General Assembly Session 60 meeting 52

Mr. Aliyev (Azerbaijan)

Recent humanitarian emergencies have demonstrated the overall capability of the humanitarian community to launch a massive response when called upon. However, it is quite obvious that the quality of response needs improvement. Humanitarian response does not always meet the basic needs of affected populations in a timely way. It varies considerably from crisis to crisis, and current capacity levels are not always sufficient to meet the demands of major emergencies occurring at the same time. While some of the factors affecting the response are specific to individual crises, some of the key challenges seem to be systemic in nature.

The Humanitarian Response Review has therefore highlighted a number of well-known and long-standing gaps that the international humanitarian system has failed to address so far, in particular the low level of preparedness of the humanitarian organizations in terms of human resources and sectoral capacity. Furthermore, the way in which humanitarian crisis response is funded affects the system's ability to react promptly, effectively and in a principled and impartial manner.

Azerbaijan supports efforts to reform the existing humanitarian response system. We share the view that predictable humanitarian funding is one of the key elements of the reform package. In this context, the idea of upgrading the current Central Emergency Revolving Fund (CERF) through the addition of a grant element is of particular importance for ensuring timely and effective response both in cases of newly emerging crises and in under-funded and protracted crises.

With regard to the latter, it is worth mentioning that even the overall increase in global humanitarian funding has not ensured an equitable humanitarian response in all parts of the globe, and funding continues to be concentrated on high-profile crises that enjoy significant political and media attention. Therefore, the idea of allocating one third of the upgraded CERF's grant facilities for under-funded emergencies is commendable. We believe, however, that clear and objective eligibility criteria based on needs assessment must be elaborated in order to ensure the equitable and balanced funding of such emergencies. The disbursement of the Fund should take into account the existing imbalance in spending among regions, as well as among sectors.

As far as humanitarian coordination is concerned, the effective coordination of the humanitarian response at the field level is of paramount importance. In our view, close cooperation and effective coordination among all stakeholders is crucial for ensuring the efficiency of the United Nations system-wide capacity and of short- and medium-term relief efforts. In this regard, strengthening support for, and the capacities of, the resident humanitarian coordinators and United Nations country teams is critical.

It is clear that national ownership in the design, implementation and coordination of programmes in both post-disaster and post-conflict situations is essential in order to ensure the desired impact of those programmes and their sustainability. However, efficient burden-sharing between national authorities and international humanitarian and development actors is needed, in particular in protracted humanitarian situations with mass displacement and limited national capacities to tackle all existing problems.

Better coordination by the United Nations of international efforts on the ground is needed in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and to increase the efficiency of activities overall in situations such as those to which I have referred. Humanitarian assistance and funding should not be limited to providing immediate response to crises, but should also take into account long-term needs in the transition phase. Capacity gaps in the United Nations coordination mechanisms in the transition phase must be adequately addressed so as to ensure an efficient response to transition needs.

Furthermore, the effective planning of activities in post-disaster and post-conflict transitions must be improved. Regular monitoring and assessment of needs could contribute to the consistent planning of the work of various stakeholders.

We note with concern the situation with regard to internally displaced persons, the number of whom has increased all over the world. Despite a considerable international response, an alarmingly high number of internally displaced persons do not receive sufficient protection and assistance. There is a strong need for concerted action by the international community. There is no doubt that protecting and assisting internally displaced persons is particularly important in stabilizing affected countries, restoring economic and social life and paving the way for development.

The situation of internally displaced persons is an area with regard to which United Nations agencies must strengthen their cooperation and revitalize their collaborative actions in order to address the existing gaps in the international response to the issue. United Nations entities should employ mechanisms that establish a comprehensive and clear division of responsibilities for system-wide action. In this regard, we welcome the fact that the United Nations system has begun to pay due attention to the problem of internal displacement by reflecting on the matter of further strengthening the inter-agency response to the needs and protection-associated challenges of internally displaced persons.

I would like now to turn to sub-item (c) of agenda item 73, "Strengthening of international cooperation and coordination of efforts to study, mitigate and minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster". Azerbaijan attaches great importance to these deliberations. We commend the Secretary-General for his report contained in document A/60/443 and express our appreciation to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine for their valuable input. The report provides a useful overview of the current situation and an impact analysis of activities for the long-term development of the Chernobyl-affected areas.

In the year leading up to the twentieth anniversary, the observation that the region has not recovered the livelihoods that were lost and that the ramifications of the disaster still represent a serious challenge to the economic, social and environmental development of the most-affected countries causes particular concern. Clearly, the maturity of the problem makes it imperative that we reinforce international efforts to overcome the consequences, but on no account should it be viewed as an old or forgotten problem.

Efficient post-disaster recovery and development require the targeted assistance of the international community and synergy among the stakeholders. Thus, we note with satisfaction that the comprehensive framework actions put in place in the most affected countries have been complemented and coordinated at both governmental and system-wide levels.

We welcome the positive change in the system-wide response for Chernobyl recovery efforts, and we look forward to the further coherent and effective engagement of the organizations of the United Nations system, bearing in mind their mandates and comparative advantages. Azerbaijan also values the role of the United Nations Development Group in coordinating these efforts and further maintaining the shift to a long-term development approach.

We also hail the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, both as the lead organizer of the Chernobyl Forum and as a purveyor of technical cooperation programmes for reducing the radiological impact of the accident and addressing its human dimension.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the fact that Azerbaijan believes that the current review will give new impetus to reinforcing international cooperation in the areas of economic development and scientific research on the environmental and health consequences of the disaster, and will increase the efficiency of preparations for the commemorative year 2006.

Azerbaijan, as a sponsor of the important draft resolutions before us under this agenda item -- A/60/L.18, L.19 and L.20 -- expresses its hope that through their implementation, we will succeed in addressing our concerns with regard to the strengthening of mechanisms to prevent, mitigate and respond to humanitarian emergencies worldwide.

Mr. Oosthuizen (South Africa)

I should like first of all to align my delegation with the statements made by the Ambassador of Jamaica on behalf of the Group of 77 and China and by the Permanent Representative of Malawi on behalf of the Southern African Development Community, as well as to thank the Secretary-General for his reports prepared under this item.

The past year was indeed very challenging for the humanitarian community. We were faced with many hurricanes, floods and earthquakes all over the world. We remember in particular the recent devastating earthquake in Pakistan, emphasizing the point made by the Secretary-General in his report (A/60/432) that the need for effective humanitarian assistance has increased dramatically.

In his earlier report, "In larger freedom", (A/59/2005) the Secretary-General recognized that the humanitarian system has generally worked well in most emergencies, given the means at its disposal. That would imply, at least to us, that the United Nations system has tried its best, given the limited resources it has received. Let me provide some examples of what I understand is meant by the phrase, "the means at its disposal", particularly having the African continent in mind.

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) highlighted, for example, during its United Nations Humanitarian Appeal 2005, that funding obtained amounted to only 36 per cent of overall requirements, if the Indian Ocean Flash Appeal, launched at the beginning of the year to address the effects of the tsunami disaster, is excluded.

More troubling for the African continent was the sober analysis that the Djibouti Drought Flash Appeal attracted only 5 per cent of the required $7.5 million and the Benin Flash Appeal only 9 per cent of the required $4.6 million. As recently as the first week of September 2005, the World Food Programme expressed concern that it might not obtain enough funding to address the food shortage in Mozambique, which only required $19 million to avert the crisis.

We are now receiving reports of the severe impact of the drought in Malawi, which would also necessitate further consideration for assistance. What is particularly troubling about the African example is that even when appeals are made in advance to address crises, they still do not get the desired response. The further tragedy of this is that a rapid response to these crises could have mitigated the effects of the disasters.

It is therefore obvious that we need to rethink the way we provide funding to address international humanitarian responses, not only with regard to the amount of funding, but also the unequal way in which funding is being distributed. The recently adopted outcome document (resolution 60/1) clearly indicated our consensus agreement that the effectiveness of the humanitarian response system could in part be enhanced by improving the Central Emergency Revolving Fund (CERF).

In the interest of time, allow me to make a few specific comments on the proposals in the Secretary-General's report before us. We support the modernization of the current CERF so that it can respond rapidly to emergencies, particularly forgotten or underfunded emergencies, many of which are in Africa.

Our support for timely response to identified needs is based on real experiences in Africa. One recent example is the locust crisis in the Sahel. Although the initial requests for support were modest in dollar terms, immediate action could have prevented the hunger and starvation that followed the scourge of locusts. The lack of an effective and immediate response often leads to the so-called forgotten or neglected emergencies, which, as I have already indicated, are often in Africa. The proposal by the Secretary-General to attend to those neglected emergencies, through the new Central Emergency Response Fund, is therefore strongly supported.

We recognize the value of upgrading the CERF and providing it more financial support, especially through the addition of a grant facility. We would also support operationalizing the Fund as soon as possible, reminding ourselves that humanitarian response is indeed supposed to be immediate in order to address the most basic humanitarian needs of affected communities. However, in line with the appeal made by the Secretary-General, we would request that donors, in announcing their support for the new CERF, emphasize that that support would be additional funding; it should not be funds redirected from other development budgets.

It is obvious that we need to further support capacity-building within OCHA if we want to strengthen the humanitarian response of the United Nations system. We would also like to see the further development of the Financial Tracking System to better reflect and monitor humanitarian financing. That would provide Member States with a better understanding of what has been promised and what has been delivered.

We recognize that addressing and improving the response of the international community to humanitarian crises is not simply a matter of financing alone. We also need to look at issues such as leadership and response capacity, and at how to effectively identify and respond to needs. Of particular importance is improving and strengthening the leadership and performance of the resident coordinators and/or the humanitarian coordinators. We also need to be clear about the role envisaged for the United Nations operational agencies and the issue of governance and accountability within the United Nations system, as well as better coordination, not only within the United Nations system but also between that system and non-governmental organizations.

We need to ensure that the guiding principles for humanitarian assistance are adhered to, particularly the notion that humanitarian assistance should be provided in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality. However, it is my opinion that the proposals on the table to improve the CERF are a step in the right direction, and we need to seriously engage in that debate. We would also like to see the humanitarian community continue to draw on the national expertise of countries in order to increase their rapid-response capacity.

We have noticed with appreciation that in the past the Secretary-General has recognized the role that regional organizations, particularly the African Union, could and should play in addressing humanitarian crises in the context of improved partnerships.

My delegation remains ready to participate actively in the debate in the coming days to further discuss the ways and means to strengthen humanitarian coordination and response capacity, for we realize that many issues are complicated and would need detailed attention. My delegation would also like to thank the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mr. Jan Egeland, and his team for the proposals made and for maintaining a focus on the need to improve humanitarian assistance to affected communities, many of which are in developing countries.

Finally, I would like to express my Government's sincere appreciation to all humanitarian personnel, working often under very difficult situations to help people in need.

Mr. Holosha (Ukraine)

The delegation of the Ukraine aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom on behalf of the European Union on the issue of strengthening the coordination of humanitarian assistance.

We would like to devote our statement to sub-item (c) of agenda item 73, "Strengthening of international cooperation and coordination of efforts to study, mitigate and minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster".

First, allow me to express our sincere condolences and support to the Governments and people of countries that have suffered natural and humanitarian disasters this year. Such tragedies always find a response in the hearts of my compatriots, because, almost 20 years ago in Ukraine, at the fourth plant of the Chernobyl nuclear power station, there was a technological catastrophe, enormous both in its scale and its consequences. That national tragedy doomed millions of people to suffering, altered the environment and even affected people psychologically.

The accident showed how vulnerable States are when faced with global technological catastrophes in peacetime. More than 10 per cent of our country's territory was exposed to radioactive contamination. Some 160,000 people from 170 towns had to leave their homes forever and move to other areas. A total of 3.5 million people in Ukraine suffered from the catastrophe and its consequences, particularly those in rural areas.

The lack of specialized knowledge about radioactivity prevented people from evaluating for themselves the truth of information provided by the press and the electronic mass media. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the worsening environmental situation led to a situation in which the accident at the nuclear power plant constituted a catastrophe for millions of people living in contaminated areas. In an instant, hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens became the victims of the consequences of Chernobyl. Fate and history have dictated that our nation, Ukraine, must pay bills which it never signed for and atone for sins that it did not commit. We have to deploy major material and financial resources to call for the affected people, deal with the consequences of the catastrophe in the evacuated areas and rehabilitate the environment.

Over the last 15 years, during which Ukraine, on its own, has been covering the costs of responding to the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, the expenditures, representing from five to 10 per cent of our national budget, have not been decreasing. The expenses associated with dealing with the consequences of the disaster over those years represent about $8 billion. Overall, the economic losses associated with the Chernobyl accident represent some $180 billion. This is nine times the national budget of Ukraine for the year 2005.

It should be said that for Ukraine dealing with the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster has differed significantly from the experience of other affected countries. This is due to the fact that the Chernobyl plant is located in Ukraine, as is the so-called "shelter" facility, which for 19 years has served as a protective system covering the epicentre of the disaster.

In 1994, the international community, in the form of the leaders of the Group of Eight (G-8) and the European Union, presented the Government of Ukraine with a proposal to shut down the Chernobyl nuclear power plant ahead of schedule. In 1995, a memorandum of understanding was signed in which Ukraine undertook to close the plant early. In the memorandum, the parties recognized that the complete closure of the Chernobyl power station would have negative economic consequences for Ukraine. Though it meant sacrificing its national interest to some degree, Ukraine met its international obligations, and in 2000 the plant was closed down, although we were not prepared for this, either technologically or financially. There was no project for decommissioning the Chernobyl plant, although by law such a project should have been approved five years in advance of the plant closure. Financial support for decommissioning was also lacking. Because of this, and according to the joint plan of action between Ukraine and the G-8, it was proposed that closure of the Chernobyl power station be supported through grants that would enable Ukraine to implement a number of international plans aimed at increasing safety.

Currently at the Chernobyl industrial site four major projects are being implemented. They differ as to size, projected completion dates and funding sources. In addition to Ukraine, the donors for this project include, more or less, all of the world's developed countries. However, and this cannot but be a source of some alarm, there have been delays in implementing these projects, ranging from one to six years. The longest delay has occurred in a project that is central to the decommissioning of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, namely, the construction of a second depleted nuclear fuel storage facility.

Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond Ukraine's control, work on this project has ground to a halt. As a consequence, five years after the plant has been decommissioned, fuel remains in the reactors. We now need to take decisions to offload the spent fuel into temporary storage plants that will not be serviceable for much longer. And another important point: the most important international project referred to in the memorandum between Ukraine and the G-7, that of converting the shelter system into an environmentally safe system, is also several years behind schedule. To ensure the successful implementation of these international projects, we need additional joint resources from donor countries to finance this project, as well as contractors to complete this project.

The Chernobyl disaster altered people's lives in social, economic and medical terms, and also had an impact on their inner lives. The problems that it engendered have not disappeared with the passage of years, but are assuming different forms. Some of these, particularly the social and economic effects, are worsening. Therefore, Ukraine believes that there needs to be an integrated solution to these problems and that there must be a systematic approach on the part of the executive branch in setting up socioeconomic and organizational conditions, as well as in providing guarantees of social services for the affected population and rehabilitating the contaminated areas.

While we hope for assistance in addressing these problems, Ukraine is itself doing everything it can to respond to the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. We have adopted many forward-looking decisions, the most important of which is a national programme to respond to the consequences of the disaster between now and 2010. This programme defines the priorities of the Government's policy to respond to the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster over the next five years. The main objectives include protecting the health of victims, particularly women and children, decommissioning the Chernobyl nuclear power station and converting the shelter into an environmentally safe system, strengthening and supporting radiation safety barriers and cutting back on the release of radionucleides into the area beyond the exclusion zone, social support to the people and economic rehabilitation of the contaminated areas.

On the basis of experience gained over many years and also pursuant to the recommendations of the Vienna Chernobyl Forum in 2005, the main target groups for medical supervision over the next 10 years will be those who took part in disaster response, people who were exposed to significant doses of iodine radiation as children and victims who have remained in areas contaminated with radionucleides. The social support policy gives particular attention to implementing State programmes to rehabilitate the contaminated area and to making sure that they are made clean and attract investment, as well as to developing infrastructure and creating jobs in places where victims make up a large proportion of the population.

We are pleased to note that the key principles in the rehabilitation strategy prepared by the United Nations are in line with the above-mentioned priorities of the Government of Ukraine. And here, we hope that there will be greater cooperation with the United Nations structures and with donor countries in implementing projects, such as improved delivery of primary health care services and improved medical aid, particularly for women and children, carrying out projects to ensure social and economic rehabilitation of the affected areas, transitioning these areas into a phase of social and economic development, completing the international projects for decommissioning the Chernobyl power plant, and transforming the shelter system into an environmentally safe system.

Thanks to the joint efforts of Ukraine and the international community, in particular, the United Nations, we have been able to deal with many critical problems associated with the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. However, many problems remain. And here it would be appropriate to refer to the words of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said, "Chernobyl is a word we would all like to erase from our memory ... more than 7 million of our fellow human beings do not have the luxury of forgetting. They are still suffering, every day, as a result of what happened."

As the country and people who have suffered most from the Chernobyl disaster and its long-term consequences, we are entitled to count on the support of the international community. This support should come both in the form of international assistance programmes, which are vital, and in the form of simple human understanding and compassion for our problems.

The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster falls on 26 April 2006, and in connection with this tragic event, from 24 to 26 April 2006, in Kyiv, we will hold an international conference entitled "Twenty Years After the Chernobyl Disaster: Future Outlook." The conference will sum up what has already been done, draw up a programme of action, both for the international community and for national organizations engaged in responding to the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, and assess the impact of the catastrophe on the nuclear power industry as a whole. We invite Member States as well as all interested partners to take part in the conference. We also feel compelled to ask the President of the General Assembly to convene in late April and early May of 2006 a special meeting of the General Assembly devoted to this tragic anniversary. We believe this will provide additional momentum for the adoption of effective measures to step up collaboration in the international community to continue responding to the after-effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe.

The delegation of Ukraine, as a sponsor of the draft resolution on Chernobyl at this session of the General Assembly, attaches particular importance to its being adopted by consensus. We are convinced that this document will serve to increase international cooperation on Chernobyl issues.

Mr. Kariyawasam (Sri Lanka)

Sri Lanka associates itself with the statement made by the representative of Jamaica on behalf of the Group of 77 on all sub-items under agenda item 73.

It is an unfortunate reality that within just one year two natural disasters of unprecedented magnitude struck the region of South Asia. One hit from land; the other came from the sea. On 26 December 2004, tidal waves struck two thirds of Sri Lanka's coastal areas, leaving in their wake death and destruction of a scale hitherto unknown in our 2,500-year recorded history. Friendly Governments, the United Nations, international organizations, civil society and countless well-wishers across the world reached out beyond the confines of geopolitical and other man-made barriers to help. This boundless generosity rekindled in us a new confidence in the power of people acting in unison for the welfare of humankind. To all those who sympathized with us and assisted in rescue and relief operations, the people of Sri Lanka are profoundly grateful.

Let me also take this opportunity to extend a special word of thanks to President Clinton, the United Nations Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, for his commitment and leadership in coordinating the ongoing international effort for our sustainable recovery from the tsunami disaster.

In the aftermath of the tsunami disaster, there was no strong institutional framework to coordinate the relief effort, owing to the lack of credible local disaster management and mitigation procedures. However, the latent capacities of the existing district administration and local civil society structures came to the fore. Even with inadequate capacity and lack of experience, they responded magnificently. The fact that there were no deaths in Sri Lanka from starvation or ill health as a result of the disaster is a credit to the immediate local input.

It has become evident that building local capacity and ownership are essential for the success of long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction. This requires a partnership with the locality and an understanding of specific local conditions, as well as projects that will be ultimately be owned by the people in the affected areas. In this context, Sri Lanka has now developed a blueprint for reconstruction, in cooperation and consultation with the United Nations system, the international donor community and numerous civil society organizations. Most importantly, given the importance of multi-stakeholder participation for sustainable recovery, this blueprint reflects the general will of the people in each affected locality as well. System-wide consultations take place on a continual basis that provide the scope and opportunity for beneficiary inputs to the reconstruction programme.

Natural disasters create huge setbacks, thus negating development gains for developing countries. As we approach the first anniversary of the tsunami disaster, Sri Lanka is engaged in an inevitably long and complex reconstruction process. It has been estimated that $1.8 billion will be required for reconstruction. The Government of Sri Lanka is committed to building back better. We are pleased that Sri Lanka's economy is projected to resume its growth this year, as the infrastructure damaged by the tsunami is being rebuilt, and the fisheries and tourism sectors of the economy are beginning to recover. We are also on course to meet the construction target of 80 per cent of the 80,000 houses that had been destroyed.

Since the initial stages of the recovery effort, Sri Lanka has been committed to effective management of the recovery effort, as well as to transparency and accountability in the disbursement of funds. In this connection, the United Nations has worked with us to create a development assistance database system, which enables the Government to coordinate reconstruction efforts more effectively and identify gaps in the process. It also enables the public to view financial data and track progress in the activities of donors and implementing partners. In our view, this is a model worthy of emulation in similar situations.

Natural disasters can strike anywhere, as we have witnessed in the recent past. Unfortunately, it is apparent that the rate of survival and the ability to rebuild depends on the relative wealth of the affected country. Therefore, there are several important steps that our development partners can take to help developing countries affected by disasters to attain sustainable recovery.

Given that many developing countries have opened up their economies on the basis that more trade, not aid, will engender economic development, trade barriers that exist in various forms in our export markets can be a drag on our recovery and growth. Therefore, market access for our exports, preferably under concessionary terms, at least for a specific period, would accelerate the recovery process. Moreover, excessive debt burdens continue to be a great hindrance to our recovery potential, especially in the light of escalating oil prices and the depression in commodity prices. To give an example, before the tsunami disaster Sri Lanka had set aside $500 million for servicing debt for the year, an amount we can ill afford now in the face of massive reconstruction expenditure. We are grateful to several countries for cancelling some of our debt and for offers of moratoriums on repayment of debts. However, we do need for such humanitarian gestures to continue until the recovery is completed.

The experiences of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster, of hurricanes that struck the Caribbean, Hurricane Katrina, landslides in Guatemala and Mexico, as well as the South Asian earthquake just last month, make apparent the need to develop effective and efficient disaster management and risk reduction at the regional and global levels. This week the leaders of South Asia underscored this fact at their summit meeting in Bangladesh. In this respect, initiatives for setting up global early warning systems, incorporating regional, subregional and national systems, should receive higher priority. Hence, we seek the support of all concerned parties to establish the proposed Indian Ocean tsunami early warning system by January 2006, as scheduled.

The recent increase in natural disasters has also met with the unfortunate situation of uneven funding patterns and donor interest. This glaring disparity in resource availability for each disaster may be a result of several factors, including donor fatigue. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of each Member State of the United Nations to empower this Organization in such a manner as to even out those odds to the extent possible in view of our common humanitarian concerns. This will, no doubt, enable the United Nations system to mobilize on short notice. Whenever a natural disaster occurs, anywhere in the world, the United Nations should not be made to wait for funds in order to commence work immediately. In this context, Sri Lanka supports the proposal to upgrade the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), which is expected to be operational by January 2006, with a renewed funding base. However, for the Fund to succeed over the long term, it is essential to have standing pledges for its replenishment. Moreover, the involvement of both traditional and non-traditional donors, as well as the experience of countries affected by natural disaster, in the governance of the Fund will play an important role in its success.

We profoundly appreciate the way in which the United Nations system marshalled its energy and resources to alleviate the misery of those affected by the tsunami disaster. In that regard, we emphasize once again the important role of the United Nations in coordinating humanitarian relief assistance throughout the world for all natural disasters.

Having recently faced such a natural disaster, we note some important factors that, in our view, make the delivery of assistance cost-effective and efficient.

First, duplication must be avoided, both within the United Nations system and with regard to assistance from civil society and non-governmental organizations. It would be best if the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs would work with national Governments and all other donors and stakeholders to that end.

Secondly, we must promote substantive and substantial national and local involvement in all relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts. Such efforts must encompass not only national Government authorities but also national civil society organizations.

Thirdly, locally available resources, in particular human resources, must be utilized. That substantially decreases the overhead costs usually associated with United Nations operations and international donor programmes. Furthermore, the use of local raw materials and local processing can be cost-effective and engender sustainable development.

Fourthly, transparency should be promoted in action taken at the international level and, more importantly, at the local level. That necessarily includes disclosure as to financial outlays and how donor funds have been utilized at the local level.

Given the current rapid advancements in technology and human capabilities and the exponential accumulation of wealth in some parts of the world, it is unconscionable to let less fortunate fellow human beings suffer through neglect and apathy. The rapid globalization of both economic and social forces can no longer bear such iniquity. It is in our enlightened self-interest to work in partnership to provide rescue and relief to all human beings, wherever they live and whenever such needs arise. We need to continue to learn from every disaster how we can improve our methods of delivery and mobilize the conscience of humanity for the noble goal of helping one another. To that end, the Organization has a unique role to fulfil. And we, as Member States, must empower the Organization with appropriate means and resources. We cannot fail.

Mrs. Asmady (Indonesia)

The Indonesian delegation would like to express its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his reports on humanitarian assistance, which have made clear the urgent need for change in the approach for dealing with disasters and complex emergencies. We once again express our deep appreciation to Mr. Jan Egeland, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, and his team for their commitment to their role of coordinating the efforts of the United Nations system, and in particular for their contributions during the emergency relief phase in countries affected by the December 2004 tsunami.

In making its contribution to the discussion on the subject, Indonesia aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Jamaica on behalf of the Group of 77 and China and with the statement made by the representative of Malaysia on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Because of ongoing conflicts and natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes and severe weather patterns that cause extensive damage for vulnerable populations in various parts of the world, the demand for humanitarian assistance continues to escalate. The situation is compounded by the increase of worldwide epidemics such as the avian flu.

Indonesia shares the view that the United Nations must take steps to strengthen its current system, tools and competencies in order to effectively address current and future humanitarian needs. The United Nations needs increased resources and better coordination of its efforts, so that its response time to future disasters is shortened by making the necessary funding and appropriately trained personnel readily available.

As part of that change and in order to ensure better coordination and avoid the duplication of programmes on the ground, it is essential to strengthen the role of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Development Programme and other relevant bodies that intervene in the humanitarian emergency phase and are involved in follow-up rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. There must also be constant awareness that there are humanitarian needs that extend well beyond the post-conflict recovery and reconstruction phase and which early humanitarian arrangements do not cover. In general, early transition activities tend to focus on stabilizing and re-establishing basic State infrastructure before full needs assessments can be completed.

Along with those changes aimed at responding to the full range of real needs on the ground, action must be taken to address the persistent financial constraints that affect humanitarian work. My delegation therefore fully supports the recommendation of the Secretary-General to convert the Central Emergency Revolving Fund into an emergency response fund with a grant facility. That would ensure immediate funding to support rapid responses to humanitarian crises. We must give that proposal urgent consideration.

Indonesia also welcomes the commitment of world leaders at last September's summit to address the aforementioned challenges in humanitarian assistance, in particular to strengthen the capacities of developing countries to respond rapidly to natural disasters and mitigate their impact. It is to the credit of our leaders that they took the decision to further develop and improve mechanisms that equip developing countries with emergency standby capacities.

With respect to the specific case of those developing countries affected by the December 2004 tsunami, Indonesia notes that President William Jefferson Clinton has been appointed to sustain the political will of the international community to support long-term rehabilitation, reconstruction and risk reduction in countries impacted by the tsunami. Similar initiatives should be taken in the future when unprecedented global catastrophes occur.

Being one of the countries that suffered the wrath of the December 2004 tsunami in the worst possible way, Indonesia remains deeply grateful for the generous contributions and the solidarity extended by the international community. For its part, Indonesia has undertaken, and will persist in, its efforts to ensure that such contributions are managed in a fully transparent and accountable fashion.

To that end, Indonesia has adopted a master plan for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Aceh and Nias Island. The plan provides a holistic, comprehensive and integrated approach to a five-year restoration and reconstruction programme for the worst-hit regions. The plan provides guidelines for: creating understanding and building commitment among all stakeholders; coordinating, synchronizing and integrating the plans of various sectors; disseminating and distributing data and information to the local, national and international communities; promoting the solidarity, participation and involvement of civil society; and designing a system and mechanism for the mobilization of funds.

The fruit of the plan was the establishment on 29 April 2005 of the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency. Its main mission is to restore livelihoods and strengthen communities in Aceh and Nias by designing and overseeing a coordinated, community-driven reconstruction and development programme, implemented in accordance with the highest professional standards.

Although progress is under way, my delegation has come to appreciate how certain aspects of this process can affect the pace of the implementation of the overall programme. Coordination is one such aspect. It must be implemented to guarantee that all affected communities are properly assisted, in accordance with their specified needs and priorities, by agencies in the field. If that is to be done successfully, community leadership must be consulted and must form part of the recovery effort planning process. However, because various agencies have widely divergent approaches, standards and speeds of operation, recovery work can be slowed by serious disorganization.

Another important aspect of implementation is community participation. The fact that that entails painstaking consultations with community leaders to determine what must be done and how to prioritize projects so that efforts can be properly sequenced has created the false impression of slow progress. Once consultations have been completed, however, it is expected that the actual rehabilitation and reconstruction work will be carried out with speed and efficiency.

The value of this participatory approach also brings home the fact that it is critically important that vulnerable countries develop regional and national capacities to anticipate major natural disasters by using early warning systems and to mobilize domestic resources to lessen the humanitarian impact. Since national resources are available when disasters strike, they represent the first line of defence against a rapid deterioration of the situation in an affected community.

In addition, such resources constitute a vital aspect of a disaster-prone country's preparedness and its ability to help itself. Appropriate training must therefore be provided to potential first responders, including civilian, military and other security forces that can act to prevent an unfortunate situation from becoming tragic.

With regard to the situation in Aceh, the Government of Indonesia has developed the Recovery Aceh Nias (RAN) database -- which is based on the Development Assistance Database of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) -- to monitor and evaluate work being carried out in the province. The RAN database provides official information for project reporting and tracking, covering all organizations involved in the recovery process and how they are responding to identified community needs.

Finally, I should like to touch upon the issue of international assistance to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indonesia appreciates the Secretary-General's report on that subject (A/60/90) and fully endorses the view that only a peace process and a full and definitive settlement of the conflict will permit a transition from crisis management and recovery to sustainable development and prosperity. We urge that the Palestinian people be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination, including by establishing their own State.

Indonesia, as a country affected by the tsunami in December 2004, also appreciates the practical value of the various recommendations put forward by the Secretary-General in his other reports. However, it is not enough for sound recommendations to be made; they must inspire a rapid response on the part of the international community.

Ms. Juul (Norway)

As we meet here in New York, some 300,000 Pakistanis are facing the coming winter in Kashmir without the necessary shelter and assistance. At the same time, an estimated 10 million people are facing drought and severe food shortages in Southern Africa. In both cases, the response from donors to United Nations appeals has been slow. We must face the fact that we have failed.

We believe that those two humanitarian crises could have been handled differently -- and more effectively -- if the United Nations and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) had been equipped with the tools necessary for dealing with the fierce forces of nature or of man.

The role of the United Nations in emergency humanitarian assistance is increasingly important, because its services are in great demand. Strengthening the coordination of United Nations humanitarian assistance is required, because we have an obligation to supply help to those in need.

Providing the United Nations with the necessary resources is essential, because we want it to be a strong coordinator. Norway therefore welcomes the upgrading of the Central Emergency Revolving Fund (CERF), which will make it a permanent emergency fund that can quickly respond to -- and possibly prevent -- crises like the one in Southern Africa. We are anxious to see an upgraded CERF operational as early as possible in 2006.

Ms. Juul (Norway)

In keeping with the United Nations humanitarian reform agenda, the Fund's main purpose is to improve international response capacity. That means improving the speed, equity and predictability of humanitarian responses on the ground. Indeed, that is required. Increasingly, the United Nations and the donor community are faced with demands for quick and flexible responses to sudden-impact, complex emergencies. Furthermore, an upgraded CERF is necessary to ensure a better and more systematic focus on neglected emergencies. It will provide funding that will allow agencies to respond to appeals that donors collectively have not yet been able to fund to the extent needed.

A new CERF is not a goal in itself. For Norway, the key criterion for the success of humanitarian reform is that it more effectively meet humanitarian needs on the ground. The Fund is an important step towards that goal, and we intend to cooperate closely with OCHA, with other relevant United Nations agencies and with Member States to ensure that CERF becomes a successful financial mechanism.

But we will not be able to provide flexible and speedy funding unless certain conditions are met. There must be an unbureaucratic and flexible advisory group structure. There must be clear criteria for the allocation of resources. There must be strong leadership and a high degree of consensus -- both between the United Nations and donors and between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) -- regarding how those criteria are to be applied in practice. There must be accurate needs assessments and appropriate accounting and reporting mechanisms. We would also like to see better and more systematic dialogue with NGOs on how we can improve our response capacity.

Good humanitarian donorship requires that humanitarian financing be adequate, flexible and predictable. The new CERF will provide an opportunity for us to encourage higher levels of donor funding and to demonstrate in practice the true value of our humanitarian principles. Our goal -- our mandate -- is improved humanitarian response, not financial redistribution.

The time has come to have done with the perpetual underfunding of standby and preparedness mechanisms. Therefore, the Norwegian Government has pledged 200 million Norwegian kroner -- approximately $30 million -- to the Fund. Those are additional fund. We urge other donors to contribute similar amounts.