This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-922 
entitled 'United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' 
Consensus Needed for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan' 
which was released on September 29, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2011: 

United Nations: 

Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus Needed for Food and 
Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan: 

GAO-11-922: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-922, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The United States and other member states have long-standing concerns 
about the management and operations of the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO), a United Nations (UN) specialized agency charged 
with leading international efforts to defeat hunger. After an external 
evaluation found that FAO needed to reform, FAO adopted its reform 
plan, called the Immediate Plan of Action for FAO Renewal (IPA), which 
includes 272 action items. This report examines (1) the methodology 
that FAO uses to report on the status of its reform plan, (2) factors 
that affect FAO’s ability to implement its reform plan, and (3) 
actions the United States has undertaken to support FAO reform 
efforts. GAO analyzed FAO documents, including FAO’s most recent 2010 
IPA progress report; interviewed U.S. and UN officials, and 
representatives of FAO member states; and analyzed 30 IPA action items 
from FAO’s reform plan. 

What GAO Found: 

In response to member states’ request, FAO’s 2010 IPA progress report 
provided more quantitative measures of its reform implementation 
status than in its previous progress report, but the reported 
information may not accurately reflect the implementation status of 
some action items due to weaknesses in FAO’s methodology. The progress 
report used implementation status categories to characterize reform 
status. IPA project leaders assessed the status of action items using 
these categories, but the varying nature of the action items and 
ambiguity of the implementation status categories caused difficulties 
in quantitatively measuring the progress of reforms. FAO’s Program 
Management Unit (PMU), the entity responsible for managing the 
implementation of the reform plan, did not provide clear guidance for 
project leaders to easily differentiate among the categories. 
Moreover, the PMU did not comprehensively validate the reported 
implementation status for all action items in the 2010 IPA progress 
report. However, it has begun to collect and validate supporting 
information for all action items that project leaders are reporting as 
being “completed” and has also begun to monitor the progress of a 
selected number of action items that have yet to be completed. GAO 
found that the reported information in FAO’s 2010 IPA progress report 
may not precisely reflect the implementation status of some action 
items. For example, some action items that were ongoing in nature were 
categorized as “on track,” while others were reported as “continuous.” 
Since the action items that remain to be completed are the largest and 
most complex to implement, the accuracy of future progress reports 
will become more important to FAO member states that are responsible 
for providing appropriate oversight. 

FAO management has made efforts to address some factors that could 
hinder its ability to implement the reform plan, but some impediments 
may challenge full implementation. To further its oversight of the 
reform plan, FAO management undertook a risk assessment that 
identified risks at the program level, such as weaknesses in its 
internal governance, and significant risks that could affect 
implementation at the project level. FAO management has addressed some 
of the weaknesses and risks identified in the risk assessment. 
However, impediments such as disagreements among member states, 
interdependencies among reform projects, and insufficient support from 
some managers and staff could cause some of the action items to be 
incomplete or delayed. For example, member states continue to disagree 
on the criteria for FAO country office coverage. FAO management does 
not expect to complete this action item until after the scheduled end 
of the reform plan in 2013. 

As the principle representative of U.S. interests at FAO headquarters, 
the U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome (USUN Rome) has made 
efforts to support FAO reform. USUN Rome’s actions include the 
prioritization of oversight and accountability reforms, consistent 
with a U.S. government initiative across the UN system and are 
reflected in USUN Rome’s performance indicators. USUN Rome has also 
worked formally and informally with member states to promote oversight 
and accountability reforms at FAO. For example, USUN Rome officials 
participated in an oversight focus group that actively supported the 
drafting of a disclosure policy for FAO’s internal audit reports and 
the establishment of an Ethics Office. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Representative 
to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture work with member states to 
(1) encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and 
categorizing the implementation status of IPA action items and (2) 
determine before 2013 if consensus can be achieved for IPA action 
items currently subject to disagreement among member states. The 
Department of State concurred with GAO’s recommendations. FAO 
management noted that it would consider the issues discussed in GAO’s 
report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-922] or key 
components. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-
9601 or melitot@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

In Response to Member States' Request, FAO Management Added 
Quantitative Measures of the Status of Its Reform Plan, but Its 
Methodology Has Weaknesses: 

FAO Has Taken Steps to Address Factors That Hinder Its Ability to 
Implement Certain Reforms, but Some Impediments May Challenge Full 
Implementation: 

USUN Rome's Efforts to Support FAO Management Reform Emphasized 
Oversight and Accountability: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Food and Agriculture Organization: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: IPA Projects by Thematic Areas, as of July 2011: 

Table 2: Summary of Implementation Status Category Definitions, and 
the Number and Percentage of IPA Action Items by Implementation Status 
during 2009 and 2010, as of Dec. 31, 2010: 

Table 3: Summary of the Total Number of IPA Action Items and the 
Number Selected for In-Depth GAO Review, by Implementation Status, as 
of Dec. 31, 2010: 

Table 4: List of 30 Selected IPA Action Items, as of Dec. 31, 2010: 

Abbreviations: 

DO: Decentralized Offices: 

ERM: enterprise risk management: 

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization: 

IO: Department of State's International Organization Affairs Bureau: 

IPA: Immediate Plan of Action for FAO Renewal: 

IPSAS: International Public Sector Accounting Standards: 

PMU: Program Management Unit: 

PWB: Program of Work and Budget: 

UN: United Nations: 

UNTAI: United Nations Transparency and Accountability Initiative: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

USUN Rome: U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 29, 2011: 

The Honorable John F. Kerry: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Sam Farr: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro: 
House of Representatives: 

The United States and other member states have long-standing concerns 
about the management and operations of the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO), a 60-year-old United Nations (UN) specialized 
agency charged with leading international efforts to defeat hunger. 
FAO's mission includes raising levels of nutrition, improving 
agricultural productivity, enhancing the lives of rural populations, 
and contributing to the growth of the world economy. Over the past 
decade, some member states have repeatedly criticized FAO's leadership 
for its failure to efficiently and effectively manage its programs and 
provide appropriate oversight and accountability. In 2006, FAO 
management agreed to undergo its first Independent External Evaluation-
-undertaken over 18 months by an independent team of outside 
consultants--which resulted in a 2007 report with 109 reform 
recommendations, aimed at reversing FAO's decline and securing its 
future as a dynamic and effective global organization. The evaluation 
found that FAO continued to provide a range of essential goods and 
services that no other organization could adequately provide, though 
these areas were at serious risk. It also reported that the 
organization had a heavy and costly bureaucracy and needed to address 
major weaknesses in its organizational structure. Moreover, the 
evaluation found member states' overall governance of FAO to be 
insufficient because, for example, it did not ensure an adequate 
corporate strategy with realistic priorities and did not measure FAO 
management's performance against agreed-upon goals. Since the 
Independent External Evaluation, FAO has hired an external consultant 
to conduct an additional review focusing on the organization's 
administrative and support functions and processes.[Footnote 1] To 
address the recommendations of this review, as well as the findings of 
the 2006 external evaluation, in November 2008, FAO adopted the 
Immediate Plan of Action for FAO Renewal (IPA), which we also refer to 
in this report as FAO's reform plan. The IPA identifies 272 specific 
action items that fall under 29 different IPA projects, such as 
governing body reform, decentralization, and culture change.[Footnote 
2] FAO also uses six broad thematic areas to categorize the nature of 
action items and projects.[Footnote 3] FAO officials told us that 
implementing large-scale change management initiatives is not a simple 
endeavor and that they expect productivity and effectiveness to 
initially decline before achieving the reform plan's intended benefits 
in 2013. Given the complexity of the reform plan, FAO decided to 
extend the planned time frame for implementation from a 3-year period 
(2009 to 2011) to a 5-year period (2009 to 2013). 

As the largest financial contributor to FAO's regular assessed budget 
and a major participant in FAO's Governing Body of member states, the 
United States has emphasized the need for management reforms in the 
organization.[Footnote 4] The U.S. Department of State's (State) 
International Organization Affairs Bureau (IO) is the primary U.S. 
agency promoting effective management of international organizations 
and therefore leads efforts to support the U.S. position on FAO 
management reforms. State IO relies on the U.S. Mission to the UN 
Agencies in Rome (USUN Rome) to represent U.S. interests at FAO 
headquarters. USUN Rome includes U.S. officials from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID) who work on FAO issues. USDA and USAID work with 
FAO on technical and programmatic issues, as well as developmental and 
humanitarian assistance projects, respectively. 

In response to your request and to address the issues discussed above, 
we examined (1) the methodology that FAO uses to report on the status 
of its reform plan, (2) factors that affect FAO's ability to implement 
its reform plan, and (3) actions the United States has undertaken to 
support FAO reform efforts. 

To address these objectives, we focused our review on FAO's reform 
plan. In addition, unless otherwise specified, we focused on the 
information in FAO's most recent IPA progress report, as of December 
31, 2010, which we refer to as FAO's 2010 IPA progress report when we 
discuss the implementation status of FAO's reform plan in this report. 
[Footnote 5] We reviewed and analyzed FAO and U.S. documents and data 
and met with officials representing FAO, the U.S. government, and 
other FAO member countries. We conducted a general review of all 272 
IPA action items, and selected a nonprobability sample of 30 action 
items for more in-depth review.[Footnote 6] We selected these 30 
action items because they fall among the six different thematic areas 
of the IPA and reflect the range of reported implementation status 
categories, according to FAO's 2010 IPA progress report.[Footnote 7] 
However, our sample was intended to be illustrative, and the results 
of the sample cannot be projected to all 272 IPA action items. To help 
us better understand the factors that may affect FAO's reform plan, we 
selected a sample with a higher proportion of action items that FAO 
management reported as "subject to minor delays" than action items 
that FAO management reported as "completed" or "on track."[Footnote 8] 
Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our scope and 
methodology. It includes, in table 3, a summary of the total number of 
IPA action items by implementation status category, as reported by FAO 
management, and the number of action items we selected within each of 
those categories for more in-depth review. It also includes, in table 
4, a detailed description of our selected 30 action items, which we 
refer to by IPA action item number in this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 to September 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

FAO's Mission and Governance Structure: 

FAO was established in 1945 with a mandate to raise international 
levels of nutrition and standards of living, improve agricultural 
productivity, and improve the condition of rural populations. With a 
primary focus on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and rural 
development, FAO collects, analyzes, and disseminates food-security- 
related statistical information, and sets international standards 
critical to trade in food and agricultural products. FAO is 
headquartered in Rome, and its decentralized offices include 5 
regional, 11 subregional, and 74 country offices.[Footnote 9] 

FAO has 191 member states and is governed by various bodies 
represented by member states. Every 2 years, representatives of all 
member states meet at the FAO Conference (Conference)--FAO's supreme 
Governing Body--to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities, which 
include determining FAO's policy, approving the program of work and 
budget, and adopting general rules and financial regulations. Each 
Conference member has a single vote on these matters, regardless of 
the level of its contribution. The Conference elects a smaller group 
of 49 member states, known as the Council, to serve 3-year rotating 
terms. The Council reviews the program of work and budget; exercises 
control over FAO's financial administration by, for example, making 
adjustments to the approved budget; and appoints the external auditor. 
As with the Conference, each Council member has a single vote in 
acting on these matters. The Conference also elects a Director-
General, FAO's chief administrative officer, to a 4-year term with the 
ability to be eligible for only one additional 4-year term.[Footnote 
10] Except as otherwise provided in the Basic Text and certain rules, 
the decisions of the Conference and Council are taken by a majority of 
the votes cast.[Footnote 11] However, according to FAO officials, the 
practice is that Governing Bodies normally make decisions by achieving 
consensus among member states, with votes taken only when specifically 
required in the Basic Texts or when consensus cannot be achieved. 

FAO's Committee of the Conference for Follow-up to the Independent 
External Evaluation--which we refer to in this report as the 
Conference Committee--is open to participation by all member states 
and oversees the progress of the IPA.[Footnote 12] The Conference 
Committee received direct support from three Working Groups and advice 
from other FAO Governing Bodies: the Council, Program Committee, 
Finance Committee, Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, and 
Regional Conferences.[Footnote 13] In November 2010, the Director-
General established an IPA Program Board, comprised of FAO management 
and the IPA Program Management Unit (PMU), to ensure that the reform 
plan meets its objectives and delivers its intended benefits. The 
PMU's responsibilities include ensuring that adequate project 
management standards are utilized, monitoring IPA program and project 
risks, and coordinating and directing the reform program on behalf of 
the IPA Program Board. The IPA project leaders are FAO senior managers 
with line management responsibility for implementing IPA action items, 
while the PMU reports on the status of IPA implementation to the 
Conference Committee in quarterly and annual reports.[Footnote 14] For 
IPA implementation, the Basic Texts include the provision that the 
Independent Chairperson of the Council, appointed by the Conference, 
would take steps to facilitate and achieve consensus among member 
states, especially on important or controversial issues. 

Funding for FAO and Its Management Reform Plan: 

FAO's overall program of work is funded by assessed and voluntary 
contributions. The assessed contributions are member states' 
contributions, set at the biennial FAO Conference. FAO's funding from 
its regular budget for the 2010-2011 biennium is $1 billion. The 
voluntary contributions provided by members and other partners support 
technical and emergency assistance to governments that support FAO's 
core work. Voluntary contributions are expected to reach approximately 
$1.6 billion in 2010-2011. 

FAO's budget to address reforms includes funding from member states' 
regular assessed contributions, and donors' voluntary contributions 
provided for FAO reform-related efforts. In 2009, the FAO Conference 
approved $39.6 million to fund IPA implementation in 2010-2011, and in 
2011, FAO proposed funding of about $37.8 million for the IPA program 
in 2012-2013. In addition to the portion of member states' assessed 
contributions that FAO dedicates to reforms, member states have also 
made voluntary contributions toward FAO reform-related initiatives. As 
of December 2010, FAO reported that it had received approximately $9 
million from 36 such pledges. Starting in fiscal year 2004, the United 
States provided $1.15 million in voluntary contributions to help fund 
FAO's 2006 Independent External Evaluation and IPA implementation, 
which were not covered by assessed contributions. These voluntary 
contributions specifically included $500,000 in fiscal year 2009 to 
fund IPA implementation costs. 

FAO's IPA Projects by Thematic Area: 

Table 1 lists the 29 IPA projects by the six broad thematic areas into 
which FAO groups the 272 action items. FAO has one additional thematic 
area, with projects and action items related to IPA management follow- 
up, which we labeled as "other." 

Table 1: IPA Projects by Thematic Areas, as of July 2011: 

IPA thematic area: I. Managing for Results; 
IPA projects: 
Reform of Program, Budgeting, and Results-Based Monitoring;
Resource Mobilization and Management;
Functioning as One: Enterprise Risk Management. 

IPA thematic area: II. Functioning as One; 
IPA projects: 
Technical Cooperation Program;
Decentralization;
Partnerships. 

IPA thematic area: III. Human Resources Reform; 
IPA projects: 
Headquarters Structure;
Performance Management System;
Competency Framework;
Mobility;
Other Human Resources Actions. 

IPA thematic area: IV. Reform of Administrative and Management Systems; 
IPA projects: 
Publishing in All Languages;
Procurement;
Travel;
Translation and Printing;
Registry Reform;
Administrative Service Model and FAO Manual;
International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and Field 
Accounting System Replacement;
Improving Telecommunications Connectivity to Decentralized Offices (DO);
Oracle R12;
Other Information Technology Actions. 

IPA thematic area: V. Culture Change; 
IPA projects: 
Culture Change. 

IPA thematic area: VI. Governance Reform and Oversight; 
IPA projects: 
Governing Body Reform;.
Audit;
Evaluation;
Ethics;
Internal Governance. 

IPA thematic area: Other: IPA Management Follow-up; 
IPA projects: 
IPA Program Management Support;
IPA Communications. 

Source: FAO. 

[End of table] 

USUN Rome's Goals and Performance Indicators Related to FAO Reforms: 

Actions to support FAO management reform are part of USUN Rome's goals 
and performance indicators in fiscal year 2010. One of USUN Rome's 
goals is to improve Rome-based UN organization governance activities, 
including efforts to promote FAO reforms.[Footnote 15] According to a 
document that summarizes USUN Rome's performance results for fiscal 
year 2010, it established this goal to increase the cost-
effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of the Rome-based UN 
organizations in the context of broader UN system reforms in order to 
ensure that they are viewed as reliable and valuable partners by 
member states and partner organizations. 

In Response to Member States' Request, FAO Management Added 
Quantitative Measures of the Status of Its Reform Plan, but Its 
Methodology Has Weaknesses: 

In its 2010 IPA progress report, FAO used more quantitative measures 
to reflect its reform implementation status than in its previous 
progress report. The report uses seven implementation status 
categories to quantitatively assess the status of action items. 
However, the varying nature of the action items and the ambiguity of 
these implementation status categories contributed to potential 
inconsistencies in project leaders' assessment of several action items 
in our sample. The PMU did not provide clear guidance for project 
leaders to easily differentiate among the categories and did not 
comprehensively validate the reported implementation status for action 
items in FAO's 2010 IPA progress report. We found examples in which 
some action items could reasonably be classified under more than one 
implementation status category. As a result, the 2010 IPA progress 
report may not precisely reflect the implementation status of some 
action items. 

FAO Management Added Quantitative Measures of Reform Implementation 
Status in Its 2010 IPA Progress Report: 

FAO used more quantitative measures to reflect its reform 
implementation status in its 2010 IPA progress report than in its 
previous progress report. Since November 2009, FAO has provided 
periodic IPA progress reports based on its own assessment of the 
status of 272 IPA action items. These progress reports are the primary 
management tool that member states rely on to determine the status of 
FAO's reform plan. The content of the progress reports changes based 
on the requests of member states. Progress reports generally include a 
qualitative description of the progress of reform implementation. The 
2010 IPA progress report included a qualitative discussion of 
achievements and benefits in the six thematic areas, such as noting 
increased use of participatory processes for work planning and 
decision making and greater levels of information and knowledge 
sharing for Culture Change. 

Member states requested more quantitative measures of the 
implementation status of the reform plan upon reviewing the prior 
progress report, which contained only qualitative information on the 
reforms. In response, FAO's 2010 IPA progress report provided a 
breakdown of the number of action items by implementation status, 
unlike the preceding progress report. The PMU requested that IPA 
project leaders use four categories--completed, on track, subject to 
minor delays, and subject to major delays--to assess the status of 
those action items they are responsible for implementing. In addition, 
the progress report included "continuous," "no consensus among member 
states," and "scheduled beyond 2013" as categories under "other." 
[Footnote 16] The 2010 IPA progress report showed that 55 percent of 
the action items are "completed," 39 percent are "on track," and 6 
percent are "subject to minor delays." However, in reporting these 
percentages, FAO did not include 12 action items categorized in the 
"other" category, which would have represented 4.4 percent of the 
total number of action items if FAO management had included the 
"other" category in its calculations. Table 2 includes the definitions 
of the implementation status categories and a quantitative summary of 
all 272 action items by implementation status. 

Table 2: Summary of Implementation Status Category Definitions, and 
the Number and Percentage of IPA Action Items by Implementation Status 
during 2009 and 2010, as of Dec. 31, 2010: 

Status: Completed; 
Category definition: Implementation of the IPA action has been 
completed; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 143[B]; 55%. 

Status: On track; 
Category definition: Progress toward implementation of the IPA action 
is in accordance with the planned dates and impediments and risks are 
not expected to significantly affect progress; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 102; 39%. 

Status: Subject to minor delays; 
Category definition: Progress toward implementation of the IPA action 
by the planned dates is in jeopardy but action has been identified to 
overcome delays, impediments and risks; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 15; 6%. 

Status: Subject to major delays; 
Category definition: Successful implementation of the IPA action by 
the planned dates is in serious jeopardy due to impediments or risks 
that are expected to significantly alter implementation; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 0; N/A. 

Status: Other: continuous; 
Category definition: Actions were considered to be of a "continuous" 
nature rather than having a specific start and end date; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 5; Excluded. 

Status: Other: no consensus among member states; 
Category definition: Actions were not implemented because there was no 
consensus among members; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 3; Excluded. 

Status: Other: scheduled beyond 2013 by FAO Management; 
Category definition: Actions have been scheduled to be completed 
"beyond 2013" by management; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 2; Excluded. 

Status: Other: proposed for deletion; 
Category definition: Proposed for deletion subject to members' 
approval; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 2; Excluded. 

Status: Total; 
Total number and percentage[A] of all IPA action items in terms of 
implementation status: 272; 100%. 

Source: FAO's 2010 IPA progress report. 

[A] FAO's reported percentage excludes the categories as indicated. 

[B] FAO reported that it completed 118 action items in 2009 and 25 
action items in 2010. 

[End of table] 

Measuring FAO's Reform Progress Quantitatively Is Difficult: 

According to some FAO officials, the varying nature of the action 
items causes difficulties in quantitatively measuring their 
implementation status in a consistent manner. As noted in the 2010 IPA 
progress report, the quantitative indicators provide only a partial 
measurement of the progress of reforms, given the wide variation in 
size, scope, and complexity of individual action items. The IPA's 272 
action items range from discrete, finite actions--such as the 
appointment of an ombudsman--to actions that are more difficult to 
assess because they are ongoing in nature--such as the implementation 
of a vision for culture change. According to the 2010 IPA progress 
report, completion of some action items is considered relatively "easy 
and quick," whereas completion of others may be extremely complex and 
require a major investment of resources. The action items planned for 
completion in the 2012-2013 time period represent 20 percent of the 
number of outstanding action items but correspond to 40 percent of the 
total workload in terms of outstanding effort, time, and costs, and, 
according to the 2010 IPA progress report, are the largest and most 
complex to implement. 

Furthermore, FAO officials told us that it is difficult to determine 
which category most accurately reflects the implementation status of 
certain action items and to precisely differentiate among the 
categories themselves. For example, the designations under the "other" 
category--"continuous," "no consensus among member states," and 
"scheduled beyond 2013"--often characterize the nature of the action 
items and the reasons for delays rather than the action items' actual 
implementation status in terms of time frames. Representatives of some 
FAO member states also noted that they cannot easily differentiate 
between some of the categories, such as the "continuous" and 
"scheduled beyond 2013" categories. 

The PMU Did Not Provide Clear Guidance and Did Not Comprehensively 
Validate the Reported Status of Action Items: 

Despite the inherent difficulties in assigning the action items to the 
existing implementation status categories, the PMU provided only 
limited guidance to project leaders on how to define and differentiate 
among the implementation status categories. Based on what we have 
noted in various reports, organizations should develop clear 
definitions for categories to account for progress made and to apply 
the same definitions consistently to all actions for which it is 
measuring progress.[Footnote 17] The only guidance the PMU provided to 
project leaders was (1) the implementation status categories' 
definitions (as shown in table 2); (2) a request for the project 
leaders' judgment on the action items' implementation statuses against 
the planned start and end dates of implementation; and (3) a request 
that, for any action items the project leaders assessed as being 
"subject to major delays," the project leaders were required to 
provide comments explaining the impediments or risks to implementation 
of these action items. FAO officials noted that the PMU also worked 
with project leaders if they raised questions about categorizing the 
action items. 

The PMU did not provide clear guidance on the definitions of and 
distinctions among implementation categories. For example, the PMU did 
not clearly define the "continuous" category, intended to characterize 
ongoing action items. The 2010 IPA progress report did not provide 
clarification on the implementation status of action items in the 
"continuous" category, such as "one action needed," "several actions 
needed," or "continuous actions needed" to complete these action 
items. Without clear guidance that adequately defines the categories 
and allows project leaders to consistently apply the definitions to 
action items that vary in nature, the quantitative measures of the 
reform plan's status may be difficult to interpret. 

Furthermore, the information in FAO's 2010 IPA progress report was not 
comprehensively validated, which includes having an entity or 
individual independent from the project leader review and concur with 
the reported status of each action item, to provide a sufficient level 
of confidence that the reported information is credible. GAO's 
methodological guidance notes that reliability checks and management 
review procedures are an essential component to ensuring that 
different individuals categorize data in a consistent and reliable 
fashion.[Footnote 18] The PMU relies primarily on the project leaders' 
own assessment of the implementation statuses of action items that 
they are implementing. An FAO official told us that the PMU reviewed 
supporting documents for a subset of 2010 information provided by the 
project leaders, including all action items that project leaders 
reported as being completed, and on an ad hoc basis for others. 

FAO officials acknowledged the need to improve the validity of the 
reported information for additional action items and have begun to 
monitor the progress of a selected number of action items that have 
yet to be completed. As of June 2011, the PMU has developed a risk-
based approach to selecting 27 action items that have high 
significance, present a high risk level, involve large costs to FAO, 
and are not expected to be completed in 2011. One of the expected 
benefits of this management action, among others, is to improve the 
validity of the reported information for these action items. The PMU 
plans to obtain and validate the evidence used by project leaders to 
support the reported implementation status of these 27 selected action 
items. In addition, the PMU is requesting that the project leaders 
increase the information provided, including the benefits of 
implementing these action items, specific planned and achieved 
activities associated with these action items, milestone dates, 
expenditures, savings, risks, and status of mitigating actions. These 
27 action items represent about 21 percent of the 127 total action 
items reported as not completed as of the end of 2010. According to 
FAO, these action items include most of the complex and large projects 
to be implemented in the 2012-2013 time frame, comprise approximately 
70 percent of the related total IPA budget for the period, and are 
expected by FAO management to deliver many of the benefits to be 
achieved through IPA implementation. 

Reported Information May Not Precisely Reflect the Implementation 
Status of Some Action Items: 

We found that the implementation status categories were not 
consistently applied to the action items, and some action items could 
arguably be classified in multiple implementation status categories. 
We found the following examples of weaknesses in FAO's implementation 
status categories and cases in our nonprobability sample of 30 
selected action items in which action items could reasonably be 
classified under more than one implementation status category: 

* "Continuous" describes the nature of ongoing action items but does 
not measure the progress of action items against time frames. The 2010 
IPA progress report showed some ongoing actions as "continuous" and 
others as "completed" or "on track." For example, FAO reported the 
action item to implement a vision for culture change as "on track" 
because FAO had developed a vision statement without major obstacles-- 
but FAO officials acknowledged that it could also be categorized as 
"continuous" because its implementation is ongoing in nature.[Footnote 
19] The 2010 IPA progress report shows another action item that is 
ongoing in nature--that FAO pursues new partnerships--as "continuous." 
[Footnote 20] 

* Although the PMU's definition of "continuous" characterizes actions 
that do not have specific start and end dates, action items classified 
as "continuous" may, in fact, have planned start and end dates. For 
one action item, in which the Program and Finance Committees would 
support the Council in providing policy oversight of decentralization, 
FAO set an end date of December 2013 but classified the status as 
"continuous."[Footnote 21] Furthermore, FAO could establish completion 
dates for some action items. For example, for the action item for FAO 
to allocate 5 percent of its regular budget for interdisciplinary 
work, FAO officials informed us that there is disagreement about this 
issue within the organization, but FAO could set a date to determine 
if the 5 percent target is reasonable relative to the other work that 
is funded by its regular budget.[Footnote 22] Although the project 
leader categorized this action as "continuous," resolution on this 
action is uncertain and may be characterized as "subject to minor 
delays." 

* The "no consensus among member states" category provides a possible 
reason for delays in implementing action items, but no other category 
includes reasons for implementation delays. We found that all three 
action items categorized as "no consensus among member states" could 
have been categorized according to their actual implementation status--
being subject to minor or even major delays. For example, FAO 
officials categorized the action item to rationalize coverage of FAO's 
offices based on the reason for its delayed time frame, the lack of 
members' consensus.[Footnote 23] FAO member states did not meet the 
planned end date of December 2010 for this action item, and FAO 
officials do not expect to complete this action item until after 2013. 
Therefore, this action item could also be reported as "subject to 
minor delays" or "scheduled for implementation beyond 2013." 

* The "scheduled beyond 2013" category lacks clear definition and 
distinction from the "subject to minor delays" category. For example, 
the action item to increase FAO's Office of Evaluation budget target 
over the 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 time frame was reported as "scheduled 
beyond 2013" with a planned completion date of 2013.[Footnote 24] The 
project leader informed us that based on FAO management's decision, 
FAO does not plan to achieve this target until after 2013. The 2010 
IPA progress report noted that delays occurred beyond the originally 
planned completion date of 2012-2013. As such, this action item could 
also be categorized as "subject to minor delays" since its target will 
not be reached in the 2012-2013 biennium. 

* FAO officials assessed action items' status based on previous target 
dates, without accurately reflecting these action items' updated 
status. For two action items in our sample--related to FAO's 
implementation of the integrated International Public Sector 
Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and information system upgrade--the 
project leaders reported the implementation status as "subject to 
minor delays" when they are, in fact, "on track."[Footnote 25] Prior 
to the completion of the 2010 IPA progress report, FAO management 
agreed to extend the planned completion date from 2010 to 2013, but 
the project leaders and PMU officials continued to assess the progress 
of these action items against the prior planned completion date. 

* Project leaders used their own interpretations when assessing the 
status of action items, so their assessments may not precisely 
represent the implementation status. For example, the action item to 
modify the format of reports produced by the FAO Council is 
categorized as "continuous," but it could also be considered 
"completed" or "on track" because the format changes have already been 
made.[Footnote 26] Although the action as specified in the IPA was 
completed, the project leader chose to categorize it as "continuous" 
because another issue, not specified in the IPA but related to the 
modified format of the Council reports, was still under debate among 
member states.[Footnote 27] 

FAO Has Taken Steps to Address Factors That Hinder Its Ability to 
Implement Certain Reforms, but Some Impediments May Challenge Full 
Implementation: 

FAO has made efforts to identify and address factors that hinder its 
ability to implement the reform plan. It undertook a systematic risk 
assessment in 2010 to identify such factors and has since taken steps 
to address them, at both the program and project levels. However, we 
found that until FAO addresses other factors, such as disagreements 
among member states, some of the action items in our sample may be 
delayed beyond 2013 or may not be completed. 

FAO Has Taken Steps to Identify and Address Factors that Hinder 
Implementation of Its Reform Plan: 

In 2010, FAO management undertook a systematic risk assessment to 
identify any threats to the reform plan's implementation at both the 
program and project levels, and actions needed to manage them. 
[Footnote 28] The assessment revealed major gaps in management's 
implementation of the reform plan which could prevent FAO from 
achieving the intended benefits and damage its normal operations. It 
identified risks associated with the reform plan, rated the risk 
levels, and defined actions to control them. To develop the 
assessment, FAO's Office of the Inspector General partnered with a 
consultant to facilitate a self-assessment with project leaders and 
their staff that resulted in a risk log for each IPA project.[Footnote 
29] Project leaders and their staff were asked to identify significant 
risks that could affect implementation of their projects.[Footnote 30] 
For example, the project leader responsible for decentralization 
identified a disruption risk that included Regional Offices becoming 
isolated from headquarters and each other. Project leaders and their 
staff rated these risks in terms of impact and likelihood. A FAO 
official told us risks were then color-coded from most at risk (red), 
to somewhat (amber), to least (green).[Footnote 31] Project leaders 
and their staff concluded the self-assessment by documenting the 
actions needed to control the risks associated with their projects. 

FAO has taken steps to address weaknesses that the risk assessment 
identified at the program level. For example, in November 2010, the 
Director-General took the following steps to improve the reform plan's 
internal governance: 

* established an IPA Program Board composed of FAO's senior managers, 
including the two Deputy Director-Generals, to improve internal 
oversight and support key executive decisions; 

* assigned responsibility for reform program management to the newly 
established PMU;[Footnote 32] 

* assigned responsibility for reform communications to the Office of 
Corporate Communications and External Relations; 

* included the reform plan as a standing item on senior management 
meeting agendas and dedicated monthly meetings exclusively to this 
topic; and: 

* ensured that reform efforts are regularly discussed by the Executive 
Leadership Team. 

The IPA Program Board, chaired by one of the Deputy Director- 
Generals, meets on a weekly basis and provides general oversight of 
the reform plan. The IPA Program Board has prioritized how resources 
for FAO's reform plan will be allocated in the 2012-2013 biennium 
according to (1) long-term sustainability of the reform plan, (2) the 
quality of projects, (3) financial discipline, and (4) alignment with 
FAO's capacity to deliver.[Footnote 33] Furthermore, at the request of 
the IPA Program Board, FAO's Office of the Inspector General plans to 
conduct a comprehensive review of management's implementation of the 
reform plan. According to FAO officials, the Office of the Inspector 
General expects to hire an external consultant to conduct this 
substantive review of the status of all 272 action items in late 2011, 
when the reform plan is halfway through its 5-year implementation time 
frame. 

To address risks at the project level, the PMU has focused on the 
projects that have the greatest likelihood of hindering full 
implementation of the reform plan. The PMU has prioritized its efforts 
in the following order: (1) projects upon which many other projects 
are dependent, (2) projects that include the greatest number of risks 
rated as "red," and (3) other project risks that were rated as "amber" 
or "green." The PMU has been following up on actions taken by project 
leaders to mitigate these risks. For example, FAO officials told us 
the PMU worked with the IPA Program Board to recategorize action items 
into an increased number of projects, which according to FAO's 2010-
2011 Management Report on IPA Implementation will help improve the 
PMU's application of project standards and management of project 
workloads, as well as more clearly presenting the reform plan's 
implementation strategy. A FAO official also told us the PMU plans to 
discuss such actions with the IPA Program Board if they are not 
effective. 

Factors Including Disagreements among Member States Could Hinder Full 
Implementation of the Reform Plan: 

Disagreements among Member States Continue to Impede Efforts to 
Complete Three Action Items: 

Qualifications of the Director-General: 

In 2009, the Conference Committee did not complete the action item for 
establishing qualifications for the Director-General position because, 
according to a FAO official, member states could not agree on the 
development of those qualifications.[Footnote 34] According to FAO's 
2010 IPA progress report, member states did not take further action to 
complete the action item, and member states' disagreement precluded 
the consideration of new qualifications prior to the June 2011 
Director-General election. However, the United Kingdom developed a 
draft working document in June 2010 for the Conference Committee that 
included a job description and competency profile for the Director-
General position.[Footnote 35] This document was presented to the 
Conference Committee by the United Kingdom for information and to 
promote the exchange of ideas among member states in the future. 

Country Office Locations: 

According to FAO's 2010 IPA progress report, an action item to review 
FAO's country office locations is not on track for completion because 
member states disagree on the criteria for country office coverage. 
[Footnote 36] An FAO official told us that if the criteria for country 
office coverage outlined in the IPA were applied, FAO would reduce its 
operations to 5 country offices from its existing level of 74. To help 
member states determine the optimal scale and scope of the country 
office network, FAO management prepared a document that included 
management's overall vision for the structure and functioning of the 
decentralized offices network.[Footnote 37] Member states discussed 
the content of this document in the 2010-2011 biennium and Regional 
Conferences highlighted the importance of FAO's country presence. For 
example, the Regional Conferences for (1) Africa, (2) Asia and the 
Pacific, (3) Europe, and (4) Latin America and the Caribbean all 
expressed the need for extending and strengthening FAO's country 
presence, while the United States and Canada, during their informal 
North America Regional Conference, felt additional resources for field 
offices could only be added if they did not result in a net transfer 
of resources from headquarters to the field. FAO officials told us 
they plan to provide member states with additional information on each 
country office--including staffing levels, operating costs, funding 
sources, and administered programs. They also expect this information 
to be discussed by the Governing Bodies in October 2011, as well as 
the Regional Conferences in 2012. 

Composition of the FAO Council: 

FAO has not been able to complete the action item that proposes 
changes to the composition of the FAO Council because member states 
cannot agree on its overall size.[Footnote 38] In October 2010, the 
Independent Chairperson of the Council developed a proposal to improve 
representation in the FAO Council and enhance the efficiency of its 
work, including a measure to increase the number of FAO Council seats 
from 49 to 56. However, member states did not accept this proposal. 
Some members argued for keeping the existing number of 49 seats. 
Others argued to further increase the number of seats, such as through 
a resolution developed by the Chair of the Group of 77 for the 2011 
FAO Conference, which would increase the number of seats from 49 to 
61.[Footnote 39] A February 2011 summary document provided by the 
Independent Chairperson of the Council indicated that member states 
disagreed on whether membership should be increased to 61 seats or to 
keep the issue open for further consideration in the future. State 
officials told us that when the Group of 77 countries did not achieve 
support from two-thirds of the member states, they withdrew their 
resolution. 

Interdependencies among IPA Projects Could Cause Implementation Delays: 

In 2010, FAO identified some interdependencies among IPA projects, 
including four action items in our sample, which could cause 
implementation delays because FAO cannot complete these action items 
without first completing another action item. For example, the project 
designed to produce financial statements that are compliant with 
international public sector accounting standards has been slowed by 
the delayed upgrade of an internal information system[Footnote 40] 
While the PMU has recently taken steps to comprehensively identify 
interdependencies among IPA projects, additional delays could result 
from these interdependencies not being managed. For example, a FAO 
official told us that FAO has delayed implementing an action item that 
would roll over up to 5 percent of the assessed budget between 
biennia--part of the "reform of programming, budgeting, and results-
based monitoring" project[Footnote 41]--until FAO completes the IPSAS 
project by complying with IPSAS in calendar year 2013. In addition, 
FAO's implementation of an action item that would introduce a new 
travel system as a part of its "reform of administrative and 
management systems" project could be subject to additional delays 
because its completion is dependent on implementing another action 
item included in the "information technology" project that would 
increase telecommunications capacity across the organization to 
support the new travel system.[Footnote 42] 

Insufficient Support from Some Managers and Staff Could Inhibit 
Implementation of Some Action Items: 

According to FAO officials, some FAO program managers and staff have 
not shown sufficient support to fully implement some action items in 
our sample. With regard to the action item to implement culture 
change, FAO reported that 58 percent of the respondents to its 2011 
employee survey disagree or are neutral that senior management is 
effectively communicating its vision of a new organizational culture. 
Based on this survey, FAO also reported that its staff generally 
favored more face-to-face communication about the reform effort. 
[Footnote 43] The project leader responsible for implementing the 
vision statement told us that FAO has hired a consultant to help 
improve staff commitment and engagement in implementing the vision 
statement throughout the organization. In addition, FAO's Office of 
the Inspector General commissioned an external audit report which 
identified lack of support among senior managers as a potential 
roadblock to implementing enterprise risk management (ERM). FAO 
officials responsible for implementing an action item that would 
establish an ERM framework at FAO told us that some managers have 
stated they lacked resources to support this work and were concerned 
that participating in the initiative would detract time from their 
regular work responsibilities.[Footnote 44] Consequently, FAO 
officials also told us they are providing training to all departments 
to assist managers and staff in conducting ERM to comply with the 
initiative's requirements and overcome resistance. Furthermore, FAO 
officials stated that staff associations have raised concerns about an 
action item that establishes a staff mobility policy because it 
requires mobility for some categories of staff, but not others. 
[Footnote 45] GAO has previously reported that employee involvement 
helps to create the opportunity to establish new networks and break 
down existing organizational silos, increase employees' understanding 
and acceptance of organizational goals and objectives, and gain 
ownership for new policies and procedures.[Footnote 46] FAO's 2010-
2011 Management Report on IPA Implementation also identified buy-in 
and cooperation from managers and staff as important elements for 
ensuring full implementation of this action item, and FAO officials 
have told us they are trying to address these elements. 

USUN Rome's Efforts to Support FAO Management Reform Emphasized 
Oversight and Accountability: 

USUN Rome's efforts to support FAO management reform included the 
prioritization of oversight and accountability reforms, such as 
disclosure of internal audit reports and adoption of financial 
disclosure policies. These reforms are consistent with a strategic 
U.S. government initiative across the UN system and are reflected in 
USUN Rome's performance indicators on improving organization 
governance activities at FAO. To promote oversight and accountability 
reforms, USUN Rome worked formally and informally with member states 
to achieve consensus on these reforms by participating in the Geneva 
Group and an informal Regional Conference with Canada in November 2010. 

USUN Rome Prioritized Oversight and Accountability Reforms That Are 
Consistent with a U.S. Government Initiative across the UN System: 

USUN Rome prioritized oversight and accountability reforms that are 
included in FAO's thematic area on governance reform and oversight and 
are reflected in the United States' United Nations Transparency and 
Accountability Initiative (UNTAI). The U.S. Mission to the UN in New 
York launched UNTAI in 2007 and identified eight areas where member 
states could exercise greater oversight to ensure UN funds and 
programs are used for their intended purposes.[Footnote 47] USUN Rome 
officials told us its priorities are included in FAO's thematic area 
on governance reform and oversight and related to five of the eight 
UNTAI areas, which include the following: 

1. Disclosure of internal audits and other reports, including 
evaluations and investigations to member states. USUN Rome promoted 
amendments to the Charter of the Office of the Inspector General that 
would include disclosure of internal audit reports consistent with the 
criteria identified by the UN's High-Level Committee on Management. 
[Footnote 48] These amendments were adopted by the FAO Council in 
April 2011, and USUN Rome reviewed an internal audit report subject to 
disclosure in June 2011. 

2. Whistleblower protection policies. USUN Rome worked with FAO 
management to develop a single, clearly stated policy for all staff 
that identified their rights and mechanisms for reporting possible 
wrongdoing. FAO management issued this policy in December 2010. 

3. Financial disclosure policies. As a reform action item, USUN Rome 
worked with FAO management and member states to develop a financial 
disclosure policy that is consistent with other policies used in the 
UN system. Currently, FAO is in the process of completing its pilot 
program and plans to launch the full program in 2012. 

4. Establishment of an ethics office. Consistent with an action item 
in the reform effort, USUN Rome worked with FAO management to 
establish an Ethics Office led by an Ethics Officer that reports to 
the Director-General and Governing Bodies. USUN Rome met with the 
appointed Ethics Officer to discuss U.S. policies concerning ethics 
training and materials and financial disclosure processes. 

5. Independence of the respective internal oversight bodies. To ensure 
greater transparency and accountability, USUN Rome worked with FAO 
management and member states to have the FAO Audit Committee be 
exclusively composed of members external to FAO. Currently, all five 
members of the FAO Audit Committee are external. 

USUN Rome plans to further its efforts to promote oversight and 
accountability reforms in fiscal year 2011 by focusing on the 
remaining three UNTAI areas, which include the following: 

1. Public access to all documentation related to operations and 
activities including budget information and procurement activities. 
USUN Rome identified key financial oversight and accountability 
standards either in place, in progress, or pending at FAO based on 
internal or external recommendations received by FAO since 2005. USUN 
Rome officials told us they plan to follow up on the status of these 
recommendations, especially those that address documentation. 

2. Adoption of IPSAS. As a member of the FAO Finance Committee, USUN 
Rome officials told us they are responsible for overseeing 
implementation of this reform action item and plans to follow up with 
FAO officials to ensure compliant financial statements are produced in 
calendar year 2013. 

3. Establishment of a cap on administrative overhead costs. To 
understand how FAO applies inflation cost estimates for general 
service staff, USUN Rome told us they plan to review the methodology 
used by the International Civil Service Commission to calculate 
general service staff salaries. 

USUN Rome's performance indicators reflect its efforts to promote 
oversight and accountability reforms. As part of its goal to improve 
UN organization governance activities at FAO, USUN Rome developed two 
performance indicators related to oversight, accountability functions, 
operational efficiency, and a fully developed evaluation function. For 
fiscal year 2010, USUN Rome reported that it was on target for 
improving UN organization governance activities at FAO by 
strengthening its governance and oversight mechanism and improving its 
UNTAI score. USUN Rome also reported that it attended meetings with 
the UN International Fund for Agriculture Development to understand 
how FAO could improve its evaluation function. For fiscal year 2011, 
as part of its efforts to promote oversight and accountability 
reforms, USUN Rome plans to monitor (1) implementation of a new 
financial disclosure policy for certain FAO professionals and staff 
with fiduciary responsibilities; (2) development of a new corporate 
policy on partnerships with the private sector; and (3) proposals to 
reduce costs associated with general service staff and other 
administrative functions, such as travel; and (4) efforts to improve 
FAO's evaluation function using the International Fund for Agriculture 
Development's evaluation policy as a baseline. 

USUN Rome Worked Formally and Informally with Other Member States to 
Promote Oversight and Accountability Reforms at FAO: 

With other member states, USUN Rome participated in formal sessions of 
the Conference Committee, as well as the FAO Council and its 
committees, to promote oversight and accountability reforms at FAO. 
According to USUN Rome officials, USUN Rome participated in all 
meetings of the Conference Committee, including Working Groups that 
were established in 2009, to reach consensus on how action items 
included in the reform effort should be completed.[Footnote 49] For 
example, one of the Working Groups considered further reforms of 
systems, including plans for increasing the effectiveness of the 
decentralized offices. USUN Rome officials told us that in this 
Working Group, the United States emphasized the need for a system that 
would regularly evaluate the effectiveness of FAO's decentralized 
offices. USUN Rome also provided recommendations to the Conference 
Committee as a member of the FAO Council, Committee on Constitutional 
and Legal Matters, and Finance Committee. One of the recommendations 
provided by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters 
addressed necessary changes to the Basic Texts of FAO, including 
establishment of Director-General term limits. 

Consistent with its efforts to promote oversight and accountability 
reforms among member states, USUN Rome participated in the Geneva 
Group and an informal Regional Conference with Canada. According to 
State, this Conference occurred in Washington, D.C., and was the 
result of USDA-led interagency collaboration, in which USUN Rome, the 
State Department, and USAID were key partners. USUN Rome worked to 
achieve consensus on reforms related to oversight and accountability 
among member states within the Rome Chapter of the Geneva Group. 
[Footnote 50] In 2011, the chapter had a focus group on oversight for 
FAO that met on an ad hoc basis. According to USUN Rome officials, the 
oversight focus group worked closely with the Inspector General and 
actively supported completing action items included in FAO's reform 
project on oversight. USUN Rome also participated in an informal 
Regional Conference with Canada in November 2010 to improve strategic 
budgetary planning and implementation at FAO. To minimize the need for 
a budget increase, the North America region agreed that FAO should 
better utilize resources and identified priorities that member states 
could consider when developing the regular budget. The North America 
region also proposed the Secretariat improve its efforts to engage 
member states on identifying and aligning resources to support 
priorities by developing documentation that clearly identifies 
possible budget implications for their proposals. North America's 
priorities were shared in a letter to the Director-General in November 
2010. The letter also requested a copy be provided to member states 
through the FAO Council.[Footnote 51] However, documents prepared for 
the 2011 FAO Conference did not include North America's priorities. As 
a result, USUN Rome used the agenda item on Regional Conferences 
during the 2011 FAO Conference to formally state North America's 
priorities for other member states. 

Conclusions: 

FAO has been criticized over the last decade as a bureaucratic and 
poorly managed international organization. As a result of these 
criticisms, FAO's Governing Bodies commissioned an external 
evaluation, which found that FAO was experiencing a financial and 
program crisis that threatened the organization's future in delivering 
essential services. The external evaluation concluded that FAO needed 
to comprehensively reform its management, and in response, FAO 
leadership and its member states have adopted a multiyear reform plan. 
We found weaknesses in FAO's periodic reporting on the status of some 
reform action items. Without clear guidance on the categories 
developed to quantitatively measure the progress of reforms, project 
leaders could experience difficulties in precisely categorizing action 
items' status. Since the action items that remain to be completed 
represent the largest and most complex components of the reform plan, 
the accuracy of future progress reports becomes increasingly important 
to FAO member states that are responsible for providing appropriate 
oversight. FAO management has attempted to identify risks and address 
some weaknesses associated with the reform plan. However, full 
completion of the reform plan will require overcoming several 
impediments, such as interdependencies among projects and insufficient 
support from some managers and staff. In addition, implementation of 
the reform plan is a shared responsibility between FAO management and 
member states. For the three action items that are subject to 
disagreement among member states, FAO management cannot easily 
determine when member states might reach consensus on these action 
items--and this could occur after the reform plan's scheduled end date 
of 2013. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To more accurately reflect the implementation status of some IPA 
action items and address various factors that could slow the pace of 
FAO's reform plan, we recommend that the Secretary of State and the 
U.S. Representative to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture work 
with member states to take the following two actions: 

* encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and 
categorizing the implementation status of IPA action items; and: 

* determine before 2013 if consensus can be achieved for IPA action 
items currently subject to disagreement among member states. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We requested and received comments on a draft of this report from 
State and FAO. State's comments are reprinted in appendix II. State 
concurred with our recommendations, noting that State and USUN Rome 
will continue to develop strategies and measures that will address the 
recommendations contained in our report. State also noted that FAO's 
periodic reporting on the status of implementation of some IPA action 
items is poor, and the accuracy of future progress reports becomes 
increasingly important to FAO member states that are responsible for 
providing appropriate oversight. State agreed to continue to work with 
FAO and member states to improve reporting on implementation of the 
reform plan. In addition, State acknowledged that, for those action 
items that are subject to disagreement among member states, FAO 
management's options are somewhat limited. 

FAO management's comments are reprinted in appendix III, along with 
our responses to a specific point. Regarding our finding on FAO's 
reporting on the reform plan's status, FAO management commented that 
the implementation status categories were not developed by the PMU, 
but were adapted from FAO's existing reporting categories used to 
assess results in FAO's Program of Work and Budget. We clarified in 
our report that the PMU did not develop these implementation status 
categories. However, the PMU did not provide clear guidance for 
project leaders to define and differentiate among the categories when 
assessing the status of IPA action items. FAO management noted that it 
would consider issues we described, and introduce any changes 
considered necessary to improve the clarity of the status of open IPA 
action items. FAO management also stated that the success of its 
reforms requires member states to overcome disagreements and different 
opinions in order to provide clear guidance to FAO management on how 
to implement the IPA action items over which consensus has not yet 
been reached. FAO management confirms its full commitment to play its 
part as Secretariat to the different Governing Bodies, and prepare 
proposals and documentation to facilitate consensus and decision 
making. 

We also received technical comments from FAO management, which we have 
incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of State, the U.S. Representative to the UN 
Agencies for Food and Agriculture, the Food and Agriculture 
Organization, and other interested parties. The report also is 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov[. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Thomas Melito, Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the methodology that 
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) uses to report on the 
status of its reform plan, (2) factors that affect FAO's ability to 
implement its reform plan, and (3) actions the United States has 
undertaken to support FAO reform efforts. To address all of these 
objectives, we focused our review on FAO's Immediate Plan of Action 
(IPA), which we define as FAO's reform plan for the purposes of this 
report. We conducted a general review of all 272 IPA action items in 
FAO's reform plan, and selected a non-probability sample of 30 action 
items for more in-depth review. We selected these 30 action items 
because they fall among the six different thematic areas of the IPA 
and reflect the range of reported implementation status, according to 
FAO's most recent report on IPA status, as of December 31, 2010. For 
example, we selected action items related to FAO's establishment of a 
staff rotation policy that fall under the thematic area of "human 
resources reform," with reported implementation status of being 
"subject to minor delays," as well as FAO's appointment of an 
ombudsman, which falls under the thematic area of "effective 
governance and oversight," with reported implementation status of 
being "on track." Our sample was intended to be illustrative and not 
generalizable to the population of all 272 IPA action items. To help 
us better understand the factors that may affect FAO reform plan, we 
selected a sample with a higher proportion of action items that FAO 
reported as "subject to minor delays" than action items that FAO 
reported as "completed" or "on track." Table 3 summarizes the total 
number of IPA action items, by implementation status category, as 
reported by FAO in 2010, and the number of action items we selected 
within each of those categories for more in-depth review. Table 4 
lists our selected 30 action items, categorized by IPA project and 
thematic area, and includes short descriptions of each action item, 
its planned start and end date, and status of implementation as of 
December 31, 2010. 

Table 3: Summary of the Total Number of IPA Action Items and the 
Number Selected for In-Depth GAO Review, by Implementation Status, as 
of Dec. 31, 2010: 

Status: Completed; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 143; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 6. 

Status: On track; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 102; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 6. 

Status: Subject to minor delays; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 15; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 8. 

Status: Subject to major delays; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 0; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: N/A. 

Status: Other: continuous; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 5; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 5. 

Status: Other: no consensus among member states; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 3; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 3. 

Status: Other: scheduled beyond 2013 by FAO Management; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 2; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 2. 

Status: Other: proposed for deletion; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 2; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 0. 

Status: Total; 
Total number of IPA action items by implementation status during 2009 
and 2010: 272; 
Number of action items selected for in-depth GAO review: 30. 

Sources: FAO's 2010 IPA progress report and GAO. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: List of 30 Selected IPA Action Items, as of Dec. 31, 2010: 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Governing Body Reform; 
IPA action item number: 2.22; 
Description: The Council report will consist of conclusions, 
decisions, and recommendations (verbatim to provide detail and be 
published in all languages); 
Planned start date: 5/17/2010; 
Planned end date: 11/25/2011; 
Status: Continuous. 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Governing Body Reform; 
IPA action item number: 2.100; 
Description: The FAO Conference will consider for approval desirable 
qualifications for the post of Director-General developed by the 
Conference Committee in 2009; 
Planned start date: N/A; 
Planned end date: N/A; 
Status: No consensus. 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Governing Body Reform; 
IPA action item number: 4.4; 
Description: The functions of the Conference Committee, without 
prejudice to the statutory functions of the Council and its standing 
committees, are to recommend to the 36th session of the FAO Conference 
(2009) any changes found desirable in the size and regional 
representation in the membership of the Council and propose with 
advice from the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters any 
necessary changes in the Basic Texts to the 2009 Session of the 
Conference; 
Planned start date: N/A; 
Planned end date: N/A; 
Status: No consensus. 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Evaluation; 
IPA action item number: 2.78; 
Description: The evaluation regular program budget will be increased 
to 0.8% of the total regular program budget (over two biennia), and 
once decided upon by the Governing Bodies, as part of the Program of 
Work and Budget (PWB) approval process, allocated in full to the 
evaluation office. Using the 2008-2009 base, the requirement would be 
U.S. dollars (USD) 3.2 million. In the draft PWB, it had been proposed 
to go halfway to this amount in 2010-2011. To reduce the 
implementation risk in the first biennium, the final draft PWB funds 
only one-third of the increase, USD 1.1 million in 2010-2011. The 
balance would be funded in the PWB 2012-2013; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: Scheduled beyond 2013. 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Evaluation; 
IPA action item number: 2.86; 
Description: The follow-up processes for evaluation will be fully 
institutionalized, including an independent monitoring system and 
reporting to the Program Committee; 
Planned start date: 10/1/2008; 
Planned end date: 5/31/2010; 
Status: Completed. 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Audit; 
IPA action item number: 2.91; 
Description: In line with current policy, the work of the Office of 
the Inspector General will be extended to cover all major 
organizational risk areas, making use of external expertise as 
necessary; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2011; 
Status: On track. 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Ethics; 
IPA action item number: 3.34; 
Description: Review of Terms of Reference and proposed membership of 
Ethics Committee by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters 
and the Finance Committee; 
Planned start date: 2/19/2009; 
Planned end date: 10/31/2010; 
Status: Minor delays. 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Ethics; 
IPA action item number: 3.35; 
Description: Appointment and initiation of work by Ethics Committee; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2011; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2011; 
Status: Minor delays. 

Theme: Governance Reform and Oversight; 
Project: Ethics; 
IPA action item number: 3.36a; 
Description: Appointment of Ombudsman; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2011; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2011; 
Status: On track. 

Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems; 
Project: Administrative Service Model and FAO Manual; 
IPA action item number: 7.22; 
Description: Carry out a major overhaul of the FAO Manual, reviewing 
and publishing a simplified framework, so that staff in all locations 
can understand and comply with FAO rules and regulations; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: Minor delays. 

Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems; 
Project: Administrative Service Model and FAO Manual; 
IPA action item number: 7.23; 
Description: Create a Business Improvement Unit, including 
streamlining and process improvement, overhaul of the FAO Manual, and 
other business improvement initiatives; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2011; 
Status: Completed. 

Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems; 
Project: Procurement; 
IPA action item number: 3.40; 
Description: Creates provisions for local procurement during 
emergencies; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 6/1/2011; 
Status: Completed. 

Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems; 
Project: International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and 
Field Accounting System Replacement; 
IPA action item number: 3.42; 
Description: To Implement new or updated processes to support the 
recording, accounting, control, and reporting of financial 
transactions at decentralized offices. Processes include the policy, 
procedures, and system developments that collectively address the 
business requirements to support financial transaction processing at 
decentralized offices; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2007; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: Minor delays. 

Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems; 
Project: IPSAS and Field Accounting System Replacement; 
IPA action item number: 7.24; 
Description: Implementation of IPSAS as key initiative for the finance 
division and FAO as a whole; 
Planned start date: 5/1/2009; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: Minor delays. 

Theme: Reform of Administrative and Management Systems; 
Project: Travel; 
IPA action item number: 7.15; 
Description: Other activities of the joint Rome-based agencies 
procurement initiative--Travel; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: Minor delays. 

Theme: Human Resources Reform; 
Project: Mobility; 
IPA action item number: 3.61; 
Description: Establish an incentive-based rotation policy in 
headquarters and between headquarters and the decentralized offices 
with clear criteria; 
Planned start date: 11/23/2009; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2010; 
Status: Minor delays. 

Theme: Human Resources Reform; 
Project: Other Human Resources Actions; 
IPA action item number: 3.63; 
Description: Decentralize and delegate decision making within clear 
policies and requirements, including further delegation of authorities 
from the Office of the Director-General and from senior management; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2010; 
Status: Completed. 

Theme: Managing for Results; 
Project: Resource Mobilization and Management; 
IPA action item number: 3.15; 
Description: Vigorously pursue new partnerships, including with the 
private foundations; 
Planned start date: N/A; 
Planned end date: N/A; 
Status: Continuous. 

Theme: Managing for Results; 
Project: Enterprise Risk Management; 
IPA action item number: 3.50; 
Description: Develop a project structure to implement an internally 
led organization-wide enterprise risk management (ERM) e.g. organize a 
project team and its terms of reference, obtain necessary training and 
external guidance as needed, prepare a work plan, etc; 
Planned start date: 4/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 9/30/2010; 
Status: Completed. 

Theme: Managing for Results; 
Project: Enterprise Risk Management; 
IPA action item number: 3.51; 
Description: Design an appropriate ERM model to develop a customized 
ERM framework for the organization, with the support of external risk 
management consultants. The ERM framework should include key 
components that address the objectives, strategy, organization, risk 
processes, monitoring, and reporting; 
Planned start date: 4/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2010; 
Status: Minor delays. 

Theme: Managing for Results; 
Project: Reform of Programming, Budgeting, and Results-Based 
Management Monitoring; 
IPA action item number: 3.11; 
Description: In addition to capital account and technical cooperation 
program, introduce provisions for rollover of up to 5 percent of the 
assessed budget, between biennia, in order to smooth income and 
expenditure, thus reducing wasteful and inefficient transactions; 
Planned start date: 10/1/2008; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: Scheduled beyond 2013. 

Theme: Managing for Results; 
Project: Reform of Programming, Budgeting, and Results-Based 
Management Monitoring; 
IPA action item number: 6.2; 
Description: 5 percent of the budget to Deputy Director-Generals for 
interdisciplinary work; 
Planned start date: N/A; 
Planned end date: N/A; 
Status: Continuous. 

Theme: Managing for Results; 
Project: Reform of Programming, Budgeting, and Results-Based 
Management Monitoring; 
IPA action item number: 7.1; 
Description: Identify the areas of improvement and define the actions 
for the enhancement of the Results-Based Management; 
Planned start date: N/A; 
Planned end date: N/A; 
Status: Continuous. 

Theme: Functioning As One; 
Project: Partnerships; 
IPA action item number: 3.117; 
Description: Establishment of a monitoring mechanism to ensure 
feedback and iterative improvement of partnership collaborations and 
of the FAO strategy; 
Planned start date: 9/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: On track. 

Theme: Functioning As One; 
Project: Decentralization; 
IPA action item number: 3.76; 
Description: The Program and Finance Committees will support the 
Council in providing policy oversight of all aspects of 
decentralization, including in particular the implementation of the 
Immediate Plan of Action; 
Planned start date: 9/30/2009; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: Continuous. 

Theme: Functioning As One; 
Project: Decentralization; 
IPA action item number: 3.84; 
Description: Clearly distinguishing between well-established offices 
and any plans for additional new offices, rationalize coverage of 
country offices following results of review utilizing agreed criteria, 
taking into account both existing and potential locations, efficiency, 
projected cost savings, and cost/benefit analysis. Implementation of 
the results of the review will ensure that, at a minimum, the 
structural deficit is eliminated in the country representation through 
alternative forms of country presence, with further reductions 
desirable to free up resources for the improved functioning of the 
decentralized offices. Criteria to be applied: (a) size of the FAO 
Program (indicative ratio office costs to size of program 1:3); (b) 
commitment to the National Medium-Term Priority Frameworks as they are 
developed with FAO; (c) size and poverty levels of agriculturally 
dependent population; (d) priority to Least Developed Countries; (e) 
potential for agriculture in economic growth; (f) ease of servicing 
from another country; (g) potential for shared or fully joint 
representations with the UN system, particularly with other Rome-based 
agencies, and other regional organizations as appropriate; 
and (h) willingness of governments to cover costs of FAO presence; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2009; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2010; 
Status: No consensus. 

Theme: Functioning As One; 
Project: Decentralization; 
IPA action item number: 3.88; 
Description: Introduce benchmarks and a performance-based reporting 
and monitoring system for decentralized offices; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: On track. 

Theme: Functioning As One; 
Project: Decentralization; 
IPA action item number: 3.95; 
Description: Transfer Office of Coordination and Decentralization 
functions to Regional/Sub-Regional Offices and to a coordination unit 
in the office responsible for operations; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2009; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: Completed. 

Theme: Functioning As One; 
Project: Technical Cooperation Program; 
IPA action item number: 3.22; 
Description: Technical Cooperation Program resources to be allocated 
to regions under the authority of Regional Representatives, except for 
15% retained under the authority of the department responsible for 
technical cooperation for use in emergencies, and 3% for interregional 
projects; 
Planned start date: 1/1/2010; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2011; 
Status: On track. 

Theme: Culture Change; 
Project: Culture Change; 
IPA action item number: 3.32; 
Description: Implementation of a vision for culture change; 
Planned start date: 11/23/2009; 
Planned end date: 12/31/2013; 
Status: On track. 

Source: FAO's 2010 IPA progress report. 

[End of table] 

To address our first objective to examine the methodology that FAO 
uses to report on the status of its reform plan, we reviewed and 
analyzed FAO's documents and data; we interviewed officials 
representing FAO, the U.S. government, and other FAO member countries. 
We reviewed the IPA progress reports that FAO issued since November 
2009, focusing particularly on FAO's latest 2010 IPA progress report 
for IPA information reported, as of December 31, 2010. To understand 
the methodology FAO used for assessing and reporting IPA progress 
overall, we reviewed the Program Management Unit's (PMU) guidance for 
IPA project leaders to assess the status of the action items. We also 
met with FAO officials, including those representing FAO management, 
the PMU, and IPA project leaders to discuss the IPA assessment and 
reporting process. For the 30 action items in our sample, we obtained 
and analyzed documents that provided support for the implementation 
status of these action items and discussed the status with the project 
leaders and a PMU official responsible for reporting IPA progress. 
Furthermore, we met with officials representing the U.S. Mission to 
the UN Agencies in Rome (USUN Rome) and several other FAO member 
countries to obtain their views on FAO's IPA progress reports. 

To examine factors that affect FAO's ability to implement its reform 
plan, our second objective, we analyzed FAO's documents, including 
audit documents, preliminary results of the 2011 FAO employee survey, 
as well as FAO Governing Bodies' reports and working documents. With 
FAO officials, we discussed the actions that FAO has taken to address 
weaknesses identified in FAO's risk assessment. Moreover, to better 
understand factors that could hinder full reform plan implementation, 
we met with IPA project leaders and reviewed supporting documents they 
provided to conduct in-depth analysis of our sampled 30 action items. 
Since these sample action items include three action items reported in 
FAO's 2010 IPA progress report as having "no consensus among member 
states," we obtained views of several member states, including those 
of the United States, regarding these action items. 

To address our third objective to examine actions the United States 
has undertaken to support FAO reform efforts, we reviewed documents 
and interviewed U.S. officials. The documents we reviewed include the 
United States' United Nations Transparency and Accountability 
Initiative, USUN Rome's Mission Strategic Resource Plan, USUN Rome's 
documentation of its priorities and efforts toward FAO reforms, cable 
correspondence between the Department of State's (State) International 
Organization Affairs Bureau and USUN Rome, and FAO Governing Bodies' 
reports and working documents. In addition, we interviewed State and 
USUN Rome officials to discuss their efforts, and met with FAO 
officials and officials representing several FAO member states to 
obtain their views on U.S. efforts for promoting reforms at FAO. Our 
discussions with representatives of FAO member states included those 
who participate in formal and informal working groups with the United 
States. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 to September 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington D.C. 20520:  

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
 
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:  

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "United 
Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus 
Needed for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan, GAO Job 
Code 320818.  

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.  

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
John Tuminaro, Sr. Food Security Officer, Bureau of International 
Organization Affairs at (202) 647-1016. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 
 
cc: GAO - Thomas Melito: 
IO - Esther D. Brimmer: 
State/OIG - Evelyn Klemstine:  

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus
Needed for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan
(GAO-11-922, GAO Code 320818): 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus Needed 
for Food and Agriculture Organization's Reform Plan. The Department of 
State and USUN Rome have been strong supporters of the FAO reform 
process. The report provides timely and useful information on the 
status of FAO reform. 

It is clear that full completion of the reform plan will require 
cooperation among FAO management and member states. For those actions 
that are subject to disagreement among member states, FAO management's 
options are somewhat limited. Thus, the Department of State and USUN 
Rome agree with the GAO's Recommendations for Executive Action, which 
recommend that the Secretary of State and the United States Permanent 
Representative to the UN Food Agencies work with member states to: (1) 
encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and categorizing 
the implementation status of Immediate Plan of Action (IPA) action 
items; and (2) determine before 2013 if consensus can be achieved for 
action items currently subject to disagreement among member states. The
Department of State and USUN Rome will continue to develop strategies 
and measures that will address the recommendations contained in the 
GAO report. 

We appreciate the report's acknowledgment of work undertaken by the
Department of State and USUN Rome to ensure that the IPA is fully 
implemented by the end of the agreed timeframe in 2013. We assure you 
that this work will continue. As you know, the United States was a 
driving force behind FAO's reform process, including by providing 
funding to the Independent External Evaluation (IEE). Our goal is to 
increase the cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of the 
FAO, and all the Rome-based food agencies, in the context of broader 
UN system reforms. State and USUN Rome will continue to work with
FAO officials and member states to continue to make the FAO a more 
relevant and reliable partner in the fight against food insecurity.
The Department of State agrees with GAO's conclusion that FAO's 
periodic reporting on the status of implementation of some IPA action 
items is poor. Since the action items that remain to be completed 
represent the largest and most complex components of the reform 
effort, the accuracy of future progress reports becomes increasingly 
important to FAO member states that are responsible for providing 
appropriate oversight. The fact that FAO is leaving the hardest reform 
recommendations for last--the action items planned for completion in 
the 2012-2013 time period represent 20% of the outstanding items, but 
correspond to 40% of the total workload in terms of outstanding 
effort, time, and costs, and are the largest and most complex to 
implement--makes the need for improved reporting all the more 
necessary. We will continue to work with FAO and member states to 
improve reporting on the implementation of reform. 

The State Department agrees with the data and findings in the GAO 
report. However, we would like to take the opportunity to point out 
two slight inaccuracies. The report indicates that despite the lack of 
consensus among member states on the need for establishing formal 
qualifications for the post of Director-General for the 2011 election, 
the United Kingdom developed a draft working document that included a 
job description and competency profile for the position. We would like 
to add that the United States worked with the UK on this task, 
consulting closely, and contributed to the profile. We would also note 
that the report indicates that USUN Rome hosted an informal regional 
Conference for North America with Canada. This consultation occurred 
in Washington and was the result of interagency collaboration under 
the leadership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, of which USUN 
Rome, the State Department, and USAID were key partners. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Food and Agriculture Organization: 

Note: GAO comment supplementing those in the report text appears at 
the end of this appendix. 

Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations: 
The Director-General: 
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, D0153 Rome, Italy: 
Internet: www.fao.org: 
Fax: (030) 06 57053152: 
Telephone: (+39) 06 57051: 

Rome, 16 September 2011: 

DDO-DG/11/931: 

Her Excellency: 
Ertharin Cousin: 
Ambassador to FAO: 
United States Mission to the United Nations Agencies for Food and 
Agriculture: 
Rome: 

Excellency, 

I refer to your letter dated 2 September 2011 on the study undertaken 
by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled 
"United Nations: Improved Reporting and Member States' Consensus 
Needed for Food and Agriculture Organizations Reform Plan." 

I am pleased to submit herewith FAO's Response to the GAO Report 
together with FAO's observations to the same report. In that regard, I 
wish to inform you that I will be attending the G20 Ministerial 
Meeting which will be held in Washington on 23 September 2011. 

Accept, Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration. 

Signed by: 

Jacques Diouf: 

[End of letter] 

16 September 2011: 

FAO Management Comments to GAO Report: GA0-11-922: 

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 
welcomes the report received from the United States Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) titled "Improved Reporting and Member 
States' Consensus Needed far Food and Agriculture Organization's
Reform Plan". FAO Management notes that the two main recommendations 
on improved reporting and member states consensus confirm the work 
being undertaken by FAO to successfully complete the implementation of 
the Immediate Plan of Action (IPA) for FAO renewal, which stemmed from 
the Independent External Evaluation (IEE) report in 2007. 

FAO renewal is an extremely ambitious, large and complex endeavor that 
requires to be recognized to better contextualize the GAO report. The 
lEE report foresaw "the mammoth nature of the undertaking....." and 
the 2010 Risk Assessment report that identified the risks and 
mitigating measures associated with this major change programme, 
highlighted in its Executive Summary that the "scale and complexity of 
the IPA are unprecedented in the UN and would only he seen in the 
private sector following a corporate acquisition". 

Notwithstanding these challenges, FAO Management wishes to highlight 
the good progress achieved at the mid-point of the IPA implementation 
programme. The IPA Board, comprising the Organization's most senior 
managers, is fully engaged in the internal governance of the reform 
and, as noted in the GAO report, has taken positive steps towards the 
effective management of the large and complex projects that still 
remain to be implemented in the next biennium. 

FAO's comments focus on the two main recommendations of the report. 

I. Improved Reporting: [See comment 1] 

FAO Management places great importance on quality reporting, and has 
taken steps towards addressing some of the issues raised in the GAO 
report relating to the statuses of IPA actions. 

These statuses (completed, on track, subject to minor delays and 
subject to major delays) were not developed by the PMU, as indicated 
in the report, but were adapted from the corporate categories of 
progress toward achieving results in FAO's Programme of Work and 
Budget, as used by managers and provided in FAO's Mid Term Review 
synthesis report to member states. However. in reviewing the statuses 
assigned by Project leaders, the PMU determined that these corporate 
categories did not entirely cover the situation of all 272 IPA actions 
which, as indicated in the GAO report, are of a varying nature. As a 
result, the PMU introduced the "other" category which represents 4.4% 
of all IPA actions. 

The GAO report highlights potential inconsistencies in the "other" 
category and the IPA Board in July requested that a review be 
completed of the 12 IPA action items categorized as "other" to 
determine whether an improved set of sub-categories would improve the 
clarity of the actual status of these 12 IPA actions. An update on the 
quantitative progress will also he reviewed during September 2011 by 
the IPA Board and this will provide the opportunity to fully consider 
issues described in the GAO report, and introduce any changes 
considered necessary to improve the clarity of the status of open IPA 
actions. 

The GAO report questions whether the PMU should rely primarily on the 
Project leaders self-assessment of IPA action status without 
independent validation. As indicated in the report, the PMU has 
gathered documentary evidence from Project leaders to support the 
reported "closed" status of IPA actions. Periodic independent 
validation is considered desirable, and arrangements are in hand to 
have the office of the FAO's Inspector General undertake a review of 
all IPA actions, as we pass the half way stage in the reform programme. 

The IPA Board decided in June 2011 to establish a more detailed 
internal reporting arrangement for 27 of the "most important/higher 
risk" IPA actions, covering status, risks, activities and milestones, 
as referenced in the GAO report. Amongst others, the expected benefit 
of this IPA Board decision is to ensure appropriate reporting of the 
larger and more complex IPA actions. , In addition, the PMU is 
liaising with the Enterprise Risk Management project team to complete 
a "re-basing" of IPA risks and interdependencies amongst these actions 
in order to take into consideration significant new events that have 
occurred since the initial risk assessment review. 

2. Member States Consensus: 

FAO Management is fully aware that the success of the FAO reform is a 
shared responsibility between FAO Management, who must implement the 
IPA, and the FAO member states who, through the Governing Bodies, 
oversee the process and take major policy and governance decisions. 
This requires member states to overcome disagreements and different 
opinions in order to provide clear guidance to FAO Management on how 
to implement the IPA actions over which consensus has not yet been 
reached. FAO Management confirms its full commitment to play its part 
as Secretariat to the different Governing Body fora, and prepare high 
quality proposals and documentation to facilitate consensus and 
decision making. 

The following are GAO's comments on FAO's letter dated September 16, 
2011. 

GAO Comment: 

1. FAO commented that the implementation status categories (completed, 
on track, subject to minor delays, and subject to major delays) were 
not developed by the PMU but were adapted from FAO's existing 
reporting categories used to assess results in its Program of Work and 
Budget. We clarified in our report that the PMU did not develop these 
implementation status categories. We noted FAO's use of these 
implementation status categories when assessing the progress of the 
reform plan. However, regardless of which FAO entity developed these 
implementation status categories, the PMU did not provide clear 
guidance for project leaders to define and differentiate among the 
categories when assessing the status of IPA action items. 
Consequently, we maintain our recommendation to State and USUN Rome to 
encourage FAO to develop clear guidance for assessing and categorizing 
the implementation status of IPA action items. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant 
Director; Brian Egger; and Victoria Lin made key contributions to this 
report. The team benefited from the expert advice and assistance of 
Vaughn Baltzly, Debbie Chung, Martin de Alteriis, Justin Fisher, and 
Grace Lui. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

United Nations: Management Reforms and Operational Issues. GAO-08-
246T. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2008. 

United Nations: Progress on Management Reform Efforts Has Varied. GAO-
08-84. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2007. 

United Nations Organizations: Oversight and Accountability Could Be 
Strengthened by Further Instituting International Best Practices. GAO-
07-597. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2007. 

United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many 
Awaiting General Assembly Review. GAO-07-14. Washington, D.C.: October 
5, 2006. 

United Nations: Weaknesses in Internal Oversight and Procurement Could 
Affect the Effective Implementation of the Planned Renovation. GAO-06-
877T. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006. 

United Nations: Oil for Food Program Provides Lessons for Future 
Sanctions and Ongoing Reform. GAO-06-711T. Washington, D.C.: May 2, 
2006. 

United Nations: Internal Oversight and Procurement Controls and 
Processes Need Strengthening. GAO-06-710T. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 
2006. 

United Nations: Funding Arrangements Impede Independence of Internal 
Auditors. GAO-06-575. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006. 

United Nations: Lessons Learned from Oil for Food Program Indicate the 
Need to Strengthen UN Internal Controls and Oversight. GAO-06-330. 
Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006. 

United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak. GAO-06-577. 
Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006. 

United Nations: Preliminary Observations on Internal Oversight and 
Procurement Practices. GAO-06-226T. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2005. 

United Nations: Sustained Oversight Is Needed for Reforms to Achieve 
Lasting Results. GAO-05-392T. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005. 

United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments 
Needed to Measure Impact. GAO-04-339. Washington, D.C.; February 13, 
2004. 

United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened Operations, but 
Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Met. GAO/NSIAD-00-150, 
Washington, D.C.; May 10, 2000. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] This review is commonly referred to as the Root and Branch report. 

[2] The IPA originally consisted of 235 discrete action items, many of 
which were explicitly tied to one or more specific Independent 
External Evaluation recommendations. The 2009 Root and Branch report 
generated 37 additional recommendations that were incorporated into 
the original IPA, resulting in a new document called the Integrated 
IPA, which was adopted at the November 2009 FAO Conference and 
contained a total of 272 action items. 

[3] The six thematic areas are (1) managing for results, (2) 
functioning as one, (3) human resources reform, (4) reform of 
administrative and management systems, (5) culture change, and (6) 
governance reform and oversight. 

[4] The United States contributed about $113 million to FAO's regular 
assessed budget in calendar year 2010. Since 2009, the United States 
has been contributing about 22 percent of FAO's regular assessed 
budget. For calendar year 2009, FAO reported the United States 
contributed about $49 million, or about 7 percent, of FAO's voluntary 
contributions. According to a 2007 UN Joint Inspection Unit report, UN 
organizations' funding resources are generally classified in two 
categories: (1) assessed contributions from member states, i.e., 
regular budget resources and (2) voluntary contributions, generally 
referred to as extrabudgetary resources. Extrabudgetary resources can 
be used for the core purposes fundamental to the existence of an 
organization, in which case they are provided without condition. They 
can also be used for noncore purposes, in which case the donor 
generally earmarks them for specific uses. 

[5] FAO's 2010 IPA progress report uses the following eight 
implementation status categories for the 272 action items: (1) 
completed, (2) on track, (3) subject to minor delays, (4) subject to 
major delays, (5) continuous, (6) no consensus among member states, 
(7) scheduled beyond 2013, and (8) proposed for deletion subject to 
members' approval. In the 2010 IPA progress report, categories (5) 
through (8) appear as designations under an additional category, 
"other," which depicts the status of action items that do not fall 
under a timeline of implementation for various reasons. For the 
purposes of this report, within the "other" category, we exclude the 
designation "proposed for deletion subject to members' approval" and 
include the other three designations under "other," for a total of 
seven categories in our analysis. 

[6] In a nonprobability sample, some units in the population have no 
chance, or an unknown chance, of being selected. Therefore, results 
from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 
population. 

[7] For example, we selected action items related to FAO's 
establishment of a staff rotation policy that fall under the thematic 
area of human resources reform, with reported implementation status of 
being "subject to minor delays," as well as FAO's appointment of an 
ombudsman, which falls under the thematic area of effective governance 
and oversight, with reported implementation status of being "on track." 

[8] We selected 8 of the 15 "subject to minor delays" action items, 6 
of the 102 "on track" action items, 6 of the 143 "completed" action 
items, all 5 "continuous" action items, all 3 "lacking in consensus 
among member states" action items, and both "scheduled beyond 2013" 
action items. 

[9] According to FAO, its presence in decentralized offices also 
includes 37 accreditations and 11 other forms of representation. 

[10] In 2009, the FAO Conference amended the constitutional term of 
the Director-General to 4 years. Beginning with the Director-General 
elected in June 2011, the new Director-General term will be 3-½ years, 
from January 1, 2012 through July 31, 2015. The current Director- 
General's term is scheduled to end on December 31, 2011. He will have 
served three 6-year terms from January 1994 through December 2011. 

[11] The Basic Texts of FAO are the Constitution, General Rules of the 
Organization, Financial Regulations, and Rules of Procedure for the 
FAO Council and its established committees. Decisions of the 
Conference are taken by a majority of the votes unless provided in the 
Basic Texts and by rules made by the Conference. Decisions of the 
Council are taken by a majority of the votes unless provided in the 
Basic Texts and by rules made by the Conference or Council. 

[12] FAO first established this Conference Committee in 2007 to follow 
up on the Independent External Evaluation recommendations. Since FAO's 
2008 adoption of the IPA, FAO specified that the Conference Committee 
would exist until the end of 2009 in order to complete outstanding 
work on the IPA, then extended the Conference Committee's duration 
until the FAO Conference in June 2011. 

[13] The Program Committee develops and implements of FAO's program of 
activities. The Finance Committee exercises control over the financial 
administration of FAO. The Committee on Constitutional and Legal 
Matters addresses specific constitutional and legal matters. The 
Regional Conferences represent member states from Africa, Asia and the 
Pacific, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Near East. 

[14] The Conference Committee disbanded in June 2011. However, as 
instructed by the 2011 FAO Conference, the PMU and IPA project leaders 
will continue to report on IPA implementation status to the existing 
governing bodies: the Program and Finance Committees, and the 
Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters. 

[15] The Rome-based UN organizations include FAO, the World Food 
Program, and the International Fund for Agriculture Development. 

[16] According to a PMU official, the PMU may introduce additional 
reporting categories for future progress reports. The additional 
implementation status category may include a further separation of the 
"completed" category into two categories--a category showing action 
items completed with no ongoing costs and another category for action 
items completed with ongoing costs. 

[17] Related reports include GAO, Content Analysis: A Methodology for 
Structuring and Analyzing Written Material, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/PEMD-10.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1, 
1996); GAO, Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-365G] (Washington, 
D.C.: February 2009); and GAO, Performance Plans: Selected Approaches 
for Verification and Validation of Agency Performance Information, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-99-139] (Washington, 
D.C.: July 30, 1999). 

[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/PEMD-10.3.1] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-GGD-99-139]. 

[19] IPA action item 3.32. 

[20] IPA action item 3.15. 

[21] IPA action item 3.76. 

[22] IPA action item 6.2. 

[23] IPA action item 3.84. 

[24] IPA action item 2.78. 

[25] IPA action items 3.42 and 7.24. 

[26] IPA action item 2.22. 

[27] The issue related to whether the reports would be written by a 
Drafting Committee within the FAO Council, or by a reporter 
responsible for compiling the reports. 

[28] According to FAO officials, program-level risks are associated 
with the overall management of the reform plan, while project-level 
risks are associated with a set of action items that have been grouped 
together into projects by the PMU. 

[29] According to the Executive Summary for the IPA Risk Assessment, 
each IPA project leader and his/her staff followed a structured and 
rigorous self-assessment process, facilitated by the consultant to 
build a risk log of the top 10 to 20 risks of their project. 

[30] FAO specifically identified risks related to: (1) delivery-that 
agreed activities are not completed to time, budget, and 
specifications; (2) benefit-that completed activities do not generate 
the expected level of improvement to FAO's performance; and (3) 
disruption-that reform activities produce side effects that harm FAO. 

[31] According to the Management Report on IPA Implementation in 2010- 
2011, the risk assessment identified 10 (7 red, 2 amber, 1 green) 
risks at the program level and 207 (49 red, 112 amber, 46 green) risks 
at the project level. The risk assessment also identified 68 
dependencies (27 red, 37 amber, and 4 green). Project teams' rating of 
impact was based on acceptability to senior management or member 
states if the risk occurred, while their rating of likelihood was 
based on the probability of the risk. 

[32] Adequate staffing of the PMU was a red risk identified at the 
program level during the assessment. At the time of our review, the 
PMU included the director, director's secretary, one staff member, and 
one consultant. 

[33] These priorities were identified in FAO's Management Report on 
IPA Implementation in 2010-2011. 

[34] IPA action item 2.100. 

[35] According to State, the United States consulted closely with the 
United Kingdom on the development of this draft working document and 
contributed to the competency profile. 

[36] IPA action item 3.84. 

[37] This document identified gaps, challenges, risks, and issues 
related to decentralization, including how member states could 
determine the optimal scale and scope of the country offices network. 

[38] IPA action item 4.4. 

[39] The Group of 77 is a coalition of developing countries that 
promotes its members' collective interests. Currently, 131 developing 
countries are members. 

[40] IPA action item 7.24. 

[41] IPA action item 3.11. 

[42] IPA action items 7.15 and 3.90. 

[43] Relates to IPA action item 3.32. 

[44] IPA action item 3.51. 

[45] IPA action item 3.61. 

[46] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 
2003). 

[47] In September 2005, world leaders gathered at the UN World Summit 
in New York to discuss global issues such as UN reform, development, 
and human rights, as well as actions needed in each of these areas. 
The outcome document from the World Summit, endorsed by all members of 
the UN, outlines broad UN reform efforts in areas such as oversight 
and accountability and human rights. The document also called for the 
Secretary-General to submit proposals for implementing reforms to 
improve management functions of the Secretariat. Although the 
Secretary-General does not have direct authority over specialized 
agencies and many funds and programs, many member states wanted the 
reforms at the Secretariat to serve as a model for UN-wide reforms, 
according to State. 

[48] As a body sponsored by the UN System Chief Executives Board for 
Coordination, the UN High-Level Committee on Management is responsible 
for ensuring coordination in administrative and management areas 
across the UN system. 

[49] The three Working Groups included (1) the Strategic Framework, 
Medium Term Plan 2010-2013, and the Program of Work and Budget 2010- 
2011; (2) proposed amendments to the Basic Texts and any changes found 
desirable in the size and regional representation in the Membership of 
the Council; and (3) reform of systems, culture change, and 
organizational restructuring. 

[50] Founded in 1964, the United States and the United Kingdom are 
permanent co-chairs of the 16-member Geneva Group, which is an 
informal caucus of like-minded member states that contribute 1 percent 
or more of the UN assessed budget. 

[51] During the informal regional conference, the United States and 
Canada also discussed a number of other issues important to the future 
of FAO. These issues include the delegation of technical cooperation 
program authority to field offices, field office rationalization, and 
the process used to identify FAO representatives. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: