Progress on UN Management Reform Efforts Has Varied and Various Factors Have Slowed the Pace of the Reform Efforts

Since our October 2006 report, 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). Various factors, such as  member state disagreements on the priorities and importance of the  remaining reform efforts, have slowed the pace of the UN’s efforts to  improve the management of the Secretariat, and a number of reforms  cannot move forward until these factors are addressed. Progress on UN Management Reform Efforts Has Varied

Since our October 2006 report, the UN has taken steps to improve ethics. The ethics office has made substantial progress in increasing staffing and  in enforcing a whistleblower protection policy. The UN has taken steps to improve its procurement process, but some  reform issues have not moved forward since October 2006. However, the UN has made little or no progress in establishing  an independent bid protest system and creating a lead agency concept,  whereby specialist UN organizations would handle certain procurements  in order to enhance division of labor, reduce duplication, and reduce  costs. 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. Oversight and Accountability in Selected UN Organizations Could Be Strengthened by Further Instituting International Best Practices

Although the six UN internal audit offices we reviewed have made  progress in implementing international auditing standards, they have not  fully implemented key components of the standards. In addition, while the  six UN evaluation offices we reviewed are working toward implementing  UN evaluation standards, they have not fully implemented them. Moreover, the governing bodies responsible for oversight of the six UN  organizations we reviewed 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. We earlier reported that    UNDP and WFP rely on their oversight staff to self-report any conflicts  of interest, though WFP’s investigative unit was developing a conflict of  interest policy to cover investigations staff in fall 2006, and    none of the six organizations we examined require their internal  oversight staff to disclose their financial interests, a practice that could  help to ensure that employees are free from conflicts of interest. International Organizations’ Assistance Programs Have Been Constrained in Burma

We found that the military regime that rules Burma has blocked or  significantly impeded UN and other international organizations’ efforts to  address human rights concerns and to help people living in areas affected  by ethnic conflict. The regime has also, to a lesser degree, impeded UN  food, development, and health programs. Nonetheless, several UN and  other international organization officials told us they are still able to  achieve meaningful results in their efforts to mitigate some of Burma’s  humanitarian, health, and development problems. Burmese Regime Has Blocked or Impeded Human Rights Programs and Programs in Conflict Areas

Burma’s military regime has blocked international efforts to monitor  prison conditions, and, until recently, forced labor in Burma. Our report on Burma included no recommendations. For example, the  UN has worked to improve oversight by establishing an IAAC, but funding  arrangements within the Secretariat’s internal audit office continue to  constrain the office’s operational independence and its ability to audit  high-risk areas. 2007).
Why GAO Did This Study

Longstanding problems in United Nations (UN) management underscore the pressing need to reform and modernize the United Nations in areas ranging from management, oversight, and accountability to operational activities in specific countries. The United States has strongly advocated the reform of UN management practices and has also been critical of the restrictions Burma's military regime has imposed on many international organizations in Burma over the past 3 years. This testimony, based on recent GAO reports, discusses (1) management reform efforts at the UN Secretariat since 2006; (2) oversight and accountability in selected UN organizations; and (3) UN and other international organizations' activities in Burma.

What GAO Found

GAO's report on UN management reform efforts notes that (1) progress has varied in the five areas GAO examined--ethics, oversight, procurement, management operations of the Secretariat, and review of programs and activities (mandates)--and (2) various factors, such as disagreements among member states, have slowed the pace of progress. The UN ethics office has taken steps to improve organizational ethics, including implementing a whistleblower protection policy, but GAO identified issues that may limit the impact of the policy. The UN has taken steps to improve oversight, including establishing an Independent Audit Advisory Committee. However, UN funding arrangements continue to constrain the independence of the Secretariat's internal audit office and its ability to audit high-risk areas. The UN has taken steps to improve certain procurement practices, but has not implemented an independent bid protest system or approved a lead agency concept, which could improve procurement services. The UN has taken steps to improve certain management operations of the Secretariat, but has made little or no progress in others. Despite some limited initial actions, the UN's review of mandates has not advanced, due in part to a lack of support by many member states. Finally, the pace of UN management reforms has been slowed by member states' disagreements on reform efforts, lack of comprehensive implementation plans, administrative issues that complicate certain internal processes, and competing UN priorities. GAO's report on oversight and accountability of selected UN organizations notes that, although the six UN internal audit offices GAO reviewed have made progress in implementing international auditing standards, they have not fully implemented key components of the standards. None of these six organizations require their internal oversight staff to disclose their financial interests. However, GAO found that five of the six organizations have made efforts to increase accountability by establishing whistleblower protection policies and one was developing such a policy. GAO also reported that while the six UN evaluation offices GAO reviewed are working toward implementation of UN evaluation standards, they have not fully implemented them. Finally, GAO reported that the governing bodies responsible for oversight of the six organizations lack full access to internal audit reports. GAO's report on Burma notes that Burma's military regime has blocked or significantly impeded UN and other international organizations' efforts to address human rights concerns and to help people living in areas affected by ethnic conflict. The regime frustrated international organizations' efforts to monitor forced labor for years before signing an agreement in early 2007; restricted their efforts to assist populations living in conflict areas; and blocked their efforts to monitor prison conditions and conflict situations. The regime has, to a lesser degree, impeded UN food, development, and health programs. However, several UN and other international organization officials told GAO they are still able to achieve meaningful results in their efforts to mitigate some of Burma's humanitarian, health, and development problems.