|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
The litany of failed past UN management reform and accountability efforts
seemingly goes on forever. Briefly, however, it includes at least the
following attempts from 1950-1985:
1953: The Secretary-General made a
comprehensive review of the work and structure of the Secretariat to
concentrate resources on priority programmes which could be performed
effectively, and to launch a continuing self-criticism of programme
implementation. 1961-1962: A committee of experts
appointed by the General Assembly recommended budgetary stabilization,
enforcement of programme priorities, closer scrutiny of budgets by
governing bodies, and greater administrative control and analysis of the
budget: the General Assembly responded by calling for an integrated budget
policy. 1966: Another group of experts
called on the United Nations and the system to deal with a financial
crisis through integrated planning, programming, budgeting and evaluation
systems; clear objectives and strategies; strengthened evaluations and
internal reviews; timely annual reporting to governing bodies on progress
made and results obtained; establishment of the JIU; and strengthened
management oversight by the external
auditors. 1968a: The Secretary-General
established a report to evaluate work programme accomplishments and ensure
real value for money in operations: however, by 1971, these reports had
reverted to purely financial documents, 1968b: Another expert group on
reorganization cited the need for new budgetary techniques, an effective
management service, and systematic budget review and organizational
reform. l969a: The CPC concluded that
rapidly growing United Nations system programmes would encounter
increasing Member State criticism and public disillusionment unless
greater review and evaluation efforts were made, especially detailed and
systematic review from intergovernmental
bodies. 1969b: The Capacity Study
characterized the United Nations system as a highly complex and
disorganized machine, badly in need of systematic management procedures
and programming, information, and evaluation
processes. 1972a: The ACABQ criticized
cumbersome United Nations legislative machinery and fragmented
decision-making, and urged review of the budget format to allow Member
States to relate inputs to outputs and determine whether they were getting
their moneys worth. 1972b: The Secretary-General
acknowledged the decades delay in establishing an integrated programme
planning system (see 1961-1962): he proposed such a system to greatly aid
governing-body decision-making with coordinated information on past
performance, present proposals, and implications for the
future. 1975a: The Secretary-General
acknowledged that there was still no systematic evaluation of results,
which was the key problem which the medium-term plan did not yet
cover. 1975b: Yet another group of
experts, and a working group, recommended strengthening CPC for planning.
programming, coordination, and programme review, as a mechanism to
effectively evaluate programme implementation and
results. 1978: The ACABO noted with concern
the difficulties of establishing management training to create and
sustain a management climate in the Secretariat: the Secretary-General
promised to give high priority to management skills and training in
the future, but little happened. 1978-1979: The Secretary-General
acknowledged again that there was no systematic evaluation and that
improved budgeting procedures and better budget submissions and workplans
were needed to enhance performance monitoring and the identification of
marginal activities. 1982: The General Assembly
established programming regulations and rules, inter alia to
subject all programmes to periodic and thorough reviews and periodically
evaluate the results achieved. 1983: A report to the General
Assembly which acknowledged slow progress in establishing even a minimal
evaluation system was sharply criticized by the CPC and deplored by the
General Assembly. 1984: A JIU report found reporting
to ECOSOC to be voluminous, tardy, and uninformative: the
Secretary-General agreed that - if intergovernmental bodies would more
strongly support the deliberative process - the Secretariat would strive
to produce more analytical documents, highlight key policy issues, and
prepare more concise and results-oriented
reports. 1985: As suggested by yet another
outside expert group, an internal task force, and pressure from the
General Assembly, CPC, and the JIU. the Secretary-General established
small central evaluation and monitoring units. but JIU found the United
Nations to be lagging even further behind other System agencies in the
assessment of results to improve future
programmes." Joint Inspection Unit,
Annex, "Fifty- year capsule summary of efforts to establish United Nations
management systems", in "Management in the United Nations: Work in
progress", UN document A/50/507,1995, pp.
46-49. Despite this very
discouraging past experience, in 1985 the General Assembly's Fifth
Committee, which is charged with oversight matters, roused itself once
again to express strong dissatisfaction with poor UN oversight and
performance reporting.
Although the UN, supposedly, already had an integrated management
system, Member State representatives cited: "the difficulty
in obtaining a
complete picture of the processes of planning, programming, budgeting,
performance monitoring, and evaluation of United Nations
activities", "no information on the implementation of the programmes of the
preceding budget", "[the hope that] the
Secretary-General's remark
. that much remained
to be done to establish monitoring and evaluation [systematically]
throughout the Secretariat would soon no longer be
true", "[the lack of] a
critical analysis of ongoing activities
[to give Member States] a precise idea of the
efficiency with which the resources were used or the quality of the
results
", "CPC [the Committee for Program
and Coordination ] was paralyzed by the lack of information, attributable
to reticence on the part of those responsible for
programmes", "
. more time ought to
be spent on evaluating the application and implementation of those
programmes", "
.the absence of a
fully operational monitoring system", "
. the General
Assembly should be given more information
[to be able] to
review the proposed programme properly and take enlightened decisions",
and "a broad feeling" among Member
States that there was ample room for improvement
. What the UN lacked
was the machinery for improving, redeploying, and reassessing priorities
on a continuing basis." Excerpts of critical
statements made in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, in
"Summary records", General Assembly, Fifth Committee document
A/C.5/40/SR.22, paras. 3-5, 7, 15, 20 and 22, and A/C.5/40/SR.23, paras.
12-13, 38, 48, both of 6 November 1985, as quoted in Joint
Inspection Unit, "Reporting on the Performance and Results of United
Nations Programmes: Monitoring, evaluation and management review
components", UN document
A/43/124, 1988, pp. 4-5.
In
response to all these sharp criticisms, the UN's top manager agreed
publicly that it was indeed time for a change. He stated that
"Member States have
stressed the need to be told, more clearly and more extensively
. what has been the programmatic
performance of the Secretariat, which outputs have been delivered, and
with which result
. Let us strengthen the
monitoring and evaluation functions
Let us say clearly and dispassionately what has been done and with
which result, and equally what has not been done and
why
. Let us produce more analytical performance reports
. I find the essential
problem one of better and more transparent information, thus permitting
better decisions."
"Statement", Response to the
above criticisms by UN Under-Secretary-General for Management Patricio
Ruedas, 12 November 1985, as quoted in Joint Inspection Unit,
"Reporting on the Performance and Results of United Nations Programmes:
Monitoring, evaluation and management review components"", UN document A/43/124, 1988, p. 5.
The General
Assembly established another high-level expert reform group (the "Group of
18") in 1985. The
experts sought to review UN "machinery" and processes, in light of a major
expansion of the work of the Organization. In their report of 1986, they
stated that "[United Nations
efficiency depends largely on] the performance of its Secretariat and
other organizations, [which in turn depends largely] on the quality and
dedication of its staff. Article 97 of the Charter [confers on the
Secretary-General]
the
responsibility for managing the organization.
The Group is aware of
the fact that, particularly during the past 10 to 15 years, numerous
studies [mostly by the ICSC and the JIU] have been made on the management
of human resources in the UN.
efficient management
of the staff should rest upon clear, coherent and transparent rules and
regulations
[which
allow the UN] to secure and retain the services of staff meeting the
highest standards.
. The officials
responsible for the management of the staff [at all levels] must implement
these rules and regulations and create a challenging environment where the
staff can and are motivated to give their best efforts to further the
goals of the Organization.
Special
responsibility for creating a healthy climate rests with the senior
managers. In this respect,
the importance of selecting high-level officials with the necessary
management skills cannot be over-emphasized." "Report of the group of high-level
intergovernmental experts to review the efficiency of the administrative
and financial functioning of the United Nations", General Assembly,
Official Records, fourty-first session, Supplement No. 49 (A/41/49),
United Nations, New York, 1986, paras. 45-48.
Overall, the
"Group of 18" report concentrated largely on processes for consensus
decision-making on UN budgets (i.e., again on inputs). Its 71 recommendations produced
only uneven reform actions, as detailed in Secretariat progress
reports over the ensuing
several years. Nevertheless,
the Group did lay down some important principles and guidance for UN
management responsibilities for the future, as highlighted in the above
quote. In 1988, a JIU
report on UN programme performance reporting cited the General Assembly's
displeasure of 1985, as summarized above. The JIU concluded that UN
performance reporting was still
incomplete, awkwardly timed, and lacked sound methodology and
analytical content. The JIU
concluded that: "For almost 40 years,
the General Assembly and the Secretariat have been working to establish an
orderly system of planning and review of United Nations programmes.
but the system
remains incomplete -- and
seriously weakened -- because
an essential element is still missing: there is no regular, systematic
[UN] reporting on programme performance and results to top management and
intergovernmental bodies.
an interim
'programme performance report'
[established in 1980
provides] only a very mechanistic tabulation of the thousands of programme
'outputs' produced, which tells intergovernmental bodies almost nothing
about actual programme results, efficiency and effectiveness relative to
the objectives which were set. Substantive,
comprehensive performance reports would finally integrate monitoring and
evaluation as normal working tools for programme decision-making
and strengthen
programme formulation and implementation by providing timely progress and
results information
and
clearer accountability and programme
transparency." Joint Inspection Unit, "Reporting on the performance and results of
United Nations programmes: Monitoring, evaluation and management review
components", UN document A/43/124, 1988, paras.
1-5. The JIU report
recommended improvements in overall UN performance reporting;
strengthening of the weak UN monitoring and evaluation units; specific
Secretariat reports on actions taken to improve efficiency and
productivity of the administrative and conference services which consumed
almost half of the UN regular budget; and computerized decision-making
information instead of the UN's haphazard financial and programme
data. The General Assembly
pressed the Secretariat for action on these matters, but it fudged,
delayed, and dragged its feet, until this effort too faded away over the
following few years. The General
Assembly, however, continued to increase its pressure for Secretariat
action to address UN management performance failures, inadequacies in UN
decision-making, and weak oversight of programme implementation and
results.
In a
steadily-increasing series of pointed requests from 1988 into
mid-1993, the General
Assembly stated, inter alia,
that it: "[Reiterates] the need to improve continuously the programme
planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation process in the Organization
and the need for the participation of Member States from an early stage
and throughout the process, [Emphasizes] that
future programme performance and evaluation reports should assist Member
States in measuring results against established objectives," "Programme planning", General
Assembly resolution 43/219 of 21 December 1988, last preambular
paras.
"A.11. Stresses the need for greater
transparency and coherence in personnel management
A.15.
Renews its request [for an analytical report on the "Group of 18"
report] and the way in which it has enhanced the efficiency of [UN]
administrative and financial functioning." "Implementation of General
Resolution 41/213", General Assembly resolution 44/200 of 21 December
1989.
"[Emphasizes] the importance of a reliable methodology for
monitoring programme performance, [Stresses] the
importance of evaluation for the systematic and objective determination of
the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of programmes and
activities in relation to their objectives," "Programme planning", General
Assembly resolution 44/194 of 21 December 1989, 8th and 9th
preambular paras.
"I.1. Adopts the proposed medium-term
plan for the period 1992-1997
; 7. Requests the Secretary-General
to improve the
quality of his proposals to [bodies reviewing the plan] as well as the
timeliness and procedure of their submission; 8. Also requests the
Secretary-General to pursue his efforts to achieve greater concision,
clarity, analytical rigour and prospective orientation of the
plan;" II.3.
Requests the Secretary-General to submit
a report on the
methodology for monitoring and reporting on the programme performance of
the United Nations;" III.2
urges the
Secretary-General to develop methods and procedures to ensure that
evaluation is fully integrated into the programme planning cycle of the
Organization;" "Programme planning", General
Assembly resolution 45/253 of 21 December 1990.
"13. Requests
the Secretary-General
(b) To consider
effective measures
to facilitate reporting by staff members on a confidential basis of any
inappropriate use of [UN] resources, and to report to the General Assembly
[in
1991], (c) To implement stringent
inventory controls on non-expendable property and to report thereon
[in
1991], (d) To institute without delay
more effective control on the payment of all allowances and benefits to
staff members and to report on measures taken in this regard
[in
1991]; 14. Reaffirms the importance of
strict compliance with financial regulations and rules on the subject of
unliquidated obligations, and requests
a thorough report
[in
1991];"
"Financial reports
statements,
reports of the Board of Auditors," General Assembly resolution 45/235
of 21 December 1990.
"A.13 Encourages the
intention
to develop
management and work-load analysis techniques
to ensure the full
and effective implementation of all [UN] programmes and activities
" "Review of the efficiency of
the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations",
General Assembly resolution 45/254 of 21 December 1990. "I.2. Requests
the Secretary-General to review and develop procedures and norms,
including workload analyses, to justify [the management of all aspects of
staff posts],
and to
report thereon
"
"Questions relating to the
proposed programme budget for the biennium 1992-1993", General Assembly
resolution 46/185 B of 20 December
1991.
"IV.3.
Requests the Secretary-General to improve the programmatic content
of the statements of programme budget implications and to propose in such
statements or in revised estimates alternative solutions for carrying out
new activities, as required by resolutions 41/213 and
42/211; 4. Also requests
a report on the
review of the procedures for the provision of statements of programme
budget implications and for the use and operation of the contingency fund
;" "Programme planning",
General Assembly resolution 46/189 of 20 December 1991. "(e)
Expressed concern about the reporting on the performance and
results of United Nations programmes and invited the Committee for
Programme and Coordination and the Advisory Committee to consider anew the
1988 report of the Joint Inspection Unit in this regard and to report
thereon to the Assembly;" "Joint Inspection Unit",
General Assembly decision 46/446 of 20 December 1991.
"(a)
Requests the Secretary-General to review the operation and
effectiveness of each of the specialized administrative and budgetary
support units of the Secretariat
with a view to
strengthening their efficiency
and to report
[thereon] (b)
Decides
to
consider the roles and coverage of the coordination, administration and
budgetary subsidiary bodies
with a view to
improving the effectiveness of its oversight and coordination mechanisms
" "Financial reports and audited
financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors", General
Assembly decision 47/454 of 22 December 1992. "13. Emphasizes the
need to continue to ensure overall efficient and prudent management by the
Secretary-General of all the resources entrusted to the UN by Member
States for the implementation of all its mandates and, in particular,
stresses the need to ensure full accountability and responsibility in the
management and use of these resources; 14.
Notes with concern the lack of cash reserves and the cash flow
problems [of the Organization]
;" "Improving the financial
situation of the United Nations," General Assembly resolution 47/215 of
23 December 1992.
"I.1.
Notes that workload standards and other management techniques which
are of crucial importance to [determine resources required to fulfill
mandates] remain unutilized; 2.
Reiterates its request to the Secretary-General to develop such
standards and to use them
" "Review of the efficiency of
the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations
", General
Assembly resolution 47/212 A of 23 December 1992. "V.1.
Recalls its resolutions 46/185 B and 46/189 [of 1991 endorsing
recommendations] to establish a system of responsibility and
accountability of programme managers of the United
Nations; 2.
invites the
Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly [in 1993] on the
establishment of such a system." "Programme planning,"
General Assembly resolution 47/214 of 23 December 1992.
"2.
Stresses the importance of ensuring that personnel management is
conducive to the recruitment and retention of staff of the highest
quality; 3.
Urges the Secretary-General to review and improve, where necessary,
all personnel policies and procedures
[to make them] more
simple, transparent and relevant to the new demands placed upon the
Secretariat
; I.B.3. Urges the
Secretary-General to undertake without delay a complete review of the
performance evaluation system
[to develop] it into
an effective system that accurately assesses staff performance and
improves staff accountability
; 7.
Requests the Secretary-General to ensure that for those staff
members whose performance evaluations consistently show poor levels of
performance, established
[corrective] procedures
are
applied;" 11.
Requests [him] to provide
procedures to ensure
that opportunities for staff selection and advancement are extended on the
basis of merit, efficiency, competence and integrity and do not
discriminate against staff of either gender
; II.1.
Regrets that the report on the administration of justice in the
Secretariat called for [in 1990] has not been submitted to the General
Assembly
; 2.
Stresses the importance of a just, transparent, simple, impartial
and efficient system of
internal justice in the Secretariat; 3.
Requests the Secretary-General to undertake a comprehensive review
of the system of administration of justice
and to submit a
report thereon
not later
than [1994];" "Personnel questions", General
Assembly resolution 47/226 of 30 April 1993. "III.3. Requests the
Secretary-General to provide
detailed and clearly
identifiable information on all costs incurred and savings achieved during
[1992-1993]
as a
result of
the restructuring of
the Secretariat; 4.(a) To provide
adequate resources and to identify clearly units, at appropriate levels,
for the implementation of all programmes and activities
; 4.(f) To propose improvements in
programme delivery and the termination of activities considered obsolete
or redundant
; 7.
to ensure
the rationalization
of the working arrangements within each department
to ensure that
resources are used in the most effective way and that the programme
managers are fully responsible and
accountable; 9. Reaffirms its request made
in its resolution 47/214
that the
Secretary-General establish a system of responsibility and accountability
of programme managers and report thereon to the General Assembly [in
1993];" "Review of the efficiency of
the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations
", General
Assembly resolution 47/212 B of 20 May 1993.
|
|||
