United Nations: Management Reforms and Operational Issues
Published: 2008-01-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss United Nations (UN) operations  in the context of three key issues: (1) the progress of management reform  efforts at the UN Secretariat since 2006; (2) weaknesses in oversight and  accountability in selected UN organizations; and (3) constraints upon UN  and other international organizations’ activities in Burma. Events over the  past several decades indicate that there is a continuing need to reform and  modernize the UN in areas including management, oversight, and  accountability. While UN worldwide operations have expanded in  complexity and significance, long-standing problems in UN management  have contributed to scandals in the Oil for Food program and procurement  operations. In addition, various challenges have hindered the ability of  some UN organizations to address Burma’s most pressing problems. As  the largest financial contributor to the UN, the United States has strongly  advocated the reform of UN management practices. The United States has  also been critical of Burma’s military regime, which has blocked or  impeded activities undertaken by many international organizations in  Burma over the past 3 years.
The work supporting this statement is based on reports we issued in 2007  that focused on management reform efforts at the UN Secretariat since  2006, oversight and accountability in selected UN organizations, and the  operating environment for the UN and other international organizations in  Burma. See appendix I for detailed information on the objectives, scope,  and methodology of each report. We conducted our reviews in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Although the UN has undergone various cycles of reform since its creation  in 1945, UN member states continue to have concerns about inefficient UN  management operations. In September 2005, world leaders gathered at the  UN World Summit in New York to discuss a variety of issues of  importance to the UN, including management reforms. The outcome  document from the summit called for the Secretary-General to submit  proposals for implementing management reforms of the Secretariat. In  October 2006, we reported that progress had been slow in five key UN  management reform areas, with numerous reform proposals awaiting  General Assembly review, and that many of the proposed or approved  reforms lacked an implementation plan with time frames and cost  estimates.
Oversight is a key activity in governance that addresses whether  organizations are carrying out their responsibilities and serves to detect  and deter public corruption. Oversight functions include monitoring,  evaluating, and reporting on the organization’s performance; auditing of  the organization’s financial results and effectiveness of its internal  controls; and holding senior management accountable for results.  Oversight also includes investigation of allegations of fraud. The principal  bodies responsible for conducting oversight in the three UN funds and  programs we reviewed— The United Nations Development Program  (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the World  Food Program (WFP)—and the three specialized agencies we reviewed—  the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor  Organization (ILO), and the World Health Organization (WHO)—include  member states in their capacity as members of the governing bodies,  internal auditors, investigators, and evaluation offices.
The UN and other international organizations have become important  sources of assistance to Burma’s impoverished people, as the country— one of the world’s poorest—has become increasingly isolated. This  assistance includes programs aimed at mitigating the effects of prison  conditions, forced labor, and conflicts in Burma’s ethnic areas. The UN is  also attempting to provide food to vulnerable populations, promote local  economic development, improve health conditions, and strengthen the  Burmese educational system. In recent years, UN entities have increased  their funding for activities aimed at addressing Burma’s problems. UN  entities informed us that they spent about $218 million in Burma from 2002  through 2005. Nevertheless, Burma’s military regime distanced itself from  the international organizations and began adopting increasingly restrictive  policies after the regime underwent an internal purge in 2004, according to  UN officials. The regime published guidelines in 2006 to restrict the  activities of the international organizations. UN officials consider  provisions in these guidelines, which have yet to be fully implemented, to  be unacceptable.
section_title: Progress on UN Management Reform Efforts Has Varied and Various Factors Have Slowed the Pace of the Reform Efforts
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Progress on UN Management Reform Efforts Has Varied
paragraphs: 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. In addition, the UN has  made some progress in developing ethics standards and in enforcing  financial disclosure requirements. However, concerns have been raised  that the success of the whistleblower protection policy is, in part,  dependent on reforms in the UN internal justice system that are not  projected to be completed until 2009. In addition, the policy is potentially  limited by the ethics office’s lack of jurisdiction over UN funds and  programs.  After we issued our November 2007 report, the Secretary- General issued a bulletin calling for system-wide ethics standards for the  Secretariat, programs, and funds.  The bulletin outlined the guidelines and  responsibilities for UN ethics offices of programs and funds and also  stated that, if a program or fund does not have a policy in place for  protection against retaliation, staff members of that program or fund may  request protection from retaliation under the Secretariat’s policy.
Although the UN has improved its oversight capability, the Office of  Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has not yet achieved financial and  operational independence. In June 2007, member states created an  Independent Audit Advisory Committee (IAAC) and, since then, the UN  has 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 October 2006, 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.
The UN has taken steps to improve its procurement process, but some  reform issues have not moved forward since 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 specialist UN organizations would handle certain procurements  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, along with 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.
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 selected 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 alternative  delivery of certain services, such as internal printing and publishing.
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.  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 nature and scope of the review  and lack the capacity to carry it out. 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 they  did not determine how the review would proceed.
section_title: Various Factors Have Slowed the Pace of UN Management Reform Efforts
paragraphs: Various factors have slowed the pace of UN management reform efforts,  and some reforms cannot move forward until these factors are addressed.  Key factors include the following:    Member states disagree on UN management reform efforts. Delegates  from 15 of 17 member states that we met with, representing Africa,  Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America, 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.
Some management reform proposals lack comprehensive  implementation plans, including time frames, completion dates, and  cost and savings estimates for completing specific management  reforms. In addition, the Secretariat has not submitted most of  approximately 20 cost-benefit analyses and other assessments to the  General Assembly as planned by March 2007.
Administrative policies and procedures continue to complicate the  process of implementing certain complex human resource initiatives.  These policies and procedures include proposals to outsource certain  administrative services, such as payroll processes, staff benefit  administration, and information technology support.
Competing UN priorities limit the capacity of General Assembly  members to address management reform issues. For example, the  reorganization of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations  absorbed much of the General Assembly’s attention throughout the  spring 2007 session and, as a result, progress on some issues was  delayed while others were not taken into consideration by the General  Assembly.
To encourage UN member states to continue to pursue the reform agenda  of the 2005 World Summit, we recommended in the report we issued on  November 14, 2007, 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.
State generally endorsed our main findings and conclusions 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. State did not agree with our statement that successful  whistleblower protections are dependent, in part, on the 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.
section_title: Oversight and Accountability in Selected UN Organizations Could Be Strengthened by Further Instituting International Best Practices
paragraphs: 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. In addition, most UN  organizations do not have an independent audit committee, as suggested  by international best practices.
subsections: section_title: UN Internal Audit Offices Have Not Fully Implemented Key Components of International Auditing Standards
paragraphs: Most of the six UN organizations we examined are in various stages of  adopting ethics policies, such as requiring conflict of interest and financial  disclosure statements and adopting whistleblower policies to protect  those who reveal wrongdoing. Ethics policies could strengthen oversight  by helping to ensure more accountability and transparency within the  organizations. Some internal oversight units rely on their staff to comply  with a general declaration that all UN employees sign when they are  employed by the organization. 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.
Five of the six of the organizations we studied have established  whistleblower protection policies to protect those who reveal wrongdoing  within their respective organizations. UNICEF, FAO, WFP, WHO, and ILO  have whistleblower protection policies in place, and UNDP was  developing such a policy.
We reported that all six audit offices are developing and implementing  risk-based work plans and five of the six internal audit offices have  contributed to their respective organizations’ development of a risk  management framework. However, the organizations’ senior management  has not completed an organizationwide risk management framework that  would assist in guiding the audit offices’ work plans. Moreover, only three  of the six audit offices told us that they had sufficient resources to achieve  their audit work plans, which could include high-risk areas. For example,  WFP’s audit chief informed us that the audit office did not have sufficient  resources to conduct its planned work for 2007 and as a result, it has had  to defer audits to future years.
We also reported that a number of internal oversight units do not have  professional investigators and rely on other parties who may not be  qualified, such as auditors, to determine whether wrongdoing has  occurred. As a result of the limited capacity of organizations to conduct  investigations, many internal oversight units have backlogs of investigative  cases and are unable to complete their planned audits. A number of the  organizations we examined indicated that they were working on  increasing their investigative capacity in order to meet new  organizationwide initiatives. For example, UNDP senior officials reported  that they needed additional investigative staff because the number of cases  had increased, due to the establishment of a fraud hotline.
section_title: UN Evaluation Offices Have Not Fully Implemented UN Evaluation Standards
paragraphs: We reported that five of the six evaluation offices we reviewed stated that  they lack sufficient resources and staff with expertise to manage and  conduct evaluations—conditions that have impacted their ability to  conduct high-quality and strategically important evaluations. For example,  FAO’s evaluation officials informed us that because FAO does not have  sufficient resources to manage and conduct evaluations to reasonably  address management’s concerns, it relies heavily on the use of outside  consultants for expertise.
section_title: Governing Bodies Lack Full Access to Information That Could Provide Greater Insights into UN Organizations’ Operations and Identify Critical Systemic Weaknesses
paragraphs: The governing bodies of the six organizations we examined lack full  access to internal audit reports, which would increase transparency and  their awareness of the adequacy and effectiveness of the organizations’  system of internal controls. Currently, member states are not provided  with the internal audit office’s reports; however, member states including  the United States have stated that access to audit reports would help them  exercise their oversight responsibilities as members of the governing body.  International best practices suggest that oversight could be strengthened  by establishing an independent audit committee composed of members  external to the management of the organization and reporting to the  governing body on the effectiveness of the audit office and on the  adequacy of its resources. However, the audit committees at four of the six  UN organizations we examined are not in line with international best  practices, and one of the entities does not have an audit committee.
To improve oversight in UN organizations, we recommended that the  Secretary of State direct the U.S. missions to work with member states to  make internal audit reports available to the governing bodies to provide  further insight into the operations of the UN organizations and identify  critical systemic weaknesses; and establish independent audit committees  that are accountable to their governing bodies, where such circumstances  do not currently exist. While State, FAO, UNDP, WFP, and WHO generally  agreed with our recommendations, ILO and UNICEF expressed concerns  about implementing them. Specifically, ILO expressed reservations about  making internal audit reports available to governing bodies, while UNICEF  expressed concerns about establishing independent audit committees.
section_title: International Organizations’ Assistance Programs Have Been Constrained in Burma
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Burmese Regime Has Blocked or Impeded Human Rights Programs and Programs in Conflict Areas
paragraphs: Burma’s military regime has blocked international efforts to monitor  prison conditions, and, until recently, forced labor in Burma. The regime  halted ICRC’s prison visit program by insisting that pro-regime staff  observe ICRC meetings with prisoners. Similarly, the regime frustrated  ILO efforts to conclude an agreement establishing an independent  complaints process for forced labor victims for 4 years. It eventually  signed an agreement with ILO in February 2007 to establish a complaints  mechanism for victims of forced labor. The regime has also impeded  international efforts to address the needs of populations in conflict areas  by restricting international access to those areas. For example, it has  limited UNHCR efforts along the Thai border, while halting or impeding  efforts in conflict areas by ICRC and other organizations.
section_title: Burmese Regime Has Hindered Food, Development, and Health Programs
paragraphs: The regime has also impeded UN food, development, and health programs,  although programs that address health and development issues in Burma  have generally been less constrained by the regime’s restrictions than the  ILO and ICRC human rights efforts. Delays in obtaining transport permits  for food commodities from the current regime have hindered WFP efforts  to deliver food to vulnerable populations. The regime’s time-consuming  travel procedures have also impeded the ability of international staff to  move freely within the country to ensure the timely provision of  assistance. Officials of eight of the nine UN entities that provide  humanitarian, health, and development assistance in Burma told us that  the regime requires at least 3 to 4 weeks’ advance notice to authorize  travel, which impedes the planning and monitoring of projects through  field visits and reduces the scope of their activities. UN officials told us  that the regime has also impeded their ability to address the needs of the  Burmese population, conduct strategic planning, and implement programs  in Burma by restricting their ability to conduct their own surveys and  freely share the data they gather.
section_title: UN Officials Say Meaningful Work Still Possible in Burma
paragraphs: Despite these restrictions, many of the international officials we spoke  with told us that they are still able to achieve meaningful results in their  efforts to mitigate some of Burma’s many problems. For example, UN  officials working in the health sector told us that the Burmese regime had  been increasingly cooperative in efforts to address HIV/AIDS prevalence  and recently worked with several UN entities to develop a multisectoral  plan that targets all victims of the disease in Burma. Several officials also  emphasized that restrictions have had the least effect on organizations that  tend to work closely with the regime. For example, an FAO official told us  that FAO generally has good relations with the technical ministries it  cooperates with due to its close work with these ministries in providing  technical assistance and supporting knowledge transfer.
Our report on Burma included no recommendations. We obtained  comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of State and  cognizant UN and ICRC officials. State commented that the draft report  was thorough, accurate, and balanced. While the UN Country Team  commented that the UN and its partners had in the past decade achieved  “a significant opening of humanitarian space on the ground,” it did not  dispute our specific findings about the regime’s restrictions over the past 3  years. In response to recent protests in Burma, the UN Country Team  noted the urgent necessity to address Burma’s deteriorating humanitarian  situation and appealed for an improved operating environment for  humanitarian organizations working there.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: The UN is increasingly called upon to undertake important and complex  activities worldwide, including responding to conflict and humanitarian  crises. As the UN’s role and budget expand, so do attendant concerns  about weaknesses in accountability, transparency, and oversight. The UN  Secretariat and UN-affiliated organizations face internal and external  challenges in undertaking, administering, and overseeing their respective  mission-related activities. UN organizations have worked to implement  needed internal reforms to improve ethics, oversight, procurement, and  management operations with varied degrees of progress. 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. In addition, UN organizations face external challenges in  operating environments such as Burma, where the military regime has  blocked or impeded some UN activities aimed at improving human rights.  Addressing these challenges will require concerted and sustained actions  by member states and UN organizations’ management, staff, and oversight  mechanisms.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer  any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at  this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Should you have any questions about this testimony, please contact  Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Major contributors  to this testimony were Cheryl Goodman, Zina Merritt, and Phillip Thomas  (Assistant Directors); Debbie J. Chung; Lyric Clark; Andrea Miller; George  Taylor; and Pierre Toureille.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This testimony is based on three reports we issued during 2007—United  Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied (Nov.  2007); United Nations: Oversight and Accountability Could Be  Strengthened by Further Instituting International Best Practices (June  2007); and International Organizations: Assistance Programs  Constrained in Burma (Apr. 2007). The objectives, scope, and  methodology of each of these reports follows.
subsections: section_title: United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied
paragraphs: For this report, we assessed progress in ethics, oversight, procurement,  management operations of the UN Secretariat, and mandate review. To  assess the progress of specific UN management reform efforts within each  of these five areas, we developed the following three categories: little or  no progress, some progress, and substantial progress. 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 reviewed 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 the United Nations in New York. We performed our  work on UN management reforms from March to November 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: United Nations Organizations: Oversight and Accountability Could Be Strengthened by Further Instituting International Best Practices
paragraphs: For this report, we selected 6 UN organizations from among the 10 funds  and programs and 15 specialized agencies that comprise the universe of all  UN funds and programs and specialized agencies, including the Food and  Agriculture Organization, International Labor Organization, United  Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Development Program, World  Food Program, and the World Health Organization. On the basis of their  budgets for biennium 2004-2005, we selected the three largest funds and  programs and three of the largest specialized agencies. Therefore, our  results cannot be generalized to the full universe of all funds and programs  and specialized agencies and may not represent the practices of the  smaller UN organizations.
To examine the extent to which the six organizations’ internal audit offices  have implemented professional standards for performing audits, we  reviewed relevant standards issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors.  To conduct our review, we selected key audit standards that were based  on previous GAO work. In addition, we examined documents and  conducted interviews with various officials, including officials of the  internal audit offices, finance division, human resources, audit  committees, legal offices, and external auditors. Regarding investigations,  the six UN organizations we examined have adopted the UN Uniform  Guidelines for Investigations, which are intended to be used as guidance in  the conduct of investigations in conjunction with each organization’s rules  and regulations.
To examine the extent to which the six organizations’ evaluation offices  have implemented UN evaluation norms and standards, we reviewed the  relevant standards and norms issued by the UN Evaluation Group. We  examined documents from the six organizations, including reports  prepared by the organizations’ evaluation offices and external peer  reviewers, and annual reports of the evaluation offices. In addition, we  conducted interviews with various officials of the evaluation offices.
To examine the extent to which governing bodies are provided  information about the results of UN oversight practices, we reviewed  documents from the six organizations, including reports prepared by the  organizations’ external auditors, the oversight unit chiefs, the governing  bodies, and the audit committees, where applicable. We also examined the  charters of the audit offices and the audit committees, where applicable.  In addition, we interviewed selected representatives from UN member  states, including representatives from the U.S. missions to the UN in  Geneva, Rome, and New York and U.S. representatives to the governing  bodies of the UN organizations we examined. In Geneva, we spoke with  members of the Geneva Group, including representatives from the United  Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Germany. In Rome, we  spoke with additional members of the Geneva Group, including  representatives from the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, Sweden, South  Korea, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Italy, France, Russia, New Zealand,  Japan, and the Netherlands. In addition, we met with representatives of  the Group of 77 from Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Iraq, Dominican Republic,  Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Egypt, Kuwait, Nicaragua, Peru, the  Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. In New York, we spoke with mission  representatives to the UN from Belgium, Australia, the United Kingdom,  Canada, Japan, and Pakistan.
Furthermore, to address our objectives, we spoke with senior officials  from the Departments of State and Labor in Washington, D.C., and senior  officials from State, Labor, Health and Human Services, and the U.S.  Agency for International Development at the U.S. missions to the UN in  Geneva, Rome, and New York. At these locations, we met with  management and staff responsible for governance and oversight at FAO,  ILO, UNDP, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. We conducted our work on  oversight and accountability of UN organizations from June 2006 through  March 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma
paragraphs: For this report, we examined documents relating to programs conducted  in Burma by the UN Country Team (which includes ten UN entities located  in that country) and the restrictions imposed on them by the Burmese  regime. In New York and Washington, D.C., we met with officials of the  U.S. Departments of State and the Treasury, the UN, the World Bank, and  the International Monetary Fund. We also met with the Burmese UN  mission in New York. In Rangoon, Burma, we met with officials of UN  entities, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and several  international nongovernmental organizations who asked that we not  identify their organizations; and officials of the U.S. embassy and of the  leading democratic organization in Burma. In and near Rangoon and  Bassein, Burma, we met with recipients of UN assistance. We also traveled  to Nay Pyi Taw (Burma’s newly built capital) to meet with officials from  the Burmese Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development  and the Ministry of Health. In Bangkok, Thailand, we met with officials  from three additional UN entities that operate programs in Burma from  Thailand, as well as with representatives of other donor nations. We  conducted our work on Burma from May 2006 to February 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.