UN OVERSIGHT: OIOS REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 002124

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC KUNR UNGA
SUBJECT: UN OVERSIGHT: OIOS REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL
POLITICAL MISSIONS

REF: A/61/357


1. SUMMARY: The Office of Internal Oversight Services
(OIOS),in response to General Assembly resolution 60/255,
conducted an audit of the management of special political
missions by the Department of Political Affairs (DPA).
Special political missions are involved in the prevention and
control and resolution of conflicts, including post-conflict
peacebuilding. The findings of the review (outlined in report
A/61/357) cited unclear mandates and resulting duplication
between DPA and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations
(DPKO),as well as a need to improve budgetary processes, as
key issues. The review concluded with 15 recommendations for
the management of special political missions. The
recommendations centered on clarification of the
jurisdictions of DPA and DPKO; establishment of better
coordination between DPA and DPKO through interdepartmental
working groups and standard operating procedures; and reform
of the budgetary process. OIOS also recommended the
delineation of the specific roles of DPA and the
Peacebuilding Support Office. DPA and DPKO have accepted
these recommendations and have started to implement them. The
Executive Office of the Secretary-General did not comment on
those recommendations that impact that office. END SUMMARY.


2. Based on comments made by ACABQ (A/60/7/Add.37),the
General Assembly felt that a review of DPA's management of
special political missions would be helpful. The review was
necessitated by the continuing expansion of complex special
political missions, as well as the creation of the
Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Support
Office. Due to the importance of policy, oversight and
managerial guidance in the success of special political
missions, effective coordination and oversight between UN
departments is essential. The main objectives of the OIOS
audit were to (a) assess DPA's ability to guide and manage
special political missions; (b) review the appropriateness of
related policies and procedures; and (c) determine the
sufficiency of internal controls.


3. The review found that the Department's ability to backstop
missions and efficiently recruit qualified personnel are both
improving. However, the rapid expansion (in size and number)
of special political missions has complicated processes and
management, and effectiveness requires clearer roles and
coordination among stakeholders.


4. OIOS found that risk of duplication occurs in special
political missions because DPKO and DPA have few established
coordination procedures and sometimes overlapping mandates.
The departments were intended to have different roles and
responsibilities with regard to political and peacekeeping
operations - DPKO is the operational arm for peackeeping
missions, whereas DPA addresses post-conflict peacebuilding
and preventative diplomacy. However, there are increasingly
overlapping areas of activity, particularly due to the
increase of complex missions. Additionally, frequent
collaboration is required because DPA lacks the logistical
support capacity required for some of its field activities.
The Secretary-General has instituted a "lead department
policy" to establish a commanding department for each
mission, but the policy lacks clear criteria and transparency
with regard to decision making.


5. Review of the existing mandates for each department is
also essential in order to provide greater clarity. The DPA
mandate needs to be restructured to account for overlap with
DPKO and for the establishment of the Peacebuilding
Commission and the Peacebuilding Support Office, all of which
have related functions.


6. There is also a need to clarify budgetary processes, as
funding for all special political missions is included in
DPA's budget section, although DPA is not the lead department
for all of these missions. The ACABQ has also requested a
logical categorization of the work programs in budget
submissions. The report noted a lack of documented procedures
and evidence for justifying expenses and resources, as well
as the absence of annual performance reports and variance
analysis of mission budgets to improve efficiency and target
weak areas. The efficient use of resources is hampered by
inadequate control and oversight of budgets. OIOS determined
that there is a need for better performance indicators and
policies or procedures for improving efficiency and
communication. Management must develop standard operating
procedures for communication between headquarters and
missions, as well as for determining and applying lessons
learned. Additionally, exit strategies must be developed for
special political missions.


7. OIOS issued 15 recommendations that covered four broad
areas:
- Updating mandates to reflect each department's


responsibility for directing special political missions, the
establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission and the
Peacebuilding Support Office, and institution of the lead
department policy.
- Establishment of better coordination between DPA and DPKO
through the clarification of the Secretary-General's lead
department policy, working-level methodologies and the
formation of interdepartmental working groups to create
coordination procedures.
- Reform of the budgetary process, including the creation of
an oversight mechanism in the form of an operational
agreement between DPA and DPKO, the formation of a working
group to revise and oversee the budget, and enhancement of
budgetary controls through performance reports of
expenditures in order to better address accountability for
budget resources of field missions.
-Improvement of management and communication within DPA by
strengthening standard operating procedures and creation of
performance indicators.


8. DPA and DPKO have accepted these recommendations and have
started to implement them. The Executive Office of the
Secretary-General did not comment on those recommendations

SIPDIS
that impact that office.


9. COMMENT: The review raises a number of important issues
regarding the management of special political missions and
will be discussed by the Fifth Committee at the same time
that the Committee considers the 2007 budgets for special
political missions. USUN hopes that, in implementing the
OIOS recommendations, Member States will be provided with
more useful information for budgetary decisions in the future
and that the Secretariat will be in a position to more
efficiently manage special political missions. END COMMENT.
BOLTON