Detailed Information on the
Contributions to International Organizations Assessment

Work with FAO to improve the prioritization of items in the proposed Program of Work and Budget (PWB) so that the PWB focuses resources on areas where the organization has a comparative advantage. Work with FAO to implement the recommendations of the Independent External Evaluation (IEE) so that it focuses on those areas in which it has a unique or comparative advantage and withdraws from those activities in which it does not; and so that it makes other improvements addressed by the IEE such as in its program priorities; governance structure; organization culture; and administrative and management systems. An FAO Special Session of the 35th Conference (November 2008) that approves a plan to implement the recommendations of reform from the IEE and calls for no increase in the assessed budget.

The Department of State should periodically evaluate whether sufficient progress has been made in meeting targets so that milestone-based measures might be converted to quantifiable measures, where appropriate.

Measure: UN: Average Percentage of Voting Coincidence (including Consensus) for UN General Assembly Resolutions Designated as Important by the U.S.

Explanation:The U.S. measures how other countries vote on UN resolutions at the fall meeting of the UN General Assembly in order to gauge its influence on policy on the global stage. The comparison of the U.S. vote on a resolution with another UN member's vote on the same resolution is called voting coincidence. The number of times that this occurs can be calculated as a percentage. Resolutions adopted by consensus are also included in the voting coincidence, since most of the UN General Assembly's work is done by consensus. The average percentage listed in the measure indicates how often other countries voted with the U.S. or agreed by consensus on issues that the U.S. considers important. A higher percentage of voting coincidence reflects the extent to which U.S priorities are being shared by other UN member states. There are many external factors that make achieving incremental increases in voting coincidence extremely difficult, including when a country votes as a member of a group despite shared interests with the U.S. Barring occasional increases, there has been a general decrease in voting coincidence on important resolutions (including consensus) since 1994 (86.4%). Each year, the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the Department of State produces a report to Congress entitled, "Voting Practices in the United Nations." A link to this report can be found at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/104482.pdf

Measure: Percentage Implementation Rate for Critical Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Recommendations

Explanation:OIOS provides insight into the UN's operations and performance through internal audit, investigation, inspection, program monitoring, evaluation, and consulting services. OIOS reports make recommendations that help ensure the effective use of resources and foster a culture of accountability. This annual goal supports the long-term U.S. goal of promoting the effective and economical use of UN resources. If critical OIOS recommendations are implemented at an increasing rate, the UN would be rectifying known problems. As such, it would be becoming more effective, efficient, and transparent. Reporting period covered: July 1-June 30. Example, FY 2004 results are for July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004.

Measure: Number of Days for Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to Complete Initial Assessment

Explanation:It is important that humanitarian assistance gets to those in need quickly and effectively. OCHA was specifically established to coordinate UN system responses to disasters and other events requiring humanitarian response. In order to do so, OCHA works with UN agencies and other national and international organizations (including UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the ICRC and others) that directly provide assistance to people in need. OCHA helps determine the level of funding needed for overall response activities, coordinates with donors to prioritize funding for emergencies, and leads efforts to establish international emergency assistance standards. OCHA also advocates for funding of a UN Central Emergency Response Fund from donor countries and private sources. Such funding allows for a ready emergency response in the event of disasters or conflicts. OCHA's rapid response capacity should be improved. This indicator notes the number of days between the actual disaster event and a Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) Flash Appeal, which OCHA develops based on the initial in-country needs assessment. US funding to OCHA supports the long-term U.S. goal of minimizing the human costs of displacement, conflicts and natural disasters.

Measure: Percentage of UN Workforce (positions subject to geographic distribution) that is American

Explanation:The employment of American citizens in international organizations (in positions subject to geographic distribution) is important to the USG, to increase U.S. influence and thereby the likelihood of achieving USG goals for the organizations. Americans offer skills and work values/ethics to further and make more efficient, effective, and accountable the organizations' work. An annual report to Congress is submitted. The GAO has been following this issue for several years.

Measure: FAO Standard-setting Activities: Status of Codex Alimentarius Strategic Plan and Procedure Manual, and Status of International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Standards and Guidance on National Frameworks

Explanation:Codex and IPPC facilitate trade in agricultural products by removing non-tariff barriers to trade, while ensuring the safety and health of both the U.S. agriculture sector and consumer health. The targets below attempt to measure progress in harmonizing food standards systems and phytosanitary measures throughout the world. (3a) 2007 Results: The Codex Commission, in July 2007, adopted the new Strategic Plan for 2008-2013. (4) 2008 Target: Changes to the Codex Procedural Manual are fully implemented. IPPC secures adequate funding to support 4-5 standards per year. (4a) 2008 Results: Available July 2009. (5) 2009 Target: Evaluate the capacity of the Codex Secretariat to perform its function effectively and Streamline Codex Commodity work.

Measure: FAO: Percentage of FAO Workforce (positions subject to geographic distribution) that is American

Explanation:The employment of American citizens in international organizations (in positions subject to geographic distribution) is important to the USG, to increase U.S. influence and thereby the likelihood of achieving USG goals for the organizations. Americans offer skills and work values/ethics to further and make more efficient, effective, and accountable the organizations' work. An annual report to Congress is submitted. The GAO has been following this issue for several years.

Measure: WHO: Tuberculosis Treatment Rate (%) (World-wide)

Explanation:WHO's contribution to advancing the global health agenda includes combating ill health and reducing the burden of disease. This directly supports the U.S. goal of investing in people. TB is treated under DOTS (direct observation of treatment strategy), the internationally recommended TB control strategy. The Tuberculosis Treatment Rate is defined as the proportion of patients who complete their entire course of treatment. UN uses calendar year, not the U.S. fiscal year. Timing of data collection and reporting means that targets/results are for prior calendar year. (a) 2004 Baseline: 182 countries were implementing DOTS in 2003. Major progress achieved in China and India, which account for one third of the global TB burden, as well as Indonesia and Philippines. (b) 2005 Results: The treatment success rate was 85%, however, the rate remains substantially below the average in two of WHO's six regions (Africa at 73% and Europe at 76%)

Measure: Percentage of WHO workforce (positions subject to geographical distribution) that is American.

Explanation:The employment of American citizens in international organizations (in positions subject to geographic distribution) is important to the USG, to increase U.S. influence and thereby the likelihood of achieving USG goals for the organizations. Americans offer skills and work values/ethics to further and make more efficient, effective, and accountable the organizations' work. An annual report to Congress is submitted. The GAO has been following this issue for several years.

Measure: OECD: Number of Non-European Countries Negotiating Accession.

Explanation:As the principal international organization committed to economic growth, the market economy, and democratic government, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is a vital forum for the advancement of USG economic policy and the promotion of American commercial interests. Organization agrees to begin accession talks in 2007. Accession of non-European countries will dilute the eurocentricity of the Organization, enabling the Organization to broaden its global reach. OECD uses calendar year, not the U.S. fiscal year. Timing of data collection, reporting, and analysis means that targets/results are for prior calendar year. Numbers indicate non-European countries negotiating accession.

Measure: OECD: Management, Administration and Program Support Costs as % of Total Budget

Explanation:OECD uses calendar year, not the U.S. fiscal year. Timing of data collection, reporting, and analysis means that targets/results are for prior calendar year.

Measure: OECD: Number of Additional Non-Member Country Programs

Explanation:Outreach to non-members, through structured and targeted country programs, is a vital tool in engaging important, non-member economies not yet qualified for accession to the Organization. This enhances the U.S. goal of promoting global economic growth by providing policy advice and recommendations both to its 30 large industrialized member economies and other key economies such as China, Russia, Ukraine, Brazil and India.

Measure: IAEA: Management, Administration and Program Support Costs as % of Total Budget

Explanation:: The IAEA receives monies from assessed contributions paid by IAEA member states and from voluntary contributions from both IAEA member states and private organizations. The methodology employed to determine the baseline number accounts for monies in the IAEA's core regular budget. It does not include voluntary contributions. Because voluntary contributions are susceptible to many externalities and often fluctuate from year to year, the decision to exclude non-core regular budget assessed funds supports an attempt to provide accurate, consistent data over the long-term. The IAEA also uses the calendar year, not the U.S. fiscal year. Therefore, the timing of data collection, reporting, and analysis means that targets/results are for the prior calendar year.

Measure: Percentage of UN Specialized Agencies funded by the CIO account (FAO, IAEA, ICAO, ILO, IMO, ITU, UNESCO, UPU, WHO, WIPO, and WMO) that have demonstrated progress on 5 or more goals of the United Nations Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI).

Explanation:The USG launched the United Nations Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI) in 2007 to address perceived weaknesses in the UN system. UNTAI is designed to strengthen the governance and credibility of the entire UN system, as well as increased efficiency and efficacy. The Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO) at the Department of State and its partners (IO missions accredited to international organizations) will use the following benchmarks to assess progress: 1. Operational independence of the internal oversight function, 2. Disclosure of internal audit and oversight reports to member states on request, 3. Public access to relevant information related to the organization's operations, 4. Independent ethics function, 5. Whistleblower protections, 6. Financial disclosure program, 7. Full implementation of International Public Sector Accounting Standards, and 8. Transparent administrative support costs for voluntarily funded projects. Results of the inaugural assessment will become the measure baseline in late 2008.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) Account: The CIO account provides U.S. contributions to more than 40 international organizations in which the United States is a member pursuant to treaties, conventions, or specific Acts of Congress. These contributions are assessed (not voluntary) "dues" for belonging to these organizations. The account includes funding for the United Nations (UN) and Affiliated Agencies, Inter-American Organizations, Regional Organizations, and Other International Organizations. This appropriation is critical for advancing U.S. foreign policy initiatives. Our mission and primary goal is to advance U.S. foreign policy interests through results-driven, transparent, accountable, and efficient international organizations. Each organization in the account has its own mandate. For purposes of this PART, we are focusing on four organizations: the UN, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). UN: The purposes of the UN are: (1) to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; (2) to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; (3) to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all; and (4) to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. FAO: FAO's mandate is to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations, and contribute to the growth of the world economy. These goals are consistent with and supportive of U.S. strategic interests in the promotion of democracy and human rights, economic prosperity, and regional stability. WHO: WHO promotes the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health through advocacy, development of norms and standards on a wide range of health concerns, and technical assistance to respond to country-level health needs. Its core functions, drawn from the WHO Constitution, are in six areas: 1) leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in partnerships where joint actions are needed, 2) articulating ethical and evidence-based policy positions, 3) setting norms and standards, 4) shaping the research agenda and dissemination of valuable knowledge, 5) providing technical support, and 6) monitoring health situations and trends. OECD: The Convention gives the aims for the OECD as promoting policies designed to a) achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member Countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to development of the world economy; b) contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-Member countries in the process of economic development; and c) contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations.

Evidence: Statutory Authorizations: UN: P.L. 79-264 approved Dec. 20, 1945; as renumbered and amended by P.L. 81-341 approved October 10, 1949 (22 U.S.C. 287-287e). The UN Charter ratification advised by the Senate, July 28, 1945. (T.I.A.S. 933). FAO: P.L. 79-197 approved July 31, 1945; as amended by P.L. 81-806 approved September 21, 1950; P.L. 84-726 approved July 18, 1956; P.L. 85-141 approved August 14, 1957; P.L. 87-195 approved September 4, 1961 (22 U.S.C. 279-279d). The FAO Constitution adopted by the U.S. effective October 16, 1945 (T.I.A.S. 1554) and composite text, as amended to 1957 (T.I.A.S. 4803). WHO: P.L. 643, approved June 14, 1948; P.L. 807, approved September 21, 1950; P.L. 655, approved August 26, 1954; P.L. 138, approved July 8, 1955 (22. U.S.C. 290-290e). WHO Constitution entered into force with respect to the U.S. June 21, 1948 (T.I.A.S. 1808). OECD: P.L. 87-195 (Sections 628-630) approved September 4, 1961 as amended by P.L. 89-171, approved September 5, 1965 (22 U.S.C 2388-2390). OECD Convention ratification advised by the Senate March 16, 1961 (T.I.A.S. 4891). UN Charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html FAO Constitution: http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/X8700E/x8700e00.htm FAO Strategic Framework 2000-2015: http://www.fao.org/strategicframework/ WHO Charter, Reports, Documents: http://www.who.int/about/en/ OECD Convention: http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1915847_1_1_1_1,00.html; Strategic Management Framework (HOD (2003) 3, Annex 1) State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ), Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report and U.S. Participation in the UN), Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB), Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Congress established the CIO account to provide funding for assessed contributions to international organizations from a single account. The UN is the only international organization that has Member States from virtually every county in the world addressing a wide variety of issues with a "global" perspective. Other international organizations focus on particular issues or sectors (e.g., civil aviation, maritime issues, trade, intellectual property, military) and/or have membership limited to a region (e.g., OAS). UN membership allows for 191 countries to collectively take measures to support peace, economic and social development, poverty eradication, democracy, human rights, global growth and stability, and post-conflict needs and reconstruction in countries around the world. The UN Security Council can take actions that have the weight of international law (e.g., establishing and monitoring compliance with sanctions, freezing the financing of terrorists, etc.). The UN is unique in being able to draw on worldwide military resources for peacekeeping missions to ensure peace and security, and only through the Security Council can Chapter VII mandates impose peacekeeping operations that enjoy global legitimacy. (A separate PART was completed on Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, or CIPA, in 2004. CIPA funds the assessed USG contributions for UN peacekeeping missions.) FAO protects consumer health and facilitates international trade through the internationally recognized standards for food safety and plant health. It provides comprehensive data for agricultural commodities, forestry, and fishery products. FAO has the mandate and expertise to tackle over-fishing, a key U.S. priority. It facilitates national actions for sustainable forest management and coordinates forest-related work by international organizations and institutions. FAO responds to pest outbreaks and other emergencies affecting agriculture and livestock. It provides information, guidance, and technical assistance aimed at promoting food security, particularly for rural populations. WHO has a range of programs to address pressing health issues. With direction from the 192 WHO Member States, the Organization gives highest priority to major infectious diseases as well as to non-communicable chronic diseases, which represent an ever-growing share of the disease burden in the developing world. Two key treaties which have been concluded within the WHO framework and address specific public health challenges are the International Health Regulations, revised in 2005, and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which came into effect in 2005. The OECD responds to a host of international needs, including in the areas of taxation, education, insurance, agriculture and competition policies, public and corporate governance, nuclear energy policy and economy, and is a world leader in terms of its structural economic analysis. It offers high-quality analysis, fact-based public policy advice and best practices as well as a permanent economic (in the broadest sense) forum for inter-governmental dialogue and cooperation. The OECD's Financial Action Task Force sets the globally respected international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, and disseminates best practices that have led to global improvements in these areas. The OECD also plays a central role in coordinating donor policies and in shaping development policies more broadly. The OECD leads by example and persuasion. Its policy advice has had great impact in non-member as well as member countries.

Evidence: UN Charter; FAO Constitution; FAO Strategic Framework 2000-2015; WHO Constitution, Reports, Documents; WHO International Health Regulations (2005); WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; OECD Convention; State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ); Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report and U.S. Participation in the UN); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); strategic planning documents and Programs of Work and Budget for the various organizations; OECD PIRs; OECD Annual Report; OECD HOD(2003)2 (Julin Report); OECD publications www.oecdbookshop.org; OECD: [GAO-06-126 ] Social Security Reform: Other Countries' Experiences Provide Lessons for the United States

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: CIO Account: The CIO Account is the only program to pay bills sent to the USG for its assessed contributions to international organizations. There are no state, local, or private programs to pay these assessed contributions on behalf of the federal government. The USG does support voluntary contributions to international organizations, funds, and programs that complement USG priorities. However, these voluntary funds are in addition to, not in lieu of, the assessed contributions. UN: The UN is unique in that it is a multilateral organization consisting of 191 Member States devoted to the goals of freedom, respect for human rights and rule of law, prosperity, peace, and security worldwide. The UN's membership and scope of mandate make it unlike other multilateral organizations that focus on particular issues, sectors, or regions. No state, local, or private program/organization has the same membership (virtually worldwide group of national governments) or scope of mandate. FAO: FAO's normative work, its response to pest outbreaks and other emergencies affecting livestock and agriculture, and its role as a "neutral forum" are not redundant or duplicative of any other institution. The normative work includes the standard-setting bodies (the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International Plant Protection Commission); the "State of the World" compilations; and FAO's comprehensive data on agricultural commodities, forestry, and fisheries products. WHO: WHO's standard-setting work is in collaboration with the U.S. and other countries, and is complementary to U.S. standards and collaborative with U.S. international public health cooperation. WHO's rapid response teams are mobilized when there are health emergencies. As is the case with Avian Influenza, and with SARS previously, WHO includes U.S. experts (such as those of the HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Private efforts on specific diseases, such as the work of Rotary International, have been much more effective under the banner and coordination with WHO and UNICEF and other partners such as HHS/CDC. WHO has shown it values partnership to target specific diseases, and it is typically the lead partner, such as with the Stop TB Partnership, Roll Back Malaria, the Polio Eradication Initiative, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization. OECD: OECD is unique in terms of its membership (thirty democracies representing 56% of world GDP, three-quarters of world trade, and 95% of world official development assistance), its work methods (peer reviews and pressure, policy surveillance, setting "soft law," in addition to policy analysis), the range of areas in which it is active (the gamut of economic and social issues, ranging from health to migration to fisheries to terrorist financing), its capacity for multidisciplinary work (through the committees of Member country experts and drawing on the expertise of the 2000-strong Secretariat), and its outreach to non-Members (including intensive individual country programs for China, Russia and Brazil; six regional programs; and ten annual Global Forums on subjects from Agriculture to Taxation). The OECD is a clear world leader in offering world standards and best practices to both Members and non-Members, in structural policy analysis and advice, and in statistical and indicator work.

Evidence: State Department Budget Documents (including CBJ); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); strategic planning documents and Programs of Work and Budget for the various organizations; OECD HOD(2003)2 (Julin Report) and HOD(2003)2/ANN; OECD Annual Report; C(2005)158/FINAL, "A Framework for OECD Relations with Non-Members;" CCNM(2005)2, "OECD Co-Operation with Non-Members: 2005-06 Program of Work"

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: CIO Account: In general, the program design is free of major flaws that would limit the account's effectiveness or efficiency. However, there are complicating factors: the account is funded by assessed contributions, the United States is making deferred payments to several organizations, and the type of decision-making mechanisms within the organizations are unique. First, when a country joins an organization, it agrees to pay the "dues" assessed by the organization. If the CIO account is not fully funded, the U.S. must either go into arrears or decide to withdraw from organizations. Waiving payment is not an option. Either a Member State pays in full, withdraws, or builds up arrears. As arrears accrue, not only do Member States incur criticism, but they can also lose their right to vote. Second, the U.S. defers part or all of the U.S. payment to nearly half of the organizations resulting in payment in the 4th quarter of some organizations' fiscal years. Third, the U.S. has influence, but does not control decision-making mechanisms in these organizations. Since many organizations operate on the democratic principle of "one nation, one vote," most decisions require negotiation with friends and foes in forums where the U.S. cannot control the end result. Barring a change in the deferral policy, there is no evidence that there is a better way to approach handling this account. Changing that policy would mean securing funding over a multi-year period to synchronize USG payments with the fiscal year of international organizations to remove a practice that gains the U.S. no leverage or advantages, but rather loss of influence during financial negotiations and criticism for late payment. UN: See statement re: CIO account above. Much of what is done in and through the UN has merit, complements U.S. foreign policy priorities, and advances U.S. values. Nevertheless, the U.S. has been and continues to be an advocate for change and renaissance. Efforts to bring about reform have achieved some results. Remaining areas of interest include maintaining budget discipline; reviewing programs/activities to ensure that resources are used effectively and to make programmatic shifts as appropriate; strengthening ethical standards and improving personnel rules to reward success and permit human resources to be redeployed for priority activities; further strengthening oversight functions; and ensuring that the new Human Rights Council addresses human rights issues in a more credible way than had the Human Rights Commission. FAO: We believe that FAO could increase its effectiveness and efficiency if it would direct additional time and resources to those areas in which it has a comparative or unique advantage, e.g., FAO's normative work and its response to pest outbreaks and other emergencies affecting livestock and agriculture. In November 2004, at its 127th session, the FAO Council agreed to launch an independent external evaluation of FAO aimed at strengthening and improving the organization. We hope the evaluation will assess FAO's strengths and weaknesses, and establish a baseline upon which Member States will be able to establish priorities. WHO: While there are no major design-flaws evident in WHO programs, improvements continue to be sought in performance assessment, longer-term strategic planning processes and their better alignment with WHO regular and voluntary resources, and human resource management reforms. OECD: There is no conclusive evidence that another approach or mechanism would be more efficient/effective in achieving the program purposes. OECD leverages its assessed contributions with voluntary contributions and grants from both Members and non-Members - including the private sector, NGOs, and foundations. These include the European Commission, commercial entities and non-member governments (including Brazil, Russia, India and China).

Evidence: State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ); Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report and U.S. Participation in the UN); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); strategic planning documents and Programs of Work and Budget, and Program Implementation Reports for the various organizations; EXD/BC(2006)5, "Report on Voluntary Contributions and Grants Received in 2005;" OIG reports; GAO reports.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: There are two ways to interpret this question: does the CIO account fund the U.S. assessment for each organization (purpose of the account), or, do the organizations funded by the account address their mandates. The account provides funds albeit often late because of the deferral policy and sometimes not in full because of shortfalls in the requested/appropriated amounts. When shortfalls occur, the Bureau of International Organization Affairs prepares decision memoranda providing options or recommendations to senior Department management (often the Secretary) on how to allocate the shortfall among the organizations in the account. The memoranda are prepared in consultation with relevant stakeholders (program managers in the IO Bureau, other State Department bureaus, and occasionally other agencies). Generally, the organizations address their mandates. For example, the OECD's Program of Work and Budget (PWB) is developed by Committees, which examine work proposals in the light of the priorities set out in the OECD Convention and refined in the Medium Term Orientation (MTO) survey of members, and of the resources that members have agreed to provide. Following approval of the biennial budget by the OECD Council, funds are provided to OECD Directorates in accordance with the PWB. The Program Implementation Report (PIR) reviews all output results set out in the PWB to determine whether they were accomplished within the prescribed timeframe and assess their quality and impact. Each committee actively engages with civil society representatives, including OECD's own business and industry and trade union advisory committees (BIAC and TUAC), to ensure that OECD work responds to the needs and interests of these stakeholders and is available to them. Through its missions to international organizations, delegations at conferences and meetings, or Washington-based officials, the U.S. frequently consults with the international organizations and monitors how the organizations direct and utilize their resources (e.g., the WHO). Although international organizations generally address their mandates and provide deliverables, that does not necessarily mean that improvements could not be made - at least in the U.S.'s view or those of other major donors. For example, the UN has begun a process known as "mandate review", whereby all UN programs and activities older than five years are reviewed to determine if they are relevant, obsolete, completed, or duplicative. At the WHO the U.S. has consistently supported monitoring and evaluation activities as an integral part of the design of WHO programs so as to determine results, continued relevance, and to apply lessons learned. Also, the U.S. and other major contributors have consistently encouraged FAO to focus on those areas in which it has a unique or comparative advantage, e.g., FAO's normative work (particularly the standard-setting bodies for food safety and plant health, which we believe should be fully funded) and its response to pest outbreaks and other emergencies affecting livestock and agriculture. Although FAO has a mandate to provide technical assistance, we believe FAO's primary focus should be on those areas not duplicated by other institutions. Other members' interest in fully funding technical cooperation (TC) activities has put pressure on funding for U.S. priorities.

Evidence: UN Charter; FAO Constitution; WHO Constitution; OECD Convention; State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ and internal memoranda); Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report and U.S. Participation in the UN); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); strategic planning documents and Programs of Work and Budget for the various organizations; OECD Program Implementation Reports, Medium Term Orientation Survey, individual committee outreach strategies, agendas of committee sessions with stakeholders, BIAC and TUAC websites; WHO performance assessment reports.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Explanation: The overarching USG long-term goal for the CIO account and the organizations funded from it is "results-driven, transparent, accountable, and efficient international organizations that complement and advance U.S. foreign policy objectives." There are additional USG long-term goals and measures (indicators) for specific organizations in the State/USAID Joint Performance Plan, Bureau of International Organization Affairs Performance Plan, Mission Performance Plans for those missions accredited to international organizations, and the measures section of PARTWeb. These goals and measures support strategic goals in the Department of State's Strategic Plan. In addition, the international organizations themselves have long-term goals and measures. Examples: FAO has three global goals: (1) access of all people at all times to sufficient nutritionally adequate and safe food, ensuring that the number of chronically undernourished people is reduced by half by no later than 2015; (2) the continued contribution of sustainable agriculture and rural development, including fisheries and forestry, to economic and social progress and the well-being of all; and (3) the conservation, improvement and sustainable utilization of natural resources, including land, water, forest, fisheries and genetic resources for food and agriculture. FAO has also identified specific actions it takes to help achieve these goals and collaborating partners. WHO articulates and periodically updates its contributions to the global health agenda, taking into account its comparative advantages. WHO goals are to build healthy populations and communities, and to combat ill health. WHO strategic directions to realize these goals are: 1) to reduce excess mortality, morbidity and disability, especially in poor and marginalized populations, 2) promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing risk factors, 3) developing health systems that equitably improve health outcomes and are responsive to needs, and 4) framing an enabling policy and creating an environment for the health sector, and promoting an effective health dimension to broader policies. WHO is proactive to have appropriate performance measures to focus on results and to integrate its longer-term strategies into shorter term planning documents and biennial budgets. The OECD Strategic Management Framework sets specific and ambitious long-term goals. The Framework for Strategic Objectives is designed to provide umbrellas for output groups and output areas. It provides a tool for planning, budget, evaluation and management. These long-term goals are consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives and the purpose of the OECD as outlined in the Convention.

Evidence: Founding Charters and Conventions; State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ and internal memoranda); Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report, U.S. Participation in the UN, and Report on American Employment in International Organizations); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); Strategic Framework for FAO 2000-2015 (para 20, Chapter II - Corporate Strategies); OECD PWB; OECD PIR; OECD documents describing the evaluation framework, broad methodology and terms of reference and the terms of reference of individual evaluations [C(2004)190, C/ESG(2005)1, C/ESG(2005)2]; WHO Global Program of Work (10-year planning strategy), Medium-term strategic plan (5-years), results-based biennial budgets.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The long-term USG goals and measures in the aforementioned USG planning documents have ambitious targets and timeframes. It is important to keep in mind that making progress toward our goals in these organizations can be a long process, because the U.S. has influence on, not control of, decision-making mechanisms in these organizations. Since many organizations operate on the democratic principle of "one nation, one vote," most decisions require negotiation with friends and foes in forums where the U.S. cannot control the end result. The U.S. has one vote. In addition, long-term goals and measures determined by the membership of international organizations often also have ambitious targets and timeframes. They are often listed in Programs of Work and Budget and/or Medium Term Plans. Examples: o Achieve the Millennium Development Goals; o Reduce the number of undernourished people to half their present level no later than 2015; o Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other major diseases; o Eradicate polio; o Increase the number of non-European countries negotiating accesses to OECD; and o Renovate and reconstruct OECD office and conference facilities.

Evidence: Founding Charters and Conventions; State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ and internal memoranda); Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report, U.S. Participation in the UN, and Report on American Employment in International Organizations); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); Rome Declaration on World Food Security, November 13-17, 1996, link: http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/003/w3548e/w3548e00.htm; OECD Program of Work and Budget; OECD Site project documentation ; WHO biennial budgets.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Annual performance measures established by the USG are documented in the Joint State/USAID Performance Plan, Bureau of International Organization Affairs Performance Plan, Mission Performance Plans for those missions accredited to international organizations, and the measures section of PARTWeb. These measures reflect an outcome-based focus tied to and demonstrating progress toward achieving the USG's long-term goals, including our overarching long-term goal. Further explanation of the relationship between annual and long-term goals is provided in the explanation section of PART measures. Annual measures supporting long-term goals are also established by international organizations, and are often listed in the organizations' planning and budget documents. For example, FAO's Medium Term Plan 2006-2011 identifies for each program structure of the Program of Work and Budget the following: problem to be addressed, expected benefits, and major outputs/indicators. Once adopted at the World Health Assembly in May 2006, the WHO will have in place a new guiding strategy with the 11th General Program of Work for 2006-2015. This will be integrated into biennial program budgets for shorter term expected results and indicators on the long-term goals. In its biennial Program of Work and Budget, the OECD sets annual targets designed to lead toward achieving its long-term targets. Through the previously mentioned PIR process, the OECD monitors whether it has met its specific annual targets and whether it is progressing toward its long-term objectives

Evidence: Founding Charters and Conventions; State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ and internal memoranda); Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report, U.S. Participation in the UN, and Report on American Employment in International Organizations); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); various documents from the organizations, e.g., those for FAO on http://www.fao.org/mtp/; OECD: Program of Work and Budget, Program Implementation Reports; WHO Budgets and performance assessment reports

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The U.S. is one of many member nations seeking to influence the budget, performance, and goals of each organization making progress difficult to define and assess. State Department believes that its own internal annual measures established by the USG are very ambitious. Progress toward our goals in these organizations can be a long process, because the U.S. has influence on, not control of, decision-making mechanisms in these organizations. Annual measures established by international organizations often have baselines and ambitious targets, and are often listed in the organizations' planning and budget documents. For example, The OECD Strategic Management Framework dates from July 2002. Its implicit baseline was the OECD's assessment of the global economy at that time, and its targets are the six Strategic Objectives it lays out. Each of the Strategic Objectives gives direction to two to four Output Groups, for a total of 18 Output Groups. Under each of these are several Output Areas that set ambitious targets for results to be delivered over the biennium. WHO has a results-based biennial budget that lays out the targets for every area of work, the objectives, strategic approaches, WHO-wide expected results, indicators, baselines, and targets. These are tracked annually. These are discussed and refined at governing body meetings where the U.S. seeks to ensure they are ambitious and have appropriate timeframes. WHO biennial budgets show that areas of work that are higher priority and that require more ambitious targets typically receive a higher level of resources. In addition, the creation of a whistleblower policy at the UN as well as a strengthened Office of Internal Oversight Services are major diplomatic accomplishments.

Evidence: State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ and internal memoranda); Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report, U.S. Participation in the UN, and Report on American Employment in International Organizations); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); FAO documents located on http://www.fao.org/mtp/; OECD Program of Work and Budget; Strategic Frameworks for the organizations.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Usually, Member States of international organizations do not explicitly agree to USG goals. Generally, USG partners agree on U.S. goals and priorities. The mission of USG partners is to obtain as much support from other Member States as possible for USG goals and priorities. USG partners include officers in the Bureau of International Organizations, other Department Bureaus, missions accredited to various international organizations, members of delegations to international conferences and meetings, and other USG agencies and departments. These partners are consulted when policy, budget, and planning documents (e.g., MPPs and BPPs) are drafted and cleared. These USG partners work to advance U.S. goals and priorities in their interactions with officials and staffs of international organizations; representatives of other Member States whether in the host cities of the organizations, in Member State capitals, or in Washington; and with NGOs and other interested parties. For example, the Mission accredited to the OECD works with the Department to coordinate USG interagency input into biennial medium-term priority setting and the development of the Program of Work and Budget, as well as for semi-weekly Council and Executive Committee (decision-making) meetings. U.S. Mission officers responsible for substantive committees liaise on a regular basis with the agencies involved in Committee work. These include, but are not limited to: State, USAID, Treasury, Agriculture, HHS, USTR, Commerce, EPA, Energy, OMB, and Education. Generally, Member States and other interested parties (e.g., NGOs) are committed to the goals determined by the membership for the international organizations. For example, the U.S. and other OECD Member States demonstrate their commitment to the annual and long-term OECD goals through the adoption by consensus of the biennial PWB and reports on its implementation, through supporting financially and politically the work of the OECD, and through implementation of OECD decisions and recommendations. The 192 WHO Member States provide assessed contributions to the Organization, and some of those same Member States are joined by a significant number of other private donors or foundations in providing additional voluntary resources to WHO so that agreed objectives can be achieved, e.g., polio eradication or immunizations against childhood diseases. However, often Member States have differences of opinion regarding how goals are to be achieved, thus making implementation difficult. Despite high-level agreement with the UN Outcome Document (A/Res.60/1), discussions on the establishment of and membership criteria for the UN Human Rights Council were contentious, producing sub-optimal results. Much of the document remains to be implemented, especially management, administrative, oversight, ethics-related, and personnel changes. Negotiations about budget levels, funding sources, allocations of resources, and scales of assessments are among the more contentious in international organizations. For example, the U.S., FAO, and other member countries are committed to achieving the goals of FAO. That being said, the FAO Conference, comprised of the 189 members and which meets every two years, decides FAO's Program of Work and Budget. Although all FAO members agree that FAO's normative work is a high priority for the organization, some members place an equal value on FAO's technical cooperation programs and want them to be fully funded. As a result, funding for normative work is insufficient. The U.S. believes technical cooperation programs should be funded by voluntary contributions. Often to achieve a goal or tackle a particular concern, international organizations will partner with other organizations or NGOs. For example, WHO's work on polio eradication is done in partnership with the Polio Eradication Initiative, which involves WHO, UNICEF, HHS/CDC, and Rotary International.

Evidence: Founding documents (conventions and charters); State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ and internal memoranda); Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report, U.S. Participation in the UN, and Report on American Employment in International Organizations); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); FAO documents located on http://www.fao.org/mtp/; UN documents located on www.un.org;; WHO data; OECD data, guidance cables (especially re MTO and the Council), Work Requirements Statements; OECD delegation lists or accreditation cables

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: GAO periodically conducts reviews on certain issues related to international organizations (e.g., American citizen employment in international organizations, UN transition strategies for post-conflict nations, emerging infectious diseases, UN reforms, UN renovation plans, peacekeeping, and Oil-for-Food, etc.). In addition to GAO reports, international organizations evaluate and monitor programs both internally and externally. For example: The UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has adopted standards set by the Institute of Internal Auditors. OIOS provides ongoing monitoring and evaluation of program delivery through its audits, program evaluations, and monitoring of the activities of the UN, and the UN Funds and Programs. From July 2004 to June 2005, the UN achieved $17.3 million in actual savings as a result of OIOS recommendations. FAO: All FAO programs and activities are subject to evaluation. The policies for evaluation of these programs have been set by Member States in the Governing Bodies and by the Director-General. Particular focus is on assessing relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and contribution to FAO's strategic objectives. Program evaluations are normally carried out as independent exercises, involving FAO's Evaluation Service and/or external expertise. In addition, in November 2004, the FAO Council agreed to launch an independent external evaluation (IEE) of FAO aimed at strengthening and improving the organization. FAO had never had a comprehensive evaluation of this scope. The IEE is expected to be comprehensive and encompass (1) technical work of FAO, (2) management and organization of FAO, (3) FAO governance, and (4) FAO's role in the multilateral system. A multinational core team of five independent consultants supported by specialist consultants and researchers is undertaking the IEE. Issues of particular concern to the USG were resolved in a manner that indicates that the evaluators are attempting to give appropriate weight to core normative functions of FAO that the US and other developed countries particularly value. A committee of the FAO Council provides oversight. OECD: In the OECD's Program Implementation Reports surveys, member countries' capitals are asked to evaluate the quality and impact of each of the OECD's completed output results. In 2005, for example, member countries evaluated each of 346 output results. MTO also provides a means of monitoring and priority setting that is Member driven. Mission and Department-based Officers conduct periodic reviews and evaluations of OECD activities to monitor performance. While these reviews are not independent of the Federal Government, they are independent of the recipient organization and appear to be sufficient in scope. Additionally, OECD members at times decide to conduct reviews of various aspects of the OECD. Examples are the 2002 reviews that led to reforms in the budget process and that looked at committee structure and the streamlining of the OECD. In 2003, the OECD established a Review Committee, which oversees internal and financial audits of the Organization's operations and monitors the adequacy of its internal management controls. The U.S. has representatives on Budget and Review Committees. WHO: The WHO External Auditor, WHO Internal Auditor, and the UN Joint Inspection Unit regularly evaluate WHO programs and management policies. WHO governing bodies, and particularly its Program, Budget, and Administration Committee of the WHO Executive Board, receive regular reports from these independent bodies and devote time to their consideration. At the end of each biennial budget, WHO now produces a performance assessment report which, because they have been generally transparent on outcomes, challenges, and impediments to the objectives set, has been extremely valuable for governing bodies in evaluating the effectiveness and relevance of WHO's program areas.

Evidence: GAO reports; UN: OIOS and other UN reports; FAO: http://www.fao.org/pbe/pbee/en/index.html, http://www.fao.org/pbe/pbee/common/ecg/226/en/Director_General_s_bulletin_2001_33.htm, http://www.fao.org/pbe/pbee/en/219/index.html; OECD: SG(2003)1, "Maximizing the Impact of the OECD", C(2003)176, "Implementation of the Nicholson Report Recommendations," HOD(2002)1, "Report of the Chair of Working Group 1 on Priorities and the Program of Work and Budget," C(2002)140, "The OECD Program of Work and Budget Reform: Recommendations, PIR, documents establishing Review Committee, MTO, and Program Implementation Reports; WHO: Reports of the WHO External Auditor, WHO Internal Auditor, and the UN Joint Inspection Unit.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The annual CIO account budget request is made on the basis of U.S. assessed contributions to 45 international organizations. The amount of assessment for each organization is not decided by the USG. However, the USG attempts to minimize increases in assessments by affecting the budgets approved by the organizations' membership. In general, the U.S. advocates a zero nominal growth policy while encouraging that new program costs are offset by prioritization and increased efficiencies. However, in a resource constrained environment there is no evidence that State Department effectively prioritizes based on performance among organizations. The current CIO budget request is not explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals. Beginning with the FY2008 request, we will conduct an assessment of the work of the organizations funded through the account, including the results that international organizations achieve through the funding that they receive from Member States. The assessment will involve the collection of meaningful results-based information to assist with: (a) establishing the most tangible justifications for future funding requests for the account, (b) prioritizing U.S. participation in international organizations, and (c) considering the possibility of withdrawing from certain organizations. Development of a performance-based budget in the context of funding for international organizations involves (a) describing the results that each organization achieves and (b) relating those results to one or more U.S. foreign policy objectives. To make the case for continued U.S. funding, each organization will need to demonstrate the extent to which it is accomplishing results that advance U.S. foreign policy objectives. This approach is consistent with guidance that the Department has recently received from OMB and the Hill. OMB and Congress are aware of the chronic shortfall in the account and have urged us to take a new approach to how we request and allocate CIO account funding. Many organizations set out their priorities, functions and resource requirements in Programs of Work and Budget (PWB). Examples include: The FAO Medium-Term Plan 2006-2011 is the basis for program formulation and prioritization in the biennial budget request. The PWB sets out the biennial FAO "business plan." The budget is presented in three scenarios??Zero Nominal Growth, Zero Real Growth and Real Growth. The PWB adheres to major policy directions in FAO's Strategic Framework 2000-2015. The FAO continues to improve its results-based framework and the emphasis placed on linking resource levels to programmatic results. However, resource needs could be presented in a more complete and transparent manner, with a stronger link made between resource allocation and progress towards outcomes. This was problematic for the recent budget proposal, which was presented in a new chapter structure. The new structure made it almost impossible to compare program-funding levels for the 2004-2005 biennium with the program funding requests for 2006-2007. Also, projected voluntary contributions were not reflected in the budget. The OECD's PWB ties budget requests to the long-term performance goals set out in the Strategic Management Framework, themselves aimed at fulfilling the goals in the OECD Convention. Estimated resource needs are then considered by OECD committees, prior to approval of the entire biennial PWB by the OECD Council, upon recommendation of the Budget Committee. WHO biennial budgets are tied to the General Program of Work, which provides a 10-year strategic framework. The Budget is results-based, generally transparent, and has specific accomplishments (targets) to be attained over a certain period. The U.S. discusses the Budget in detail at WHO governing body meetings and especially values sufficient detail to assess trends or shifts from one budget period to the next.

Evidence: State Department Budget Documents (e.g., CBJ), internal memoranda, cables; Annual Reports to Congress (UN Voting Report, U.S. Participation in the UN); Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); FAO Program of Work and Budget 2006-2007, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/j5800e/j5800e00.htm; FAO Medium Term Plan 2006-2011; FAO Strategic Framework; OECD Program of Work and Budget; scales of assessments/contributions; WHO Biennial Budget.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: When IO or other interested parties concludes that the evidence demonstrates that US or international organizations goals are not being met, IO works to have the State Department and interagency processes adjust strategies, planning measures, and seek appropriate changes to meet targets. IO also participates extensively in the Department's performance planning process through Mission, Bureau, and Department planning products. Through the PART process, long-term and annual goals were developed, maintained, or revised that were based, at least in part, on previous planning documents. Occasionally, the Department draws from outside sources for recommendations, e.g., the June 2005 Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force Report on UN Reform. However, State Department has not evaluated and prioritized its membership across organizations nor has it compared the ways in which organizations serve US foreign or domestic policy objectives. International organizations also periodically revisit their mandates and strategic planning. Examples include: The UN High-Level Event Outcome Document (A/60/1) and the UN Secretary General's Report on "Investing in the United Nations: for a Stronger UN Worldwide" (A/60/692) result from UN and Member State introspection and discussion regarding the UN's role in a changing world. FAO has taken several steps to improve its strategic planning. In addition to the Strategic Framework, it has Medium Term Plans, Program Evaluation Reports, and Program Implementation Reports. The Medium Term Plan embodies FAO's main program planning process under results-based planning and budgeting principles. It focuses primarily on the formulation of program proposals, including their rationale, contribution to Strategic Objectives, intended outcome and related performance indicators; and on the prioritization of such proposals. The Program Evaluation Report provides a description of the overall evaluation arrangements in FAO, a listing of evaluation outputs over the biennium, and evaluation briefs on the major evaluations completed during the biennium. The Program Implementation Report is the prime accountability document submitted to FAO's governing bodies. It focuses on the effective use of resources and on major achievements during the biennium. In 2003-2004, the OECD inaugurated a results-based planning, budget and management framework (the Strategic Management Framework) designed to help achieve the objectives of the OECD Convention. This Framework ties all work done in the OECD to six specific agreed long-term goals. The Program Implementation Reports evaluate all the work products on completion for their quality and impact. Together, the Strategic Management Framework and the PIR operate to keep the OECD on track in its work and in its budget. In 2003, the OECD established a Review Committee, which oversees internal and financial audits of the Organization's operations and monitors the adequacy of its internal management controls. The U.S. has representatives on Budget and Review Committees. The U.S. has worked closely with WHO over the last year on the strategic framework of the next General Program of Work for the period 2006-2015. One of the key concerns for the U.S. has been that the document has not sufficiently shown what WHO commits itself to accomplishing over the next ten years, and to what it can be held accountable, but has focused more on the context for global public health and what Governments will do.

Evidence: Internal reporting, memoranda and cables; Gingrich Mitchell Report; UN A/60/1 and A/60/629; Strategic Framework for FAO 2000-2015, link: http://www.fao.org/strategicframework/; Medium Term Plan, link: http://www.fao.org/mtp/; Program Evaluation Report, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/010/j6332e/j6332e00.htm; Program Implementation Report, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j2775e/j2775e00.htm; OECD Program of Work and Budget; OECD Program Implementation Reports; OECD documents establishing Review Committee; WHO Revisions to the General Program of Work for 2006-2015 http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB117/B117_16-en.pdf and final adoption at the May 2006 World Health Assembly.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department of State collects information from USG partners, international organizations, other Member States (e.g., other donors, Geneva Group, WEOG), and NGOs (e.g., Freedom House). Some data is available in near real time, although much of the data is available on a delayed basis (e.g., available annually on a calendar year basis instead of USG fiscal year basis with additional time needed for reporting from field, compilation, and analysis). Sometimes data availability is dependent on the timing of Governing Body or Executive Board meetings. The Department recently collected performance information about many organizations funded through the CIO account through submission of the Mission Performance Plans (MPPs). The MPPs are an excellent source of performance information about organizations such as IAEA, ICAO, FAO, NATO, OAS, OECD, UNESCO, ILO, WHO, and WIPO. The MPPs effectively link the work of these organizations to U.S. strategic foreign policy objectives. The USG often uses the Executive Boards and Governing Bodies of international organizations as well as bilateral forums to discuss and review international organization policies, programs, and performance. The U.S., as primary contributor to and founding member of many organizations, attempts to influence organizations' strategic policy direction, program implementation, and resource requirements based on available data. For example, through an interagency process, the State Department desk collects data from other Washington client agencies to be used in adjusting priorities, allocating resources, and monitoring progress on the OECD's work program. Partner agencies meet to discuss priorities in concert with review of the OECD's Program of Work and Budget, which is a biennial exercise, as well as to discuss mid-term orientations in off years when the budget is not reviewed and considered. In addition, a Washington interagency group is convened by State as needed to discuss and monitor the OECD Site project in order to ensure the project continues to progress on time and within strict budget guidelines. International organizations have various methods for gathering and making available data on programs and finances. For example, FAO's Program Implementation Report describes the main achievements as well as any significant work that has not been completed, for management and accountability purposes. FAO Secretariat staff provides the information. WHO produces an in-depth performance assessment report at the end of every biennial budget period, which includes constructive analysis of achievements over the designated period and challenges and constraints. The performance assessment report is an important tool for WHO in future strategic and budget planning.

Evidence: Internal reporting, memoranda and cables; Bureau Performance Plans (IO, EUR, and EB); Mission Performance Plans of U.S. Missions Accredited to the International Organizations (USUN, USUN Rome, US Mission Geneva, UNVIE, and USOECD); organization websites e.g., www.un.org and FAO Program Implementation Report http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j2775e/j2775e00.htm; WHO performance assessment reports; OECD Program Implementation Reports and Feedback; OECD Midterm Orientations; Freedom House at http://www.freedomhouse.org

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The primary federal managers responsible for achieving U.S. goals related to international organization initiatives depend on the organization. For example, federal managers for the UN, FAO, and WHO are in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs and its missions, as well as federal agencies (i.e., HHS for WHO, and USDA for FAO), and for OECD in the Bureau of European Affairs and its mission. It is important to note there is a very close, substantive, and collaborative relationship between the WHO and counterparts in the U.S. Government at HHS through its various arms, (i.e., CDC, NIH, NIAID, NCI, SAMSHA, etc.) Other bureaus and federal agencies also serve as federal managers for achieving U.S. goals in other international organizations funded through the CIO account (e.g., the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs for OAS, EUR and DOD for NATO, the Bureau for Economic and Business Affairs for WTO, etc.). IO/S manages budgetary, administrative, oversight, and personnel policy for the organizations in the CIO account. IO/EX executes budgetary decisions and payments. In general, federal program managers' job elements require them to promote and achieve U.S. goals and objectives for the relevant international organization. Their performance ratings are based on how well they fulfilled their job elements. Federal managers do not directly manage international programs but instead work with the international organization and through the international organizations' governing bodies to achieve U.S. objectives. International organizations conduct their own budgetary reviews. For example, at the UN the ACABQ (budget-related committee) conducts annual mission performance reviews. All Member States review these performance reports and provide feedback. Member States also play an active role in budget and performance reviews through the UN General Assembly's Fifth Committee. The UN has begun a results-based budgeting process where specific measures and indicators are created for all programs. In some cases, when an international organization, like WHO, works with partners, it has an agreed Memorandum of Understanding with them to specify the joint task to be undertaken and who is responsible for what. In a resource constrained environment there is no evidence that the State Department effectively prioritizes based on performance among organizations. The current CIO budget request is not explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals. Beginning with the FY2008 request, the Department will conduct an assessment of the work of the organizations funded through the account, including the results that international organizations achieve through the funding that they receive from Member States.

Evidence: Work Requirements Statements/Employee Evaluation Reports for Program Managers in a range of USG agencies; Bureau and Mission Performance Planning documents; organization planning documents, e.g., ACABQ and UN Fifth Committee reports [www.un.org/documents].

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: USG funds in the CIO account are obligated by the Bureau of International Organization Affairs in a timely manner and sent to the international organizations according to the budget plan. The Bureau of International Organization Affairs obligates CIO account funds once all payment invoices and certifications are received. Both obligations and payments are entered by an analyst and checked by the budget officer. Obligations are timely and accurate. IO has never violated the Anti-deficiency Act. However, because most US payments are deferred, USG contributions are sent to the organizations late in their fiscal year. Examples include: Assessed contributions are used to carry out the proposed Program of Work in these organizations. For example, the FAO Finance Committee, of which the U.S. is a member, must approve any major shift in resources between programs. The U.S. pays its contribution on a deferred basis, i.e., we pay our calendar year contribution from funds appropriated for the following fiscal year. This means that the earliest we can pay our assessed contribution is October, ten months after it is due. These late payments from the U.S. and from the second highest contributor to FAO, as well as late payments and arrearages from other members have caused cash flow problems at the FAO. A similar scenario occurs at WHO. The USG pays its assessed contribution to the OECD on a deferred basis. Because of its rigid cash flow structure (due to the high share of personnel costs in its budget), the OECD often and continually over the past five years has had to resort to internal borrowing to cover its payroll due to U.S. arrears and late-year payments. With the U.S. legislative prohibition on payment of interest, the cost of this financing falls to other OECD members and comes, ultimately, at the cost of activities agreed in the PWB. Although USG funds are obligated in a timely manner and sent to the international organizations, we are not in a position to state categorically that the funds provided to the organizations cannot be misused (e.g., the Oil-For-Food matter and other procurement issues). We are able to answer yes to this question because OFF occurred in only one of 45 assessed organizations in this account. It also led to a push for meaningful reforms, some of which have been implemented, to prevent such occurrences in the future. The USG continues to push for improved oversight and reform of all international organizations. Question 3.6 addresses USG concerns with the financial management practices of the international organizations, concerns that led to a "no" answer. This would include the OFF example given above.

Evidence: Department of State financial records on obligations and fund disbursements. Congressional Budget Justification. Approved Budgets of the organizations and audited financial reports (e.g., for WHO). OECD Annual Report 2005, PWB, Summary Records of the Budget Committee, Quarterly Reports on Publications Receipts; Quarterly Reports on Voluntary Contributions; Quarterly Reports on the Situation of the Treasury; Annual Report on Budgetary performance and Program and Budgetary Transfers in the 2004-2005 Biennium (doc. FC 113/2); Financial Highlights and Status of Current Assessments and Arrears (doc. FC 113/3)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The USG has created efficiency and improved management indicators for the representative sample of international organizations for the CIO Account (see PARTWeb Measures/indicators and IO Bureau Performance Plan). Achieving the targets in the UN Efficiency Indicator "Cost Per Page of UN Documentation" will require political will in the UN, the use of IT technologies, and outsourcing. The Director General's "Reform Proposals" outline FAO's plans to reduce transaction costs, speed up decision-making, and reinforce the accountability of managers by clarifying their understanding of their responsibilities for financial integrity and control over budgeted expenditures. A shift from the use of paper-based to electronic forms for most upstream administrative actions, combined with a reduction in the number and seniority of approvals required, would augment the benefits already attained as a result of substantial investments in improved computer-based systems for the downstream dimensions of transaction processing and improve FAO's operational responsiveness. As far as efficiency measures are concerned, OECD has well-developed rules about competitive sourcing and is fully exploiting the opportunities offered by IT to increase efficiency in all relevant areas including budgetary management, communication, document preparation, service and conference management. A significant part of service delivery is outsourced. OECD has well-developed financial rules and procedures, accounts are made up to the most demanding international standards and OECD is fully audited. There is an ambitious program of management reviews covering the further refinement of the PWB/PIR process, staff and employment policies and financial management. There are many examples of other changes, which have already been implemented such as the reform of the pension fund management. The oversight by partners is continuing and detailed. WHO has procedures in place to assess the efficiency and cost effectiveness of program execution through its performance assessment reports. It is also in the midst of establishing a Global Management System at this time, designed to provide a fully integrated and seamless IT planning, financial and human resource management system.

Evidence: IO's and EUR's BPPs; Mission Performance Plans; PARTWeb; FAO Director General's Reform Proposals, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/j5800e/j5800e_sup1/j5800e04_sup1.htm#3.3; WHO Performance assessment reports; OECD Review Committee; OECD Auditors.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The federal managers of the CIO Account (assessed contributions) are the same as those responsible for the International Organizations and Programs Account (voluntary contributions). This arrangement ensures that the voluntary funds from the latter account complement assessed CIO contributions, especially for organizations or programs of high priority to the U.S. Other voluntary funds are provided through accounts not managed by the IO Bureau (e.g., NADR -- safeguards, INCLE - drugs and crime, refugee and humanitarian assistance, and other USG accounts). International organizations often collaborate and coordinate with each other. While occasionally duplication occurs, entities like OCHA and mechanisms like ReliefWeb have been established to assist in coordinating activities of international organizations and programs (irrespective of whether they are funded by assessed or voluntary contributions). WHO coordinates and collaborates with a large range of international organizations, donors, and public and private partners to achieve health-related goals. These partnerships have proven effective in reducing the incidence of malaria and TB, and in moving closer to worldwide polio eradication. The report on FAO's decentralization recommends that FAO strengthen partnerships at the country and regional levels, especially with the World Food Program (WFP), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA). The OECD collaborates with a number of institutions on the federal, state, local and private programs. These programs produce tangible outputs in a number of sectors, and the resources funding them are closely monitored. Entities such as the Kaufmann Foundation, Pfizer, Inc., the States of Rhode Island and Maine, and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change collaborated with the OECD to produce a number of studies and programs, in addition to the Federal agencies, such as the Departments of State, Commerce, Homeland Security, Labor, Treasury, Energy, Education and Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Office of Management and Budget, which have regular and ongoing collaborations with and in the OECD.

Evidence: Internal memoranda and analysis; BPPs and MPPs of bureaus dealing with organizations funded through CIO; Department Budget Justifications; OCHA documentation http://ocha.unog.ch/; ReliefWeb documentation http://www.reliefweb.int; FAO: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/j5153e.htm#P151_21143; WHO: Related programs to which WHO is a partner include the Stop TB Program, Roll Back Malaria, collaborative work in support of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, collaborative work with FAO and other international organization on avian influenza and in implementation of the International Health Regulations. http://www.who.org; OECD PWB; OECD EXD/BC(2006)5 - Report on Voluntary Contributions and Grants Accepted in 2005.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Please see Page 73, para. 1, of the 2005 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), which discusses the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). The State Department evaluation provided reasonable assurance that the objectives of the FMFIA were achieved in FY 2005. Internal to the State Department, there is a three-step internal control system in place to ensure that all physical, material, and human resources are safeguarded against waste, fraud, unauthorized use or misappropriation. Specifically, an IO analyst allots funds to the account. The office supervisor then signs off on the allotment document. The IO analyst obligates the funds based on budget estimates and current billings. Payment request memos stating the payment amount are submitted by IO/S for initial payments to the deferred organizations. The remaining payments are then executed as indicated in the approved CBJ document. The analyst prepares the payment vouchers. The office supervisor reviews them and applies the final signature authorizing payment. The office supervisor verifies the payment amounts against the budget estimates and billings before signing. Financial management practices vary by international organization. The following example relates to the OECD that has a comprehensive set of Financial Regulations, Rules, Instructions and Procedures. The Financial Regulations and Rules were revised and adopted on 1 January 2003 and the instructions and procedures developed to further articulate the Regulations and Rules. It has prepared financial statements in accordance with International Public Accounting Standards starting with the year 2000 financial statements and its financial statements are available to the public on its web site. The OECD is audited by a professional private firm of auditors (presently Deloitte) and a Board of Auditors comprised of representatives of Supreme National Audit Institutions. The Board of Auditors reports to the OECD governing body. The OECD also has an Internal Audit function that conforms to standards set by the Institute of Internal Auditors. It is especially noted that the function reports directly to the Secretary General and has complete independence and access to staff and records. The OECD's Review (or Audit) Committee is composed of members of the governing body, and reporting to that governing body. This Committee oversees the work of these three audit entities. Its mandate includes commenting on work plans of the auditors, reviewing follow-up to audit recommendations, and, in general, examining issues relating to the financial situation of the Organization. It has brought before the Council a Register of Risks as required by the Financial Rules. WHO also has comprehensive Financial Regulations, Financial Rules, and administrative procedures. The Financial Regulations and Rules are periodically revised and updated, the last time in 2000. The updates for the rules stemmed from the need for more clear language and improved transparency and management efficiency. WHO prepares its financial statements in accordance with international accounting standards and are audited by the WHO External Auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. WHO also has an Internal Auditor who has responsibility for audit, program evaluation and investigation. The Office also conducts in-depth evaluations and follows up to ensure follow-through on recommendations. The FAO Secretariat actively monitors the financial health of the FAO including a review of its equity and reserve accounts and forecasts of expenditure and cash flow. The U.S. is a member of the Finance Committee that reviews the financial operating reports, status of arrears, and the internal and external audit reports at its meetings. The UN does not produce auditable financial statements and the GAO has recently found serious financial management weaknesses.

Evidence: Department of State financial records on obligations and fund disbursements. Department of State FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report- pg 73. CBJ; OECD Financial Regulations and Rules related to the above; OECD Risk Register; Financial Reports from various organizations; FAO Annual Report on Budgetary Performance and Program and Budgetary Transfers in the 2004-2005 Biennium (doc. FC 113/2); Financial Highlights and Status of Current Assessments and Arrears (doc. FC 113/3); FAO Report on Investments 2005; GAO report 06-330,06-577,06-701T,06-575

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: No known management deficiencies have been identified regarding in-house USG management of the CIO Account. Various steps are being taken to address management deficiencies in several organizations. The UN Secretary General presented to Member States his proposals for a fundamental overhaul of the United Nations Secretariat in March 2006. He stated that the organization's rules, systems and culture need significant retooling and investment if the UN is to fulfill growing expectations and demands placed on it by the international community. The Secretary General presented his report in response to a request from Member States for such proposals, as outlined in the 2005 September Summit's Outcome Document. These new measures, an important number of which will require Member State approval, seek to modernize the UN's management practices which, while having been subject to incremental change over the years, have not been. In September 2005, the FAO Director General circulated his "Reform Proposals," which, if approved in their entirety, would have focused more attention on FAO's fieldwork at the expense of its normative work. The proposals did contain some useful suggestions, which we supported: a less hierarchical structure; refocusing of FAO as a knowledge institution; instituting measures aimed at improving staff motivation; improving the selection process for FAO Representatives and instituting a performance appraisal system; initiating a business process review to eliminate redundant tasks; and streamlining committee meetings. The FAO Conference, in November 2005, approved some aspects of the "Reform Proposals," and mandated the FAO Council "to decide on further implementation of the proposals as soon as possible and appropriate." However, these reforms fall short of U.S. expectations for management reform. We have encouraged FAO leadership to embrace the Independent External Evaluation of FAO as a process toward more effective management reforms. While the OECD does not consider that there are material management deficiencies, it engages in a continuous review of managerial practices and conducts management training. In addition, management addresses all recommendations made by the audit entities of the OECD. WHO: United States representatives continuously scrutinize WHO management practices through governing body and other interactions to promote optimal, efficient, and cost-effective management. WHO reforms include the recruitment and hiring process (the time needed to fill a position was cut by a third, and strong recruitment efforts were focused on under-represented states) and Member States' oversight committees (several redundant committees were merged). WHO has committed to strong strategic management and reform initiatives and new measures were undertaken in 2005 for more effective and accountable management, staff development, streamlined procedures in the administration of contributions, and long-term strategic planning and budgeting and evaluation systems. The Internal Auditor has established more transparent communication with governing bodies on oversight activities to report and share information and track its activities and follow-up. WHO is developing its Global Management System, designed to be a fully integrated and seamless planning, financial, and human resource management system, with rollout of pilot regions in early 2007.

Evidence: UNGA World Summit Outcome Document (A/60/a); SYG's Report (A/60/629) at www.un.org; FAO Director General's Reform Proposals, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/j5800e/j5800e_sup1/j5800e00_sup1.htm; Additional information on the Reform Proposals (C 2005/3-Sup.1, Add.1), link: http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/conf/c2005/c2005_en.htm Report of the FAO Conference, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/010/j6321e/J6321E02.HTM#P397_47363; OECD: Updated Financial Regulations and Rules, actions to improve budgeting methodologies and personnel policies and procedures. OECD annual reports, annual financial statements, and the report by the Board of Auditors on the annual financial statements are available on the OECD's public website.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The USG has established measurable long-term goals. Available data shows progress in many cases (see PARTWeb and planning documents). Pursuit of the long-term goals set by FAO -- to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy - is ongoing. Members consider that the OECD is meeting its long-term goals and has continued to do so over the last 40 years. Among international organizations, the OECD is the strongest and most effective proponent of open, competitive innovative market economies. OECD-endorsed practices and conventions have played a role in promoting economic development in OECD member and nonmember countries alike. So far, the results of the first three evaluation exercises indicate that the committees concerned largely satisfy the criterion of effectiveness, with much of their outputs being extensively used by end users and having a significant impact on policymaking. The OECD Strategic Management Framework sets six specific and ambitious long-term goals, and the PIR process gives government stakeholders the opportunity to assess the impact of the Organization's work on these, down to the level of output areas. WHO is making adequate progress in all areas being rated - avian influenza, the International Health Regulations, polio eradication, tuberculosis control, hiring of Americans, and WHO management and administrative reforms.

Evidence: BPPs; MPPs; PARTWeb; Reports to Congress (U.S. Participation in the UN, UN Voting Report, American Citizen Employment in International Organizations; OECD Economic Review reports; OECD Evaluation reports [C/ESG(2006)1, 2 & 3]; OECD PIR; Reports on WHO Website, Mission reporting, WHO governing body meetings.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The USG has established measurable annual performance goals. Available data shows progress in many cases (see PARTWeb and planning documents). Although this is a new PART, IO has been measuring progress toward USG goals, indicators, and targets in and relating to the UN, FAO, and WHO through Bureau and Mission Performance Plans for several years. Indicators related to OECD have been included in the USOECD Mission Performance Plan. In terms of goals set by the organizations themselves: FAO's Medium Term Plan (MTP) 2006-2011 identifies for each program structure of the Program of Work and Budget the following: problem to be addressed, expected benefits, and major outputs/indicators. The Program Implementation Report (PIR) identifies achievements for each program structure of the Program of Work and Budget. The documents are useful but are not written as quantitative goals. The OECD's biennial Program of Work and Budget sets clear performance goals for output results on an annual basis. The Program Implementation Reports monitor which results have been completed, and with what effect. In some cases, output results not attained in one year may be carried over to the next year, or to a subsequent year. At WHO, the U.S. works to ensure that clear and measurable performance goals are set initially, monitored along the way, and assessed. Progress is shown for most WHO goals and targets. However, when there are shortfalls in meeting performance goals, WHO has shown it can take action to improve by assessing the challenges and constraints to meeting the goals, and setting more realistic goals for the future, or making shifts in programs or efficiencies to perform better.

Evidence: BPPs; MPPs; PARTWeb; Reports to Congress (U.S. Participation in the UN, UN Voting Report, American Citizen Employment in International Organizations; FAO Medium Term Plan 2006-2011, link: http://www.fao.org/mtp/; FAO Program Implementation Report, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j2775e/j2775e00.htm; OECD Program of Work and Budget; OECD Program Implementation Reports; WHO performance assessment reports.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The results to date for the USG efficiency and management indicators are mixed, but promising. A new baseline was established for the Per Page Cost of UN Documentation (1 Page in Six Languages). This was necessary because of a change in the UN's methodology in calculating the cost per page data. We are hopeful that forward momentum will build for streamlining and outsourcing now that the UNSYG has made his recent report (A/60/692). FAO results include: The FAO Council (June 2005) recommended the Secretariat pursue more ambitious improvements in efficiency and productivity gains. The FAO Conference (November 2005) adopted Resolution 6/2005, which supports streamlining of administrative and financial processes aimed at achieving further efficiency gains and enhanced human resource policy and management; and authorizes the establishment of the Shared Services Center. WHO results include: (FY 2004) WHO initiated reforms in several areas, e.g., recruitment and hiring process (the time needed to fill a position was cut by a third, and strong recruitment efforts were focused on under-represented states) and Member States' oversight committees (several redundant committees were merged). (FY 2005) WHO committed to strong strategic management and reform initiatives. New measures were undertaken in 2005 to promote effective and accountable management, staff development, streamlined procedures in the administration of contributions, and long-term strategic planning and budgeting and evaluation systems. The Internal Auditor has established more transparent communication with governing bodies on oversight activities to report and share information and track its activities and followup. (FY2006) Continued progress per 2005 results. WHO development of its Global Management System, designed to be a fully integrated and seamless planning, financial, and human resource management system, with roll-out of pilot regions in early 2007. Institution of results-based budgeting on a biennial basis in 2003 was an important step forward in increasing both the transparency and efficiency of the OECD budget process. The 2005-2006 OECD budget was the first to incorporate fully the result-based planning, budgeting and management framework. OECD's management, administration, and program support costs as percentage of total budget in CY 2004 was 78%.

Evidence: BPPs; MPPs; PARTWeb; UN Conference documentation; FAO Director General's Reform Proposals, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/j5800e/j5800e_sup1/j5800e04_sup1.htm#3.3; 2005-2006 OECD Program of Work and Budget; Mission reporting and WHO documents.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: CIO Account: There are no other programs funding assessed USG contributions to international organizations. The UN is a unique construct, and fills a unique role in U.S. foreign policy and actions. No other entity approximates what the UN does, or what the U.S. aspires to accomplish therein. FAO's normative work cannot be compared to other programs because it is not duplicated by other institutions. The internationally recognized standards for food safety and plant health facilitate trade and protect consumers. The "State of the World" compilations on food and agriculture, forests, fisheries, and aquaculture represent the latest analyses on major areas within FAO's competence. And, FAO's comprehensive data on agricultural commodities, forestry, and fisheries products, and its policy guidance help its members increase agricultural productivity and rural development. In addition, FAO's agricultural and livestock response capabilities in pest outbreaks, natural disasters, and other emergencies are crucial to helping communities rebuild their livelihoods. We do believe, however, that improved pre-emergency food security assessments are required to improve humanitarian responses that protect people and save lives, while also promoting development. In that regard, it is important for FAO to give a high priority to ensure that estimates of production and trade are accurate and reliable, and to ensure that donors are always allowed to participate, if they so choose, in fully transparent and timely crop and food supply assessments that identify food aid and non-food needs required by those most in need. The OECD is unique as a government-sponsored, policy-oriented research facility. It responds to Member State priorities, particularly those of the Member State (the U.S.), which pays the largest budget contribution. WHO is a respected, effective partner in promoting global public health. WHO has been successful in resource mobilization for specific program areas, a sign that it has achieved results, generated confidence and does work that is relevant to the interests of donors.

Evidence: Founding documents, Congressional mandates. Programs of Work and Budget. OECD PIR.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The GAO has conducted a number of reviews of international organization topics (e.g., American citizens employed by international organizations; emerging infectious diseases; influenza pandemic; global health (AIDS, TB, and malaria); UN Reform; UN Internal Oversight and Procurement Practices; UN renovation planning; Oil-For-Food). Documents indicate that the UN has taken steps to address deficiencies. Two recent evaluations (on FAO's decentralization and on the Technical Cooperation Program) point out some deficiencies in achieving results. However, in September 2005, FAO's Program Committee reported they were satisfied with Management's response to the evaluation of FAO's decentralization and felt that the Secretariat had embraced the general thrusts and most of the evaluation's recommendations. In September 2005, the FAO Secretariat provided initial feedback on the evaluation of the Technical Cooperation Program. The Office of the Internal Auditor, which reports directly to the WHO Director-General and is independent of program managers, has broad responsibility for internal audit, program evaluation, and investigation. The Office also conducts in-depth evaluations and follows up to ensure follow-through on recommendations. In the OECD's Program Implementation Reports surveys, member countries' capitals are asked to evaluate the quality and impact of each of the OECD's completed output results. In 2005, for example, member countries evaluated each of 346 output results. MTO also provides a means of monitoring and priority-setting that is delegation- (i.e., Member-) driven. Mission and Department-based officers conduct periodic reviews and evaluations of OECD activities to monitor performance. While these reviews are not independent of the Federal Government, they are independent of the recipient organization and appear to be sufficient in scope. In 2003, the OECD established a Review Committee, which oversees internal and financial audits of the OECD's operations and monitors the adequacy of its internal management controls. The U.S. has representatives on Budget and Review Committees. These evaluations indicate the OECD is effective and is achieving results.

Evidence: GAO Reports at www.gao.gov; Annual reports to Congress on U.S. Participation in the UN, Voting Report, and American Citizen Employment in International Organizations; UN: Reporting cables, internal memoranda; A/60/1, A/60/629, and Gingrich Mitchell Report; FAO Independent Review of the Technical Cooperation Program, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/j4750e/j4750e00.htm#P151_24179; FAO Report of the Program Committee on Management's recommendations on the policy and operational framework of the Technical Cooperation Program, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/010/j6218e.htm#P172_16498; Independent Evaluation of FAO's Decentralization, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/j2937e/j2937e00.htm; Preliminary Senior Management Response to the Evaluation of FAO's Decentralization, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/008/J2937e/j2937e05.htm; Report of the Program Committee on Management's response to the evaluation of FAO's decentralization, link: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/010/j6218e.htm#P172_16498; OECD PIR and Review Committee establishment documentation; WHO Reports.