United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied 
(14-NOV-07, GAO-08-84). 					 
                                                                 
The United States has advocated reforms of United Nations (UN)	 
management for many years. In October 2006, GAO reported that UN 
management reforms were progressing slowly and that many were	 
still awaiting review by the General Assembly. For this review,  
GAO was asked to (1) determine the progress of UN management	 
reform initiatives in five key areas--ethics, oversight,	 
procurement, management operations of the Secretariat, and review
of programs and activities (known as mandates)--and (2) identify 
factors that have slowed the pace of reform efforts. To address  
these objectives, GAO reviewed documents relating to UN 	 
management reform and interviewed U.S. and UN officials.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-84						        
    ACCNO:   A78148						        
  TITLE:     United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has
Varied								 
     DATE:   11/14/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Audits						 
	     Internal audits					 
	     International cooperation				 
	     International relations				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Procurement					 
	     Professional ethics				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Risk management					 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Program implementation				 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-84

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

November 2007: 

United Nations: 

Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied: 

United Nations: 

GAO-08-84: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-84, a report to the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, U.S. Senate 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The United States has advocated reforms of United Nations (UN) 
management for many years. In October 2006, GAO reported that UN 
management reforms were progressing slowly and that many were still 
awaiting review by the General Assembly. For this review, GAO was asked 
to (1) determine the progress of UN management reform initiatives in 
five key areasï¿½ethics, oversight, procurement, management operations of 
the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities (known as 
mandates)ï¿½and (2) identify factors that have slowed the pace of reform 
efforts. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed documents relating 
to UN management reform and interviewed U.S. and UN officials. 

What GAO Found: 

The progress of UN management reform efforts has varied in the five 
areas that GAO reviewedï¿½ethics, oversight, procurement, management 
operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities 
(known as mandates). To determine the status of these reform efforts, 
GAO developed three categories of progress, defined as follows: 

Little or no progress = Few or no steps have been taken Some progress = 
Some steps have been taken, while others remain Substantial progress = 
The reform effort has been mostly or fully implemented. 

The ethics office has made substantial progress in staffing its office 
and implementing a whistleblower protection policy, as well as some 
progress in developing ethics standards and collecting and analyzing 
financial disclosure forms. Member states made some progress in 
improving oversight at the UN when they created an Independent Audit 
Advisory Committee, which is expected to be operational by January 
2008. Additionally, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) 
improved the capacity of individual divisions, including internal audit 
and investigations. However, UN funding arrangements continue to 
constrain the independence of OIOS and its ability to audit high-risk 
areas. Some progress has been made in the area of procurement, such as 
developing a comprehensive training program for procurement staff. 
However, the UN has made little or no progress in establishing an 
independent bid protest system. Some progress has been made in 
reforming management operations of the UN Secretariat, such as 
improving human resource functions and information technology. In 
contrast, little or no progress has been made in reforming the UNï¿½s 
internal justice system for resolving and adjudicating staff grievances 
and safeguarding the rights of staff members, certain budgetary and 
financial management functions, and the delivery of certain services. 
Finally, despite some limited initial actions, the UNï¿½s review of 
programs and activities (known as mandates) has not advanced due in 
part to a lack of support by many member states. 

Various factors have slowed the pace of UN management reforms, and a 
number of reforms cannot move forward until these factors are 
addressed. Four key factors that have slowed the pace include (1) 
disagreements among member states on the priorities and importance of 
UN management reform efforts, (2) the lack of comprehensive 
implementation plans for some management reform proposals, (3) 
administrative policies and procedures that continue to complicate the 
process of implementing certain complex human resource initiatives, and 
(4) competing UN priorities, such as the proposal to reorganize the 
Department of Peacekeeping Operations, that limit the capacity of 
General Assembly members to address management reform issues. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To encourage UN member states to continue to pursue the reform agenda 
of the 2005 World Summit, GAO recommends that, as management reforms 
are implemented over time, the Secretary of State and the U.S. 
Permanent Representative to the UN include in Stateï¿½s annual U.S. 
Participation in the United Nations report an assessment of the 
effectiveness of the reforms. State agreed with GAOï¿½s recommendation 
and generally endorsed GAOï¿½s findings and conclusions. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-278T]. For more information, contact 
William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or [email protected] 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Progress on UN Management Reform Efforts Has Varied: 

Various Factors Have Slowed the UN's Management Reform Efforts: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix III: Typical Management Reform Decision-Making Process for 
Issues Requiring General Assembly Approval: 

Appendix IV: Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform 
Initiatives, as of October 2007: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Table: 

Table 1: Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform 
Initiatives, as of October 2007: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Progress on UN Ethics Reform: 

Figure 2: Progress on UN Oversight Reform: 

Figure 3: Progress on UN Procurement Reform: 

Figure 4: Progress on Reforming Management Operations of the UN 
Secretariat: 

Figure 5: Progress on Review of UN Programs and Activities (known as 
Mandates): 

Figure 6: Typical Management Reform Decision-Making Process for Issues 
Requiring General Assembly Approval: 

Abbreviations: 

ACABQ: Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions:  

CITO: chief information technology officer: 

DPKOUN: Department of Peacekeeping Operations: 

ERP: Enterprise Resource Planning: 

Fifth Committee: Administrative and Budgetary Committee: 

GA: General Assembly: 

IAAC: Independent Audit Advisory Committee: 

OIOS: Office of Internal Oversight Services: 

UN: United Nations: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

November 14, 2007: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Norm Coleman: 
Ranking Member: 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations (UN) has undertaken 
various management reform efforts, including a series of reforms in 
1997 and 2002 that included proposed changes in human resources and 
budgeting activities. However, several independent reports have found 
that serious problems and inefficiencies in UN management persist. For 
example, the 2005 Independent Inquiry Committee's investigation of the 
UN's Oil for Food program[Footnote 1] and the Gingrich-Mitchell task 
force review in June 2005[Footnote 2] found fraud, corruption, 
mismanagement, and inadequate oversight in UN procurement activities. 
Recently, in October 2007, the UN reported further fraud and corruption 
in procurement activities, including 10 additional cases in which over 
$25 million was misused or misappropriated.[Footnote 3] Given the 
growth in complexity and significance of UN worldwide operations, such 
reports underscore the immediate need to reform and modernize UN 
management processes. 

In September 2005, heads of member states held a World Summit to 
address, among other things, long-standing concerns about UN 
management. The resolution approved by all member state representatives 
at the summit[Footnote 4]--known as the "outcome document"--recognized 
the urgent need to improve UN management processes and called on the 
Secretary-General and General Assembly to propose and approve reforms 
to strengthen the organization. As the largest financial contributor to 
the UN, the United States has a strong interest in the progress of 
reform initiatives and has advocated the need for comprehensive 
management reform. We reported in October 2006 that UN management 
reforms were progressing slowly and that many were still awaiting 
review by the General Assembly.[Footnote 5] We also reported the UN had 
not developed comprehensive implementation plans with associated time 
frames, cost estimates, and potential savings. In response to your 
request, we (1) determine the progress of UN management reform 
initiatives in five key areas--ethics, oversight, procurement, 
management operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and 
activities (known as mandates)--and (2) identify factors that have 
slowed the pace of these reform initiatives.[Footnote 6] The reform 
efforts were implemented too recently for us to evaluate their 
effectiveness.[Footnote 7] 

To assess the progress of specific UN management reform efforts within 
each of the five areas we reviewed, we developed the following three 
categories: little or no progress, some progress, and substantial 
progress.[Footnote 8] However, we did not assign an overall level of 
progress to each of the five reform areas because the various 
initiatives within each area are highly diverse. During our review, we 
determined which category of progress to assign to each reform effort 
based on documents we collected and discussions we had with State 
Department, UN, and other officials. After we had made our initial 
assessments of progress, three other GAO staff members not involved in 
this review used the evidence and the categories to make their own 
assessments independently of each other. These staff members then met 
with each other to reconcile any differences in their initial 
assessments. Finally, they met with us and confirmed that we were all 
in agreement on our assessments. To address our objectives, we reviewed 
documents proposing UN management reforms and interviewed officials 
from several UN departments in New York. We reviewed reports and 
bulletins published by the UN General Assembly and Secretariat, 
relevant UN resolutions, and related budget documents. The majority of 
the cost estimates for the proposed reform initiatives are preliminary, 
and detailed cost estimates are being developed; therefore, we did not 
analyze the assumptions underlying these estimates to determine whether 
they are reasonable and reliable. We met with officials from the 
General Assembly Office of the President, the Office of the Deputy 
Secretary-General, the Department of Management, and the Office of 
Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). We also met with representatives 
from 17 of 192 member states from various geographic regions to obtain 
a balance of views on the most critical challenges to reforming UN 
management. We discussed the status of UN management reforms with 
officials from the Department of State in Washington, D.C., and New 
York and the UN in New York. We performed our work from March to 
November 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. (App. I provides a detailed discussion of our scope and 
methodology.) 

Results in Brief: 

The progress of UN management reform efforts has varied in the five 
areas we reviewed--ethics, oversight, procurement, management 
operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities 
(known as mandates). 

* Ethics: Since our last report in October 2006, the UN has taken some 
steps to improve ethics. The ethics office has made substantial 
progress in increasing staffing and in enforcing a whistleblower 
protection policy. In addition, the UN has made some progress in 
developing ethics standards and in enforcing financial disclosure 
requirements. However, UN and staff from a nonprofit public interest 
group expressed concerns that the success of the whistleblower 
protection policy is, in part, dependent on reforms in the UN's 
internal justice system that are not projected to be completed until 
2009. In addition, the policy is potentially limited by the office's 
lack of jurisdiction over UN funds and programs. 

* Oversight: Although the UN has improved its oversight capability, the 
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has not yet achieved 
financial and operational independence. After almost 2 years of 
discussions that included negotiating its composition and 
responsibilities, member states created an Independent Audit Advisory 
Committee (IAAC) in June 2007 and made some progress in making it 
operational. The committee's five members were elected in November 
2007, and the committee is expected to be operational by January 2008. 
Since our October 2006 report, some progress has been made in 
strengthening OIOS. Although OIOS has improved the capacity of 
individual divisions, including internal audit and investigations, UN 
funding arrangements continue to constrain its ability to audit high- 
risk areas, and member states have not yet agreed on whether to grant 
OIOS financial and operational independence. 

* Procurement: The UN has improved its procurement process, but some 
reform issues have not moved forward since we last reported in October 
2006. Activities on which some progress has been made are the 
strengthening of procedures for UN procurement staff and suppliers, 
developing a comprehensive training program for procurement staff, and 
developing a risk management framework. However, the UN has made little 
or no progress in establishing an independent bid protest system and 
creating a lead agency concept, whereby specific UN organizations would 
procure certain goods and services in order to enhance division of 
labor, reduce duplication, and reduce costs. In addition, since our 
October 2006 report, the reorganization of the Department of 
Peacekeeping Operations, and its related procurement activities, may 
affect the UN's overall procurement reform efforts, such as 
establishing lines of accountability and delegation of authority for 
the Departments of Management and Peacekeeping Operations. 

* Management operations of the Secretariat: Since our October 2006 
report, the UN has improved some of the management operations of the 
Secretariat, but many reform proposals have not moved forward. Some 
progress has been made on issues involving human resources and 
information technology. In contrast, little or no progress has been 
made in reforming the UN's internal justice system, budgetary and 
financial management functions, and the delivery of certain services, 
such as internal printing and publishing. During the current (62nd) 
session, the UN is expected to consider several reports on management 
operations issued by the Secretariat. 

* Review of programs and activities (known as mandates): Despite some 
limited initial actions, the UN's review of all UN mandates has not 
advanced due in part to a lack of support by many member states and a 
lack of capacity to carry out the reviews. Although some progress was 
made in Phase I of the review, which ended in December 2006, little or 
no progress has been made in Phase II because member states continue to 
disagree on the scope and the process of the review. As a result, the 
prioritization of this particular UN management reform effort has 
decreased, according to UN and State officials. In September 2007, 
member states decided to continue reviewing mandates in the 62nd 
session of the General Assembly but had not yet decided on an 
implementation plan for the review. 

Various factors have slowed the pace of UN management reforms, and some 
reforms cannot move forward until these factors are addressed. We 
identified four key factors, including (1) disagreements among member 
states on the priorities and importance of UN management reform 
efforts, (2) lack of comprehensive implementation plans for some 
management reform proposals, (3) administrative policies and procedures 
that continue to complicate the process of implementing certain complex 
human resource initiatives, and (4) competing UN priorities, such as 
the proposal to reorganize the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 
that limit the capacity of General Assembly members to address 
management reform issues. 

To encourage UN member states to continue to pursue the reform agenda 
of the 2005 World Summit, we are recommending that, as management 
reforms are implemented over time, the Secretary of State and the U.S. 
Permanent Representative to the UN include in State's annual U.S. 
Participation in the United Nations report an assessment of the 
effectiveness of the reforms. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Department of 
State and the UN Secretariat. State provided written comments that are 
reprinted in appendix II, along with our responses to specific points. 
State generally endorsed the main findings and conclusions of our 
report and noted that our assessment of UN progress on management 
reform efforts was accurate and balanced. State also agreed fully with 
the need to keep Congress informed of the effectiveness of management 
reforms, adding that the department will continue to monitor and inform 
Congress, as we recommended. In addition, State provided technical 
comments that we have incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 
Although the UN Secretariat did not provide written comments, it 
provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the report, 
as appropriate. 

Background: 

Calls to reform the UN began soon after its creation in 1945.[Footnote 
9] Despite cycles of reform, UN member states continue to have concerns 
about inefficient management operations. As the largest contributor of 
192 member states, the United States has played a significant role in 
promoting UN management reform, including calling for various financial 
and administrative changes. The United States, through the Department 
of State in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Mission to the United 
Nations in New York,[Footnote 10] continues to advocate reform of UN 
management processes. 

In July 1997, the Secretary-General proposed a broad reform agenda to 
transform the UN into an efficient organization focused on achieving 
results as it carried out its mandates.[Footnote 11] In May 2000, we 
reported that while the Secretary-General had substantially reorganized 
the Secretariat's leadership and structure, he had not yet completed 
reforms in human resource management and planning and 
budgeting.[Footnote 12] In September 2002, to encourage the full 
implementation of the 1997 reforms, the Secretary-General released a 
second set of reform initiatives, some expanding on those introduced in 
1997 and others reflecting new priorities. In February 2004, we 
reported that 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 
agenda and 38 percent of the 66 initiatives in the 2002 agenda were in 
place.[Footnote 13] 

In 2004 and 2005, a series of UN and expert task force reports 
recommended a comprehensive reform of UN management and the UN human 
rights apparatus.[Footnote 14] In September 2005, world leaders 
gathered at the UN World Summit in New York to discuss global issues 
such as UN reform, development, and human rights, as well as actions 
needed in each of these areas. The outcome document from the World 
Summit,[Footnote 15] endorsed by all members of the UN, outlines broad 
UN reform efforts in areas such as oversight and accountability and 
human rights. The document also called for the Secretary-General to 
submit proposals for implementing reforms to improve management 
functions of the Secretariat.[Footnote 16] 

In April 2006, we reported on weaknesses in the UN's oversight[Footnote 
17] and procurement systems, both of which have been identified as 
important areas for reform.[Footnote 18] We found that UN funding 
arrangements constrained the ability of the UN Secretariat's Office of 
Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) to operate independently and direct 
resources toward high-risk areas as needed. In addition, we found 
serious weaknesses in procurement internal controls. Specifically, the 
UN lacked an effective organizational structure for managing 
procurement, had not demonstrated a commitment to improving its 
procurement workforce, and had not adopted specific ethics guidance. 

In October 2006, we reported slow progress in five key UN management 
reform areas--management operations of the Secretariat, oversight, 
ethics, review of programs and activities (known as mandates), and 
human rights. Numerous reform proposals were either awaiting General 
Assembly review or had been recently approved, and many of the proposed 
or approved reforms lacked an implementation plan with time frames and 
cost estimates for the goals stated in the 2005 outcome 
document.[Footnote 19] We also identified several factors that could 
affect the UN's ability to fully implement management reforms, 
including (1) disagreements among member states about the implications 
of the reforms, (2) the difficulty of holding managers accountable for 
completing reform efforts due to the absence of time frames and cost 
estimates, and (3) administrative policies and procedures that could 
complicate the implementation process. 

Progress on UN Management Reform Efforts Has Varied: 

Since October 2006, the progress of UN management reform efforts has 
varied from little or no progress to substantial progress in the five 
areas we reviewed--ethics, oversight, procurement, management 
operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities 
(known as mandates). 

Steps to Improve Ethics Have Been Taken: 

The UN has taken steps to improve organizational ethics since the fall 
of 2006. In the past year, the ethics office has hired a permanent 
director and additional staff and has developed and provided ethics 
standards, training, and guidance. The office has begun to enforce a 
whistleblower protection policy, but concerns have been raised about 
the policy's lack of jurisdiction over UN funds and programs and 
weaknesses in the UN's internal justice system. Finally, the ethics 
office has collected financial disclosure forms for 2005 and 2006 and a 
private consultant has begun to review them, but the review has been 
delayed by the development of an e-filing system for the forms. 
Progress on UN ethics reform is shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Progress on UN Ethics Reform: 

This figure is a chart showing progress on UN Ethics Reform. 

Sept. 2005: UN World Summit: Following the 2005 World Summit, the UN 
set out to establish an ethics office, including a permanent
director and staff, to provide guidance to staff on ethical issues, 
implement a strengthened whistleblower
protection policy, and administer more stringent financial disclosure 
requirements; 

Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: In December 2005, the General Assembly 
approved funds for the ethics office in the 2006-2007
biennium budget. According to UN experts, the newly created ethics 
office was insufficiently staffed with only a temporary director and 
four professional and two administrative staff; 

Nov. 2007: Current status: 

Increase staff in ethics office: Substantial progress: The ethics 
office currently has six professional and three
administrative staff. A new director was appointed to head the office
in May 2007. As of October 2007, the office informed GAO that it
had sufficient staff to carry out its responsibilities; 

Develop and share ethical guidance: Some progress: The UN ethics office 
has developed and circulated ethics standards
and guidance and has trained staff on ethics. The office has begun
to develop a systemwide code of ethics; 

Implement a whistleblower protection policy: Substantial progress: The 
ethics office has reviewed all 52 whistleblower claims of
retaliation that it received and passed 2 cases on for further
investigation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services; 

Review financial disclosure forms: Some progress: Financial disclosure 
forms have been collected from UN staff members for 2005 and 2006. A 
private contractor has begun to review the forms but has been delayed 
by the development of an e-filing system for the forms. The office is 
reviewing the online e-filing system and will decide whether additional 
staff should be required to file financial disclosures; 

Related Issues: 

* A systemwide code of ethics is an important element in upholding the 
highest standards of integrity among UN staff members; 

* The success of the whistleblower protection policy is, in part, 
dependent on reforms in the UN internal justice system, which are not 
expected to be completed until 2009; 

* State officials said the ethics office should also have jurisdiction 
over UN funds and programs. 

Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken 
on the reform effort. 

Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform 
effort, while others remain.

Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly 
or fully implemented.

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of UN data. 

[End of figure] 

In the past year, the UN has made substantial progress in staffing its 
ethics office by hiring a permanent director and additional permanent 
staff. In the fall of 2006, we reported concerns of UN experts that the 
newly created UN ethics office was insufficiently staffed with a 
temporary director and four professional and two administrative staff 
members. In May 2007, a new director of the ethics office was appointed 
to a 3-year term. As of October 2007, the ethics office had six 
professional and three administrative staff. At that time, the director 
of the office told us the office had sufficient staff to carry out its 
responsibilities. 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Developing and Sharing Ethics Guidance: 

As of October 2007, the UN ethics office had made some progress in 
developing and circulating ethics standards and guidance and had begun 
to develop a systemwide code of ethics. The office reported that it had 
received 287 requests for services from staff at different levels of 
the Secretariat between August 2006 and July 2007, including ethics 
advice on issues such as potential and actual conflicts of interest, 
protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct, and training. 

The ethics office has increased ethics training within the 
organization, including half-day ethics training workshops for over 
3,000 staff members at all levels of the Secretariat and consultations 
on the acceptance and disposal of gifts received by staff in their 
official capacity. The office has also developed new ethics standards, 
such as postemployment restrictions standards. In May 2007, the ethics 
office published, and disseminated throughout the Secretariat, the 
booklet Working Together: Putting Ethics to Work. This guide highlights 
the main challenges to professional and ethical conduct, clarifies the 
reasons behind ethical standards in the context of the UN's mission and 
values, and provides staff with resources to put ethical principles to 
use, such as contact information for reporting abuse. In addition, in 
August 2007, the office published four brochures that have been used in 
outreach, training, and communication activities.[Footnote 20] 

The ethics office has begun to develop a systemwide code of ethics for 
all UN personnel, including those of UN bodies and agencies other than 
the Secretariat as requested by the General Assembly in the 2005 World 
Summit outcome document. The director of the ethics office told us the 
development of a systemwide code of ethics was one of his top 
priorities and would be undertaken in the near future, in consultation 
with staff and management from multiple UN entities. 

Substantial Progress Has Been Made in Enforcing a Whistleblower 
Protection Policy: 

The UN has made substantial progress in enforcing a whistleblower 
protection policy. The ethics office has begun receiving complaints of 
retaliation, and several concerns have arisen during the handling of 
cases. Between August 1, 2006, and July 31, 2007, the ethics office 
received 52 complaints of whistleblower retaliation.[Footnote 21] After 
its initial assessment, the ethics office determined that 16 complaints 
warranted a preliminary review. Of these 16, the ethics office referred 
two cases to OIOS for further investigation following a determination 
that a prima facie case of retaliation had been established. Of the 
remaining 36 complaints, the ethics office determined that 19 fell 
outside the scope of its responsibilities and/or referred them to other 
offices,[Footnote 22] and provided advice and guidance on more 
appropriate actions to address 11 complaints. In addition, the office 
was copied on six complaints that were primarily addressed to other 
offices or departments in the UN; in these instances, the ethics office 
keeps track of and follows up on any pending action by other offices. 

Several Concerns Have Been Identified with the UN's Whistleblower 
Protection Policy: 

UN and State officials have raised concerns regarding the UN's 
whistleblower protection policy. Officials from the ethics office and a 
nonprofit public interest group, the Government Accountability 
Project,[Footnote 23] informed us that the success of the UN's 
whistleblower protection policy could be, in part, dependent on 
successful reform of the UN's internal justice system.[Footnote 24] UN 
and Government Accountability Project staff told us that some UN staff 
members might not trust the current system to be fair or impartial and, 
consequently, might not come forward with claims of retaliation. In its 
August 2007 annual activities report, the ethics office expressed a 
concern that it had not had an opportunity to provide input into its 
role in the proposed new internal justice system in relation to other 
offices, such as OIOS and the Office of the Ombudsman, and the office 
expressed the importance of its inclusion in the justice reform 
process. 

UN and State officials told us another concern about the whistleblower 
protection policy is its lack of jurisdiction over UN funds and 
programs.[Footnote 25] In August 2007, after initially reviewing a 
whistleblower retaliation case of an employee at the UN Development 
Program, the ethics office and the Office of Legal and Procurement 
Services concluded that the UN's whistleblower protection policy 
applies only to employees directly under the Secretary- 
General.[Footnote 26] They also concluded that the office has no formal 
jurisdiction over various UN funds and programs, including the UN 
Development Program. UN and State officials told us that the 
whistleblower protection policy is limited in its effectiveness if it 
is not applied to the entire UN system. Similarly, the Government 
Accountability Project has criticized the effectiveness of the current 
UN whistleblower protection policy and recommended that the 
jurisdiction of the ethics office be extended to UN funds and programs 
and possibly to specialized agencies.[Footnote 27] In his August 2007 
report on the activities of the ethics office, the Secretary-General 
recommended that the General Assembly consider broadening the 
jurisdiction of the ethics office to cover all UN entities and to 
provide further guidance on this issue.[Footnote 28] 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Collecting and Analyzing Financial 
Disclosures: 

The UN has made some progress in collecting and analyzing financial 
disclosure forms for 2005 and 2006. Financial disclosure forms have 
been collected from UN staff members, and a private contractor has 
begun to review them. The primary purpose of the financial disclosure 
program is to identify potential conflicts of interest arising from 
staff members' financial holdings, private affiliations, or outside 
activities and to provide advice when conflicts are found. About 1,700 
staff members were required to file financial disclosure or declaration 
of interest statements for 2005.[Footnote 29] About 98 percent of staff 
complied, and the remaining 2 percent were referred to the Office of 
Human Resources Management for disciplinary action. A total of 2,548 
staff members were required to file forms for 2006. The office reported 
that the increase in staff required to file likely reflects an 
increased awareness of the program by the heads of departments and 
their staff members. In addition, as a confidence-building measure, the 
current UN Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General voluntarily 
made their recent financial disclosure forms public. 

The financial disclosure statements for 2005 were reviewed by a private 
contractor and analyzed to determine any potential conflicts of 
interest between the staff members' confidentially disclosed private 
interests and their official duties and responsibilities.[Footnote 30] 
In May 2007, the contractor identified potential conflicts of interest 
in 17 of the cases reviewed, or about 1 percent. Of these cases, 14 
staff members accepted the advice of the private contractor to address 
the potential conflict and 3 cases were referred to the ethics office 
for final resolution due to disagreements with the contractor. 

The 2006 review is not yet complete. The deadline for submitting forms 
for 2006 was delayed until May 31, 2007, as a consequence of the 
development of an online e-filing system.[Footnote 31] In order to 
enhance efficiencies and standardize procedures, the private contractor 
developed an online e-filing system in liaison with the ethics office 
to simplify and expedite filing requirements. The director of the 
ethics office told us that the process for the 2006 review was ongoing, 
and, as a result, the compliance rate was not finalized as of September 
2007. 

The ethics office plans to review the online financial disclosure form 
and accompanying guidelines in consultation with other UN offices to 
decide whether modifications need to be made. In addition, the office 
reported that it is conducting a review to determine whether financial 
disclosures should be required of officials other than those of the 
Secretariat. 

Steps to Improve Oversight Have Been Taken: 

Steps have been taken to improve UN oversight capabilities. After 
almost 2 years of discussions that included negotiating its composition 
and responsibilities, member states established an Independent Audit 
Advisory Committee (IAAC) in June 2007. Since our October 2006 report, 
OIOS has worked to improve the capacity of individual divisions, 
including internal audit and investigations. However, UN funding 
arrangements continue to constrain OIOS's ability to audit high-risk 
areas, and the General Assembly has not authorized OIOS's financial and 
operational independence. Progress on UN oversight reform is shown in 
figure 2. 

Figure 2: Progress on UN Oversight Reform: 

This figure is a chart showing progress on UN oversight reform. 

Sept. 2005: UN World Summit: Following the 2005 World Summit, the UN 
set out to create an Independent Audit Advisory Committee
(IAAC) to enhance the independence of the UNï¿½s oversight structure and 
to help member states better exercise their oversight responsibilities. 
The UN also set out to strengthen the Office of Internal Oversight
Services (OIOS) so that it can effectively carry out its mandates; 

Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: In November 2005, the Secretary-General 
proposed the creation of an IAAC and a terms of reference
for it. In December 2005, the General Assembly (GA) approved the IAACï¿½s 
creation and requested an external evaluation of its terms of 
reference. The GA also approved funds for additional positions for
OIOS and for an independent external evaluation of OIOS. In July 2006, 
an independent external evaluation was finalized and made various 
recommendations to strengthen OIOS and to modify the
IAAC terms of reference; 

Nov. 2007: Current status: 

Create an IAAC: Some progress: Member states established an IAAC and 
agreed on its terms of reference in June 2007. Members of the newly 
created IAAC were selected in November 2007, and the committee is 
expected to be operational in January 2008; 

Strengthen OIOS: Some progress: OIOS has worked to improve the capacity 
of its internal audit and investigations divisions. For example, the 
office has hired new staff, created several new audit sections and 
investigation task forces, and reduced its range of functions by moving 
its consulting function to the Secretariat. However, OIOS funding 
arrangements continue to constrain the officeï¿½s operational 
independence; 

Related Issues: 

* The potential impact of the IAAC on OIOSï¿½s budgetary independence is 
unknown; 

* UN funding arrangements adversely affect OIOSï¿½s budgetary 
independence and compromise the officeï¿½s ability to audit high-risk 
areas. 

Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken 
on the reform effort. 

Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform 
effort, while others remain. 

Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly 
or fully implemented. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of UN data. 

[End of figure] 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Creating an Independent Audit Advisory 
Committee: 

The UN has made some progress in creating IAAC, but the committee is 
not expected to be operational until January 2008. In June 2007, member 
states established IAAC to provide an external, independent assessment 
of UN oversight capabilities based on best practices in the private 
sector as well as the experiences of other international institutions. 

In approving the creation of IAAC in June 2007, the General Assembly 
also established the committee's terms of reference. These terms 
include the following guidelines and requirements: 

* membership of 5 individuals, preferably from a pool of at least 10 
candidates proposed by member states, based on regional and 
geographical representation and selected by the General Assembly; 

* an evaluation process for candidates through consultations with an 
external relevant institution, such as the International Organization 
of Supreme Audit Institutions; and: 

* membership appointment for a term of 3 years, with the possibility of 
one-time re-election. 

The IAAC's responsibilities include, but are not limited to: 

* examining OIOS's work plan, taking into account the work plans of the 
other UN oversight bodies; 

* reviewing the adequacy of OIOS's budget, taking into account OIOS's 
work plan; 

* advising on the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of OIOS's audit 
and other activities; and: 

* advising the General Assembly on potential oversight issues based on 
review of UN financial statements and Board of Auditors reports. 

The guidelines and requirements represent a compromise among the member 
states, according to member state representatives and State Department 
officials. Member states disagreed on some of the initially proposed 
responsibilities of IAAC. For example, the United States and several 
other countries had originally favored that candidates for membership 
be referred by the International Organization of Supreme Audit 
Institutions and that members not be eligible for re-election. Other 
member states disagreed. In addition, State wanted IAAC to be 
responsible for assessing the work of all UN oversight bodies, 
including the UN Board of Auditors and the UN Joint Inspection Unit. 
However, both of these bodies strongly resisted having IAAC oversee 
their respective functions, and it was ultimately decided that IAAC 
would focus primarily on the work of OIOS while taking into account the 
work plans of the other UN oversight bodies. State Department officials 
told us they were satisfied overall with the creation of IAAC despite 
the various compromises. The five members of the newly created IAAC 
were elected in November 2007,[Footnote 32] and the committee is 
expected to be operational in January 2008. 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Strengthening OIOS: 

The UN has made some progress in strengthening the Office of Internal 
Oversight Services. The office has strengthened the capacity of its 
internal audit, investigation, and evaluations and inspections 
sections. However, OIOS funding arrangements continue to hinder its 
operational independence. 

Since our last report, OIOS has strengthened the capacity of its 
internal audit, investigation, and evaluations and inspections 
sections. For example, OIOS created nine new audit posts for its 
internal audit division and combined two previously separated internal 
audit divisions in New York and Geneva within a single division. OIOS 
established a professional practices section--fully staffed with six 
regular staff and three general services staff--that is responsible for 
(1) implementing OIOS's risk assessment framework, (2) implementing a 
quality assurance program, (3) devising productivity tools, and (4) 
improving performance reporting to management. OIOS also established an 
information and communication technology section, which has developed 
an audit strategy and conducted risk assessments for the information 
and communication technology functions of various departments at 
headquarters. 

Several steps have also been taken to improve OIOS's investigations 
division. Member states decided to keep investigations in OIOS rather 
than move it to the Secretariat's Office of Legal Affairs, despite a 
July 2006 external evaluation's recommendation to shift the 
investigations function to a department in the Secretariat. OIOS argued 
that such a shift would significantly diminish the UN's oversight 
functions by potentially compromising the independence of 
investigations and creating a potential conflict of interest. Since 
2006, about 16 new posts have been created for the investigations 
division. OIOS has established a separate special investigations task 
force for sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as a procurement 
investigations task force. 

Finally, OIOS has made progress in reducing its range of functions and 
improving the capacity of its evaluations and inspections sections. For 
example, in order to reduce some of its multiple responsibilities and 
focus more directly on its oversight responsibilities, the office has 
shifted several nonoversight related functions to the UN Department of 
Management, including its consulting function. In addition, in 2006, 
the evaluation section was strengthened by the addition of two posts to 
increase the number of evaluations that can be undertaken. 

Funding arrangements at OIOS continue to impede the independence of 
internal auditors. OIOS is designed to be an operationally independent 
entity responsible for assisting the Secretary-General in fulfilling 
his internal oversight responsibilities of the resources and staff of 
the UN through internal audit, monitoring, inspection, evaluation, and 
investigations. However, OIOS faces two conflicts that have been 
impeding its independence: (1) OIOS's budget is subject to the review 
of the Department of Management, for which OIOS has oversight 
responsibility, and (2) OIOS must negotiate funding for nearly two- 
thirds of its budget with the entities it is chartered to audit. 
Without operational independence, OIOS is constrained in its ability to 
prevent or mitigate risks to the UN's resources and personnel. These 
risks include fraud, waste, abuse, inefficiencies, and mismanagement. 
In April 2006, we reported that UN funding arrangements adversely 
affect OIOS's budgetary independence and constrain its ability to audit 
high-risk areas.[Footnote 33] For example, OIOS depends on the 
resources of the funds, programs, and other entities it audits, and the 
managers of these programs can deny OIOS permission to perform work or 
not pay OIOS for services. State and OIOS generally agreed with our 
overall findings and recommendations. 

Discussion of the revision of OIOS's funding arrangements was deferred 
from the 61st to the 62nd session of the General Assembly due to a lack 
of consensus on funding issues.[Footnote 34] In its report to the 62nd 
session on its activities between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007, OIOS 
reiterated that the UN does not yet have a formal and structural 
internal control framework that would provide reasonable assurance to 
management that its financial resources are being handled effectively 
and that its objectives are being achieved. OIOS pointed out that 
serious deficiencies in internal controls have left the UN susceptible 
to mismanagement and fraud, particularly regarding procurement 
activities in Sudan and Congo.[Footnote 35] OIOS reported that its 
internal audit division continues to rely directly on organizations 
funded from extra-budgetary resources to provide the resources 
necessary to finance a portion of its functions. This reliance does not 
allow the division to focus its attention on the areas of highest risk 
and constrains the implementation of its audit work plan. For example, 
it reported that OIOS is unable to provide reasonable assurance that 
all high-risk areas have been identified and are being addressed in the 
United Nations Environment Programs. OIOS concluded that its dependence 
on extra-budgetary funding significantly affects its independence. 

Steps to Improve Procurement Have Been Taken: 

The UN Secretariat has improved the UN procurement process, but a 
number of reform issues have not moved forward since our October 2006 
report. Some progress has been made in strengthening the procedures for 
its procurement staff and suppliers, developing a comprehensive 
training program for procurement staff, and developing a risk 
management framework. However, the UN has made little or no progress in 
establishing an independent bid protest system and creating a lead 
agency concept for procurements, whereby specific UN organizations 
would procure certain goods and services in order to enhance division 
of labor, reduce duplication, and reduce costs. In addition, since our 
October 2006 report, other organizational issues have arisen that may 
affect the UN's procurement reform efforts. Progress on UN procurement 
reform is shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3: Progress on UN Procurement Reform: 

This figure is a chart showing progress on UN procurement reform. 

Sept. 2005: UN World Summit: Following the 2005 World Summit, the UN 
set out to improve the procurement functions of the Secretariat; 

Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: As of October 2006, the General Assembly 
had authorized additional procurement staff and the Procurement 
Division had strengthened some procedures, initiated ethics training 
and begun establishing a risk management framework. However, an 
independent bid protest system had not been established and a UN-wide 
lead agency concept had not been approved; 

Nov. 2007: Current Status: 

Strengthen procurement procedures: Some progress: The Secretariat has 
strengthened postemployment restrictions and revised the code of 
conduct for suppliers but has not approved increasing the Headquarters 
Committee on Contractsï¿½ threshold from $200,000 to $500,000; 

Develop a training program for procurement staff: Some progress: A 
comprehensive training program is being developed. The General
Assembly authorized $800,000 for training in 2007. All Headquarters 
staff received ethics training in 2007 and training for field staff, 
who handle a large portion of procurement funds, is under way; 

Develop a risk management framework: Some progress: A Planning, 
Compliance, and Monitoring Section was established and a chief 
appointed in July 2007. The process of developing a risk management 
framework is under way; 

Establish an independent bid protest system: Little or no progress: The 
system has not been established. In the absence of a formal process, 
the UN Procurement Division generally provides certain information on 
contract decisions to unsuccessful bidders; 

Establish a lead agency concept: Little or no progress: Member states 
have not approved the concept. UN Procurement Division officials told 
us they work informally with several UN agencies on procurements of 
certain items; 

Related issues: Several procurement-related reform issues have not 
moved forward due to the reorganization of the Department of 
Peacekeeping Operations. 

Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken 
on the reform effort. 

Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform 
effort, while others remain. 

Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly 
or fully implemented. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of UN data. 

[End of figure] 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Strengthening Procurement Procedures for 
UN Staff and Suppliers: 

The UN Secretariat has made some progress in strengthening the 
operating procedures for its procurement staff and suppliers. In 
December 2006, the Secretariat issued a bulletin on postemployment 
restrictions for former UN staff involved in procurement. The bulletin 
was issued following several incidents in recent years in which UN 
officials and former officials were involved in unethical and improper 
procurement activities.[Footnote 36] The December 2006 bulletin 
requires that former UN staff members, for 1 year following UN 
employment, are prohibited from accepting employment or compensation 
from any UN contractor and, for 2 years, are prohibited from acting on 
behalf of others in procurement-related matters. In an additional 
measure to strengthen its procedures, the UN also issued, in May 2007, 
a revised supplier code of conduct. The code requires that suppliers 
are responsible for adhering to the postemployment restrictions by not 
employing former UN staff members for at least 1 year following a staff 
member's separation from the UN. However, a proposal to increase the 
minimum threshold for contracts required to be reviewed by the 
Headquarters Committee on Contracts from $200,000 to $500,000 has not 
been approved. OIOS previously recommended that the threshold be 
increased, and, according to Procurement Division officials, increasing 
the threshold would assist in expediting procurements and better 
utilizing their time. 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Developing a Training Program for UN 
Procurement Staff: 

The UN Procurement Division has made some progress in developing a 
comprehensive training program for procurement staff. Although the 
program is not expected to be formally in place until early 2008, 
procurement staff are currently being trained in contracting, 
acquisition, and other specialized subjects. The training is part of a 
development plan to provide a career path for procurement staff--those 
who complete the training will be eligible to be certified by 
internationally recognized procurement institutions.[Footnote 37] In 
addition, according to UN Procurement Division officials, all 
procurement staff in headquarters received ethics training in 2007. As 
of October 2007, some field staff had received the ethics training and, 
according to UN officials, the UN expects to have provided the training 
to all field staff by the end of March 2008. 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Developing a Risk Management Framework: 

The UN Procurement Division has made some progress in its efforts to 
develop a risk management framework. In July 2007, a Planning, 
Compliance, and Monitoring Section was established and a chief was 
appointed to establish tools to detect potential transaction problems 
and minimize risks. Also, a proposal for implementing the concept of 
best-value-for-money is under development and expected to be put into 
practice by the Procurement Division in March 2008. In addition, the UN 
Department of Management is in the initial planning stages of 
establishing a UN-wide risk management framework, known as the 
Enterprise Risk Management concept. However, as of September 2007, the 
concept is still in the planning stages, time frames and costs for its 
implementation have not been established, and risks associated with 
procurement activities remain. For example, the OIOS Procurement Task 
Force reported in October 2007 that it had found multiple instances of 
fraud, waste, and mismanagement--including 10 instances of fraud and 
corruption in cases with an aggregate value of over $610 million-- 
resulting in misappropriation of resources or the unjust enrichment of 
vendors and their agents in excess of $25 million. The task force 
reported that a number of cases have been referred to national 
authorities for criminal prosecution or to the UN for consideration of 
subsequent legal action. It has also recommended civil recovery of 
monetary damages.[Footnote 38] 

Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Establishing an Independent Bid 
Protest System: 

As of October 2007, an independent bid protest system had not been 
established. The lack of an independent bid protest system limits the 
transparency of the procurement process by not providing a means for a 
vendor to protest the outcome of a contract decision to an independent 
official or office. Such a system would provide reasonable assurance 
that vendors are treated fairly when bidding and would also help alert 
senior UN management to situations involving questions about UN 
compliance. According to the UN Procurement Division, a draft process, 
which includes an emphasis on best practices from public-and private- 
sector procurements, is expected to be finalized by the first quarter 
of 2008. Procurement Division officials told us that, in the meantime, 
they have enhanced communications with vendors, including developing a 
more systematic debriefing procedure for vendors whose bids were 
unsuccessful. 

Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Establishing a Lead Agency 
Concept for Procurement: 

The UN has made little or no progress in establishing a lead agency 
concept, whereby specific UN organizations would procure certain goods 
and services in order to enhance division of labor, reduce duplication, 
and reduce costs. For example, the World Food Program might be best 
suited to procure items for air transport needs, while the UN Inter- 
Agency Procurement Services Office might be best at procuring certain 
vehicles. In a report on procurement reform submitted to the General 
Assembly in June 2006, the UN projected that implementation of the lead 
agency concept would take 6 to 12 months.[Footnote 39] However, in 
December 2006, the General Assembly did not approve a proposal to adopt 
the concept. In the absence of the General Assembly's approval, 
Procurement Division officials told us they have established informal 
relationships with several UN organizations that, under current rules 
and regulations, facilitate the procurement of certain specialized 
goods and services, as needed. 

Several Procurement-Related Issues Have Not Moved Forward Due to DPKO 
Reorganization: 

The General Assembly did not consider several procurement reform issues 
during the recently completed 61st session because of the UN's June 
2007 reorganization of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 
(DPKO). Issues that are currently unclear include operational 
procedures,[Footnote 40] such as establishing lines of accountability, 
delegation of authority, and the responsibilities of the Departments of 
Management and Peacekeeping Operations.[Footnote 41] Because of the 
reorganization, announced by the Secretary-General in February 2007, 
the Secretariat did not submit several reports on procurement during 
the 61st session, as requested by the General Assembly. According to 
Secretariat officials, they did not submit the reports mainly because 
the reorganization of the DPKO created several procurement-related 
concerns that have not yet been addressed. 

Steps to Improve the Management Operations of the Secretariat Have Been 
Taken: 

The UN has taken actions to improve some of the management operations 
of the Secretariat, but many reform proposals still have not moved 
forward. Some progress has been made on issues involving human 
resources and information technology, while little or no progress has 
been made in reforming the UN's internal justice system, reforming 
certain budgetary and financial management functions, and improving the 
delivery of certain services. Since our October 2006 report, the 
Secretariat has issued several reports on management operations that 
the General Assembly is expected to consider during the current (62nd) 
session. Progress on reforming management operations of the UN 
Secretariat is shown in figure 4. 

Figure 4: Progress on Reforming Management Operations of the UN 
Secretariat: 

This figure is a chart showing progress on reforming management 
operations of the UN secretariat. 

Sept. 2005: UN World Summit: Following the 2005 World Summit, the UN 
set out to improve numerous management operations of the Secretariat; 

Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: As of October 2006, the UN had taken 
steps to address some human resource and information technology issues 
but had made little or no progress on several other activities; 

Nov. 2007: Current status: 

Improve human resource functions: Some progress: The Secretariat has 
issued several proposals that could improve
some human resource functions, but many of these proposals are
still awaiting General Assembly review. The Secretariat has not
completed reviews and analyses of several other reform proposals; 

Improve information technology: Some progress: A chief information 
technology officer was named in July 2007, but
the Secretariat has not begun to implement a new information
system; 

Reform the UN's internal justice system: Little or no progress: In July 
2006, an independent external panel of experts reported
that the UNï¿½s internal justice system was outdated, ineffective, and
compromised. Although the General Assembly agreed in April 2007
to establish a new system, many important aspects of it, such as
organizational relationships, personnel, and funding, are still
unclear. Also, according to the Secretariat, the new system is not
expected to be established until January 2009; 

Reform certain budgetary and financial measures: Little or no progress: 
The General Assembly has rejected some proposed reforms and
taken no action on others. The Secretariat is reviewing several
proposals, such as the management of trust funds and
consolidation of budget accounts; 

Improve the delivery of certain services: Little or no progress: The 
Secretariat has not completed cost-benefit analyses of internal
printing and publishing processes, medical insurance plan
administration, and other proposals, but has initiated several
projects to address other reform proposals; 

Related issues: 

* Many existing rules, policies, and regulations that are used to 
manage the UNï¿½s operations are outdated and do not reflect the changing 
structure of the UN; 
 
* In the absence of a new internal justice system, the rights of UN 
staff are not adequately safeguarded.

Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken 
on the reform effort. 

Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform 
effort, while others remain.

Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly 
or fully implemented.

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of UN data. 

[End of figure] 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Improving Human Resource Functions: 

The UN has made some progress in improving human resource functions. 
Since we issued our October 2006 report, the UN Secretariat has issued 
several reports with proposals that, if implemented, could improve some 
human resource functions. However, the proposals are, in large part, 
still awaiting General Assembly review. In addition, the Secretariat 
has not completed reviews and analyses of other human resource reform 
proposals. 

In late September 2006--too late for inclusion in our October 6, 2006 
report--the Secretary-General released a report entitled Investing in 
People that included a human resources management framework aimed at 
strengthening the UN's human resources goals.[Footnote 42] The report 
included discussions of several human resources issues and specifically 
stated that: 

* staff mobility is essential to creating a more-versatile, 
multiskilled, experienced staff capable of handling the UN's 
operations, which have changed dramatically in the last 20 years; 

* an effective career development policy serves both the UN and its 
staff members by building and maintaining an international civil 
service capable of meeting the UN's present and future needs, as well 
as meeting the development needs and aspirations of the staff; and: 

* a one-time staff buyout could enable the Secretary-General to realign 
staff to meet the UN's changing priorities, while facilitating 
retirement or separation of staff who can no longer meet their career 
aspirations. 

The General Assembly considered the report during the 61st session and, 
in large part, postponed making decisions on key issues.[Footnote 43] 
For example, in a January 2007 resolution, the General Assembly 
postponed decisions regarding streamlining contractual arrangements and 
harmonizing conditions of service and rejected the proposed one- time 
staff buyout. Also, since its May 2006 rejection of the concept, the 
General Assembly has not taken steps to redefine the role of the Deputy 
Secretary-General to assume formal authority and accountability for the 
management and overall direction of the operational functions of the 
Secretariat. 

From March to May 2007, the Secretariat submitted reports to the 
General Assembly, as requested, on human resource issues such as 
recruiting and staffing, conditions of service, and contractual 
arrangements. However, because of the General Assembly's focus on the 
reorganization of the DPKO and other issues during that time frame, the 
General Assembly did not consider these issues, which are currently 
rescheduled for consideration during the 62nd session. According to 
U.S. and UN officials and most of the 17 member state delegates we 
spoke with, reforming these and other human resource functions is 
likely to continue to be difficult because of long-standing 
disagreements among member states. 

Some Progress Has Been Made in Improving Information Technology: 

The UN has made some progress in improving information technology. The 
position of chief information technology officer (CITO), created by the 
General Assembly in August 2006, was filled in July 2007, and the 
official took office in September 2007. The leadership of a CITO is 
necessary to help ensure greater integration of the Secretariat's 
workflow and knowledge management by allowing program objectives to be 
integrated with budgetary and financial data into one process, with the 
goal of enabling the Secretariat to act more transparently and 
efficiently in managing staff and procuring goods and services of 
greater quality and quantity, at lower levels of risk. The CITO is 
especially important at the present time because the UN is in the 
process of developing a new organizationwide information system--known 
as the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system--to replace its 
antiquated integrated management information system. Creation of the 
ERP has been in the planning process for several years, and, according 
to Secretariat officials, implementation of the system is expected to 
start in 2008. During the planning process, the UN has worked with 
potential vendors to help ensure that the new system, when implemented, 
will adequately support the global functions of the UN, including an 
ever-growing number of peacekeeping missions. As of October 2007, the 
Secretariat had not selected the firm that will implement the new 
system. According to UN officials, the Secretariat is expected to 
announce a decision in 2008. 

The Secretary-General did not submit a comprehensive report on 
information management, including cost estimates, in March 2007, as 
requested by the General Assembly. According to UN officials, the 
report was not submitted because the ERP planning process was ongoing, 
a CITO had not yet been named, and the Secretariat was still collecting 
data on information technology and other issues. The Secretariat plans 
to present reports on information technology to the General Assembly 
during the 62nd session, on topics such as the implementation of the 
ERP and governance of information and communications technology. 

Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Reforming the UN's Internal 
Justice System: 

The UN has made little or no progress in reforming its internal justice 
system. According to a July 2006 report by an independent external 
panel of experts,[Footnote 44] the UN's internal justice system was 
outdated, ineffective, and compromised. The panel's report concluded 
that effective reform of the UN is not possible without an efficient, 
independent, and well-resourced internal justice system that safeguards 
the rights of staff members and effectively helps ensure the 
accountability of managers and staff members. Although the General 
Assembly agreed in April 2007 to establish a new internal justice 
system, many issues involving organizational relationships, personnel, 
and funding of the new system are still unclear. As of October 2007, 
the General Assembly had yet to decide who would be covered by the new 
system, how judges within the Office of the Ombudsman would be 
nominated and selected, and what resources would be needed. According 
to the Secretariat, member states aim to implement the new system by 
January 2009. 

Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Reforming Certain Budgetary and 
Financial Management Functions: 

Since our October 2006 report, the UN has made little or no progress in 
improving certain budgetary and financial management functions. The 
General Assembly has rejected some proposed reforms and taken no action 
on others. For example, to improve cash management and operational 
flexibility, the Secretary-General proposed that peacekeeping accounts 
be consolidated. In July 2007, the General Assembly rejected this 
proposal. The Secretary-General also proposed to improve strategic 
budgetary planning and implementation by reducing the number of 
sections in the budget from 35 sections to 13, and provided detailed 
information on this proposal in May 2006. However, as of October 2007, 
the General Assembly had not taken action on the proposal. Other 
financial management reform proposals that have not been adopted 
include retaining budget surpluses for use in subsequent periods, 
charging interest on arrears of member states' assessed contributions, 
and creating a separate account to cover certain unanticipated 
expenditures arising from exchange rate fluctuations and inflation. The 
Secretariat has prepared a number of reports that the General Assembly 
is scheduled to review during the current (62nd) session and is 
reviewing other proposed reform actions, such as the management of 
trust funds. 

Little or No Progress Has Been Made in Improving the Delivery of 
Certain Services: 

The UN has made little or no progress in improving the delivery of 
certain services. In May 2006, the General Assembly asked the Secretary-
General to conduct several cost-benefit analyses to determine whether 
certain UN services could be improved. Among the services are internal 
printing and publishing processes; medical insurance plan 
administration; information technology support; payables, receivables, 
and payroll processes; and staff benefits administration. Subsequently, 
the Secretariat initiated several projects to address these reform 
proposals but has not completed its analyses. For example, the 
Secretariat is currently collecting data from staff participants in the 
UN medical plan and reviewing alternative delivery methods for payroll 
and other functions. 

The Secretariat has not issued a comprehensive report on public access 
to UN documentation, which the General Assembly requested be submitted 
during the 61st session. The Secretariat developed a detailed policy 
proposal that includes resource requirements, financing mechanisms, and 
proposal of a fee structure. However, according to Secretariat 
officials, the Secretary-General intends to discuss the proposal with 
member states before formally submitting it. 

Limited Steps Have Been Taken on the Review of UN Programs and 
Activities: 

Although UN member states agreed to continue a review of UN programs 
and activities (known as mandates) in 2007, no actions have been taken 
to eliminate or consolidate mandates. Member states continue to 
disagree on the scope and process of the review and lack the capacity 
to carry out the review, according to State. Consultations among member 
states on how to move forward on the issue will continue into the 62nd 
session. Progress in reviewing UN programs and activities is shown in 
figure 5. 

Figure 5: Progress on Review of UN Programs and Activities (known as 
Mandates): 

This figure is a chart showing progress on review of UN programs and 
activities (known as mandates); 

Sept. 2005: World summit: Following the UN World Summit in 2005, member 
states set out to review all UN programs and activities, known as 
mandates, that were created 5 or more years ago, to strengthen and 
update UN programs and activities and more accurately reflect the 
current needs of the organization; 

Oct. 2006: As reported by GAO: In March 2006, the Secretariat 
identified more than 6,900 UN mandates that were 5 years old or older 
to be included in the review. Since April 2006, there had been ongoing 
discussions on mandates. As part of the review of mandates originating 
from the General Assembly, member states agreed to set aside 74 
completed mandates, and no agreement had been reached on any of the 
remaining mandates; 

Nov. 2007: Current Status: 

Phase I: Some progress: The review of all mandates 5 years old or older 
and not renewed was completed in November 2006. The review covered 626
mandates originating from the General Assembly. Member states
agreed to set aside 74 completed mandates and requested more
information from the Secretariat on 15 mandates. No decision was
made on what to do with the remaining 537 mandates; 

Phase II: Little or no progress: The review of all mandates 5 years old 
or older, both renewed and not renewed, is being conducted in nine 
thematic clusters. Phase II was delayed between January and May 2007 
due to the lack of a co-chair on a mandate review working group. Only 
one of the nine clusters had been reviewed as of October 2007; 

GAO comments: 

* Member states continue to disagree on the scope and process of 
mandate review and lack the capacity to carry out the review; 

* No mandates have been eliminated or consolidated as a result of the 
review.

Little or no progress = Evidence that few or no steps have been taken 
on the reform effort. 

Some progress = Evidence that some steps have been taken on the reform 
effort, while others remain.

Substantial progress = Evidence that the reform effort has been mostly 
or fully implemented.

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of UN data. 

[End of figure] 

In 2005, UN member states agreed to complete a review of all UN 
mandates[Footnote 45] with the goal of strengthening and updating them 
to more accurately reflect the needs of the organization. After some 
initial minor progress, this effort has diminished substantially due to 
member states' ongoing disagreements on the scope and process of the 
review. In addition, the review has not advanced due to the lack of 
capacity among member states to evaluate the mandates in a substantive 
matter, according to State. 

Phase I of mandate review, which covered all mandates 5 years old or 
older and not renewed that originated from the General Assembly, was 
completed in November 2006.[Footnote 46] We reported in 2006 that 
throughout the Phase I review, member states disagreed on which 
mandates to include in the review and what to do with any savings 
generated by the potential elimination or consolidation of mandates, 
which led to limited or slow progress. Members of the G-77[Footnote 47] 
contended that the scope of the review should include only those 
mandates 5 years old or older that have not been reviewed since they 
were adopted. Phase I thus consisted of a review of 626 mandates 
originating from the General Assembly. As a result of Phase I, member 
states agreed to set aside 74 completed mandates and requested more 
information from the Secretariat on 15 mandates.[Footnote 48] No 
agreement was reached on the remaining mandates, and no mandates were 
consolidated or eliminated as a result of the review. 

Member states agreed to carry out a Phase II review of mandates to 
include mandates both renewed and not renewed. The planned approach was 
to review mandates by thematic cluster.[Footnote 49] The initial goal 
for beginning Phase II was January 2007. Phase II was delayed by the 
lack of a co-chair on the Informal Working Group on Mandate Review from 
January 2007 to April 2007 and again from July to October 2007. In 
October 2007, the process was far from complete, with only one of the 
nine clusters addressed. 

On September 17, 2007, the General Assembly, per the request of the 
outgoing President of the General Assembly, adopted an oral decision to 
continue consultations among member states on how to proceed with 
mandate review in the 62nd session. State officials told us that a new 
approach is necessary for the review and that it would be meaningless 
to proceed unless member states identify a process that can achieve 
meaningful results. State also informed us that there was no 
implementation plan for mandate review. New parameters for the 
continuation of the mandate review process have been proposed, but 
progress remains to be seen. 

Various Factors Have Slowed the UN's Management Reform Efforts: 

Various factors have slowed the UN's efforts to improve the management 
of the Secretariat, and many remaining UN management reforms cannot 
move forward until these factors are addressed. During our review, we 
identified four key factors that hinder progress on UN management 
reforms: (1) disagreements among member states on UN management reform 
efforts, (2) lack of comprehensive implementation plans for some 
management reform proposals, (3) administrative policies and procedures 
that continue to complicate the process of implementing certain complex 
human resource initiatives, and (4) competing UN priorities, such as 
the proposal to reorganize the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 
that limit the capacity of General Assembly members to address 
management reform issues. 

Disagreements among Member States Continue to Impede Efforts: 

Disagreements within the General Assembly continue to limit the 
implementation of management reforms. Progress on UN management reform 
efforts is dependent in large part on member states reaching consensus, 
which can be a time-consuming process as the UN is composed of 192 
diverse member states that have differing views on a wide array of 
issues. (App. III shows the typical management reform decision-making 
process at the UN for issues requiring General Assembly approval.) In 
October 2006, we reported that disagreements between G-77 and developed 
countries over the broader implications of management reforms may 
affect the UN's ability to fully implement them. 

From April through September 2007, we discussed management reform 
efforts with delegates from 17 member states representing Africa, Asia, 
Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America. In these 
discussions, 15 of the 17 delegations told us that the number one 
challenge to continued progress on management reform efforts is member 
state disagreements on the priorities and importance of the remaining 
reform efforts.[Footnote 50] For example, member states continue to 
disagree on the scope and process of the review of UN mandates, and 
some member states are concerned that mandates important to them will 
be eliminated. For that reason, no mandates have been eliminated or 
consolidated as a result of the reviews--two of the goals of the 
process, according to State. 

Representatives of member states we spoke with repeatedly stated a 
clear need for more constructive engagement on reform efforts, 
particularly between the United States and G-77 countries. For example, 
four member states--Chile, South Africa, Sweden, and Thailand--have 
launched the Four Nations Initiative in an effort to provide new ideas 
and perspectives on governance and management of the UN Secretariat. A 
State official told us the process appears to be a "credible effort" by 
member states that complements the UN management reform process. 
However, he added that other member states' views on this initiative 
and the potential of the initiative to overcome disagreements among 
member states are unclear. 

Lack of Comprehensive Implementation Plans Continues to Impede 
Management Reform Efforts: 

The UN has not developed comprehensive long-term implementation plans 
for some management reform proposals. Establishing implementation plans 
is a practice that increases the transparency and accountability of the 
reform process. We previously recommended that State work with other 
member states to encourage the General Assembly and the Secretary- 
General to include cost estimates and expected time frames for 
implementation and completion of each reform effort as it is approved. 
During our current review, we found little evidence that time frames, 
completion dates, and cost and savings estimates for completing the 
long-term implementation of specific management reforms had been 
established. In addition, most of the approximately 20 cost-benefit 
analyses and other assessments of management reform issues that the 
Secretariat had planned to complete by March 2007 have not yet been 
submitted to the General Assembly. As a result, the total long-term 
costs of the reform efforts, including the U.S. government's share, 
remain unclear.[Footnote 51] Moreover, the UN currently has no formal 
plan to evaluate the effectiveness of its management reform efforts to 
determine whether they have achieved the goals set out in the 2005 
World Summit outcome document. 

Administrative Policies and Procedures Continue to Complicate Human 
Resource Reform Efforts: 

Administrative policies and procedures, such as staff regulations and 
rules that are directed by the General Assembly, continue to complicate 
and sometimes restrict the process of implementing certain human 
resources initiatives. Such guidance, some of which has been in 
existence for decades, is part of the UN's existing resource management 
framework that, according to the Secretary-General, still lacks 
flexibility and is largely headquarters-based, though more than half of 
the UN's staff are currently serving in the field. Although the 
Secretariat has made progress on some administrative reform initiatives 
relating to human resources and information technology, it has not 
addressed several other administrative policies and procedures issues, 
including conducting a one-time staff buyout and outsourcing and 
telecommuting for certain administrative services, such as payroll 
processes, staff benefit administration, and information technology 
support. As we discussed in our October 2006 report, the overall 
restrictiveness of these policies and procedures continues to 
complicate the management reform process. 

Competing Priorities Slow UN Management Reform Efforts: 

Since our October 2006 report, competing priorities within the 
Secretariat and General Assembly have limited the capacity of General 
Assembly members to address the remaining management reform 
issues.[Footnote 52] In February 2007, for example, several procurement-
related reform issues, such as clear lines of responsibility and 
accountability, delegation of authority, and internal controls, were 
not taken into consideration by the General Assembly during the spring 
2007 session, as planned. The General Assembly did not address these 
issues because the new Secretary-General concurrently proposed a 
reorganization of the DPKO, which absorbed much of the General 
Assembly's attention throughout the session. As a result, the 
Secretariat decided not to issue several procurement reports during the 
spring 2007 session, without which member states told us they were 
unable to formally consider certain procurement- related reform issues. 

Conclusions: 

Reforming the management of the United Nations has been a priority of 
the U.S. government for many years, as long-standing weaknesses and 
inefficiencies in UN management functions have persisted. Although 
there has been progress in implementing several components of the 2005 
reform agenda, some key components remain to be implemented. Completion 
of the reform agenda will require overcoming several factors, 
particularly disagreements among member states regarding how to achieve 
the goals they agreed to at the 2005 World Summit. Some past reform 
efforts remain incomplete because they did not get sustained and broad 
support of member states. The current effort faces this same risk. 
Moreover, while implementation of the reform agenda is a necessary 
element in meeting the goals of the 2005 World Summit outcome document, 
it is not in itself sufficient. Successful management reform requires 
that its components are ultimately effective in modernizing the 
management functions of the United Nations. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To encourage UN member states to continue to pursue the reform agenda 
of the 2005 World Summit, we recommend that, as management reforms are 
implemented over time, the Secretary of State and the U.S. Permanent 
Representative to the UN include in State's annual U.S. Participation 
in the United Nations report an assessment of the effectiveness of the 
reforms. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Department of 
State and the UN Secretariat. State's comments are reprinted in 
appendix II, along with our responses to specific points. The UN 
Secretariat did not provide written comments. 

State endorsed the main findings and conclusions of our report and 
noted that our assessment of UN progress on management reform efforts 
was accurate and balanced. State also agreed fully with the need to 
keep Congress informed of the effectiveness of management reforms, 
adding that the department will continue to monitor and inform 
Congress, as we recommended. In addition, State agreed with us that 
more could be done to ensure credible oversight at the UN. Furthermore, 
State noted that we correctly recognize the need for the UN to 
establish a formal internal control framework. 

State did not agree with our statement that successful whistleblower 
protections cannot be established without substantial reform of the 
UN's internal justice program. During our review, we found that UN and 
nongovernmental organization staff had concerns about weaknesses in the 
UN internal justice system and the potential impact of these weaknesses 
on the implementation of a successful whistleblower protection policy. 
We agree with these concerns. State also notes that the General 
Assembly's approval of the creation of an independent bid protest 
system was a critical first step toward enhancing transparency in the 
UN's procurement award process. However, per our methodology, we 
categorize this reform effort under "little or no progress" because 
there was evidence that few or no steps had been taken towards actual 
implementation of the system. State said it understood that this 
assessment was consistent with our evaluation methodology. 

State and the UN Secretariat provided technical comments that we have 
incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 

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

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or [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 contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Thomas Melito:

Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To identify and examine the progress of UN management reforms, we 
reviewed key documents proposing United Nations (UN) management reforms 
and interviewed officials from several UN departments in New York. We 
obtained and reviewed official reports of the Secretariat and the 
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Advisory Committee on 
Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) documents, General 
Assembly resolutions, Secretary-General bulletins, Web sites, related 
budget documents, and statements from UN officials. We also interviewed 
senior officials from UN departments in New York City. Specifically, we 
met with officials from the General Assembly Office of the President, 
the Office of the Deputy Secretary-General, the Department of 
Management, and OIOS. During the course of our review, we discussed the 
status of UN management reforms with officials from the Department of 
State in Washington, D.C., and the UN in New York. We also met with 
representatives from 17 of 192 member states representing various 
geographic regions, including Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, 
North America, and South America, to obtain a balance of views on the 
most critical challenges to reforming UN management. 

We selected management reform issues in the key areas of ethics, 
oversight, management operations of the Secretariat, and review of 
programs and activities (known as mandates) to examine in more 
detail.[Footnote 53] We determined that these were the key areas of 
management reform through our review of UN documents and our 
discussions with UN and U.S. officials. We focused our work on 
management reforms that began in 2005 and did not specifically address 
the 1997 and 2002 reform agendas. The 2005 reforms applied to the 
Secretariat and the UN's governing bodies, including the General 
Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council. We 
did not include in our review reforms targeted at UN specialized 
agencies or UN funds and programs; we also excluded efforts such as the 
UN Peace Building Commission and Security Council and governance 
reforms. We did not evaluate the effectiveness of the reform efforts 
because of the recentness of their implementation. 

To assess the progress of the UN reform efforts we reviewed, we 
developed the following three categories: 

* Little or no progress: There is evidence that few or no steps have 
been taken on the reform effort. 

* Some progress: There is evidence that some steps have been taken on 
the reform effort, while others remain. 

* Substantial progress: There is evidence that the reform effort has 
been mostly or fully implemented. 

During our review, we determined which category of progress to assign 
to each reform effort based on documents we collected and discussions 
we had with State, UN, and other officials. After we made our initial 
assessments of progress, three other GAO staff members not involved in 
this review used the evidence and the categories to make their own 
assessments independently of each other. These staff members then met 
with each other to reconcile any differences in their initial 
assessments. Finally, they met with us and confirmed that we were all 
in agreement on our assessments. 

To identify factors slowing the progress of the UN reforms we examined, 
we reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General 
Assembly, OIOS, and the ethics office. In addition, we spoke with UN 
officials in New York. These included officials from the Office of the 
Deputy Secretary-General, the Department of Management, ACABQ, and 
OIOS. We also met with representatives from several member states and 
spoke with U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and New York. We also 
interviewed outside observers of the UN system, including 
nongovernmental organizations and members of academia. 

Many cost estimates for the proposed reform initiatives are 
preliminary, and detailed longer-term cost estimates are being 
developed; therefore, we did not analyze the assumptions underlying 
these estimates to determine whether they are reasonable and reliable. 
However, we believe that the cost estimates and the associated funds 
that the General Assembly has appropriated to date for reform efforts 
are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We conducted our work from March to November 2007 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

United States Department of State: 
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial 
Officer: 
Washington, D. C. 20520: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

November 2, 2007: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "United 
Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied," GAO Job 
Code 320483.

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Matthew Glockner, Program Analyst, Bureau of International Organization 
Affairs, at (202) 647-6413.

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

cc: GAO ï¿½ Phillip Thomas: 
IO ï¿½ James Warlick:  
State/OIG ï¿½ Mark Duda: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report United Nations: 
Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied (GAO-08-84, GAO Code 
320483): 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled 
United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied. The 
Department of State has long been a strong supporter of efforts to 
improve the management of the United Nations and welcomes the GAO 
report on this subject. The report provides timely information on 
several aspects of the ongoing effort to revitalize the administration 
of the United Nations. The previous GAO report (GAO-07-14) examined 
progress made on management reforms during the initial twelve months 
following the September 2005 UN World Summit. This subsequent review 
provides an updated picture of the continuing efforts by Member States 
and the UN Secretariat to strengthen ethics, oversight, and procurement 
systems, improve the operations of the Secretariat, and review UN 
program mandates.

The Department of State endorses the main findings and conclusions of 
the GAO report. We believe that GAO's assessment of progress is both 
accurate and balanced. As the report notes, the United Nations has made 
more substantial progress in some areas than in others. To help move 
the reform process forward, the GAO recommends that the Department of 
State include an assessment of the effectiveness of major UN management 
reforms in the annual "U.S. Participation in the United Nations" report 
to Congress. The Department of State agrees fully with the need to keep 
Congress informed of the effectiveness of management reforms. In fact, 
we believe that an assessment of impact will be a particularly useful 
measure of progress, and we will continue to monitor and inform 
Congress as recommended.

The GAO makes several observations concerning the status of UN ethics 
systems. The Department of State considers these reforms particularly 
important to fostering integrity and ethical conduct. GAO notes that 
both the United Nations and a public interest group expressed concerns 
that the success of the whistleblower protections depends, in part, 
upon reform of the UN's internal system for the administration of 
justice. While we recognize that reforms of the internal justice system 
could result in an increase in confidence among UN staff concerning the 
whistleblower protections, we do not agree that successful 
whistleblower protections cannot be established without substantial 
reform of the UN's internal justice system. Under the UN's 
whistleblower policy (ST/SGB/2005/21), UN staff should have no reason 
to seek recourse via the internal justice system. The Ethics Office is 
responsible for reviewing complaints of retaliation, determining 
whether there is prima facie case of retaliation, and referring cases 
of retaliation or threatened retaliation to the Office of Internal 
Oversight Services (OIOS) for further investigation. For established 
cases of retaliation or threatened retaliation, the Ethics Office may 
recommend corrective action. At the same time, we acknowledge that 
reform of the internal justice system is long overdue and will continue 
to support efforts in this regard. 

(See comment 1.): 

The GAO also notes the concerns of the United Nations and the 
Department of State regarding the Ethics Office's apparent lack of 
jurisdiction over the UN Funds and Programs. To address this issue, we 
have been stressing the need for a system-wide approach to ethical 
conduct as called for in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. During 
the October 26-27 meeting of the UN System Chief Executives Board for 
Coordination, chaired by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon, the heads 
of the UN Funds and Programs agreed to establish a common code of 
ethics and a unified system for promoting ethical conduct The heads of 
the UN Specialized Agencies also expressed an interest in a system-wide 
approach to ethics. Accordingly, in addition to utilizing existing 
mechanisms within their respective agencies, staff will be able to seek 
the advice and assistance of the UN Ethics Office. The Department of 
State welcomes the decision by the heads of the UN Funds and Programs 
to establish a common code of ethics and a unified system for promoting 
ethical conduct. We plan to press for expedited implementation of this 
recommendation.

The GAO also makes several observations regarding efforts to strengthen 
UN oversight systems. The U.S. Government has long pushed for strong 
oversight mechanisms in the UN system, and we were a driving force 
behind the creation of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee (IAAC) 
in June 2007. The Department of State considers the final terms of 
reference for the IAAC that were adopted to be an important step 
forward that has the potential to be one of the most significant 
oversight-related management reforms to take place at the UN in recent 
years. Yet, we also agree that more can be done to ensure credible 
oversight. In this regard, we continue to press for enhancing the 
operational independence of OIOS. Furthermore, the GAO correctly 
recognizes the need for the United Nations to establish a formal 
internal control framework. Together with risk management, an internal 
control framework would help the United Nations decrease the likelihood 
and potential for mismanagement and malfeasance, as well as enable OIOS 
to focus its work on the areas of highest risk. We continue to press 
the UN Secretariat to expedite completion and circulation of its 
expected reports on accountability, risk-based management and 
enterprise risk management so that Member States can discuss and take 
action on this important issues. 

The Department of State notes the GAO's conclusion that little or no 
progress has been made in establishing an independent bid protest 
system for UN procurements. We understand that this assessment is 
consistent with GAO's evaluation methodology. However, we would like to 
point out that General Assembly resolution 61/246 of December 22, 2006, 
approved the creation of an independent bid protest system. This was a 
critical first step toward enhancing transparency in the UN's 
procurement award process. Even though the Secretariat has not 
finalized the details of this system, the General Assembly's 
endorsement was critical to moving forward. Once fully established, the 
bid protest system should provide a mechanism for vendors to dispute UN 
procurement decisions. 

(See comment 2.): 

The GAO also assessed the status of improvements to the operations of 
the UN Secretariat, including updating human resources practices and 
modernizing information technology systems. The report notes that the 
General Assembly rejected the proposal for a one-time staff buyout. 
Consistent with the recommendation of the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force 
on the United Nations, the Department of State reviewed the Secretary-
General's buyout plan. We determined that a buyout would not result in 
a staff realignment that would reflect the current needs of the 
organization. The buyout plan was costly and did not provide any 
assurance that it would target unwanted or unneeded staff for 
separation. Other Member States shared this assessment, and the 
proposal was broadly rejected.

As the GAO report indicates, implementation of management reforms will 
help sustain the confidence of UN Member States. Promoting good 
management in the UN system has long been a priority for the U.S. 
Government. In this respect, the Department of State has a continuing 
responsibility to evaluate carefully the reform proposals of the 
Secretary-General to determine whether they will fulfill this 
objective. Likewise, other Member States will conduct their own 
evaluations of reform proposals. Implementing reforms will require the 
United States to continue working with other Member States to build 
consensus, which is often a time consuming process that causes the pace 
of reform to proceed more slowly than the United States desires. That 
said, we are strongly committed to sustaining progress on UN management 
reform.

The following are GAO's comments on the State Department's letter dated 
November 2, 2007. 

GAO Comments: 

1. During our review, we found that UN and nongovernmental organization 
staff had concerns about weaknesses in the UN internal justice system 
and the potential impact of these weaknesses on the implementation of a 
successful whistleblower protection policy. We agree with these 
concerns. As we state in our report, without a fair and impartial 
justice system that effectively executes corrective action in cases of 
retaliation or threatened retaliation, staff may not submit cases to 
the ethics office. Also, the annual activities report of the ethics 
office states that protection against retaliation is linked to the 
internal justice system. 

2. State notes that the General Assembly's approval of the creation of 
an independent bid protest system was a critical first step toward 
enhancing transparency in the UN's procurement award process. Per our 
methodology, approving the creation of a protest system, while 
demonstrating intent, is not equivalent to actual implementation of the 
system, which has yet to begin. We categorize this reform effort under 
"little or no progress" because there was evidence that few or no 
implementation steps had been taken. As State notes in its comments, 
our assessment that the UN has made little or no progress in 
establishing an independent bid protest system for UN procurements is 
consistent with our evaluation methodology. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Typical Management Reform Decision-Making Process for 
Issues Requiring General Assembly Approval: 

The management reform decision-making process at the UN involves 
multiple entities. For example, when a management reform has budgetary 
implications, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 
Questions and the Administrative and Budgetary Committee (the Fifth 
Committee) are involved in the process. The Advisory Committee on 
Administrative and Budgetary Questions, a subsidiary organ of the 
General Assembly, consists of 16 members appointed by the assembly in 
their individual capacity. The functions and responsibilities of the 
advisory committee include advising the General Assembly concerning any 
administrative and budgetary matters referred to it. The Fifth 
Committee is the General Assembly's committee for administrative and 
budgetary matters and is composed of all 192 member states. Figure 6 
depicts the typical management reform decision-making process at the UN 
for issues requiring General Assembly approval. 

Figure 6: Typical Management Reform Decision-Making Process for Issues 
Requiring General Assembly Approval: 

This figure is a chart showing typical management reform decision-
making process for issues requiring general assembly approval: 

The Secretary-General submits a report to the General Assembly with a 
reform proposal. 

The ACABQ reviews the Secretary-Generalï¿½s report and then makes 
recommendation to the Fifth Committee. 

The Fifth Committee holds discussions on the proposal and makes
recommendations to the General Assembly. 

The General Assembly makes a final decision on the proposal or requests
more information from the Secretary-General. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: State. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform 
Initiatives, as of October 2007: 

We reported in October 2006 that the Secretariat's estimated costs for 
implementing certain management reform initiatives were approximately 
$40 million. Since then, due to additional actions taken during the 
61st session, the Secretariat's revised cost estimate, as of October 
2007, had risen by about $13 million to approximately $53 million, as 
shown in table 1 below. 

Table 1: Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform 
Initiatives, as of October 2007: 

Dollars in millions. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Increase in the Working 
Capital Fund (from member states' assessments effective Jan. 1, 2007); 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: $15.1; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: $0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: $15.1. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Strengthening of the Office 
of Internal Oversight Services (39 temporary posts); 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 5.8; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 5.8. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Additional funding for the 
new Human Rights Council; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 4.4; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 4.4. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Cost of an independent 
external evaluation on governance and oversight; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 4.3; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 4.3. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: New ethics office; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 2.9; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 2.9. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Cost of a study and 
implementation plan for the new information communications technology 
system; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 2.2; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 2.2. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Start-up cost for the 
International Public Sector Accounting Standards; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 2.0; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 2.0. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Office accommodations for new 
posts at headquarters; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 1.9; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 1.9. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: New chief information 
communications technology officer; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0.3; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 0.3. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Staff selection system in the 
Office of Human Resources Management; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0.2; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 0.2. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Human resource, training, and 
related items; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 4.8; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 4.8. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Office space for the Office 
of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 5.0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 5.0. 

Reform actions: Regular budget resources: Establishment of the 
Independent Audit Advisory Committee; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0.3; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 0.3. 

Reform actions: Subtotal, regular budget resources; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: $39.1; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: $10.1; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: $49.2. 

Reform actions: Peacekeeping support account: Temporary procurement 
service staff (6); 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0.7; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 0; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 0.7. 

Reform actions: Peacekeeping support account: Human resources reforms 
and training for procurement staff; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: 0; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: 2.7; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: 2.7. 

Reform actions: Subtotal, peacekeeping support account; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: $0.7; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: $2.7; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: $3.4. 

Reform actions: Total additional funds approved to date; 
Funds approved (2006-2007 biennium), as of September 2006: $39.8; 
Additional funds approved since September 2006[A]: $12.8; 
Total funds approved, as of October 2007: $52.6. 

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

Notes: The total dollar amount presented in the table attempts to 
address the scope of our report objectives and does not include all 
reform efforts that were a result of the 2005 World Summit, such as the 
Peace Building Commission and the Office of the High Commissioner for 
Human Rights. The Working Capital fund was increased from $100 million 
to $150 million. To cover the increase, $34.9 million will be funded 
from the 2004-2005 budget surplus and $15.1 million from additional 
assessments for 2006-2007. The $34.9 million is an estimate pending the 
Board of Auditors audit for the biennium. According to a Department of 
State official, funds for the review of certain budgetary, financial, 
and human resources policies, including the design of the staff buyout 
program, are being drawn from existing resources. 

[A] Reflects General Assembly action during the 61st session. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant 
Director; Sarah Chankin-Gould; Debbie J. Chung; Lyric Winona Clark; and 
George Taylor made key contributions to this report. Michael Derr, 
Etana Finkler, Grace Lui, Amanda Miller, and Jena Sinkfield provided 
technical assistance. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

United Nations Organizations: Oversight and Accountability Could Be 
Strengthened by Further Instituting International Best Practices. GAO- 
07-597. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2007. 

United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many 
Awaiting General Assembly Review. GAO-07-14. Washington, D.C.: October 
5, 2006. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

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

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

[3] United Nations, Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services 
on the Activities of the Procurement Task Force for the 18-month period 
ended 30 June 2007, A/62-672 (New York, Oct. 5, 2007). 

[4] United Nations, 2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. 
GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (2005). 

[5] GAO, United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with 
Many Awaiting General Assembly Review, GAO-07-14 (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct. 5, 2006). 

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

[7] We define effectiveness as the extent to which reform efforts are 
achieving their goals and objectives. GAO, Government Auditing 
Standards: 2003 Revision, GAO-03-673G (Washington, D.C.: June 2003), 
21. 

[8] We assign "little or no progress" to reform efforts where there is 
evidence that few or no steps have been taken on the reform effort; 
"some progress" to those where there is evidence that some steps have 
been taken on the reform effort, while others remain; and "substantial 
progress" to those where there is evidence that the reform effort has 
been mostly or fully implemented. 

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

[10] The U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York, which has a 
staff of more than 100, represents the United States at the world body. 

[11] Although the Secretary-General does not have direct authority over 
specialized agencies and many funds and programs, many member states 
wanted the reforms at the Secretariat to serve as a model for UN-wide 
reforms, according to State. 

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

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

[14] These studies included a 2004 report of a high-level panel 
convened by the Secretary-General to recommend ways to strengthen the 
UN, a March 2005 Secretary-General report to the General Assembly, a 
June 2005 report by a task force mandated by the U.S. Congress to 
recommend improvements to organizational effectiveness, and several 
reports of the Independent Inquiry Committee, established to 
investigate the Oil for Food Program. See United Nations, A More Secure 
World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the Secretary-General's 
High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (New York, 2004); In 
Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, 
U.N. Doc. A/59/2005; Independent Inquiry Committee into the United 
Nations Oil-for-Food Program, Interim Report (New York, Feb. 3, 2005); 
and The Management of the Oil-for-Food Program (New York, Sept. 7, 
2005). Also see United States Institute of Peace, American Interests 
and UN Reform, Report of the Task Force on the United Nations 
(Washington, D.C., June 2005). 

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

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

[17] In June 2007, we reported on the internal oversight functions at 
six UN organizations other than the Secretariat: the Food and 
Agriculture Organization, International Labor Organization, United 
Nations Development Program, United Nations Children's Fund, World Food 
Program, and World Health Organization. We found that their internal 
audit and evaluation offices had not fully implemented international 
auditing or UN evaluation standards. We also found that the governing 
bodies responsible for their oversight lack full access to internal 
audit reports, and most lack direct information from the audit offices 
about the sufficiency of their resources and capacity to conduct their 
work. To improve oversight in UN organizations, we recommended that the 
Secretary of State direct the U.S. Missions to work with member states 
by (1) making audit reports available to the governing bodies and (2) 
establishing independent audit committees that are accountable to their 
governing bodies. See GAO, United Nations Organizations: Oversight and 
Accountability Could Be Strengthened by Further Instituting 
International Best Practices, GAO-07-597 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 
2007). 

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

[19] GAO-07-14. 

[20] The brochures are Introduction to the Ethics Office, Financial 
Disclosure Programme, Protection against Retaliation, and Conflicts of 
Interest. 

[21] The policy on protection against retaliation for reporting 
misconduct went into effect on January 1, 2006; it formalizes 
protective measures for staff members under the threat of, or 
experiencing, retaliation for duly reported misconduct in their working 
environment, or for cooperating with duly authorized audits or 
investigations. 

[22] For whistleblower retaliation complaints, the ethics office 
consults with the offices of Human Resources Management, Legal Affairs, 
the Ombudsman, and Internal Oversight Services and the secretariat of 
the Joint Appeals Board. 

[23] The Government Accountability Project is a 30-year-old nonprofit 
public interest group that aims to promote government and corporate 
accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending 
whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. For more information, 
visit [hyperlink, http://www.whistleblower.org/]. 

[24] We discuss the reform of the UN's internal justice system later in 
this report. 

[25] The UN system is composed of bodies including the main Secretariat 
and separately administered funds, programs, and specialized agencies. 
For example, funds and programs include the United Nations Children's 
Fund and the United Nations Development Program, which have executive 
boards and executive heads but are under the authority of the UN 
Secretary-General. 

[26] In August 2007, the UN Development Program (UNDP) refused a 
request from the ethics office director to submit to a formal 
investigation regarding the accusation that the program had retaliated 
against an employee who exposed abuse and rules violations in the 
agency's programs in North Korea. In a letter to UNDP in August 2007, 
the director of the ethics office said the ethics office determined 
that the UNDP case was prima facie and pointed out that UNDP did not 
have an applicable protection from retaliation policy. UNDP responded 
that it would appoint its own independent investigator to handle the 
case. Additional allegations of retaliation have since surfaced in UNDP 
programs in Senegal and Turkey. 

[27] Specialized agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture 
Organization, have their own governing bodies and executive heads and 
are not under the authority of the Secretary-General. These agencies, 
which are legally independent international organizations with their 
own rules, membership, organs, and financial resources, were brought 
into relationship with the United Nations through negotiated 
agreements. 

[28] United Nations, Activities of the Ethics Office, UN Doc. A/62/285. 

[29] The policy applies to staff at the director level and above, staff 
whose principal duties include procurement or investment functions, 
staff with access to confidential procurement or investment 
information, and staff serving in the ethics office. 

[30] The General Assembly chose PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP to conduct 
an external review of staff members' financial disclosure and 
declaration of interest statements in December 2006. 

[31] A March 31 deadline will apply in future years, according to the 
ethics office. 

[32] The five members are from India, Jamaica, the Russian Federation, 
Uganda, and the United States. They were elected from a pool of 
candidates from five geographic regions: Asia; Latin America and the 
Caribbean; Eastern Europe; Africa; and Western Europe and other states. 
The member from the United States is the Honorable David M. Walker, 
Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office. 

[33] GAO-06-575. 

[34] The General Assembly's 61st session began in September 2006, and 
its 62nd session began in September 2007. 

[35] See United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General, Report on the 
Activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services for the Period 
from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007, A/62/281 (Part I). 

[36] GAO, United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and 
Areas for Further Investigation, GAO-04-953T (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 
2004); and United Nations: Oil for Food Program Audits, GAO-05-346T 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2005). 

[37] The American Certification Institute and the International 
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management Institute provide certification 
for procurement professionals. 

[38] United Nations, Report of the Office of Internal Oversight 
Services on the Activities of the Procurement Task Force for the 18- 
month period ended 30 June 2007, A/62-672 (Oct. 5, 2007). According to 
this report, the task force continues to examine cases and is funded 
through 2007. The report also states that it is unlikely that these 
cases will be finalized under the current arrangements. 

[39] United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General, Investing in the 
United Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide: detailed report 
addendum, A/60/846/Add.5 (June 16, 2006). 

[40] In February 2007, the UN Secretary-General proposed a 
reorganization of DPKO into an operational unit and a support unit in 
order to strengthen the unity of command. The new support unit, known 
as the Department of Field Support, is expected to give peacekeepers 
more control over such issues as procurement of goods for troops. 

[41] As of October 2007, GAO had begun reviews of the reorganization of 
the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. 

[42] A/61/255. 

[43] A/RES/61/244. 

[44] United Nations, Report of the Redesign Panel on the United Nations 
system of administration of justice, A/61/205 (July 28, 2006). The 
Secretary-General established this panel of independent external 
experts in January 2006 to review and possibly redesign the internal 
justice system. Although the reform effort was not included in the 2005 
World Summit outcome document, we included it in the scope of our 
review because it is related to ethics and human resource reform. 

[45] Mandate review issues include peace and security; promotion of 
sustained economic growth and sustainable development; development of 
Africa; promotion of human rights; effective coordination of 
humanitarian assistance efforts; promotion of justice and international 
law; disarmament; drug control, crime prevention and combating 
international terrorism; and organizational, administrative and other 
matters. For example, in one mandate, the General Assembly urged the 
Secretary-General to provide the United Nations Office on Drugs and 
Crime with the resources necessary to enable it to promote the 
implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. 

[46] Mandates originate from three principal UN entities--the General 
Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council. 
For the purpose of this report, we focused on the General Assembly's 
review process. 

[47] The Group of 77 and China (G-77) is a coalition of developing 
countries that promotes its members' collective interests. Currently, 
131 developing countries are members of the G-77. 

[48] According to State, mandates that have been acted upon, 
implemented, and completed have been indicated as "completed." These 
include founding or founding-related mandates. 

[49] The first thematic cluster included all activities and programs 
relating to drug control, crime prevention, and combating international 
terrorism. 

[50] Over half of the 17 member states we spoke with mentioned distrust 
between the member states and the Secretariat as another hindrance to 
the progress of reform efforts. Some member states also told us that 
these concerns have continued under the new Secretary-General, who 
appointed numerous high-level Secretariat officials without consulting 
with the member states first. 

[51] Although the UN has not established long-term cost estimates, the 
Secretariat reported in October 2007 that initial estimated costs for 
implementing certain management reform initiatives--which represent a 
limited amount of the projected management reform agenda--were 
approximately $53 million, an increase of $13 million from the $40 
million we reported in September 2006. See appendix IV for itemized 
funding for initial UN management reform efforts approved since 
September 2006. 

[52] A July 2007 report by the Congressional Research Service 
recognized that, in addition to competing priorities within the 
Secretariat and General Assembly, the inability of UN member states or 
Secretaries-General to effectively prioritize reform initiatives is an 
obstacle to UN reform. CRS Report for Congress, United Nations Reform: 
U.S. Policy and International Perspectives (Washington, D.C., July 24, 
2007). 

[53] We did not include human rights in our review because it is not 
directly related to reforming the management of the UN. 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [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, DC 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

*** End of document. ***