism capable of
effectively and comprehensively managing procurement. In addition, the
UN has not demonstrated a commitment to improving the professionalism
of its procurement staff in the form of training, a career development
path, or other key human capital practices critical to attracting,
developing, and retaining a qualified professional workforce.
The management reform decision-making process at the UN involves
multiple entities. Member states or the Secretary-General can introduce
management reform initiatives at the UN. The Secretary-General can
implement certain management improvements that are within his
authority. In addition, the Secretary-General submits proposals to the
General Assembly. In these cases, the Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ),[Footnote 18] a
subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, reviews the proposal. The
ACABQ then advises and reports to the Administrative and Budgetary
Committee (the Fifth Committee), the General Assembly's committee for
administrative and budgetary matters that is composed of all 192 member
states. The Fifth Committee holds discussions on the proposals and
makes its recommendation to the General Assembly. The General Assembly
makes the final decision. For the past 20 years, most decisions in the
Fifth Committee and in the General Assembly have been made by consensus
among all the member state representatives.
Management Reform Proposals in Five Areas Are Awaiting General Assembly
Review or Have Been Recently Approved:
The UN has initiated reforms in five key areas: (1) modernizing the
management operations of the Secretariat, (2) improving oversight, (3)
promoting ethical conduct, (4) reviewing and updating programs and
activities, and (5) creating a Human Rights Council. However, most
efforts are awaiting General Assembly review or have been recently
approved. In addition, many proposed or approved reforms do not have an
implementation plan that establishes time frames and cost estimates.
Appendix II summarizes the status of major management reforms.
Reforms to Improve the Management Operations of the Secretariat Are
Awaiting General Assembly Review or Have Been Recently Approved:
Proposals to improve the management operations of the Secretariat have
either been approved or are awaiting General Assembly review. To
improve the management operations of the Secretariat, the September
2005 outcome document requested that the Secretary-General develop
proposals to ensure that the existing policies, regulations, and rules
used to manage budgetary, financial, and human resources are aligned
with the current needs of the UN. In response, the Secretary-General
submitted a report to the General Assembly in March that included 23
proposals to improve the UN's effectiveness.[Footnote 19] However, the
ACABQ recommended that the Secretary-General provide more details,
including specific costs and administrative implications, and time
lines for implementation.
In April 2006, members of the Fifth Committee voted and approved a
proposal introduced by the G-77 countries that the Secretary-General
elaborate on the proposals and give concrete examples of how the
initiatives could correct deficiencies and make the organization's work
more effective.[Footnote 20] The vote signified the breakdown of the
policy of making decisions by consensus, a practice used for 20 years.
Further, the United States expressed concern that the G-77's proposal
was a way to scale back the reforms proposed in the Secretary-General's
March 2006 report. In May 2006, the General Assembly voted and approved
a resolution that incorporated the recommendations made by the Fifth
Committee.[Footnote 21] See figure 1 for key dates for reform
initiatives related to improving the management operations of the
Secretariat.
Figure 1: Key Dates of Reform Initiatives to Improve the Management
Operations of the Secretariat:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
In response to the General Assembly's request for more information, the
Secretariat issued seven detailed reports in May and June 2006 that
included information on various initiatives, such as information and
communication technology, financial management practices, and
procurement reform. In July 2006, member states approved a resolution
that, according to UN officials and member state representatives, was a
positive step toward addressing several management reform
initiatives.[Footnote 22] The status of several reforms to improve the
management operations of the Secretariat is as follows:
* Since the Secretary-General has limited authority to shift resources
between programs without the approval of the member states, the
Secretary-General in his March 2006 report noted that more flexibility
in this area could enable the Secretariat to respond more effectively
to the changing needs of the organization. In July 2006, the General
Assembly gave the Secretary-General, on an experimental basis, limited
discretion over budgetary commitments up to $20 million per
biennium.[Footnote 23] The impact of this reform will be reviewed in
2009.
* According to the Secretary-General, the UN has outdated and
fragmented information technology systems that have limited capacity
for processing and sharing data. Moreover, at least six departments
have disparate information technology units with no integrating
mechanism in place. The Secretary-General's March 2006 report
recommended the creation of a chief information technology officer
position to oversee the creation and implementation of an information
management strategy for the Secretariat. In July 2006, the General
Assembly agreed to create the position of a chief information
technology officer and upgrade certain elements of the UN's computer
systems. In addition, the Secretary-General's information technology
detailed report did not include a comprehensive implementation plan for
this proposal. According to State and UN officials, the Secretary-
General plans to submit a comprehensive report that includes cost
estimates in March 2007.
* GAO and others have reported that UN procurement resources are
unnecessarily vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. The Secretariat's
June 2006 procurement report included several proposals that could be
implemented over an 18-month period to strengthen UN procurement
practices. However, the report does not specify milestones that need to
be completed during the 18 months. The General Assembly is expected to
discuss this report in fall 2006. In the meantime, in July 2006, the
General Assembly authorized funding of approximately $700,000, which UN
officials plan to use for six new temporary procurement positions for 6
months. However, according to a senior U.S. official, these temporary
posts are not sufficient to address weaknesses in the procurement
system, and qualified procurement officers are not likely to accept
temporary jobs. As of September 2006, one temporary procurement staff
member had been hired.
* According to the Secretary-General, staff skills are not aligned with
the current needs of the organization. The Secretary-General's March
2006 report included proposals to improve recruitment processes,
facilitate staff mobility between headquarters and field offices, and
dedicate resources to conduct a one-time staff buyout.[Footnote 24] In
late September 2006, the Secretary-General issued a detailed human
resources report.[Footnote 25] The General Assembly is expected to
discuss the report in fall 2006.
Some of the proposed or approved reforms to improve the operations of
the Secretariat do not have an implementation plan that establishes
time frames and cost estimates. Of the Secretary-General's seven
detailed reports issued in May and June 2006, only the proposal for
adoption of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards
includes a detailed timetable for implementation. The Secretary-
General's June 2006 procurement report included several proposals that
could be implemented over an 18-month period, but the report does not
include specific milestones.
Oversight Reform Proposals Awaiting General Assembly Review in Fall
2006:
Reforms proposed to create an independent oversight advisory committee
and to strengthen the capacity of OIOS are awaiting review by the
General Assembly in fall 2006. In the outcome document, member states
agreed to consider the creation of an independent oversight advisory
committee. In November 2005, the Secretary-General proposed the
creation of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee and drafted
provisional terms of reference for this entity. In December 2005, the
General Assembly approved the creation of the committee and requested
an external evaluation of the proposed terms of reference. In addition,
in the September 2005 outcome document, member states recognized the
urgent need to strengthen the expertise, capacity, and resources of
OIOS's auditing and investigative functions[Footnote 26] We and others
have reported that OIOS's independence and ability to perform as the
principal auditing and investigative body of the UN have been hampered
by the UN's funding process and lack of resources. Moreover, in the
outcome document, member states requested an independent external
evaluation of the UN's auditing and oversight system. The Secretary-
General submitted the external evaluation in July 2006.[Footnote 27]
See figure 2 for key dates associated with oversight reform initiatives.
Figure 2: Key Dates for Oversight Reform Initiatives:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
The July 2006 external evaluation reviewed the draft terms of reference
for the Independent Audit Advisory Committee and recommended several
changes, specifically with respect to the number, appointment criteria,
terms, and compensation of members of the committee. The external
independent evaluation also recommended the complete and prompt
implementation of the committee. In addition, the evaluation
recommended that the committee be responsible for presenting the budget
for OIOS to the Fifth Committee, thereby relieving the ACABQ of its
advisory role in this regard.
The July 2006 external evaluation included a detailed review of OIOS
that found that OIOS is not able to function effectively under its
current mandate and made 23 recommendations in nine areas to strengthen
its capacity.[Footnote 28] The external review stated that OIOS's
current structure is impeding its independence and reducing its
effectiveness.[Footnote 29] It also stated that OIOS should focus on
internal auditing and recommended shifting several OIOS functions, such
as investigations, to departments in the Secretariat.[Footnote 30]
However, various UN and U.S. officials stated that a shift of functions
such as that proposed in the external review could significantly
diminish the UN's oversight functions and the independence of its
investigations. For example, these officials said that moving
investigations to the Secretariat could create a potential conflict of
interest. However, according to UN Secretariat officials, the
Secretariat has a positive view of the results of the independent
external review and supports most of the recommendations, and not all
UN Secretariat officials view the proposed recommendation as a way to
diminish the UN's oversight functions or the independence of its
investigations. In addition, in a report submitted to the Secretary-
General in July 2006,[Footnote 31] OIOS strongly disagreed with the
restructuring proposals but recognized the need to reassess the
functions and work processes of its Investigations Division. OIOS
indicated that it will undertake a review of that division that will be
completed by the end of 2006.
OIOS's July 2006 report included its own proposals for strengthening
its capacity. The OIOS report indicated that some recommendations of
the external review will require consideration by the General Assembly,
but that many are being considered for implementation under the
authority of the Under Secretary-General for Internal Oversight
Services. The OIOS report discussed 14 of the recommendations made by
the external review and generally agreed with most of them, such as
training of OIOS staff, human resource management, and information and
communications technology. However, as discussed above, OIOS strongly
disagreed with the recommendations that would restructure it.
Ethics Office Established, but It Is Too Early to Assess Its Impact:
The UN established an ethics office in January 2006 but, as of
September 2006 it continues to operate with interim staff,[Footnote 32]
and some experts, including a panel commissioned by a UN staff union to
review the UN's internal justice system, have questioned the
sufficiency of the number of staff in the office. Since January 2006,
the office's six interim staff members have developed and implemented
activities associated with the ethics office's four areas of
responsibility: (1) administering the UN's financial disclosure
program, (2) implementing the new UN whistleblower protection policy,
(3) providing guidance to staff on ethics issues, and (4) developing
ethics standards and training. For example, the interim staff members
have undertaken preliminary reviews of claims of retaliation for
whistleblowing and have collected financial disclosure forms from UN
managers. As the office is new and in the process of hiring permanent
staff, it is too early to determine whether the office will be able to
fully carry out its mandate. See figure 3 for key dates associated with
the establishment of the ethics office.
Figure 3: Key Dates for the Ethics Office:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
Before creating the ethics office, the UN Secretariat did not have a
way to coordinate ethics-related initiatives within the organization
and to ensure that all staff are aware of and updated on ethics issues.
The 2005 outcome document specifically requested that the Secretary-
General develop a detailed proposal for an independent ethics office.
The Secretary-General developed and submitted this proposal in November
2005, and the General Assembly approved it in December 2005. The ethics
office began operating in January 2006 as an independent entity
reporting directly to the Secretary-General and by March 2006 it was
staffed with one director, four staff members, and a consultant, all
temporarily assigned to the office. These staff have been establishing
and documenting the procedures the office follows in carrying out its
duties. The UN is in the process of hiring permanent staff to replace
the interim staff. The office has four main areas of responsibility and
has made some progress in fulfilling each as follows:
* The ethics office is responsible for administering the UN's financial
disclosure program to ensure that staff comply with applicable conflict
of interest rules and standards of conduct. Designated UN staff--those
at and above the director level and all staff carrying out procurement
and investment functions--are required to file an annual confidential
statement of their financial interests. This policy applies to about
1,800 UN staff and as of July 31, 2006, the ethics office had received
90 percent of their financial disclosure statements. The ethics office
is currently reviewing bids from contractors to carry out the review
and audit of these forms. The Secretariat recommended that the review
be conducted by independent financial experts, as is the practice at
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to safeguard
the confidentiality of senior officials' private financial information.
The ethics office will keep these financial disclosure forms
confidential, but a report by a panel of experts reviewing the UN's
internal justice system recommended that the office maintain the forms
in a public register.
* The ethics office is implementing the UN's new whistleblower
protection policy, which took effect in January 2006. When a staff
member contacts the ethics office with a complaint that he or she has
been retaliated against for reporting misconduct, the office conducts a
preliminary review to determine if the case should move forward for
formal investigation by OIOS. The ethics office staff review the
evidence presented by the claimant, interview the party accused of
retaliation, and talk to other staff involved. If the ethics office
determines that the case is an interpersonal problem within a
particular office, rather than a case of retaliation for
whistleblowing, it advises the staff member concerned of the existence
of the Office of the Ombudsman and other informal conflict resolution
mechanisms within the organization. If a case of retaliation is
established after investigation by OIOS, the ethics office takes into
account any recommendations made by OIOS and recommends appropriate
measures aimed at correcting the negative consequences suffered as a
result of the retaliatory action. As of July 31, 2006, the office had
received 45 complaints of retaliation for reporting misconduct, one of
which they submitted for further investigation. Ethics office staff
told us that they track all whistleblowing complaints that are brought
to their attention, including those referred to other offices. Staff
also said that the time they spend on each case of whistleblower
retaliation varies from several hours to more than 45 days.[Footnote 33]
* As part of its regular duties, the ethics office provides
confidential guidance to staff on ethics issues. To fulfill this
responsibility, the ethics office operates an ethics helpline to answer
questions from and provide advice to UN staff. UN staff have used the
helpline to make whistleblower retaliation complaints. Staff can also
contact the office in person, by mail or e-mail, or by fax.
* The ethics office is responsible for developing ethics standards and
content for training, which all UN staff will be expected to take
annually, and it is working to provide clear guidance to staff on
ethics regulations, rules, and standards. The Office of Human Resources
Management, in consultation with the ethics office staff, has developed
a half-day ethics workshop for all staff and has worked to ensure that
ethics issues are incorporated into courses on other topics, such as
procurement. The ethics office has developed an intranet site for UN
staff that provides general information about the office as well as UN
ethics issues and standards.
While the interim staff in the ethics office have been undertaking
activities consistent with their responsibilities, questions have been
raised about the capacity of this office to fulfill its mandate. One
nongovernmental organization said the UN's whistleblower protection
policy created a new benchmark for such policies in other
intergovernmental organizations, such as the World Bank and IMF.
However, it questioned the UN's implementation of the policy, citing
the low number of staff in the ethics office and the amount of time it
is taking to conduct preliminary reviews of whistleblower retaliation
cases. In addition, in a report endorsed by a UN staff union,[Footnote
34] a commission of experts criticized the UN's implementation of the
whistleblower protection policy and made several
recommendations[Footnote 35] that, if adopted, would change the
responsibilities and structure of the ethics office. The U.S. Permanent
Representative to the UN has also cited the UN staff union's concerns
about the capacity of the ethics office to fulfill its responsibilities.
The appropriate number of staff assigned to the ethics office has been
in question since the office's inception. The Secretariat originally
requested funding for 16 staff positions for the ethics office,
including liaison posts in UN offices in Vienna, Nairobi, and Geneva,
to provide the office with greater proximity to the two-thirds of UN
employees located in field offices around the world. However, the
General Assembly, following the recommendation of the ACABQ, approved
funding for only six positions, with no posts in the field. The ACABQ
reported that the office could operate with fewer staff than requested,
given the office's uncertain workload at its inception, and that its
workload would be reduced after the initial work of developing
standards and training was complete. The Special Advisor to the
Secretary-General for the ethics office, who is overseeing the new
office, stated that the number of staff assigned to the office is
currently appropriate. The interim staff said that the office needs
more resources, particularly additional staff, given its number of
responsibilities and activities. A representative from a
nongovernmental organization with expertise in whistleblower protection
also stated that the ethics office has too few resources to carry out
its duties. In addition, the panel of experts commissioned by a UN
staff union to review the UN's internal justice system stated that it
is critical that the ethics office be given adequate resources,
including representation in the UN's regional offices, to fulfill its
responsibilities. The ethics office submitted a status report to the
General Assembly in September 2006 that suggested that the office may
need additional staff and resources in the future.[Footnote 36]
Disagreement among Member States Has Delayed Review of Programs and
Activities:
Member state review of all UN programs and activities has been slow
because of disagreements on both the scope and process; therefore, it
is unlikely that the December 2006 deadline to complete the review will
be met. In the 2005 outcome document, member states requested a review
of all UN programs and activities, or mandates, that were created 5 or
more years ago (see fig. 4 below for key dates in the review process)
to strengthen and update UN programs and activities to more accurately
reflect the current needs of the organization. The UN does not have a
system for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of its mandates,
which make up its main body of work. The General Assembly, Economic and
Social Council, and the Security Council each adopt new mandates every
year on many of the same issues, which can lead to interrelated and
overlapping mandates. As a result, the Secretariat's implementation of
these mandates may be uncoordinated and inconsistent.
Figure 4: Key Dates for Review of Programs and Activities:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
UN member states agreed at the 2005 World Summit to undertake in 2006 a
review of UN mandates[Footnote 37] older than 5 years to update the
UN's programs and activities so that they respond to the current needs
of member states. Member states did not establish milestones for this
review, but said it should be completed by 2006. In March 2006, the
Secretary-General issued a report that provided a framework for
conducting this review, including a recommendation to conduct the
review in two phases, and compiled an electronic inventory of about
9,000 total mandates, over 6,900 of which are older than 5 years,
originating from the three principal UN organs--the General Assembly,
the Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council. The General
Assembly, which has responsibility for about 80 percent of the
mandates, began discussions on the mandate review process in November
2005 and started substantive discussions on specific mandates in April
2006. The Security Council and Economic and Social Council began their
respective reviews in May 2006.[Footnote 38] During these discussions,
countries and groups of countries made proposals on the process for the
review and on how to handle specific mandates. For example, one country
proposed that the mandate review process involve roundtable discussions
and informal debates. Another proposal, with regard to a specific
mandate, was to consolidate the Secretariat's working papers on
individual and small island territories. During the discussions, some
countries requested more information from the Secretariat on certain
mandates, such as how one mandate might be duplicative of another, or
which UN departments or entities are involved in implementing each
mandate.
Throughout the review process, member states have disagreed about which
mandates to include in the review and what to do with any savings
generated by the potential elimination or consolidation of mandates,
which has led to slow and limited progress. Members of the G-77 contend
that the scope of the review should include only those mandates older
than 5 years that have not been renewed since they were adopted. This
represents about 626 mandates, or 7 percent of the total number of
mandates (see fig. 5). The United States and other developed countries,
including Japan, Australia, Canada, and the European Union, argue that
the review should include all mandates older than 5 years, whether or
not they have been renewed. Using these criteria, the review would
include an additional 6,347 mandates.
Figure 5: Distribution of UN Mandates by Renewal Classification:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
The G-77 established several criteria under which it would consider
reviewing mandates that are older than 5 years: (1) member states must
first agree that any savings derived from the mandate review will be
reinvested in the areas from which they were derived, or in UN
activities in the development area and (2) all politically sensitive
mandates must be excluded from the review process.[Footnote 39] The
United States has stated that a decision about the use of cost savings
from the mandate review should be made once the review is complete. In
addition, the United States maintains that no mandates older than 5
years, including those that are controversial, should be excluded from
the review.
Despite disagreement on which General Assembly mandates to review,
member states decided in June 2006 to move forward with the first
phase, which consists of reviewing 399 mandates that are older than 5
years and have not been renewed within the last 5 years. Mandates that
are older than 5 years and have been renewed could be reviewed in a
second phase. Mandates in phase one include completed projects, such as
a 1965 resolution requesting that the Secretary-General convene a
conference on the World Food Program. Although most of the mandates in
this category do not require any further action or resources from the
UN, member states could only agree to set aside 74 of them, which they
classified as completed, meaning they have been acted upon and
completely implemented and do not require further action at this time.
Additionally, they decided that 33 mandates are not applicable to the
review. The remaining 292 mandates included in phase one may be
reviewed in phase two if member states believe they need further
discussion. See table 1 for details on the status of mandates
considered in phase one.
Table 1: Categories of Mandates Reviewed in Phase One:
Category: Completed--no agreement on disposition[B]; Number of mandates
in category: 172.
Category: Completed--agreed to set aside[C]; Number of mandates in
category: 74.
Category: Completed[A] --total; Number of mandates in category: 246.
Category: Implemented/in-progress[D]; Number of mandates in category:
102.
Category: No indication[E]; Number of mandates in category: 18.
Category: Not applicable[F]; Number of mandates in category: 33.
Category: Grand total; Number of mandates in category: 399.
Source: Department of State.
[A] Completed mandates are those that have been acted upon and
completely implemented. These include the majority of founding and
founding-related mandates, which are mandates that specify the
structure and the functions of the established entity or amend the
original founding mandate of such entity.
[B] Member states did not agree on what to do with the mandates in this
category. They will remain available for review in phase two if needed.
[C] Member states agreed to set aside mandates in this category for the
remainder of the review, with no further action needed.
[D] Implemented/in-progress mandates are those that have been acted
upon and for which implementation is ongoing.
[E] Mandates in the category of "no indication" are those for which it
was not possible to collect definitive information from departments and
other UN entities.
[F] Mandates categorized as "not applicable" are those that originated
in the General Assembly and require action by entities other than the
Secretariat or implementing entities of the UN system, such as member
states, nongovernmental organizations, or international financial
institutions, and therefore do not pertain to the purpose of the
mandate review exercise.
[End of table]
As of September 2006, after beginning discussions on specific mandates
in April 2006, member states had not agreed to change, eliminate, or
retain any mandates. On September 1, 2006, leaders of the working group
on mandate review developed a proposal suggesting terms under which
member states would move forward into phase two of the review, but as
of the end of September member states had not accepted it. The proposal
suggests that member states reallocate within the UN budget any savings
from mandate review according to normal budgetary procedures and that
they reinvest any savings from development activities into other
development activities. In addition, the proposal recommends that
member states agree to address politically sensitive mandates carefully
and take into account the positions of member states concerned. Given
the volume of mandates still to be discussed and the contentious nature
of the review process, the prospects for completing the review by the
end of 2006 are unlikely.
Effectiveness and Impact of Newly-Created Human Rights Council Remain
Uncertain:
In March 2006, the UN voted to create a new UN Human Rights Council to
replace the Commission on Human Rights; however, significant concerns
remain about the council's structure. UN member states generally agreed
that the Commission on Human Rights should be improved as it was no
longer seen as a credible institution for protecting human rights, due
to a number of weaknesses. For example, according to human rights
organizations, countries known to be human rights violators were
consistently selected for membership to the commission and used their
membership to protect themselves against criticism of their human
rights records. Furthermore, the commission did not criticize the
actions of several countries that were found to be abusers of human
rights, including Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. As a result, the
member states agreed at the 2005 World Summit to create a new Human
Rights Council that would improve upon these deficiencies. UN member
states voted to establish the council in March 2006 and elected members
in May 2006. (See fig. 6 for key dates for the Human Rights Council.)
Figure 6: Key Dates for the Human Rights Council:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
In establishing the new Human Rights Council, UN member states aimed to
address some of the deficiencies in the 53-member Commission on Human
Rights. The 47 members of the new council must be elected individually
to the body by a majority of UN members. Previously, candidates were
grouped into slates of countries representing regions, and members
would vote on the entire slate rather than for an individual country on
the slate. The United States sought a significantly smaller body and
advocated that to gain membership on the council, members should be
elected by the higher standard of a two-thirds majority, rather than an
absolute majority, to make it more difficult for repressive countries
that have not demonstrated a commitment to human rights to gain seats
on the council. Members can now be suspended from the council by a two-
thirds majority vote if they are found to have committed gross
violations of human rights. When voting for candidates to the council,
UN member states are instructed to take into account each country's
human rights record, a measure that was not called for when voting for
candidates to the commission. The United States wanted to automatically
exclude from council membership any country under Security Council
sanctions, but that provision was not included in the final design of
the body. When elections to the council were held in May 2006, several
countries with questionable human rights records were elected,
including China, Russia, and Cuba. However, other countries that
previously served on the commission and have questionable human rights
records did not even run for election, including Zimbabwe, Sudan, and
North Korea. In addition, Iran campaigned for a seat on the Council but
did not win.
The Human Rights Council will also operate differently from the
commission. The council will meet more frequently and can more readily
call special sessions to address emerging human rights situations than
could the commission. The council will meet at least three times a year
for a total of 10 weeks, while the commission met once a year for a
total of 6 weeks. Furthermore, the council is required to periodically
review the human rights records of all UN member states, a procedure
the commission lacked. Members of the council will be the first to
undergo these reviews and will be required to cooperate with
investigators. The council is currently developing the procedures it
will follow when conducting the reviews. Finally, member states made
the council a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, elevating it
from the commission's status as part of the Economic and Social Council.
While the United States voted against the creation of the new Human
Rights Council, stating that it did not sufficiently improve upon the
former commission, many nongovernmental organizations and other UN
members have stated that the council is better equipped than the
commission was to address urgent, serious, and long-running human
rights situations around the world. Of the UN member states
participating in the vote on the creation of the council, 170 voted in
favor, while 4 voted against.[Footnote 40] The United States did not
run for election to the body but has agreed to provide funding for it.
Representatives from one group of member states said that they were
disappointed the United States did not run for election because it was
important to have the United States on the council from its inception,
to show support for the new body. The council meets in Geneva and met
for the first time in June 2006 and a second time in September 2006. It
plans to meet again in November 2006. The council held special sessions
in summer 2006 on the situation of human rights in Palestine and other
Arab territories. It is too early to determine the impact of the new
council on the UN and human rights worldwide.
Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of UN Management Reforms:
We identified several factors that may impede the UN's progress toward
full implementation of management reforms: (1) considerable
disagreement within the General Assembly over their overall
implications; (2) absence of an implementation plan for each reform
that includes time frames and cost estimates; and (3) administrative
guidance that may complicate the process of implementing certain human
resource initiatives.
Disagreement within the General Assembly Has Limited the Implementation
of Reforms:
Disagreement between G-77 and developed countries over the broader
implications of management reforms may affect the UN's ability to fully
implement them. According to UN and member state officials, the G-77 is
concerned that some of the reforms could increase the authority of the
Secretariat at the expense of the General Assembly, thus decreasing the
G-77's influence over UN operations. Further, according to several UN
and member state officials, most developed countries view management
reform as a way to increase organizational effectiveness, whereas the G-
77 countries perceive that developed countries view certain reform
initiatives, such as mandate review, as cost-cutting exercises.
Moreover, UN officials and member state representatives told us that a
disagreement over a 6-month spending cap[Footnote 41] served to unify
the G-77 countries and weaken the cohesion between developed countries.
According to UN and member state representatives, the budget cap
initially served to focus attention on the need to make progress on the
reform initiatives. However, according to member state representatives,
the spending cap made it more difficult to reach consensus on
management reforms. On June 30, 2006, the General Assembly decided to
lift the spending cap.[Footnote 42] According to UN officials and
member state representatives, now that the cap is lifted,
implementation of the reforms can continue, but questions remain about
the pace and priorities for implementation of the reforms.
Disagreement between the G-77 countries and the developed countries
over the details of implementing the initiatives could continue to
affect their progress. Member states disagree on some of the specifics
of the reforms in areas such as the review of programs and activities
and the details for creating the Human Rights Council, as discussed
earlier, as well as the role of the Deputy Secretary-General. For
example, two independent studies recommended the creation of a chief
operating officer position and the Secretary-General's March 2006
report recommended that the Deputy Secretary-General assume formal
authority and accountability for the management and overall direction
of the Secretariat's operations. However, the spokesperson for the G-77
countries has stated in the Fifth Committee and in the General Assembly
that, according to the UN charter, the Secretary-General is the UN's
Chief Administrative Officer and thus responsible for the
organization's management. In May 2006, the General Assembly passed a
resolution that noted that the function of the post of Deputy Secretary-
General should not diminish the role or responsibilities of the
Secretary-General. The resolution further noted that the overall
responsibility for management of the Organization rests with the
Secretary-General. Therefore, it will be up to the discretion of the
next Secretary-General to decide on the delegation of authority to his/
her deputy. (App. II provides more information on the disagreements
specific to each reform.)
UN Has Not Developed a Comprehensive Plan to Implement the Reforms:
For many of the management reform proposals, the UN has not developed
comprehensive implementation plans with associated time frames, cost
estimates, and potential savings.[Footnote 43] Setting an
implementation time line is a key practice for organizations undergoing
change.[Footnote 44] However, many UN proposals we reviewed that are
related to management reform do not include specific time frames. For
example, although a senior U.S. official said that the July 2006
resolution is a positive step toward implementation of certain reforms,
he noted that the section on oversight does not provide concrete
actions. In addition, the resolution does not include specific time
frames for implementing a fully operational ethics office or the
Independent Audit Advisory Committee. Without establishing deadlines,
it is difficult to hold managers accountable for completing reform
efforts. Moreover, without comprehensive implementation plans, the
total budgetary implications of the reform efforts are not clear.
The UN has not developed or refined cost estimates for many of the
initiatives, including improving certain field staff benefits and
conditions to mirror those of headquarters staff; increasing
investments in human resource development; introducing a new
information communications technology system; and approving a staff
buyout program. However, the Secretary-General has developed
preliminary cost estimates for three key initiatives that alone could
cost over $500 million--the proposed new information communications
technology system ($120 million over several years), a one-time staff
buyout ($50 to $100 million), and efforts to improve field staff
benefits ($280 million annually). Moreover, the UN Secretariat said
that these estimates will require further assessments before reliable
estimates and a plan of action can be determined. Without determining
cost estimates, it is difficult to ensure that financing will be
available when needed.
Likewise, the UN has not yet developed savings estimates because
certain initiatives will require further assessment and then approval
by the General Assembly. The Secretary-General anticipates that the
costs for the reforms could be offset by savings from efforts such as
relocation and outsourcing and the long-term benefits of a more
efficiently run organization. However, the UN has not yet produced any
concrete savings estimates, and efforts to produce savings have faced
significant challenges. For instance, the Secretary-General said that
the cost could be partially offset by savings in procurement reform.
However, UN officials said that the UN Secretariat has not yet
developed firm procurement savings estimates.[Footnote 45] In addition,
proposals to streamline the way in which the organization delivers its
services, which may result in savings, have experienced resistance from
member states and staff members. In May 2006, the G-77 did not
authorize the Secretary-General to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of
his proposal to relocate translation, editing, and document production
services. Public documents do not specify the G-77's reason for not
allowing a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken.[Footnote 46]
Further, the outsourcing of internal printing and publishing processes
could generate savings but, according to UN officials, it could also
face challenges from member states and staff to implement.
To develop or refine cost and savings estimates, the Secretariat is
conducting cost-benefit analyses and assessments in areas such as the
proposed new information communications technology system, outsourcing
and relocation, staff buyout, and public access to UN information.
Appendix IV provides information on the reviews, assessments, and cost-
benefit analyses that the Secretariat is preparing, including their
expected time frames for completion to the extent stated by the UN.
However, some of the cost-benefit analyses and assessments will not be
available until March 2007 for member states to consider, and these
will have a bearing on the overall reform package and, ultimately, the
total cost of the reform. To date, the additional cost to member states
to implement certain management reform initiatives has been about $40
million, which primarily reflects start-up costs for efforts such as
the adoption of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards,
the new ethics office, additional costs for the new Human Rights
Council, and an increase to the working capital fund[Footnote 47] (see
table 2). Therefore, based on the slow pace of the reform process and
the time frames for completion of the assessments and cost-benefit
analyses, the total budgetary implications of the reform effort,
including the U.S. government's share, remain unclear.[Footnote 48]
Table 2: Additional Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management
Reform Initiatives, as of September 2006:
Dollars in millions.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Increase in the Working
Capital Fund (from member states' assessments effective January 1,
2007); Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium): $15.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Strengthen Office of Internal
Oversight Services (39 temporary posts); Funds approved (2006-2007
biennium): 5.8.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Additional funding for new
Human Rights Council; Funds approved (2006- 2007 biennium): 4.4.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Cost for independent external
evaluation on Governance and Oversight; Funds approved (2006-2007
biennium): 4.3.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: New Ethics Office; Funds
approved (2006-2007 biennium): 2.9.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Cost study and implementation
plan for new information communications technology system; Funds
approved (2006-2007 biennium): 2.2.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Start-up cost for the
International Public Sector Accounting Standards; Funds approved (2006-
2007 biennium): 2.0.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Office accommodations for new
posts at Headquarters; Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium): 1.9.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: New Chief Information
Communications Technology Officer; Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium):
.3.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Staff selection system in
Office of Human Resources Management; Funds approved (2006-2007
biennium): .2.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Subtotal - regular budget
resources; Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium): $39.0.
Reform actions: Peacekeeping support account: Temporary procurement
service staff (6); Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium): .7.
Reform actions: Peacekeeping support account: Subtotal - peacekeeping
support account; Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium): $ .7.
Reform actions: Total additional funds approved to date; Funds approved
(2006-2007 biennium): $39.7.
Sources: UN and the U.S Mission to the UN.
Notes:
The total dollar amount presented in the table attempts to address the
scope of our report objectives and does not include all reform efforts
that were a result of the 2005 World Summit, such as the Peace Building
Commission and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Working Capital fund was increased from $100 million to $150
million. To cover the increase, the additional amount of $35 million
will be funded from the 2004-2005 budget surplus. The $35 million is an
estimate pending the Board of Auditors audit for the biennium.
According to a Department of State official, funds for the review of
certain budgetary, financial, and human resources policies, including
the design of the staff buyout program, are being drawn from existing
resources.
[End of table]
Administrative Guidance May Complicate the Process of Implementing
Certain Human Resource Initiatives:
Administrative guidance, such as staff regulations and rules that
implement General Assembly resolutions, could complicate and sometimes
restrict the process of implementing certain human resource
initiatives. According to the Secretary-General, the existing human
resources management framework was designed for a stable, largely
headquarters-based environment, and currently more than half of the
UN's 30,000 staff members are serving in the field. The Secretary-
General also said that the Secretariat's increasingly complex mandates
require a new skills profile that will enable it to respond in an
integrated way to new needs in diverse areas such as peacekeeping and
humanitarian assistance. In addition, salaries and other human resource
costs comprise almost 80 percent of the UN regular budget. As such, UN
officials state that it would be impossible to achieve meaningful
management reform without reforming human resources. The Secretary-
General has proposed several human resource reforms,[Footnote 49] such
as a staff buyout, replacing permanent contracts with open-ended
appointments, better integration of staff worldwide, and
outsourcing.[Footnote 50] However, administrative guidance may
complicate the process of implementing some initiatives, such as:
* In September 2005, member states agreed to consider a proposal from
the Secretary-General for a one-time staff buyout. According to the
Secretary-General, to target staff for buyout the UN Secretariat must
analyze and determine the skills needed in the organization, taking
into account proposed reform efforts such as relocation of work,
outsourcing, and mandate review. Staff performing administrative
functions that are targeted for outsourcing may be offered a buyout if
their skills are no longer needed by the UN. The Secretary-General must
also conduct consultations with UN staff representatives.[Footnote 51]
UN officials said that it may be difficult for the Secretary-General,
staff representatives, and member states to agree on the skills
required to realign staff with the UN's priorities. In addition, some
of the cost-benefit analyses for the relocation and outsourcing
initiatives will not be completed until March 2007.
* The UN Secretariat is developing a more integrated approach for staff
to serve worldwide. However, UN officials said that staff may find ways
to resist efforts to be transferred, especially if a transfer would
result in leaving UN Headquarters or other desirable duty stations.
According to the Secretary-General, staff are not sufficiently mobile,
and their movement is hampered by multiple and restrictive mandates.
* The Secretary-General proposed the integration of field and
headquarters staff into one global Secretariat with competitive
conditions of service. This would include changing the staff rules to
create one staff contract to mirror that of headquarters staff. Based
on a study prepared in January 2006 by the International Civil Service
Commission for the General Assembly,[Footnote 52] this proposed
integration raises a number of complicated policy questions that will
need to be addressed, including long-term contractual obligations, cost
implications related to differences in the compensation packages,
distortion of geographical distribution and gender balance, and
complications for merit-based, transparent, and open selection
procedures.
* Further, according to UN officials, proposals to reconsider a change
in the way the UN delivers its services by relocating and outsourcing
certain headquarters functions may meet with resistance from some
member states and staff as jobs may be lost. According to the Secretary-
General, the General Assembly established a number of conditions for
outsourcing that severely restrict the circumstances under which it can
be contemplated.[Footnote 53] One of those restrictions includes
avoiding possible negative impact on staff.[Footnote 54] Thus,
restrictive conditions such as these could complicate the process of
implementing certain human resource initiatives.
Conclusion:
During the past few years, the inadequate oversight of the Oil for Food
program and mismanagement of UN procurement activities have
demonstrated the urgent need for UN management reform. Several
independent reports in 2005 found that inefficient UN management
operations persist and discuss the immediate need for management reform
given the growth in complexity and significance of UN worldwide
operations within the past decade. Despite several past reform efforts,
long-standing concerns about weak UN management functions remain. As
the largest financial contributor to the UN, the United States has
taken a leadership role in calling for improved management processes.
In addition, the United States, through the Department of State and the
U.S. Mission to the United Nations, continues to take measures to
advance reform of UN management processes. However, progress in
management reform efforts has been slow. Proposals awaiting review
cannot progress until the General Assembly approves them through a
process that traditionally requires agreement by all 192 UN member
states, and consensus building can be a difficult and lengthy process.
Moreover, the UN has not agreed upon implementation plans for each
reform effort that include established time frames and cost estimates-
-practices that increase the transparency and accountability of the
reform process. The Secretary-General's proposal for the adoption of
International Public Sector Accounting Standards is a step toward
increased transparency and accountability because it includes a
detailed timetable for implementation. Until the UN undergoes
successful management reform, its ability to respond effectively and
efficiently to increasingly complex international crises is diminished.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the UN work with other member states to encourage the
General Assembly and the Secretary-General to include cost estimates
and expected time frames for implementation and completion for each
reform as it is approved. We also recommend that the Secretary of
State's annual U.S. Participation in the United Nations report to the
Congress include a section on the status and progress of the major UN
management reforms.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Department of State provided written comments on a draft of this
report (see app. V). The Department of State agreed with our
recommendations and stated that it will continue to work toward
creating a more effective and accountable United Nations. In
particular, it noted that it has seen too little in terms of results
since the September 2005 Summit. Moreover, the Department of State also
said that the Secretariat should be held accountable for implementing
these reforms and will continue to work with other member states toward
ensuring that a transparent reporting mechanism to the General Assembly
is established. The Department of State also concurred fully with the
need to keep the U.S. Congress informed of these management reform
initiatives and will continue to monitor and inform the Congress as
recommended. The UN did not provide written comments. In addition, the
Department of State and the United Nations provided technical comments
on our draft report, which were incorporated into the text where
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested members of the
Congress, the Secretary of State, and the U.S. Permanent Representative
to the UN. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix VI.
Thomas Melito:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify and track management reforms, we reviewed key documents
proposing United Nations (UN) management and human rights reforms and
interviewed key officials. We obtained and reviewed official reports of
the Secretariat and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS),
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ)
documents, General Assembly resolutions, Secretary-General bulletins,
Web sites, related budget documents, and statements from UN officials.
We interviewed senior officials from UN departments in New York City.
Specifically, we met with officials from the General Assembly Office of
the President, the Office of the Deputy Secretary-General, the
Departments of Management and Policy and Planning, ACABQ, the Office of
Program Planning and Budget (OPPBA), and OIOS. During the course of our
review, we also discussed the status of UN reforms with Department of
State officials in Washington, D.C., and New York City.
We selected reforms in the areas of management operations of the
Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review of programs and
activities, and human rights to track in more detail. We determined
that these were key areas of management reform through our review of UN
documents and in our discussions with UN and U.S. officials. We focused
our work on management reforms that began in 2005 and did not
specifically address the 1997 and 2002 reform agendas. The 2005 reforms
applied to the Secretariat and the UN's governing bodies, including the
General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Security
Council. We did not include UN specialized agencies or funds and
programs in our review. Other reform efforts such as the UN Peace
Building Commission, Security Council reform, and governance were
beyond the scope of this review.
To determine the factors facing the implementation of UN reforms, we
reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General
Assembly, OIOS, Joint Inspection Unit, and International Civil Service
Commission. In addition, we spoke with UN officials in New York. These
included officials from the Office of the Deputy Secretary-General, the
Department of Management, ACABQ, OPPBA, and OIOS. We also met with
representatives from several member states and spoke with U.S.
officials in Washington, D.C., and New York. We also interviewed
outside observers of the UN system, including nongovernmental
organizations and members of academia.
Many cost estimates for the proposed reform initiatives are
preliminary, and detailed cost estimates are being developed;
therefore, we did not analyze the assumptions underlying these
estimates to determine whether they are reasonable and reliable. To
determine the reliability of data in the UN's inventory of about 9,000
programs and activities (mandates) that are older than 5 years, we
interviewed UN officials and performed some basic cross checks. The
scope of the mandate review covers mandates of the General Assembly,
the Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council that are
older than 5 years and are active or potentially active. According to
the Secretary-General, the resolutions adopted from year to year by
each of the principal organs are the primary source of mandates. The
Secretary-General also said that mandates are not easily defined or
quantifiable, and a concrete legal definition of a mandate does not
exist. In addition, the UN updates its inventory of mandates on a
regular basis. We performed our analysis as of September 2006. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
establishing the approximate number of mandates and comparing the
approximate number of mandates that have and have not been renewed in
the last 5 years. Further, we believe that the cost estimates and the
associated funds that the General Assembly appropriated to date for
reform efforts are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report.
We performed our work between January and September 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted U.S. government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II Status of UN Management Reform Initiatives:
We identified and tracked the status of management reform initiatives
in five key areas--management of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical
conduct, review of programs and activities, and human rights--and
identified disagreements among member states that may affect their
implementation. Table 3 provides information on the status of major
United Nations (UN) management reform initiatives, actions that are
still pending, and points of disagreement. All dates are in 2006 unless
otherwise indicated.
Table 3: Status of Major UN Management Reform Initiatives:
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Information and
Communications Technology: Proposed reform actions: Create the post of
chief information technology officer to define and implement a
comprehensive information management strategy for the Secretariat;
Status to date: In July, the General Assembly (GA) approved the post of
chief information technology officer; What remains to be done: The GA
requested that the Secretary-General rejustify the level of resource
requirements for the post of chief information technology officer in
the budget for biennium 2008-2009. This proposal is scheduled to be
considered during the 62nd session.[B]; Points of disagreement: We did
not identify any major disagreements.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Information and
Communications Technology: Proposed reform actions: Align information
and communications technology (ICT) priorities with Secretariat
performance by incorporating better managerial decision-support tools,
implementing an organization-wide document/content management system,
and recruiting or training people with skills in information management
and analysis; Status to date: In July, the GA requested additional
information on the structure, staffing requirements, functions, and the
proposed ICT relationship with other information and communications
technology units; What remains to be done: The Secretary-General plans
to provide the additional information during the 61st session of the
GA.[A]; Points of disagreement: We did not identify any major
disagreements.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Information and
Communications Technology: Proposed reform actions: Replace existing
information technology systems such as the Integrated Management
Information System (IMIS) with a fully integrated global system. The
integration would include human resources, finance and accounting, and
procurement systems; Status to date: The GA agreed to replace IMIS with
the Secretary-General's proposed next generation enterprise resource
planning system or a comparable system and approved funds for an
information and communications technology detailed cost study and
implementation plan; What remains to be done: The Secretariat will
conduct a detailed cost study (including information on user needs,
scope, timetable, strategy, and resource requirements) and plans to
present the results during the 61st session of the GA.[A]; Points of
disagreement: There is general agreement that the current ICT system
needs to be replaced, but the GA will decide on the type of integrated
system after the detailed cost study is prepared.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Delivery of Services;
Proposed reform actions: Undertake systematic and detailed cost-benefit
analyses of relocation, outsourcing, and telecommuting opportunities
for select administrative services: (1) translation, editing and
documents production by 9/2006; (2) internal printing and publishing
processes by 9/2006; (3) medical insurance plan administration by 9/
2006; (4) information technology support by 12/2006; (5) payables,
receivables, and payroll processes by 3/2007; and (6) staff benefits
administration by 3/2007; Status to date: In May, the Group of 77 (G-
77) did not authorize the Secretary-General to conduct a cost-benefit
analysis of his proposals to relocate translation, editing, and
documents production. However, the GA gave the Secretary- General
authority to pursue cost-benefit analyses of the remaining proposed
initiatives; What remains to be done: The Secretariat is undertaking
cost- benefit analyses of the remaining proposals (2 through 6) and
plans to submit them to the GA for consideration during the 61st
session.[A]; Points of disagreement: According to a U.S. official, the
United States and 49 other countries voted against the GA resolution
put forth by the G-77 countries in May because the United States
believes, among other things, that the resolution constrained the
Secretary-General from moving forward fully on outsourcing.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Procurement Practices:
Proposed reform actions: Continue comprehensive review of procurement
rules, regulations, and policies in the following six broad areas: (1)
establishing a more independent bid protest system; (2) implementing a
risk management framework, including diagnostic tools to detect
problematic transactions, more systematic rotation of staff serving in
procurement, and the strengthening of the Headquarters Committee on
Contracts; (3) improving the training of procurement staff in ethics,
extending personal financial disclosure requirements to procurement
staff, and improving career development; (4) reprofiling procurement
staff requirements to attract high-quality people to serve in the field
and support them with regular training and routine rotation; (5)
increasing information-sharing on procurement matters to generate
significant potential cost and efficiency savings; and (6) using a lead
agency to create specialist buyers for the whole UN system; Status to
date: In June, the Secretary- General provided a detailed report to the
GA that includes the status of the proposed initiatives. In July, the
GA authorized about $700,000 in funding for six new temporary positions
for 6 months; (1) The Secretary-General is expected to establish an
independent bid protest system by September 2006; (2) The Secretary-
General said that the Secretariat has developed diagnostic tools to
identify potential irregularities in financial transactions using data
in procurement databases. The Procurement Service has begun a lateral
reassignment program within the office. The Secretary-General requested
three posts under the support account for peacekeeping to strengthen
the Headquarters Committee on Contracts; (3) The Secretary-General said
that all Procurement Service staff have attended a special procurement
ethics training course; financial disclosure is now required of all
staff involved in procurement activities, and work has begun in
improving career development; (4) The Procurement Service initiated a
review of job functions for all staff under the guidance of the Office
of Human Resources Management with a view to conducting a horizontal
review of job classification within Procurement Service; (5)
Information-sharing has begun in the area of air and sea freight
contracts through joint negotiation with contractors; (6) The UN has
been reviewing the use of a lead agency concept to create specialist
buyers for the entire procurement system; What remains to be done: The
GA is scheduled to consider the Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed
procurement report during its 61st session.[A]; (1) The Procurement
Service is seeking the guidance of the Office of Legal Affairs to
develop detailed procedures for the independent bid protest system,
which will be posted on its Web site for vendors; (2) A number of
actions are ongoing, including managing the risks during the start-up
and major expansion of peacekeeping operations. The Secretariat is
developing a career path program for procurement staff that would allow
rotation between headquarters and the field. The GA will consider
staffing for the Headquarter's Committee on Contracts at the 61st
session.[A]; (3) The Secretary-General said that procurement staff will
receive continuous training throughout their careers. In addition, the
Secretary-General requested resources to establish a planning,
compliance, and monitoring section to lead the ethics and integrity
program of the Procurement Service, among other responsibilities. The
Secretary-General also said that career development frameworks will be
developed for the procurement occupational group; (4) Following the
review of job functions, the job profile for respective job functions
would be formalized to establish a career development path within the
procurement profession. The Secretary-General requested $800,000 for
training and to help make the career development program fully
functional. The GA will consider the job reprofiling at its 61st
session.[A]; (5) Information sharing is also being considered among the
UN system of organizations in the areas of procurement of common
requirements such as vehicles, information technology, and
communications equipment; (6) The Secretariat plans to expand
interagency cooperation and to extensively use common service
arrangements with other UN organizations. Work is under way to
determine in which field specific UN entities have a competitive
advantage; Points of disagreement: The United States said that it is
doubtful that the small amount of resources provided for badly needed
improvements to the inadequate procurement functions would enable the
"scandal-ridden activity" to be repaired quickly and decisively.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Human Resources: Proposed
reform actions: The Secretary General made the following proposals: (1)
Develop a more proactive, targeted and efficient recruitment system;
(2) Develop a more integrated approach to mobility, including authority
for the Secretary-General to move staff wherever needed, strict
enforcement of postoccupancy limits, designation of a majority of
international professional posts as rotational, integration of
Headquarters and field operations into an organization-wide mobility
program, expanded training, and improved work/life conditions; (3)
Enhance career development through significant increases in resources
for staff development, systematic development of entry-level
professional staff, development of career models with potential career
paths, and mandatory induction and training requirements for managers;
(4) Modify contractual arrangements and harmonize conditions of service
to meet the needs of an increasingly field-based organization, through
one set of staff rules; replace permanent contracts with open-ended
continuing appointments; align the conditions of service of Secretariat
staff in the field with those of UN funds and programs; (5) Strengthen
leadership recruitment, training, and development plans to build the
cadre of senior and middle managers required for the modern complex
global operations of the UN; Status to date: The Secretary-General
issued a detailed human resources report in late September 2006.[C];
What remains to be done: The GA plans to review the Secretariat's
detailed human resources report in fall 2006; The Secretary-General
plans to provide the GA at its 61st session an assessment of the impact
of previous and ongoing reforms as they relate to this proposal,
including costs, administrative implications, and concrete examples of
how this reform would enhance the effectiveness of the work of the
UN.[A]; Points of disagreement: We did not identify any major
disagreements.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Human Resources: Proposed
reform actions: Redefine the role of the Deputy Secretary-General to
assume formal authority and accountability for the management and
overall direction of the operational functions of the Secretariat;
Status to date: In May 2006, the GA passed a resolution that noted that
the function of the role of Deputy Secretary-General should not
diminish the role or responsibilities of the Secretary-General; What
remains to be done: It will be up to the discretion of the next
Secretary-General to decide on the delegation of authority for his/her
deputy; Points of disagreement: Two independent studies recommended the
creation of a chief operating officer position and the Secretary-
General's March 2006 report recommended that the Deputy Secretary-
General assume formal authority and accountability for the management
and overall direction of the Secretariat's operations. However, a May
2006 GA resolution noted that the overall responsibility for the
management of the UN rests with the Secretary-General. Therefore, it
will be up to the discretion of the next Secretary-General to decide on
the delegation of authority to his/her deputy.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Human Resources: Proposed
reform actions: Regroup the 25 departments and entities reporting
directly to the Secretary-General into about eight organizational
groups or clusters, each group headed by an Under- Secretary-General;
Status to date: In May, the GA agreed with the Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) that the Secretary-
General's successor will need to have a say in any regrouping of
departments within the Secretariat as a means of streamlining reporting
lines; What remains to be done: The GA requested that this proposal be
further developed for the consideration of the next Secretary-General;
Points of disagreement: There is no disagreement at this time since the
proposal will be considered by the next Secretary-General.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Human Resources: Proposed
reform actions: Provide dedicated resources for a staff buyout; Status
to date: The staff buyout review proposal was conducted as part of the
detailed human resource report that was finalized in late September;
What remains to be done: The ACABQ and the Fifth Committee are
scheduled to review the information on a staff buyout in conjunction
with the detailed human resources report this fall, and the GA plans to
consider it at its 61st session.[A]; Points of disagreement: As part of
the 2005 World Summit outcome, the GA requested that the Secretary-
General prepare a detailed proposal on a one-time staff buyout.
However, until the proposal is presented, it is unclear whether the GA
will agree or disagree on its content.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Budget and Finance:
Proposed reform actions: In the area of strategic budgetary planning
and implementation, the Secretary-General proposed that; (1) budget
appropriation be consolidated from the current 35 sections into 13
parts;; (2) the Secretary-General should have the authority to redeploy
posts, as necessary, and to reclassify up to 10 percent of posts within
each broad category within a given budget period; and; (3) the
Secretary-General be given the authority, within a given budget period,
to use the savings from vacant posts, with a value not to exceed 10
percent of the overall post budget, for emerging priorities or
unanticipated activities; Status to date: (1) In March, the ACABQ
requested an example of the proposed change, which the Secretary-
General provided in a detailed report in May; (2) For the biennium 2004-
2005 (January 1, 2004, to December 30, 2005), the GA authorized the
Secretary-General to redeploy 50 posts. In July, the GA said that the
50 posts experiment would not be extended beyond biennium 2006-2007 and
requested that the Secretary-General report at its 62nd session, which
begins in September 2007, on the results of the experiment to redeploy
50 posts and on lessons learned; (3) In July, the GA authorized the
Secretary-General, on an experimental basis, a limited discretion for
budgetary implementation, for the biennia 2006- 2007 and 2008-2009, to
enter into commitments up to $20 million in each biennium for positions
and nonpost requirements for the purpose of meeting the evolving needs
of the organization. The Secretary-General is authorized to use the
working capital fund for this use; What remains to be done: (1) It is
unclear from the GA's July resolution what remain to be done; (2) The
Secretary-General plans to provide the GA at its 62nd session a report
on the results of the experiment to redeploy 50 posts and on lessons
learned; (3) The GA requested that the Secretary-General submit a
report for its consideration on the use of the experiment during the
biennium, including its impact on program delivery. The GA is scheduled
to review the experiment at its 64th session beginning in September
2009 to determine whether it should be continued; Points of
disagreement: We did not identify any major disagreements.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Budget and Finance:
Proposed reform actions: In the area of financial management practices,
the Secretary-General proposed; (1) that peacekeeping accounts for
separate field missions be consolidated into one set of accounts and
reports starting in 2007 to improve cash management and operational
flexibility;; (2) introducing a new policy in July 2006 to replace four
existing administrative instructions to govern the management of trust
funds in order to simplify rules and procedures and to establish a new
standard for support costs, lower than 13 percent, to bring it more in
line with the fee structure at UN funds and programs;; (3) increasing
the ceiling of commitment authority for peacekeeping operations from
$50 million to $150 and delinked from a specified number of Security
Council decisions;; (4) increasing the level of the Working Capital
Fund for the regular budget from $100 million to $250 million;; (5)
retaining budget surpluses, including from peacekeeping operations, for
use in subsequent periods;; (6) creating a separate fund to cover
unanticipated expenditures arising from exchange rate fluctuations and
inflation, to be financed from budget surpluses;; (7) charging interest
on arrears on member states' assessed contributions; and; (8) adopting
the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) by 2010 to
ensure a sound financial base, improve financial reporting, and
facilitate accountability and transparency, etc; Status to date: (1) In
July, the GA reviewed this initiative and took no action; (2) In May,
the Secretary-General reported that with respect to trust fund matters,
administrative instructions are being prepared and are expected to be
finalized later in 2006; (3) In July, the GA reviewed this initiative
and took no action; (4) In July, the GA authorized an increase in the
working capital fund from $100 million to $150 million effective
January 1, 2007; (5) In June, the ACABQ reported that this matter is
for the GA to decide; (6) In July, the GA reviewed this initiative and
took no action; (7) In June, the ACABQ reported that this matter is up
to the GA to decide; (8) In July, the GA approved the adoption of IPSAS
and provided the start-up cost to begin implementation; What remains to
be done: (1) The GA plans to address this initiative in its 61st
session.[A]; (2) The Secretary-General is expected to submit
administrative instructions to the GA for consideration later in 2006;
(3) The GA plans to address this initiative in its 61st session.[A];
(4) Member states will make advances to the working capital fund in
accordance with the scale of assessments to be adopted by the GA for
contributions to the regular budget for 2007; (5) The GA has not yet
addressed this initiative; (6) In July, the GA said that it will
address this matter in the future. However, its resolution does not
specify when it will do so; (7) In July, the GA took no action on this
initiative; (8) The GA requested that the implementation plan for IPSAS
be synchronized with the introduction of the new information technology
system and that expenditures relating to information technology await a
decision by the GA on the system to be used; Points of disagreement: In
June 2006, Japan said that it has serious doubts about the proposal to
consolidate peacekeeping accounts because, among other things, the
consolidation would have a negative effect on some member states'
payment of arrears; The ACABQ pointed out that the scope and quality of
information provided on the financing of peacekeeping operations should
not be diminished.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Budget and Financing:
Proposed reform actions: In the area of performance evaluation, the
Secretary-General proposed to; (1) increase resources and rationalize
performance measurement activities;; (2) reform and synchronize
monitoring and evaluation tools so that their results can be evaluated
in the formation of the subsequent budget;; (3) link the budget and
planning process to the results of performance, work planning, and
assessment of managerial performance in order to ensure the effective
stewardship of resources provided by member states; and; (4) introduce
a new annual report, along with other steps, to consolidate and
simplify financial reporting; Status to date: In May, the GA requested,
among other things, that the Secretary-General submit a detailed
proposal on strengthening the monitoring and evaluation tools of the
Secretariat, taking into account recent experience in results-based
budgeting; (1), (2), & (3) In May, the Secretary-General reported that
these initiatives will be performed based on the recommendations of the
comprehensive external review of governance and oversight; (4) The UN
Secretariat is preparing this report, which will be done as part of (1)
in reporting mechanisms and in accordance with the GA's guidance; What
remains to be done: (1), (2), & (3) The Secretary-General will submit
information on initiatives 1 through 3 to the GA at its 61st
session.[A]; (4) The Secretary-General plans to submit a comprehensive
report to the GA in fall 2006; Points of disagreement: We did not
identify any major disagreements.
Improving the management of the Secretariat: Reporting Mechanisms and
Access to Information; Proposed reform actions: Improve reporting
mechanisms by; (1) developing a single, comprehensive annual report of
the Secretary- General to the GA, which will consolidate the
information currently in five different reports; (2) consolidating
about 45 reports on management and finance issues into 6 reports; (3)
providing member states with real-time consolidated accounts of UN
financial performance, on a regular quarterly basis, once the necessary
information systems are in place; and; (4) providing member states with
a detailed policy proposal on public access to UN documentation; Status
to date: In May, the Secretary- General provided a detailed report to
the GA covering efforts to improve reporting mechanisms, including
access to UN documentation; (1) In June, the ACABQ reported that there
is a need to define more clearly the purpose of the comprehensive
report and the target audience and that the Secretary-General should
concentrate on developing a comprehensive financial and program report
for the GA rather than for the general public. In July, the GA
requested that the Secretary- General take into consideration the
requests of the ACABQ; (2) & (3) In June, the ACABQ said that it
welcomes efforts to consolidate reports, but that the matter is up to
the GA; (4) In May, the Secretary-General provided the GA with
information on public access to UN documents. However, the GA requested
additional information; What remains to be done: (1) The Secretary-
General plans to submit a comprehensive report to the GA in the fall;
the GA is expected to review it in the fall and arrive at a decision;
(2) & (3) In July, the GA said that all reports pertaining to
administrative and budgetary matters are subject to the consideration
of the Fifth Committee, but its position on whether or how the
Secretary-General should proceed with these two initiatives is not
clear; (4) The Secretary-General plans to provide the GA at its 61st
session a comprehensive report containing detailed parameters,
including information on resource requirements, financing mechanisms
and the possibility of a fee structure.[A]; Points of disagreement: We
did not identify any major disagreements.
Strengthening oversight: Proposed reform actions: Create an Independent
Audit Advisory Committee (IAAC) to enhance the independence of the
oversight structure and to help member states better exercise their
oversight responsibilities; Status to date: In November 2005, the
Secretary-General proposed the creation of the Independent Audit
Advisory Committee and drafted provisional terms of reference for this
entity. In December 2005, the General Assembly approved the creation of
the committee and requested that an external evaluation review the
terms of reference. In July 2006, an independent external evaluation
recommended several changes regarding the number, appointment criteria,
terms, and compensation of members of the committee; What remains to be
done: The GA plans to consider the proposed terms of reference at its
61[ST] session with a view to establishing the IAAC.a; Points of
disagreement: The independent external evaluator recommended that the
IAAC be responsible for presenting the budget for OIOS to the Fifth
Committee, thereby relieving the ACABQ of its advisory role in this
regard.
Strengthening oversight: Proposed reform actions: Strengthen the
capacity of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) so that it
can effectively carry out its mandates; Status to date: In December
2005, the GA approved funds in the 2006-2007 biennium budget for 39
temporary positions for OIOS and for an independent external evaluation
of OIOS. In July 2006, the independent external evaluation report was
finalized. The report issued 23 recommendations in nine areas to
strengthen OIOS's capacity. OIOS issued a response in July; What
remains to be done: In fall 2006, the GA is expected to address the
recommendations of the independent evaluation and OIOS's July 2006
report; Points of disagreement: OIOS disagreed with two recommendations
that would restructure the office. For example, the independent
evaluator recommended shifting functions, including investigations, to
departments in the Secretariat. OIOS and some UN and U.S. officials
disagreed with this recommendation, stating that such a change would
diminish the UN's oversight functions and the independence of its
investigations and could create a potential conflict of interest.
Promoting ethical conduct: Proposed reform actions: Establish an Ethics
Office to implement new whistleblower protection policy, administer
more stringent financial disclosure requirements, provide guidance to
staff on ethical issues, and develop standards, training, and education
on ethical issues; Status to date: In December 2005, the GA approved
funds for the ethics office in the 2006-2007 biennium budget. In
January 2006, the Secretariat established the office with 4
professional and 2 administrative interim full time staff; What remains
to be done: The ethics office is in the process of hiring permanent
staff; developing ethics training; and engaging a contractor to review
financial disclosure forms; Points of disagreement: In a report
requested by a UN staff union on reforming the UN's internal justice
system, a commission of experts recommended the following in regard to
the ethics office: (1) the head of the ethics office should be
appointed at the Assistant Secretary-General level, rather than its
current level of director; (2) the ethics office should report to an
independent review board, rather than the Secretary General; (3) the
ethics office should make the financial disclosure statements of senior
managers available to the public; and (4) whistleblower protection
responsibility should be removed from the ethics office and given to
OIOS, Office of the Ombudsman, or a yet-to- be-created Office of
Special Prosecutor.
Reviewing programs and activities (mandate review): Proposed reform
actions: Review programs and activities (mandates) of the GA, the
Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council that are older
than 5 years to strengthen and better reflect the needs of the UN;
Status to date: In March 2006, the Secretariat identified more than
9,000 total UN mandates, but only about 6,900 are older than 5 years
and included in the review. Since April 2006, there have been ongoing
discussions on mandates, but member states have only agreed to set
aside 74 completed mandates. No agreement has been reached on any of
the remaining mandates; What remains to be done: Member states continue
to review mandates; Points of disagreement: Member states disagree on
several points regarding the review: (1) the G-77 countries believe the
review should include mandates older than 5 years that have not been
renewed, while the United States and other developed countries argue
that the review should include all mandates older than 5 years, renewed
or not renewed; (2) the G-77 wants any savings from the consolidation
or elimination of mandates to go into the areas from which they were
derived or into development projects, and the United States says that a
decision on where to redirect savings should be made after the review
is complete; and (3) the G-77 states that all politically sensitive
mandates should be excluded from the review, but the United States does
not want to automatically exclude any mandates from the review.
Creating a Human Rights Council: Proposed reform actions: Establish a
new Human Rights Council to strengthen and improve the ability of the
UN to address human rights issues; Status to date: In March 2006, the
GA approved the charter for the new council, and the election of
members took place on May 9, 2006. The body held its first meeting in
Geneva in June 2006; The council held its second meeting in September
2006 during which it discussed reports from the Secretariat, the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, and progress reports on the development
of the mechanism to review the human rights situations of all member
states; What remains to be done: The council plans to hold a third
meeting in November 2006; Points of disagreement: The United States
voted against the creation of the council because it did not
sufficiently improve upon the former commission in the following ways:
(1) members are elected by majority rather than the higher standard of
a two-thirds majority and (2) member states under Security Council
sanctions are not automatically excluded from membership on the
council. However, several nongovernmental organizations stated that the
council is an improvement on the commission and 104 UN member states
voted for its creation. The United States did not run for election to
the council in 2006 but stated that, if the new council is effective,
it will likely run in 2007.
Sources: GAO analysis of UN and the U.S. Mission to the UN.
[A] The GA 61st session begin in September 2006.
[B] The GA 62nd session will begin in September 2007.
[C] The UN provided us with a copy of the detailed human resources
report after our report had gone to press; therefore, we did not have
time to analyze and incorporate the information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III The UN Whistleblower Protection Procedure:
The United Nations (UN) ethics office is implementing the UN's new
whistleblower protection policy, which took effect in January 2006. The
policy protects UN staff from retaliation for reporting misconduct of
any other staff. Retaliation, as defined in the policy, includes any
detrimental action recommended, threatened, or taken because an
individual reported misconduct or cooperated with an authorized audit
or investigation. The policy shifts the burden of proof for retaliation
to the UN organization and away from individuals, requiring the
organization to prove in each case that the alleged retaliatory action
is unrelated to the report of misconduct. According to the policy, the
ethics office is responsible for receiving complaints about threatened
or actual acts of retaliation against staff and keeping confidential
records of all complaints received. The office is also responsible for
conducting a preliminary review of the complaint to determine if the
complainant engaged in an activity protected by the whistleblower
protection policy, and there is sufficient evidence that the protected
activity was a contributing factor in causing the alleged retaliation
or threat of retaliation.
In order for an individual to receive protection under the
whistleblower protection policy, the report of misconduct should be
made as soon as possible and no more than 6 years after the individual
becomes aware of the misconduct. The individual reporting misconduct
must submit information or evidence to support a reasonable belief that
misconduct has occurred. UN staff may make reports of misconduct
through established internal mechanisms including Office of Internal
Oversight Services (OIOS), the Assistant Secretary-General for Human
Resources Management, and the head of the department or office
concerned. The whistleblower protection policy also protects staff who
report misconduct to external mechanisms, such as the media or outside
organizations, provided that all internal mechanisms have been
exhausted. The UN is the first intergovernmental organization to
provide such protection.
Staff who believe that retaliatory action has been taken against them
because they have reported misconduct or cooperated with an authorized
audit or investigation are directed to forward all information and
documentation to support their complaint to the ethics office. The
whistleblower protection policy states that such complaints can be made
in person, by regular mail, e-mail, fax, or through the ethics office
helpline. Once the ethics office receives a complaint, it conducts a
preliminary review, which should be completed within 45 days. According
to staff in the ethics office, they try to complete their reviews
within that time frame, but, in some cases, they need more time to
speak to everyone involved in the case. In reviewing a case, the ethics
office reviews the evidence presented by the complainant and interviews
the individual being accused and any other witnesses of the alleged
retaliation. If the ethics office finds that there is a credible case
of retaliation or threat of retaliation, it refers the matter in
writing to OIOS for investigation and immediately notifies the
complainant, in writing, that his or her case has been referred.
According to the whistleblower protection policy, OIOS seeks to
complete its investigation and write a report within 120 days. The
report is submitted to the ethics office.
Once the ethics office receives the investigation report, it informs
the complainant, in writing, of the outcome of the investigation and
makes recommendations on the case to the head of the department or
office concerned and to the Under-Secretary-General for management. The
ethics office may recommend that disciplinary actions be taken against
the retaliator. It may also recommend that measures be taken to correct
the negative consequences suffered by the complainant as a result of
the retaliatory action, including reinstatement or transfer to another
office or function for which the individual is qualified. If the ethics
office is not satisfied with the response from the head of the
department or office concerned, it can make a recommendation directly
to the Secretary-General, who then provides a written response to the
ethics office and the head of the office concerned. The whistleblower
protection policy states that retaliation against an individual for
reporting misconduct is itself misconduct and will lead to disciplinary
action.
[End of section]
Appendix IV Information on Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analyses:
The United Nations (UN) Secretariat is currently conducting a number of
assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and comprehensive reports. We
identified a number of key studies that include a detailed cost study
for the proposed new information communications technology system,
assessments of a staff buyout, and cost-benefit analyses of outsourcing
internal printing and publishing processes, and the relocation of
information technology support services. Some of these assessments will
not be available for member states to consider until early 2007. In
addition, the projected completion dates represent the dates when the
UN Secretariat is expected to complete the reports and forward them to
the legislative bodies for review. It is not clear when the General
Assembly will review and make a decision on these initiatives. Table 4
lists the key assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and comprehensive
reports that the UN Secretariat is currently conducting. The UN
Secretariat did not provide us with detailed information, such as
status and projected completion date for each initiative.
Table 4: Reviews, Assessments, and Cost-Benefit Analyses:
Type of study: Human resources; Assessments for increased investments
in recruitment, mobility, and career development, including, among
other things, specific costs and administrative implications as well as
required changes to regulations, rules, and procedures; Projected
completion date: September 2006.[A].
Type of study: Human resources; Assessment for improving field benefits
and conditions to create a single global staff, including, among other
things, specific costs and administrative implications as well as
required changes to regulations, rules, and procedures; Projected
completion date: September 2006.[A].
Type of study: Human resources; Assessments for strengthening
leadership recruitment, including, among other things, specific costs
and administrative implications as well as required changes to
regulations, rules, and procedures; Projected completion date:
September 2006.[A].
Type of study: Human resources; Assessment of a staff buyout, including
costs and mechanisms to ensure that it achieves its intended purpose;
Projected completion date: September 2006.[A].
Type of study: Information and communications technology; Assessment
for implementing an organization-wide document content management
system, including staffing requirements; Projected completion date:
March 2007.
Type of study: Information and communications technology; Detailed cost
study for a new information technology system, including a detailed
implementation plan with user needs, scope, timetable, strategy, and
resource requirements; Projected completion date: March 2007.
Type of study: Ways of delivering services; Cost-benefit analysis of
outsourcing internal printing and publishing processes; Projected
completion date: September 2006.
Type of study: Ways of delivering services; Cost-benefit analysis of
outsourcing medical insurance plan administration; Projected completion
date: September 2006.
Type of study: Ways of delivering services; Cost-benefit analysis of
relocating information technology support services; Projected
completion date: December 2006.
Type of study: Ways of delivering services; Cost-benefit analysis of
relocating payables, receivables and payroll processes; Projected
completion date: March 2007.
Type of study: Ways of delivering services; Cost-benefit analysis of
relocating staff benefit administration; Projected completion date:
March 2007.
Type of study: Budget and finance; Detailed proposal on strengthening
monitoring and evaluation tools in the Secretariat, taking into account
recent experience in results-based budgeting; Projected completion
date: The Secretary-General plans to to submit this information to the
General Assembly during its 61st session[B].
Type of study: Public access to un information; Comprehensive report on
public access to UN documentation, including detailed parameters,
information on resource requirements, financing mechanisms, and
potential fee structure; Projected completion date: During the 61st
session, the Secretary-General plans to provide the GA with a
comprehensive report containing detailed parameters, including
information on resource requirements, financing mechanisms and the
possibility of a fee structure.[B].
Type of study: Procurement; Assessment for increasing information-
sharing on procurement matters within the UN common system; Projected
completion date: The GA is scheduled to consider the Secretary-
General's June 2006 detailed procurement report in fall 2006.
Information sharing assessment has begun; however, it is not clear from
the detailed procurement report when it will be completed.
Type of study: Procurement; Assessment of the effectiveness of the
internal controls of the UN organization compared to those of the UN
Procurement Service; Projected completion date: The GA is scheduled to
consider the Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed procurement report
in fall 2006.
Type of study: Procurement; Review business practices and procurement
models in various industries with a view to realign procurement process
to industry practices; Projected completion date: The GA is scheduled
to consider the Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed procurement
report in fall 2006.
Type of study: Procurement; Formal review of vendor performance issues
to be conducted at least on a 6-month basis for all major peacekeeping
contracts; Projected completion date: The GA is scheduled to consider
the Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed procurement report in fall
2006. Based on this report, in June 2005, the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations established a Contracts Compliance and
Monitoring Unit to consolidate vendor monitoring as a comprehensive
management function. It is unclear from the detailed procurement report
whether the UN has begun this initiative.
Type of study: Procurement; Review of the financial threshold of
Headquarters Committee on Contracts; Projected completion date: Based
on the Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed procurement report, this
review was expected to be completed by September 2006. The UN
Secretariat did not respond to our request for the current status of
this initiative.
Type of study: Procurement; Review of logistics support arrangements,
such as rations contracting during mission start-up; regional or global
fuel supply arrangements; long-term air charter arrangements; and
freight forwarding and shipping arrangements; Projected completion
date: Based on the Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed procurement
report, the UN Secretariat is currently exploring these logistic
support arrangements. It is unclear when they are expected to be
completed.
Type of study: Procurement; Procurement Service review of job functions
for all staff to develop a career path for the procurement occupation;
Projected completion date: The GA is scheduled to consider the
Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed procurement report in fall 2006.
Based on this report, the UN Secretariat has begun this review. It is
unclear when it is expected to be completed.
Sources: GAO analysis of UN and the U.S. Mission to the UN data.
[A] According to a UN Secretariat official, the detailed human resource
report issued in September 2006 includes this information. However, the
UN report was release after our report had gone to press; therefore, we
did not have time to analyze to determine whether all the elements of
the assessment were addressed.
[B] The General Assembly's 61st session began September 2006.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management:
and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
SEP 2 2 2006:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "UNITED
NATIONS: Management Reforms are Progressing Slowly with Many Awaiting
General Assembly Review," GAO Job Code 320398.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Brian Hackett, Program Analyst, Bureau of International Organization
Affairs, at (202) 647-6419.
Sincerely,
[Signed by]
Bradford R. Higgins:
cc: GAO - Jeanette Espinola:
IO - James Warlick:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report United Nations:
Management Reforms are Progressing Slowly with Many Awaiting General
Assembly Review (GAO-07-14, GAO Code 320398):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
United Nations: Management Reforms are Progressing Slowly with Many
Awaiting General Assembly Review. The Department of State appreciates
the main findings of the GAO report that recognize that much work
remains in this ongoing effort. The complexity of operating within a
body of 192 member states continues to challenge the reform goals of
the United States. The observations of the GAO highlight the energy and
time required when contentious issues are dealt with at the United
Nations.
The GAO makes several recommendations relating to ongoing management
reform at the United Nations. The GAO notes that the lack of
implementation plans for approved reforms that establish timeframes and
cost estimates could effect the realization of these reforms. In
addition, the GAO recommends that the Department of State should
include a section on the status and progress of the major UN management
reforms in the annual "U.S. Participation in the United Nations" report
to Congress.
The Department of State endorses the objectives of the recommendations
presented in this report. The GAO recommends the use of implementation
plans that include cost estimates and expected time frames for the
implementation and completion for each reform. We agree that the
Secretariat should be held accountable for implementing these reforms
and will work with other member states towards ensuring that a
transparent reporting mechanism to the General Assembly is established.
While the Fifth Committee does take into account costs of reforms and
reports to the General Assembly on such matters, it is the General
Assembly that takes action. Due to the acknowledged contentious nature
of some of these efforts the U.S. has and will continue to emphasize
the primacy of building a coalition of broad acceptance to address the
management reforms needed to improve the effectiveness, accountability
and transparency of the United Nations, while seeking to avoid
excessive micromanagement of the United Nations Secretariat by Member
States.
The second recommendation of the GAO concerns reporting to Congress
progress on the major UN management reforms in an annual report. The
report, U.S. Participation in the United Nations, currently includes a
section on management reform. We concur fully with the need to keep
Congress
informed of these management reform developments and will continue to
monitor and inform Congress as recommended.
Since the September 2005 Summit, we have seen too little in terms of
results. Instead of debating the substance of reform measures, we find
ourselves too often bogged down in debates over process. The successes
we have achieved - particularly on accountability issues, establishing
an ethics office, setting standards for receipt of gifts, increased use
of financial disclosure by UN employees, improved accounting systems,
and the independent oversight board - have been hard fought.
Nevertheless, we are committed to creating a more effective, more
accountable UN. The Department of State has worked to form a coalition
of like-minded member states and will continue to work with these
partners to move forward on implementing the reform agenda adopted by
world leaders at the September 2005 World Summit in New York.
[End of section]
Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant
Director; Jeanette Espinola, Stephanie Robinson, and Barbara Shields
made key contributions to this report. Debbie J. Chung, Martin De
Alteriis, Etana Finkler, and Grace Lui provided technical assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
United Nations: Weaknesses in Internal Oversight and Procurement Could
Affect the Effective Implementation of the Planned Renovation. GAO-06-
877T. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006.
United Nations: Oil for Food Program Provides Lessons for Future
Sanctions and Ongoing Reform, GAO-06-711T. Washington, D.C.: May 2,
2006.
United Nations: Internal Oversight and Procurement Controls and
Processes Need Strengthening. GAO-06-710T. Washington, D.C.: April 27,
2006.
United Nations: Funding Arrangements Impede Independence of Internal
Auditors. GAO-06-575. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006.
United Nations: Lessons from Oil for Food Program Indicate Need to
Strengthen Internal Controls and Oversight, GAO-06-330. Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 25, 2006.
United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak, GAO-06-577.
Washington, D.C., April 25, 2006.
Peacekeeping: Cost Comparison of Actual UN and Hypothetical U.S.
Operations in Haiti. GAO-06-331. Washington, D.C.: February 21, 2006.
United Nations: Preliminary Observations on Internal Oversight and
Procurement Practices, GAO-06-226T. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2005.
United Nations: Sustained Oversight Is Needed for Reforms to Achieve
Lasting Results, GAO-05-392T. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005.
United Nations: Oil for Food Program Audits, GAO-05-346T. Washington,
D.C.: February 15, 2005.
United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and Areas for
Further Investigation. GAO-04-953T. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2004.
United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and Iraq's
Food Security. GAO-04-880T. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2004.
United Nations: Observations on the Management and Oversight of the Oil
for Food Program. GAO-04-730T. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2004.
United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program. GAO-04-651T.
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2004.
Recovering Iraq's Assets: Preliminary Observations on U.S. Efforts and
Challenges. GAO-04-579T. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2004.
United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments
Needed to Measure Impact, GAO-04-339. Washington, D.C.: February 13,
2004.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: U.N. Confronts Significant Challenges in
Implementing Sanctions against Iraq, GAO-02-625. Washington, D.C.: May
23, 2002.
United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened Operations, but
Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Achieved, GAO/NSIAD-00-150.
Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000.
United Nations: Progress of Procurement Reforms. GAO/NSIAD-99-71.
Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1999.
United Nations: Status of Internal Oversight Services, GAO/NSIAD-98-9.
Washington, D.C.: November 19, 1997.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive
Assessments Needed to Measure Impact, GAO-04-339 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 13, 2004).
[2] In 1996, the UN and Iraq established the Oil for Food program to
address Iraq's humanitarian situation after sanctions were imposed in
1990. In April 2004, the UN established the Independent Inquiry
Committee to investigate the administration and management of the UN
Oil for Food program. See Independent Inquiry Committee into the United
Nations Oil for Food Program, Interim Report (New York, N.Y.: Feb. 3,
2005) and The Management of the Oil-for-Food Program (New York, N.Y.:
Sept. 7, 2005).
[3] United States Institute of Peace, American Interests and UN Reform
Report of the Task Force on the United Nations (Washington, D.C.: June
2005).
[4] 2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess.,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (2005).
[5] The United States provides 22 percent of the UN's regular budget
(about $836 million for the current biennium) and about 27 percent of
the peacekeeping budget (about $1.3 billion), more than any other UN
member state. The regular budget for the current biennium (2006-2007)
is about $3.8 billion, and the peacekeeping budget for the fiscal year
beginning July 2006 is about $4.7 billion.
[6] This report focuses on management reform initiatives of the UN
General Assembly and the UN Secretariat. It does not address the
activities of other UN entities, funds, and programs. For the purposes
of this report, the term "UN" refers to the UN General Assembly and the
UN Secretariat.
[7] The G-77 is a coalition of developing countries that promotes its
members' collective interests. Currently 131 developing countries are
members of the G-77.
[8] The UN comprises (1) the General Assembly, the Security Council,
the Economic and Social Council, and other governing bodies of the 192
member states that set the work requirements, or mandates, for UN
programs and departments; (2) the Secretariat, headed by the Secretary-
General, which carries out a large part of the mandated work; and (3)
the funds and programs, such as the UN Development Program, which are
authorized by the General Assembly to conduct specific lines of work.
[9] GAO, United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened
Operations, but Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Achieved, GAO/
NSIAD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000).
[10] GAO-04-339.
[11] United Nations, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility,
Report of the Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Change (New York, N.Y.: 2004).
[12] In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights
for All, U.N. Doc. A/59/2005.
[13] United States Institute of Peace, American Interests and UN
Reform, Report of the Task Force on the United Nations (Washington
D.C.: June 2005).
[14] Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food
Program, Interim Report (New York, N.Y.: Feb. 3, 2005) and The
Management of the Oil-for-Food Program (New York, N.Y.: Sept. 7, 2005).
[15] G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1
(2005).
[16] The September 2005 outcome document also outlined reforms in other
areas, such as Governance, Security Council and Economic and Social
Council reform, General Assembly Revitalization, and the establishment
of a Peace Building Commission. These reforms are outside the scope of
our review.
[17] GAO, United Nations: Funding Arrangements Impede Independence of
Internal Auditors, GAO-06-575 (Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006), GAO,
United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak, GAO-06-577
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2006), and GAO, United Nations: Lessons
Learned from Oil for Food Program Indicate the Need to Strengthen UN
Internal Controls and Oversight, GAO-06-330 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25,
2006).
[18] The ACABQ consists of 16 individuals from member states appointed
by the General Assembly. The members of the ACABQ serve in their
personal capacity. Two major responsibilities of the ACABQ are (1) to
examine and report on the budget submitted by the Secretary-General to
the General Assembly and (2) to advise the General Assembly concerning
any administrative and budgetary matters.
[19] The proposals covered seven areas: human resources, management
structure of the Secretariat, information and communications
technology, methods of delivering services such as outsourcing and
procurement, budget and finance, governance, and change management. The
governance reforms are beyond the scope of this report. See Investing
in the United Nations: For a Stronger Organization Worldwide, U.N. Doc.
A/60/692.
[20] The proposal was approved with 108 in favor (mainly G-77
countries), 50 against (including the United States and other developed
countries), and 3 abstaining.
[21] G.A. Res. 60/260, U.N. GAOR, 60TH Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/260
(2006). The resolution was approved with 121 in favor (mainly G-77
countries), 50 against (including the United States and other developed
countries), and 2 abstaining.
[22] G.A. Res.60/283, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/283
(2006).
[23] The $20 million will be funded by the working capital fund.
[24] Under a buyout program, the UN would offer cash incentives for
employees to voluntarily leave the organization.
[25] The UN provided us with a copy of this detailed human resources
report after our report had gone to press; therefore, we did not have
time to analyze and incorporate the information. See Investing in
People, U.N. Doc. A/61/255.
[26] OIOS was created in 1994 to assist the Secretary-General in
fulfilling internal oversight responsibilities over UN resources and
staff.
[27] The independent evaluation was conducted under the direction of a
six-member Steering Committee that coordinated and supervised the
independent contractor and directly reported the findings to the
Secretary-General. See United Nations: Comprehensive Review of
Governance and Oversight within the United Nations, Funds, Programmes
and Specialized Agencies, U.N. Doc. A/60/883, Add. 1 and 2.
[28] The report made recommendations in the following nine areas:
independence, governance structure in which OIOS operates, OIOS's
organization and structure, human resources, working practices,
information and communications technology, communication and reporting,
knowledge management, and performance measures.
[29] OIOS is currently organized into four divisions: two internal
audit divisions; an investigation division; and a monitoring,
evaluation, and consulting division.
[30] According to U.S. and UN officials, the external review team
proposed this structural change based on a corporate oversight model.
These officials also told us that the European Union has a similar
system.
[31] Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on Proposals
for Strengthening the Office of Internal Oversight Services, U.N. Doc.
A/60/901.
[32] These staff are UN employees assigned to other duty stations
within the UN system who are working temporarily in the ethics office
until permanent staff are hired.
[33] The whistleblower protection policy calls for the ethics office to
complete its review within 45 days of receiving a complaint, but some
reviews take longer to conduct.
[34] United Nations Staff Union, Report of the Commission of Experts on
Reforming Internal Justice at the United Nations (New York, NY: June
12, 2006).
[35] The recommendations made by the report are: (1) to raise the
status of the head of the ethics office from the present status as
Director to the Assistant Secretary-General level; (2) to increase its
independence, have the ethics office report directly to an independent
review board rather than to the Secretary-General; (3) to have the
ethics office maintain a public register of the financial disclosure
statements of senior managers; (4) to establish regional ethics offices
in all major duty stations outside of headquarters; and (5) to move
whistleblower protection responsibilities from the ethics office, which
is not equipped to conduct investigations, to OIOS, the Office of the
Ombudsman, or an Office of Special Prosecutor, which the report
suggests the UN create.
[36] Activities of the Ethics Office, U.N. Doc. A/60/274.
[37] The Secretary-General defines a mandate as a request or a
direction for action by the UN Secretariat or other implementing
entities in the system, which originates in a resolution of the General
Assembly or one of the other UN organs. See Mandating and Delivering:
Analysis and Recommendations to Facilitate the Review of Mandates, U.N.
Doc. A/60/733.
[38] For the purpose of this report, we focused on the General
Assembly's review process.
[39] According to U.S. officials, these mandates are the most
contentious because at least one member state is particularly sensitive
about changing or eliminating each of them. Politically sensitive
mandates include those that relate to Cyprus, the Palestinian
territory, Serbia and Montenegro, and Sudan.
[40] The United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau all
voted against the creation of the Human Rights Council.
[41] In December 2005, the General Assembly adopted the UN's budget for
the 2006-2007 biennium with a provision that the Secretary-General
could spend only $950 million in 2006, which represents about 6 months
of operating costs for the Secretariat. This provision was proposed by
the United States and other developed countries and agreed to by a
consensus of all member states. This decision allowed the UN to
continue its operations and activities while member states continued to
discuss the implementation of management reforms agreed to at the
September 2005 World Summit.
[42] Even though the decision was made by consensus, the United States,
Australia, and Japan disassociated themselves from consensus. According
to a U.S. official, disassociation from consensus is a process whereby
a country does not necessarily agree on an issue but does not block its
approval.
[43] The Secretary-General's detailed proposal for adopting
International Public Sector Accounting Standards includes a timetable
for implementation. In addition, at the end of September 2006 the
Secretariat released a detailed report on human resource initiatives
that includes time lines and resource implications for most of them.
However, this report was released after our report had gone to press;
therefore, we did not have time to analyze and incorporate the new
information.
[44] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2003).
[45] The Secretary-General projects cost and efficiency savings of
between $100 million to $400 million from increasing information-
sharing on procurement matters within the UN common system, among other
things.
[46] According to a U. S. official, the United States and 49 other
countries voted against the resolution put forth by the G-77 countries
(A/RES/60/260 of May 16, 2006) because it constrained the Secretary-
General from moving forward fully on outsourcing, among other things.
[47] The increase in the working capital fund is intended to allow the
Secretary-General to provide advances necessary to finance budgetary
appropriations, pending the receipt of member states' contributions,
and to finance unforeseen and extraordinary expenses pending
appropriation action by the General Assembly.
[48] In 2004, GAO reported that, according to UN officials, the
Secretariat did not complete a comprehensive assessment of the
personnel and budgetary implications during the development of his 2002
reform agenda.
[49] This report does not include information from the Secretary-
General's detailed human resources report issued in late September.
[50] Outsourcing describes a situation in which an organization allows
all or part of its business processes to be undertaken by third party
providers.
[51] According to the Secretary-General, his staff buyout proposals and
other human resources proposals (see General Assembly resolution 60/1
par. 163 (c)), will take into consideration part II of resolution
A/60/260, and will follow consultation with staff representatives to be
carried out in accordance with article VIII of the Staff Regulations
and section XVI of General Assembly resolution 59/266. For example,
based on these resolutions and regulation, the Secretary-General must
submit a detailed proposal on the framework for a one-time staff buyout
to improve personnel structure and quality, including an indication of
costs involved and mechanisms to ensure that it achieves its intended
purpose. Also, generally, the Secretary-General shall establish and
maintain continuous contact and communication with the staff in order
to ensure the effective participation of the staff in identifying,
examining, and resolving issues relating to staff welfare, including
conditions of work, general conditions of life, and other personnel
policies.
[52] International Civil Service Commission, Staffing of Field
Missions: Review of Conversion of Contractual Instruments, January
2006.
[53] G. A. Res. A/RES/55/232, Outsourcing Practices, United Nations,
December 23, 2000.
[54] In 1997 and again in 2002, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU)
reported on several deficiencies of the UN‘s outsourcing operations,
such as lack of a policy and systemwide definition of outsourcing,
insufficient coordination among UN organizations, and the need for
improved monitoring and management controls over outsourced contracts.
In 2002, the JIU said that since its 1997 report on the challenge of
outsourcing for the UN system, outsourced operations have not evolved
significantly in value and scope. In addition, JIU said that
information suggests that cost benefits likely to flow from outsourcing
may be greater in locations such as the New York metropolitan area and
field duty stations where the local salary rates are lower than UN
salary scales. However, JIU also points out that the General Assembly
resolution provides that one of the goals of outsourcing should be to
avoid a possible negative impact on staff, but that adverse effects on
staff can be minimized and perhaps even averted by carefully planning
their redeployment to other functions or considering attrition
solutions during the precontract processes.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
According to the Secretary-General, his staff buyout proposals and
other human resources proposals (see General Assembly resolution 60/1
par. 163 (c)), will take into consideration part II of resolution A/60/
260, and will follow consultation with staff representatives to be
carried out in accordance with article VIII of the Staff Regulations
and section XVI of General Assembly resolution 59/266. For example,
based on these resolutions and regulation, the Secretary-General must
submit a detailed proposal on the framework for a one-time staff buyout
to improve personnel structure and quality, including an indication of
costs involved and mechanisms to ensure that it achieves its intended
purpose. Also, generally, the Secretary-General shall establish and
maintain continuous contact and communication with the staff in order
to ensure the effective participation of the staff in identifying,
examining, and resolving issues relating to staff welfare, including
conditions of work, general conditions of life, and other personnel
policies.
