PRESS BRIEFING BY UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES

PRESS BRIEFING BY UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES

Today the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) on inspection of programme management and administrative practices in the Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention in Vienna (ODCCP) was issued as an official document of the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, Dileep Nair, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon.

Mr. Nair said that while the gist of the report (document A/56/83) could be gleaned from its summary, he wished to emphasize two points.  First, that the major strengths of the ODCCP were its clear mandates, high priority on the intergovernmental policy agenda and broad expertise.  Its main assets were committed, resourceful and talented staff, a strong field presence and the ability to work multilaterally in very sensitive fields. 

Second, the ODCCP's main weaknesses stemmed from over-centralized, heavy, personalized decision-making and the absence of institutional mechanisms to ensure that its activities and projects were properly conceived and efficiently executed, and that the relevance and usefulness of the results were systematically assessed. OIOS found that the lack of corporate mechanisms for consultation and assessment resulted in waste of resources and hampered the efficiency of programmed activities.

The Under-Secretary-General also went on to say that "one of our major concerns is the low morale of ODCCP staff".  The commonly held view was that there was no transparency in executive decisions, especially concerning personnel matters.  While structured dialogue on work matters was maintained within some units, overall staff-management communication was nevertheless dysfunctional.

Mr. Nair said the report complemented two recently published OIOS reports. Those were triennial reviews of the implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee for Programme Coordination (CPC) on the in-depth evaluations of the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP); and the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme (documents E/AC.51/2001/4 and E/AC.51/2001/5 respectively).  In addition, the current report concluded the comprehensive evaluation of the functioning of the ODCCP by the OIOS.  All three reports were part of the latter's work programme for the current year.

Mr. Nair went on to say that in preparing the inspection report, OIOS devoted special attention to reaching out to the largest possible number of ODCCP staff and stakeholders.  The report benefited greatly from the frank and elucidating responses from staff members, representatives of Member States and other actors.

According to Mr. Nair, the report contained 14 recommendations to help in rectifying the serious hindrances to sound management observed in the ODCCP.  The thrust of OIOS's findings and recommendations was presented to the Executive Director, Pino Arlacchi, at the end of the inspection.  It was made clear that the management situation at the ODCCP should not be allowed to continue.  The OIOS urged Mr. Arlacchi and his senior management to institute drastic and immediate change.

According to Mr. Nair, a number of corrective measures were taken shortly.  While their thrust was in line with this report's recommendations, their effectiveness would only be known when the tangible results became verifiable.  OIOS would keep that matter under watch, and carry out an on-site follow-up review towards the end of this year.

Mr. Nair, reiterating a point made in the report, said that any corrective measures could only be successful under one key condition -– the competence, professionalism and integrity of top management must be transparent, collegiate and enjoy the staff's trust.

The Under-Secretary-General also informed correspondents that the two triennial reviews would be discussed at length in the CPC session which began this morning.  Three years ago the CPC reviewed in-depth evaluations of both the Drug Control and Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention programmes.  In accordance with standard procedures, the CPC received reports on the implementation of recommendations adopted by the Committee after three years had elapsed.  In other words, those reports were already scheduled three years ago.  They followed a method of presentation that might be confusing, since at first glance the recommendations reproduced were those that were actually adopted three years ago and were not current proposals.

Mr. Nair said that in the case of the report on the Drug Control Programme, through the joint efforts of that Programme and members of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, there was significant progress on a number of issues.  Around the time of the twentieth special session of the General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (June 1998), contributions to the Fund of the UNDCP increased and the Programme was able to increase its activity. 

He went on to say that a number of priority programmes, however, in areas such as demand reduction, and monitoring and elimination of illicit drugs, did not attract the expected level of voluntary contributions.  Several factors reviewed in the report explained that situation, including the fact that too many new initiatives were launched during the period 1998-2000 with insufficient attention given to their financial sustainability.

Elaborating on the programme on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, he said recommendations on the servicing of intergovernmental meetings, on the information and dissemination function, and on cooperation with other organizations on related activities, were implemented in a manner OIOS found to be satisfactory. 

Notwithstanding, continued Mr. Nair, the implementation of recommendations on the monitoring of standards and norms, traditional publications, public information policy, and information on the contribution that operational activities in crime prevention and criminal justice made to development were disappointing.  The OIOS would follow up on those issues, and the more general questions concerning training aspects of projects, fund-raising, and relations between the Centre for International Crime Prevention and the affiliated and associated institutes. 

A correspondent said the OIOS Inspection report had only touched briefly on the most serious allegation against Mr. Arlacchi –- the funding of the sailboat project.  That issue had also been included in a separate report to the Secretary-General.  She wanted to know why that had been done and when that report would be made public.

Responding, Mr. Nair said a separate investigation report was done because the allegations made were serious and it was felt that an investigation was warranted.  As was the standard procedure for investigation reports, the separate report was put before the Secretary-General for his consideration.  Any decision on the outcome of that report would therefore have to be taken after that.  "So unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss that report", he added.

Following up on the previous question, another correspondent asked the Under-Secretary-General to describe in some detail the allegations that were being investigated.

Mr. Nair said the allegations concerned mismanagement and even some fraud and misconduct.  But as he said, they were only allegations.  As a result a thorough investigation had been undertaken and a report submitted to the Secretary-General for his consideration".

A correspondent then asked if there had been a finding in the report on the issue of fraud, and also what criteria were used to determine when a report required secrecy or when it could be made public.

Mr. Nair said there were reports that were mandated to the OIOS by various intergovernmental bodies.  Those were reports that had to be made available to the committee concerned –- in other words the CPC.  Those were made public.  The other reports which his office could make at its own instigation were when it received a report that something was possibly going wrong or needed to be investigated.  "We make those investigations or exercises to look into exactly what is happening.  The report that comes out, whether or not it goes into the public domain, is a decision that is left to my office", he said,

In the case of the report in question, he continued, because of the sensitive nature of the allegations and the whole incident, "we felt that it would be proper to make the report first to the Secretary-General for his office to then determine what follow-up action, if any, needs to be taken before making it public".

* *** *