General Assembly Session 53 meeting 71

Mr. Lavrov (Russia)

At the outset, I would like to express once again the Russian delegation's gratitude to Secretary-General Kofi Annan for initiating the United Nations reform process, which literally encompasses all its structures. Some of the reforms have already been successfully completed and some are under operational implementation, while others, mainly those of a long-term nature, are being actively debated and fine-tuned.

Considering that agenda item 30 includes issues pertaining to rather diverse themes, our delegation would like to outline concisely its position on all issues under consideration while reserving its right to present, as appropriate, more detailed comments at a later stage. This also pertains to the report just issued on the implementation of United Nations reform measures (A/53/676). We are studying the Secretary-General's report on the implementation of a number of reform measures, but consider that such serious documents should not be presented at the last minute before the discussion, but rather should be presented in advance.

Allow me to focus on specific elements of the agenda item before us. Russia supports real reform of the activities of the United Nations system in the sphere of the environment and human settlements. We view positively the efforts undertaken by the United Nations Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements under the chairmanship of Mr. Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). We also welcome the report the Task Force has submitted for our consideration and the relevant report of the Secretary-General. The recommendations contained in it generally follow the lines of the Nairobi Declaration of the Governing Council of UNEP, the Habitat II Conference and the sixteenth session of the Commission on Human Settlements, and create a good framework for constructive dialogue.

We support the proposal to establish an environmental management group under the chairmanship of the Executive Director of UNEP. We believe that the right approach to this body has been chosen, aimed at efficiently solving emerging problems and achieving concrete results. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the group does not duplicate the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development.

We view positively the recommendations on strengthening interaction among environmental conventions and their support by UNEP. However, in our view, at this stage, the proposals on geographical relocation of conventions and the development of so-called umbrella conventions appear to be somewhat premature. We believe we should follow a step-by-step approach in this area.

The proposed measures covering the Nairobi-based organizations of the United Nations system deserve to be supported. In particular, we consider the integration and rationalization of administrative services of UNEP and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) to be very useful within the framework of the United Nations Office at Nairobi. We think that time has come for a closer programme correlation between UNEP and Habitat, while taking into account their specificities and ensuring the preservation of their autonomy. We are also prepared to consider constructively the proposals of the Secretary-General on the administrative strengthening of the United Nations Office at Nairobi within the framework of the draft United Nations budget for the next biennium.

The recommendations on strengthening the capacity of UNEP and Habitat in the field of information, monitoring, assessment and early warning go in the right direction and correspond, in our view, to the primary mandates of these bodies.

The proposals on the reorientation of the activities of the UNEP regional offices to provide assistance to Governments on the entire range of environmental problems and the formulation of regional priorities are aimed at improving practical results in their work. It is correct to raise the issue of the importance of establishing closer relations between the regional offices, United Nations system organizations located in the same place and potential donor organizations.

The proposal to hold annual sessions of the UNEP Governing Council at the ministerial level is interesting. But the question arises in this context as to the relationship between the new forum and the high-level segment of the Commission on Sustainable Development. In considering this proposal we should fully acknowledge that its implementation will entail rethinking the role of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). It is important, in our view, to prevent steps aimed at reforming the environmental sector of the United Nations from undermining the role of the CSD and jeopardizing its productive work.

The recommendation to make the membership of the Governing Council of UNEP universal raises many questions. In our opinion, the arguments in favour of such a decision cannot completely dispel the doubts about the value it would add.

The strengthening of the role of UNEP as an implementation agency of the Global Environment Facility deserves to be supported, taking into account its catalytic functions and scientific potential. In principle, we have no objections to the set of recommendations on strengthening the relations of UNEP and Habitat with non-governmental organizations, business and organizations of civil society. However, the idea of establishing a special status for representatives of local authorities under the Commission on Human Settlements appears to be insufficiently developed and should be approached very cautiously.

The proposal to reconstitute the Trusteeship Council as the forum through which Member States exercise their collective trusteeship for the integrity of the global environment and common areas such as the oceans, the atmosphere and outer space seems debatable and requires further comprehensive consideration. In this case, we would in fact be dealing with the elimination of one of the principal United Nations bodies and the establishment of a new one. Clearly, the provisions of Chapter XIII of the United Nations Charter with regard to the specific functions and mandates of the Trusteeship Council and its membership cannot simply be adjusted. In such a case we would have to rewrite the entire chapter of the Charter.

Furthermore, given the global nature of specific issues falling under the mandate of a new body, it would be rather difficult from the legal point of view -- even if it were possible -- to list them all in the Charter. This in turn would inevitably lead to the duplication and substitution of the functions of a new body and, as a consequence, to the gradual diminishing of its authority. As can be seen from document A/52/849, the new forum is conceived as a high-level council that could take a comprehensive, strategic and long-term view of global trends and provide policy guidance in monitoring global environment and sustainable development. This seems to imply the subordination to a high-level council of intergovernmental organizations and forums dealing with a broad range of similar issues at the sectoral level. It is very debatable how this would be implemented in practice.

We welcomed the decision by the General Assembly at its fifty-second session to designate its fifty-fifth session the Millennium Assembly, and we hope that during that session ideas on the renewal of the United Nations aimed at effective adaptation to the tasks and challenges of the twenty-first century will be further developed. However, we believe that in the process of the practical implementation of measures proposed by the Secretary-General, due emphasis should be placed on the need to minimize expenses, given the current difficult financial situation of the Organization.

The proposal to establish a Special Commission at the ministerial level within the framework of the Millennium Assembly seems to our delegation not to be fully justifiable and to be difficult to implement, first and foremost because of the overloaded agenda of Foreign Ministers. At the same time, we have noted rather flexible wording in this regard in the note in document A/52/850, and we are prepared constructively to consider possible alternative proposals on the level of representation in such a Commission, as well as on its agenda, including the range of specialized agencies to be reviewed.

Finally, as we have already stated, the Russian delegation supports the proposal on sunset provisions. We consider it to be quite a useful idea aimed at increasing effectiveness in the implementation of United Nations programmes and activities. Its approval would, indeed, as the Secretary-General notes, facilitate the strengthening of the General Assembly in reviewing and monitoring the mandates approved by Member States. In this context, it would perhaps be worthwhile to propose that the Committee for Programme and Coordination and other relevant bodies of the General Assembly consider the possibility of expanding such practices to current mandates.

Mr. Mabilangan (Philippines)

First of all, I would like to thank the Secretary-General and the members of the Secretariat for their efforts in the preparation of the various reports on the question of United Nations reform. My delegation associates itself with the statement made on behalf of the Joint Coordinating Committee of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 and China.

As we approach the next century, greater and greater demands are being placed on the United Nations to deal with a multiplicity of issues, such as development, international peace and security, the environment, population, promotion of human rights, humanitarian disasters and intra-State conflicts. Yet the United Nations remains handicapped in dealing with these issues on a sustained basis. Thus, in our view, if the United Nations is to remain a relevant and effective international instrument for addressing international challenges, concerns and issues, its capacity to meet them must be enhanced.

We recognize the important initiatives taken by the Secretary-General to make the Organization more efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of Member States. We are pleased to note that at its last session the General Assembly endorsed several of his reform proposals. We welcome those decisions, which are aimed at strengthening the Organization to enable it to implement fully and effectively all mandated programmes and activities, as well as enhancing its capacity in meeting the changing needs and requirements of the Member States as we prepare for the next century.

We reiterate the view that the primary objective of any further reform efforts should be to strengthen the role of the United Nations in promoting international cooperation for development and to restore development issues to the centre of the United Nations agenda, inasmuch as the majority of the Members are developing countries. It is essential for any reform process to be predicated on agreed priorities of the Organization and the key principles inherent in the United Nations Charter. We wish to add that without assured and adequate financial and political support from Member States, United Nations reform will ultimately become an exercise in futility.

At the current session, the General Assembly will continue its consideration of the Secretary-General's proposals for long-term changes. We agree with others that these proposals should be considered in an open and transparent manner to enable all Member States to participate not only in discussions of the issues but, more importantly, in the negotiation of draft resolutions.

Let me now comment on the various reports and notes of the Secretary-General before us on the status of implementation of the reform measures. In resolution 52/12 A, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the actions described in his report entitled "Renewing the United Nations: a programme for reform". We regret, however, the late issuance of the report, and we reserve the right to comment on it at a later time.

At this stage, we wish to recall the decision of the General Assembly, in resolution 52/214, on the need to comply with the six-week rule in the issuance of United Nations documents.

We reiterate our full support for the United Nations programmes on environment and human settlements. We reaffirm the importance we attach to the achievement of the goals of sustainable development and the full and effective implementation of Agenda 21.

My delegation is grateful for the Secretary-General's report on environment and human settlements, as well as the report of the United Nations Task Force, headed by the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Mr. Klaus Toepfer. The Secretary-General's report contains recommendations for action by the Secretariat, as well as by intergovernmental bodies. We believe that these recommendations deserve careful and in-depth consideration by Member States. In this regard, we support the view that this report must be considered in a manner that will allow all Member States the opportunity to participate in its discussion and sufficient time to reflect on these recommendations.

On the new concept of trusteeship, the Secretary-General, in his report on renewing the United Nations, proposed that the Trusteeship Council be reconstituted as the forum through which Member States exercise collective trusteeship over the global environment and common areas such as the oceans, atmosphere and outer space, and that in the process it would serve as a link between the United Nations and civil society in addressing these areas of global concern.

The proposed change in the mandate of the Trusteeship Council calls for an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations. We note that there are existing procedures and mechanisms for effective dialogue with major groups in matters related to the environment and sustainable development. We also note the recommendation of the United Nations Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements for the possible role of a reconstituted Trusteeship Council in addressing these global areas of concern. We believe that the proposal should be thoroughly considered, bearing in mind the complexities involved in amending provisions of the Charter.

The General Assembly decided at its last session to designate the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly the Millennium Assembly. It further decided that the various aspects of the Secretary-General's proposal in this regard be considered at the current session.

We believe that the Millennium Assembly accords us, the Member States, with a historic opportunity to renew our commitment to the goals and objectives enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. It is imperative to begin the preparatory work for this important event. The task before us is to identify and to agree on the core issues for consideration by the Millennium Assembly, including the convening of the high-level segment referred to as the Millennium Summit.

In the current report, the Secretary-General suggests a different approach from his earlier proposal and proposes to submit a report on the theme "The United Nations in the twenty-first century", which will draw on three main sources. We believe that it is important to take into account the views, concerns and interests of Member States in the preparation of the report. We are open to suggestions as to the procedure for consideration of this proposal in all its aspects and can support the recommendation that the question of the Millennium Assembly be considered as a separate item from the current one.

Concerning time limits of new initiatives, we have taken note of the proposal of the Secretary-General, contained in document A/52/851 and Add.1, that initiatives involving new organizational structures and/or major commitments of funds be subjected to time limits, which would be reflected, at the outset, in the relevant resolutions and decisions establishing their mandates. We further note that this proposal has far-reaching implications on the existing regulations and rules governing programme planning and budgetary practices and procedures.

In this regard, we support the view of the Joint Coordinating Committee of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 and China that it is of utmost importance for the relevant United Nations bodies, such as the Committee for Programme and Coordination, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee, to undertake a thorough study of the Secretary-General's proposal. Such an approach will enable the General Assembly to benefit from their technical advice and to take an informed decision on the matter.

Mr. Smith (Australia)

Australia welcomes the report of the Secretary-General on environment and human settlements, which contains in its annex the report of the Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements. The direction it takes in strengthening and focusing United Nations activities in the environmental area is encouraging. In particular, Australia supports the report's general theme of integrating activities to increase efficiency. We agree there is scope for better linkages between the Conventions to achieve synergies and promote coherence of policies and actions on the environment throughout the United Nations.

The report also advocates an increased focus for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on environmental policy rather than on administrative issues. This is an approach we endorse strongly. UNEP should increasingly play a valuable role in stimulating cooperative action by engaging Governments, of both developing and industrialized countries, in the development of environmental policy.

We would nonetheless have preferred a greater coverage of financial issues. The report refers to strengthening UNEP activities and the need for additional funding. We believe, however, that further work is still needed to focus UNEP priorities and streamline its work agenda. We also believe that internal reform of UNEP, such as implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, should also remain a priority, to complement the broader reforms of the programme.

We look forward to the recommendations put forward by the Secretary-General in part III of his report being incorporated into a coherent strategy as soon as possible. We support the idea of having a group designed to improve coordination within the United Nations Secretariat on environment issues -- the environmental management group. However, it would be helpful to receive further information on how the environmental management group would improve on the existing Inter-Agency Environment Coordination Group.

Given the urgency we attach to attaining stability and strengthening management of UNEP and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), we support the current designation of Mr. Toepfer as Director-General of the United Nations office at Nairobi. We believe, however, that this arrangement should be subject to the extent of the demands placed on the position and welcome the Secretary-General's proposal to consider further the full implementation of this recommendation.

Having dealt with matters that are within the responsibility of the Secretary-General, I now want to address briefly those recommendations in the report which are the responsibility of Member States.

First, I would like to comment on linkages among, and support to, environmental and environment-related Conventions. We recognize the growing problems arising from the fragmentation of the international environment agenda and support the report's long-term strategic goal of strengthening the linkages between the conventions to achieve synergies and promote coherence of policies and actions. We agree with the importance of improving UNEP's monitoring and assessment capacity and support efforts to improve coordination and discussion of cross-cutting issues between the conventions.

Secondly, the recommendations regarding intergovernmental forums are wide-ranging. While we endorse the essential objective of strengthening UNEP meetings as high-level forums in which ministers discuss key policy issues rather than administrative issues, we have some reservations about certain aspects of the proposals in the report.

The existing high-level environment calendar is already very crowded. We believe it would be difficult for ministers to attend an additional meeting every year: it should be biennial. Care should also be taken not to interfere with the programme of the Commission on Sustainable Development or to detract from efforts to improve the Commission's own work practices.

At this stage we are not convinced of the merits of the case for universal membership of the UNEP Governing Council. The Governing Council provides for broad representation and is open to the participation of all Governments. Not only does universal membership imply considerable financial costs, but it may well make the Council unwieldy and less efficient.

Thirdly, I would like to refer to the involvement of major groups. Consistent with Australia's recognition of the contributions of non-governmental organizations to the development and practical implementation of international policy, we support the facilitation and encouragement of involvement by non-governmental organizations in UNEP and Habitat. At the same time, the involvement of non-governmental organizations, including from business and industry, as the Task Force suggests, in line with the standards of the Commission on Sustainable Development, would be a major change for UNEP and, in the nature of all changes, would require careful handling.

Allow me to turn briefly to other issues covered by this agenda item.

Australia was pleased to support the decision taken at the fifty-second session of the General Assembly welcoming the Secretary-General's proposal to designate the Assembly's fifty-fifth session the Millennium Assembly. The Millennium Assembly is an opportunity to look seriously and strategically at the challenges the Organization is facing as we enter the twenty-first century. It is an opportunity to look at whether the Organization is geared to meet those challenges and identify areas where recalibration might be needed. It is an opportunity we should not squander by getting lost in elaborate preparatory processes or allowing only empty ceremonial events to result. We look forward to further discussion on this subject under your guidance, Mr. President, and that of the Secretary-General.

One area where Australia has long felt some recalibration of the Organization is necessary is the electoral group system. The shortcomings of the existing electoral group configuration, which has not seen change for over 30 years, are well known. As we underlined in our statement in the general debate at the fifty-second session of the General Assembly, and again in the general debate this year, there are substantial disparities in the size of the various groups and an inadequate level of representation available to many subregions, including Australia's own geographical region of East Asia and the Pacific. We have recognized that reconfiguration of the electoral group system is not something we should rush. But we sense a growing interest in the issue. It is an anachronism that needs to be addressed and an element of reform that merits attention. We repeat our suggestion that it would be timely to begin to discuss the principles on which a new system could be built and to exchange views on how to proceed.

Allow me to conclude with a simple restatement of Australia's commitment to contributing to the ongoing reform of the United Nations. As we said in the general debate, this commitment derives not from a preoccupation with reform for its own sake, but from a desire for the Organization to work better. This is the responsibility of both Member States and the Secretariat, working in partnership. It needs to be systematic and purposeful, both in the formulation of new proposals and in the implementation of proposals already agreed. We look to the Secretary-General to guide us, as he has done so well thus far, by initiating a track 3 reform process.

Mr. Albin (Mexico)

My delegation would first of all like to thank the Secretary-General for the documentation submitted at this session on the item entitled "United Nations reform: measures and proposals".

In a world of constant change and transformation, adaptation, renewal and reform have become essential qualities in the lives of human beings and their institutions in order to meet the challenges of the modern world in a timely and efficient way. Convinced of this, Mexico supported and continues to support the reform effort undertaken on the initiative of the Secretary-General. I wish to express once again my country's appreciation for the vision and dedication of the Secretary-General in this process of renewal and strengthening of the United Nations.

Mexico believes that on the whole the progress achieved in the implementation of the actions undertaken by the Secretary-General and of the reform measures adopted by the General Assembly is satisfactory. We must continue to work, and I therefore wish to refer to a few specific aspects of the issues before us today.

Mexico is committed to the strengthening and the effective and efficient functioning of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya. In this respect, we would like to thank the Secretary-General for the preparation of his report contained in document A/53/463 and its annex.

My Government appreciates and concurs with the direction and objectives of the set of recommendations produced by the Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements and looks forward to the opportunity to make our specific comments on their substance, including those recommendations identified by the Secretary-General as measures that could be implemented by him or by the Executive Director. Nevertheless, I would like to mention one aspect that is of particular interest to my country.

The fifth special session of the UNEP Governing Council urged the Executive Director of UNEP, among other things, to

"ensure that regional issues pertaining to the programme preparation, prioritization and implementation processes of the United Nations Environment Programme are a part of its core mandate" (A/53/25, annex I, decision SS.V-1, part II, para. 15 (b))

and to

"ensure a clear definition of the functional and structural relationship between the United Nations Environment Programme and its regional offices". (ibid., para. 16)

Unfortunately, the report of the Secretary-General and its annex deal only in an isolated and superficial way with the subject of the decentralization of UNEP activities and the strengthening of its regional offices. Recommendations 7 (c) and 12 not only consider the subject indirectly, but also do not seem to respond appropriately to the provisions of paragraph 4 (b) of the Nairobi Declaration, in which our environment ministers considered that

"Regionalization and decentralization should be strengthened through the increased involvement and participation of regional ministerial and other relevant forums in the United Nations Environment Programme process, complementary to the central coordinating role of the Programme's headquarters in Nairobi". (A/S-19/5, annex, part I, para. 4 (b))

At the same time, the recommendations do not reflect the progress and inputs emanating from the processes of dialogue and political agreement on environmental issues at the regional level, thus side-stepping, inter alia, the commitment undertaken by UNEP at the eleventh Ministerial Meeting on the Environment in Latin America and the Caribbean, held in Peru in March this year.

The delegation of Mexico reiterates the priority that it attaches to the strengthening of UNEP as a cornerstone for analysis and action in an increasingly complex framework of multidisciplinary and institutional interaction. The work undertaken by the Task Force is moving in the right direction and deserves the appreciation and support of the General Assembly. At the same time, we believe that room should be made for intergovernmental discussion in order to enrich the substance of the recommendations and thus solidify the commitment of Member States to the strengthening of UNEP.

The report on the implementation of reform activities was circulated only two days ago, so I cannot take a stand on its contents. Nonetheless, I wish simply to reiterate Mexico's commitment to the reform process and to reaffirm our confidence in the Secretary-General in the discharge of the functions assigned to him by the Charter and in particular in the implementation of the actions involved in his reform initiative, in accordance with the provisions of resolution 52/12 A.

Turning to the Secretary-General's proposal to reorganize the Trusteeship Council, the Mexican Government believes that the international community currently has at its disposal a framework of regimes and mechanisms for dealing with questions relating to the environment and shared zones such as the oceans, the atmosphere and outer space. While there is always room for improvement, those diverse legal instruments are working reasonably well. It would be advisable, given their specific, specialized and binding nature, for the necessary adjustments and reforms to come directly from them.

In short, we already have enough legal resources and institutional machinery to deal with these issues. We do not consider it necessary to undertake a new effort of constitutional reform in this respect.

As was very rightly pointed out by the Secretary-General in paragraph 1 of the note contained in document A/52/850,

"The year 2000 constitutes a unique and symbolically compelling moment for Member States to articulate and affirm an animating vision for the United Nations in the new era."

My delegation would like to thank the Secretary-General for the Millennium Assembly proposals. We believe that these will provide a solid foundation for our work so that under your leadership, Mr. President, we can adopt at this session a decision on the convening, the format and the objectives of the Millennium Assembly, as well as on the timetable and the preparatory framework that need to be elaborated by the Secretary-General and the Member States. I would assure the Assembly of the active participation of the Mexican delegation towards this end.

Lastly, I should like to convey the Mexican delegation's full readiness to continue to participate in the consultations on the question of setting limits and time-frames for new initiatives. While Mexico supports this proposal, we believe that its implementation will require the establishment of clear and objective procedures, criteria and parameters.

Mr. Yel'chenko (Ukraine)

Since the Secretary-General initiated the reform process last year by submitting a package of far-reaching measures and proposals, the issue of renewal of the United Nations has been present in all our deliberations. Developments during the last session of the General Assembly and during the general debate at the current session demonstrated that no one can seriously question the need to undertake overall changes in this world Organization.

As we all recall, intensive informal consultations in a plenary format, complemented by a series of so-called informal informals conducted by the President of the previous session with the help of the Friends of the President, culminated in the adoption of two resolutions, 52/12 A and B, which confirmed that the reform process was clearly on track. Those decisions also fuelled our expectations that the spirit of consensus would lead us towards further progress in this important undertaking. But at the same time, it was only an initial step on the long road towards a comprehensive transformation of this Organization.

We therefore hope that under your able leadership, Mr. President, this process will be given new impetus. You can count on the full cooperation of our delegation in this endeavour.

My delegation welcomes the opportunity to discuss the reports and the notes submitted by the Secretary-General under this agenda item. At this stage, I would like to comment on some of these documents.

Concerning the report contained in document A/53/463, in general we endorse the recommendations of the United Nations Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements, under the chairmanship of the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In our view, their practical implementation would be very helpful in addressing, in a concrete manner, the pressing problems of environment and sustainable development faced by the international community.

At the same time, we consider that the activities of the Task Force should be of a universal nature. It is regrettable that the Eastern European Group was not given the opportunity to take part in its work.

Some of the proposals, in particular 11, 12 and 13, require further thorough consideration by the relevant intergovernmental bodies, including the General Assembly. Our delegation stands ready to take an active part in such deliberations in the spirit of last year's negotiations.

Recommendation 13 (a) on a global economic forum is quite interesting, but in its implementation we should clearly identify the mandate of such a forum in order to avoid any overlap with the work of other intergovernmental bodies such as the high-level segment of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

It is important, therefore, to translate all these recommendations into enhanced, coordinated actions by the entire United Nations system. Similarly to the approach taken to the initial reform proposals of the Secretary-General, their implementation requires further decisions and measures to be taken at different levels by the Secretariat, by the relevant intergovernmental bodies, and by the Governments themselves.

Regarding the report on the status of the implementation of actions described in the report of the Secretary-General "Renewing the United Nations: a programme for reform", I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the Secretary-General in continuing the implementation of various reform actions.

We welcome in particular the ongoing process of reform in the social and economic sectors of the United Nations. We believe, however, that there is a need for a further strengthening of the interaction between the Economic and Social Council and the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), especially with regard to the implementation of the plans of actions of major United Nations conferences in the socio-economic fields.

The first steps undertaken by the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) also deserve a positive assessment. Its transparent and dynamic work has allowed the strengthening of the Resident Coordinator system and the harmonizing of the activities of the relevant funds and programmes.

We associate the most significant strides in the area of development activities with the implementation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). It is still premature today to make any definitive judgments about the UNDAF pilot projects launched in 18 countries, but we are looking forward to seeing the first results of this endeavour. In our view, UNDAF could help to concentrate the development efforts of the United Nations system as a whole and to establish an effective cooperation with the Bretton Woods institutions on the basis of partnership.

We also are encouraged by the recent decision of the UNDP/United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Executive Board on funding strategies. We hope that the proposed funding framework might help to overcome the financial crisis in the United Nations development activities.

In this connection, I must note that the Secretary-General's proposal contained in document A/52/1009 for transfer of funds to the Development Account represents an explicit deviation from the original concept of its formation. Let us recall that the General Assembly, in its resolution 52/12 B, envisaged that all funds to be transferred to the Development Account should be accumulated as a result of the efficiency measures taken in this Organization. Our delegation therefore cannot accept the new proposal by the Secretary-General regarding the sustainability of the Development Account based on making appropriations among the Member States under the regular budget.

I would like to underline that, in our view, the Development Account should be formed only through the transferring of funds saved as a result of improving the efficiency of the everyday work of the United Nations Secretariat.

The delegation of Ukraine also welcomes the paper on the Millennium Assembly, which, we believe, could serve as a useful guideline for launching the process of preparing for this important event. We also support the recommendation of the Secretary-General to include in his report to the Millennium Assembly a synthesis of the major substantive and institutional implications of the previous events related to the work of the Organization as a whole.

In our opinion, the time has come to determine the main topic on which the Millennium Assembly should concentrate. Otherwise, as many speakers have already stated, we risk convening a merely ceremonial meeting.

In this context, my delegation supports the proposal of the European Union to start consideration of these issues in the format of informal consultations of the plenary chaired by the President of the General Assembly, and that the first meeting in this format be convened before the end of the current session.

With regard to document A/52/851, I would simply endorse the Secretary-General's recommendation that any new initiative should be subject to time limits and that such limits should be stipulated in the relevant resolutions and decisions.

The reform process of the United Nations will be incomplete if it does not embrace the Security Council. This is the key issue in the whole undertaking aimed at renewing this Organization. Unfortunately, our efforts in this direction have reached a point of stagnation, and this situation was confirmed in the course of the recent discussion of the relevant agenda item. In this connection, I would like to recall what the President of Ukraine said in his statement to the fifty-second session of the General Assembly:

"The most important thing now is to transcend nationally focused approaches by taking into account the common interests of the international community." (A/52/PV.6, p. 5)

Finally, our delegation believes that all the recommendations of the Secretary-General now before us deserve thorough consideration. If we really want to see this Organization reformed, we must prove this by our practical deeds. In short, we must revitalize the process. The authority and efficiency of the United Nations today and in the future depend entirely on all of us, the Member States, and therefore we should continue to be the major players.

Mr. Zaki (Pakistan)

It is an honour for me to participate in the debate on such a crucial issue as "United Nations reform: measures and proposals".

First of all, I must compliment the Secretary-General for his effective leadership in promoting the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations is the symbol of the international community's firm resolve to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to ensure respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Pakistan is fully committed to achieving these goals for humanity in cooperation with all nations of the world.

We are therefore in favour of all efforts for reform that would strengthen the centrality of the role of the United Nations and its Charter. For these reasons, Pakistan has fully shared the widespread interest that has been generated on this issue in the world's capitals.

The debate today therefore marks an important occasion for all of us. It should give us an opportunity to look back at a year of a reform process to which Member States devoted energetic efforts and the success of which was a top priority for them.

We have been somewhat disappointed by the fact that this opportunity has been denied to us. We will be unable, today, to draw up a balance sheet and see how far the efforts of the Member States and the Secretariat have met with success, because the Secretariat did not produce the report on the status of implementation of actions, contained in document A/53/676, on time.

Regarding the reform process, it had been agreed that the Secretariat could proceed with the implementation of those actions outlined in the Secretary-General's report contained in document A/51/950 that were within the Secretary-General's power to implement, taking fully into account the views expressed by the Member States during the debate at that time. The report requested under resolution 52/12 A was delivered to delegations only on 23 November 1998, when the Assembly began its deliberations on this crucial issue. It needs thorough study by the Member States to ensure that the implementation of actions by the Secretariat was in line with the directive given by the Member States.

For the moment, therefore, my delegation will not comment on the content of document A/53/676. We would, however, support the resumption of this discussion at an appropriate time so that the Assembly can consider this issue of such importance for the future of our Organization. I will, however, avail myself of this opportunity to make some observations on the process initiated under action 12 of the report of the Secretary-General on reform.

We have before us a report entitled "Environment and human settlements", which is contained in document A/53/463. In this regard, my delegation associates itself with the statement made on behalf of the Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC) of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 and China.

In our view, the Second Committee would be the most appropriate forum to consider this report. We will coordinate our positions with the JCC. Our own assessment, however, goes along with the views of the Secretary-General, and we view the recommendations of the Task Force positively.

In regard to action 12, my delegation had encouraged the efforts of the Secretary-General to streamline the work of the United Nations relating to human settlements and the environment. We are pleased to see the report submitted by the Task Force to the Secretary-General. The Task Force was guided by some of the most eminent experts in the field. We congratulate them for the submission of a comprehensive and analytical report.

This report has been highly commended by the Nairobi chapter of the Group of 77. The views of the G-77 in Kenya are most valuable for our work because our counterparts there closely monitor the organizations we are dealing with. The Member States, as well as the Secretariat, should also bear in mind the points underscored by the Nairobi chapter of the G-77 for further clarification, caution and consultations.

Pakistan would like to support the recommendation of the Task Force for the establishment of an environmental management group under the chairmanship of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The environmental management group should make every effort to attain what the Secretary-General has termed as

"sustainable equilibrium between economic growth, poverty reduction, social equity and the protection of the Earth's resources, common and life-support systems." (A/53/463, para. 2)

We agree with the Task Force that the Secretary-General, through the Executive Director of UNEP, invite the Governments and conferences of parties to consider the implications of operational inefficiencies and costs arising from the geographical dispersion of convention secretariats and ways of overcoming this problem. We stated our views clearly on this issue in the debate on reform, and we are happy to note that the Task Force has taken a similar view.

We are particularly appreciative of the set of recommendations aimed at exploitation of the synergy deriving from the co-location of UNEP and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat).

In extending our support to the recommendations focused on enhancing the contribution and role of civil society and non-governmental organizations, we would like to place greater emphasis on the action that the Secretariat should take with UNEP, Habitat and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to identify and make provisions to meet the needs of southern non-governmental organizations. We also recommend that necessary steps should be taken to clarify the points raised by the Nairobi chapter of the G-77 on recommendations 18 (b) and (c).

My delegation can also go along with the recommendation to hold extensive deliberations within UNEP to provide input for the Millennium Assembly and Forum and also to reflect on the future role of the Trusteeship Council.

While we will return later to the report on the implementation of actions contained in the Secretary-General's report (A/51/950), I would like to express my views on two other issues to which my delegation attaches great importance -- namely, time limits for new initiatives and the Millennium Assembly. With regard to time limits, I would like to draw the Assembly's attention to paragraph 61 of the Final Document of the twelfth summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, held at Durban in September 1998, which directed all members of the Non-Aligned Movement to fully examine the impact of this proposal on the programmes and activities of the Organization. We will continue to coordinate within the Non-Aligned Movement and the G-77 to reach a joint position on this issue.

With respect to the Millennium Assembly, we are looking forward to this event that would mark the advent of the new millennium for Member States and the United Nations. We suggest that the Member States should seize this opportunity to chart the course of the United Nations for the years to come. For this purpose, it would be advisable that an open-ended working group of the General Assembly be established immediately to coordinate Member States' contributions to that important forum.

In conclusion, we hope that the Assembly will be able to initiate its discussion on document A/53/676, on the implementation of actions, so that Member States can give their considered views in the near future.

Ms. Drayton (Guyana)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe9' in position 118: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg011-bk01-pa01">In 1984, during the th... fit for service in the twenty-first century.</p>', 118, 119, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 119
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg011-bk01-pa01">In 1984, during the th... fit for service in the twenty-first century.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 118