United Nations
Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied Gao ID: GAO-08-84 November 14, 2007The United States has advocated reforms of United Nations (UN) management for many years. In October 2006, GAO reported that UN management reforms were progressing slowly and that many were still awaiting review by the General Assembly. For this review, GAO was asked to (1) determine the progress of UN management reform initiatives in five key areas--ethics, oversight, procurement, management operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities (known as mandates)--and (2) identify factors that have slowed the pace of reform efforts. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed documents relating to UN management reform and interviewed U.S. and UN officials.
The progress of UN management reform efforts has varied in the five areas that GAO reviewed--ethics, oversight, procurement, management operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities (known as mandates). To determine the status of these reform efforts, GAO developed three categories of progress, defined as follows: (1) Little or no progress = Few or no steps have been taken; (2) Some progress = Some steps have been taken, while others remain; and (3) Substantial progress = The reform effort has been mostly or fully implemented. The ethics office has made substantial progress in staffing its office and implementing a whistleblower protection policy, as well as some progress in developing ethics standards and collecting and analyzing financial disclosure forms. Member states made some progress in improving oversight at the UN when they created an Independent Audit Advisory Committee, which is expected to be operational by January 2008. Additionally, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) improved the capacity of individual divisions, including internal audit and investigations. However, UN funding arrangements continue to constrain the independence of OIOS and its ability to audit high-risk areas. Some progress has been made in the area of procurement, such as developing a comprehensive training program for procurement staff. However, the UN has made little or no progress in establishing an independent bid protest system. Some progress has been made in reforming management operations of the UN Secretariat, such as improving human resource functions and information technology. In contrast, little or no progress has been made in reforming the UN's internal justice system for resolving and adjudicating staff grievances and safeguarding the rights of staff members, certain budgetary and financial management functions, and the delivery of certain services. Finally, despite some limited initial actions, the UN's review of programs and activities (known as mandates) has not advanced due in part to a lack of support by many member states. Various factors have slowed the pace of UN management reforms, and a number of reforms cannot move forward until these factors are addressed. Four key factors that have slowed the pace include (1) disagreements among member states on the priorities and importance of UN management reform efforts, (2) the lack of comprehensive implementation plans for some management reform proposals, (3) administrative policies and procedures that continue to complicate the process of implementing certain complex human resource initiatives, and (4) competing UN priorities, such as the proposal to reorganize the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, that limit the capacity of General Assembly members to address management reform issues.
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-08-84, United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-84
entitled 'United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has
Varied' which was released on November 14, 2007.
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 the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2007:
United Nations:
Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied:
United Nations:
GAO-08-84:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-84, a report to the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
The United States has advocated reforms of United Nations (UN)
management for many years. In October 2006, GAO reported that UN
management reforms were progressing slowly and that many were still
awaiting review by the General Assembly. For this review, GAO was asked
to (1) determine the progress of UN management reform initiatives in
five key areas”ethics, oversight, procurement, management operations of
the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities (known as
mandates)”and (2) identify factors that have slowed the pace of reform
efforts. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed documents relating
to UN management reform and interviewed U.S. and UN officials.
What GAO Found:
The progress of UN management reform efforts has varied in the five
areas that GAO reviewed”ethics, oversight, procurement, management
operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities
(known as mandates). To determine the status of these reform efforts,
GAO developed three categories of progress, defined as follows:
Little or no progress = Few or no steps have been taken Some progress =
Some steps have been taken, while others remain Substantial progress =
The reform effort has been mostly or fully implemented.
The ethics office has made substantial progress in staffing its office
and implementing a whistleblower protection policy, as well as some
progress in developing ethics standards and collecting and analyzing
financial disclosure forms. Member states made some progress in
improving oversight at the UN when they created an Independent Audit
Advisory Committee, which is expected to be operational by January
2008. Additionally, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)
improved the capacity of individual divisions, including internal audit
and investigations. However, UN funding arrangements continue to
constrain the independence of OIOS and its ability to audit high-risk
areas. Some progress has been made in the area of procurement, such as
developing a comprehensive training program for procurement staff.
However, the UN has made little or no progress in establishing an
independent bid protest system. Some progress has been made in
reforming management operations of the UN Secretariat, such as
improving human resource functions and information technology. In
contrast, little or no progress has been made in reforming the UN‘s
internal justice system for resolving and adjudicating staff grievances
and safeguarding the rights of staff members, certain budgetary and
financial management functions, and the delivery of certain services.
Finally, despite some limited initial actions, the UN‘s review of
programs and activities (known as mandates) has not advanced due in
part to a lack of support by many member states.
Various factors have slowed the pace of UN management reforms, and a
number of reforms cannot move forward until these factors are
addressed. Four key factors that have slowed the pace include (1)
disagreements among member states on the priorities and importance of
UN management reform efforts, (2) the lack of comprehensive
implementation plans for some management reform proposals, (3)
administrative policies and procedures that continue to complicate the
process of implementing certain complex human resource initiatives, and
(4) competing UN priorities, such as the proposal to reorganize the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations, that limit the capacity of
General Assembly members to address management reform issues.
What GAO Recommends:
To encourage UN member states to continue to pursue the reform agenda
of the 2005 World Summit, GAO recommends that, as management reforms
are implemented over time, the Secretary of State and the U.S.
Permanent Representative to the UN include in State‘s annual U.S.
Participation in the United Nations report an assessment of the
effectiveness of the reforms. State agreed with GAO‘s recommendation
and generally endorsed GAO‘s findings and conclusions.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-278T]. For more information, contact
William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Progress on UN Management Reform Efforts Has Varied:
Various Factors Have Slowed the UN's Management Reform Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix III: Typical Management Reform Decision-Making Process for
Issues Requiring General Assembly Approval:
Appendix IV: Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform
Initiatives, as of October 2007:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform
Initiatives, as of October 2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: Progress on UN Ethics Reform:
Figure 2: Progress on UN Oversight Reform:
Figure 3: Progress on UN Procurement Reform:
Figure 4: Progress on Reforming Management Operations of the UN
Secretariat:
Figure 5: Progress on Review of UN Programs and Activities (known as
Mandates):
Figure 6: Typical Management Reform Decision-Making Process for Issues
Requiring General Assembly Approval:
Abbreviations:
ACABQ: Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions:
CITO: chief information technology officer:
DPKOUN: Department of Peacekeeping Operations:
ERP: Enterprise Resource Planning:
Fifth Committee: Administrative and Budgetary Committee:
GA: General Assembly:
IAAC: Independent Audit Advisory Committee:
OIOS: Office of Internal Oversight Services:
UN: United Nations:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 14, 2007:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norm Coleman:
Ranking Member:
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations (UN) has undertaken
various management reform efforts, including a series of reforms in
1997 and 2002 that included proposed changes in human resources and
budgeting activities. However, several independent reports have found
that serious problems and inefficiencies in UN management persist. For
example, the 2005 Independent Inquiry Committee's investigation of the
UN's Oil for Food program[Footnote 1] and the Gingrich-Mitchell task
force review in June 2005[Footnote 2] found fraud, corruption,
mismanagement, and inadequate oversight in UN procurement activities.
Recently, in October 2007, the UN reported further fraud and corruption
in procurement activities, including 10 additional cases in which over
$25 million was misused or misappropriated.[Footnote 3] Given the
growth in complexity and significance of UN worldwide operations, such
reports underscore the immediate need to reform and modernize UN
management processes.
In September 2005, heads of member states held a World Summit to
address, among other things, long-standing concerns about UN
management. The resolution approved by all member state representatives
at the summit[Footnote 4]--known as the "outcome document"--recognized
the urgent need to improve UN management processes and called on 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 a strong interest in the progress of
reform initiatives and has advocated the need for comprehensive
management reform. We reported in October 2006 that UN management
reforms were progressing slowly and that many were still awaiting
review by the General Assembly.[Footnote 5] We also reported the UN had
not developed comprehensive implementation plans with associated time
frames, cost estimates, and potential savings. In response to your
request, we (1) determine the progress of UN management reform
initiatives in five key areas--ethics, oversight, procurement,
management operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and
activities (known as mandates)--and (2) identify factors that have
slowed the pace of these reform initiatives.[Footnote 6] The reform
efforts were implemented too recently for us to evaluate their
effectiveness.[Footnote 7]
To assess the progress of specific UN management reform efforts within
each of the five areas we reviewed, we developed the following three
categories: little or no progress, some progress, and substantial
progress.[Footnote 8] However, we did not assign an overall level of
progress to each of the five reform areas because the various
initiatives within each area are highly diverse. During our review, we
determined which category of progress to assign to each reform effort
based on documents we collected and discussions we had with State
Department, UN, and other officials. After we had made our initial
assessments of progress, three other GAO staff members not involved in
this review used the evidence and the categories to make their own
assessments independently of each other. These staff members then met
with each other to reconcile any differences in their initial
assessments. Finally, they met with us and confirmed that we were all
in agreement on our assessments. To address our objectives, we reviewed
documents proposing UN management reforms and interviewed 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 Department of Management, and the Office of
Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). We also met with representatives
from 17 of 192 member states from various geographic regions to obtain
a balance of views on the most critical challenges to reforming UN
management. We discussed the status of UN management reforms with
officials from the Department of State in Washington, D.C., and New
York and the UN in New York. We performed our work from March to
November 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. (App. I provides a detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology.)
Results in Brief:
The progress of UN management reform efforts has varied in the five
areas we reviewed--ethics, oversight, procurement, management
operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities
(known as mandates).
* Ethics: Since our last report in October 2006, the UN has taken some
steps to improve ethics. The ethics office has made substantial
progress in increasing staffing and in enforcing a whistleblower
protection policy. In addition, the UN has made some progress in
developing ethics standards and in enforcing financial disclosure
requirements. However, UN and staff from a nonprofit public interest
group expressed concerns that the success of the whistleblower
protection policy is, in part, dependent on reforms in the UN's
internal justice system that are not projected to be completed until
2009. In addition, the policy is potentially limited by the office's
lack of jurisdiction over UN funds and programs.
* Oversight: Although the UN has improved its oversight capability, the
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has not yet achieved
financial and operational independence. After almost 2 years of
discussions that included negotiating its composition and
responsibilities, member states created an Independent Audit Advisory
Committee (IAAC) in June 2007 and made some progress in making it
operational. The committee's five members were elected in November
2007, and the committee is expected to be operational by January 2008.
Since our October 2006 report, some progress has been made in
strengthening OIOS. Although OIOS has improved the capacity of
individual divisions, including internal audit and investigations, UN
funding arrangements continue to constrain its ability to audit high-
risk areas, and member states have not yet agreed on whether to grant
OIOS financial and operational independence.
* Procurement: The UN has improved its procurement process, but some
reform issues have not moved forward since we last reported in October
2006. Activities on which some progress has been made are the
strengthening of procedures for UN procurement staff and suppliers,
developing a comprehensive training program for procurement staff, and
developing a risk management framework. However, the UN has made little
or no progress in establishing an independent bid protest system and
creating a lead agency concept, whereby specific UN organizations would
procure certain goods and services in order to enhance division of
labor, reduce duplication, and reduce costs. In addition, since our
October 2006 report, the reorganization of the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations, and its related procurement activities, may
affect the UN's overall procurement reform efforts, such as
establishing lines of accountability and delegation of authority for
the Departments of Management and Peacekeeping Operations.
* Management operations of the Secretariat: Since our October 2006
report, the UN has improved some of the management operations of the
Secretariat, but many reform proposals have not moved forward. Some
progress has been made on issues involving human resources and
information technology. In contrast, little or no progress has been
made in reforming the UN's internal justice system, budgetary and
financial management functions, and the delivery of certain services,
such as internal printing and publishing. During the current (62nd)
session, the UN is expected to consider several reports on management
operations issued by the Secretariat.
* Review of programs and activities (known as mandates): Despite some
limited initial actions, the UN's review of all UN mandates has not
advanced due in part to a lack of support by many member states and a
lack of capacity to carry out the reviews. Although some progress was
made in Phase I of the review, which ended in December 2006, little or
no progress has been made in Phase II because member states continue to
disagree on the scope and the process of the review. As a result, the
prioritization of this particular UN management reform effort has
decreased, according to UN and State officials. In September 2007,
member states decided to continue reviewing mandates in the 62nd
session of the General Assembly but had not yet decided on an
implementation plan for the review.
Various factors have slowed the pace of UN management reforms, and some
reforms cannot move forward until these factors are addressed. We
identified four key factors, including (1) disagreements among member
states on the priorities and importance of UN management reform
efforts, (2) lack of comprehensive implementation plans for some
management reform proposals, (3) administrative policies and procedures
that continue to complicate the process of implementing certain complex
human resource initiatives, and (4) competing UN priorities, such as
the proposal to reorganize the Department of Peacekeeping Operations,
that limit the capacity of General Assembly members to address
management reform issues.
To encourage UN member states to continue to pursue the reform agenda
of the 2005 World Summit, we are recommending that, as management
reforms are implemented over time, the Secretary of State and the U.S.
Permanent Representative to the UN include in State's annual U.S.
Participation in the United Nations report an assessment of the
effectiveness of the reforms.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Department of
State and the UN Secretariat. State provided written comments that are
reprinted in appendix II, along with our responses to specific points.
State generally endorsed the main findings and conclusions of our
report and noted that our assessment of UN progress on management
reform efforts was accurate and balanced. State also agreed fully with
the need to keep Congress informed of the effectiveness of management
reforms, adding that the department will continue to monitor and inform
Congress, as we recommended. In addition, State provided technical
comments that we have incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
Although the UN Secretariat did not provide written comments, it
provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the report,
as appropriate.
Background:
Calls to reform the UN began soon after its creation in 1945.[Footnote
9] Despite cycles of reform, UN member states continue to have concerns
about inefficient management operations. As the largest contributor of
192 member states, the United States has played a significant role in
promoting UN management reform, including calling for various financial
and administrative changes. The United States, through the Department
of State in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Mission to the United
Nations in New York,[Footnote 10] continues to advocate reform of UN
management processes.
In July 1997, the Secretary-General proposed a broad reform agenda to
transform the UN into an efficient organization focused on achieving
results as it carried out its mandates.[Footnote 11] 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 12] In September 2002, to encourage the full
implementation of the 1997 reforms, the Secretary-General released a
second set of reform initiatives, some expanding on those introduced in
1997 and others reflecting new priorities. 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 13]
In 2004 and 2005, a series of UN and expert task force reports
recommended a comprehensive reform of UN management and the UN human
rights apparatus.[Footnote 14] In September 2005, world leaders
gathered at the UN World Summit in New York 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 management
functions of the Secretariat.[Footnote 16]
In April 2006, we reported on weaknesses in the UN's oversight[Footnote
17] and procurement systems, both of which have been identified as
important areas for reform.[Footnote 18] We found that UN funding
arrangements constrained the ability of the UN Secretariat's Office of
Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) to operate independently and direct
resources toward high-risk areas as needed. In addition, we found
serious weaknesses in procurement internal controls. Specifically, the
UN lacked an effective organizational structure for managing
procurement, had not demonstrated a commitment to improving its
procurement workforce, and had not adopted specific ethics guidance.
In October 2006, we reported slow progress in five key UN management
reform areas--management operations of the Secretariat, oversight,
ethics, review of programs and activities (known as mandates), and
human rights. Numerous reform proposals were either awaiting General
Assembly review or had been recently approved, and many of the proposed
or approved reforms lacked an implementation plan with time frames and
cost estimates for the goals stated in the 2005 outcome
document.[Footnote 19] We also identified several factors that could
affect the UN's ability to fully implement management reforms,
including (1) disagreements among member states about the implications
of the reforms, (2) the difficulty of holding managers accountable for
completing reform efforts due to the absence of time frames and cost
estimates, and (3) administrative policies and procedures that could
complicate the implementation process.
Progress on UN Management Reform Efforts Has Varied:
Since October 2006, the progress of UN management reform efforts has
varied from little or no progress to substantial progress in the five
areas we reviewed--ethics, oversight, procurement, management
operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities
(known as mandates).
Steps to Improve Ethics Have Been Taken:
The UN has taken steps to improve organizational ethics since the fall
of 2006. In the past year, the ethics office has hired a permanent
director and additional staff and has developed and provided ethics
standards, training, and guidance. The office has begun to enforce a
whistleblower protection policy, but concerns have been raised about
the policy's lack of jurisdiction over UN funds and programs and
weaknesses in the UN's internal justice system. Finally, the ethics
office has collected financial disclosure forms for 2005 and 2006 and a
private consultant has begun to review them, but the review has been
delayed by the development of an e-filing system for the forms.
Progress on UN ethics reform is shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Progress on UN Ethics Reform:
This figure is a chart showing progress on UN Ethics Reform.
Sept. 2005: UN World Summit: Following the 2005 World Summit, the UN
set out to establish an ethics office, including a permanent
director and staff, to provide guidance to staff on ethical issues,
implement a strengthened whistleblower
protection policy, and administer more stringent financial disclosure
requirements;
Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: In December 2005, the General Assembly
approved funds for the ethics office in the 2006-2007
biennium budget. According to UN experts, the newly created ethics
office was insufficiently staffed with only a temporary director and
four professional and two administrative staff;
Nov. 2007: Current status:
Increase staff in ethics office: Substantial progress: The ethics
office currently has six professional and three
administrative staff. A new director was appointed to head the office
in May 2007. As of October 2007, the office informed GAO that it
had sufficient staff to carry out its responsibilities;
Develop and share ethical guidance: Some progress: The UN ethics office
has developed and circulated ethics standards
and guidance and has trained staff on ethics. The office has begun
to develop a systemwide code of ethics;
Implement a whistleblower protection policy: Substantial progress: The
ethics office has reviewed all 52 whistleblower claims of
retaliation that it received and passed 2 cases on for further
investigation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services;
Review financial disclosure forms: Some progress: Financial disclosure
forms have been collected from UN staff members for 2005 and 2006. A
private contractor has begun to review the forms but has been delayed
by the development of an e-filing system for the forms. The office is
reviewing the online e-filing system and will decide whether additional
staff should be required to file financial disclosures;
Related Issues:
* A systemwide code of ethics is an important element in upholding the
highest standards of integrity among UN staff members;
* The success of the whistleblower protection policy is, in part,
dependent on reforms in the UN internal justice system, which are not
expected to be completed until 2009;
* State officials said the ethics office should also have jurisdiction
over UN funds and programs.
Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken
on the reform effort.
Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform
effort, while others remain.
Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly
or fully implemented.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
In the past year, the UN has made substantial progress in staffing its
ethics office by hiring a permanent director and additional permanent
staff. In the fall of 2006, we reported concerns of UN experts that the
newly created UN ethics office was insufficiently staffed with a
temporary director and four professional and two administrative staff
members. In May 2007, a new director of the ethics office was appointed
to a 3-year term. As of October 2007, the ethics office had six
professional and three administrative staff. At that time, the director
of the office told us the office had sufficient staff to carry out its
responsibilities.
Some Progress Has Been Made in Developing and Sharing Ethics Guidance:
As of October 2007, the UN ethics office had made some progress in
developing and circulating ethics standards and guidance and had begun
to develop a systemwide code of ethics. The office reported that it had
received 287 requests for services from staff at different levels of
the Secretariat between August 2006 and July 2007, including ethics
advice on issues such as potential and actual conflicts of interest,
protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct, and training.
The ethics office has increased ethics training within the
organization, including half-day ethics training workshops for over
3,000 staff members at all levels of the Secretariat and consultations
on the acceptance and disposal of gifts received by staff in their
official capacity. The office has also developed new ethics standards,
such as postemployment restrictions standards. In May 2007, the ethics
office published, and disseminated throughout the Secretariat, the
booklet Working Together: Putting Ethics to Work. This guide highlights
the main challenges to professional and ethical conduct, clarifies the
reasons behind ethical standards in the context of the UN's mission and
values, and provides staff with resources to put ethical principles to
use, such as contact information for reporting abuse. In addition, in
August 2007, the office published four brochures that have been used in
outreach, training, and communication activities.[Footnote 20]
The ethics office has begun to develop a systemwide code of ethics for
all UN personnel, including those of UN bodies and agencies other than
the Secretariat as requested by the General Assembly in the 2005 World
Summit outcome document. The director of the ethics office told us the
development of a systemwide code of ethics was one of his top
priorities and would be undertaken in the near future, in consultation
with staff and management from multiple UN entities.
Substantial Progress Has Been Made in Enforcing a Whistleblower
Protection Policy:
The UN has made substantial progress in enforcing a whistleblower
protection policy. The ethics office has begun receiving complaints of
retaliation, and several concerns have arisen during the handling of
cases. Between August 1, 2006, and July 31, 2007, the ethics office
received 52 complaints of whistleblower retaliation.[Footnote 21] After
its initial assessment, the ethics office determined that 16 complaints
warranted a preliminary review. Of these 16, the ethics office referred
two cases to OIOS for further investigation following a determination
that a prima facie case of retaliation had been established. Of the
remaining 36 complaints, the ethics office determined that 19 fell
outside the scope of its responsibilities and/or referred them to other
offices,[Footnote 22] and provided advice and guidance on more
appropriate actions to address 11 complaints. In addition, the office
was copied on six complaints that were primarily addressed to other
offices or departments in the UN; in these instances, the ethics office
keeps track of and follows up on any pending action by other offices.
Several Concerns Have Been Identified with the UN's Whistleblower
Protection Policy:
UN and State officials have raised concerns regarding the UN's
whistleblower protection policy. Officials from the ethics office and a
nonprofit public interest group, the Government Accountability
Project,[Footnote 23] informed us that the success of the UN's
whistleblower protection policy could be, in part, dependent on
successful reform of the UN's internal justice system.[Footnote 24] UN
and Government Accountability Project staff told us that some UN staff
members might not trust the current system to be fair or impartial and,
consequently, might not come forward with claims of retaliation. In its
August 2007 annual activities report, the ethics office expressed a
concern that it had not had an opportunity to provide input into its
role in the proposed new internal justice system in relation to other
offices, such as OIOS and the Office of the Ombudsman, and the office
expressed the importance of its inclusion in the justice reform
process.
UN and State officials told us another concern about the whistleblower
protection policy is its lack of jurisdiction over UN funds and
programs.[Footnote 25] In August 2007, after initially reviewing a
whistleblower retaliation case of an employee at the UN Development
Program, the ethics office and the Office of Legal and Procurement
Services concluded that the UN's whistleblower protection policy
applies only to employees directly under the Secretary-
General.[Footnote 26] They also concluded that the office has no formal
jurisdiction over various UN funds and programs, including the UN
Development Program. UN and State officials told us that the
whistleblower protection policy is limited in its effectiveness if it
is not applied to the entire UN system. Similarly, the Government
Accountability Project has criticized the effectiveness of the current
UN whistleblower protection policy and recommended that the
jurisdiction of the ethics office be extended to UN funds and programs
and possibly to specialized agencies.[Footnote 27] In his August 2007
report on the activities of the ethics office, the Secretary-General
recommended that the General Assembly consider broadening the
jurisdiction of the ethics office to cover all UN entities and to
provide further guidance on this issue.[Footnote 28]
Some Progress Has Been Made in Collecting and Analyzing Financial
Disclosures:
The UN has made some progress in collecting and analyzing financial
disclosure forms for 2005 and 2006. Financial disclosure forms have
been collected from UN staff members, and a private contractor has
begun to review them. The primary purpose of the financial disclosure
program is to identify potential conflicts of interest arising from
staff members' financial holdings, private affiliations, or outside
activities and to provide advice when conflicts are found. About 1,700
staff members were required to file financial disclosure or declaration
of interest statements for 2005.[Footnote 29] About 98 percent of staff
complied, and the remaining 2 percent were referred to the Office of
Human Resources Management for disciplinary action. A total of 2,548
staff members were required to file forms for 2006. The office reported
that the increase in staff required to file likely reflects an
increased awareness of the program by the heads of departments and
their staff members. In addition, as a confidence-building measure, the
current UN Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General voluntarily
made their recent financial disclosure forms public.
The financial disclosure statements for 2005 were reviewed by a private
contractor and analyzed to determine any potential conflicts of
interest between the staff members' confidentially disclosed private
interests and their official duties and responsibilities.[Footnote 30]
In May 2007, the contractor identified potential conflicts of interest
in 17 of the cases reviewed, or about 1 percent. Of these cases, 14
staff members accepted the advice of the private contractor to address
the potential conflict and 3 cases were referred to the ethics office
for final resolution due to disagreements with the contractor.
The 2006 review is not yet complete. The deadline for submitting forms
for 2006 was delayed until May 31, 2007, as a consequence of the
development of an online e-filing system.[Footnote 31] In order to
enhance efficiencies and standardize procedures, the private contractor
developed an online e-filing system in liaison with the ethics office
to simplify and expedite filing requirements. The director of the
ethics office told us that the process for the 2006 review was ongoing,
and, as a result, the compliance rate was not finalized as of September
2007.
The ethics office plans to review the online financial disclosure form
and accompanying guidelines in consultation with other UN offices to
decide whether modifications need to be made. In addition, the office
reported that it is conducting a review to determine whether financial
disclosures should be required of officials other than those of the
Secretariat.
Steps to Improve Oversight Have Been Taken:
Steps have been taken to improve UN oversight capabilities. After
almost 2 years of discussions that included negotiating its composition
and responsibilities, member states established an Independent Audit
Advisory Committee (IAAC) in June 2007. Since our October 2006 report,
OIOS has worked to improve the capacity of individual divisions,
including internal audit and investigations. However, UN funding
arrangements continue to constrain OIOS's ability to audit high-risk
areas, and the General Assembly has not authorized OIOS's financial and
operational independence. Progress on UN oversight reform is shown in
figure 2.
Figure 2: Progress on UN Oversight Reform:
This figure is a chart showing progress on UN oversight reform.
Sept. 2005: UN World Summit: Following the 2005 World Summit, the UN
set out to create an Independent Audit Advisory Committee
(IAAC) to enhance the independence of the UN‘s oversight structure and
to help member states better exercise their oversight responsibilities.
The UN also set out to strengthen the Office of Internal Oversight
Services (OIOS) so that it can effectively carry out its mandates;
Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: In November 2005, the Secretary-General
proposed the creation of an IAAC and a terms of reference
for it. In December 2005, the General Assembly (GA) approved the IAAC‘s
creation and requested an external evaluation of its terms of
reference. The GA also approved funds for additional positions for
OIOS and for an independent external evaluation of OIOS. In July 2006,
an independent external evaluation was finalized and made various
recommendations to strengthen OIOS and to modify the
IAAC terms of reference;
Nov. 2007: Current status:
Create an IAAC: Some progress: Member states established an IAAC and
agreed on its terms of reference in June 2007. Members of the newly
created IAAC were selected in November 2007, and the committee is
expected to be operational in January 2008;
Strengthen OIOS: Some progress: OIOS has worked to improve the capacity
of its internal audit and investigations divisions. For example, the
office has hired new staff, created several new audit sections and
investigation task forces, and reduced its range of functions by moving
its consulting function to the Secretariat. However, OIOS funding
arrangements continue to constrain the office‘s operational
independence;
Related Issues:
* The potential impact of the IAAC on OIOS‘s budgetary independence is
unknown;
* UN funding arrangements adversely affect OIOS‘s budgetary
independence and compromise the office‘s ability to audit high-risk
areas.
Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken
on the reform effort.
Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform
effort, while others remain.
Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly
or fully implemented.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
Some Progress Has Been Made in Creating an Independent Audit Advisory
Committee:
The UN has made some progress in creating IAAC, but the committee is
not expected to be operational until January 2008. In June 2007, member
states established IAAC to provide an external, independent assessment
of UN oversight capabilities based on best practices in the private
sector as well as the experiences of other international institutions.
In approving the creation of IAAC in June 2007, the General Assembly
also established the committee's terms of reference. These terms
include the following guidelines and requirements:
* membership of 5 individuals, preferably from a pool of at least 10
candidates proposed by member states, based on regional and
geographical representation and selected by the General Assembly;
* an evaluation process for candidates through consultations with an
external relevant institution, such as the International Organization
of Supreme Audit Institutions; and:
* membership appointment for a term of 3 years, with the possibility of
one-time re-election.
The IAAC's responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
* examining OIOS's work plan, taking into account the work plans of the
other UN oversight bodies;
* reviewing the adequacy of OIOS's budget, taking into account OIOS's
work plan;
* advising on the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of OIOS's audit
and other activities; and:
* advising the General Assembly on potential oversight issues based on
review of UN financial statements and Board of Auditors reports.
The guidelines and requirements represent a compromise among the member
states, according to member state representatives and State Department
officials. Member states disagreed on some of the initially proposed
responsibilities of IAAC. For example, the United States and several
other countries had originally favored that candidates for membership
be referred by the International Organization of Supreme Audit
Institutions and that members not be eligible for re-election. Other
member states disagreed. In addition, State wanted IAAC to be
responsible for assessing the work of all UN oversight bodies,
including the UN Board of Auditors and the UN Joint Inspection Unit.
However, both of these bodies strongly resisted having IAAC oversee
their respective functions, and it was ultimately decided that IAAC
would focus primarily on the work of OIOS while taking into account the
work plans of the other UN oversight bodies. State Department officials
told us they were satisfied overall with the creation of IAAC despite
the various compromises. The five members of the newly created IAAC
were elected in November 2007,[Footnote 32] and the committee is
expected to be operational in January 2008.
Some Progress Has Been Made in Strengthening OIOS:
The UN has made some progress in strengthening the Office of Internal
Oversight Services. The office has strengthened the capacity of its
internal audit, investigation, and evaluations and inspections
sections. However, OIOS funding arrangements continue to hinder its
operational independence.
Since our last report, OIOS has strengthened the capacity of its
internal audit, investigation, and evaluations and inspections
sections. For example, OIOS created nine new audit posts for its
internal audit division and combined two previously separated internal
audit divisions in New York and Geneva within a single division. OIOS
established a professional practices section--fully staffed with six
regular staff and three general services staff--that is responsible for
(1) implementing OIOS's risk assessment framework, (2) implementing a
quality assurance program, (3) devising productivity tools, and (4)
improving performance reporting to management. OIOS also established an
information and communication technology section, which has developed
an audit strategy and conducted risk assessments for the information
and communication technology functions of various departments at
headquarters.
Several steps have also been taken to improve OIOS's investigations
division. Member states decided to keep investigations in OIOS rather
than move it to the Secretariat's Office of Legal Affairs, despite a
July 2006 external evaluation's recommendation to shift the
investigations function to a department in the Secretariat. OIOS argued
that such a shift would significantly diminish the UN's oversight
functions by potentially compromising the independence of
investigations and creating a potential conflict of interest. Since
2006, about 16 new posts have been created for the investigations
division. OIOS has established a separate special investigations task
force for sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as a procurement
investigations task force.
Finally, OIOS has made progress in reducing its range of functions and
improving the capacity of its evaluations and inspections sections. For
example, in order to reduce some of its multiple responsibilities and
focus more directly on its oversight responsibilities, the office has
shifted several nonoversight related functions to the UN Department of
Management, including its consulting function. In addition, in 2006,
the evaluation section was strengthened by the addition of two posts to
increase the number of evaluations that can be undertaken.
Funding arrangements at OIOS continue to impede the independence of
internal auditors. OIOS is designed to be an operationally independent
entity responsible for assisting the Secretary-General in fulfilling
his internal oversight responsibilities of the resources and staff of
the UN through internal audit, monitoring, inspection, evaluation, and
investigations. However, OIOS faces two conflicts that have been
impeding its independence: (1) OIOS's budget is subject to the review
of the Department of Management, for which OIOS has oversight
responsibility, and (2) OIOS must negotiate funding for nearly two-
thirds of its budget with the entities it is chartered to audit.
Without operational independence, OIOS is constrained in its ability to
prevent or mitigate risks to the UN's resources and personnel. These
risks include fraud, waste, abuse, inefficiencies, and mismanagement.
In April 2006, we reported that UN funding arrangements adversely
affect OIOS's budgetary independence and constrain its ability to audit
high-risk areas.[Footnote 33] 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. State and OIOS generally agreed with our
overall findings and recommendations.
Discussion of the revision of OIOS's funding arrangements was deferred
from the 61st to the 62nd session of the General Assembly due to a lack
of consensus on funding issues.[Footnote 34] In its report to the 62nd
session on its activities between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007, OIOS
reiterated that the UN does not yet have a formal and structural
internal control framework that would provide reasonable assurance to
management that its financial resources are being handled effectively
and that its objectives are being achieved. OIOS pointed out that
serious deficiencies in internal controls have left the UN susceptible
to mismanagement and fraud, particularly regarding procurement
activities in Sudan and Congo.[Footnote 35] OIOS reported that its
internal audit division continues to rely directly on organizations
funded from extra-budgetary resources to provide the resources
necessary to finance a portion of its functions. This reliance does not
allow the division to focus its attention on the areas of highest risk
and constrains the implementation of its audit work plan. For example,
it reported that OIOS is unable to provide reasonable assurance that
all high-risk areas have been identified and are being addressed in the
United Nations Environment Programs. OIOS concluded that its dependence
on extra-budgetary funding significantly affects its independence.
Steps to Improve Procurement Have Been Taken:
The UN Secretariat has improved the UN procurement process, but a
number of reform issues have not moved forward since our October 2006
report. Some progress has been made in strengthening the procedures for
its procurement staff and suppliers, developing a comprehensive
training program for procurement staff, and developing a risk
management framework. However, the UN has made little or no progress in
establishing an independent bid protest system and creating a lead
agency concept for procurements, whereby specific UN organizations
would procure certain goods and services in order to enhance division
of labor, reduce duplication, and reduce costs. In addition, since our
October 2006 report, other organizational issues have arisen that may
affect the UN's procurement reform efforts. Progress on UN procurement
reform is shown in figure 3.
Figure 3: Progress on UN Procurement Reform:
This figure is a chart showing progress on UN procurement reform.
Sept. 2005: UN World Summit: Following the 2005 World Summit, the UN
set out to improve the procurement functions of the Secretariat;
Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: As of October 2006, the General Assembly
had authorized additional procurement staff and the Procurement
Division had strengthened some procedures, initiated ethics training
and begun establishing a risk management framework. However, an
independent bid protest system had not been established and a UN-wide
lead agency concept had not been approved;
Nov. 2007: Current Status:
Strengthen procurement procedures: Some progress: The Secretariat has
strengthened postemployment restrictions and revised the code of
conduct for suppliers but has not approved increasing the Headquarters
Committee on Contracts‘ threshold from $200,000 to $500,000;
Develop a training program for procurement staff: Some progress: A
comprehensive training program is being developed. The General
Assembly authorized $800,000 for training in 2007. All Headquarters
staff received ethics training in 2007 and training for field staff,
who handle a large portion of procurement funds, is under way;
Develop a risk management framework: Some progress: A Planning,
Compliance, and Monitoring Section was established and a chief
appointed in July 2007. The process of developing a risk management
framework is under way;
Establish an independent bid protest system: Little or no progress: The
system has not been established. In the absence of a formal process,
the UN Procurement Division generally provides certain information on
contract decisions to unsuccessful bidders;
Establish a lead agency concept: Little or no progress: Member states
have not approved the concept. UN Procurement Division officials told
us they work informally with several UN agencies on procurements of
certain items;
Related issues: Several procurement-related reform issues have not
moved forward due to the reorganization of the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations.
Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken
on the reform effort.
Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform
effort, while others remain.
Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly
or fully implemented.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
Some Progress Has Been Made in Strengthening Procurement Procedures for
UN Staff and Suppliers:
The UN Secretariat has made some progress in strengthening the
operating procedures for its procurement staff and suppliers. In
December 2006, the Secretariat issued a bulletin on postemployment
restrictions for former UN staff involved in procurement. The bulletin
was issued following several incidents in recent years in which UN
officials and former officials were involved in unethical and improper
procurement activities.[Footnote 36] The December 2006 bulletin
requires that former UN staff members, for 1 year following UN
employment, are prohibited from accepting employment or compensation
from any UN contractor and, for 2 years, are prohibited from acting on
behalf of others in procurement-related matters. In an additional
measure to strengthen its procedures, the UN also issued, in May 2007,
a revised supplier code of conduct. The code requires that suppliers
are responsible for adhering to the postemployment restrictions by not
employing former UN staff members for at least 1 year following a staff
member's separation from the UN. However, a proposal to increase the
minimum threshold for contracts required to be reviewed by the
Headquarters Committee on Contracts from $200,000 to $500,000 has not
been approved. OIOS previously recommended that the threshold be
increased, and, according to Procurement Division officials, increasing
the threshold would assist in expediting procurements and better
utilizing their time.
Some Progress Has Been Made in Developing a Training Program for UN
Procurement Staff:
The UN Procurement Division has made some progress in developing a
comprehensive training program for procurement staff. Although the
program is not expected to be formally in place until early 2008,
procurement staff are currently being trained in contracting,
acquisition, and other specialized subjects. The training is part of a
development plan to provide a career path for procurement staff--those
who complete the training will be eligible to be certified by
internationally recognized procurement institutions.[Footnote 37] In
addition, according to UN Procurement Division officials, all
procurement staff in headquarters received ethics training in 2007. As
of October 2007, some field staff had received the ethics training and,
according to UN officials, the UN expects to have provided the training
to all field staff by the end of March 2008.
Some Progress Has Been Made in Developing a Risk Management Framework:
The UN Procurement Division has made some progress in its efforts to
develop a risk management framework. In July 2007, a Planning,
Compliance, and Monitoring Section was established and a chief was
appointed to establish tools to detect potential transaction problems
and minimize risks. Also, a proposal for implementing the concept of
best-value-for-money is under development and expected to be put into
practice by the Procurement Division in March 2008. In addition, the UN
Department of Management is in the initial planning stages of
establishing a UN-wide risk management framework, known as the
Enterprise Risk Management concept. However, as of September 2007, the
concept is still in the planning stages, time frames and costs for its
implementation have not been established, and risks associated with
procurement activities remain. For example, the OIOS Procurement Task
Force reported in October 2007 that it had found multiple instances of
fraud, waste, and mismanagement--including 10 instances of fraud and
corruption in cases with an aggregate value of over $610 million--
resulting in misappropriation of resources or the unjust enrichment of
vendors and their agents in excess of $25 million. The task force
reported that a number of cases have been referred to national
authorities for criminal prosecution or to the UN for consideration of
subsequent legal action. It has also recommended civil recovery of
monetary damages.[Footnote 38]
Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Establishing an Independent Bid
Protest System:
As of October 2007, an independent bid protest system had not been
established. The lack of an independent bid protest system limits the
transparency of the procurement process by not providing a means for a
vendor to protest the outcome of a contract decision to an independent
official or office. Such a system would provide reasonable assurance
that vendors are treated fairly when bidding and would also help alert
senior UN management to situations involving questions about UN
compliance. According to the UN Procurement Division, a draft process,
which includes an emphasis on best practices from public-and private-
sector procurements, is expected to be finalized by the first quarter
of 2008. Procurement Division officials told us that, in the meantime,
they have enhanced communications with vendors, including developing a
more systematic debriefing procedure for vendors whose bids were
unsuccessful.
Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Establishing a Lead Agency
Concept for Procurement:
The UN has made little or no progress in establishing a lead agency
concept, whereby specific UN organizations would procure certain goods
and services in order to enhance division of labor, reduce duplication,
and reduce costs. For example, the World Food Program might be best
suited to procure items for air transport needs, while the UN Inter-
Agency Procurement Services Office might be best at procuring certain
vehicles. In a report on procurement reform submitted to the General
Assembly in June 2006, the UN projected that implementation of the lead
agency concept would take 6 to 12 months.[Footnote 39] However, in
December 2006, the General Assembly did not approve a proposal to adopt
the concept. In the absence of the General Assembly's approval,
Procurement Division officials told us they have established informal
relationships with several UN organizations that, under current rules
and regulations, facilitate the procurement of certain specialized
goods and services, as needed.
Several Procurement-Related Issues Have Not Moved Forward Due to DPKO
Reorganization:
The General Assembly did not consider several procurement reform issues
during the recently completed 61st session because of the UN's June
2007 reorganization of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
(DPKO). Issues that are currently unclear include operational
procedures,[Footnote 40] such as establishing lines of accountability,
delegation of authority, and the responsibilities of the Departments of
Management and Peacekeeping Operations.[Footnote 41] Because of the
reorganization, announced by the Secretary-General in February 2007,
the Secretariat did not submit several reports on procurement during
the 61st session, as requested by the General Assembly. According to
Secretariat officials, they did not submit the reports mainly because
the reorganization of the DPKO created several procurement-related
concerns that have not yet been addressed.
Steps to Improve the Management Operations of the Secretariat Have Been
Taken:
The UN has taken actions to improve some of the management operations
of the Secretariat, but many reform proposals still have not moved
forward. Some progress has been made on issues involving human
resources and information technology, while little or no progress has
been made in reforming the UN's internal justice system, reforming
certain budgetary and financial management functions, and improving the
delivery of certain services. Since our October 2006 report, the
Secretariat has issued several reports on management operations that
the General Assembly is expected to consider during the current (62nd)
session. Progress on reforming management operations of the UN
Secretariat is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Progress on Reforming Management Operations of the UN
Secretariat:
This figure is a chart showing progress on reforming management
operations of the UN secretariat.
Sept. 2005: UN World Summit: Following the 2005 World Summit, the UN
set out to improve numerous management operations of the Secretariat;
Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: As of October 2006, the UN had taken
steps to address some human resource and information technology issues
but had made little or no progress on several other activities;
Nov. 2007: Current status:
Improve human resource functions: Some progress: The Secretariat has
issued several proposals that could improve
some human resource functions, but many of these proposals are
still awaiting General Assembly review. The Secretariat has not
completed reviews and analyses of several other reform proposals;
Improve information technology: Some progress: A chief information
technology officer was named in July 2007, but
the Secretariat has not begun to implement a new information
system;
Reform the UN's internal justice system: Little or no progress: In July
2006, an independent external panel of experts reported
that the UN‘s internal justice system was outdated, ineffective, and
compromised. Although the General Assembly agreed in April 2007
to establish a new system, many important aspects of it, such as
organizational relationships, personnel, and funding, are still
unclear. Also, according to the Secretariat, the new system is not
expected to be established until January 2009;
Reform certain budgetary and financial measures: Little or no progress:
The General Assembly has rejected some proposed reforms and
taken no action on others. The Secretariat is reviewing several
proposals, such as the management of trust funds and
consolidation of budget accounts;
Improve the delivery of certain services: Little or no progress: The
Secretariat has not completed cost-benefit analyses of internal
printing and publishing processes, medical insurance plan
administration, and other proposals, but has initiated several
projects to address other reform proposals;
Related issues:
* Many existing rules, policies, and regulations that are used to
manage the UN‘s operations are outdated and do not reflect the changing
structure of the UN;
* In the absence of a new internal justice system, the rights of UN
staff are not adequately safeguarded.
Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken
on the reform effort.
Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform
effort, while others remain.
Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly
or fully implemented.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
Some Progress Has Been Made in Improving Human Resource Functions:
The UN has made some progress in improving human resource functions.
Since we issued our October 2006 report, the UN Secretariat has issued
several reports with proposals that, if implemented, could improve some
human resource functions. However, the proposals are, in large part,
still awaiting General Assembly review. In addition, the Secretariat
has not completed reviews and analyses of other human resource reform
proposals.
In late September 2006--too late for inclusion in our October 6, 2006
report--the Secretary-General released a report entitled Investing in
People that included a human resources management framework aimed at
strengthening the UN's human resources goals.[Footnote 42] The report
included discussions of several human resources issues and specifically
stated that:
* staff mobility is essential to creating a more-versatile,
multiskilled, experienced staff capable of handling the UN's
operations, which have changed dramatically in the last 20 years;
* an effective career development policy serves both the UN and its
staff members by building and maintaining an international civil
service capable of meeting the UN's present and future needs, as well
as meeting the development needs and aspirations of the staff; and:
* a one-time staff buyout could enable the Secretary-General to realign
staff to meet the UN's changing priorities, while facilitating
retirement or separation of staff who can no longer meet their career
aspirations.
The General Assembly considered the report during the 61st session and,
in large part, postponed making decisions on key issues.[Footnote 43]
For example, in a January 2007 resolution, the General Assembly
postponed decisions regarding streamlining contractual arrangements and
harmonizing conditions of service and rejected the proposed one- time
staff buyout. Also, since its May 2006 rejection of the concept, the
General Assembly has not taken steps to 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.
From March to May 2007, the Secretariat submitted reports to the
General Assembly, as requested, on human resource issues such as
recruiting and staffing, conditions of service, and contractual
arrangements. However, because of the General Assembly's focus on the
reorganization of the DPKO and other issues during that time frame, the
General Assembly did not consider these issues, which are currently
rescheduled for consideration during the 62nd session. According to
U.S. and UN officials and most of the 17 member state delegates we
spoke with, reforming these and other human resource functions is
likely to continue to be difficult because of long-standing
disagreements among member states.
Some Progress Has Been Made in Improving Information Technology:
The UN has made some progress in improving information technology. The
position of chief information technology officer (CITO), created by the
General Assembly in August 2006, was filled in July 2007, and the
official took office in September 2007. The leadership of a CITO is
necessary to help ensure greater integration of the Secretariat's
workflow and knowledge management by allowing program objectives to be
integrated with budgetary and financial data into one process, with the
goal of enabling the Secretariat to act more transparently and
efficiently in managing staff and procuring goods and services of
greater quality and quantity, at lower levels of risk. The CITO is
especially important at the present time because the UN is in the
process of developing a new organizationwide information system--known
as the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system--to replace its
antiquated integrated management information system. Creation of the
ERP has been in the planning process for several years, and, according
to Secretariat officials, implementation of the system is expected to
start in 2008. During the planning process, the UN has worked with
potential vendors to help ensure that the new system, when implemented,
will adequately support the global functions of the UN, including an
ever-growing number of peacekeeping missions. As of October 2007, the
Secretariat had not selected the firm that will implement the new
system. According to UN officials, the Secretariat is expected to
announce a decision in 2008.
The Secretary-General did not submit a comprehensive report on
information management, including cost estimates, in March 2007, as
requested by the General Assembly. According to UN officials, the
report was not submitted because the ERP planning process was ongoing,
a CITO had not yet been named, and the Secretariat was still collecting
data on information technology and other issues. The Secretariat plans
to present reports on information technology to the General Assembly
during the 62nd session, on topics such as the implementation of the
ERP and governance of information and communications technology.
Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Reforming the UN's Internal
Justice System:
The UN has made little or no progress in reforming its internal justice
system. According to a July 2006 report by an independent external
panel of experts,[Footnote 44] the UN's internal justice system was
outdated, ineffective, and compromised. The panel's report concluded
that effective reform of the UN is not possible without an efficient,
independent, and well-resourced internal justice system that safeguards
the rights of staff members and effectively helps ensure the
accountability of managers and staff members. Although the General
Assembly agreed in April 2007 to establish a new internal justice
system, many issues involving organizational relationships, personnel,
and funding of the new system are still unclear. As of October 2007,
the General Assembly had yet to decide who would be covered by the new
system, how judges within the Office of the Ombudsman would be
nominated and selected, and what resources would be needed. According
to the Secretariat, member states aim to implement the new system by
January 2009.
Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Reforming Certain Budgetary and
Financial Management Functions:
Since our October 2006 report, the UN has made little or no progress in
improving certain budgetary and financial management functions. The
General Assembly has rejected some proposed reforms and taken no action
on others. For example, to improve cash management and operational
flexibility, the Secretary-General proposed that peacekeeping accounts
be consolidated. In July 2007, the General Assembly rejected this
proposal. The Secretary-General also proposed to improve strategic
budgetary planning and implementation by reducing the number of
sections in the budget from 35 sections to 13, and provided detailed
information on this proposal in May 2006. However, as of October 2007,
the General Assembly had not taken action on the proposal. Other
financial management reform proposals that have not been adopted
include retaining budget surpluses for use in subsequent periods,
charging interest on arrears of member states' assessed contributions,
and creating a separate account to cover certain unanticipated
expenditures arising from exchange rate fluctuations and inflation. The
Secretariat has prepared a number of reports that the General Assembly
is scheduled to review during the current (62nd) session and is
reviewing other proposed reform actions, such as the management of
trust funds.
Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Improving the Delivery of
Certain Services:
The UN has made little or no progress in improving the delivery of
certain services. In May 2006, the General Assembly asked the Secretary-
General to conduct several cost-benefit analyses to determine whether
certain UN services could be improved. Among the services are internal
printing and publishing processes; medical insurance plan
administration; information technology support; payables, receivables,
and payroll processes; and staff benefits administration. Subsequently,
the Secretariat initiated several projects to address these reform
proposals but has not completed its analyses. For example, the
Secretariat is currently collecting data from staff participants in the
UN medical plan and reviewing alternative delivery methods for payroll
and other functions.
The Secretariat has not issued a comprehensive report on public access
to UN documentation, which the General Assembly requested be submitted
during the 61st session. The Secretariat developed a detailed policy
proposal that includes resource requirements, financing mechanisms, and
proposal of a fee structure. However, according to Secretariat
officials, the Secretary-General intends to discuss the proposal with
member states before formally submitting it.
Limited Steps Have Been Taken on the Review of UN Programs and
Activities:
Although UN member states agreed to continue a review of UN programs
and activities (known as mandates) in 2007, no actions have been taken
to eliminate or consolidate mandates. Member states continue to
disagree on the scope and process of the review and lack the capacity
to carry out the review, according to State. Consultations among member
states on how to move forward on the issue will continue into the 62nd
session. Progress in reviewing UN programs and activities is shown in
figure 5.
Figure 5: Progress on Review of UN Programs and Activities (known as
Mandates):
This figure is a chart showing progress on review of UN programs and
activities (known as mandates);
Sept. 2005: World summit: Following the UN World Summit in 2005, member
states set out to review all UN programs and activities, known as
mandates, that were created 5 or more years ago, to strengthen and
update UN programs and activities and more accurately reflect the
current needs of the organization;
Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: In March 2006, the Secretariat
identified more than 6,900 UN mandates that were 5 years old or older
to be included in the review. Since April 2006, there had been ongoing
discussions on mandates. As part of the review of mandates originating
from the General Assembly, member states agreed to set aside 74
completed mandates, and no agreement had been reached on any of the
remaining mandates;
Nov. 2007: Current Status:
Phase I: Some progress: The review of all mandates 5 years old or older
and not renewed was completed in November 2006. The review covered 626
mandates originating from the General Assembly. Member states
agreed to set aside 74 completed mandates and requested more
information from the Secretariat on 15 mandates. No decision was
made on what to do with the remaining 537 mandates;
Phase II: Little or no progress: The review of all mandates 5 years old
or older, both renewed and not renewed, is being conducted in nine
thematic clusters. Phase II was delayed between January and May 2007
due to the lack of a co-chair on a mandate review working group. Only
one of the nine clusters had been reviewed as of October 2007;
GAO comments:
* Member states continue to disagree on the scope and process of
mandate review and lack the capacity to carry out the review;
* No mandates have been eliminated or consolidated as a result of the
review.
Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken
on the reform effort.
Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform
effort, while others remain.
Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly
or fully implemented.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN data.
[End of figure]
In 2005, UN member states agreed to complete a review of all UN
mandates[Footnote 45] with the goal of strengthening and updating them
to more accurately reflect the needs of the organization. After some
initial minor progress, this effort has diminished substantially due to
member states' ongoing disagreements on the scope and process of the
review. In addition, the review has not advanced due to the lack of
capacity among member states to evaluate the mandates in a substantive
matter, according to State.
Phase I of mandate review, which covered all mandates 5 years old or
older and not renewed that originated from the General Assembly, was
completed in November 2006.[Footnote 46] We reported in 2006 that
throughout the Phase I review, member states disagreed on which
mandates to include in the review and what to do with any savings
generated by the potential elimination or consolidation of mandates,
which led to limited or slow progress. Members of the G-77[Footnote 47]
contended that the scope of the review should include only those
mandates 5 years old or older that have not been reviewed since they
were adopted. Phase I thus consisted of a review of 626 mandates
originating from the General Assembly. As a result of Phase I, member
states agreed to set aside 74 completed mandates and requested more
information from the Secretariat on 15 mandates.[Footnote 48] No
agreement was reached on the remaining mandates, and no mandates were
consolidated or eliminated as a result of the review.
Member states agreed to carry out a Phase II review of mandates to
include mandates both renewed and not renewed. The planned approach was
to review mandates by thematic cluster.[Footnote 49] The initial goal
for beginning Phase II was January 2007. Phase II was delayed by the
lack of a co-chair on the Informal Working Group on Mandate Review from
January 2007 to April 2007 and again from July to October 2007. In
October 2007, the process was far from complete, with only one of the
nine clusters addressed.
On September 17, 2007, the General Assembly, per the request of the
outgoing President of the General Assembly, adopted an oral decision to
continue consultations among member states on how to proceed with
mandate review in the 62nd session. State officials told us that a new
approach is necessary for the review and that it would be meaningless
to proceed unless member states identify a process that can achieve
meaningful results. State also informed us that there was no
implementation plan for mandate review. New parameters for the
continuation of the mandate review process have been proposed, but
progress remains to be seen.
Various Factors Have Slowed the UN's Management Reform Efforts:
Various factors have slowed the UN's efforts to improve the management
of the Secretariat, and many remaining UN management reforms cannot
move forward until these factors are addressed. During our review, we
identified four key factors that hinder progress on UN management
reforms: (1) disagreements among member states on UN management reform
efforts, (2) lack of comprehensive implementation plans for some
management reform proposals, (3) administrative policies and procedures
that continue to complicate the process of implementing certain complex
human resource initiatives, and (4) competing UN priorities, such as
the proposal to reorganize the Department of Peacekeeping Operations,
that limit the capacity of General Assembly members to address
management reform issues.
Disagreements among Member States Continue to Impede Efforts:
Disagreements within the General Assembly continue to limit the
implementation of management reforms. Progress on UN management reform
efforts is dependent in large part on member states reaching consensus,
which can be a time-consuming process as the UN is composed of 192
diverse member states that have differing views on a wide array of
issues. (App. III shows the typical management reform decision-making
process at the UN for issues requiring General Assembly approval.) In
October 2006, we reported that disagreements between G-77 and developed
countries over the broader implications of management reforms may
affect the UN's ability to fully implement them.
From April through September 2007, we discussed management reform
efforts with delegates from 17 member states representing Africa, Asia,
Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America. In these
discussions, 15 of the 17 delegations told us that the number one
challenge to continued progress on management reform efforts is member
state disagreements on the priorities and importance of the remaining
reform efforts.[Footnote 50] For example, member states continue to
disagree on the scope and process of the review of UN mandates, and
some member states are concerned that mandates important to them will
be eliminated. For that reason, no mandates have been eliminated or
consolidated as a result of the reviews--two of the goals of the
process, according to State.
Representatives of member states we spoke with repeatedly stated a
clear need for more constructive engagement on reform efforts,
particularly between the United States and G-77 countries. For example,
four member states--Chile, South Africa, Sweden, and Thailand--have
launched the Four Nations Initiative in an effort to provide new ideas
and perspectives on governance and management of the UN Secretariat. A
State official told us the process appears to be a "credible effort" by
member states that complements the UN management reform process.
However, he added that other member states' views on this initiative
and the potential of the initiative to overcome disagreements among
member states are unclear.
Lack of Comprehensive Implementation Plans Continues to Impede
Management Reform Efforts:
The UN has not developed comprehensive long-term implementation plans
for some management reform proposals. Establishing implementation plans
is a practice that increases the transparency and accountability of the
reform process. We previously recommended that State 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 of each reform effort as it is approved.
During our current review, we found little evidence that time frames,
completion dates, and cost and savings estimates for completing the
long-term implementation of specific management reforms had been
established. In addition, most of the approximately 20 cost-benefit
analyses and other assessments of management reform issues that the
Secretariat had planned to complete by March 2007 have not yet been
submitted to the General Assembly. As a result, the total long-term
costs of the reform efforts, including the U.S. government's share,
remain unclear.[Footnote 51] Moreover, the UN currently has no formal
plan to evaluate the effectiveness of its management reform efforts to
determine whether they have achieved the goals set out in the 2005
World Summit outcome document.
Administrative Policies and Procedures Continue to Complicate Human
Resource Reform Efforts:
Administrative policies and procedures, such as staff regulations and
rules that are directed by the General Assembly, continue to complicate
and sometimes restrict the process of implementing certain human
resources initiatives. Such guidance, some of which has been in
existence for decades, is part of the UN's existing resource management
framework that, according to the Secretary-General, still lacks
flexibility and is largely headquarters-based, though more than half of
the UN's staff are currently serving in the field. Although the
Secretariat has made progress on some administrative reform initiatives
relating to human resources and information technology, it has not
addressed several other administrative policies and procedures issues,
including conducting a one-time staff buyout and outsourcing and
telecommuting for certain administrative services, such as payroll
processes, staff benefit administration, and information technology
support. As we discussed in our October 2006 report, the overall
restrictiveness of these policies and procedures continues to
complicate the management reform process.
Competing Priorities Slow UN Management Reform Efforts:
Since our October 2006 report, competing priorities within the
Secretariat and General Assembly have limited the capacity of General
Assembly members to address the remaining management reform
issues.[Footnote 52] In February 2007, for example, several procurement-
related reform issues, such as clear lines of responsibility and
accountability, delegation of authority, and internal controls, were
not taken into consideration by the General Assembly during the spring
2007 session, as planned. The General Assembly did not address these
issues because the new Secretary-General concurrently proposed a
reorganization of the DPKO, which absorbed much of the General
Assembly's attention throughout the session. As a result, the
Secretariat decided not to issue several procurement reports during the
spring 2007 session, without which member states told us they were
unable to formally consider certain procurement- related reform issues.
Conclusions:
Reforming the management of the United Nations has been a priority of
the U.S. government for many years, as long-standing weaknesses and
inefficiencies in UN management functions have persisted. Although
there has been progress in implementing several components of the 2005
reform agenda, some key components remain to be implemented. Completion
of the reform agenda will require overcoming several factors,
particularly disagreements among member states regarding how to achieve
the goals they agreed to at the 2005 World Summit. Some past reform
efforts remain incomplete because they did not get sustained and broad
support of member states. The current effort faces this same risk.
Moreover, while implementation of the reform agenda is a necessary
element in meeting the goals of the 2005 World Summit outcome document,
it is not in itself sufficient. Successful management reform requires
that its components are ultimately effective in modernizing the
management functions of the United Nations.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To encourage UN member states to continue to pursue the reform agenda
of the 2005 World Summit, we recommend that, as management reforms are
implemented over time, the Secretary of State and the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the UN include in State's annual U.S. Participation
in the United Nations report an assessment of the effectiveness of the
reforms.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Department of
State and the UN Secretariat. State's comments are reprinted in
appendix II, along with our responses to specific points. The UN
Secretariat did not provide written comments.
State endorsed the main findings and conclusions of our report and
noted that our assessment of UN progress on management reform efforts
was accurate and balanced. State also agreed fully with the need to
keep Congress informed of the effectiveness of management reforms,
adding that the department will continue to monitor and inform
Congress, as we recommended. In addition, State agreed with us that
more could be done to ensure credible oversight at the UN. Furthermore,
State noted that we correctly recognize the need for the UN to
establish a formal internal control framework.
State did not agree with our statement that successful whistleblower
protections cannot be established without substantial reform of the
UN's internal justice program. During our review, we found that UN and
nongovernmental organization staff had concerns about weaknesses in the
UN internal justice system and the potential impact of these weaknesses
on the implementation of a successful whistleblower protection policy.
We agree with these concerns. State also notes that the General
Assembly's approval of the creation of an independent bid protest
system was a critical first step toward enhancing transparency in the
UN's procurement award process. However, per our methodology, we
categorize this reform effort under "little or no progress" because
there was evidence that few or no steps had been taken towards actual
implementation of the system. State said it understood that this
assessment was consistent with our evaluation methodology.
State and the UN Secretariat provided technical comments that we have
incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of State, and the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs 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 contributions to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Thomas Melito:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify and examine the progress of UN management reforms, we
reviewed key documents proposing United Nations (UN) management reforms
and interviewed officials from several UN departments in New York. 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 also 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 Department of
Management, and OIOS. During the course of our review, we discussed the
status of UN management reforms with officials from the Department of
State in Washington, D.C., and the UN in New York. We also met with
representatives from 17 of 192 member states representing various
geographic regions, including Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East,
North America, and South America, to obtain a balance of views on the
most critical challenges to reforming UN management.
We selected management reform issues in the key areas of ethics,
oversight, management operations of the Secretariat, and review of
programs and activities (known as mandates) to examine in more
detail.[Footnote 53] We determined that these were the key areas of
management reform through our review of UN documents and 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 in our review reforms targeted at UN specialized
agencies or UN funds and programs; we also excluded efforts such as the
UN Peace Building Commission and Security Council and governance
reforms. We did not evaluate the effectiveness of the reform efforts
because of the recentness of their implementation.
To assess the progress of the UN reform efforts we reviewed, we
developed the following three categories:
* Little or no progress: There is evidence that few or no steps have
been taken on the reform effort.
* Some progress: There is evidence that some steps have been taken on
the reform effort, while others remain.
* Substantial progress: There is evidence that the reform effort has
been mostly or fully implemented.
During our review, we determined which category of progress to assign
to each reform effort based on documents we collected and discussions
we had with State, UN, and other officials. After we made our initial
assessments of progress, three other GAO staff members not involved in
this review used the evidence and the categories to make their own
assessments independently of each other. These staff members then met
with each other to reconcile any differences in their initial
assessments. Finally, they met with us and confirmed that we were all
in agreement on our assessments.
To identify factors slowing the progress of the UN reforms we examined,
we reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General
Assembly, OIOS, and the ethics office. 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, 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 longer-term cost estimates are being
developed; therefore, we did not analyze the assumptions underlying
these estimates to determine whether they are reasonable and reliable.
However, we believe that the cost estimates and the associated funds
that the General Assembly has appropriated to date for reform efforts
are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We conducted our work from March to November 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
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:
November 2, 2007:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "United
Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied," GAO Job
Code 320483.
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
Matthew Glockner, Program Analyst, Bureau of International Organization
Affairs, at (202) 647-6413.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
cc: GAO ” Phillip Thomas:
IO ” James Warlick:
State/OIG ” Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report United Nations:
Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied (GAO-08-84, GAO Code
320483):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied. The
Department of State has long been a strong supporter of efforts to
improve the management of the United Nations and welcomes the GAO
report on this subject. The report provides timely information on
several aspects of the ongoing effort to revitalize the administration
of the United Nations. The previous GAO report (GAO-07-14) examined
progress made on management reforms during the initial twelve months
following the September 2005 UN World Summit. This subsequent review
provides an updated picture of the continuing efforts by Member States
and the UN Secretariat to strengthen ethics, oversight, and procurement
systems, improve the operations of the Secretariat, and review UN
program mandates.
The Department of State endorses the main findings and conclusions of
the GAO report. We believe that GAO's assessment of progress is both
accurate and balanced. As the report notes, the United Nations has made
more substantial progress in some areas than in others. To help move
the reform process forward, the GAO recommends that the Department of
State include an assessment of the effectiveness of major UN management
reforms in the annual "U.S. Participation in the United Nations" report
to Congress. The Department of State agrees fully with the need to keep
Congress informed of the effectiveness of management reforms. In fact,
we believe that an assessment of impact will be a particularly useful
measure of progress, and we will continue to monitor and inform
Congress as recommended.
The GAO makes several observations concerning the status of UN ethics
systems. The Department of State considers these reforms particularly
important to fostering integrity and ethical conduct. GAO notes that
both the United Nations and a public interest group expressed concerns
that the success of the whistleblower protections depends, in part,
upon reform of the UN's internal system for the administration of
justice. While we recognize that reforms of the internal justice system
could result in an increase in confidence among UN staff concerning the
whistleblower protections, we do not agree that successful
whistleblower protections cannot be established without substantial
reform of the UN's internal justice system. Under the UN's
whistleblower policy (ST/SGB/2005/21), UN staff should have no reason
to seek recourse via the internal justice system. The Ethics Office is
responsible for reviewing complaints of retaliation, determining
whether there is prima facie case of retaliation, and referring cases
of retaliation or threatened retaliation to the Office of Internal
Oversight Services (OIOS) for further investigation. For established
cases of retaliation or threatened retaliation, the Ethics Office may
recommend corrective action. At the same time, we acknowledge that
reform of the internal justice system is long overdue and will continue
to support efforts in this regard.
(See comment 1.):
The GAO also notes the concerns of the United Nations and the
Department of State regarding the Ethics Office's apparent lack of
jurisdiction over the UN Funds and Programs. To address this issue, we
have been stressing the need for a system-wide approach to ethical
conduct as called for in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. During
the October 26-27 meeting of the UN System Chief Executives Board for
Coordination, chaired by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon, the heads
of the UN Funds and Programs agreed to establish a common code of
ethics and a unified system for promoting ethical conduct The heads of
the UN Specialized Agencies also expressed an interest in a system-wide
approach to ethics. Accordingly, in addition to utilizing existing
mechanisms within their respective agencies, staff will be able to seek
the advice and assistance of the UN Ethics Office. The Department of
State welcomes the decision by the heads of the UN Funds and Programs
to establish a common code of ethics and a unified system for promoting
ethical conduct. We plan to press for expedited implementation of this
recommendation.
The GAO also makes several observations regarding efforts to strengthen
UN oversight systems. The U.S. Government has long pushed for strong
oversight mechanisms in the UN system, and we were a driving force
behind the creation of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee (IAAC)
in June 2007. The Department of State considers the final terms of
reference for the IAAC that were adopted to be an important step
forward that has the potential to be one of the most significant
oversight-related management reforms to take place at the UN in recent
years. Yet, we also agree that more can be done to ensure credible
oversight. In this regard, we continue to press for enhancing the
operational independence of OIOS. Furthermore, the GAO correctly
recognizes the need for the United Nations to establish a formal
internal control framework. Together with risk management, an internal
control framework would help the United Nations decrease the likelihood
and potential for mismanagement and malfeasance, as well as enable OIOS
to focus its work on the areas of highest risk. We continue to press
the UN Secretariat to expedite completion and circulation of its
expected reports on accountability, risk-based management and
enterprise risk management so that Member States can discuss and take
action on this important issues.
The Department of State notes the GAO's conclusion that little or no
progress has been made in establishing an independent bid protest
system for UN procurements. We understand that this assessment is
consistent with GAO's evaluation methodology. However, we would like to
point out that General Assembly resolution 61/246 of December 22, 2006,
approved the creation of an independent bid protest system. This was a
critical first step toward enhancing transparency in the UN's
procurement award process. Even though the Secretariat has not
finalized the details of this system, the General Assembly's
endorsement was critical to moving forward. Once fully established, the
bid protest system should provide a mechanism for vendors to dispute UN
procurement decisions.
(See comment 2.):
The GAO also assessed the status of improvements to the operations of
the UN Secretariat, including updating human resources practices and
modernizing information technology systems. The report notes that the
General Assembly rejected the proposal for a one-time staff buyout.
Consistent with the recommendation of the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force
on the United Nations, the Department of State reviewed the Secretary-
General's buyout plan. We determined that a buyout would not result in
a staff realignment that would reflect the current needs of the
organization. The buyout plan was costly and did not provide any
assurance that it would target unwanted or unneeded staff for
separation. Other Member States shared this assessment, and the
proposal was broadly rejected.
As the GAO report indicates, implementation of management reforms will
help sustain the confidence of UN Member States. Promoting good
management in the UN system has long been a priority for the U.S.
Government. In this respect, the Department of State has a continuing
responsibility to evaluate carefully the reform proposals of the
Secretary-General to determine whether they will fulfill this
objective. Likewise, other Member States will conduct their own
evaluations of reform proposals. Implementing reforms will require the
United States to continue working with other Member States to build
consensus, which is often a time consuming process that causes the pace
of reform to proceed more slowly than the United States desires. That
said, we are strongly committed to sustaining progress on UN management
reform.
The following are GAO's comments on the State Department's letter dated
November 2, 2007.
GAO Comments:
1. During our review, we found that UN and nongovernmental organization
staff had concerns about weaknesses in the UN internal justice system
and the potential impact of these weaknesses on the implementation of a
successful whistleblower protection policy. We agree with these
concerns. As we state in our report, without a fair and impartial
justice system that effectively executes corrective action in cases of
retaliation or threatened retaliation, staff may not submit cases to
the ethics office. Also, the annual activities report of the ethics
office states that protection against retaliation is linked to the
internal justice system.
2. State notes that the General Assembly's approval of the creation of
an independent bid protest system was a critical first step toward
enhancing transparency in the UN's procurement award process. Per our
methodology, approving the creation of a protest system, while
demonstrating intent, is not equivalent to actual implementation of the
system, which has yet to begin. We categorize this reform effort under
"little or no progress" because there was evidence that few or no
implementation steps had been taken. As State notes in its comments,
our assessment that the UN has made little or no progress in
establishing an independent bid protest system for UN procurements is
consistent with our evaluation methodology.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Typical Management Reform Decision-Making Process for
Issues Requiring General Assembly Approval:
The management reform decision-making process at the UN involves
multiple entities. For example, when a management reform has budgetary
implications, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
Questions and the Administrative and Budgetary Committee (the Fifth
Committee) are involved in the process. The Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions, a subsidiary organ of the
General Assembly, consists of 16 members appointed by the assembly in
their individual capacity. The functions and responsibilities of the
advisory committee include advising the General Assembly concerning any
administrative and budgetary matters referred to it. The Fifth
Committee is the General Assembly's committee for administrative and
budgetary matters and is composed of all 192 member states. Figure 6
depicts the typical management reform decision-making process at the UN
for issues requiring General Assembly approval.
Figure 6: Typical Management Reform Decision-Making Process for Issues
Requiring General Assembly Approval:
This figure is a chart showing typical management reform decision-
making process for issues requiring general assembly approval:
The Secretary-General submits a report to the General Assembly with a
reform proposal.
The ACABQ reviews the Secretary-General‘s report and then makes
recommendation to the Fifth Committee.
The Fifth Committee holds discussions on the proposal and makes
recommendations to the General Assembly.
The General Assembly makes a final decision on the proposal or requests
more information from the Secretary-General.
[See PDF for image]
Source: State.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform
Initiatives, as of October 2007:
We reported in October 2006 that the Secretariat's estimated costs for
implementing certain management reform initiatives were approximately
$40 million. Since then, due to additional actions taken during the
61st session, the Secretariat's revised cost estimate, as of October
2007, had risen by about $13 million to approximately $53 million, as
shown in table 1 below.
Table 1: Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform
Initiatives, as of October 2007:
Dollars in millions.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Increase in the Working
Capital Fund (from member states' assessments effective Jan. 1, 2007);
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: $15.1;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: $0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: $15.1.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Strengthening of the Office
of Internal Oversight Services (39 temporary posts);
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 5.8;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 5.8.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Additional funding for the
new Human Rights Council;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 4.4;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 4.4.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Cost of an independent
external evaluation on governance and oversight;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 4.3;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 4.3.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: New ethics office;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 2.9;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 2.9.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Cost of a study and
implementation plan for the new information communications technology
system;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 2.2;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 2.2.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Start-up cost for the
International Public Sector Accounting Standards;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 2.0;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 2.0.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Office accommodations for new
posts at headquarters;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 1.9;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 1.9.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: New chief information
communications technology officer;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0.3;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 0.3.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Staff selection system in the
Office of Human Resources Management;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0.2;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 0.2.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Human resource, training, and
related items;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 4.8;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 4.8.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Office space for the Office
of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 5.0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 5.0.
Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Establishment of the
Independent Audit Advisory Committee;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0.3;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 0.3.
Reform actions: Subtotal, regular budget resources;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: $39.1;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: $10.1;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: $49.2.
Reform actions: Peacekeeping support account: Temporary procurement
service staff (6);
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0.7;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 0.7.
Reform actions: Peacekeeping support account: Human resources reforms
and training for procurement staff;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 2.7;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 2.7.
Reform actions: Subtotal, peacekeeping support account;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: $0.7;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: $2.7;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: $3.4.
Reform actions: Total additional funds approved to date;
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: $39.8;
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: $12.8;
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: $52.6.
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, $34.9 million will be funded
from the 2004-2005 budget surplus and $15.1 million from additional
assessments for 2006-2007. The $34.9 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.
[A] Reflects General Assembly action during the 61st session.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant
Director; Sarah Chankin-Gould; Debbie J. Chung; Lyric Winona Clark; and
George Taylor made key contributions to this report. Michael Derr,
Etana Finkler, Grace Lui, Amanda Miller, and Jena Sinkfield provided
technical assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
United Nations Organizations: Oversight and Accountability Could Be
Strengthened by Further Instituting International Best Practices. GAO-
07-597. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2007.
United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many
Awaiting General Assembly Review. GAO-07-14. Washington, D.C.: October
5, 2006.
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 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.
United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak. GAO-06-577.
Washington, D.C., April 25, 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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In 1996, the UN and Iraq established the Oil for Food program to
address Iraq's humanitarian needs 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, Feb. 3, 2005) and The
Management of the Oil-for-Food Program (New York, Sept. 7, 2005).
[2] United States Institute of Peace, American Interests and UN Reform
Report of the Task Force on the United Nations (Washington, D.C., June
2005).
[3] United Nations, Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services
on the Activities of the Procurement Task Force for the 18-month period
ended 30 June 2007, A/62-672 (New York, Oct. 5, 2007).
[4] United Nations, 2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N.
GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (2005).
[5] GAO, United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with
Many Awaiting General Assembly Review, GAO-07-14 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 5, 2006).
[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, "UN" refers to the UN General Assembly and the UN
Secretariat.
[7] We define effectiveness as the extent to which reform efforts are
achieving their goals and objectives. GAO, Government Auditing
Standards: 2003 Revision, GAO-03-673G (Washington, D.C.: June 2003),
21.
[8] We assign "little or no progress" to reform efforts where there is
evidence that few or no steps have been taken on the reform effort;
"some progress" to those where there is evidence that some steps have
been taken on the reform effort, while others remain; and "substantial
progress" to those where there is evidence that the reform effort has
been mostly or fully implemented.
[9] 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 and activities 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)
funds and programs, such as the UN Development Program, which are
authorized by the General Assembly to conduct specific lines of work.
[10] The U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York, which has a
staff of more than 100, represents the United States at the world body.
[11] Although the Secretary-General does not have direct authority over
specialized agencies and many funds and programs, many member states
wanted the reforms at the Secretariat to serve as a model for UN-wide
reforms, according to State.
[12] 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).
[13] GAO, United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive
Assessments Needed to Measure Impact, GAO-04-339 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 13, 2004).
[14] These studies included a 2004 report of a high-level panel
convened by the Secretary-General to recommend ways to strengthen the
UN, a March 2005 Secretary-General report to the General Assembly, a
June 2005 report by a task force mandated by the U.S. Congress to
recommend improvements to organizational effectiveness, and several
reports of the Independent Inquiry Committee, established to
investigate the Oil for Food Program. See 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, 2004); In
Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All,
U.N. Doc. A/59/2005; Independent Inquiry Committee into the United
Nations Oil-for-Food Program, Interim Report (New York, Feb. 3, 2005);
and The Management of the Oil-for-Food Program (New York, Sept. 7,
2005). Also see United States Institute of Peace, American Interests
and UN Reform, Report of the Task Force on the United Nations
(Washington, D.C., June 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] In June 2007, we reported on the internal oversight functions at
six UN organizations other than the Secretariat: the Food and
Agriculture Organization, International Labor Organization, United
Nations Development Program, United Nations Children's Fund, World Food
Program, and World Health Organization. We found that their internal
audit and evaluation offices had not fully implemented international
auditing or UN evaluation standards. We also found that the governing
bodies responsible for their oversight lack full access to internal
audit reports, and most lack direct information from the audit offices
about the sufficiency of their resources and capacity to conduct their
work. To improve oversight in UN organizations, we recommended that the
Secretary of State direct the U.S. Missions to work with member states
by (1) making audit reports available to the governing bodies and (2)
establishing independent audit committees that are accountable to their
governing bodies. See GAO, United Nations Organizations: Oversight and
Accountability Could Be Strengthened by Further Instituting
International Best Practices, GAO-07-597 (Washington, D.C.: June 18,
2007).
[18] GAO, United Nations: Funding Arrangements Impede Independence of
Internal Auditors, GAO-06-575 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2006); United
Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak, GAO-06-577
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2006); and 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).
[19] GAO-07-14.
[20] The brochures are Introduction to the Ethics Office, Financial
Disclosure Programme, Protection against Retaliation, and Conflicts of
Interest.
[21] The policy on protection against retaliation for reporting
misconduct went into effect on January 1, 2006; it formalizes
protective measures for staff members under the threat of, or
experiencing, retaliation for duly reported misconduct in their working
environment, or for cooperating with duly authorized audits or
investigations.
[22] For whistleblower retaliation complaints, the ethics office
consults with the offices of Human Resources Management, Legal Affairs,
the Ombudsman, and Internal Oversight Services and the secretariat of
the Joint Appeals Board.
[23] The Government Accountability Project is a 30-year-old nonprofit
public interest group that aims to promote government and corporate
accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending
whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. For more information,
visit [hyperlink, http://www.whistleblower.org/].
[24] We discuss the reform of the UN's internal justice system later in
this report.
[25] The UN system is composed of bodies including the main Secretariat
and separately administered funds, programs, and specialized agencies.
For example, funds and programs include the United Nations Children's
Fund and the United Nations Development Program, which have executive
boards and executive heads but are under the authority of the UN
Secretary-General.
[26] In August 2007, the UN Development Program (UNDP) refused a
request from the ethics office director to submit to a formal
investigation regarding the accusation that the program had retaliated
against an employee who exposed abuse and rules violations in the
agency's programs in North Korea. In a letter to UNDP in August 2007,
the director of the ethics office said the ethics office determined
that the UNDP case was prima facie and pointed out that UNDP did not
have an applicable protection from retaliation policy. UNDP responded
that it would appoint its own independent investigator to handle the
case. Additional allegations of retaliation have since surfaced in UNDP
programs in Senegal and Turkey.
[27] Specialized agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture
Organization, have their own governing bodies and executive heads and
are not under the authority of the Secretary-General. These agencies,
which are legally independent international organizations with their
own rules, membership, organs, and financial resources, were brought
into relationship with the United Nations through negotiated
agreements.
[28] United Nations, Activities of the Ethics Office, UN Doc. A/62/285.
[29] The policy applies to staff at the director level and above, staff
whose principal duties include procurement or investment functions,
staff with access to confidential procurement or investment
information, and staff serving in the ethics office.
[30] The General Assembly chose PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP to conduct
an external review of staff members' financial disclosure and
declaration of interest statements in December 2006.
[31] A March 31 deadline will apply in future years, according to the
ethics office.
[32] The five members are from India, Jamaica, the Russian Federation,
Uganda, and the United States. They were elected from a pool of
candidates from five geographic regions: Asia; Latin America and the
Caribbean; Eastern Europe; Africa; and Western Europe and other states.
The member from the United States is the Honorable David M. Walker,
Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
[33] GAO-06-575.
[34] The General Assembly's 61st session began in September 2006, and
its 62nd session began in September 2007.
[35] See United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General, Report on the
Activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services for the Period
from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007, A/62/281 (Part I).
[36] GAO, United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and
Areas for Further Investigation, GAO-04-953T (Washington, D.C.: July 8,
2004); and United Nations: Oil for Food Program Audits, GAO-05-346T
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2005).
[37] The American Certification Institute and the International
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management Institute provide certification
for procurement professionals.
[38] United Nations, Report of the Office of Internal Oversight
Services on the Activities of the Procurement Task Force for the 18-
month period ended 30 June 2007, A/62-672 (Oct. 5, 2007). According to
this report, the task force continues to examine cases and is funded
through 2007. The report also states that it is unlikely that these
cases will be finalized under the current arrangements.
[39] United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General, Investing in the
United Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide: detailed report
addendum, A/60/846/Add.5 (June 16, 2006).
[40] In February 2007, the UN Secretary-General proposed a
reorganization of DPKO into an operational unit and a support unit in
order to strengthen the unity of command. The new support unit, known
as the Department of Field Support, is expected to give peacekeepers
more control over such issues as procurement of goods for troops.
[41] As of October 2007, GAO had begun reviews of the reorganization of
the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
[42] A/61/255.
[43] A/RES/61/244.
[44] United Nations, Report of the Redesign Panel on the United Nations
system of administration of justice, A/61/205 (July 28, 2006). The
Secretary-General established this panel of independent external
experts in January 2006 to review and possibly redesign the internal
justice system. Although the reform effort was not included in the 2005
World Summit outcome document, we included it in the scope of our
review because it is related to ethics and human resource reform.
[45] Mandate review issues include peace and security; promotion of
sustained economic growth and sustainable development; development of
Africa; promotion of human rights; effective coordination of
humanitarian assistance efforts; promotion of justice and international
law; disarmament; drug control, crime prevention and combating
international terrorism; and organizational, administrative and other
matters. For example, in one mandate, the General Assembly urged the
Secretary-General to provide the United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime with the resources necessary to enable it to promote the
implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
[46] Mandates originate from three principal UN entities--the General
Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council.
For the purpose of this report, we focused on the General Assembly's
review process.
[47] The Group of 77 and China (G-77) is a coalition of developing
countries that promotes its members' collective interests. Currently,
131 developing countries are members of the G-77.
[48] According to State, mandates that have been acted upon,
implemented, and completed have been indicated as "completed." These
include founding or founding-related mandates.
[49] The first thematic cluster included all activities and programs
relating to drug control, crime prevention, and combating international
terrorism.
[50] Over half of the 17 member states we spoke with mentioned distrust
between the member states and the Secretariat as another hindrance to
the progress of reform efforts. Some member states also told us that
these concerns have continued under the new Secretary-General, who
appointed numerous high-level Secretariat officials without consulting
with the member states first.
[51] Although the UN has not established long-term cost estimates, the
Secretariat reported in October 2007 that initial estimated costs for
implementing certain management reform initiatives--which represent a
limited amount of the projected management reform agenda--were
approximately $53 million, an increase of $13 million from the $40
million we reported in September 2006. See appendix IV for itemized
funding for initial UN management reform efforts approved since
September 2006.
[52] A July 2007 report by the Congressional Research Service
recognized that, in addition to competing priorities within the
Secretariat and General Assembly, the inability of UN member states or
Secretaries-General to effectively prioritize reform initiatives is an
obstacle to UN reform. CRS Report for Congress, United Nations Reform:
U.S. Policy and International Perspectives (Washington, D.C., July 24,
2007).
[53] We did not include human rights in our review because it is not
directly related to reforming the management of the UN.
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail 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, DC 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: [hyperlink, http://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, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
