United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many  
Awaiting General Assembly Review (05-OCT-06, GAO-07-14).	 
                                                                 
Despite various reform efforts, significant inefficiencies in	 
United Nations (UN) management operations persist. In September  
2005, heads of UN member states approved a resolution that called
for a series of reforms to strengthen the organization. As the	 
largest financial contributor to the UN, the United States has a 
strong interest in the progress of UN reform initiatives. GAO was
asked to (1) identify and track the status of UN management	 
reforms in five key areas and (2) identify factors that may	 
affect the implementation of these reform initiatives. To address
these objectives, GAO reviewed documents proposing UN management 
reform and interviewed U.S. and UN officials.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-14						        
    ACCNO:   A61845						        
  TITLE:     United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly    
with Many Awaiting General Assembly Review			 
     DATE:   10/05/2006 
  SUBJECT:   General management reviews 			 
	     Internal controls					 
	     International organizations			 
	     International relations				 
	     Planning						 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Timeliness 					 
	     United Nations					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-14

     

     * GAO-07-14 United Nations Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with
       Many Awaiting Gen
          * Highlights
          * Table of Contents
               * Letter
               * Results in Brief
               * Background
               * Management Reform Proposals in Five Areas Are Awaiting Gener
                    * Reforms to Improve the Management Operations of the
                      Secretar
                    * Oversight Reform Proposals Awaiting General Assembly
                      Review
                    * Ethics Office Established, but It Is Too Early to
                      Assess Its
                    * Disagreement among Member States Has Delayed Review of
                      Progr
                    * Effectiveness and Impact of Newly-Created Human Rights
                      Counc
               * Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of UN Managem
                    * Disagreement within the General Assembly Has Limited
                      the Imp
                    * UN Has Not Developed a Comprehensive Plan to Implement
                      the R
                    * Administrative Guidance May Complicate the Process of
                      Implem
               * Conclusion
               * Recommendations for Executive Action
               * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
          * Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
          * Appendix II: Status of UN Management Reform Initiatives
          * Appendix III: The UN Whistleblower Protection Procedure
          * Appendix IV: Information on Assessments and Cost-Benefit Ana
          * Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State
          * Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
               * GAO Contact
               * Staff Acknowledgments
          * Related GAO Products
               * Order by Mail or Phone

Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

October 2006

UNITED NATIONS

Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many Awaiting General Assembly
Review

GAO-07-14

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 6
Management Reform Proposals in Five Areas Are Awaiting General Assembly
Review or Have Been Recently Approved 9
Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of UN Management Reforms 29
Conclusion 36
Recommendations for Executive Action 37
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 39
Appendix II Status of UN Management Reform Initiatives 41
Appendix III The UN Whistleblower Protection Procedure 54
Appendix IV Information on Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analyses 56
Appendix V Comments from the Department of State 59
Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 62
Related GAO Products 63

Tables

Table 1: Categories of Mandates Reviewed in Phase One 25
Table 2: Additional Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform
Initiatives, as of September 2006 33
Table 3: Status of Major UN Management Reform Initiatives 41
Table 4: Reviews, Assessments, and Cost-Benefit Analyses 56

Figures

Figure 1: Key Dates of Reform Initiatives to Improve the Management
Operations of the Secretariat 11
Figure 2: Key Dates for Oversight Reform Initiatives 15
Figure 3: Key Dates for the Ethics Office 18
Figure 4: Key Dates for Review of Programs and Activities 22
Figure 5: Distribution of UN Mandates by Renewal Classification 24
Figure 6: Key Dates for the Human Rights Council 27

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. However, 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.

Abbreviations

ACABQ Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions GA
General Assembly G-77 The Group of 77 OIOS Office of Internal Oversight
Services UN United Nations

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

October 5, 2006

The Honorable Norm Coleman Chairman Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Henry Hyde Chairman Committee on International Relations
House of Representatives

The United Nations (UN) has undertaken various reform efforts since its
creation in 1945. In 1997 and 2002, the UN began a series of reforms that
included proposed changes in human resources, budgeting, and human rights
programs and activities. In February 2004, we reported that those reforms
were progressing but that only about 50 percent were in place.1 Despite
the UN's efforts to improve its management processes, several independent
reports, such as the 2005 Independent Inquiry Committee's investigation of
the UN's Oil for Food program2 and the Gingrich-Mitchell task force review
in June 2005,3 found that inefficient UN management operations persist.
These reports highlighted the immediate need for management reform given
the growth in complexity and significance of UN worldwide operations. In
addition, inadequate oversight of the Oil for Food program and corruption
and mismanagement of UN procurement activities have demonstrated the need
for reform.

1GAO, United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments
Needed to Measure Impact, GAO-04-339 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004).

2In 1996, the UN and Iraq established the Oil for Food program to address
Iraq's humanitarian situation after sanctions were imposed in 1990. In
April 2004, the UN established the Independent Inquiry Committee to
investigate the administration and management of the UN Oil for Food
program. See Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil for
Food Program, Interim Report (New York, N.Y.: Feb. 3, 2005) and The
Management of the Oil-for-Food Program (New York, N.Y.: Sept. 7, 2005).

3United States Institute of Peace, American Interests and UN Reform Report
of the Task Force on the United Nations (Washington, D.C.: June 2005).

In September 2005, heads of member states held a World Summit to address,
among other issues, long-standing concerns about UN management. The
outcome document, the resolution approved by all member state
representatives at the Summit,4 recognized the urgent need to improve
management processes at the UN and called for the Secretary-General and
General Assembly to propose and approve reforms to strengthen the
organization.

As the largest financial contributor to the UN, the United States has
advocated the need for comprehensive management reform and has a strong
interest in the progress of reform initiatives.5 In response to your
request to monitor the progress of management and human rights reform
initiatives, we (1) identified and tracked the status of UN management
reform initiatives in five key areas-management operations of the
Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review of programs and
activities, and human rights and (2) identified factors that may affect
the implementation of these reform initiatives.6

To address our objectives, we reviewed key documents proposing UN
management and human rights reform and interviewed key officials from
several UN departments in New York. We reviewed reports and bulletins
published by the UN General Assembly and Secretariat, relevant UN
resolutions, and related budget documents. The majority of the cost
estimates for the proposed reform initiatives are preliminary, and
detailed cost estimates are being developed; therefore, we did not analyze
the assumptions underlying these estimates to determine whether they are
reasonable and reliable. We met with officials from the General Assembly
Office of the President, the Office of the Deputy Secretary-General, the
Departments of Management and Policy and Planning, the Office of Program
Planning and Budget, and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).
We also met with representatives from several member states. We discussed
the status of UN management reforms with officials from the Department of
State in Washington, D.C. and New York City. We performed our work between
January and September 2006 in accordance with generally accepted U.S.
government auditing standards. (App. I provides a detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology.)

42005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/60/1 (2005).

5The United States provides 22 percent of the UN's regular budget (about
$836 million for the current biennium) and about 27 percent of the
peacekeeping budget (about $1.3 billion), more than any other UN member
state. The regular budget for the current biennium (2006-2007) is about
$3.8 billion, and the peacekeeping budget for the fiscal year beginning
July 2006 is about $4.7 billion.

6This report focuses on management reform initiatives of the UN General
Assembly and the UN Secretariat. It does not address the activities of
other UN entities, funds, and programs. For the purposes of this report,
the term "UN" refers to the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretariat.

                                Results in Brief

Most of the UN management reforms in the five areas we reviewed-management
operations of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review of
programs and activities, and human rights-are either awaiting General
Assembly review or have been recently approved. In addition, some proposed
or approved reforms do not have an implementation plan that establishes
time frames and cost estimates.

           o  To improve the management operations of the Secretariat, in
           July 2006, the General Assembly approved several reforms, such as
           creating the position of a chief information technology officer
           and upgrading certain elements of the UN's computer systems. The
           General Assembly also authorized funding of approximately $700,000
           which UN officials plan to use for six new temporary procurement
           positions for 6 months; however, according to a senior U.S.
           official, these temporary resources are not sufficient to address
           the weaknesses in the procurement system. Further, the General
           Assembly is scheduled to review the Secretary-General's proposals
           in the areas of procurement and human resources in fall 2006.
           Moreover, the UN does not have implementation plans for some
           reforms in this area.

           o  Reform proposals to create an independent oversight advisory
           committee that could enhance the UN's oversight structures and to
           strengthen the capacity of OIOS are awaiting review by the General
           Assembly in fall 2006. In November 2005, the Secretary-General
           proposed the creation of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee
           and drafted provisional terms of reference. The General Assembly
           approved the creation of the committee in December 2005 and
           requested an external evaluation of the proposed terms of
           reference. In July 2006, the Secretary-General released an
           independent external evaluation that reviewed and proposed
           revisions to the terms of reference for the committee and
           recommended its establishment. The external evaluation also found
           that OIOS is not able to function effectively under its current
           mandate and made 23 recommendations in nine areas to strengthen
           its capacity. The external evaluation recommended shifting several
           functions in OIOS, including investigations, to departments in the
           Secretariat. However, according to some UN and U.S. officials,
           this shift could significantly diminish the UN's oversight
           functions by potentially compromising the independence of
           investigations.

           o  To promote the ethical conduct of its staff, the UN established
           an ethics office with interim staff in January 2006 that has
           developed an internal timetable for implementing key initiatives,
           but it is too early to determine if the office will be able to
           fully carry out its mandate. The office is responsible for (1)
           administering the UN's financial disclosure program, (2)
           implementing the new UN whistleblower protection policy, (3)
           providing guidance to staff on ethics issues, and (4) developing
           ethics standards and training. The office is operating with six
           interim staff and is currently in the process of hiring six
           permanent staff to replace them. While the interim staff have been
           undertaking activities consistent with the responsibilities of the
           office, some experts, including members of a panel commissioned by
           a UN staff union to review the UN's internal justice system, have
           questioned the sufficiency of the number of assigned staff.

           o  UN member states agreed to complete a review of UN programs and
           activities in 2006, but progress has been slow because member
           states disagree on its scope and process, and its results and time
           line for completion remain uncertain. In the September 2005
           outcome document, member states requested a review of all UN
           programs and activities, or mandates, created 5 or more years ago.
           Member states agreed that the purpose of the review is to
           strengthen and update UN programs and activities to more
           accurately reflect the current needs of the organization. In March
           2006, the Secretariat identified more than 9,000 total UN
           mandates, but only about 6,900 are older than 5 years and included
           in the review. The General Assembly began its first phase of
           discussions on the review process in November 2005 and its first
           phase of substantive discussions on specific mandates in April
           2006. From the outset of the review process, member states have
           disagreed on the process for undertaking the review, which
           mandates could be eliminated or combined, and what to do with
           savings generated by the potential elimination or consolidation of
           mandates. As of September 2006, member states continue to discuss
           the mandates and have agreed to set aside 74 completed mandates
           that require no further action, but have not agreed to change,
           eliminate, or retain any other mandates. Given the volume of
           mandates yet to be reviewed and the contentious nature of the
           process, it is unlikely that the review will be completed in 2006
           as agreed to by member states.

           o  In March 2006, the General Assembly created a new Human Rights
           Council, but significant concerns remain about the council's
           structure. In the 2005 outcome document, UN member states agreed
           to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights
           Council due to long-standing concerns about the commission's
           credibility. For example, members of the commission were elected
           by regional slates by the Economic and Social Council rather than
           individually by the General Assembly, and countries known to be
           human rights violators consistently won membership. UN member
           states established the new council to address these deficiencies
           and human rights issues more broadly. However, the United States
           and other countries have expressed concerns about the newly
           created council's structure. The United States advocated that
           members of the council be elected by a two-thirds majority of the
           General Assembly to make it more difficult for countries with
           questionable human rights records to gain membership, but the
           General Assembly voted that members would be elected by an
           absolute majority. Despite objections to the council,
           nongovernmental organizations and other UN members have stated
           that the council is better equipped than the commission to address
           urgent, serious, and long-term human rights situations worldwide.
           For example, the council will implement a new mechanism through
           which all UN members will be subject to periodic review of their
           human rights situations. In addition, the council will hold more
           sessions throughout the year than the commission did and for a
           longer total period of time each year, with meetings held at least
           three times a year for a total of 10 weeks. It is too early to
           determine the impact of the new council on the UN and human rights
           worldwide.

           We identified several factors that may affect the UN's ability to
           fully implement management reforms. First, although all UN member
           states agree that UN management reforms are needed, disagreements
           over the overall implications of the reforms could significantly
           affect their progress. The Group of 77 (G-77) countries7 are
           concerned that some of the reforms could increase the authority of
           the Secretariat at the expense of the General Assembly, thus
           decreasing the member states' influence over UN operations. Member
           states also disagree on some of the specifics of the reforms in
           areas such as the review of programs and activities and the role
           of the Deputy Secretary-General. Second, the general absence of an
           implementation plan for each reform that establishes time frames
           and cost estimates could affect the UN's ability to implement the
           reform initiatives. Without establishing deadlines or determining
           cost estimates, it is difficult to hold managers accountable for
           completing reform efforts and ensuring that financing will be
           available when needed. Third, administrative guidance, such as
           staff regulations and rules that implement General Assembly
           resolutions, could complicate and sometimes restrict the process
           of implementing certain human resource reform proposals, such as a
           staff buyout, field staff realignment, and outsourcing
           administrative services. For example, according to the
           Secretary-General, the General Assembly established a number of
           conditions for outsourcing that severely restrict the
           circumstances under which it can be contemplated.

           We are recommending that the Secretary of State and the U.S.
           Permanent Representative to the UN work with other member states
           to encourage the General Assembly and the Secretary-General to
           include cost estimates and expected time frames for implementation
           and completion for each reform as it is approved. We are also
           recommending that the Secretary of State's annual U.S.
           Participation in the United Nations report to the Congress include
           a section on the status and progress of the major UN management
           reforms.

           We received written comments from the Department of State that we
           have reprinted in appendix V. The Department of State generally
           agreed with our findings and recommendations and commented on
           ongoing reform efforts. The UN did not provide us with written
           comments.

           Background
			  
			  Calls to reform the UN began soon after its creation in 1945.8
           Despite cycles of reform, UN member states have had concerns about
           inefficient management operations. As one of the 192 member
           states, the United States played a significant role in promoting
           UN reform, calling for financial and administrative changes. The
           United States, through the Department of State and the U.S.
           Mission to the United Nations, continues to take measures to
           advance reform of UN management processes.

           In 1997 and 2002, the Secretary-General proposed two separate sets
           of management reform initiatives in the areas of human resources,
           budgeting, and human rights. In July 1997, the Secretary-General
           proposed a broad reform program to transform the UN into an
           efficient organization focused on achieving results as it carried
           out its mandates. Although the Secretary-General does not have
           direct authority over specialized agencies and many funds and
           programs, the reforms at the Secretariat were intended to serve as
           a model for UN-wide reforms. In May 2000, we reported that while
           the Secretary-General had substantially reorganized the
           Secretariat's leadership and structure, he had not yet completed
           reforms in human resource management and planning and budgeting.9
           In September 2002, to encourage the full implementation of the
           1997 reforms, the Secretary-General released a second set of
           reform initiatives with 36 reform actions, some expanding on
           previous reform initiatives introduced in 1997 and others
           reflecting new priorities for the organization. In February 2004,
           we reported that 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the
           1997 agenda and 38 percent of the 66 initiatives in the 2002
           agenda were in place.10

           In 2004-2005, a series of UN and expert task force reports
           recommended the need for comprehensive reform of UN management and
           the UN human rights apparatus. These studies included a 2004
           report of a high-level panel convened by the Secretary-General to
           recommend ways to strengthen the UN,11 a March 2005
           Secretary-General report to the General Assembly,12 a June 2005
           report by a task force mandated by the U.S. Congress to recommend
           how to improve the effectiveness of the organization,13 as well as
           several reports of the Independent Inquiry Committee established
           to investigate the Oil for Food Program.14

           In September 2005, world leaders gathered at the UN World Summit
           in New York City to discuss global issues such as UN reform,
           development, and human rights, as well as actions needed in each
           of these areas. The outcome document from the World Summit,15
           endorsed by all members of the UN, outlines broad UN reform
           efforts in areas such as oversight and accountability, and human
           rights. The document also called for the Secretary-General to
           submit proposals for implementing reforms to improve the
           management functions of the Secretariat.16

           In April 2006, we reported on weaknesses in the UN's internal
           oversight unit and procurement system, both of which have been
           identified as important areas for reform.17 In the internal
           oversight area, we found that UN funding arrangements adversely
           affect OIOS's budgetary independence and compromise the office's
           ability to audit high-risk areas. For example, OIOS depends on the
           resources of the funds, programs, and other entities it audits,
           and the managers of these programs can deny OIOS permission to
           perform work or not pay OIOS for services. In the procurement
           area, we found that UN procurement resources are vulnerable to
           fraud, waste, and abuse because of weaknesses affecting the
           control environment. For example, the UN has not established a
           single organizational entity or mechanism capable of effectively
           and comprehensively managing procurement. In addition, the UN has
           not demonstrated a commitment to improving the professionalism of
           its procurement staff in the form of training, a career
           development path, or other key human capital practices critical to
           attracting, developing, and retaining a qualified professional
           workforce.

           The management reform decision-making process at the UN involves
           multiple entities. Member states or the Secretary-General can
           introduce management reform initiatives at the UN. The
           Secretary-General can implement certain management improvements
           that are within his authority. In addition, the Secretary-General
           submits proposals to the General Assembly. In these cases, the
           Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
           (ACABQ),18 a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, reviews the
           proposal. The ACABQ then advises and reports to the Administrative
           and Budgetary Committee (the Fifth Committee), the General
           Assembly's committee for administrative and budgetary matters that
           is composed of all 192 member states. The Fifth Committee holds
           discussions on the proposals and makes its recommendation to the
           General Assembly. The General Assembly makes the final decision.
           For the past 20 years, most decisions in the Fifth Committee and
           in the General Assembly have been made by consensus among all the
           member state representatives.

           Management Reform Proposals in Five Areas Are Awaiting General
			  Assembly Review or Have Been Recently Approved

           The UN has initiated reforms in five key areas: (1) modernizing
           the management operations of the Secretariat, (2) improving
           oversight, (3) promoting ethical conduct, (4) reviewing and
           updating programs and activities, and (5) creating a Human Rights
           Council. However, most efforts are awaiting General Assembly
           review or have been recently approved. In addition, many proposed
           or approved reforms do not have an implementation plan that
           establishes time frames and cost estimates. Appendix II summarizes
           the status of major management reforms.
			  
			  Reforms to Improve the Management Operations of the Secretariat Are
			  Awaiting General Assembly Review or Have Been Recently Approved 

           Proposals to improve the management operations of the Secretariat
           have either been approved or are awaiting General Assembly review.
           To improve the management operations of the Secretariat, the
           September 2005 outcome document requested that the
           Secretary-General develop proposals to ensure that the existing
           policies, regulations, and rules used to manage budgetary,
           financial, and human resources are aligned with the current needs
           of the UN. In response, the Secretary-General submitted a report
           to the General Assembly in March that included 23 proposals to
           improve the UN's effectiveness.19 However, the ACABQ recommended
           that the Secretary-General provide more details, including
           specific costs and administrative implications, and time lines for
           implementation.

           In April 2006, members of the Fifth Committee voted and approved a
           proposal introduced by the G-77 countries that the
           Secretary-General elaborate on the proposals and give concrete
           examples of how the initiatives could correct deficiencies and
           make the organization's work more effective.20 The vote signified
           the breakdown of the policy of making decisions by consensus, a
           practice used for 20 years. Further, the United States expressed
           concern that the G-77's proposal was a way to scale back the
           reforms proposed in the Secretary-General's March 2006 report. In
           May 2006, the General Assembly voted and approved a resolution
           that incorporated the recommendations made by the Fifth
           Committee.21 See figure 1 for key dates for reform initiatives
           related to improving the management operations of the Secretariat.

7The G-77 is a coalition of developing countries that promotes its
members' collective interests. Currently 131 developing countries are
members of the G-77.

8The UN comprises (1) the General Assembly, the Security Council, the
Economic and Social Council, and other governing bodies of the 192 member
states that set the work requirements, or mandates, for UN programs and
departments; (2) the Secretariat, headed by the Secretary-General, which
carries out a large part of the mandated work; and (3) the funds and
programs, such as the UN Development Program, which are authorized by the
General Assembly to conduct specific lines of work.

9GAO, United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened Operations, but
Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Achieved, GAO/NSIAD-00-150
(Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000).

10 GAO-04-339 .

11United Nations, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report
of the Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and
Change (New York, N.Y.: 2004).

12In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for
All, U.N. Doc. A/59/2005.

13United States Institute of Peace, American Interests and UN Reform,
Report of the Task Force on the United Nations (Washington D.C.: June
2005).

14Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food
Program, Interim Report (New York, N.Y.: Feb. 3, 2005) and The Management
of the Oil-for-Food Program (New York, N.Y.: Sept. 7, 2005).

15G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (2005).

16The September 2005 outcome document also outlined reforms in other
areas, such as Governance, Security Council and Economic and Social
Council reform, General Assembly Revitalization, and the establishment of
a Peace Building Commission. These reforms are outside the scope of our
review.

17GAO, United Nations: Funding Arrangements Impede Independence of
Internal Auditors, GAO-06-575 (Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006), GAO,
United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak, GAO-06-577
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2006), and GAO, United Nations: Lessons
Learned from Oil for Food Program Indicate the Need to Strengthen UN
Internal Controls and Oversight, GAO-06-330 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25,
2006).

18The ACABQ consists of 16 individuals from member states appointed by the
General Assembly. The members of the ACABQ serve in their personal
capacity. Two major responsibilities of the ACABQ are (1) to examine and
report on the budget submitted by the Secretary-General to the General
Assembly and (2) to advise the General Assembly concerning any
administrative and budgetary matters.

19The proposals covered seven areas: human resources, management structure
of the Secretariat, information and communications technology, methods of
delivering services such as outsourcing and procurement, budget and
finance, governance, and change management. The governance reforms are
beyond the scope of this report. See Investing in the United Nations: For
a Stronger Organization Worldwide, U.N. Doc. A/60/692.

20The proposal was approved with 108 in favor (mainly G-77 countries), 50
against (including the United States and other developed countries), and 3
abstaining.

21G.A. Res. 60/260, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/260 (2006).
The resolution was approved with 121 in favor (mainly G-77 countries), 50
against (including the United States and other developed countries), and 2
abstaining.

Figure 1: Key Dates of Reform Initiatives to Improve the Management
Operations of the Secretariat

In response to the General Assembly's request for more information, the
Secretariat issued seven detailed reports in May and June 2006 that
included information on various initiatives, such as information and
communication technology, financial management practices, and procurement
reform. In July 2006, member states approved a resolution that, according
to UN officials and member state representatives, was a positive step
toward addressing several management reform initiatives.22 The status of
several reforms to improve the management operations of the Secretariat is
as follows:

           o  Since the Secretary-General has limited authority to shift
           resources between programs without the approval of the member
           states, the Secretary-General in his March 2006 report noted that
           more flexibility in this area could enable the Secretariat to
           respond more effectively to the changing needs of the
           organization. In July 2006, the General Assembly gave the
           Secretary-General, on an experimental basis, limited discretion
           over budgetary commitments up to $20 million per biennium.23 The
           impact of this reform will be reviewed in 2009.

           o  According to the Secretary-General, the UN has outdated and
           fragmented information technology systems that have limited
           capacity for processing and sharing data. Moreover, at least six
           departments have disparate information technology units with no
           integrating mechanism in place. The Secretary-General's March 2006
           report recommended the creation of a chief information technology
           officer position to oversee the creation and implementation of an
           information management strategy for the Secretariat. In July 2006,
           the General Assembly agreed to create the position of a chief
           information technology officer and upgrade certain elements of the
           UN's computer systems. In addition, the Secretary-General's
           information technology detailed report did not include a
           comprehensive implementation plan for this proposal. According to
           State and UN officials, the Secretary-General plans to submit a
           comprehensive report that includes cost estimates in March 2007.

           o  GAO and others have reported that UN procurement resources are
           unnecessarily vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. The
           Secretariat's June 2006 procurement report included several
           proposals that could be implemented over an 18-month period to
           strengthen UN procurement practices. However, the report does not
           specify milestones that need to be completed during the 18 months.
           The General Assembly is expected to discuss this report in fall
           2006. In the meantime, in July 2006, the General Assembly
           authorized funding of approximately $700,000, which UN officials
           plan to use for six new temporary procurement positions for 6
           months. However, according to a senior U.S. official, these
           temporary posts are not sufficient to address weaknesses in the
           procurement system, and qualified procurement officers are not
           likely to accept temporary jobs. As of September 2006, one
           temporary procurement staff member had been hired.

           o  According to the Secretary-General, staff skills are not
           aligned with the current needs of the organization. The
           Secretary-General's March 2006 report included proposals to
           improve recruitment processes, facilitate staff mobility between
           headquarters and field offices, and dedicate resources to conduct
           a one-time staff buyout.24 In late September 2006, the
           Secretary-General issued a detailed human resources report.25 The
           General Assembly is expected to discuss the report in fall 2006.

           Some of the proposed or approved reforms to improve the operations
           of the Secretariat do not have an implementation plan that
           establishes time frames and cost estimates. Of the
           Secretary-General's seven detailed reports issued in May and June
           2006, only the proposal for adoption of the International Public
           Sector Accounting Standards includes a detailed timetable for
           implementation. The Secretary-General's June 2006 procurement
           report included several proposals that could be implemented over
           an 18-month period, but the report does not include specific
           milestones.
			  
			  Oversight Reform Proposals Awaiting General Assembly Review
			  in Fall 2006

           Reforms proposed to create an independent oversight advisory
           committee and to strengthen the capacity of OIOS are awaiting
           review by the General Assembly in fall 2006. In the outcome
           document, member states agreed to consider the creation of an
           independent oversight advisory committee. In November 2005, the
           Secretary-General proposed the creation of the Independent Audit
           Advisory Committee and drafted provisional terms of reference for
           this entity. In December 2005, the General Assembly approved the
           creation of the committee and requested an external evaluation of
           the proposed terms of reference. In addition, in the September
           2005 outcome document, member states recognized the urgent need to
           strengthen the expertise, capacity, and resources of OIOS's
           auditing and investigative functions26 We and others have reported
           that OIOS's independence and ability to perform as the principal
           auditing and investigative body of the UN have been hampered by
           the UN's funding process and lack of resources. Moreover, in the
           outcome document, member states requested an independent external
           evaluation of the UN's auditing and oversight system. The
           Secretary-General submitted the external evaluation in July
           2006.27 See figure 2 for key dates associated with oversight
           reform initiatives.

22G.A. Res.60/283, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/283 (2006).

23The $20 million will be funded by the working capital fund.

24Under a buyout program, the UN would offer cash incentives for employees
to voluntarily leave the organization.

25The UN provided us with a copy of this detailed human resources report
after our report had gone to press; therefore, we did not have time to
analyze and incorporate the information. See Investing in People, U.N.
Doc. A/61/255.

26OIOS was created in 1994 to assist the Secretary-General in fulfilling
internal oversight responsibilities over UN resources and staff.

27The independent evaluation was conducted under the direction of a
six-member Steering Committee that coordinated and supervised the
independent contractor and directly reported the findings to the
Secretary-General. See United Nations: Comprehensive Review of Governance
and Oversight within the United Nations, Funds, Programmes and Specialized
Agencies, U.N. Doc. A/60/883, Add. 1 and 2.

Figure 2: Key Dates for Oversight Reform Initiatives

The July 2006 external evaluation reviewed the draft terms of reference
for the Independent Audit Advisory Committee and recommended several
changes, specifically with respect to the number, appointment criteria,
terms, and compensation of members of the committee. The external
independent evaluation also recommended the complete and prompt
implementation of the committee. In addition, the evaluation recommended
that the committee be responsible for presenting the budget for OIOS to
the Fifth Committee, thereby relieving the ACABQ of its advisory role in
this regard.

The July 2006 external evaluation included a detailed review of OIOS that
found that OIOS is not able to function effectively under its current
mandate and made 23 recommendations in nine areas to strengthen its
capacity.28 The external review stated that OIOS's current structure is
impeding its independence and reducing its effectiveness.29 It also stated
that OIOS should focus on internal auditing and recommended shifting
several OIOS functions, such as investigations, to departments in the
Secretariat.30 However, various UN and U.S. officials stated that a shift
of functions such as that proposed in the external review could
significantly diminish the UN's oversight functions and the independence
of its investigations. For example, these officials said that moving
investigations to the Secretariat could create a potential conflict of
interest. However, according to UN Secretariat officials, the Secretariat
has a positive view of the results of the independent external review and
supports most of the recommendations, and not all UN Secretariat officials
view the proposed recommendation as a way to diminish the UN's oversight
functions or the independence of its investigations. In addition, in a
report submitted to the Secretary-General in July 2006,31 OIOS strongly
disagreed with the restructuring proposals but recognized the need to
reassess the functions and work processes of its Investigations Division.
OIOS indicated that it will undertake a review of that division that will
be completed by the end of 2006.

OIOS's July 2006 report included its own proposals for strengthening its
capacity. The OIOS report indicated that some recommendations of the
external review will require consideration by the General Assembly, but
that many are being considered for implementation under the authority of
the Under Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services. The OIOS
report discussed 14 of the recommendations made by the external review and
generally agreed with most of them, such as training of OIOS staff, human
resource management, and information and communications technology.
However, as discussed above, OIOS strongly disagreed with the
recommendations that would restructure it.

28The report made recommendations in the following nine areas:
independence, governance structure in which OIOS operates, OIOS's
organization and structure, human resources, working practices,
information and communications technology, communication and reporting,
knowledge management, and performance measures.

29OIOS is currently organized into four divisions: two internal audit
divisions; an investigation division; and a monitoring, evaluation, and
consulting division.

30According to U.S. and UN officials, the external review team proposed
this structural change based on a corporate oversight model. These
officials also told us that the European Union has a similar system.

31Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on Proposals for
Strengthening the Office of Internal Oversight Services, U.N. Doc.
A/60/901.

Ethics Office Established, but It Is Too Early to Assess Its Impact

The UN established an ethics office in January 2006 but, as of September
2006 it continues to operate with interim staff,32 and some experts,
including a panel commissioned by a UN staff union to review the UN's
internal justice system, have questioned the sufficiency of the number of
staff in the office. Since January 2006, the office's six interim staff
members have developed and implemented activities associated with the
ethics office's four areas of responsibility: (1) administering the UN's
financial disclosure program, (2) implementing the new UN whistleblower
protection policy, (3) providing guidance to staff on ethics issues, and
(4) developing ethics standards and training. For example, the interim
staff members have undertaken preliminary reviews of claims of retaliation
for whistleblowing and have collected financial disclosure forms from UN
managers. As the office is new and in the process of hiring permanent
staff, it is too early to determine whether the office will be able to
fully carry out its mandate. See figure 3 for key dates associated with
the establishment of the ethics office.

32These staff are UN employees assigned to other duty stations within the
UN system who are working temporarily in the ethics office until permanent
staff are hired.

Figure 3: Key Dates for the Ethics Office

Before creating the ethics office, the UN Secretariat did not have a way
to coordinate ethics-related initiatives within the organization and to
ensure that all staff are aware of and updated on ethics issues. The 2005
outcome document specifically requested that the Secretary-General develop
a detailed proposal for an independent ethics office. The
Secretary-General developed and submitted this proposal in November 2005,
and the General Assembly approved it in December 2005. The ethics office
began operating in January 2006 as an independent entity reporting
directly to the Secretary-General and by March 2006 it was staffed with
one director, four staff members, and a consultant, all temporarily
assigned to the office. These staff have been establishing and documenting
the procedures the office follows in carrying out its duties. The UN is in
the process of hiring permanent staff to replace the interim staff. The
office has four main areas of responsibility and has made some progress in
fulfilling each as follows:

           o  The ethics office is responsible for administering the UN's
           financial disclosure program to ensure that staff comply with
           applicable conflict of interest rules and standards of conduct.
           Designated UN staff- those at and above the director level and all
           staff carrying out procurement and investment functions-are
           required to file an annual confidential statement of their
           financial interests. This policy applies to about 1,800 UN staff
           and as of July 31, 2006, the ethics office had received 90 percent
           of their financial disclosure statements. The ethics office is
           currently reviewing bids from contractors to carry out the review
           and audit of these forms. The Secretariat recommended that the
           review be conducted by independent financial experts, as is the
           practice at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
           (IMF), to safeguard the confidentiality of senior officials'
           private financial information. The ethics office will keep these
           financial disclosure forms confidential, but a report by a panel
           of experts reviewing the UN's internal justice system recommended
           that the office maintain the forms in a public register.

           o  The ethics office is implementing the UN's new whistleblower
           protection policy, which took effect in January 2006. When a staff
           member contacts the ethics office with a complaint that he or she
           has been retaliated against for reporting misconduct, the office
           conducts a preliminary review to determine if the case should move
           forward for formal investigation by OIOS. The ethics office staff
           review the evidence presented by the claimant, interview the party
           accused of retaliation, and talk to other staff involved. If the
           ethics office determines that the case is an interpersonal problem
           within a particular office, rather than a case of retaliation for
           whistleblowing, it advises the staff member concerned of the
           existence of the Office of the Ombudsman and other informal
           conflict resolution mechanisms within the organization. If a case
           of retaliation is established after investigation by OIOS, the
           ethics office takes into account any recommendations made by OIOS
           and recommends appropriate measures aimed at correcting the
           negative consequences suffered as a result of the retaliatory
           action. As of July 31, 2006, the office had received 45 complaints
           of retaliation for reporting misconduct, one of which they
           submitted for further investigation. Ethics office staff told us
           that they track all whistleblowing complaints that are brought to
           their attention, including those referred to other offices. Staff
           also said that the time they spend on each case of whistleblower
           retaliation varies from several hours to more than 45 days.33

           o  As part of its regular duties, the ethics office provides
           confidential guidance to staff on ethics issues. To fulfill this
           responsibility, the ethics office operates an ethics helpline to
           answer questions from and provide advice to UN staff. UN staff
           have used the helpline to make whistleblower retaliation
           complaints. Staff can also contact the office in person, by mail
           or e-mail, or by fax.

           o  The ethics office is responsible for developing ethics
           standards and content for training, which all UN staff will be
           expected to take annually, and it is working to provide clear
           guidance to staff on ethics regulations, rules, and standards. The
           Office of Human Resources Management, in consultation with the
           ethics office staff, has developed a half-day ethics workshop for
           all staff and has worked to ensure that ethics issues are
           incorporated into courses on other topics, such as procurement.
           The ethics office has developed an intranet site for UN staff that
           provides general information about the office as well as UN ethics
           issues and standards.

           While the interim staff in the ethics office have been undertaking
           activities consistent with their responsibilities, questions have
           been raised about the capacity of this office to fulfill its
           mandate. One nongovernmental organization said the UN's
           whistleblower protection policy created a new benchmark for such
           policies in other intergovernmental organizations, such as the
           World Bank and IMF. However, it questioned the UN's implementation
           of the policy, citing the low number of staff in the ethics office
           and the amount of time it is taking to conduct preliminary reviews
           of whistleblower retaliation cases. In addition, in a report
           endorsed by a UN staff union,34 a commission of experts criticized
           the UN's implementation of the whistleblower protection policy and
           made several recommendations35 that, if adopted, would change the
           responsibilities and structure of the ethics office. The U.S.
           Permanent Representative to the UN has also cited the UN staff
           union's concerns about the capacity of the ethics office to
           fulfill its responsibilities.

           The appropriate number of staff assigned to the ethics office has
           been in question since the office's inception. The Secretariat
           originally requested funding for 16 staff positions for the ethics
           office, including liaison posts in UN offices in Vienna, Nairobi,
           and Geneva, to provide the office with greater proximity to the
           two-thirds of UN employees located in field offices around the
           world. However, the General Assembly, following the recommendation
           of the ACABQ, approved funding for only six positions, with no
           posts in the field. The ACABQ reported that the office could
           operate with fewer staff than requested, given the office's
           uncertain workload at its inception, and that its workload would
           be reduced after the initial work of developing standards and
           training was complete. The Special Advisor to the
           Secretary-General for the ethics office, who is overseeing the new
           office, stated that the number of staff assigned to the office is
           currently appropriate. The interim staff said that the office
           needs more resources, particularly additional staff, given its
           number of responsibilities and activities. A representative from a
           nongovernmental organization with expertise in whistleblower
           protection also stated that the ethics office has too few
           resources to carry out its duties. In addition, the panel of
           experts commissioned by a UN staff union to review the UN's
           internal justice system stated that it is critical that the ethics
           office be given adequate resources, including representation in
           the UN's regional offices, to fulfill its responsibilities. The
           ethics office submitted a status report to the General Assembly in
           September 2006 that suggested that the office may need additional
           staff and resources in the future. 36
			  
			  Disagreement among Member States Has Delayed Review of Programs
			  and Activities

           Member state review of all UN programs and activities has been
           slow because of disagreements on both the scope and process;
           therefore, it is unlikely that the December 2006 deadline to
           complete the review will be met. In the 2005 outcome document,
           member states requested a review of all UN programs and
           activities, or mandates, that were created 5 or more years ago
           (see fig. 4 below for key dates in the review process) to
           strengthen and update UN programs and activities to more
           accurately reflect the current needs of the organization. The UN
           does not have a system for regularly evaluating the effectiveness
           of its mandates, which make up its main body of work. The General
           Assembly, Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council
           each adopt new mandates every year on many of the same issues,
           which can lead to interrelated and overlapping mandates. As a
           result, the Secretariat's implementation of these mandates may be
           uncoordinated and inconsistent.

33The whistleblower protection policy calls for the ethics office to
complete its review within 45 days of receiving a complaint, but some
reviews take longer to conduct.

34United Nations Staff Union, Report of the Commission of Experts on
Reforming Internal Justice at the United Nations (New York, NY: June 12,
2006).

35The recommendations made by the report are: (1) to raise the status of
the head of the ethics office from the present status as Director to the
Assistant Secretary-General level; (2) to increase its independence, have
the ethics office report directly to an independent review board rather
than to the Secretary-General; (3) to have the ethics office maintain a
public register of the financial disclosure statements of senior managers;
(4) to establish regional ethics offices in all major duty stations
outside of headquarters; and (5) to move whistleblower protection
responsibilities from the ethics office, which is not equipped to conduct
investigations, to OIOS, the Office of the Ombudsman, or an Office of
Special Prosecutor, which the report suggests the UN create.

36Activities of the Ethics Office, U.N. Doc. A/60/274.

Figure 4: Key Dates for Review of Programs and Activities

UN member states agreed at the 2005 World Summit to undertake in 2006 a
review of UN mandates37 older than 5 years to update the UN's programs and
activities so that they respond to the current needs of member states.
Member states did not establish milestones for this review, but said it
should be completed by 2006. In March 2006, the Secretary-General issued a
report that provided a framework for conducting this review, including a
recommendation to conduct the review in two phases, and compiled an
electronic inventory of about 9,000 total mandates, over 6,900 of which
are older than 5 years, originating from the three principal UN organs-the
General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Security
Council. The General Assembly, which has responsibility for about 80
percent of the mandates, began discussions on the mandate review process
in November 2005 and started substantive discussions on specific mandates
in April 2006. The Security Council and Economic and Social Council began
their respective reviews in May 2006. 38 During these discussions,
countries and groups of countries made proposals on the process for the
review and on how to handle specific mandates. For example, one country
proposed that the mandate review process involve roundtable discussions
and informal debates. Another proposal, with regard to a specific mandate,
was to consolidate the Secretariat's working papers on individual and
small island territories. During the discussions, some countries requested
more information from the Secretariat on certain mandates, such as how one
mandate might be duplicative of another, or which UN departments or
entities are involved in implementing each mandate.

Throughout the review process, member states have disagreed about which
mandates to include in the review and what to do with any savings
generated by the potential elimination or consolidation of mandates, which
has led to slow and limited progress. Members of the G-77 contend that the
scope of the review should include only those mandates older than 5 years
that have not been renewed since they were adopted. This represents about
626 mandates, or 7 percent of the total number of mandates (see fig. 5).
The United States and other developed countries, including Japan,
Australia, Canada, and the European Union, argue that the review should
include all mandates older than 5 years, whether or not they have been
renewed. Using these criteria, the review would include an additional
6,347 mandates.

37The Secretary-General defines a mandate as a request or a direction for
action by the UN Secretariat or other implementing entities in the system,
which originates in a resolution of the General Assembly or one of the
other UN organs. See Mandating and Delivering: Analysis and
Recommendations to Facilitate the Review of Mandates, U.N. Doc. A/60/733.

38For the purpose of this report, we focused on the General Assembly's
review process.

Figure 5: Distribution of UN Mandates by Renewal Classification

The G-77 established several criteria under which it would consider
reviewing mandates that are older than 5 years: (1) member states must
first agree that any savings derived from the mandate review will be
reinvested in the areas from which they were derived, or in UN activities
in the development area and (2) all politically sensitive mandates must be
excluded from the review process.39 The United States has stated that a
decision about the use of cost savings from the mandate review should be
made once the review is complete. In addition, the United States maintains
that no mandates older than 5 years, including those that are
controversial, should be excluded from the review.

39According to U.S. officials, these mandates are the most contentious
because at least one member state is particularly sensitive about changing
or eliminating each of them. Politically sensitive mandates include those
that relate to Cyprus, the Palestinian territory, Serbia and Montenegro,
and Sudan.

Despite disagreement on which General Assembly mandates to review, member
states decided in June 2006 to move forward with the first phase, which
consists of reviewing 399 mandates that are older than 5 years and have
not been renewed within the last 5 years. Mandates that are older than 5
years and have been renewed could be reviewed in a second phase. Mandates
in phase one include completed projects, such as a 1965 resolution
requesting that the Secretary-General convene a conference on the World
Food Program. Although most of the mandates in this category do not
require any further action or resources from the UN, member states could
only agree to set aside 74 of them, which they classified as completed,
meaning they have been acted upon and completely implemented and do not
require further action at this time. Additionally, they decided that 33
mandates are not applicable to the review. The remaining 292 mandates
included in phase one may be reviewed in phase two if member states
believe they need further discussion. See table 1 for details on the
status of mandates considered in phase one.

Table 1: Categories of Mandates Reviewed in Phase One

Category                               Number of mandates in category 
Completed-no agreement on dispositionb                            172 
Completed-agreed to set asidec                                     74 
Completeda-total                                                  246 
Implemented/in-progressd                                          102 
No indicatione                                                     18 
Not applicablef                                                    33 
Grand total                                                       399 

Source: Department of State.

aCompleted mandates are those that have been acted upon and completely
implemented. These include the majority of founding and founding-related
mandates, which are mandates that specify the structure and the functions
of the established entity or amend the original founding mandate of such
entity.

bMember states did not agree on what to do with the mandates in this
category. They will remain available for review in phase two if needed.

cMember states agreed to set aside mandates in this category for the
remainder of the review, with no further action needed.

dImplemented/in-progress mandates are those that have been acted upon and
for which implementation is ongoing.

eMandates in the category of "no indication" are those for which it was
not possible to collect definitive information from departments and other
UN entities.

fMandates categorized as "not applicable" are those that originated in the
General Assembly and require action by entities other than the Secretariat
or implementing entities of the UN system, such as member states,
nongovernmental organizations, or international financial institutions,
and therefore do not pertain to the purpose of the mandate review
exercise.

As of September 2006, after beginning discussions on specific mandates in
April 2006, member states had not agreed to change, eliminate, or retain
any mandates. On September 1, 2006, leaders of the working group on
mandate review developed a proposal suggesting terms under which member
states would move forward into phase two of the review, but as of the end
of September member states had not accepted it. The proposal suggests that
member states reallocate within the UN budget any savings from mandate
review according to normal budgetary procedures and that they reinvest any
savings from development activities into other development activities. In
addition, the proposal recommends that member states agree to address
politically sensitive mandates carefully and take into account the
positions of member states concerned. Given the volume of mandates still
to be discussed and the contentious nature of the review process, the
prospects for completing the review by the end of 2006 are unlikely.

Effectiveness and Impact of Newly-Created Human Rights Council Remain Uncertain

In March 2006, the UN voted to create a new UN Human Rights Council to
replace the Commission on Human Rights; however, significant concerns
remain about the council's structure. UN member states generally agreed
that the Commission on Human Rights should be improved as it was no longer
seen as a credible institution for protecting human rights, due to a
number of weaknesses. For example, according to human rights
organizations, countries known to be human rights violators were
consistently selected for membership to the commission and used their
membership to protect themselves against criticism of their human rights
records. Furthermore, the commission did not criticize the actions of
several countries that were found to be abusers of human rights, including
Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. As a result, the member states agreed
at the 2005 World Summit to create a new Human Rights Council that would
improve upon these deficiencies. UN member states voted to establish the
council in March 2006 and elected members in May 2006. (See fig. 6 for key
dates for the Human Rights Council.)

Figure 6: Key Dates for the Human Rights Council

In establishing the new Human Rights Council, UN member states aimed to
address some of the deficiencies in the 53-member Commission on Human
Rights. The 47 members of the new council must be elected individually to
the body by a majority of UN members. Previously, candidates were grouped
into slates of countries representing regions, and members would vote on
the entire slate rather than for an individual country on the slate. The
United States sought a significantly smaller body and advocated that to
gain membership on the council, members should be elected by the higher
standard of a two-thirds majority, rather than an absolute majority, to
make it more difficult for repressive countries that have not demonstrated
a commitment to human rights to gain seats on the council. Members can now
be suspended from the council by a two-thirds majority vote if they are
found to have committed gross violations of human rights. When voting for
candidates to the council, UN member states are instructed to take into
account each country's human rights record, a measure that was not called
for when voting for candidates to the commission. The United States wanted
to automatically exclude from council membership any country under
Security Council sanctions, but that provision was not included in the
final design of the body. When elections to the council were held in May
2006, several countries with questionable human rights records were
elected, including China, Russia, and Cuba. However, other countries that
previously served on the commission and have questionable human rights
records did not even run for election, including Zimbabwe, Sudan, and
North Korea. In addition, Iran campaigned for a seat on the Council but
did not win.

The Human Rights Council will also operate differently from the
commission. The council will meet more frequently and can more readily
call special sessions to address emerging human rights situations than
could the commission. The council will meet at least three times a year
for a total of 10 weeks, while the commission met once a year for a total
of 6 weeks. Furthermore, the council is required to periodically review
the human rights records of all UN member states, a procedure the
commission lacked. Members of the council will be the first to undergo
these reviews and will be required to cooperate with investigators. The
council is currently developing the procedures it will follow when
conducting the reviews. Finally, member states made the council a
subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, elevating it from the
commission's status as part of the Economic and Social Council.

While the United States voted against the creation of the new Human Rights
Council, stating that it did not sufficiently improve upon the former
commission, many nongovernmental organizations and other UN members have
stated that the council is better equipped than the commission was to
address urgent, serious, and long-running human rights situations around
the world. Of the UN member states participating in the vote on the
creation of the council, 170 voted in favor, while 4 voted against.40 The
United States did not run for election to the body but has agreed to
provide funding for it. Representatives from one group of member states
said that they were disappointed the United States did not run for
election because it was important to have the United States on the council
from its inception, to show support for the new body. The council meets in
Geneva and met for the first time in June 2006 and a second time in
September 2006. It plans to meet again in November 2006. The council held
special sessions in summer 2006 on the situation of human rights in
Palestine and other Arab territories. It is too early to determine the
impact of the new council on the UN and human rights worldwide.

40The United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau all voted
against the creation of the Human Rights Council.

    Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of UN Management Reforms

We identified several factors that may impede the UN's progress toward
full implementation of management reforms: (1) considerable disagreement
within the General Assembly over their overall implications; (2) absence
of an implementation plan for each reform that includes time frames and
cost estimates; and (3) administrative guidance that may complicate the
process of implementing certain human resource initiatives.

Disagreement within the General Assembly Has Limited the Implementation of
Reforms

Disagreement between G-77 and developed countries over the broader
implications of management reforms may affect the UN's ability to fully
implement them. According to UN and member state officials, the G-77 is
concerned that some of the reforms could increase the authority of the
Secretariat at the expense of the General Assembly, thus decreasing the
G-77's influence over UN operations. Further, according to several UN and
member state officials, most developed countries view management reform as
a way to increase organizational effectiveness, whereas the G-77 countries
perceive that developed countries view certain reform initiatives, such as
mandate review, as cost-cutting exercises. Moreover, UN officials and
member state representatives told us that a disagreement over a 6-month
spending cap41 served to unify the G-77 countries and weaken the cohesion
between developed countries. According to UN and member state
representatives, the budget cap initially served to focus attention on the
need to make progress on the reform initiatives. However, according to
member state representatives, the spending cap made it more difficult to
reach consensus on management reforms. On June 30, 2006, the General
Assembly decided to lift the spending cap.42 According to UN officials and
member state representatives, now that the cap is lifted, implementation
of the reforms can continue, but questions remain about the pace and
priorities for implementation of the reforms.

41In December 2005, the General Assembly adopted the UN's budget for the
2006-2007 biennium with a provision that the Secretary-General could spend
only $950 million in 2006, which represents about 6 months of operating
costs for the Secretariat. This provision was proposed by the United
States and other developed countries and agreed to by a consensus of all
member states. This decision allowed the UN to continue its operations and
activities while member states continued to discuss the implementation of
management reforms agreed to at the September 2005 World Summit.

42Even though the decision was made by consensus, the United States,
Australia, and Japan disassociated themselves from consensus. According to
a U.S. official, disassociation from consensus is a process whereby a
country does not necessarily agree on an issue but does not block its
approval.

Disagreement between the G-77 countries and the developed countries over
the details of implementing the initiatives could continue to affect their
progress. Member states disagree on some of the specifics of the reforms
in areas such as the review of programs and activities and the details for
creating the Human Rights Council, as discussed earlier, as well as the
role of the Deputy Secretary-General. For example, two independent studies
recommended the creation of a chief operating officer position and the
Secretary-General's March 2006 report recommended that the Deputy
Secretary-General assume formal authority and accountability for the
management and overall direction of the Secretariat's operations. However,
the spokesperson for the G-77 countries has stated in the Fifth Committee
and in the General Assembly that, according to the UN charter, the
Secretary-General is the UN's Chief Administrative Officer and thus
responsible for the organization's management. In May 2006, the General
Assembly passed a resolution that noted that the function of the post of
Deputy Secretary-General should not diminish the role or responsibilities
of the Secretary-General. The resolution further noted that the overall
responsibility for management of the Organization rests with the
Secretary-General. Therefore, it will be up to the discretion of the next
Secretary-General to decide on the delegation of authority to his/her
deputy. (App. II provides more information on the disagreements specific
to each reform.)

UN Has Not Developed a Comprehensive Plan to Implement the Reforms

For many of the management reform proposals, the UN has not developed
comprehensive implementation plans with associated time frames, cost
estimates, and potential savings.43 Setting an implementation time line is
a key practice for organizations undergoing change.44 However, many UN
proposals we reviewed that are related to management reform do not include
specific time frames. For example, although a senior U.S. official said
that the July 2006 resolution is a positive step toward implementation of
certain reforms, he noted that the section on oversight does not provide
concrete actions. In addition, the resolution does not include specific
time frames for implementing a fully operational ethics office or the
Independent Audit Advisory Committee. Without establishing deadlines, it
is difficult to hold managers accountable for completing reform efforts.
Moreover, without comprehensive implementation plans, the total budgetary
implications of the reform efforts are not clear.

43The Secretary-General's detailed proposal for adopting International
Public Sector Accounting Standards includes a timetable for
implementation. In addition, at the end of September 2006 the Secretariat
released a detailed report on human resource initiatives that includes
time lines and resource implications for most of them. However, this
report was released after our report had gone to press; therefore, we did
not have time to analyze and incorporate the new information.

44GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers
and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).

The UN has not developed or refined cost estimates for many of the
initiatives, including improving certain field staff benefits and
conditions to mirror those of headquarters staff; increasing investments
in human resource development; introducing a new information
communications technology system; and approving a staff buyout program.
However, the Secretary-General has developed preliminary cost estimates
for three key initiatives that alone could cost over $500 million-the
proposed new information communications technology system ($120 million
over several years), a one-time staff buyout ($50 to $100 million), and
efforts to improve field staff benefits ($280 million annually). Moreover,
the UN Secretariat said that these estimates will require further
assessments before reliable estimates and a plan of action can be
determined. Without determining cost estimates, it is difficult to ensure
that financing will be available when needed.

Likewise, the UN has not yet developed savings estimates because certain
initiatives will require further assessment and then approval by the
General Assembly. The Secretary-General anticipates that the costs for the
reforms could be offset by savings from efforts such as relocation and
outsourcing and the long-term benefits of a more efficiently run
organization. However, the UN has not yet produced any concrete savings
estimates, and efforts to produce savings have faced significant
challenges. For instance, the Secretary-General said that the cost could
be partially offset by savings in procurement reform. However, UN
officials said that the UN Secretariat has not yet developed firm
procurement savings estimates.45 In addition, proposals to streamline the
way in which the organization delivers its services, which may result in
savings, have experienced resistance from member states and staff members.
In May 2006, the G-77 did not authorize the Secretary-General to conduct a
cost-benefit analysis of his proposal to relocate translation, editing,
and document production services. Public documents do not specify the
G-77's reason for not allowing a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken.46
Further, the outsourcing of internal printing and publishing processes
could generate savings but, according to UN officials, it could also face
challenges from member states and staff to implement.

45The Secretary-General projects cost and efficiency savings of between
$100 million to $400 million from increasing information-sharing on
procurement matters within the UN common system, among other things.

To develop or refine cost and savings estimates, the Secretariat is
conducting cost-benefit analyses and assessments in areas such as the
proposed new information communications technology system, outsourcing and
relocation, staff buyout, and public access to UN information. Appendix IV
provides information on the reviews, assessments, and cost-benefit
analyses that the Secretariat is preparing, including their expected time
frames for completion to the extent stated by the UN. However, some of the
cost-benefit analyses and assessments will not be available until March
2007 for member states to consider, and these will have a bearing on the
overall reform package and, ultimately, the total cost of the reform. To
date, the additional cost to member states to implement certain management
reform initiatives has been about $40 million, which primarily reflects
start-up costs for efforts such as the adoption of the International
Public Sector Accounting Standards, the new ethics office, additional
costs for the new Human Rights Council, and an increase to the working
capital fund47 (see table 2). Therefore, based on the slow pace of the
reform process and the time frames for completion of the assessments and
cost-benefit analyses, the total budgetary implications of the reform
effort, including the U.S. government's share, remain unclear.48

46According to a U. S. official, the United States and 49 other countries
voted against the resolution put forth by the G-77 countries (A/RES/60/260
of May 16, 2006) because it constrained the Secretary-General from moving
forward fully on outsourcing, among other things.

47The increase in the working capital fund is intended to allow the
Secretary-General to provide advances necessary to finance budgetary
appropriations, pending the receipt of member states' contributions, and
to finance unforeseen and extraordinary expenses pending appropriation
action by the General Assembly.

48In 2004, GAO reported that, according to UN officials, the Secretariat
did not complete a comprehensive assessment of the personnel and budgetary
implications during the development of his 2002 reform agenda.

Table 2: Additional Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform
Initiatives, as of September 2006

Dollars in millions                              
                                                    Funds approved (2006-2007 
Reform actions                                                   biennium) 
Regular budget resources:                        
Increase in the Working Capital Fund (from                                 
member states' assessments effective January 1,  
2007)                                                                  $15
Strengthen Office of Internal Oversight Services                           
(39 temporary posts)                                                   5.8
Additional funding for new Human Rights Council                        4.4 
Cost for independent external evaluation on                                
Governance and Oversight                                               4.3
New Ethics Office                                                      2.9 
Cost study and implementation plan for new                                 
information communications technology system                           2.2
Start-up cost for the International Public                                 
Sector Accounting Standards                                            2.0
Office accommodations for new posts at                                     
Headquarters                                                           1.9
New Chief Information Communications Technology                            
Officer                                                                 .3
Staff selection system in Office of Human                                  
Resources Management                                                    .2
Subtotal - regular budget resources                                  $39.0 
Peacekeeping support account:                    
Temporary procurement service staff (6)                                 .7 
Subtotal - peacekeeping support account                               $ .7 
Total additional funds approved to date                              $39.7 

Sources: UN and the U.S Mission to the UN.

Notes:

The total dollar amount presented in the table attempts to address the
scope of our report objectives and does not include all reform efforts
that were a result of the 2005 World Summit, such as the Peace Building
Commission and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Working Capital fund was increased from $100 million to $150 million.
To cover the increase, the additional amount of $35 million will be funded
from the 2004-2005 budget surplus. The $35 million is an estimate pending
the Board of Auditors audit for the biennium.

According to a Department of State official, funds for the review of
certain budgetary, financial, and human resources policies, including the
design of the staff buyout program, are being drawn from existing
resources.

Administrative Guidance May Complicate the Process of Implementing Certain Human
Resource Initiatives

Administrative guidance, such as staff regulations and rules that
implement General Assembly resolutions, could complicate and sometimes
restrict the process of implementing certain human resource initiatives.
According to the Secretary-General, the existing human resources
management framework was designed for a stable, largely headquarters-based
environment, and currently more than half of the UN's 30,000 staff members
are serving in the field. The Secretary-General also said that the
Secretariat's increasingly complex mandates require a new skills profile
that will enable it to respond in an integrated way to new needs in
diverse areas such as peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. In
addition, salaries and other human resource costs comprise almost 80
percent of the UN regular budget. As such, UN officials state that it
would be impossible to achieve meaningful management reform without
reforming human resources. The Secretary-General has proposed several
human resource reforms,49 such as a staff buyout, replacing permanent
contracts with open-ended appointments, better integration of staff
worldwide, and outsourcing.50 However, administrative guidance may
complicate the process of implementing some initiatives, such as:

           o  In September 2005, member states agreed to consider a proposal
           from the Secretary-General for a one-time staff buyout. According
           to the Secretary-General, to target staff for buyout the UN
           Secretariat must analyze and determine the skills needed in the
           organization, taking into account proposed reform efforts such as
           relocation of work, outsourcing, and mandate review. Staff
           performing administrative functions that are targeted for
           outsourcing may be offered a buyout if their skills are no longer
           needed by the UN. The Secretary-General must also conduct
           consultations with UN staff representatives.51 UN officials said
           that it may be difficult for the Secretary-General, staff
           representatives, and member states to agree on the skills required
           to realign staff with the UN's priorities. In addition, some of
           the cost-benefit analyses for the relocation and outsourcing
           initiatives will not be completed until March 2007.

           o  The UN Secretariat is developing a more integrated approach for
           staff to serve worldwide. However, UN officials said that staff
           may find ways to resist efforts to be transferred, especially if a
           transfer would result in leaving UN Headquarters or other
           desirable duty stations. According to the Secretary-General, staff
           are not sufficiently mobile, and their movement is hampered by
           multiple and restrictive mandates.

           o  The Secretary-General proposed the integration of field and
           headquarters staff into one global Secretariat with competitive
           conditions of service. This would include changing the staff rules
           to create one staff contract to mirror that of headquarters staff.
           Based on a study prepared in January 2006 by the International
           Civil Service Commission for the General Assembly,52 this proposed
           integration raises a number of complicated policy questions that
           will need to be addressed, including long-term contractual
           obligations, cost implications related to differences in the
           compensation packages, distortion of geographical distribution and
           gender balance, and complications for merit-based, transparent,
           and open selection procedures.

           o  Further, according to UN officials, proposals to reconsider a
           change in the way the UN delivers its services by relocating and
           outsourcing certain headquarters functions may meet with
           resistance from some member states and staff as jobs may be lost.
           According to the Secretary-General, the General Assembly
           established a number of conditions for outsourcing that severely
           restrict the circumstances under which it can be contemplated.53
           One of those restrictions includes avoiding possible negative
           impact on staff.54 Thus, restrictive conditions such as these
           could complicate the process of implementing certain human
           resource initiatives.
			  
			  Conclusion

           During the past few years, the inadequate oversight of the Oil for
           Food program and mismanagement of UN procurement activities have
           demonstrated the urgent need for UN management reform. Several
           independent reports in 2005 found that inefficient UN management
           operations persist and discuss the immediate need for management
           reform given the growth in complexity and significance of UN
           worldwide operations within the past decade. Despite several past
           reform efforts, long-standing concerns about weak UN management
           functions remain. As the largest financial contributor to the UN,
           the United States has taken a leadership role in calling for
           improved management processes. In addition, the United States,
           through the Department of State and the U.S. Mission to the United
           Nations, continues to take measures to advance reform of UN
           management processes. However, progress in management reform
           efforts has been slow. Proposals awaiting review cannot progress
           until the General Assembly approves them through a process that
           traditionally requires agreement by all 192 UN member states, and
           consensus building can be a difficult and lengthy process.
           Moreover, the UN has not agreed upon implementation plans for each
           reform effort that include established time frames and cost
           estimates-practices that increase the transparency and
           accountability of the reform process. The Secretary-General's
           proposal for the adoption of International Public Sector
           Accounting Standards is a step toward increased transparency and
           accountability because it includes a detailed timetable for
           implementation. Until the UN undergoes successful management
           reform, its ability to respond effectively and efficiently to
           increasingly complex international crises is diminished.

           Recommendations for Executive Action

           We recommend that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Permanent
           Representative to the UN work with other member states to
           encourage the General Assembly and the Secretary-General to
           include cost estimates and expected time frames for implementation
           and completion for each reform as it is approved. We also
           recommend that the Secretary of State's annual U.S. Participation
           in the United Nations report to the Congress include a section on
           the status and progress of the major UN management reforms.
			  
			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

           The Department of State provided written comments on a draft of
           this report (see app. V). The Department of State agreed with our
           recommendations and stated that it will continue to work toward
           creating a more effective and accountable United Nations. In
           particular, it noted that it has seen too little in terms of
           results since the September 2005 Summit. Moreover, the Department
           of State also said that the Secretariat should be held accountable
           for implementing these reforms and will continue to work with
           other member states toward ensuring that a transparent reporting
           mechanism to the General Assembly is established. The Department
           of State also concurred fully with the need to keep the U.S.
           Congress informed of these management reform initiatives and will
           continue to monitor and inform the Congress as recommended. The UN
           did not provide written comments. In addition, the Department of
           State and the United Nations provided technical comments on our
           draft report, which were incorporated into the text where
           appropriate.

           We are sending copies of this report to interested members of the
           Congress, the Secretary of State, and the U.S. Permanent
           Representative to the UN. We will also make copies available to
           others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at
           no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

           If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
           contact me at (202) 512-9601 or [email protected]. Contact points
           for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
           be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
           contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

           Thomas Melito Director, International Affairs and Trade
			  
			  Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

           To identify and track management reforms, we reviewed key
           documents proposing United Nations (UN) management and human
           rights reforms and interviewed key officials. We obtained and
           reviewed official reports of the Secretariat and the Office of
           Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Advisory Committee on
           Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) documents, General
           Assembly resolutions, Secretary-General bulletins, Web sites,
           related budget documents, and statements from UN officials. We
           interviewed senior officials from UN departments in New York City.
           Specifically, we met with officials from the General Assembly
           Office of the President, the Office of the Deputy
           Secretary-General, the Departments of Management and Policy and
           Planning, ACABQ, the Office of Program Planning and Budget
           (OPPBA), and OIOS. During the course of our review, we also
           discussed the status of UN reforms with Department of State
           officials in Washington, D.C., and New York City.

           We selected reforms in the areas of management operations of the
           Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review of programs and
           activities, and human rights to track in more detail. We
           determined that these were key areas of management reform through
           our review of UN documents and in our discussions with UN and U.S.
           officials. We focused our work on management reforms that began in
           2005 and did not specifically address the 1997 and 2002 reform
           agendas. The 2005 reforms applied to the Secretariat and the UN's
           governing bodies, including the General Assembly, the Economic and
           Social Council, and the Security Council. We did not include UN
           specialized agencies or funds and programs in our review. Other
           reform efforts such as the UN Peace Building Commission, Security
           Council reform, and governance were beyond the scope of this
           review.

           To determine the factors facing the implementation of UN reforms,
           we reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General
           Assembly, OIOS, Joint Inspection Unit, and International Civil
           Service Commission. In addition, we spoke with UN officials in New
           York. These included officials from the Office of the Deputy
           Secretary-General, the Department of Management, ACABQ, OPPBA, and
           OIOS. We also met with representatives from several member states
           and spoke with U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and New York.
           We also interviewed outside observers of the UN system, including
           nongovernmental organizations and members of academia.

           Many cost estimates for the proposed reform initiatives are
           preliminary, and detailed cost estimates are being developed;
           therefore, we did not analyze the assumptions underlying these
           estimates to determine whether they are reasonable and reliable.
           To determine the reliability of data in the UN's inventory of
           about 9,000 programs and activities (mandates) that are older than
           5 years, we interviewed UN officials and performed some basic
           cross checks. The scope of the mandate review covers mandates of
           the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the
           Security Council that are older than 5 years and are active or
           potentially active. According to the Secretary-General, the
           resolutions adopted from year to year by each of the principal
           organs are the primary source of mandates. The Secretary-General
           also said that mandates are not easily defined or quantifiable,
           and a concrete legal definition of a mandate does not exist. In
           addition, the UN updates its inventory of mandates on a regular
           basis. We performed our analysis as of September 2006. We
           determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
           purposes of establishing the approximate number of mandates and
           comparing the approximate number of mandates that have and have
           not been renewed in the last 5 years. Further, we believe that the
           cost estimates and the associated funds that the General Assembly
           appropriated to date for reform efforts are sufficiently reliable
           for the purposes of this report.

           We performed our work between January and September 2006 in
           accordance with generally accepted U.S. government auditing
           standards.

           Appendix II: Status of UN Management Reform Initiatives

           We identified and tracked the status of management reform
           initiatives in five key areas-management of the Secretariat,
           oversight, ethical conduct, review of programs and activities, and
           human rights-and identified disagreements among member states that
           may affect their implementation. Table 3 provides information on
           the status of major United Nations (UN) management reform
           initiatives, actions that are still pending, and points of
           disagreement. All dates are in 2006 unless otherwise indicated.

Table 3: Status of Major UN Management Reform Initiatives

                                             What remains to be  Points of           
Proposed reform actions  Status to date      done                disagreement        
                    Improving the management of the Secretariat
Information and Communications Technology                        
Create the post of chief In July, the        The GA requested    We did not identify 
information technology   General Assembly    that the            any major           
officer to define and    (GA) approved the   Secretary-General   disagreements.      
implement a              post of chief       rejustify the level 
comprehensive            information         of resource         
information management   technology officer. requirements for    
strategy for the                             the post of chief   
Secretariat.                                 information         
                                             technology officer  
                                             in the budget for   
                                             biennium 2008-2009. 
                                             This proposal is    
                                             scheduled to be     
                                             considered during   
                                             the 62nd session.b  
Align information and    In July, the GA     The                 We did not identify 
communications           requested           Secretary-General   any major           
technology (ICT)         additional          plans to provide    disagreements.      
priorities with          information on the  the additional      
Secretariat performance  structure, staffing information during  
by incorporating better  requirements,       the 61st session of 
managerial               functions, and the  the GA.a            
decision-support tools,  proposed ICT                            
implementing an          relationship with                       
organization-wide        other information                       
document/content         and communications                      
management system, and   technology units.                       
recruiting or training                                           
people with skills in                                            
information management                                           
and analysis.                                                    
Replace existing         The GA agreed to    The Secretariat     There is general    
information technology   replace IMIS with   will conduct a      agreement that the  
systems such as the      the                 detailed cost study current ICT system  
Integrated Management    Secretary-General's (including          needs to be         
Information System       proposed next       information on user replaced, but the   
(IMIS) with a fully      generation          needs, scope,       GA will decide on   
integrated global        enterprise resource timetable,          the type of         
system. The integration  planning system or  strategy, and       integrated system   
would include human      a comparable system resource            after the detailed  
resources, finance and   and approved funds  requirements) and   cost study is       
accounting, and          for an information  plans to present    prepared.           
procurement systems.     and communications  the results during  
                         technology detailed the 61st session of 
                         cost study and      the GA.a            
                         implementation                          
                         plan.                                   
Delivery of Services                                             
Undertake systematic and In May, the Group   The Secretariat is  According to a U.S. 
detailed cost-benefit    of 77 (G-77) did    undertaking         official, the       
analyses of relocation,  not authorize the   cost-benefit        United States and   
outsourcing, and         Secretary-General   analyses of the     49 other countries  
telecommuting            to conduct a        remaining proposals voted against the   
opportunities for select cost-benefit        (2 through 6) and   GA resolution put   
administrative services: analysis of his     plans to submit     forth by the G-77   
(1) translation, editing proposals to        them to the GA for  countries in May    
and documents production relocate            consideration       because the United  
by 9/2006; (2) internal  translation,        during the 61st     States believes,    
printing and publishing  editing, and        session.a           among other things, 
processes by 9/2006; (3) documents                               that the resolution 
medical insurance plan   production.                             constrained the     
administration by        However, the GA                         Secretary-General   
9/2006; (4) information  gave the                                from moving forward 
technology support by    Secretary-General                       fully on            
12/2006; (5) payables,   authority to pursue                     outsourcing.        
receivables, and payroll cost-benefit                            
processes by 3/2007; and analyses of the                         
(6) staff benefits       remaining proposed                      
administration by        initiatives.                            
3/2007.                                                          
Procurement Practices                                            
Continue comprehensive   In June, the        The GA is scheduled The United States   
review of procurement    Secretary-General   to consider the     said that it is     
rules, regulations, and  provided a detailed Secretary-General's doubtful that the   
policies in the          report to the GA    June 2006 detailed  small amount of     
following six broad      that includes the   procurement report  resources provided  
areas:                   status of the       during its 61st     for badly needed    
                         proposed            session.a           improvements to the 
(1) establishing a more  initiatives. In                         inadequate          
independent bid protest  July, the GA        (1) The Procurement procurement         
system;                  authorized about    Service is seeking  functions would     
                         $700,000 in funding the guidance of the enable the          
(2) implementing a risk  for six new         Office of Legal     "scandal-ridden     
management framework,    temporary positions Affairs to develop  activity" to be     
including diagnostic     for 6 months.       detailed procedures repaired quickly    
tools to detect                              for the independent and decisively.     
problematic              (1) The             bid protest system, 
transactions, more       Secretary-General   which will be       
systematic rotation of   is expected to      posted on its Web   
staff serving in         establish an        site for vendors.   
procurement, and the     independent bid                         
strengthening of the     protest system by   (2) A number of     
Headquarters Committee   September 2006.     actions are         
on Contracts;                                ongoing, including  
                         (2) The             managing the risks  
(3) improving the        Secretary-General   during the start-up 
training of procurement  said that the       and major expansion 
staff in ethics,         Secretariat has     of peacekeeping     
extending personal       developed           operations. The     
financial disclosure     diagnostic tools to Secretariat is      
requirements to          identify potential  developing a career 
procurement staff, and   irregularities in   path program for    
improving career         financial           procurement staff   
development;             transactions using  that would allow    
                         data in procurement rotation between    
(4) reprofiling          databases. The      headquarters and    
procurement staff        Procurement Service the field. The GA   
requirements to attract  has begun a lateral will consider       
high-quality people to   reassignment        staffing for the    
serve in the field and   program within the  Headquarter's       
support them with        office. The         Committee on        
regular training and     Secretary-General   Contracts at the    
routine rotation;        requested three     61st session.a      
                         posts under the                         
(5) increasing           support account for (3) The             
information-sharing on   peacekeeping to     Secretary-General   
procurement matters to   strengthen the      said that           
generate significant     Headquarters        procurement staff   
potential cost and       Committee on        will receive        
efficiency savings; and  Contracts.          continuous training 
                                             throughout their    
(6) using a lead agency  (3) The             careers. In         
to create specialist     Secretary-General   addition, the       
buyers for the whole UN  said that all       Secretary-General   
system.                  Procurement Service requested resources 
                         staff have attended to establish a      
                         a special           planning,           
                         procurement ethics  compliance, and     
                         training course;    monitoring section  
                         financial           to lead the ethics  
                         disclosure is now   and integrity       
                         required of all     program of the      
                         staff involved in   Procurement         
                         procurement         Service, among      
                         activities, and     other               
                         work has begun in   responsibilities.   
                         improving career    The                 
                         development.        Secretary-General   
                                             also said that      
                         (4) The Procurement career development  
                         Service initiated a frameworks will be  
                         review of job       developed for the   
                         functions for all   procurement         
                         staff under the     occupational group. 
                         guidance of the                         
                         Office of Human                         
                         Resources                               
                         Management with a                       
                         view to conducting                      
                         a horizontal review                     
                         of job                                  
                         classification                          
                         within Procurement                      
                         Service.                                
                                                                 
                         (5)                                     
                         Information-sharing                     
                         has begun in the                        
                         area of air and sea                     
                         freight contracts                       
                         through joint                           
                         negotiation with                        
                         contractors.                            
                                                                 
                         (6) The UN has been                     
                         reviewing the use                       
                         of a lead agency                        
                         concept to create                       
                         specialist buyers                       
                         for the entire                          
                         procurement system.                     
                                             (4) Following the   
                                             review of job       
                                             functions, the job  
                                             profile for         
                                             respective job      
                                             functions would be  
                                             formalized to       
                                             establish a career  
                                             development path    
                                             within the          
                                             procurement         
                                             profession. The     
                                             Secretary-General   
                                             requested $800,000  
                                             for training and to 
                                             help make the       
                                             career development  
                                             program fully       
                                             functional. The GA  
                                             will consider the   
                                             job reprofiling at  
                                             its 61st session.a  
                                                                 
                                             (5) Information     
                                             sharing is also     
                                             being considered    
                                             among the UN system 
                                             of organizations in 
                                             the areas of        
                                             procurement of      
                                             common requirements 
                                             such as vehicles,   
                                             information         
                                             technology, and     
                                             communications      
                                             equipment.          
                                                                 
                                             (6) The Secretariat 
                                             plans to expand     
                                             interagency         
                                             cooperation and to  
                                             extensively use     
                                             common service      
                                             arrangements with   
                                             other UN            
                                             organizations. Work 
                                             is under way to     
                                             determine in which  
                                             field specific UN   
                                             entities have a     
                                             competitive         
                                             advantage.          
Human Resources                                                  
The Secretary General    The                 The GA plans to     We did not identify 
made the following       Secretary-General   review the          any major           
proposals:               issued a detailed   Secretariat's       disagreements.      
                         human resources     detailed human      
(1) Develop a more       report in late      resources report in 
proactive, targeted and  September 2006.c    fall 2006.          
efficient recruitment                                            
system.                                      The                 
                                             Secretary-General   
(2) Develop a more                           plans to provide    
integrated approach to                       the GA at its 61st  
mobility, including                          session an          
authority for the                            assessment of the   
Secretary-General to                         impact of previous  
move staff wherever                          and ongoing reforms 
needed, strict                               as they relate to   
enforcement of                               this proposal,      
postoccupancy limits,                        including costs,    
designation of a                             administrative      
majority of                                  implications, and   
international                                concrete examples   
professional posts as                        of how this reform  
rotational, integration                      would enhance the   
of Headquarters and                          effectiveness of    
field operations into an                     the work of the     
organization-wide                            UN.a                
mobility program,                                                
expanded training, and                                           
improved work/life                                               
conditions.                                                      
                                                                 
(3) Enhance career                                               
development through                                              
significant increases in                                         
resources for staff                                              
development, systematic                                          
development of                                                   
entry-level professional                                         
staff, development of                                            
career models with                                               
potential career paths,                                          
and mandatory induction                                          
and training                                                     
requirements for                                                 
managers.                                                        
                                                                 
(4) Modify contractual                                           
arrangements and                                                 
harmonize conditions of                                          
service to meet the                                              
needs of an increasingly                                         
field-based                                                      
organization, through                                            
one set of staff rules;                                          
replace permanent                                                
contracts with                                                   
open-ended continuing                                            
appointments; align the                                          
conditions of service of                                         
Secretariat staff in the                                         
field with those of UN                                           
funds and programs.                                              
                                                                 
(5) Strengthen                                                   
leadership recruitment,                                          
training, and                                                    
development plans to                                             
build the cadre of                                               
senior and middle                                                
managers required for                                            
the modern complex                                               
global operations of the                                         
UN.                                                              
Redefine the role of the In May 2006, the GA It will be up to    Two independent     
Deputy Secretary-General passed a resolution the discretion of   studies recommended 
to assume formal         that noted that the the next            the creation of a   
authority and            function of the     Secretary-General   chief operating     
accountability for the   role of Deputy      to decide on the    officer position    
management and overall   Secretary-General   delegation of       and the             
direction of the         should not diminish authority for       Secretary-General's 
operational functions of the role or         his/her deputy.     March 2006 report   
the Secretariat.         responsibilities of                     recommended that    
                         the                                     the Deputy          
                         Secretary-General.                      Secretary-General   
                                                                 assume formal       
                                                                 authority and       
                                                                 accountability for  
                                                                 the management and  
                                                                 overall direction   
                                                                 of the              
                                                                 Secretariat's       
                                                                 operations.         
                                                                 However, a May 2006 
                                                                 GA resolution noted 
                                                                 that the overall    
                                                                 responsibility for  
                                                                 the management of   
                                                                 the UN rests with   
                                                                 the                 
                                                                 Secretary-General.  
                                                                 Therefore, it will  
                                                                 be up to the        
                                                                 discretion of the   
                                                                 next                
                                                                 Secretary-General   
                                                                 to decide on the    
                                                                 delegation of       
                                                                 authority to        
                                                                 his/her deputy.     
Regroup the 25           In May, the GA      The GA requested    There is no         
departments and entities agreed with the     that this proposal  disagreement at     
reporting directly to    Advisory Committee  be further          this time since the 
the Secretary-General    on Administrative   developed for the   proposal will be    
into about eight         and Budgetary       consideration of    considered by the   
organizational groups or Questions (ACABQ)   the next            next                
clusters, each group     that the            Secretary-General.  Secretary-General.  
headed by an             Secretary-General's                     
Under-Secretary-General. successor will need                     
                         to have a say in                        
                         any regrouping of                       
                         departments within                      
                         the Secretariat as                      
                         a means of                              
                         streamlining                            
                         reporting lines.                        
Provide dedicated        The staff buyout    The ACABQ and the   As part of the 2005 
resources for a staff    review proposal was Fifth Committee are World Summit        
buyout.                  conducted as part   scheduled to review outcome, the GA     
                         of the detailed     the information on  requested that the  
                         human resource      a staff buyout in   Secretary-General   
                         report that was     conjunction with    prepare a detailed  
                         finalized in late   the detailed human  proposal on a       
                         September.          resources report    one-time staff      
                                             this fall, and the  buyout. However,    
                                             GA plans to         until the proposal  
                                             consider it at its  is presented, it is 
                                             61st session.a      unclear whether the 
                                                                 GA will agree or    
                                                                 disagree on its     
                                                                 content.            
Budget and Finance                                               
In the area of strategic (1) In March, the   (1) It is unclear   We did not identify 
budgetary planning and   ACABQ requested an  from the GA's July  any major           
implementation, the      example of the      resolution what     disagreements.      
Secretary-General        proposed change,    remain to be done.  
proposed that            which the                               
                         Secretary-General   (2) The             
(1) budget appropriation provided in a       Secretary-General   
be consolidated from the detailed report in  plans to provide    
current 35 sections into May.                the GA at its 62nd  
13 parts;                                    session a report on 
                         (2) For the         the results of the  
(2) the                  biennium 2004-2005  experiment to       
Secretary-General should (January 1, 2004,   redeploy 50 posts   
have the authority to    to December 30,     and on lessons      
redeploy posts, as       2005), the GA       learned.            
necessary, and to        authorized the                          
reclassify up to 10      Secretary-General   (3) The GA          
percent of posts within  to redeploy 50      requested that the  
each broad category      posts. In July, the Secretary-General   
within a given budget    GA said that the 50 submit a report for 
period; and              posts experiment    its consideration   
                         would not be        on the use of the   
(3) the                  extended beyond     experiment during   
Secretary-General be     biennium 2006-2007  the biennium,       
given the authority,     and requested that  including its       
within a given budget    the                 impact on program   
period, to use the       Secretary-General   delivery. The GA is 
savings from vacant      report at its 62nd  scheduled to review 
posts, with a value not  session, which      the experiment at   
to exceed 10 percent of  begins in September its 64th session    
the overall post budget, 2007, on the        beginning in        
for emerging priorities  results of the      September 2009 to   
or unanticipated         experiment to       determine whether   
activities.              redeploy 50 posts   it should be        
                         and on lessons      continued.          
                         learned.                                
                                                                 
                         (3) In July, the GA                     
                         authorized the                          
                         Secretary-General,                      
                         on an experimental                      
                         basis, a limited                        
                         discretion for                          
                         budgetary                               
                         implementation, for                     
                         the biennia                             
                         2006-2007 and                           
                         2008-2009, to enter                     
                         into commitments up                     
                         to $20 million in                       
                         each biennium for                       
                         positions and                           
                         nonpost                                 
                         requirements for                        
                         the purpose of                          
                         meeting the                             
                         evolving needs of                       
                         the organization.                       
                         The                                     
                         Secretary-General                       
                         is authorized to                        
                         use the working                         
                         capital fund for                        
                         this use.                               
In the area of financial (1) In July, the GA (1) The GA plans to In June 2006, Japan 
management practices,    reviewed this       address this        said that it has    
the Secretary-General    initiative and took initiative in its   serious doubts      
proposed                 no action.          61st session.a      about the proposal  
                                                                 to consolidate      
(1) that peacekeeping    (2) In May, the     (2) The             peacekeeping        
accounts for separate    Secretary-General   Secretary-General   accounts because,   
field missions be        reported that with  is expected to      among other things, 
consolidated into one    respect to trust    submit              the consolidation   
set of accounts and      fund matters,       administrative      would have a        
reports starting in 2007 administrative      instructions to the negative effect on  
to improve cash          instructions are    GA for              some member states' 
management and           being prepared and  consideration later payment of arrears. 
operational flexibility; are expected to be  in 2006.                                
                         finalized later in                      The ACABQ pointed   
(2) introducing a new    2006.               (3) The GA plans to out that the scope  
policy in July 2006 to                       address this        and quality of      
replace four existing    (3) In July, the GA initiative in its   information         
administrative           reviewed this       61st session.a      provided on the     
instructions to govern   initiative and took                     financing of        
the management of trust  no action.          (4) Member states   peacekeeping        
funds in order to                            will make advances  operations should   
simplify rules and       (4) In July, the GA to the working      not be diminished.  
procedures and to        authorized an       capital fund in     
establish a new standard increase in the     accordance with the 
for support costs, lower working capital     scale of            
than 13 percent, to      fund from $100      assessments to be   
bring it more in line    million to $150     adopted by the GA   
with the fee structure   million effective   for contributions   
at UN funds and          January 1, 2007.    to the regular      
programs;                                    budget for 2007.    
                         (5) In June, the                        
(3) increasing the       ACABQ reported that (5) The GA has not  
ceiling of commitment    this matter is for  yet addressed this  
authority for            the GA to decide.   initiative.         
peacekeeping operations                                          
from $50 million to $150 (6) In July, the GA (6) In July, the GA 
and delinked from a      reviewed this       said that it will   
specified number of      initiative and took address this matter 
Security Council         no action.          in the future.      
decisions;                                   However, its        
                         (7) In June, the    resolution does not 
(4) increasing the level ACABQ reported that specify when it     
of the Working Capital   this matter is up   will do so.         
Fund for the regular     to the GA to                            
budget from $100 million decide.             (7) In July, the GA 
to $250 million;                             took no action on   
                         (8) In July, the GA this initiative.    
(5) retaining budget     approved the                            
surpluses, including     adoption of IPSAS   (8) The GA          
from peacekeeping        and provided the    requested that the  
operations, for use in   start-up cost to    implementation plan 
subsequent periods;      begin               for IPSAS be        
                         implementation.     synchronized with   
(6) creating a separate                      the introduction of 
fund to cover                                the new information 
unanticipated                                technology system   
expenditures arising                         and that            
from exchange rate                           expenditures        
fluctuations and                             relating to         
inflation, to be                             information         
financed from budget                         technology await a  
surpluses;                                   decision by the GA  
                                             on the system to be 
(7) charging interest on                     used.               
arrears on member                                                
states' assessed                                                 
contributions; and                                               
                                                                 
(8) adopting the                                                 
International Public                                             
Sector Accounting                                                
Standards (IPSAS) by                                             
2010 to ensure a sound                                           
financial base, improve                                          
financial reporting, and                                         
facilitate                                                       
accountability and                                               
transparency, etc.                                               
In the area of           In May, the GA      (1), (2), & (3) The We did not identify 
performance evaluation,  requested, among    Secretary-General   any major           
the Secretary-General    other things, that  will submit         disagreements.      
proposed to              the                 information on      
                         Secretary-General   initiatives 1       
(1) increase resources   submit a detailed   through 3 to the GA 
and rationalize          proposal on         at its 61st         
performance measurement  strengthening the   session.a           
activities;              monitoring and                          
                         evaluation tools of (4) The             
(2) reform and           the Secretariat,    Secretary-General   
synchronize monitoring   taking into account plans to submit a   
and evaluation tools so  recent experience   comprehensive       
that their results can   in results-based    report to the GA in 
be evaluated in the      budgeting.          fall 2006.          
formation of the                                                 
subsequent budget;       (1), (2), & (3) In                      
                         May, the                                
(3) link the budget and  Secretary-General                       
planning process to the  reported that these                     
results of performance,  initiatives will be                     
work planning, and       performed based on                      
assessment of managerial the recommendations                     
performance in order to  of the                                  
ensure the effective     comprehensive                           
stewardship of resources external review of                      
provided by member       governance and                          
states; and              oversight.                              
                                                                 
(4) introduce a new      (4) The UN                              
annual report, along     Secretariat is                          
with other steps, to     preparing this                          
consolidate and simplify report, which will                      
financial reporting.     be done as part of                      
                         (1) in reporting                        
                         mechanisms and in                       
                         accordance with the                     
                         GA's guidance.                          
Reporting Mechanisms and Access to                               
Information                                                      
Improve reporting        In May, the         (1) The             We did not identify 
mechanisms by            Secretary-General   Secretary-General   any major           
                         provided a detailed plans to submit a   disagreements.      
(1) developing a single, report to the GA    comprehensive       
comprehensive annual     covering efforts to report to the GA in 
report of the            improve reporting   the fall; the GA is 
Secretary-General to the mechanisms,         expected to review  
GA, which will           including access to it in the fall and  
consolidate the          UN documentation.   arrive at a         
information currently in                     decision.           
five different reports;  (1) In June, the                        
                         ACABQ reported that (2) & (3) In July,  
(2) consolidating about  there is a need to  the GA said that    
45 reports on management define more clearly all reports         
and finance issues into  the purpose of the  pertaining to       
6 reports;               comprehensive       administrative and  
                         report and the      budgetary matters   
(3) providing member     target audience and are subject to the  
states with real-time    that the            consideration of    
consolidated accounts of Secretary-General   the Fifth           
UN financial             should concentrate  Committee, but its  
performance, on a        on developing a     position on whether 
regular quarterly basis, comprehensive       or how the          
once the necessary       financial and       Secretary-General   
information systems are  program report for  should proceed with 
in place; and            the GA rather than  these two           
                         for the general     initiatives is not  
(4) providing member     public. In July,    clear.              
states with a detailed   the GA requested                        
policy proposal on       that the            (4) The             
public access to UN      Secretary-General   Secretary-General   
documentation.           take into           plans to provide    
                         consideration the   the GA at its 61st  
                         requests of the     session a           
                         ACABQ.              comprehensive       
                                             report containing   
                         (2) & (3) In June,  detailed            
                         the ACABQ said that parameters,         
                         it welcomes efforts including           
                         to consolidate      information on      
                         reports, but that   resource            
                         the matter is up to requirements,       
                         the GA.             financing           
                                             mechanisms and the  
                         (4) In May, the     possibility of a    
                         Secretary-General   fee structure.a     
                         provided the GA                         
                         with information on                     
                         public access to UN                     
                         documents. However,                     
                         the GA requested                        
                         additional                              
                         information.                            
                              Strengthening oversight
Create an Independent    In November 2005,   The GA plans to     The independent     
Audit Advisory Committee the                 consider the        external evaluator  
(IAAC) to enhance the    Secretary-General   proposed terms of   recommended that    
independence of the      proposed the        reference at its    the IAAC be         
oversight structure and  creation of the     61st session with a responsible for     
to help member states    Independent Audit   view to             presenting the      
better exercise their    Advisory Committee  establishing the    budget for OIOS to  
oversight                and drafted         IAAC.a              the Fifth           
responsibilities.        provisional terms                       Committee, thereby  
                         of reference for                        relieving the ACABQ 
                         this entity. In                         of its advisory     
                         December 2005, the                      role in this        
                         General Assembly                        regard.             
                         approved the                            
                         creation of the                         
                         committee and                           
                         requested that an                       
                         external evaluation                     
                         review the terms of                     
                         reference. In July                      
                         2006, an                                
                         independent                             
                         external evaluation                     
                         recommended several                     
                         changes regarding                       
                         the number,                             
                         appointment                             
                         criteria, terms,                        
                         and compensation of                     
                         members of the                          
                         committee.                              
Strengthen the capacity  In December 2005,   In fall 2006, the   OIOS disagreed with 
of the Office of         the GA approved     GA is expected to   two recommendations 
Internal Oversight       funds in the        address the         that would          
Services (OIOS) so that  2006-2007 biennium  recommendations of  restructure the     
it can effectively carry budget for 39       the independent     office. For         
out its mandates.        temporary positions evaluation and      example, the        
                         for OIOS and for an OIOS's July 2006    independent         
                         independent         report.             evaluator           
                         external evaluation                     recommended         
                         of OIOS. In July                        shifting functions, 
                         2006, the                               including           
                         independent                             investigations, to  
                         external evaluation                     departments in the  
                         report was                              Secretariat. OIOS   
                         finalized. The                          and some UN and     
                         report issued 23                        U.S. officials      
                         recommendations in                      disagreed with this 
                         nine areas to                           recommendation,     
                         strengthen OIOS's                       stating that such a 
                         capacity. OIOS                          change would        
                         issued a response                       diminish the UN's   
                         in July.                                oversight functions 
                                                                 and the             
                                                                 independence of its 
                                                                 investigations and  
                                                                 could create a      
                                                                 potential conflict  
                                                                 of interest.        
                             Promoting ethical conduct
Establish an Ethics      In December 2005,   The ethics office   In a report         
Office to implement new  the GA approved     is in the process   requested by a UN   
whistleblower protection funds for the       of hiring permanent staff union on      
policy, administer more  ethics office in    staff; developing   reforming the UN's  
stringent financial      the 2006-2007       ethics training;    internal justice    
disclosure requirements, biennium budget. In and engaging a      system, a           
provide guidance to      January 2006, the   contractor to       commission of       
staff on ethical issues, Secretariat         review financial    experts recommended 
and develop standards,   established the     disclosure forms.   the following in    
training, and education  office with 4                           regard to the       
on ethical issues.       professional and 2                      ethics office: (1)  
                         administrative                          the head of the     
                         interim full time                       ethics office       
                         staff.                                  should be appointed 
                                                                 at the Assistant    
                                                                 Secretary-General   
                                                                 level, rather than  
                                                                 its current level   
                                                                 of director; (2)    
                                                                 the ethics office   
                                                                 should report to an 
                                                                 independent review  
                                                                 board, rather than  
                                                                 the Secretary       
                                                                 General; (3) the    
                                                                 ethics office       
                                                                 should make the     
                                                                 financial           
                                                                 disclosure          
                                                                 statements of       
                                                                 senior managers     
                                                                 available to the    
                                                                 public; and (4)     
                                                                 whistleblower       
                                                                 protection          
                                                                 responsibility      
                                                                 should be removed   
                                                                 from the ethics     
                                                                 office and given to 
                                                                 OIOS, Office of the 
                                                                 Ombudsman, or a     
                                                                 yet-to-be-created   
                                                                 Office of Special   
                                                                 Prosecutor.         
                 Reviewing programs and activities (mandate review)
Review programs and      In March 2006, the  Member states       Member states       
activities (mandates) of Secretariat         continue to review  disagree on several 
the GA, the Economic and identified more     mandates.           points regarding    
Social Council, and the  than 9,000 total UN                     the review: (1) the 
Security Council that    mandates, but only                      G-77 countries      
are older than 5 years   about 6,900 are                         believe the review  
to strengthen and better older than 5 years                      should include      
reflect the needs of the and included in the                     mandates older than 
UN.                      review. Since April                     5 years that have   
                         2006, there have                        not been renewed,   
                         been ongoing                            while the United    
                         discussions on                          States and other    
                         mandates, but                           developed countries 
                         member states have                      argue that the      
                         only agreed to set                      review should       
                         aside 74 completed                      include all         
                         mandates. No                            mandates older than 
                         agreement has been                      5 years, renewed or 
                         reached on any of                       not renewed; (2)    
                         the remaining                           the G-77 wants any  
                         mandates.                               savings from the    
                                                                 consolidation or    
                                                                 elimination of      
                                                                 mandates to go into 
                                                                 the areas from      
                                                                 which they were     
                                                                 derived or into     
                                                                 development         
                                                                 projects, and the   
                                                                 United States says  
                                                                 that a decision on  
                                                                 where to redirect   
                                                                 savings should be   
                                                                 made after the      
                                                                 review is complete; 
                                                                 and (3) the G-77    
                                                                 states that all     
                                                                 politically         
                                                                 sensitive mandates  
                                                                 should be excluded  
                                                                 from the review,    
                                                                 but the United      
                                                                 States does not     
                                                                 want to             
                                                                 automatically       
                                                                 exclude any         
                                                                 mandates from the   
                                                                 review.             
                          Creating a Human Rights Council
Establish a new Human    In March 2006, the  The council plans   The United States   
Rights Council to        GA approved the     to hold a third     voted against the   
strengthen and improve   charter for the new meeting in November creation of the     
the ability of the UN to council, and the    2006.               council because it  
address human rights     election of members                     did not             
issues.                  took place on May                       sufficiently        
                         9, 2006. The body                       improve upon the    
                         held its first                          former commission   
                         meeting in Geneva                       in the following    
                         in June 2006.                           ways: (1) members   
                                                                 are elected by      
                         The council held                        majority rather     
                         its second meeting                      than the higher     
                         in September 2006                       standard of a       
                         during which it                         two-thirds majority 
                         discussed reports                       and (2) member      
                         from the                                states under        
                         Secretariat, the                        Security Council    
                         High Commissioner                       sanctions are not   
                         for Human Rights,                       automatically       
                         and progress                            excluded from       
                         reports on the                          membership on the   
                         development of the                      council. However,   
                         mechanism to review                     several             
                         the human rights                        nongovernmental     
                         situations of all                       organizations       
                         member states.                          stated that the     
                                                                 council is an       
                                                                 improvement on the  
                                                                 commission and 104  
                                                                 UN member states    
                                                                 voted for its       
                                                                 creation. The       
                                                                 United States did   
                                                                 not run for         
                                                                 election to the     
                                                                 council in 2006 but 
                                                                 stated that, if the 
                                                                 new council is      
                                                                 effective, it will  
                                                                 likely run in 2007. 

Sources: GAO analysis of UN and the U.S. Mission to the UN.

aThe GA 61st session begin in September 2006.

bThe GA 62nd session will begin in September 2007.

cThe UN provided us with a copy of the detailed human resources report
after our report had gone to press; therefore, we did not have time to
analyze and incorporate the information.

Appendix III: The UN Whistleblower Protection Procedure Appendix III: The
UN Whistleblower Protection Procedure

The United Nations (UN) ethics office is implementing the UN's new
whistleblower protection policy, which took effect in January 2006. The
policy protects UN staff from retaliation for reporting misconduct of any
other staff. Retaliation, as defined in the policy, includes any
detrimental action recommended, threatened, or taken because an individual
reported misconduct or cooperated with an authorized audit or
investigation. The policy shifts the burden of proof for retaliation to
the UN organization and away from individuals, requiring the organization
to prove in each case that the alleged retaliatory action is unrelated to
the report of misconduct. According to the policy, the ethics office is
responsible for receiving complaints about threatened or actual acts of
retaliation against staff and keeping confidential records of all
complaints received. The office is also responsible for conducting a
preliminary review of the complaint to determine if the complainant
engaged in an activity protected by the whistleblower protection policy,
and there is sufficient evidence that the protected activity was a
contributing factor in causing the alleged retaliation or threat of
retaliation.

In order for an individual to receive protection under the whistleblower
protection policy, the report of misconduct should be made as soon as
possible and no more than 6 years after the individual becomes aware of
the misconduct. The individual reporting misconduct must submit
information or evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct has
occurred. UN staff may make reports of misconduct through established
internal mechanisms including Office of Internal Oversight Services
(OIOS), the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management,
and the head of the department or office concerned. The whistleblower
protection policy also protects staff who report misconduct to external
mechanisms, such as the media or outside organizations, provided that all
internal mechanisms have been exhausted. The UN is the first
intergovernmental organization to provide such protection.

Staff who believe that retaliatory action has been taken against them
because they have reported misconduct or cooperated with an authorized
audit or investigation are directed to forward all information and
documentation to support their complaint to the ethics office. The
whistleblower protection policy states that such complaints can be made in
person, by regular mail, e-mail, fax, or through the ethics office
helpline. Once the ethics office receives a complaint, it conducts a
preliminary review, which should be completed within 45 days. According to
staff in the ethics office, they try to complete their reviews within that
time frame, but, in some cases, they need more time to speak to everyone
involved in the case. In reviewing a case, the ethics office reviews the
evidence presented by the complainant and interviews the individual being
accused and any other witnesses of the alleged retaliation. If the ethics
office finds that there is a credible case of retaliation or threat of
retaliation, it refers the matter in writing to OIOS for investigation and
immediately notifies the complainant, in writing, that his or her case has
been referred. According to the whistleblower protection policy, OIOS
seeks to complete its investigation and write a report within 120 days.
The report is submitted to the ethics office.

Once the ethics office receives the investigation report, it informs the
complainant, in writing, of the outcome of the investigation and makes
recommendations on the case to the head of the department or office
concerned and to the Under-Secretary-General for management. The ethics
office may recommend that disciplinary actions be taken against the
retaliator. It may also recommend that measures be taken to correct the
negative consequences suffered by the complainant as a result of the
retaliatory action, including reinstatement or transfer to another office
or function for which the individual is qualified. If the ethics office is
not satisfied with the response from the head of the department or office
concerned, it can make a recommendation directly to the Secretary-General,
who then provides a written response to the ethics office and the head of
the office concerned. The whistleblower protection policy states that
retaliation against an individual for reporting misconduct is itself
misconduct and will lead to disciplinary action.

Appendix IV: Information on Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analyses 

The United Nations (UN) Secretariat is currently conducting a number of
assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and comprehensive reports. We
identified a number of key studies that include a detailed cost study for
the proposed new information communications technology system, assessments
of a staff buyout, and cost-benefit analyses of outsourcing internal
printing and publishing processes, and the relocation of information
technology support services. Some of these assessments will not be
available for member states to consider until early 2007. In addition, the
projected completion dates represent the dates when the UN Secretariat is
expected to complete the reports and forward them to the legislative
bodies for review. It is not clear when the General Assembly will review
and make a decision on these initiatives. Table 4 lists the key
assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and comprehensive reports that the UN
Secretariat is currently conducting. The UN Secretariat did not provide us
with detailed information, such as status and projected completion date
for each initiative.

Table 4: Reviews, Assessments, and Cost-Benefit Analyses

Type of study                     Projected completion date                
Human resources                   
Assessments for increased         September 2006.a                         
investments in recruitment,       
mobility, and career development, 
including, among other things,    
specific costs and administrative 
implications as well as required  
changes to regulations, rules,    
and procedures.                   
Assessment for improving field    September 2006.a                         
benefits and conditions to create 
a single global staff, including, 
among other things, specific      
costs and administrative          
implications as well as required  
changes to regulations, rules,    
and procedures.                   
Assessments for strengthening     September 2006.a                         
leadership recruitment,           
including, among other things,    
specific costs and administrative 
implications as well as required  
changes to regulations, rules,    
and procedures.                   
Assessment of a staff buyout,     September 2006.a                         
including costs and mechanisms to 
ensure that it achieves its       
intended purpose.                 
Information and communications    
technology                        
Assessment for implementing an    March 2007                               
organization-wide document        
content management system,        
including staffing requirements.  
Detailed cost study for a new     March 2007                               
information technology system,    
including a detailed              
implementation plan with user     
needs, scope, timetable,          
strategy, and resource            
requirements.                     
Ways of delivering services       
Cost-benefit analysis of          September 2006                           
outsourcing internal printing and 
publishing processes.             
Cost-benefit analysis of          September 2006                           
outsourcing medical insurance     
plan administration.              
Cost-benefit analysis of          December 2006                            
relocating information technology 
support services.                 
Cost-benefit analysis of          March 2007                               
relocating payables, receivables  
and payroll processes.            
Cost-benefit analysis of          March 2007                               
relocating staff benefit          
administration.                   
Budget and finance                
Detailed proposal on              The Secretary-General plans to to submit 
strengthening monitoring and      this information to the General Assembly 
evaluation tools in the           during its 61st sessionb                 
Secretariat, taking into account  
recent experience in              
results-based budgeting.          
Public access to un information   
Comprehensive report on public    During the 61st session, the             
access to UN documentation,       Secretary-General plans to provide the   
including detailed parameters,    GA with a comprehensive report           
information on resource           containing detailed parameters,          
requirements, financing           including information on resource        
mechanisms, and potential fee     requirements, financing mechanisms and   
structure.                        the possibility of a fee structure.b     
Procurement                       
Assessment for increasing         The GA is scheduled to consider the      
information-sharing on            Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed   
procurement matters within the UN procurement report in fall 2006.         
common system.                    Information sharing assessment has       
                                     begun; however, it is not clear from the 
                                     detailed procurement report when it will 
                                     be completed.                            
Assessment of the effectiveness   The GA is scheduled to consider the      
of the internal controls of the   Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed   
UN organization compared to those procurement report in fall 2006.         
of the UN Procurement Service.    
Review business practices and     The GA is scheduled to consider the      
procurement models in various     Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed   
industries with a view to realign procurement report in fall 2006.         
procurement process to industry   
practices.                        
Formal review of vendor           The GA is scheduled to consider the      
performance issues to be          Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed   
conducted at least on a 6-month   procurement report in fall 2006. Based   
basis for all major peacekeeping  on this report, in June 2005, the        
contracts.                        Department of Peacekeeping Operations    
                                     established a Contracts Compliance and   
                                     Monitoring Unit to consolidate vendor    
                                     monitoring as a comprehensive management 
                                     function. It is unclear from the         
                                     detailed procurement report whether the  
                                     UN has begun this initiative.            
Review of the financial threshold Based on the Secretary-General's June    
of Headquarters Committee on      2006 detailed procurement report, this   
Contracts.                        review was expected to be completed by   
                                     September 2006. The UN Secretariat did   
                                     not respond to our request for the       
                                     current status of this initiative.       
Review of logistics support       Based on the Secretary-General's June    
arrangements, such as rations     2006 detailed procurement report, the UN 
contracting during mission        Secretariat is currently exploring these 
start-up; regional or global fuel logistic support arrangements. It is     
supply arrangements; long-term    unclear when they are expected to be     
air charter arrangements; and     completed.                               
freight forwarding and shipping   
arrangements.                     
Procurement Service review of job The GA is scheduled to consider the      
functions for all staff to        Secretary-General's June 2006 detailed   
develop a career path for the     procurement report in fall 2006. Based   
procurement occupation.           on this report, the UN Secretariat has   
                                     begun this review. It is unclear when it 
                                     is expected to be completed.             

Sources: GAO analysis of UN and the U.S. Mission to the UN data.

aAccording to a UN Secretariat official, the detailed human resource
report issued in September 2006 includes this information. However, the UN
report was release after our report had gone to press; therefore, we did
not have time to analyze to determine whether all the elements of the
assessment were addressed.

bThe General Assembly's 61st session began September 2006.

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                                  GAO Contact

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, or [email protected]

                             Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant
Director; Jeanette Espinola, Stephanie Robinson, and Barbara Shields made
key contributions to this report. Debbie J. Chung, Martin De Alteriis,
Etana Finkler, and Grace Lui provided technical assistance.

49This report does not include information from the Secretary-General's
detailed human resources report issued in late September.

50Outsourcing describes a situation in which an organization allows all or
part of its business processes to be undertaken by third party providers.

51According to the Secretary-General, his staff buyout proposals and other
human resources proposals (see General Assembly resolution 60/1 par. 163
(c)), will take into consideration part II of resolution A/60/260, and
will follow consultation with staff representatives to be carried out in
accordance with article VIII of the Staff Regulations and section XVI of
General Assembly resolution 59/266. For example, based on these
resolutions and regulation, the Secretary-General must submit a detailed
proposal on the framework for a one-time staff buyout to improve personnel
structure and quality, including an indication of costs involved and
mechanisms to ensure that it achieves its intended purpose. Also,
generally, the Secretary-General shall establish and maintain continuous
contact and communication with the staff in order to ensure the effective
participation of the staff in identifying, examining, and resolving issues
relating to staff welfare, including conditions of work, general
conditions of life, and other personnel policies.

52International Civil Service Commission, Staffing of Field Missions:
Review of Conversion of Contractual Instruments, January 2006.

53G. A. Res. A/RES/55/232, Outsourcing Practices, United Nations, December
23, 2000.

54In 1997 and again in 2002, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) reported on
several deficiencies of the UN's outsourcing operations, such as lack of a
policy and systemwide definition of outsourcing, insufficient coordination
among UN organizations, and the need for improved monitoring and
management controls over outsourced contracts. In 2002, the JIU said that
since its 1997 report on the challenge of outsourcing for the UN system,
outsourced operations have not evolved significantly in value and scope.
In addition, JIU said that information suggests that cost benefits likely
to flow from outsourcing may be greater in locations such as the New York
metropolitan area and field duty stations where the local salary rates are
lower than UN salary scales. However, JIU also points out that the General
Assembly resolution provides that one of the goals of outsourcing should
be to avoid a possible negative impact on staff, but that adverse effects
on staff can be minimized and perhaps even averted by carefully planning
their redeployment to other functions or considering attrition solutions
during the precontract processes.

Related GAO Products

United Nations: Weaknesses in Internal Oversight and Procurement Could
Affect the Effective Implementation of the Planned Renovation. GAO-06-877T
. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006.

United Nations: Oil for Food Program Provides Lessons for Future Sanctions
and Ongoing Reform, GAO-06-711T . Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2006.

United Nations: Internal Oversight and Procurement Controls and Processes
Need Strengthening. GAO-06-710T . Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2006.

United Nations: Funding Arrangements Impede Independence of Internal
Auditors. GAO-06-575 . Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006.

United Nations: Lessons from Oil for Food Program Indicate Need to
Strengthen Internal Controls and Oversight, GAO-06-330 . Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 25, 2006.

United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak, GAO-06-577 .
Washington, D.C., April 25, 2006.

Peacekeeping: Cost Comparison of Actual UN and Hypothetical U.S.
Operations in Haiti. GAO-06-331 . Washington, D.C.: February 21, 2006.

United Nations: Preliminary Observations on Internal Oversight and
Procurement Practices, GAO-06-226T . Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2005.

United Nations: Sustained Oversight Is Needed for Reforms to Achieve
Lasting Results, GAO-05-392T . Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005.

United Nations: Oil for Food Program Audits, GAO-05-346T . Washington,
D.C.: February 15, 2005.

United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and Areas for
Further Investigation. GAO-04-953T . Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2004.

United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and Iraq's Food
Security. GAO-04-880T . Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2004.

United Nations: Observations on the Management and Oversight of the Oil
for Food Program. GAO-04-730T . Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2004.

United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program. GAO-04-651T .
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2004.

Recovering Iraq's Assets: Preliminary Observations on U.S. Efforts and
Challenges. GAO-04-579T . Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2004.

United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed
to Measure Impact, GAO-04-339 . Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: U.N. Confronts Significant Challenges in
Implementing Sanctions against Iraq, GAO-02-625 . Washington, D.C.: May
23, 2002.

United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened Operations, but
Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Achieved, GAO/NSIAD-00-150 .
Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000.

United Nations: Progress of Procurement Reforms. GAO/NSIAD-99-71 .
Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1999.

United Nations: Status of Internal Oversight Services, GAO/NSIAD-98-9 .
Washington, D.C.: November 19, 1997.

(320398)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

transparent illustrator graphic

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-07-14 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-07-14 , a report to congressional committees

October 2006

UNITED NATIONS

Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many Awaiting General Assembly
Review

Despite various reform efforts, significant inefficiencies in United
Nations (UN) management operations persist. In September 2005, heads of UN
member states approved a resolution that called for a series of reforms to
strengthen the organization. As the largest financial contributor to the
UN, the United States has a strong interest in the progress of UN reform
initiatives.

GAO was asked to (1) identify and track the status of UN management
reforms in five key areas and (2) identify factors that may affect the
implementation of these reform initiatives. To address these objectives,
GAO reviewed documents proposing UN management reform and interviewed U.S.
and UN officials.

What GAO RecommendsGAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations work with member states to
encourage the General Assembly and the Secretary-General to include cost
estimates and expected time frames for implementation and completion for
each reform as it is approved. GAO also recommends that the Secretary of
State's annual U.S. Participation in the United Nations report to the
Congress include a section on the status and progress of the major UN
management reforms. The Department of State agreed with GAO's findings and
recommendations.

Most of the UN management reforms in the five areas GAO
examined-management operations of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical
conduct, review of programs and activities, and human rights-are either
awaiting General Assembly review or have been recently approved. In
addition, many proposed or approved reforms do not have an implementation
plan that establishes time frames and cost estimates. First, in July 2006,
the General Assembly approved proposals to improve the management
operations of the Secretariat, such as upgrading information technology
systems and giving the Secretary-General some flexibility in spending
authority. In addition, in fall 2006, the General Assembly will review
other proposals, such as procurement and human resource reforms. Second,
implementation of proposals to improve the UN's oversight capabilities,
such as strengthening the capacity of the Office of Internal Oversight
Services and establishing the Independent Audit Advisory Committee, are
pending General Assembly review in fall 2006. Third, the UN established an
ethics office with temporary staff in January 2006 that has developed an
internal timetable for implementing key initiatives. However, it is too
early to determine whether the office will be able to fully carry out its
mandate. Fourth, UN member states agreed to complete a review of UN
programs and activities in 2006, but progress has been slow and the
results and time line for completion remain uncertain. Fifth, the General
Assembly created a new Human Rights Council in April 2006, but significant
concerns remain about the council's structure.

GAO identified several factors that may affect the UN's ability to fully
implement management reforms. First, although all UN member states agree
that UN management reforms are needed, disagreements about the overall
implications of the reforms could significantly affect their progress.
Most member states are concerned that some of the reforms could increase
the authority of the Secretariat at the expense of the General Assembly,
thus decreasing their influence over UN operations. Member states also
disagree on some of the specifics of the reforms in areas such as the
review of programs and activities and the role of the Deputy
Secretary-General. Second, the general absence of an implementation plan
for each reform that establishes time frames and cost estimates could
affect the UN's ability to implement the reform initiatives. Without
establishing deadlines or determining cost estimates, it is difficult to
hold managers accountable for completing reform efforts and ensure that
financing will be available when needed. Third, administrative guidance,
such as staff regulations and rules that implement General Assembly
resolutions, could complicate the process of implementing certain human
resource reform proposals. For example, according to the
Secretary-General, the General Assembly established a number of conditions
for outsourcing that severely restrict the circumstances under which it
can be contemplated.
*** End of document. ***