United Nations
Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus Needed for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan Gao ID: GAO-11-922 September 29, 2011The United States and other member states have long-standing concerns about the management and operations of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a United Nations (UN) specialized agency charged with leading international efforts to defeat hunger. After an external evaluation found that FAO needed to reform, FAO adopted its reform plan, called the Immediate Plan of Action for FAO Renewal (IPA), which includes 272 action items. This report examines (1) the methodology that FAO uses to report on the status of its reform plan, (2) factors that affect FAO's ability to implement its reform plan, and (3) actions the United States has undertaken to support FAO reform efforts. GAO analyzed FAO documents, including FAO's most recent 2010 IPA progress report; interviewed U.S. and UN officials, and representatives of FAO member states; and analyzed 30 IPA action items from FAO's reform plan.
In response to member states' request, FAO's 2010 Immediate Plan of Action (IPA) progress report, which shows the status of FAO's IPA, or reform plan, provides more quantitative measures of its reform implementation statusprovided more quantitative measures of its reform implementation status than in its previous progress report, but the reported information may not accurately reflect the implementation status of some action items due to weaknesses in FAO's methodology. The progress report used implementation status categories to characterize reform status. IPA project leaders assessed the status of action items using these categories, but the varying nature of the action items and ambiguity of the implementation status categories caused difficulties in quantitatively measuring the progress of reforms. FAO's Program Management Unit (PMU), the entity responsible for managing the implementation of the reform plan, did not provide clear guidance for project leaders to easily differentiate among the categories. Moreover, the PMU did not comprehensively validate the reported implementation status for all action items in the 2010 IPA progress report. However, it has begun to collect and validate supporting information for all action items that project leaders are reporting as being "completed" and has also begun to monitor the progress of a selected number of action items that have yet to be completed. GAO found that the reported information in FAO's 2010 IPA progress report may not precisely reflect the implementation status of some action items. For example, some action items that were ongoing in nature were categorized as "on track," while others were reported as "continuous." Since the action items that remain to be completed are the largest and most complex to implement, the accuracy of future progress reports will become more important to FAO member states that are responsible for providing appropriate oversight. FAO management has made efforts to address some factors that could hinder its ability to implement the reform plan, but some impediments may challenge full implementation. To further its oversight of the reform plan, FAO management undertook a risk assessment that identified risks at the program level, such as weaknesses in its internal governance, and significant risks that could affect implementation at the project level. FAO management has addressed some of the weaknesses and risks identified in the risk assessment. However, impediments such as disagreements among member states, interdependencies among reform projects, and insufficient support from some managers and staff could cause some of the action items to be incomplete or delayed. For example, member states continue to disagree on the criteria for FAO country office coverage. FAO management does not expect to complete this action item until after the scheduled end of the reform plan in 2013. As the principal representative of U.S. interests at FAO headquarters, the U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome (USUN Rome) has made efforts to support FAO reform. USUN Rome's actions include the prioritization of oversight and accountability reforms, consistent with a U.S. government initiative across the UN system and are reflected in USUN Rome's performance indicators. USUN Rome has also worked formally and informally with member states to promote oversight and accountability reforms at FAO. GAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Representative to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture work with member states to (1) encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and categorizing the implementation status of IPA action items and (2) determine before 2013 if consensus can be achieved for IPA action items currently subject to disagreement among member states. The Department of State concurred with GAO's recommendations. FAO management noted that it would consider the issues discussed in GAO's report.
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: Thomas Melito Team: Government Accountability Office: International Affairs and Trade Phone: (202) 512-9601GAO-11-922, United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus Needed for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-922
entitled 'United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States'
Consensus Needed for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan'
which was released on September 29, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
September 2011:
United Nations:
Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus Needed for Food and
Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan:
GAO-11-922:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-922, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The United States and other member states have long-standing concerns
about the management and operations of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), a United Nations (UN) specialized agency charged
with leading international efforts to defeat hunger. After an external
evaluation found that FAO needed to reform, FAO adopted its reform
plan, called the Immediate Plan of Action for FAO Renewal (IPA), which
includes 272 action items. This report examines (1) the methodology
that FAO uses to report on the status of its reform plan, (2) factors
that affect FAO‘s ability to implement its reform plan, and (3)
actions the United States has undertaken to support FAO reform
efforts. GAO analyzed FAO documents, including FAO‘s most recent 2010
IPA progress report; interviewed U.S. and UN officials, and
representatives of FAO member states; and analyzed 30 IPA action items
from FAO‘s reform plan.
What GAO Found:
In response to member states‘ request, FAO‘s 2010 IPA progress report
provided more quantitative measures of its reform implementation
status than in its previous progress report, but the reported
information may not accurately reflect the implementation status of
some action items due to weaknesses in FAO‘s methodology. The progress
report used implementation status categories to characterize reform
status. IPA project leaders assessed the status of action items using
these categories, but the varying nature of the action items and
ambiguity of the implementation status categories caused difficulties
in quantitatively measuring the progress of reforms. FAO‘s Program
Management Unit (PMU), the entity responsible for managing the
implementation of the reform plan, did not provide clear guidance for
project leaders to easily differentiate among the categories.
Moreover, the PMU did not comprehensively validate the reported
implementation status for all action items in the 2010 IPA progress
report. However, it has begun to collect and validate supporting
information for all action items that project leaders are reporting as
being ’completed“ and has also begun to monitor the progress of a
selected number of action items that have yet to be completed. GAO
found that the reported information in FAO‘s 2010 IPA progress report
may not precisely reflect the implementation status of some action
items. For example, some action items that were ongoing in nature were
categorized as ’on track,“ while others were reported as ’continuous.“
Since the action items that remain to be completed are the largest and
most complex to implement, the accuracy of future progress reports
will become more important to FAO member states that are responsible
for providing appropriate oversight.
FAO management has made efforts to address some factors that could
hinder its ability to implement the reform plan, but some impediments
may challenge full implementation. To further its oversight of the
reform plan, FAO management undertook a risk assessment that
identified risks at the program level, such as weaknesses in its
internal governance, and significant risks that could affect
implementation at the project level. FAO management has addressed some
of the weaknesses and risks identified in the risk assessment.
However, impediments such as disagreements among member states,
interdependencies among reform projects, and insufficient support from
some managers and staff could cause some of the action items to be
incomplete or delayed. For example, member states continue to disagree
on the criteria for FAO country office coverage. FAO management does
not expect to complete this action item until after the scheduled end
of the reform plan in 2013.
As the principle representative of U.S. interests at FAO headquarters,
the U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome (USUN Rome) has made
efforts to support FAO reform. USUN Rome‘s actions include the
prioritization of oversight and accountability reforms, consistent
with a U.S. government initiative across the UN system and are
reflected in USUN Rome‘s performance indicators. USUN Rome has also
worked formally and informally with member states to promote oversight
and accountability reforms at FAO. For example, USUN Rome officials
participated in an oversight focus group that actively supported the
drafting of a disclosure policy for FAO‘s internal audit reports and
the establishment of an Ethics Office.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Representative
to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture work with member states to
(1) encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and
categorizing the implementation status of IPA action items and (2)
determine before 2013 if consensus can be achieved for IPA action
items currently subject to disagreement among member states. The
Department of State concurred with GAO‘s recommendations. FAO
management noted that it would consider the issues discussed in GAO‘s
report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-922] or key
components. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-
9601 or melitot@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
In Response to Member States' Request, FAO Management Added
Quantitative Measures of the Status of Its Reform Plan, but Its
Methodology Has Weaknesses:
FAO Has Taken Steps to Address Factors That Hinder Its Ability to
Implement Certain Reforms, but Some Impediments May Challenge Full
Implementation:
USUN Rome's Efforts to Support FAO Management Reform Emphasized
Oversight and Accountability:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix III: Comments from the Food and Agriculture Organization:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: IPA Projects by Thematic Areas, as of July 2011:
Table 2: Summary of Implementation Status Category Definitions, and
the Number and Percentage of IPA Action Items by Implementation Status
during 2009 and 2010, as of Dec. 31, 2010:
Table 3: Summary of the Total Number of IPA Action Items and the
Number Selected for In-Depth GAO Review, by Implementation Status, as
of Dec. 31, 2010:
Table 4: List of 30 Selected IPA Action Items, as of Dec. 31, 2010:
Abbreviations:
DO: Decentralized Offices:
ERM: enterprise risk management:
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization:
IO: Department of State's International Organization Affairs Bureau:
IPA: Immediate Plan of Action for FAO Renewal:
IPSAS: International Public Sector Accounting Standards:
PMU: Program Management Unit:
PWB: Program of Work and Budget:
UN: United Nations:
UNTAI: United Nations Transparency and Accountability Initiative:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
USUN Rome: U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 29, 2011:
The Honorable John F. Kerry:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Sam Farr:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro:
House of Representatives:
The United States and other member states have long-standing concerns
about the management and operations of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), a 60-year-old United Nations (UN) specialized
agency charged with leading international efforts to defeat hunger.
FAO's mission includes raising levels of nutrition, improving
agricultural productivity, enhancing the lives of rural populations,
and contributing to the growth of the world economy. Over the past
decade, some member states have repeatedly criticized FAO's leadership
for its failure to efficiently and effectively manage its programs and
provide appropriate oversight and accountability. In 2006, FAO
management agreed to undergo its first Independent External Evaluation-
-undertaken over 18 months by an independent team of outside
consultants--which resulted in a 2007 report with 109 reform
recommendations, aimed at reversing FAO's decline and securing its
future as a dynamic and effective global organization. The evaluation
found that FAO continued to provide a range of essential goods and
services that no other organization could adequately provide, though
these areas were at serious risk. It also reported that the
organization had a heavy and costly bureaucracy and needed to address
major weaknesses in its organizational structure. Moreover, the
evaluation found member states' overall governance of FAO to be
insufficient because, for example, it did not ensure an adequate
corporate strategy with realistic priorities and did not measure FAO
management's performance against agreed-upon goals. Since the
Independent External Evaluation, FAO has hired an external consultant
to conduct an additional review focusing on the organization's
administrative and support functions and processes.[Footnote 1] To
address the recommendations of this review, as well as the findings of
the 2006 external evaluation, in November 2008, FAO adopted the
Immediate Plan of Action for FAO Renewal (IPA), which we also refer to
in this report as FAO's reform plan. The IPA identifies 272 specific
action items that fall under 29 different IPA projects, such as
governing body reform, decentralization, and culture change.[Footnote
2] FAO also uses six broad thematic areas to categorize the nature of
action items and projects.[Footnote 3] FAO officials told us that
implementing large-scale change management initiatives is not a simple
endeavor and that they expect productivity and effectiveness to
initially decline before achieving the reform plan's intended benefits
in 2013. Given the complexity of the reform plan, FAO decided to
extend the planned time frame for implementation from a 3-year period
(2009 to 2011) to a 5-year period (2009 to 2013).
As the largest financial contributor to FAO's regular assessed budget
and a major participant in FAO's Governing Body of member states, the
United States has emphasized the need for management reforms in the
organization.[Footnote 4] The U.S. Department of State's (State)
International Organization Affairs Bureau (IO) is the primary U.S.
agency promoting effective management of international organizations
and therefore leads efforts to support the U.S. position on FAO
management reforms. State IO relies on the U.S. Mission to the UN
Agencies in Rome (USUN Rome) to represent U.S. interests at FAO
headquarters. USUN Rome includes U.S. officials from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) who work on FAO issues. USDA and USAID work with
FAO on technical and programmatic issues, as well as developmental and
humanitarian assistance projects, respectively.
In response to your request and to address the issues discussed above,
we examined (1) the methodology that FAO uses to report on the status
of its reform plan, (2) factors that affect FAO's ability to implement
its reform plan, and (3) actions the United States has undertaken to
support FAO reform efforts.
To address these objectives, we focused our review on FAO's reform
plan. In addition, unless otherwise specified, we focused on the
information in FAO's most recent IPA progress report, as of December
31, 2010, which we refer to as FAO's 2010 IPA progress report when we
discuss the implementation status of FAO's reform plan in this report.
[Footnote 5] We reviewed and analyzed FAO and U.S. documents and data
and met with officials representing FAO, the U.S. government, and
other FAO member countries. We conducted a general review of all 272
IPA action items, and selected a nonprobability sample of 30 action
items for more in-depth review.[Footnote 6] We selected these 30
action items because they fall among the six different thematic areas
of the IPA and reflect the range of reported implementation status
categories, according to FAO's 2010 IPA progress report.[Footnote 7]
However, our sample was intended to be illustrative, and the results
of the sample cannot be projected to all 272 IPA action items. To help
us better understand the factors that may affect FAO's reform plan, we
selected a sample with a higher proportion of action items that FAO
management reported as "subject to minor delays" than action items
that FAO management reported as "completed" or "on track."[Footnote 8]
Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our scope and
methodology. It includes, in table 3, a summary of the total number of
IPA action items by implementation status category, as reported by FAO
management, and the number of action items we selected within each of
those categories for more in-depth review. It also includes, in table
4, a detailed description of our selected 30 action items, which we
refer to by IPA action item number in this report.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 to September
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
FAO's Mission and Governance Structure:
FAO was established in 1945 with a mandate to raise international
levels of nutrition and standards of living, improve agricultural
productivity, and improve the condition of rural populations. With a
primary focus on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and rural
development, FAO collects, analyzes, and disseminates food-security-
related statistical information, and sets international standards
critical to trade in food and agricultural products. FAO is
headquartered in Rome, and its decentralized offices include 5
regional, 11 subregional, and 74 country offices.[Footnote 9]
FAO has 191 member states and is governed by various bodies
represented by member states. Every 2 years, representatives of all
member states meet at the FAO Conference (Conference)--FAO's supreme
Governing Body--to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities, which
include determining FAO's policy, approving the program of work and
budget, and adopting general rules and financial regulations. Each
Conference member has a single vote on these matters, regardless of
the level of its contribution. The Conference elects a smaller group
of 49 member states, known as the Council, to serve 3-year rotating
terms. The Council reviews the program of work and budget; exercises
control over FAO's financial administration by, for example, making
adjustments to the approved budget; and appoints the external auditor.
As with the Conference, each Council member has a single vote in
acting on these matters. The Conference also elects a Director-
General, FAO's chief administrative officer, to a 4-year term with the
ability to be eligible for only one additional 4-year term.[Footnote
10] Except as otherwise provided in the Basic Text and certain rules,
the decisions of the Conference and Council are taken by a majority of
the votes cast.[Footnote 11] However, according to FAO officials, the
practice is that Governing Bodies normally make decisions by achieving
consensus among member states, with votes taken only when specifically
required in the Basic Texts or when consensus cannot be achieved.
FAO's Committee of the Conference for Follow-up to the Independent
External Evaluation--which we refer to in this report as the
Conference Committee--is open to participation by all member states
and oversees the progress of the IPA.[Footnote 12] The Conference
Committee received direct support from three Working Groups and advice
from other FAO Governing Bodies: the Council, Program Committee,
Finance Committee, Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, and
Regional Conferences.[Footnote 13] In November 2010, the Director-
General established an IPA Program Board, comprised of FAO management
and the IPA Program Management Unit (PMU), to ensure that the reform
plan meets its objectives and delivers its intended benefits. The
PMU's responsibilities include ensuring that adequate project
management standards are utilized, monitoring IPA program and project
risks, and coordinating and directing the reform program on behalf of
the IPA Program Board. The IPA project leaders are FAO senior managers
with line management responsibility for implementing IPA action items,
while the PMU reports on the status of IPA implementation to the
Conference Committee in quarterly and annual reports.[Footnote 14] For
IPA implementation, the Basic Texts include the provision that the
Independent Chairperson of the Council, appointed by the Conference,
would take steps to facilitate and achieve consensus among member
states, especially on important or controversial issues.
Funding for FAO and Its Management Reform Plan:
FAO's overall program of work is funded by assessed and voluntary
contributions. The assessed contributions are member states'
contributions, set at the biennial FAO Conference. FAO's funding from
its regular budget for the 2010-2011 biennium is $1 billion. The
voluntary contributions provided by members and other partners support
technical and emergency assistance to governments that support FAO's
core work. Voluntary contributions are expected to reach approximately
$1.6 billion in 2010-2011.
FAO's budget to address reforms includes funding from member states'
regular assessed contributions, and donors' voluntary contributions
provided for FAO reform-related efforts. In 2009, the FAO Conference
approved $39.6 million to fund IPA implementation in 2010-2011, and in
2011, FAO proposed funding of about $37.8 million for the IPA program
in 2012-2013. In addition to the portion of member states' assessed
contributions that FAO dedicates to reforms, member states have also
made voluntary contributions toward FAO reform-related initiatives. As
of December 2010, FAO reported that it had received approximately $9
million from 36 such pledges. Starting in fiscal year 2004, the United
States provided $1.15 million in voluntary contributions to help fund
FAO's 2006 Independent External Evaluation and IPA implementation,
which were not covered by assessed contributions. These voluntary
contributions specifically included $500,000 in fiscal year 2009 to
fund IPA implementation costs.
FAO's IPA Projects by Thematic Area:
Table 1 lists the 29 IPA projects by the six broad thematic areas into
which FAO groups the 272 action items. FAO has one additional thematic
area, with projects and action items related to IPA management follow-
up, which we labeled as "other."
Table 1: IPA Projects by Thematic Areas, as of July 2011:
IPA thematic area: I. Managing for Results;
IPA projects:
Reform of Program, Budgeting, and Results-Based Monitoring;
Resource Mobilization and Management;
Functioning as One: Enterprise Risk Management.
IPA thematic area: II. Functioning as One;
IPA projects:
Technical Cooperation Program;
Decentralization;
Partnerships.
IPA thematic area: III. Human Resources Reform;
IPA projects:
Headquarters Structure;
Performance Management System;
Competency Framework;
Mobility;
Other Human Resources Actions.
IPA thematic area: IV. Reform of Administrative and Management Systems;
IPA projects:
Publishing in All Languages;
Procurement;
Travel;
Translation and Printing;
Registry Reform;
Administrative Service Model and FAO Manual;
International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and Field
Accounting System Replacement;
Improving Telecommunications Connectivity to Decentralized Offices (DO);
Oracle R12;
Other Information Technology Actions.
IPA thematic area: V. Culture Change;
IPA projects:
Culture Change.
IPA thematic area: VI. Governance Reform and Oversight;
IPA projects:
Governing Body Reform;.
Audit;
Evaluation;
Ethics;
Internal Governance.
IPA thematic area: Other: IPA Management Follow-up;
IPA projects:
IPA Program Management Support;
IPA Communications.
Source: FAO.
[End of table]
USUN Rome's Goals and Performance Indicators Related to FAO Reforms:
Actions to support FAO management reform are part of USUN Rome's goals
and performance indicators in fiscal year 2010. One of USUN Rome's
goals is to improve Rome-based UN organization governance activities,
including efforts to promote FAO reforms.[Footnote 15] According to a
document that summarizes USUN Rome's performance results for fiscal
year 2010, it established this goal to increase the cost-
effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of the Rome-based UN
organizations in the context of broader UN system reforms in order to
ensure that they are viewed as reliable and valuable partners by
member states and partner organizations.
In Response to Member States' Request, FAO Management Added
Quantitative Measures of the Status of Its Reform Plan, but Its
Methodology Has Weaknesses:
In its 2010 IPA progress report, FAO used more quantitative measures
to reflect its reform implementation status than in its previous
progress report. The report uses seven implementation status
categories to quantitatively assess the status of action items.
However, the varying nature of the action items and the ambiguity of
these implementation status categories contributed to potential
inconsistencies in project leaders' assessment of several action items
in our sample. The PMU did not provide clear guidance for project
leaders to easily differentiate among the categories and did not
comprehensively validate the reported implementation status for action
items in FAO's 2010 IPA progress report. We found examples in which
some action items could reasonably be classified under more than one
implementation status category. As a result, the 2010 IPA progress
report may not precisely reflect the implementation status of some
action items.
FAO Management Added Quantitative Measures of Reform Implementation
Status in Its 2010 IPA Progress Report:
FAO used more quantitative measures to reflect its reform
implementation status in its 2010 IPA progress report than in its
previous progress report. Since November 2009, FAO has provided
periodic IPA progress reports based on its own assessment of the
status of 272 IPA action items. These progress reports are the primary
management tool that member states rely on to determine the status of
FAO's reform plan. The content of the progress reports changes based
on the requests of member states. Progress reports generally include a
qualitative description of the progress of reform implementation. The
2010 IPA progress report included a qualitative discussion of
achievements and benefits in the six thematic areas, such as noting
increased use of participatory processes for work planning and
decision making and greater levels of information and knowledge
sharing for Culture Change.
Member states requested more quantitative measures of the
implementation status of the reform plan upon reviewing the prior
progress report, which contained only qualitative information on the
reforms. In response, FAO's 2010 IPA progress report provided a
breakdown of the number of action items by implementation status,
unlike the preceding progress report. The PMU requested that IPA
project leaders use four categories--completed, on track, subject to
minor delays, and subject to major delays--to assess the status of
those action items they are responsible for implementing. In addition,
the progress report included "continuous," "no consensus among member
states," and "scheduled beyond 2013" as categories under "other."
[Footnote 16] The 2010 IPA progress report showed that 55 percent of
the action items are "completed," 39 percent are "on track," and 6
percent are "subject to minor delays." However, in reporting these
percentages, FAO did not include 12 action items categorized in the
"other" category, which would have represented 4.4 percent of the
total number of action items if FAO management had included the
"other" category in its calculations. Table 2 includes the definitions
of the implementation status categories and a quantitative summary of
all 272 action items by implementation status.
Table 2: Summary of Implementation Status Category Definitions, and
the Number and Percentage of IPA Action Items by Implementation Status
during 2009 and 2010, as of Dec. 31, 2010:
Status: Completed;
Category definition: Implementation of the IPA action has been
completed;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 143[B]; 55%.
Status: On track;
Category definition: Progress toward implementation of the IPA action
is in accordance with the planned dates and impediments and risks are
not expected to significantly affect progress;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 102; 39%.
Status: Subject to minor delays;
Category definition: Progress toward implementation of the IPA action
by the planned dates is in jeopardy but action has been identified to
overcome delays, impediments and risks;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 15; 6%.
Status: Subject to major delays;
Category definition: Successful implementation of the IPA action by
the planned dates is in serious jeopardy due to impediments or risks
that are expected to significantly alter implementation;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 0; N/A.
Status: Other: continuous;
Category definition: Actions were considered to be of a "continuous"
nature rather than having a specific start and end date;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 5; Excluded.
Status: Other: no consensus among member states;
Category definition: Actions were not implemented because there was no
consensus among members;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 3; Excluded.
Status: Other: scheduled beyond 2013 by FAO Management;
Category definition: Actions have been scheduled to be completed
"beyond 2013" by management;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 2; Excluded.
Status: Other: proposed for deletion;
Category definition: Proposed for deletion subject to members'
approval;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 2; Excluded.
Status: Total;
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of
implementation status: 272; 100%.
Source: FAO's 2010 IPA progress report.
[A] FAO's reported percentage excludes the categories as indicated.
[B] FAO reported that it completed 118 action items in 2009 and 25
action items in 2010.
[End of table]
Measuring FAO's Reform Progress Quantitatively Is Difficult:
According to some FAO officials, the varying nature of the action
items causes difficulties in quantitatively measuring their
implementation status in a consistent manner. As noted in the 2010 IPA
progress report, the quantitative indicators provide only a partial
measurement of the progress of reforms, given the wide variation in
size, scope, and complexity of individual action items. The IPA's 272
action items range from discrete, finite actions--such as the
appointment of an ombudsman--to actions that are more difficult to
assess because they are ongoing in nature--such as the implementation
of a vision for culture change. According to the 2010 IPA progress
report, completion of some action items is considered relatively "easy
and quick," whereas completion of others may be extremely complex and
require a major investment of resources. The action items planned for
completion in the 2012-2013 time period represent 20 percent of the
number of outstanding action items but correspond to 40 percent of the
total workload in terms of outstanding effort, time, and costs, and,
according to the 2010 IPA progress report, are the largest and most
complex to implement.
Furthermore, FAO officials told us that it is difficult to determine
which category most accurately reflects the implementation status of
certain action items and to precisely differentiate among the
categories themselves. For example, the designations under the "other"
category--"continuous," "no consensus among member states," and
"scheduled beyond 2013"--often characterize the nature of the action
items and the reasons for delays rather than the action items' actual
implementation status in terms of time frames. Representatives of some
FAO member states also noted that they cannot easily differentiate
between some of the categories, such as the "continuous" and
"scheduled beyond 2013" categories.
The PMU Did Not Provide Clear Guidance and Did Not Comprehensively
Validate the Reported Status of Action Items:
Despite the inherent difficulties in assigning the action items to the
existing implementation status categories, the PMU provided only
limited guidance to project leaders on how to define and differentiate
among the implementation status categories. Based on what we have
noted in various reports, organizations should develop clear
definitions for categories to account for progress made and to apply
the same definitions consistently to all actions for which it is
measuring progress.[Footnote 17] The only guidance the PMU provided to
project leaders was (1) the implementation status categories'
definitions (as shown in table 2); (2) a request for the project
leaders' judgment on the action items' implementation statuses against
the planned start and end dates of implementation; and (3) a request
that, for any action items the project leaders assessed as being
"subject to major delays," the project leaders were required to
provide comments explaining the impediments or risks to implementation
of these action items. FAO officials noted that the PMU also worked
with project leaders if they raised questions about categorizing the
action items.
The PMU did not provide clear guidance on the definitions of and
distinctions among implementation categories. For example, the PMU did
not clearly define the "continuous" category, intended to characterize
ongoing action items. The 2010 IPA progress report did not provide
clarification on the implementation status of action items in the
"continuous" category, such as "one action needed," "several actions
needed," or "continuous actions needed" to complete these action
items. Without clear guidance that adequately defines the categories
and allows project leaders to consistently apply the definitions to
action items that vary in nature, the quantitative measures of the
reform plan's status may be difficult to interpret.
Furthermore, the information in FAO's 2010 IPA progress report was not
comprehensively validated, which includes having an entity or
individual independent from the project leader review and concur with
the reported status of each action item, to provide a sufficient level
of confidence that the reported information is credible. GAO's
methodological guidance notes that reliability checks and management
review procedures are an essential component to ensuring that
different individuals categorize data in a consistent and reliable
fashion.[Footnote 18] The PMU relies primarily on the project leaders'
own assessment of the implementation statuses of action items that
they are implementing. An FAO official told us that the PMU reviewed
supporting documents for a subset of 2010 information provided by the
project leaders, including all action items that project leaders
reported as being completed, and on an ad hoc basis for others.
FAO officials acknowledged the need to improve the validity of the
reported information for additional action items and have begun to
monitor the progress of a selected number of action items that have
yet to be completed. As of June 2011, the PMU has developed a risk-
based approach to selecting 27 action items that have high
significance, present a high risk level, involve large costs to FAO,
and are not expected to be completed in 2011. One of the expected
benefits of this management action, among others, is to improve the
validity of the reported information for these action items. The PMU
plans to obtain and validate the evidence used by project leaders to
support the reported implementation status of these 27 selected action
items. In addition, the PMU is requesting that the project leaders
increase the information provided, including the benefits of
implementing these action items, specific planned and achieved
activities associated with these action items, milestone dates,
expenditures, savings, risks, and status of mitigating actions. These
27 action items represent about 21 percent of the 127 total action
items reported as not completed as of the end of 2010. According to
FAO, these action items include most of the complex and large projects
to be implemented in the 2012-2013 time frame, comprise approximately
70 percent of the related total IPA budget for the period, and are
expected by FAO management to deliver many of the benefits to be
achieved through IPA implementation.
Reported Information May Not Precisely Reflect the Implementation
Status of Some Action Items:
We found that the implementation status categories were not
consistently applied to the action items, and some action items could
arguably be classified in multiple implementation status categories.
We found the following examples of weaknesses in FAO's implementation
status categories and cases in our nonprobability sample of 30
selected action items in which action items could reasonably be
classified under more than one implementation status category:
* "Continuous" describes the nature of ongoing action items but does
not measure the progress of action items against time frames. The 2010
IPA progress report showed some ongoing actions as "continuous" and
others as "completed" or "on track." For example, FAO reported the
action item to implement a vision for culture change as "on track"
because FAO had developed a vision statement without major obstacles--
but FAO officials acknowledged that it could also be categorized as
"continuous" because its implementation is ongoing in nature.[Footnote
19] The 2010 IPA progress report shows another action item that is
ongoing in nature--that FAO pursues new partnerships--as "continuous."
[Footnote 20]
* Although the PMU's definition of "continuous" characterizes actions
that do not have specific start and end dates, action items classified
as "continuous" may, in fact, have planned start and end dates. For
one action item, in which the Program and Finance Committees would
support the Council in providing policy oversight of decentralization,
FAO set an end date of December 2013 but classified the status as
"continuous."[Footnote 21] Furthermore, FAO could establish completion
dates for some action items. For example, for the action item for FAO
to allocate 5 percent of its regular budget for interdisciplinary
work, FAO officials informed us that there is disagreement about this
issue within the organization, but FAO could set a date to determine
if the 5 percent target is reasonable relative to the other work that
is funded by its regular budget.[Footnote 22] Although the project
leader categorized this action as "continuous," resolution on this
action is uncertain and may be characterized as "subject to minor
delays."
* The "no consensus among member states" category provides a possible
reason for delays in implementing action items, but no other category
includes reasons for implementation delays. We found that all three
action items categorized as "no consensus among member states" could
have been categorized according to their actual implementation status--
being subject to minor or even major delays. For example, FAO
officials categorized the action item to rationalize coverage of FAO's
offices based on the reason for its delayed time frame, the lack of
members' consensus.[Footnote 23] FAO member states did not meet the
planned end date of December 2010 for this action item, and FAO
officials do not expect to complete this action item until after 2013.
Therefore, this action item could also be reported as "subject to
minor delays" or "scheduled for implementation beyond 2013."
* The "scheduled beyond 2013" category lacks clear definition and
distinction from the "subject to minor delays" category. For example,
the action item to increase FAO's Office of Evaluation budget target
over the 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 time frame was reported as "scheduled
beyond 2013" with a planned completion date of 2013.[Footnote 24] The
project leader informed us that based on FAO management's decision,
FAO does not plan to achieve this target until after 2013. The 2010
IPA progress report noted that delays occurred beyond the originally
planned completion date of 2012-2013. As such, this action item could
also be categorized as "subject to minor delays" since its target will
not be reached in the 2012-2013 biennium.
* FAO officials assessed action items' status based on previous target
dates, without accurately reflecting these action items' updated
status. For two action items in our sample--related to FAO's
implementation of the integrated International Public Sector
Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and information system upgrade--the
project leaders reported the implementation status as "subject to
minor delays" when they are, in fact, "on track."[Footnote 25] Prior
to the completion of the 2010 IPA progress report, FAO management
agreed to extend the planned completion date from 2010 to 2013, but
the project leaders and PMU officials continued to assess the progress
of these action items against the prior planned completion date.
* Project leaders used their own interpretations when assessing the
status of action items, so their assessments may not precisely
represent the implementation status. For example, the action item to
modify the format of reports produced by the FAO Council is
categorized as "continuous," but it could also be considered
"completed" or "on track" because the format changes have already been
made.[Footnote 26] Although the action as specified in the IPA was
completed, the project leader chose to categorize it as "continuous"
because another issue, not specified in the IPA but related to the
modified format of the Council reports, was still under debate among
member states.[Footnote 27]
FAO Has Taken Steps to Address Factors That Hinder Its Ability to
Implement Certain Reforms, but Some Impediments May Challenge Full
Implementation:
FAO has made efforts to identify and address factors that hinder its
ability to implement the reform plan. It undertook a systematic risk
assessment in 2010 to identify such factors and has since taken steps
to address them, at both the program and project levels. However, we
found that until FAO addresses other factors, such as disagreements
among member states, some of the action items in our sample may be
delayed beyond 2013 or may not be completed.
FAO Has Taken Steps to Identify and Address Factors that Hinder
Implementation of Its Reform Plan:
In 2010, FAO management undertook a systematic risk assessment to
identify any threats to the reform plan's implementation at both the
program and project levels, and actions needed to manage them.
[Footnote 28] The assessment revealed major gaps in management's
implementation of the reform plan which could prevent FAO from
achieving the intended benefits and damage its normal operations. It
identified risks associated with the reform plan, rated the risk
levels, and defined actions to control them. To develop the
assessment, FAO's Office of the Inspector General partnered with a
consultant to facilitate a self-assessment with project leaders and
their staff that resulted in a risk log for each IPA project.[Footnote
29] Project leaders and their staff were asked to identify significant
risks that could affect implementation of their projects.[Footnote 30]
For example, the project leader responsible for decentralization
identified a disruption risk that included Regional Offices becoming
isolated from headquarters and each other. Project leaders and their
staff rated these risks in terms of impact and likelihood. A FAO
official told us risks were then color-coded from most at risk (red),
to somewhat (amber), to least (green).[Footnote 31] Project leaders
and their staff concluded the self-assessment by documenting the
actions needed to control the risks associated with their projects.
FAO has taken steps to address weaknesses that the risk assessment
identified at the program level. For example, in November 2010, the
Director-General took the following steps to improve the reform plan's
internal governance:
* established an IPA Program Board composed of FAO's senior managers,
including the two Deputy Director-Generals, to improve internal
oversight and support key executive decisions;
* assigned responsibility for reform program management to the newly
established PMU;[Footnote 32]
* assigned responsibility for reform communications to the Office of
Corporate Communications and External Relations;
* included the reform plan as a standing item on senior management
meeting agendas and dedicated monthly meetings exclusively to this
topic; and:
* ensured that reform efforts are regularly discussed by the Executive
Leadership Team.
The IPA Program Board, chaired by one of the Deputy Director-
Generals, meets on a weekly basis and provides general oversight of
the reform plan. The IPA Program Board has prioritized how resources
for FAO's reform plan will be allocated in the 2012-2013 biennium
according to (1) long-term sustainability of the reform plan, (2) the
quality of projects, (3) financial discipline, and (4) alignment with
FAO's capacity to deliver.[Footnote 33] Furthermore, at the request of
the IPA Program Board, FAO's Office of the Inspector General plans to
conduct a comprehensive review of management's implementation of the
reform plan. According to FAO officials, the Office of the Inspector
General expects to hire an external consultant to conduct this
substantive review of the status of all 272 action items in late 2011,
when the reform plan is halfway through its 5-year implementation time
frame.
To address risks at the project level, the PMU has focused on the
projects that have the greatest likelihood of hindering full
implementation of the reform plan. The PMU has prioritized its efforts
in the following order: (1) projects upon which many other projects
are dependent, (2) projects that include the greatest number of risks
rated as "red," and (3) other project risks that were rated as "amber"
or "green." The PMU has been following up on actions taken by project
leaders to mitigate these risks. For example, FAO officials told us
the PMU worked with the IPA Program Board to recategorize action items
into an increased number of projects, which according to FAO's 2010-
2011 Management Report on IPA Implementation will help improve the
PMU's application of project standards and management of project
workloads, as well as more clearly presenting the reform plan's
implementation strategy. A FAO official also told us the PMU plans to
discuss such actions with the IPA Program Board if they are not
effective.
Factors Including Disagreements among Member States Could Hinder Full
Implementation of the Reform Plan:
Disagreements among Member States Continue to Impede Efforts to
Complete Three Action Items:
Qualifications of the Director-General:
In 2009, the Conference Committee did not complete the action item for
establishing qualifications for the Director-General position because,
according to a FAO official, member states could not agree on the
development of those qualifications.[Footnote 34] According to FAO's
2010 IPA progress report, member states did not take further action to
complete the action item, and member states' disagreement precluded
the consideration of new qualifications prior to the June 2011
Director-General election. However, the United Kingdom developed a
draft working document in June 2010 for the Conference Committee that
included a job description and competency profile for the Director-
General position.[Footnote 35] This document was presented to the
Conference Committee by the United Kingdom for information and to
promote the exchange of ideas among member states in the future.
Country Office Locations:
According to FAO's 2010 IPA progress report, an action item to review
FAO's country office locations is not on track for completion because
member states disagree on the criteria for country office coverage.
[Footnote 36] An FAO official told us that if the criteria for country
office coverage outlined in the IPA were applied, FAO would reduce its
operations to 5 country offices from its existing level of 74. To help
member states determine the optimal scale and scope of the country
office network, FAO management prepared a document that included
management's overall vision for the structure and functioning of the
decentralized offices network.[Footnote 37] Member states discussed
the content of this document in the 2010-2011 biennium and Regional
Conferences highlighted the importance of FAO's country presence. For
example, the Regional Conferences for (1) Africa, (2) Asia and the
Pacific, (3) Europe, and (4) Latin America and the Caribbean all
expressed the need for extending and strengthening FAO's country
presence, while the United States and Canada, during their informal
North America Regional Conference, felt additional resources for field
offices could only be added if they did not result in a net transfer
of resources from headquarters to the field. FAO officials told us
they plan to provide member states with additional information on each
country office--including staffing levels, operating costs, funding
sources, and administered programs. They also expect this information
to be discussed by the Governing Bodies in October 2011, as well as
the Regional Conferences in 2012.
Composition of the FAO Council:
FAO has not been able to complete the action item that proposes
changes to the composition of the FAO Council because member states
cannot agree on its overall size.[Footnote 38] In October 2010, the
Independent Chairperson of the Council developed a proposal to improve
representation in the FAO Council and enhance the efficiency of its
work, including a measure to increase the number of FAO Council seats
from 49 to 56. However, member states did not accept this proposal.
Some members argued for keeping the existing number of 49 seats.
Others argued to further increase the number of seats, such as through
a resolution developed by the Chair of the Group of 77 for the 2011
FAO Conference, which would increase the number of seats from 49 to
61.[Footnote 39] A February 2011 summary document provided by the
Independent Chairperson of the Council indicated that member states
disagreed on whether membership should be increased to 61 seats or to
keep the issue open for further consideration in the future. State
officials told us that when the Group of 77 countries did not achieve
support from two-thirds of the member states, they withdrew their
resolution.
Interdependencies among IPA Projects Could Cause Implementation Delays:
In 2010, FAO identified some interdependencies among IPA projects,
including four action items in our sample, which could cause
implementation delays because FAO cannot complete these action items
without first completing another action item. For example, the project
designed to produce financial statements that are compliant with
international public sector accounting standards has been slowed by
the delayed upgrade of an internal information system[Footnote 40]
While the PMU has recently taken steps to comprehensively identify
interdependencies among IPA projects, additional delays could result
from these interdependencies not being managed. For example, a FAO
official told us that FAO has delayed implementing an action item that
would roll over up to 5 percent of the assessed budget between
biennia--part of the "reform of programming, budgeting, and results-
based monitoring" project[Footnote 41]--until FAO completes the IPSAS
project by complying with IPSAS in calendar year 2013. In addition,
FAO's implementation of an action item that would introduce a new
travel system as a part of its "reform of administrative and
management systems" project could be subject to additional delays
because its completion is dependent on implementing another action
item included in the "information technology" project that would
increase telecommunications capacity across the organization to
support the new travel system.[Footnote 42]
Insufficient Support from Some Managers and Staff Could Inhibit
Implementation of Some Action Items:
According to FAO officials, some FAO program managers and staff have
not shown sufficient support to fully implement some action items in
our sample. With regard to the action item to implement culture
change, FAO reported that 58 percent of the respondents to its 2011
employee survey disagree or are neutral that senior management is
effectively communicating its vision of a new organizational culture.
Based on this survey, FAO also reported that its staff generally
favored more face-to-face communication about the reform effort.
[Footnote 43] The project leader responsible for implementing the
vision statement told us that FAO has hired a consultant to help
improve staff commitment and engagement in implementing the vision
statement throughout the organization. In addition, FAO's Office of
the Inspector General commissioned an external audit report which
identified lack of support among senior managers as a potential
roadblock to implementing enterprise risk management (ERM). FAO
officials responsible for implementing an action item that would
establish an ERM framework at FAO told us that some managers have
stated they lacked resources to support this work and were concerned
that participating in the initiative would detract time from their
regular work responsibilities.[Footnote 44] Consequently, FAO
officials also told us they are providing training to all departments
to assist managers and staff in conducting ERM to comply with the
initiative's requirements and overcome resistance. Furthermore, FAO
officials stated that staff associations have raised concerns about an
action item that establishes a staff mobility policy because it
requires mobility for some categories of staff, but not others.
[Footnote 45] GAO has previously reported that employee involvement
helps to create the opportunity to establish new networks and break
down existing organizational silos, increase employees' understanding
and acceptance of organizational goals and objectives, and gain
ownership for new policies and procedures.[Footnote 46] FAO's 2010-
2011 Management Report on IPA Implementation also identified buy-in
and cooperation from managers and staff as important elements for
ensuring full implementation of this action item, and FAO officials
have told us they are trying to address these elements.
USUN Rome's Efforts to Support FAO Management Reform Emphasized
Oversight and Accountability:
USUN Rome's efforts to support FAO management reform included the
prioritization of oversight and accountability reforms, such as
disclosure of internal audit reports and adoption of financial
disclosure policies. These reforms are consistent with a strategic
U.S. government initiative across the UN system and are reflected in
USUN Rome's performance indicators on improving organization
governance activities at FAO. To promote oversight and accountability
reforms, USUN Rome worked formally and informally with member states
to achieve consensus on these reforms by participating in the Geneva
Group and an informal Regional Conference with Canada in November 2010.
USUN Rome Prioritized Oversight and Accountability Reforms That Are
Consistent with a U.S. Government Initiative across the UN System:
USUN Rome prioritized oversight and accountability reforms that are
included in FAO's thematic area on governance reform and oversight and
are reflected in the United States' United Nations Transparency and
Accountability Initiative (UNTAI). The U.S. Mission to the UN in New
York launched UNTAI in 2007 and identified eight areas where member
states could exercise greater oversight to ensure UN funds and
programs are used for their intended purposes.[Footnote 47] USUN Rome
officials told us its priorities are included in FAO's thematic area
on governance reform and oversight and related to five of the eight
UNTAI areas, which include the following:
1. Disclosure of internal audits and other reports, including
evaluations and investigations to member states. USUN Rome promoted
amendments to the Charter of the Office of the Inspector General that
would include disclosure of internal audit reports consistent with the
criteria identified by the UN's High-Level Committee on Management.
[Footnote 48] These amendments were adopted by the FAO Council in
April 2011, and USUN Rome reviewed an internal audit report subject to
disclosure in June 2011.
2. Whistleblower protection policies. USUN Rome worked with FAO
management to develop a single, clearly stated policy for all staff
that identified their rights and mechanisms for reporting possible
wrongdoing. FAO management issued this policy in December 2010.
3. Financial disclosure policies. As a reform action item, USUN Rome
worked with FAO management and member states to develop a financial
disclosure policy that is consistent with other policies used in the
UN system. Currently, FAO is in the process of completing its pilot
program and plans to launch the full program in 2012.
4. Establishment of an ethics office. Consistent with an action item
in the reform effort, USUN Rome worked with FAO management to
establish an Ethics Office led by an Ethics Officer that reports to
the Director-General and Governing Bodies. USUN Rome met with the
appointed Ethics Officer to discuss U.S. policies concerning ethics
training and materials and financial disclosure processes.
5. Independence of the respective internal oversight bodies. To ensure
greater transparency and accountability, USUN Rome worked with FAO
management and member states to have the FAO Audit Committee be
exclusively composed of members external to FAO. Currently, all five
members of the FAO Audit Committee are external.
USUN Rome plans to further its efforts to promote oversight and
accountability reforms in fiscal year 2011 by focusing on the
remaining three UNTAI areas, which include the following:
1. Public access to all documentation related to operations and
activities including budget information and procurement activities.
USUN Rome identified key financial oversight and accountability
standards either in place, in progress, or pending at FAO based on
internal or external recommendations received by FAO since 2005. USUN
Rome officials told us they plan to follow up on the status of these
recommendations, especially those that address documentation.
2. Adoption of IPSAS. As a member of the FAO Finance Committee, USUN
Rome officials told us they are responsible for overseeing
implementation of this reform action item and plans to follow up with
FAO officials to ensure compliant financial statements are produced in
calendar year 2013.
3. Establishment of a cap on administrative overhead costs. To
understand how FAO applies inflation cost estimates for general
service staff, USUN Rome told us they plan to review the methodology
used by the International Civil Service Commission to calculate
general service staff salaries.
USUN Rome's performance indicators reflect its efforts to promote
oversight and accountability reforms. As part of its goal to improve
UN organization governance activities at FAO, USUN Rome developed two
performance indicators related to oversight, accountability functions,
operational efficiency, and a fully developed evaluation function. For
fiscal year 2010, USUN Rome reported that it was on target for
improving UN organization governance activities at FAO by
strengthening its governance and oversight mechanism and improving its
UNTAI score. USUN Rome also reported that it attended meetings with
the UN International Fund for Agriculture Development to understand
how FAO could improve its evaluation function. For fiscal year 2011,
as part of its efforts to promote oversight and accountability
reforms, USUN Rome plans to monitor (1) implementation of a new
financial disclosure policy for certain FAO professionals and staff
with fiduciary responsibilities; (2) development of a new corporate
policy on partnerships with the private sector; and (3) proposals to
reduce costs associated with general service staff and other
administrative functions, such as travel; and (4) efforts to improve
FAO's evaluation function using the International Fund for Agriculture
Development's evaluation policy as a baseline.
USUN Rome Worked Formally and Informally with Other Member States to
Promote Oversight and Accountability Reforms at FAO:
With other member states, USUN Rome participated in formal sessions of
the Conference Committee, as well as the FAO Council and its
committees, to promote oversight and accountability reforms at FAO.
According to USUN Rome officials, USUN Rome participated in all
meetings of the Conference Committee, including Working Groups that
were established in 2009, to reach consensus on how action items
included in the reform effort should be completed.[Footnote 49] For
example, one of the Working Groups considered further reforms of
systems, including plans for increasing the effectiveness of the
decentralized offices. USUN Rome officials told us that in this
Working Group, the United States emphasized the need for a system that
would regularly evaluate the effectiveness of FAO's decentralized
offices. USUN Rome also provided recommendations to the Conference
Committee as a member of the FAO Council, Committee on Constitutional
and Legal Matters, and Finance Committee. One of the recommendations
provided by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters
addressed necessary changes to the Basic Texts of FAO, including
establishment of Director-General term limits.
Consistent with its efforts to promote oversight and accountability
reforms among member states, USUN Rome participated in the Geneva
Group and an informal Regional Conference with Canada. According to
State, this Conference occurred in Washington, D.C., and was the
result of USDA-led interagency collaboration, in which USUN Rome, the
State Department, and USAID were key partners. USUN Rome worked to
achieve consensus on reforms related to oversight and accountability
among member states within the Rome Chapter of the Geneva Group.
[Footnote 50] In 2011, the chapter had a focus group on oversight for
FAO that met on an ad hoc basis. According to USUN Rome officials, the
oversight focus group worked closely with the Inspector General and
actively supported completing action items included in FAO's reform
project on oversight. USUN Rome also participated in an informal
Regional Conference with Canada in November 2010 to improve strategic
budgetary planning and implementation at FAO. To minimize the need for
a budget increase, the North America region agreed that FAO should
better utilize resources and identified priorities that member states
could consider when developing the regular budget. The North America
region also proposed the Secretariat improve its efforts to engage
member states on identifying and aligning resources to support
priorities by developing documentation that clearly identifies
possible budget implications for their proposals. North America's
priorities were shared in a letter to the Director-General in November
2010. The letter also requested a copy be provided to member states
through the FAO Council.[Footnote 51] However, documents prepared for
the 2011 FAO Conference did not include North America's priorities. As
a result, USUN Rome used the agenda item on Regional Conferences
during the 2011 FAO Conference to formally state North America's
priorities for other member states.
Conclusions:
FAO has been criticized over the last decade as a bureaucratic and
poorly managed international organization. As a result of these
criticisms, FAO's Governing Bodies commissioned an external
evaluation, which found that FAO was experiencing a financial and
program crisis that threatened the organization's future in delivering
essential services. The external evaluation concluded that FAO needed
to comprehensively reform its management, and in response, FAO
leadership and its member states have adopted a multiyear reform plan.
We found weaknesses in FAO's periodic reporting on the status of some
reform action items. Without clear guidance on the categories
developed to quantitatively measure the progress of reforms, project
leaders could experience difficulties in precisely categorizing action
items' status. Since the action items that remain to be completed
represent the largest and most complex components of the reform plan,
the accuracy of future progress reports becomes increasingly important
to FAO member states that are responsible for providing appropriate
oversight. FAO management has attempted to identify risks and address
some weaknesses associated with the reform plan. However, full
completion of the reform plan will require overcoming several
impediments, such as interdependencies among projects and insufficient
support from some managers and staff. In addition, implementation of
the reform plan is a shared responsibility between FAO management and
member states. For the three action items that are subject to
disagreement among member states, FAO management cannot easily
determine when member states might reach consensus on these action
items--and this could occur after the reform plan's scheduled end date
of 2013.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To more accurately reflect the implementation status of some IPA
action items and address various factors that could slow the pace of
FAO's reform plan, we recommend that the Secretary of State and the
U.S. Representative to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture work
with member states to take the following two actions:
* encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and
categorizing the implementation status of IPA action items; and:
* determine before 2013 if consensus can be achieved for IPA action
items currently subject to disagreement among member states.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested and received comments on a draft of this report from
State and FAO. State's comments are reprinted in appendix II. State
concurred with our recommendations, noting that State and USUN Rome
will continue to develop strategies and measures that will address the
recommendations contained in our report. State also noted that FAO's
periodic reporting on the status of implementation of some IPA action
items is poor, and the accuracy of future progress reports becomes
increasingly important to FAO member states that are responsible for
providing appropriate oversight. State agreed to continue to work with
FAO and member states to improve reporting on implementation of the
reform plan. In addition, State acknowledged that, for those action
items that are subject to disagreement among member states, FAO
management's options are somewhat limited.
FAO management's comments are reprinted in appendix III, along with
our responses to a specific point. Regarding our finding on FAO's
reporting on the reform plan's status, FAO management commented that
the implementation status categories were not developed by the PMU,
but were adapted from FAO's existing reporting categories used to
assess results in FAO's Program of Work and Budget. We clarified in
our report that the PMU did not develop these implementation status
categories. However, the PMU did not provide clear guidance for
project leaders to define and differentiate among the categories when
assessing the status of IPA action items. FAO management noted that it
would consider issues we described, and introduce any changes
considered necessary to improve the clarity of the status of open IPA
action items. FAO management also stated that the success of its
reforms requires member states to overcome disagreements and different
opinions in order to provide clear guidance to FAO management on how
to implement the IPA action items over which consensus has not yet
been reached. FAO management confirms its full commitment to play its
part as Secretariat to the different Governing Bodies, and prepare
proposals and documentation to facilitate consensus and decision
making.
We also received technical comments from FAO management, which we have
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of State, the U.S. Representative to the UN
Agencies for Food and Agriculture, the Food and Agriculture
Organization, and other interested parties. The report also is
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov[.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the methodology that
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) uses to report on the
status of its reform plan, (2) factors that affect FAO's ability to
implement its reform plan, and (3) actions the United States has
undertaken to support FAO reform efforts. To address all of these
objectives, we focused our review on FAO's Immediate Plan of Action
(IPA), which we define as FAO's reform plan for the purposes of this
report. We conducted a general review of all 272 IPA action items in
FAO's reform plan, and selected a non-probability sample of 30 action
items for more in-depth review. We selected these 30 action items
because they fall among the six different thematic areas of the IPA
and reflect the range of reported implementation status, according to
FAO's most recent report on IPA status, as of December 31, 2010. For
example, we selected action items related to FAO's establishment of a
staff rotation policy that fall under the thematic area of "human
resources reform," with reported implementation status of being
"subject to minor delays," as well as FAO's appointment of an
ombudsman, which falls under the thematic area of "effective
governance and oversight," with reported implementation status of
being "on track." Our sample was intended to be illustrative and not
generalizable to the population of all 272 IPA action items. To help
us better understand the factors that may affect FAO reform plan, we
selected a sample with a higher proportion of action items that FAO
reported as "subject to minor delays" than action items that FAO
reported as "completed" or "on track." Table 3 summarizes the total
number of IPA action items, by implementation status category, as
reported by FAO in 2010, and the number of action items we selected
within each of those categories for more in-depth review. Table 4
lists our selected 30 action items, categorized by IPA project and
thematic area, and includes short descriptions of each action item,
its planned start and end date, and status of implementation as of
December 31, 2010.
Table 3: Summary of the Total Number of IPA Action Items and the
Number Selected for In-Depth GAO Review, by Implementation Status, as
of Dec. 31, 2010:
Status: Completed;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 143;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 6.
Status: On track;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 102;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 6.
Status: Subject to minor delays;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 15;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 8.
Status: Subject to major delays;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 0;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: N/A.
Status: Other: continuous;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 5;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 5.
Status: Other: no consensus among member states;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 3;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 3.
Status: Other: scheduled beyond 2013 by FAO Management;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 2;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 2.
Status: Other: proposed for deletion;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 2;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 0.
Status: Total;
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009
and 2010: 272;
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 30.
Sources: FAO's 2010 IPA progress report and GAO.
[End of table]
Table 4: List of 30 Selected IPA Action Items, as of Dec. 31, 2010:
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Governing Body Reform;
IPA action item number: 2.22;
Description: The Council report will consist of conclusions,
decisions, and recommendations (verbatim to provide detail and be
published in all languages);
Planned start date: 5/17/2010;
Planned end date: 11/25/2011;
Status: Continuous.
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Governing Body Reform;
IPA action item number: 2.100;
Description: The FAO Conference will consider for approval desirable
qualifications for the post of Director-General developed by the
Conference Committee in 2009;
Planned start date: N/A;
Planned end date: N/A;
Status: No consensus.
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Governing Body Reform;
IPA action item number: 4.4;
Description: The functions of the Conference Committee, without
prejudice to the statutory functions of the Council and its standing
committees, are to recommend to the 36th session of the FAO Conference
(2009) any changes found desirable in the size and regional
representation in the membership of the Council and propose with
advice from the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters any
necessary changes in the Basic Texts to the 2009 Session of the
Conference;
Planned start date: N/A;
Planned end date: N/A;
Status: No consensus.
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Evaluation;
IPA action item number: 2.78;
Description: The evaluation regular program budget will be increased
to 0.8% of the total regular program budget (over two biennia), and
once decided upon by the Governing Bodies, as part of the Program of
Work and Budget (PWB) approval process, allocated in full to the
evaluation office. Using the 2008-2009 base, the requirement would be
U.S. dollars (USD) 3.2 million. In the draft PWB, it had been proposed
to go halfway to this amount in 2010-2011. To reduce the
implementation risk in the first biennium, the final draft PWB funds
only one-third of the increase, USD 1.1 million in 2010-2011. The
balance would be funded in the PWB 2012-2013;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: Scheduled beyond 2013.
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Evaluation;
IPA action item number: 2.86;
Description: The follow-up processes for evaluation will be fully
institutionalized, including an independent monitoring system and
reporting to the Program Committee;
Planned start date: 10/1/2008;
Planned end date: 5/31/2010;
Status: Completed.
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Audit;
IPA action item number: 2.91;
Description: In line with current policy, the work of the Office of
the Inspector General will be extended to cover all major
organizational risk areas, making use of external expertise as
necessary;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2011;
Status: On track.
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Ethics;
IPA action item number: 3.34;
Description: Review of Terms of Reference and proposed membership of
Ethics Committee by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters
and the Finance Committee;
Planned start date: 2/19/2009;
Planned end date: 10/31/2010;
Status: Minor delays.
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Ethics;
IPA action item number: 3.35;
Description: Appointment and initiation of work by Ethics Committee;
Planned start date: 1/1/2011;
Planned end date: 12/31/2011;
Status: Minor delays.
Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight;
Project: Ethics;
IPA action item number: 3.36a;
Description: Appointment of Ombudsman;
Planned start date: 1/1/2011;
Planned end date: 12/31/2011;
Status: On track.
Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems;
Project: Administrative Service Model and FAO Manual;
IPA action item number: 7.22;
Description: Carry out a major overhaul of the FAO Manual, reviewing
and publishing a simplified framework, so that staff in all locations
can understand and comply with FAO rules and regulations;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: Minor delays.
Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems;
Project: Administrative Service Model and FAO Manual;
IPA action item number: 7.23;
Description: Create a Business Improvement Unit, including
streamlining and process improvement, overhaul of the FAO Manual, and
other business improvement initiatives;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2011;
Status: Completed.
Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems;
Project: Procurement;
IPA action item number: 3.40;
Description: Creates provisions for local procurement during
emergencies;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 6/1/2011;
Status: Completed.
Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems;
Project: International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and
Field Accounting System Replacement;
IPA action item number: 3.42;
Description: To Implement new or updated processes to support the
recording, accounting, control, and reporting of financial
transactions at decentralized offices. Processes include the policy,
procedures, and system developments that collectively address the
business requirements to support financial transaction processing at
decentralized offices;
Planned start date: 1/1/2007;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: Minor delays.
Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems;
Project: IPSAS and Field Accounting System Replacement;
IPA action item number: 7.24;
Description: Implementation of IPSAS as key initiative for the finance
division and FAO as a whole;
Planned start date: 5/1/2009;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: Minor delays.
Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems;
Project: Travel;
IPA action item number: 7.15;
Description: Other activities of the joint Rome-based agencies
procurement initiative--Travel;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: Minor delays.
Theme: Human Resources Reform;
Project: Mobility;
IPA action item number: 3.61;
Description: Establish an incentive-based rotation policy in
headquarters and between headquarters and the decentralized offices
with clear criteria;
Planned start date: 11/23/2009;
Planned end date: 12/31/2010;
Status: Minor delays.
Theme: Human Resources Reform;
Project: Other Human Resources Actions;
IPA action item number: 3.63;
Description: Decentralize and delegate decision making within clear
policies and requirements, including further delegation of authorities
from the Office of the Director-General and from senior management;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2010;
Status: Completed.
Theme: Managing for Results;
Project: Resource Mobilization and Management;
IPA action item number: 3.15;
Description: Vigorously pursue new partnerships, including with the
private foundations;
Planned start date: N/A;
Planned end date: N/A;
Status: Continuous.
Theme: Managing for Results;
Project: Enterprise Risk Management;
IPA action item number: 3.50;
Description: Develop a project structure to implement an internally
led organization-wide enterprise risk management (ERM) e.g. organize a
project team and its terms of reference, obtain necessary training and
external guidance as needed, prepare a work plan, etc;
Planned start date: 4/1/2010;
Planned end date: 9/30/2010;
Status: Completed.
Theme: Managing for Results;
Project: Enterprise Risk Management;
IPA action item number: 3.51;
Description: Design an appropriate ERM model to develop a customized
ERM framework for the organization, with the support of external risk
management consultants. The ERM framework should include key
components that address the objectives, strategy, organization, risk
processes, monitoring, and reporting;
Planned start date: 4/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2010;
Status: Minor delays.
Theme: Managing for Results;
Project: Reform of Programming, Budgeting, and Results-Based
Management Monitoring;
IPA action item number: 3.11;
Description: In addition to capital account and technical cooperation
program, introduce provisions for rollover of up to 5 percent of the
assessed budget, between biennia, in order to smooth income and
expenditure, thus reducing wasteful and inefficient transactions;
Planned start date: 10/1/2008;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: Scheduled beyond 2013.
Theme: Managing for Results;
Project: Reform of Programming, Budgeting, and Results-Based
Management Monitoring;
IPA action item number: 6.2;
Description: 5 percent of the budget to Deputy Director-Generals for
interdisciplinary work;
Planned start date: N/A;
Planned end date: N/A;
Status: Continuous.
Theme: Managing for Results;
Project: Reform of Programming, Budgeting, and Results-Based
Management Monitoring;
IPA action item number: 7.1;
Description: Identify the areas of improvement and define the actions
for the enhancement of the Results-Based Management;
Planned start date: N/A;
Planned end date: N/A;
Status: Continuous.
Theme: Functioning As One;
Project: Partnerships;
IPA action item number: 3.117;
Description: Establishment of a monitoring mechanism to ensure
feedback and iterative improvement of partnership collaborations and
of the FAO strategy;
Planned start date: 9/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: On track.
Theme: Functioning As One;
Project: Decentralization;
IPA action item number: 3.76;
Description: The Program and Finance Committees will support the
Council in providing policy oversight of all aspects of
decentralization, including in particular the implementation of the
Immediate Plan of Action;
Planned start date: 9/30/2009;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: Continuous.
Theme: Functioning As One;
Project: Decentralization;
IPA action item number: 3.84;
Description: Clearly distinguishing between well-established offices
and any plans for additional new offices, rationalize coverage of
country offices following results of review utilizing agreed criteria,
taking into account both existing and potential locations, efficiency,
projected cost savings, and cost/benefit analysis. Implementation of
the results of the review will ensure that, at a minimum, the
structural deficit is eliminated in the country representation through
alternative forms of country presence, with further reductions
desirable to free up resources for the improved functioning of the
decentralized offices. Criteria to be applied: (a) size of the FAO
Program (indicative ratio office costs to size of program 1:3); (b)
commitment to the National Medium-Term Priority Frameworks as they are
developed with FAO; (c) size and poverty levels of agriculturally
dependent population; (d) priority to Least Developed Countries; (e)
potential for agriculture in economic growth; (f) ease of servicing
from another country; (g) potential for shared or fully joint
representations with the UN system, particularly with other Rome-based
agencies, and other regional organizations as appropriate;
and (h) willingness of governments to cover costs of FAO presence;
Planned start date: 1/1/2009;
Planned end date: 12/31/2010;
Status: No consensus.
Theme: Functioning As One;
Project: Decentralization;
IPA action item number: 3.88;
Description: Introduce benchmarks and a performance-based reporting
and monitoring system for decentralized offices;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: On track.
Theme: Functioning As One;
Project: Decentralization;
IPA action item number: 3.95;
Description: Transfer Office of Coordination and Decentralization
functions to Regional/Sub-Regional Offices and to a coordination unit
in the office responsible for operations;
Planned start date: 1/1/2009;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: Completed.
Theme: Functioning As One;
Project: Technical Cooperation Program;
IPA action item number: 3.22;
Description: Technical Cooperation Program resources to be allocated
to regions under the authority of Regional Representatives, except for
15% retained under the authority of the department responsible for
technical cooperation for use in emergencies, and 3% for interregional
projects;
Planned start date: 1/1/2010;
Planned end date: 12/31/2011;
Status: On track.
Theme: Culture Change;
Project: Culture Change;
IPA action item number: 3.32;
Description: Implementation of a vision for culture change;
Planned start date: 11/23/2009;
Planned end date: 12/31/2013;
Status: On track.
Source: FAO's 2010 IPA progress report.
[End of table]
To address our first objective to examine the methodology that FAO
uses to report on the status of its reform plan, we reviewed and
analyzed FAO's documents and data; we interviewed officials
representing FAO, the U.S. government, and other FAO member countries.
We reviewed the IPA progress reports that FAO issued since November
2009, focusing particularly on FAO's latest 2010 IPA progress report
for IPA information reported, as of December 31, 2010. To understand
the methodology FAO used for assessing and reporting IPA progress
overall, we reviewed the Program Management Unit's (PMU) guidance for
IPA project leaders to assess the status of the action items. We also
met with FAO officials, including those representing FAO management,
the PMU, and IPA project leaders to discuss the IPA assessment and
reporting process. For the 30 action items in our sample, we obtained
and analyzed documents that provided support for the implementation
status of these action items and discussed the status with the project
leaders and a PMU official responsible for reporting IPA progress.
Furthermore, we met with officials representing the U.S. Mission to
the UN Agencies in Rome (USUN Rome) and several other FAO member
countries to obtain their views on FAO's IPA progress reports.
To examine factors that affect FAO's ability to implement its reform
plan, our second objective, we analyzed FAO's documents, including
audit documents, preliminary results of the 2011 FAO employee survey,
as well as FAO Governing Bodies' reports and working documents. With
FAO officials, we discussed the actions that FAO has taken to address
weaknesses identified in FAO's risk assessment. Moreover, to better
understand factors that could hinder full reform plan implementation,
we met with IPA project leaders and reviewed supporting documents they
provided to conduct in-depth analysis of our sampled 30 action items.
Since these sample action items include three action items reported in
FAO's 2010 IPA progress report as having "no consensus among member
states," we obtained views of several member states, including those
of the United States, regarding these action items.
To address our third objective to examine actions the United States
has undertaken to support FAO reform efforts, we reviewed documents
and interviewed U.S. officials. The documents we reviewed include the
United States' United Nations Transparency and Accountability
Initiative, USUN Rome's Mission Strategic Resource Plan, USUN Rome's
documentation of its priorities and efforts toward FAO reforms, cable
correspondence between the Department of State's (State) International
Organization Affairs Bureau and USUN Rome, and FAO Governing Bodies'
reports and working documents. In addition, we interviewed State and
USUN Rome officials to discuss their efforts, and met with FAO
officials and officials representing several FAO member states to
obtain their views on U.S. efforts for promoting reforms at FAO. Our
discussions with representatives of FAO member states included those
who participate in formal and informal working groups with the United
States.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 to September
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
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:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "United
Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus
Needed for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan, GAO Job
Code 320818.
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
John Tuminaro, Sr. Food Security Officer, Bureau of International
Organization Affairs at (202) 647-1016.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James L. Millette:
cc: GAO - Thomas Melito:
IO - Esther D. Brimmer:
State/OIG - Evelyn Klemstine:
[End of letter]
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus
Needed for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan
(GAO-11-922, GAO Code 320818):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus Needed
for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan. The Department of
State and USUN Rome have been strong supporters of the FAO reform
process. The report provides timely and useful information on the
status of FAO reform.
It is clear that full completion of the reform plan will require
cooperation among FAO management and member states. For those actions
that are subject to disagreement among member states, FAO management's
options are somewhat limited. Thus, the Department of State and USUN
Rome agree with the GAO's Recommendations for Executive Action, which
recommend that the Secretary of State and the United States Permanent
Representative to the UN Food Agencies work with member states to: (1)
encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and categorizing
the implementation status of Immediate Plan of Action (IPA) action
items; and (2) determine before 2013 if consensus can be achieved for
action items currently subject to disagreement among member states. The
Department of State and USUN Rome will continue to develop strategies
and measures that will address the recommendations contained in the
GAO report.
We appreciate the report's acknowledgment of work undertaken by the
Department of State and USUN Rome to ensure that the IPA is fully
implemented by the end of the agreed timeframe in 2013. We assure you
that this work will continue. As you know, the United States was a
driving force behind FAO's reform process, including by providing
funding to the Independent External Evaluation (IEE). Our goal is to
increase the cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of the
FAO, and all the Rome-based food agencies, in the context of broader
UN system reforms. State and USUN Rome will continue to work with
FAO officials and member states to continue to make the FAO a more
relevant and reliable partner in the fight against food insecurity.
The Department of State agrees with GAO's conclusion that FAO's
periodic reporting on the status of implementation of some IPA action
items is poor. Since the action items that remain to be completed
represent the largest and most complex components of the reform
effort, the accuracy of future progress reports becomes increasingly
important to FAO member states that are responsible for providing
appropriate oversight. The fact that FAO is leaving the hardest reform
recommendations for last--the action items planned for completion in
the 2012-2013 time period represent 20% of the outstanding items, but
correspond to 40% of the total workload in terms of outstanding
effort, time, and costs, and are the largest and most complex to
implement--makes the need for improved reporting all the more
necessary. We will continue to work with FAO and member states to
improve reporting on the implementation of reform.
The State Department agrees with the data and findings in the GAO
report. However, we would like to take the opportunity to point out
two slight inaccuracies. The report indicates that despite the lack of
consensus among member states on the need for establishing formal
qualifications for the post of Director-General for the 2011 election,
the United Kingdom developed a draft working document that included a
job description and competency profile for the position. We would like
to add that the United States worked with the UK on this task,
consulting closely, and contributed to the profile. We would also note
that the report indicates that USUN Rome hosted an informal regional
Conference for North America with Canada. This consultation occurred
in Washington and was the result of interagency collaboration under
the leadership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, of which USUN
Rome, the State Department, and USAID were key partners.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Food and Agriculture Organization:
Note: GAO comment supplementing those in the report text appears at
the end of this appendix.
Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations:
The Director-General:
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, D0153 Rome, Italy:
Internet: www.fao.org:
Fax: (030) 06 57053152:
Telephone: (+39) 06 57051:
Rome, 16 September 2011:
DDO-DG/11/931:
Her Excellency:
Ertharin Cousin:
Ambassador to FAO:
United States Mission to the United Nations Agencies for Food and
Agriculture:
Rome:
Excellency,
I refer to your letter dated 2 September 2011 on the study undertaken
by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled
"United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus
Needed for Food and Agriculture Organizations Reform Plan."
I am pleased to submit herewith FAO's Response to the GAO Report
together with FAO's observations to the same report. In that regard, I
wish to inform you that I will be attending the G20 Ministerial
Meeting which will be held in Washington on 23 September 2011.
Accept, Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration.
Signed by:
Jacques Diouf:
[End of letter]
16 September 2011:
FAO Management Comments to GAO Report: GA0-11-922:
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
welcomes the report received from the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO) titled "Improved Reporting and Member
States' Consensus Needed far Food and Agriculture Organization's
Reform Plan". FAO Management notes that the two main recommendations
on improved reporting and member states consensus confirm the work
being undertaken by FAO to successfully complete the implementation of
the Immediate Plan of Action (IPA) for FAO renewal, which stemmed from
the Independent External Evaluation (IEE) report in 2007.
FAO renewal is an extremely ambitious, large and complex endeavor that
requires to be recognized to better contextualize the GAO report. The
lEE report foresaw "the mammoth nature of the undertaking....." and
the 2010 Risk Assessment report that identified the risks and
mitigating measures associated with this major change programme,
highlighted in its Executive Summary that the "scale and complexity of
the IPA are unprecedented in the UN and would only he seen in the
private sector following a corporate acquisition".
Notwithstanding these challenges, FAO Management wishes to highlight
the good progress achieved at the mid-point of the IPA implementation
programme. The IPA Board, comprising the Organization's most senior
managers, is fully engaged in the internal governance of the reform
and, as noted in the GAO report, has taken positive steps towards the
effective management of the large and complex projects that still
remain to be implemented in the next biennium.
FAO's comments focus on the two main recommendations of the report.
I. Improved Reporting: [See comment 1]
FAO Management places great importance on quality reporting, and has
taken steps towards addressing some of the issues raised in the GAO
report relating to the statuses of IPA actions.
These statuses (completed, on track, subject to minor delays and
subject to major delays) were not developed by the PMU, as indicated
in the report, but were adapted from the corporate categories of
progress toward achieving results in FAO's Programme of Work and
Budget, as used by managers and provided in FAO's Mid Term Review
synthesis report to member states. However. in reviewing the statuses
assigned by Project leaders, the PMU determined that these corporate
categories did not entirely cover the situation of all 272 IPA actions
which, as indicated in the GAO report, are of a varying nature. As a
result, the PMU introduced the "other" category which represents 4.4%
of all IPA actions.
The GAO report highlights potential inconsistencies in the "other"
category and the IPA Board in July requested that a review be
completed of the 12 IPA action items categorized as "other" to
determine whether an improved set of sub-categories would improve the
clarity of the actual status of these 12 IPA actions. An update on the
quantitative progress will also he reviewed during September 2011 by
the IPA Board and this will provide the opportunity to fully consider
issues described in the GAO report, and introduce any changes
considered necessary to improve the clarity of the status of open IPA
actions.
The GAO report questions whether the PMU should rely primarily on the
Project leaders self-assessment of IPA action status without
independent validation. As indicated in the report, the PMU has
gathered documentary evidence from Project leaders to support the
reported "closed" status of IPA actions. Periodic independent
validation is considered desirable, and arrangements are in hand to
have the office of the FAO's Inspector General undertake a review of
all IPA actions, as we pass the half way stage in the reform programme.
The IPA Board decided in June 2011 to establish a more detailed
internal reporting arrangement for 27 of the "most important/higher
risk" IPA actions, covering status, risks, activities and milestones,
as referenced in the GAO report. Amongst others, the expected benefit
of this IPA Board decision is to ensure appropriate reporting of the
larger and more complex IPA actions. , In addition, the PMU is
liaising with the Enterprise Risk Management project team to complete
a "re-basing" of IPA risks and interdependencies amongst these actions
in order to take into consideration significant new events that have
occurred since the initial risk assessment review.
2. Member States Consensus:
FAO Management is fully aware that the success of the FAO reform is a
shared responsibility between FAO Management, who must implement the
IPA, and the FAO member states who, through the Governing Bodies,
oversee the process and take major policy and governance decisions.
This requires member states to overcome disagreements and different
opinions in order to provide clear guidance to FAO Management on how
to implement the IPA actions over which consensus has not yet been
reached. FAO Management confirms its full commitment to play its part
as Secretariat to the different Governing Body fora, and prepare high
quality proposals and documentation to facilitate consensus and
decision making.
The following are GAO's comments on FAO's letter dated September 16,
2011.
GAO Comment:
1. FAO commented that the implementation status categories (completed,
on track, subject to minor delays, and subject to major delays) were
not developed by the PMU but were adapted from FAO's existing
reporting categories used to assess results in its Program of Work and
Budget. We clarified in our report that the PMU did not develop these
implementation status categories. We noted FAO's use of these
implementation status categories when assessing the progress of the
reform plan. However, regardless of which FAO entity developed these
implementation status categories, the PMU did not provide clear
guidance for project leaders to define and differentiate among the
categories when assessing the status of IPA action items.
Consequently, we maintain our recommendation to State and USUN Rome to
encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and categorizing
the implementation status of IPA action items.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant
Director; Brian Egger; and Victoria Lin made key contributions to this
report. The team benefited from the expert advice and assistance of
Vaughn Baltzly, Debbie Chung, Martin de Alteriis, Justin Fisher, and
Grace Lui.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
United Nations: Management Reforms and Operational Issues. GAO-08-
246T. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2008.
United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied. GAO-
08-84. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2007.
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.: April 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: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments
Needed to Measure Impact. GAO-04-339. Washington, D.C.; February 13,
2004.
United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened Operations, but
Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Met. GAO/NSIAD-00-150,
Washington, D.C.; May 10, 2000.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] This review is commonly referred to as the Root and Branch report.
[2] The IPA originally consisted of 235 discrete action items, many of
which were explicitly tied to one or more specific Independent
External Evaluation recommendations. The 2009 Root and Branch report
generated 37 additional recommendations that were incorporated into
the original IPA, resulting in a new document called the Integrated
IPA, which was adopted at the November 2009 FAO Conference and
contained a total of 272 action items.
[3] The six thematic areas are (1) managing for results, (2)
functioning as one, (3) human resources reform, (4) reform of
administrative and management systems, (5) culture change, and (6)
governance reform and oversight.
[4] The United States contributed about $113 million to FAO's regular
assessed budget in calendar year 2010. Since 2009, the United States
has been contributing about 22 percent of FAO's regular assessed
budget. For calendar year 2009, FAO reported the United States
contributed about $49 million, or about 7 percent, of FAO's voluntary
contributions. According to a 2007 UN Joint Inspection Unit report, UN
organizations' funding resources are generally classified in two
categories: (1) assessed contributions from member states, i.e.,
regular budget resources and (2) voluntary contributions, generally
referred to as extrabudgetary resources. Extrabudgetary resources can
be used for the core purposes fundamental to the existence of an
organization, in which case they are provided without condition. They
can also be used for noncore purposes, in which case the donor
generally earmarks them for specific uses.
[5] FAO's 2010 IPA progress report uses the following eight
implementation status categories for the 272 action items: (1)
completed, (2) on track, (3) subject to minor delays, (4) subject to
major delays, (5) continuous, (6) no consensus among member states,
(7) scheduled beyond 2013, and (8) proposed for deletion subject to
members' approval. In the 2010 IPA progress report, categories (5)
through (8) appear as designations under an additional category,
"other," which depicts the status of action items that do not fall
under a timeline of implementation for various reasons. For the
purposes of this report, within the "other" category, we exclude the
designation "proposed for deletion subject to members' approval" and
include the other three designations under "other," for a total of
seven categories in our analysis.
[6] In a nonprobability sample, some units in the population have no
chance, or an unknown chance, of being selected. Therefore, results
from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a
population.
[7] For example, we selected action items related to FAO's
establishment of a staff rotation policy that fall under the thematic
area of human resources reform, with reported implementation status of
being "subject to minor delays," as well as FAO's appointment of an
ombudsman, which falls under the thematic area of effective governance
and oversight, with reported implementation status of being "on track."
[8] We selected 8 of the 15 "subject to minor delays" action items, 6
of the 102 "on track" action items, 6 of the 143 "completed" action
items, all 5 "continuous" action items, all 3 "lacking in consensus
among member states" action items, and both "scheduled beyond 2013"
action items.
[9] According to FAO, its presence in decentralized offices also
includes 37 accreditations and 11 other forms of representation.
[10] In 2009, the FAO Conference amended the constitutional term of
the Director-General to 4 years. Beginning with the Director-General
elected in June 2011, the new Director-General term will be 3-½ years,
from January 1, 2012 through July 31, 2015. The current Director-
General's term is scheduled to end on December 31, 2011. He will have
served three 6-year terms from January 1994 through December 2011.
[11] The Basic Texts of FAO are the Constitution, General Rules of the
Organization, Financial Regulations, and Rules of Procedure for the
FAO Council and its established committees. Decisions of the
Conference are taken by a majority of the votes unless provided in the
Basic Texts and by rules made by the Conference. Decisions of the
Council are taken by a majority of the votes unless provided in the
Basic Texts and by rules made by the Conference or Council.
[12] FAO first established this Conference Committee in 2007 to follow
up on the Independent External Evaluation recommendations. Since FAO's
2008 adoption of the IPA, FAO specified that the Conference Committee
would exist until the end of 2009 in order to complete outstanding
work on the IPA, then extended the Conference Committee's duration
until the FAO Conference in June 2011.
[13] The Program Committee develops and implements of FAO's program of
activities. The Finance Committee exercises control over the financial
administration of FAO. The Committee on Constitutional and Legal
Matters addresses specific constitutional and legal matters. The
Regional Conferences represent member states from Africa, Asia and the
Pacific, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Near East.
[14] The Conference Committee disbanded in June 2011. However, as
instructed by the 2011 FAO Conference, the PMU and IPA project leaders
will continue to report on IPA implementation status to the existing
governing bodies: the Program and Finance Committees, and the
Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters.
[15] The Rome-based UN organizations include FAO, the World Food
Program, and the International Fund for Agriculture Development.
[16] According to a PMU official, the PMU may introduce additional
reporting categories for future progress reports. The additional
implementation status category may include a further separation of the
"completed" category into two categories--a category showing action
items completed with no ongoing costs and another category for action
items completed with ongoing costs.
[17] Related reports include GAO, Content Analysis: A Methodology for
Structuring and Analyzing Written Material, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/PEMD-10.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1,
1996); GAO, Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-365G] (Washington,
D.C.: February 2009); and GAO, Performance Plans: Selected Approaches
for Verification and Validation of Agency Performance Information,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-99-139] (Washington,
D.C.: July 30, 1999).
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/PEMD-10.3.1] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-GGD-99-139].
[19] IPA action item 3.32.
[20] IPA action item 3.15.
[21] IPA action item 3.76.
[22] IPA action item 6.2.
[23] IPA action item 3.84.
[24] IPA action item 2.78.
[25] IPA action items 3.42 and 7.24.
[26] IPA action item 2.22.
[27] The issue related to whether the reports would be written by a
Drafting Committee within the FAO Council, or by a reporter
responsible for compiling the reports.
[28] According to FAO officials, program-level risks are associated
with the overall management of the reform plan, while project-level
risks are associated with a set of action items that have been grouped
together into projects by the PMU.
[29] According to the Executive Summary for the IPA Risk Assessment,
each IPA project leader and his/her staff followed a structured and
rigorous self-assessment process, facilitated by the consultant to
build a risk log of the top 10 to 20 risks of their project.
[30] FAO specifically identified risks related to: (1) delivery-that
agreed activities are not completed to time, budget, and
specifications; (2) benefit-that completed activities do not generate
the expected level of improvement to FAO's performance; and (3)
disruption-that reform activities produce side effects that harm FAO.
[31] According to the Management Report on IPA Implementation in 2010-
2011, the risk assessment identified 10 (7 red, 2 amber, 1 green)
risks at the program level and 207 (49 red, 112 amber, 46 green) risks
at the project level. The risk assessment also identified 68
dependencies (27 red, 37 amber, and 4 green). Project teams' rating of
impact was based on acceptability to senior management or member
states if the risk occurred, while their rating of likelihood was
based on the probability of the risk.
[32] Adequate staffing of the PMU was a red risk identified at the
program level during the assessment. At the time of our review, the
PMU included the director, director's secretary, one staff member, and
one consultant.
[33] These priorities were identified in FAO's Management Report on
IPA Implementation in 2010-2011.
[34] IPA action item 2.100.
[35] According to State, the United States consulted closely with the
United Kingdom on the development of this draft working document and
contributed to the competency profile.
[36] IPA action item 3.84.
[37] This document identified gaps, challenges, risks, and issues
related to decentralization, including how member states could
determine the optimal scale and scope of the country offices network.
[38] IPA action item 4.4.
[39] The Group of 77 is a coalition of developing countries that
promotes its members' collective interests. Currently, 131 developing
countries are members.
[40] IPA action item 7.24.
[41] IPA action item 3.11.
[42] IPA action items 7.15 and 3.90.
[43] Relates to IPA action item 3.32.
[44] IPA action item 3.51.
[45] IPA action item 3.61.
[46] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[47] 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, 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. 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.
[48] As a body sponsored by the UN System Chief Executives Board for
Coordination, the UN High-Level Committee on Management is responsible
for ensuring coordination in administrative and management areas
across the UN system.
[49] The three Working Groups included (1) the Strategic Framework,
Medium Term Plan 2010-2013, and the Program of Work and Budget 2010-
2011; (2) proposed amendments to the Basic Texts and any changes found
desirable in the size and regional representation in the Membership of
the Council; and (3) reform of systems, culture change, and
organizational restructuring.
[50] Founded in 1964, the United States and the United Kingdom are
permanent co-chairs of the 16-member Geneva Group, which is an
informal caucus of like-minded member states that contribute 1 percent
or more of the UN assessed budget.
[51] During the informal regional conference, the United States and
Canada also discussed a number of other issues important to the future
of FAO. These issues include the delegation of technical cooperation
program authority to field offices, field office rationalization, and
the process used to identify FAO representatives.
[End of section]
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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548:
