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. ***