PRESS BRIEFING BY UNITED NATIONS INSPECTOR-GENERAL KARL PASCHKE

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING BY UNITED NATIONS INSPECTOR-GENERAL KARL PASCHKE

At a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon, Karl Paschke, Inspector-General of the United Nations, presented to correspondents the report of the Secretary-General on the programme performance of the United Nations biennium 1996-1997.

The report dealt with the programme performance of the Organization -- the way the United nations conducted its business -- during the most recent biennium, he said. On several points, the report told a success story. It was the only report prepared by the Office of Internal Oversight Services that was considered a report by the Secretary-General.

He said the main finding of the report was that, despite all the financial constraints on the Organization, and despite a very high vacancy rate of 13 per cent during the biennium, the quantity of output during the reporting period was largely positive. The Organization had implemented 80 per cent of its mandated activities during the period. That was higher than in all the previous two-year reporting periods. The output rate was usually between 70 and 75 per cent.

He said it would appear that programme managers had been able to minimize the adverse effects of the resource constraints under which the Organization had been suffering for some time. They had risen to the challenge of producing more with less, although some activities had to be reformulated, and others had to be reduced in coverage and scope. There were also indications that in some instances the quality of what had been produced may have suffered. That was an issue that concerned internal oversight.

The report showed that quality control in the Organization, at the departmental level, needed to be improved, he said. That was intimately linked with the issue of results-based budgeting. One of the key plans of the Secretary-General in the reform process of the United Nations was that if the Organization was going to work on results-based budgeting, it would have to develop better quality controls at the departmental level. Greater control was also needed over the so-called extrabudgetary resources which the Organization used. The entire format of the programme performance report would have to be changed in order to address more the quality of the work of the United Nations, rather than looking simply at the quantity of output, which was currently the focus of the report.

Over the past biennium, the Secretariat had responded with flexibility to the new challenges and the process of reform, he said. It had also improved its ability to plan and programme its substantive activities. What was needed in the future in oversight was to revisit some of the financial rules that governed programme managers: they needed to be given more flexibility in the

implementation of their mandated activities. Delegation of authority was also imperative -- programme managers needed to be more empowered to do what they were expected to do, and be given the financial resources and the flexibility to use those resources.

Addressing the quality of the work was easier said than done, he noted. The development of quality performance indicators in the United Nations would be a great challenge for all departments. It was not something that the Office of Internal Oversight Services could do for the department managers. The diversity of the substantive activities of the Organization precluded a panacea solution for performance indicators that would fit all departments. Every department would have to think of meaningful quality performance indicators that could enter into programme performance reporting in the future.

The report itself contained several interesting points that were relevant to observers of the Organization, he said. It stated, for example, that the programme budget for the biennium 1996-1997 comprised 6,952 final outputs and that, in addition, several were carried over from the previous biennium. Adding activities that were mandated during the course of the biennium by the legislative bodies, the total of programmed output was brought to 7,966. Of those, 6,377, exactly 80 per cent, were actually implemented during the biennium. The highest implementation rate, 100 per cent, was achieved by the Department of PeaceKeeping Operations. The lowest rate, 50 per cent, for easily explainable reasons, was that of the International Trade Centre in Geneva.

The report noted that the vacancy rate during the biennium was much higher than during previous bienniums, he said. That rate had reached about 13 per cent, caused mostly by the need to meet a predetermined level of budgeting. It had involved a significant reduction by achieving vacancies and maintaining vacant posts, and also by the extremely cumbersome and lengthy procedure for the filling of vacancies in the Organization.

He said the most important conclusion of the programme performance report was that the performance of the Organization was characterized by flexibility in response to emerging needs arising from a number of factors, particularly the major conferences that had taken place, and an improved ability to plan and programme work. Contrary to what was frequently said about the United Nations, the Organization had done relatively well under very difficult circumstances, particularly difficult financial circumstances.

A correspondent said that an issue of some discontent had been changes that had taken place in the name of efficiency in the media-oriented departments of the United Nations, in particular the documentation and media accreditation services. Had the end-users been consulted before such changes had been made? Mr. Paschke said his answer would have to go beyond the scope of the report: in oversight work, particularly in the in-depth evaluation

UN Inspector-General Briefing - 3 - 30 June 1998

that the Oversight Office undertook, the views and input of the users, the "clients" were taken into account. Before changes were made, those who used the services of the Organization should be asked for their input.

The report itself only dealt with the quantity of outputs, Mr. Paschke continued. For example, how many publications had the Organization put out, how many meetings had it served, how many press conferences had it held? These were activities that could easily be measured. The report did not look at the quality of what had been put out. That was an area on which efforts were being concentrated in the move towards quality performance indicators. There was an ongoing effort by the Oversight Office in cooperation with the substantive departments: new guidelines for self-evaluation and self- monitoring had been issued last November.

Had the lack of sufficient delegation in the United Nations system affected the quality and quantity of output? a correspondent asked. A discussion of the relationship between the delegation of authority and the quality of output was too intricate to go into at length during a press conference, replied Mr. Paschke. The Organization had been very poor in its delegation of authority so far. More needed to be done; that was one of the key issues in the reform efforts of the Secretary-General. The issue was being addressed substantively.

What were the root causes of the United Nations being poor on the delegation of authority? the correspondent asked. Was it because the Organization was a political entity? Perhaps political considerations had played a part in the past, replied Mr. Paschke. However, the main cause was that the Organization did not have a modern and well-developed management culture. New management cultures called for greater delegation of authority, flatter hierarchy and empowerment of managers on the medium level. That had not been done sufficiently in the United Nations, so far, but he was pushing for it, and most of his colleagues in the management of the Organization agreed on the issue.

* *** *