Item 136 of the provisional agenda*
Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations
Activities of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee for the period from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021
Report of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee
|
Summary |
|
The present report covers the period from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021. During the period, the Independent Audit Advisory Committee held four sessions, which were presided over by Janet St. Laurent (United States of America) as Chair and Agus Joko Pramono (Indonesia) as Vice-Chair. As has been the case during the history of the Committee, all members attended all the sessions during their appointments. |
|
Section II of the report contains an overview of the activities of the Committee, the status of its recommendations and its plans for 2022. Section III sets out the detailed comments of the Committee. |
|
|
|
* . |
Contents
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
3 |
||
|
3 |
||
|
3 |
||
|
4 |
||
|
5 |
||
|
6 |
||
|
6 |
||
|
11 |
||
|
12 |
||
|
19 |
||
|
23 |
||
|
24 |
||
|
24 |
||
I. Introduction
1. The General Assembly, by its resolution , established the Independent Audit Advisory Committee as a subsidiary body to serve in an expert advisory capacity and to assist it in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. By its resolution , the Assembly approved the terms of reference for the Committee, as well as the criteria for its membership, as contained in the annex to that resolution. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Committee is authorized to hold up to four sessions per year. To date, the Committee has held 55 sessions since its inception in January 2008.
2. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Committee submits an annual report containing a summary of its activities and related advice to the General Assembly. The present fourteenth annual report covers the period from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021.
3. The Committee is also required to advise the General Assembly on the compliance of management with audit and other oversight bodies’ recommendations; the overall effectiveness of the risk management procedures and deficiencies in the internal control systems; the operational implications of the issues and trends set out in the financial statements and the reports of the Board of Auditors; and the appropriateness of the accounting and disclosure practices in the Organization. The Committee also advises the Assembly on the steps necessary to facilitate cooperation among the oversight bodies.
4. The present report addresses the issues identified during the reporting period as they pertain to the above-mentioned responsibilities of the Committee.
II. Activities of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee
A. Overview of the sessions of the Committee
5. During the reporting period, the Committee held four sessions: from 8 to 11 December 2020 (fifty-second session), from 17 to 19 February 2021 (fifty-third session), from 21 to 23 April (fifty-fourth session) and from 21 to 23 July (fifty-fifth session). Owing to the ongoing challenges associated with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, all the meetings were held virtually.
6. The Committee functions under its adopted rules of procedure, as contained in the annex to its first annual report (). To date, all members of the Committee have had a 100 per cent attendance rate at its sessions. All the decisions of the Committee have been unanimous; however, its rules of procedure make provision for members to record their dissent with respect to decisions taken by the majority.
7. During the fifty-second session, in December 2020, the members unanimously re-elected Janet St. Laurent (United States of America) as Chair and elected Agus Joko Pramono (Indonesia) as Vice-Chair for 2021. Furthermore, the Committee hosted a fifth meeting of the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the United Nations system oversight committees to discuss best practices, lessons learned and other issues of importance to the United Nations oversight community. Additional information about the Committee can be found on its website () in all the official languages of the United Nations.
8. During the reporting period, the Committee published three reports: the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly for the period from 1 August 2019 to 31 July 2020 (); and two reports to the Assembly, through the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, on the proposed budget of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) under the support account for peacekeeping operations for the period from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 () and on the proposed programme budget of the Office for 2022 ().
B. Status of the recommendations of the Committee
9. The Committee meets four times per year, typically for three days at each session. During the reporting period, several issues, in particular in relation to enterprise risk management, organizational culture, cybersecurity, the statement on internal control and the operations of OIOS, were addressed. The Committee follows up on the implementation of its recommendations as a standard agenda item at each session. Some of the significant recommendations made by the Committee during the reporting period related to:
(a) The need for the Management Committee to look at the factors that contribute to the low implementation rate of the recommendations, especially those pertaining to the Board of Auditors, while acknowledging that timely implementation of oversight bodies’ recommendations was a hallmark of an effective and accountable organization;
(b) The need for heads of organizations to address the low acceptance rate, among some participating organizations, of the recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit;
(c) The need to establish specific milestones for assessing risks, completing risk mitigation plans in the Secretariat, as well as in subordinate and field-based units, and holding managers accountable for achieving those milestones;
(d) The need for OIOS to strike the right balance between performance and compliance audits;
(e) The need for OIOS to address the vacancies and staff retention issues, as a matter of priority, including considering options such as reallocating resources among the Divisions;
(f) The need for the Investigation Division of OIOS to increase its focus on completing investigations in a timely manner, including analysing the root causes of why investigations exceed targeted time frames, including any constraints on resources, and to propose solutions to improve time frames;
(g) The need to continue to review the steps that OIOS is taking to assess the organizational culture, including the status of implementation of the resultant recommendations and the role of the Internal Audit Division in assessing culture;
(h) The need to continue to follow up on the steps that OIOS is taking with respect to its role in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
(i) The need to complete the implementation of the remaining elements of Umoja, such as the governance, risk and compliance module, which the Committee considers a critical enabler of a strong accountability system that can facilitate effective enterprise risk management and the statement on internal control and internal audit;
(j) The need for management to improve the reporting of fraud and presumptive fraud;
(k) In view of the fact that, at 82.9 per cent, after-service health insurance liability makes up the largest share of the total liabilities, the Committee reiterated its previous observation that maintaining the pay-as-you-go approach for after-service health insurance poses a significant risk which should be properly managed.
C. Overview of the plans of the Committee for 2022
10. The Committee undertook its responsibilities, as set out in its terms of reference, in accordance with the scheduling of the sessions of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the General Assembly. The Committee will continue to schedule its sessions and activities to ensure coordinated interaction with intergovernmental bodies and the timely availability of its reports. In a preliminary review of its workplan, the Committee identified several key areas that will be the main focus for each of its four sessions for fiscal year 2022 (see table 1).
Table 1
Workplan of the Committee from 1 August 2021 to 31 July 2022
|
Session |
Key focus area |
Intergovernmental consideration of the report of the Committee |
|
|
|
|
|
Fifty-sixth |
Review of the 2022 workplan of the Office of Internal Oversight Services in the light of the workplans of other oversight bodies |
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, first quarter 2022 |
|
|
Proposed budget of OIOS under the support account for peacekeeping operations for the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 |
General Assembly, second part of the resumed seventy-sixth session |
|
|
Operational implications of issues and trends in the financial statements and reports of the Board of Auditors |
|
|
|
Coordination and cooperation among oversight bodies, including hosting a coordination meeting of oversight committees |
|
|
|
Election of the Chair and Vice-Chair for 2022 |
|
|
Fifty-seventh |
Status of implementation of oversight bodies’ recommendations |
General Assembly, second part of the resumed seventy-sixth session |
|
|
Report of the Committee on the OIOS support account budget |
|
|
|
Review of the enterprise risk management and internal control framework in the Organization |
|
|
Fifty-eighth |
Operational implications of issues and trends in the financial statements and reports of the Board of Auditors |
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, second quarter 2022 General Assembly, main part of the seventy-seventh session |
|
|
Proposed programme budget for OIOS for the year ended 31 December 2023 |
|
|
|
Coordination and cooperation among oversight bodies |
|
|
|
Transformational projects and other emerging issues |
|
|
Fifty-ninth |
Preparation of the annual report of the Committee |
General Assembly, main part of the seventy-seventh session |
|
|
Review of the enterprise risk management and internal control framework in the Organization |
|
|
|
Status of implementation of oversight bodies’ recommendations |
|
|
|
Coordination and cooperation among oversight bodies |
11. In planning its work, the Committee is mindful of the following relevant events that could have an impact on its work activities:
(a) The maturation of the various reform/transformational initiatives on which the Organization has embarked;
(b) The prevailing financial situation, should it persist into the following year;
(c) The impact of the “new normal”, brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, on the work of the Committee.
III. Detailed comments of the Committee
A. Status of the recommendations of United Nations oversight bodies
12. Under paragraph 2 (b) of its terms of reference, the Committee is mandated to advise the General Assembly on measures to ensure the compliance of management with audit and other oversight recommendations. The Committee maintains that if the weaknesses identified by the oversight bodies are fully addressed in a timely manner, the chances for the Organization to achieve its objectives are greatly improved. During the reporting period, the Committee reviewed the status of implementation by management of the recommendations of United Nations oversight bodies, as a standard practice.
Board of Auditors
13. Consistent with the established practice, the Committee received the advance copies of the Board of Auditors reports for the period ending 31 December 2020. According to the concise summary of the principal findings and conclusions contained in the reports of the Board of Auditors for the annual financial period 2020 (), the overall average implementation rate of outstanding prior period recommendations for the entities under the Board’s purview has increased further, from 41 per cent in 2019 to 48 per cent in 2020 (see table 2). As was the case in 2020, entities outside the purview of the Committee performed much better (with an average implementation rate of 66 per cent, up from 58 per cent in 2019) compared with those under the Committee’s remit, for which the rate increased from 25 per cent in 2019 to 34 per cent in 2020.
Table 2
Overall status of implementation of outstanding previous audit recommendations under the purview of the Board for 2020 and 2019
|
|
Recommendations |
|
Implemented |
|
Implementation rate (percentage) |
|||
|
|
2020 |
2019 |
2020 |
2019 |
2020 |
2019 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Under the Committee’s purview |
638 |
486 |
216 |
119 |
34 |
25 |
||
|
Outside the Committee’s purview |
496 |
464 |
325 |
271 |
66 |
58 |
||
|
Overall |
1 134 |
950 |
541 |
390 |
48 |
41 |
||
14. Tables 3 and 4 show colour-coded details of the implementation rates for the two categories of entities. As can be seen, the improvements in the Secretariat entities’ implementation rates were driven by improvement in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), from 42 per cent to 61 per cent; and in Volume 1, for which the rate improved from 22 per cent to 42 per cent. The most significant decline was in the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), for which the rate fell further from a low of 8 per cent in 2019 to 5 per cent in 2020. In contrast, table 4 shows the implementation rates of non-Secretariat entities, which have continued to improve significantly from the previous year. Except for the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) for which the rate declined from 67 per cent to 33 per cent, all the entities in this category have implemented more than 50 per cent of their recommendations.
Table 3
Detailed status of implementation of outstanding previous audit recommendations for 2019 and 2018: entities under the purview of the Committee
|
|
Recommendations |
|
Implemented |
|
Implementation rate (percentage) |
||||||
|
|
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
United Nations Vol I |
279 |
224 |
167 |
96 |
49 |
13 |
34 |
22 |
8 |
||
|
United Nations peacekeeping operations (Vol. II) |
116 |
103 |
110 |
42 |
24 |
56 |
36 |
23 |
51 |
||
|
International Trade Centre |
23 |
17 |
17 |
7 |
4 |
8 |
30 |
24 |
47 |
||
|
United Nations Environment Programme |
84 |
35 |
17 |
35 |
11 |
3 |
42 |
31 |
18 |
||
|
United Nations Human Settlements Programme |
66 |
38 |
20 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
20 |
||
|
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime |
41 |
50 |
65 |
25 |
21 |
27 |
61 |
42 |
42 |
||
|
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals |
29 |
19 |
18 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
28 |
37 |
39 |
||
|
Total |
638 |
486 |
414 |
216 |
119 |
118 |
34 |
25 |
29 |
||
Legend
|
0 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
40 |
50 |
60 |
70 |
80 |
90 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low implementation rate (percentage) |
High implementation rate (percentage) |
Table 4
Detailed status of implementation of outstanding previous audit recommendations for 2019 and 2018: entities outside the purview of the Committee
|
|
Recommendations |
|
Implemented |
|
Implementation rate |
||||||
|
|
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
United Nations Capital Development Fund |
9 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
100 |
100 |
89 |
||
|
United Nations Development Programme |
57 |
51 |
49 |
40 |
29 |
17 |
70 |
57 |
35 |
||
|
United Nations Population Fund |
33 |
27 |
26 |
26 |
22 |
13 |
79 |
81 |
50 |
||
|
United Nations Children’s Fund |
96 |
80 |
66 |
72 |
33 |
34 |
75 |
41 |
52 |
||
|
United Nations Institute for Training and Research |
17 |
9 |
10 |
14 |
7 |
8 |
82 |
78 |
80 |
||
|
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees |
100 |
96 |
67 |
56 |
48 |
35 |
56 |
50 |
52 |
||
|
United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund |
44 |
45 |
38 |
30 |
33 |
12 |
68 |
73 |
32 |
||
|
United Nations Office for Project Services |
39 |
48 |
51 |
13 |
32 |
31 |
33 |
67 |
61 |
||
|
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East |
47 |
46 |
54 |
25 |
27 |
32 |
53 |
59 |
59 |
||
|
United Nations University |
37 |
32 |
55 |
31 |
17 |
22 |
84 |
53 |
40 |
||
|
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women |
17 |
22 |
16 |
9 |
15 |
6 |
53 |
68 |
38 |
||
|
Total |
496 |
464 |
441 |
325 |
271 |
218 |
66 |
58 |
49 |
||
Legend
|
0 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
40 |
50 |
60 |
70 |
80 |
90 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low implementation rate (percentage) |
High implementation rate (percentage) |
15. The Committee again followed up with management and the Board of Auditors on the reasons for the continued disparity in the implementation rates and on the detailed long-term analysis of the root causes of the low implementation rates. In response, the Committee was informed that the Management Committee continued to take the implementation of the oversight recommendations seriously and that all managers had been requested to address the matter as a priority. For that reason, senior managers’ compacts included an item on the implementation of oversight recommendations as a target.
16. With respect to the long-term analysis, the Committee was informed that the exercise had revealed that: (a) several pending recommendations were related to the implementation of Umoja Extension 2, and that the significant progress made in 2020 should lead to their closure; and (b) other pending recommendations were related to improvements planned in the budgeting exercise for 2022. Management further noted that there were several ageing extant recommendations on critical issues that were being addressed by the implementation of the management reform. These included embedding enterprise risk management, embedding results-based management, the implementation of a statement on internal control, the delegation of authority framework and improving critical human resource management processes such as workforce planning and performance appraisal. The Committee was subsequently informed that the Board of Auditors had closed most of the recommendations relating to enterprise risk management and only one remained.
17. The Committee continues to acknowledge the effort of the Management Committee to encourage senior managers to ensure that the Board of Auditors recommendations are addressed in a timely manner. The Committee believes that this effort is beginning to bear fruit since all the Secretariat entities, except for UN-Habitat and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, have shown improvements in the implementation rate. To maintain that momentum, the Committee believes that the lessons learned from the root cause analysis should help lead to timely implementation of the Board’s recommendations.
Office of Internal Oversight Services
18. The Committee was informed that, during 2020, OIOS had issued 380 reports (close to the 382 issued in 2019). The reports contained 665 recommendations (compared with 968 in 2019) to 43 Secretariat and other entities. According to OIOS, 46 per cent (307) of the 665 recommendations issued in 2020 pertained to investigation. The remaining 54 per cent (358) pertained to audit, inspection and evaluation activities, covering strategic priority areas such as management reform and second line of defence, procurement and supply chain management, missions in drawdown or transition and reforms. OIOS noted that approximately 95 per cent of its recommendations were directed at areas assessed as of very high/critical or high risk on the Secretariat risk register.
19. All recommendations categorized as “critical” by OIOS are brought to the attention of the Management Committee for follow-up action, and special focus is placed on those recommendations whose implementation is past due. The Committee receives quarterly updates from OIOS and the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, on the status of implementation of critical recommendations. To facilitate the process, OIOS informed the Committee that a new web-based portal had been set up. The system allows entities to update the implementation status, thus ensuring regular monitoring and reporting of the entity’s implementation rate.
20. According to OIOS, the total number of outstanding overdue recommendations at the end of the first quarter of 2021 stood at 328, or 30 per cent, of the 1,105 open recommendations. Of these, 50 were considered critical. OIOS informed the Committee that, overall, management implementation of its recommendations remains high, especially since the long-term trends show that 90 per cent of OIOS recommendations are eventually implemented. Additional discussion on the impact and quality implementation of OIOS recommendation can be found in paragraphs 51–61.
21. The Committee continues to commend management for the efforts that it has made to improve the implementation of past-due critical recommendations. The Committee also acknowledges the efforts of OIOS to improve the recommendation formulation process, which has facilitated improvements in the implementation rates. While the Committee is mindful that most of the recommendations are implemented in the long term, the time frame within which a recommendation is implemented is equally important. In that regard, the Committee urges both OIOS and management to further improve timeliness during the implementation process.
Joint Inspection Unit
22. In its annual report for 2020 and programme of work for 2021 (), the Joint Inspection Unit noted that the average rate of acceptance of recommendations made between 2012 and 2019 in single organization reports was higher (80 per cent compared with 77 per cent) than between 2011 and 2018. The rate for system-wide reports and notes covering several organizations, on the other hand, fell slightly (68 per cent in the period 2012–2019 compared with 69 per cent in the period 2011–2018). The Unit also noted that, during the same period, the implementation rate of recommendations in single organization reports and notes was slightly lower (79 per cent in the period 2012–2019 compared with 82 per cent in the period 2011–2018). For system-wide reports and notes, the Unit reported an implementation rate of 79 per cent, which is a decline from the 81 per cent reported in the period 2011–2018. The Committee was informed that the Joint Inspection Unit participating organizations were in the process of updating their acceptance and implementation status for the 2013–2020 period at the time of publication of the present report.
23. For the United Nations Secretariat, the average acceptance rate increased from 63 per cent for the period 2011–2018 to 65 per cent for the period 2012–2019, and the average implementation rate also improved from 78 per cent for the period 2011–2018 to 82 per cent (see figures I and II).
Figure I
Status of acceptance of recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit (entities under the purview of the Committee), 2005–2012 to 2012–2019
(Percentage)
Abbreviations: ITC, International Trade Centre; UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme; UN-Habitat, United Nations Human Settlements Programme; UNODC, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Figure II
Status of implementation of recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit (entities under the purview of the Committee), 2005–2012 to 2012–2019
(Percentage)
Abbreviations: ITC, International Trade Centre; UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme; UN-Habitat, United Nations Human Settlements Programme; UNODC, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
24. The Committee continued to review the trend analysis of the average acceptance rates of the recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit for entities under its purview. As shown in figures I and II, the Committee found that all entities (with the exception of UN-Habitat and UNODC, for which the acceptance rates continued to decline) have consistently performed better with respect to acceptance rates (see figure II). The Committee continued to follow up with management and was informed that management plans to discuss the matter with the heads of UN-Habitat and UNODC and the Joint Inspection Unit to determine the root causes of those low rates so that the relevant corrective actions can be taken.
25. The Committee continues to underscore the importance and value of the recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit to the Organization. In that regard, the Committee commends the efforts of management that have led the Secretariat to perform at a slightly higher rate than the United Nations system-wide average as far as the acceptance and implementation rates are concerned. However, the Committee maintains that the low acceptance rates in some entities could be a sign either of some systemic problems in the entities concerned or that the reports/recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit might not be relevant to such entities. Since the implementation rate is a derivative of the acceptance rate, the Committee continues to believe that there is a risk that significant findings of the Joint Inspection Unit are not being addressed. The Committee therefore believes that the dialogue among the Joint Inspection Unit, the Management Committee and the entities concerned to look into this issue is a step in the right direction and should be undertaken as a matter of priority.
B. Risk management and internal control framework
26. Paragraphs 2 (f) and (g) of the terms of reference of the Committee (see General Assembly resolution , annex) mandate the Committee to advise the General Assembly on the quality and overall effectiveness of risk management procedures and on deficiencies in the internal control framework of the United Nations.
Enterprise risk management
27. The Committee has long believed that enterprise risk management is an integral and important management tool of the Organization and emphasized that top management effort is needed to continue to actively lead enterprise risk management efforts so as to ensure that identifying and managing risks become standard ways of doing business across the Organization. During the current reporting period, the Committee followed up with management on the progress made in making enterprise risk management a management tool that is fully embedded in the Organization.
28. During its dialogue with the Management Committee, the Independent Audit Advisory Committee was informed that significant progress had been made, which entailed implementing and subsequent approval of the Secretariat-wide risk register. The Committee was further informed that, in April 2021, the Management Committee had reviewed and adopted the risk treatment and response plans; and that relevant working groups were ensuring that remedial action measures were effective in mitigating the respective risks.
29. Management informed the Committee that the enterprise risk management process was progressing at two different but complementary levels, namely at the entity and corporate levels. At the entity level, all heads of entities are responsible for the development and regular update of their entity-specific risk registers and implementing their response plans, ensuring that the risks identified through that process align with the corporate risk register. At the corporate level, management informed the Committee that eight working groups had been created under the leadership of corporate risk owners to develop risk treatment and response plans for the 16 critical risks identified in the Secretariat-wide risk register. The working groups regularly convened during the first quarter of 2021 to draft the plans with specific remedial measures.
30. In that regard, the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance intends to continue to coordinate the implementation of enterprise risk management across the entire Organization, to ensure that the enterprise risk management process is fully embedded and integrated with strategic and other operational processes.
31. Management further informed the Committee that 57 entities had been selected – on the basis of their size, number of staff, mandates and operations – to have their risk registers and treatment plans finalized by the end of 2023: 25 per cent by the end of 2020, as already fully achieved, 50 per cent by the end of 2021, 75 per cent by the end of 2022 and 100 per cent by the end of 2023. According to management, these targets were further reflected in the benefits tracker linked to the United Nations reform.
32. The Committee was also informed that the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance continued to work on the application that would support the implementation of enterprise risk management across the entire Secretariat. The configuration of the risk management module in the SAP governance, risk and compliance had been completed, and the quality assurance and user acceptance testing phase of the project with selected pilot entities was currently under way.
33. The Committee is aware that the usefulness of enterprise risk management depends on several factors including: (a) how robust the risk register is; (b) the risk mitigation plan; (c) how embedded the enterprise risk management is in the Organization; and (d) the application that will support the implementation of enterprise risk management across the entire Secretariat. From the discussions, the Committee believes that enterprise risk management is headed in the right direction in prioritizing a robust enterprise risk management framework as part of the accountability system and the dedication of the Management Committee to championing enterprise risk management. The Committee will continue to monitor management’s efforts to expand the implementation of enterprise risk management throughout the Organization.
C. Effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the audit, investigation, inspection and evaluation activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services
34. Under its terms of reference, the Committee has the responsibility to advise the General Assembly on aspects of internal oversight (resolution , annex, paras. 2 (c)–(e)). In undertaking to fulfil its mandate, the Committee has maintained its standard practice of meeting with the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services and other senior OIOS officials during its sessions. The discussions have been focused on OIOS workplan and budget execution, significant findings reported by OIOS, operational constraints (if any), post incumbency, the status of implementation by management of OIOS recommendations, including critical recommendations, and strengthening investigations.
35. During the current period, the Committee focused its assessment on: (a) strategic planning, OIOS effectiveness and performance measurement; (b) the quality and impact of OIOS recommendations; (c) matters associated with the Investigation Division; and (d) the role of OIOS in the 2030 Agenda.
Strategic planning, effectiveness of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and performance measurement
Performance audit
36. According to the standards of the Institute of Internal Auditors, internal auditors, have an obligation to assist the organizations they serve in improving the quality of governance, risk management and control processes.[1] In its report on the state of the internal audit function (), the Joint Inspection Unit noted that one of the benefits of performance audits was that they could identify redundancies and unnecessary controls and processes and thereby increase efficiency and value for money. During the reporting period, the Committee followed up with OIOS regarding its oversight of non-programmatic departments such as the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, the Department of Operational Support, the Department of Safety and Security and offices away from Headquarters.
37. In paragraph 20 of its report on internal oversight: proposed programme budget for 2021 (), the Committee reported that OIOS had changed the way that the Inspection and Evaluation Division was addressing the evaluation needs of the Organization. In that regard, all “non-programmatic” departments, such as the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance and the Department of Operational Support, would be subject to performance auditing by the Internal Audit Division rather than through programme evaluation conducted by the Inspection and Evaluation Division.
38. OIOS informed the Committee that the Internal Audit Division and the Inspection and Evaluation Division of OIOS planned and closely coordinated the development of their respective audit and evaluation workplans. OIOS noted that the assessments of risks and weaknesses, as well as other insights gained through the two Divisions’ respective audit and evaluation activities, were shared and taken into account in determining appropriate oversight coverage and the right mix of performance audit and/or evaluation. This helped to ensure complementarity between the Internal Audit Division and the Inspection and Evaluation Division, avoid duplication and overlap and ensure that audit and evaluation expertise was more effectively used. A list of completed and proposed performance audits of non?programmatic divisions and offices was provided to the Committee, showing that, to date, OIOS had completed eight performance audit assignments in the United Nations Office at Nairobi, the Department of Operational Support, the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance and the Global Compact Office. The Committee was also informed that OIOS planned to undertake 20 performance audits in 2021 and 17 in 2022.
39. The Committee continues to welcome the concerted efforts by OIOS to make performance audits a priority. The Committee notes that the performance audits undertaken to date address specific elements within a department, whereas the evaluation work done by the Inspection and Evaluation Division used to look at a department as a whole. While the focus on specific aspects of a Department’s work is important, equally important is the holistic review of such departments. Since this role, which used to be performed by the Inspection and Evaluation Division has been relegated to the Internal Audit Division for the non?programmatic departments and offices, the Committee recommends that OIOS take this matter into account in its future workplans.
OIOS performance metrics
40. As noted in paragraph 20 of , OIOS changed its performance measurement system from the programme impact pathways to a new performance indicator that uses the balanced scorecard system. This new system monitors four dimensions, namely: impact; relations with key stakeholders; internal process (economy, efficiency and effectiveness); and internal capacity. According to OIOS, performance is monitored through a combination of external and internal reporting mechanisms, and key performance indicators are reported to key stakeholders by: (a) programme plan (regular budget); (b) support account budget performance; (c) OIOS annual reports (Parts I and II); and (d) the annual status report, focused on the impact of recommendations (trends, focus areas) and including a new recommendation status dashboard.
41. OIOS further indicated that, internally, Division-specific indicators are monitored through monthly management reviews, quarterly Division staff meetings and annual townhalls. In addition, OIOS indicated that it carries out continuous monitoring activities through the enhanced data analytics and dashboards.
42. During the course of the current reporting period, the Committee received a detailed breakdown of 32 performance indicators being monitored by OIOS, together with the targets and results as at 30 June 2021.
43. The Committee commends OIOS for initiating a new set of performance metrics. The Committee notes that not all the indicators have targets and results. The Committee encourages OIOS to finalize the key performance indicators relating to the balanced scorecard performance measurement system and also to finalize the targets and results for the remaining indicators.
Vacant posts in the Office of Internal Oversight Services
44. With respect to the vacancy situation in OIOS, the Committee continues to consider this a significant risk; hence it appears as a standing item on its agenda. A five-year trend analysis for OIOS vacancies was conducted, as shown in figure III. While the peacekeeping budget vacancies have been declining over the five-year period, those of the regular budget-funded posts have been increasing – reaching 25.1 per cent as at 30 June 2021. For some time, the Committee’s concern has been the consistently high vacancy rate in the peacekeeping portion of the Investigation Division. Following the concerted effort of OIOS to address the Division’s peacekeeping section vacancies, the number has been reduced to a manageable level, although that of the regular budget has increased to 25 per cent.
Figure III
Trends in the vacancy rates of the Office of Internal Oversight Services
(Percentage)
45. The Committee further noted that the overall vacancy rate masks a much bigger problem with respect to the Inspection and Evaluation Division, where the vacancy rate for the regular budget section of the Division remained at 36.4 per cent as at 30 June 2021, the same level that was reported in 2020.
46. The Committee inquired as to what was being done to address the situation and was informed that addressing the vacancy situation had become one major objective of the Office. The Committee was informed that OIOS was undertaking various strategies, including open recruitment.
47. In its previous reports, the Committee called into question the ability of OIOS to fulfil its mandate with a quarter of its post resources vacant. This situation is even more apparent for small divisions such as the Inspection and Evaluation Division. The Committee is aware that OIOS, like the rest of the Organization, was operating under the constraints of the pandemic; the Committee is also aware of the efforts that OIOS is making to address the vacancy situation, including the reduction in the Investigation Division peacekeeping section. That situation/effort notwithstanding, the Committee reiterates its prior recommendations that OIOS address the issue of vacancy levels as a matter of priority.
Building back better and the post-pandemic lessons learned
48. As the Organization emerges from the challenges brought about by the pandemic, the Committee followed up with OIOS on the lessons learned and how the Office has prepared itself for the post-pandemic environment. The Committee was informed that all the three Divisions had adapted well to the remote working arrangements, with several innovations that would remain after the pandemic. OIOS indicated that it had been able to complete most of its outputs, although some undertakings had to be postponed or repurposed.
49. The following were some of the strategies used/lessons learned as far OIOS is concerned: (a) video-conferencing tools have allowed many, but not all, in-person interviews to be conducted remotely; (b) increased direct access to electronic records and data through enterprise risk planning and other systems (e.g., Umoja, data dashboards) have facilitated data analysis; (c) implementation of remotely accessible and cloud-based management and document filing systems; (d) it was possible to review OIOS data systems and practices used to develop the OIOS ICT risk register with remediations poised to start thereafter; (e) training of staff in data analytics and electronic management systems was improved; (f) locally based consultants were used for data collection for evaluation; and (g) partnerships with and use of existing academic and commercial datasets for informing outcome evaluation were being trialled and further explored (e.g., for indicators on conflict, socioeconomic development, environment).
50. The Committee appreciates the effort of OIOS to ensure that a difficult situation has led to improvement in its processes and ways of doing business. The Committee believes that these lessons should continue to inform future OIOS workplans and risk assessment process.
Status, quality and impact of management’s implementation of recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services
51. Audit recommendations identify risks to the successful delivery of outcomes consistent with policy and legislative requirements and highlight actions aimed at addressing those risks and opportunities for improving entity administration. Entities are responsible for the implementation of audit recommendations to which they have agreed, and the timely implementation of recommendations allows entities to realize the full benefit of audit activity.[2] During the current reporting period, the Committee requested the views of OIOS on the status, quality and impact of management’s implementations of the recommendations of OIOS.
52. In response, OIOS informed the Committee that it was undertaking regular monitoring and reporting of entity implementation. This process has been facilitated by the new web-based portal, which allows entities to directly provide updates to OIOS on the implementation of its recommendations at any time. In turn, the OIOS audit/evaluation managers review the evidence submitted by entities on implementation actions and, as relevant: (a) close the recommendation as implemented; or (b) request that the entity provides additional evidence or take alternate implementing actions. In addition to continuous review and monitoring, OIOS indicated that it formally requests management to provide a status update on all recommendations every six months (or every three months for critical recommendations).
53. The Committee was also informed that a new dashboard had been set up that provides easily accessible visual reports on the status of recommendation implementation for all entities, as well as the possibility of seeing the manager responsible for implementing the recommendations. OIOS noted that, during the course of subsequent assignments, it reviews previous recommendations of all oversight bodies, including those of the Joint Inspection Unit and the Board of Auditors, to assist in the risk assessment process and during field work.
54. As part of its efforts to improve the impact of management’s implementation of its recommendations, OIOS informed the Committee that it continued to engage in more consultative processes so as to ensure targeted and time-bound OIOS recommendations. OIOS indicated that, to achieve this, it had made additional efforts aimed at improving implementation and impact, such as: (a) increased consultation and engagement with entities in recommendation design; (b) issuing more practical, economical and time-bound recommendations (implementable within 24 months); (c) specific follow-up and cooperation on ensuring implementation of long-overdue recommendations (those that have missed target dates by 12 months or more); and (d) collaborating with the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance and the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, in particular through the sharing of data on the implementation of recommendations.
55. In that regard, as mentioned in paragraph 19, OIOS informed the Committee that management’s implementation of its recommendations remains high overall since the long-term trend shows a 90 per cent implementation rate (see figure IV).
Figure IV
Trend in recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services implementations
(Percentage)
56. The Committee notes the efforts of OIOS to improve the implementation of its recommendations as set out above. The Committee also notes that, in the long term, most of the recommendations are implemented. The Committee still believes that timely implementation of oversight bodies’ recommendations is key to addressing the risks that could adversely impact on the Organization’s ability to achieve its objectives – especially if the recommendations are critical in nature. The Committee therefore believes that there is still room for improvement.
Timeliness in the completion of investigation cases
57. With respect to the completion of investigations, as has previously been mentioned, the timeliness with which oversight work (in this case, investigation) is completed is an essential element of an effective accountability system. During the reporting period, the Committee followed up with OIOS on some of its performance indicators and was informed that the average completion time increased slightly during COVID-19. The Committee was also informed that the average length of an investigation stands at 11.7 months (up from 10.8 months in 2020). At the same time, OIOS indicated that the Office issued 44 per cent more investigation reports in 2020 than in 2019 (194 compared with 135).
58. In its previous report (), the Investigation Division informed the Committee of additional efforts that it was putting into addressing the quality and timeliness of the investigations, especially with respect to retaliation. Specifically, OIOS noted a new system of handling the investigation of retaliation, which is aimed at dispatching such cases promptly. According to OIOS, the “new” system has been used since May 2018 and is different because it recognizes that a protection against retaliation investigation is not a misconduct investigation, and so a different approach to conducting the investigation is adopted. The system has proven effective in enabling many protection against retaliation investigations to very quickly establish the truth of what has happened. Nevertheless, a series of more complex and difficult cases have meant that the system has not yet resulted in a reduction of average completion timelines overall. Furthermore, the new system has exposed shortcomings in the legal framework for protection against retaliation and the way that it is being applied. In that regard, OIOS indicated that it was now focused on working with other stakeholders to improve the legal framework and its application. OIOS also indicated that the upcoming external quality assurance of the Investigations Division would identify opportunities for further improving the quality and timeliness of OIOS investigations, including investigations against retaliation.
59. The Committee followed up with OIOS and was informed that, in addition to the steps to expedite the investigation process, the Office has had to adjust the target dates. For instance, sexual exploitation and abuse, together with sexual harassment, will have a target of 9 months; retaliation cases will have a target of 120 days; and all other investigations will have a target of 12 months. In the past OIOS had a goal of completing most investigations within 6 months or less; however, it was not able to meet its prior goals and determined that they were unrealistic.
60. While the average length of an investigation has increased from 10.8 months to 11.7 months, the Committee notes that the Investigation Division’s caseload has also risen. On the change in the target dates, the fact that investigations taking more than one year to complete went up from 18 per cent last year to 29 per cent of the cases continues to be worrying. The Committee recalls its previous assertion that best practice and due process require that investigations be carried out with dispatch to deter impunity and feelings of uncertainty in the workplace. The Committee therefore continues to urge the Investigation Division to increase its focus on completing investigations in a timely manner. The Committee therefore also reiterates its prior recommendations that the Division analyse the root causes of why investigations exceed targeted time frames, including any constraints on resources, and propose solutions to improve time frames.
61. The Committee also notes that the Investigation Division will be undergoing an external assessment in 2021, which will be focused, in part, on reviewing the time frames and efficiency and effectiveness of procedures for conducting investigations. The Committee is therefore encouraged to note that OIOS plans to consider any findings and recommendations that may result from that assessment in formulating solutions to improve time frames. The Committee plans to follow up on this matter at its future sessions.
Assessing the organizational culture
62. In paragraph 46 of its previous report (), the Committee called upon OIOS to come up with a clear methodology, taking into account best practices for periodically assessing the culture of the Organization. The Committee followed up with OIOS on the progress in assessing organizational culture and was told that the Inspection and Evaluation Division had several ongoing assignments in this regard, such as: evaluation of the resident coordinator system; and review of the accountability system (joint Inspection and Evaluation Division/Internal Audit Division review). With respect to the evaluation of the resident coordinator system, the Committee was informed that the evaluation, focused on United Nations country programming coherence, was assessing the extent to which United Nations country team organizational culture had shifted to facilitate a more coordinated and collaborative United Nations presence at the country level.
63. Regarding the review of the accountability system, OIOS indicated that the team was assessing the relevance of the accountability system of the Secretariat in supporting the new management paradigm and in reinforcing a culture of accountability in the Secretariat. OIOS further noted that the review would also help in identifying and validating important lessons learned, best practices and strategies for replication and provide actionable recommendations for the design and implementation of further measures to strengthen or deepen the culture of accountability.
64. The above notwithstanding, OIOS indicated that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a reduced focus on assessing organizational culture in the Internal Audit Division as it was difficult to assess soft controls remotely.
65. The Committee commends OIOS for the effort that it has put into assessing the organizational culture. The Committee believes that, as the elements of organizational culture are reviewed and recommendations are issued, this is an important risk element of the Organization that should elicit management attention.
Role of the Office of Internal Oversight Services in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
66. In paragraphs 64 to 66 of its report for the period from 1 August 2016 to 31 July 2017 (), the Committee looked at the progress that OIOS was making in embodying the integrated, universal and indivisible nature of the 2030 Agenda throughout its own operations. As part of its follow-up process, the Committee was informed that the Inspection and Evaluation Division was conducting six evaluation assignments pertaining to the 2030 Agenda addressing various Sustainable Development Goals. On the audit side, the Committee was informed that the review of Goals was mainstreamed into audit assignments, as applicable
67. The Committee is aware that COVID-19 has affected not only the Sustainable Development Goals themselves but also the oversight bodies’ abilities in assessing them. In that regard, the Committee welcomes the steps that OIOS is taking with respect to the 2030 Agenda and will continue to follow up with OIOS on this matter.
D. Financial reporting
68. During the reporting period, the Committee engaged in discussions with the Board of Auditors, the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance and the Controller on several issues relating to financial reporting. The issues discussed included:
(a) Implementation of Umoja;
(b) Internal control, especially as it pertains to publication of the first statement on internal control;
(c) After-service health insurance liability;
(d) Issues and trends apparent in the financial statements of the Organization and the reports of the Board of Auditors.
Implementation of Umoja
69. The Committee recalled its previous report in which it was noted that the implementation of Umoja would end on 31 December 2020. In this regard, the Committee was informed that the twelfth and final progress report for Umoja had been issued and considered by the governing bodies. The Committee was informed that the principal components of the report included: a project review; plans for Umoja mainstreaming, consisting of a governance model, transforming a business need into a solution, the total cost of ownership and benefits realization; and resource requirements for 2021.
70. The Committee was further informed that the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions had considered the report and recommended, inter alia, that further reporting after a year in the new structure (following the closure of the project on 31 December 2020) was necessary and that it was important to have a benefits realization plan.
71. With respect to the benefits realization plan, the Committee was informed that the Umoja project team had reviewed, updated and approved the plan in January 2020 to align with the methodology of the United to reform: benefits management framework of June 2019; and that it had been reviewed by the Board of Auditors early in 2020. The Controller further noted that the Business Transformation and Accountability Division would monitor the benefits that the business will be responsible for delivering.
72. The Committee was also informed that, after the successful deployment of the remaining Umoja Extension 2 processes by 31 December 2020, the Enterprise Resource Planning Solution Division had been established on 1 January 2021 as the successor to the Umoja project.
73. The Committee congratulates management for achieving this milestone of successfully deploying Umoja. The Committee also recalls that, in its report (), the Committee noted that, given the importance of the enterprise resource planning system to the Organization, it was imperative to ensure that the roll-out of the remaining modules was properly addressed. Since then, the Committee has been informed that modules such as the governance, risk and compliance module were being tested for deployment and will be an important support for the statement on internal control and the enterprise risk management going forward.
Internal control system and anti-fraud policy
Statement on internal control
74. With respect to the statement on internal control, the Committee continued to receive regular updates from management. According to management, the strengthening of the Secretariat-wide internal control framework is a key enabler for the implementation for the Secretary-General’s management reform initiative, especially in the light of the significant change in the business model of the Secretariat derived from the delegation of authority framework. As noted in the Committee’s previous report, the statement on internal control is an accountability document that describes the effectiveness of internal controls in an organization. To that end, the Committee was informed that the Secretary-General recently signed the first ever statement on internal control to provide reasonable assurance to the Member States of the effectiveness and efficient implementation of mandated activities, the reliability of financial reporting and compliance with the regulatory framework.
75. According to management, the statement on internal control reflects, the recommendations and observations of the Internal Control Advisory Group. Management further noted that the statement on internal control report signed by the Secretary-General concluded that the Secretariat operated an effective system of control during 2020 but identified seven areas in which there was opportunity for further improvement. The seven areas were: (a) advance ticket booking and purchase; (b) compliance with mandatory training; (c) benchmarking for filling posts in 120 days; (d) property management; (e) implementing partner selection, due diligence and monitoring; (f) enterprise risk management practices; and (g) 10 principles on personal data protection of the High-level Committee on Management.
76. The Committee was informed of the following initiatives going forward: (a) work is progressing on the review and assessment of the internal control framework for programme planning and programme performance; (b) the development of a prototype SAP governance, risk and compliance control; (c) strengthening the integration between enterprise risk management and the internal control exercise; (d) refinement of the self-assessment questionnaire for 2021; and (e) support and follow-up on remediation plans. The Committee also had a discussion with the Internal Control Advisory Group, at which the two bodies exchanged views and ideas regarding the statement on internal control.
77. The Committee takes this opportunity to congratulate the Organization for its achievement of issuing its first statement on internal control. The Committee also notes the important role that the Internal Control Advisory Group has played in guiding the Organization to this outcome. The Committee is pleased to note that the implementation of its prior recommendation on the relevance of a functional governance, risk and compliance module is in progress.
78. The Committee agrees with the assessment of the Advisory Group that the development of a statement on internal control requires continuous improvement and that the Organization needs time for the process for the statement on internal control to mature. The Committee plans to monitor the progress in this respect, especially as it relates to the refinement of the assessment questionnaire and the remediation plan.
Fraud and presumptive fraud
79. With respect to fraud and presumptive fraud, management provided a summary of the cases for a period of three years (see table 5). As the table shows, there was an increase in the number of reported cases of fraud in 2020 compared with 2019, while the number of cases of presumptive fraud declined from 134 to 91. Management continued to attribute the changes to improved reporting as a result of: (a) the fraud guidelines, which have been revised for more details and a timeline; (b) regular reporting of fraud and presumptive fraud in health insurance claims from the Health and Life Insurance Section, Office of Programme Planning, Finance and Budget, to OIOS (in response to the 2018 audit observation); (c) close coordination between the Office of Programme Planning, Finance and Budget, the Office of Human Resources and OIOS to ensure completeness in the reporting of fraud and presumptive fraud (in response to the 2017 audit observation).
Table 5
Fraud and presumptive fraud
|
|
Fraud |
|
Presumptive fraud |
||
|
|
Number of cases |
Estimated amount |
Number of cases |
Estimated amount |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020 |
20 |
0.2 |
91 |
32.3 |
|
|
2019 |
13 |
0.3 |
134 |
6.1 |
|
|
2018 |
6 |
3.6 |
26 |
2.9 |
|
|
2017 |
4 |
0.5 |
62 |
44.4 |
|
80. In its concise summary, the Board of Auditors reported that the 91 cases of presumptive fraud include 32 cases which have been pending investigation for more than two years. According to OIOS, of the 32 cases pending investigation, only two are with the Investigation Division of OIOS, and have since been finalized.
81. The Committee continues to welcome the efforts of management to improve the reporting of fraud and presumptive fraud. The Committee nevertheless agrees with the Board’s previous observation that more needs to be done to improve the process, including the resolution, by the respective investigative bodies, of the 32 cases pending investigation.
End-of-service liabilities
82. With respect to the end-of-service liabilities, the Committee recalls its prior comments and recommendations (contained in its reports and ), in which the Committee had called upon the General Assembly to decide whether, how and to what extent the liabilities would be funded. Furthermore, during the Committee’s discussions with various offices, management continued to consider as a major concern the issue of employee benefits liabilities, specifically after-service health insurance.
83. According to the Board of Auditors, after-service health insurance liabilities increased from $5.39 billion (Vol. I) as at 31 December 2019 to $5.89 billion as at 31 December 2020, representing an increase of 9.3 per cent from the previous year. For peacekeeping operations (Vol. II), the after-service health insurance liabilities as at 31 December 2020 stood at $1.57 billion, down from $1.67 billion the previous year – representing a 6.1 per cent decrease. The two volumes saw a 5.6 per cent increase compared with the previous year. According to the Board of Auditors, employee benefit liabilities were higher than 75 per cent of total liabilities for non?peacekeeping financial statements.
84. The Committee also received a briefing from management regarding the after-service health insurance liabilities. Management indicated that the 2020 fiscal year provided for a more accurate valuation of after-service health insurance because the deficiency regarding the initial entry-on-duty date was addressed by incorporating the entry-on-duty date provided by United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (see figure V). For the 2021 actuarial valuation, management noted that: (a) entry-on-duty date will be replaced by the actual participation period in the United Nations insurance plan; and (b) allocation of retiree’s portion of the liabilities based on actual data (estimates of 85 per cent (Vol. I) and 15 per cent (Vol. II) will be used).
Figure V
After-service health insurance liabilities
(United States dollars)
85. The Committee was also informed that the General Assembly, in its resolution B, requested the Secretary-General to further explore options for the improvement of the efficiency and the containment of costs, including liabilities associated with current and future staff, with a view to reducing the Organization’s expenditure on health insurance plans and its after-service health insurance obligations. In that regard, management indicated that the after-service health insurance report would be presented to the Assembly at its seventy-sixth session.
86. The Committee continues to believe that for the United Nations to have after-service health insurance liabilities making up the largest share of the total liabilities presents, in and of itself, a significant risk that should be properly managed. The current funding strategy of pay-as-you-go may not be the optimal way to manage this risk. The Committee therefore recommends that the General Assembly consider alternative after-service health insurance liability funding strategies to mitigate this risk.
E. Coordination among United Nations oversight bodies
87. During the reporting period, in addition to its regularly scheduled meetings with OIOS, the Committee met with other oversight bodies, such as the Joint Inspection Unit and the Board of Auditors, including the Audit Operations Committee. The dialogue allowed for the sharing of perspectives on matters of mutual concern and provided a useful opportunity for cooperation among United Nations oversight bodies.
88. The Committee sought comments from the three oversight bodies, each of which emphasized, in their comments, the existing coordination mechanisms, including the sharing of their programmes of work. In separate meetings with the Board of Auditors, the Joint Inspection Unit and OIOS, the Committee noted the positive relationship fostered through the tripartite coordination meetings of the oversight bodies and the sharing of workplans in an effort to avoid duplication. The Committee believes that such coordination provides a valuable platform for additional opportunities for cooperation.
89. Furthermore, in December 2020, the Committee virtually hosted a fifth meeting of the representatives of the United Nations system oversight committees. A total of 29 representatives from 22 oversight committees, from organizations within the Secretariat, the funds and programmes and the specialized agencies, attended the meeting.
90. During the meeting, discussions resumed, building on the previous meetings, with regard to common challenges and potential identification of good practices in the work and conduct of the United Nations system oversight committees. Participants focused on how entities were addressing risks associated with cybersecurity, including a need for increased system-wide investment in information security generally, assessing the robustness of enterprise risk management in the System as a critical enabler of the 2030 Agenda; and the need for an integrated look at the management of the United Nations system human capital, including how the workforce of the future is to be planned.
91. Participants at the session also discussed the status of implementation of the Joint Inspection Unit recommendation on self-assessment contained in the Unit’s report (). The participants noted the relevance of this recommendation and it was reported that various entities had engaged in the self-assessment process, while others, including the Committee, were in the process of completing the exercise.
92. Following the conclusion of the meeting, the participants agreed to convey the concerns outlined above to the Secretary-General, in his capacity as Chair of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination. In his letter, the Secretary-General highlighted the progress that the organizations had achieved in this respect.
F. Cooperation and access
93. The Committee reports that it received good cooperation from OIOS and senior management in the Secretariat, including the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, in discharging its responsibilities. The Committee was given appropriate access to staff, documents and information that it needed in order to conduct its work. The Committee is pleased to report that it continued to work closely with the Joint Inspection Unit and the Board of Auditors. The Committee looks forward to continued cooperation with the entities with which it interacts in order to discharge its responsibilities, as set out in its terms of reference, in a timely manner.
IV. Conclusion
94. In the context of its terms of reference, the Independent Audit Advisory Committee presents the preceding observations, comments and recommendations, as contained in paragraphs 17, 21, 25, 33, 39, 43, 47, 50, 56, 60, 61, 65, 67, 73, 77, 78, 81 and 86 for the consideration of the General Assembly.
[1] See Institute of Internal Auditors Standard 2110-Governance; Standard 2120-Risk management; and Standard 2130-Control.
[2] See .