PRESS BRIEFING ON REPORT OF OFFICE OF INTERNAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES

Presenting the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services Dileep Nair told correspondents that the report showed the far-reaching impact of internal oversight on accountability, efficiency and quality of management in the United Nations over the past 12 months.

He said the OIOS had identified recoveries and potential savings within the Organization totalling some $37 million, of which over $15 million had actually been recovered and saved.  Over the same period, some 2,700 recommendations had been issued calling for productivity improvements and accountability for fraud, waste and abuse.  And of these recommendations, over half had actually been implemented.

The report this year also highlighted an approach that the OIOS had taken to identify key risk areas in oversight work, he said, and a risk-management framework had been applied this year to prioritize those areas where it was thought oversight work was needed.  The areas that exposed the Organization to the highest risk included safety and security, procurement and peacekeeping.  He hoped that in promoting this risk-assessment methodology, the Office would gain the support and practice of managers working in-house, as it was important that everyone was able to identify and mitigate the more serious risks that the Organization faced in its various operations and programmes.

Another part of the Office’s strategy concerned the Organizational Integrity Initiative.  This had been spearheaded and launched together with other United Nations departments earlier this year.  It placed integrity-building on the radar screen of the United Nations and the Office hoped to convey a positive message on ethics and integrity in the workplace.

Highlighting oversight activities that had been conducted over the last 12 months, he pointed to the collaboration with the European Anti-Fraud Office, where a misappropriation of some $4.2 million dollars by a former senior staff member of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) had been investigated.  It had led to a successful prosecution of this person by his national authorities.

The OIOS had also undertaken change management consulting assignments in a number of departments of the United Nations.  This had been done with a great deal of success in departments such as conference management, the Department of Public Information (DPI), and the Office of Human Resources Management.

A further highlight had been the audit of United Nations information centres, he said.  This had led to a far-reaching reform effort, undertaken by the DPI, and some information centres in Europe were already planning to be assimilated into one.  Similar reform efforts were being undertaken by the DPI as a result of the audits and the consulting assignments that the OIOS had undertaken.

Asked how far the authority of the Office would extend over United Nations work once the peacekeeping mandate was under way in Iraq, he replied that, in the case of new peacekeeping operations, the Office would definitely involve its auditors, inspectors and even investigators.  If the mission in Iraq were extended, to have a larger number of United Nations personnel, oversight officers would have to be involved.  Primarily, the Office had been concerned with the civilian aspects of peacekeeping, but he felt that the Office had to extend to look at the military side.  In that regard, the OIOS had been given approval to appoint a military expert.

Responding to a question regarding the processes involved if the force in Iraq was not a blue helmet force, but a multinational force, he said that, as long as the authority rested with the Secretary-General, the OIOS would be there to assist him in his oversight duties.

Asked to provide a comparison of the present state of corruption at the United Nations with the state of corruption in previous years, he responded that the extent of corruption was a reflection of the extent of United Nations operations and the number of people involved.  There was no doubt that the number of corruption cases had increased over the past years, but this was happening because operations were becoming more complicated and diverse.  It was not necessarily a cause for alarm bells to ring.

He said he would stress that the United Nations was not a corrupt organization, but if there were problems, the OIOS should come to grips with them first, rather than allowing such problems to become scandals.  It was in that context that the Office was launching the Organizational Integrity Initiative, to put in place preventive measures and training, in order that fraud and corruption did not become overwhelming problems.

A correspondent asked how the $4.2 million fraud case at UNMIK could happen while the OIOS was in operation.  He replied that it had been a result of inadequate control measures.  The OIOS was currently investigating the matter in greater depth, and examining how more effective control measures could be implemented.

Questioned on why the name of the convicted UNMIK employee had not been included in the OIOS report, Mr. Nair replied that, by convention, names were not generally included in the annual reports of the OIOS.

Asked if the Office consulted outside the United Nations to find information, he said that the investigations division did consult with local authorities and had regular contacts and exchange of information when it came to intelligence.

A correspondent asked if the fact that OIOS investigations were conducted in a quiet manner, and that the results were seldom made public, contributed to a feeling that people could get away with corruption at the United Nations.  Mr. Nair responded that one of the Office’s aims was to make sure that publicity was increased, even if this did not involve naming names.

When asked why the names and countries of convicted persons would not be published, he said that he did not shy away from such things, and would see if the OIOS could introduce changes in this regard.

Responding to a question about the levels of corruption in the Tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, he said that no operation could ever be labelled as “corruption-free”.  Three investigators were currently overseeing those tribunals, but it would be quite some time before a satisfactory state of affairs would be reached.

Asked who oversaw the OIOS, he replied that the Office was open to oversight and the United Nations Board of Auditors did investigate the Office from time to time, to see whether or not it was following correct protocols.  The results were published and were available in the report of the Board of Auditors.

Replying to a query about whistle-blowers, he said there were provisions for whistle-blowers in terms of hotlines, and dedicated means of contact.  Part of the Office’s mandate was to ensure the confidentiality of all the information made available.  A significant amount of information referred to the OIOS was a result of whistle-blowing.

* *** *