Geneva, 5 May
1999
ECE/GEN/99/7
ECONOMIC
COMMISSION FOR EUROPE DISCUSSES ITS CONTRIBUTION TO RECOVERY IN
SOUTHEAST EUROPE AFTER A SETTLEMENT OF THE CONFLICT IN YUGOSLAVIA
This morning the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) reconverted into formal
session. After adopting the agenda, the Commission started a
general debate on the agenda item on strengthening cooperation
within the ECE region. During the general debate upon this
subject, delegates commented upon the issue of the Kosovo crisis.
The Chairman of the Commission,
Miroslav Somol (Czech Republic) opened the session with
introductory remarks upon the reform and simplification of the
work of the Commission. Simplification of the work of the formal
meetings was underway, and was proving effective and insightful.
Seminars would continue to be an important part of the work of
the session, and would prove to be of a consistent high standard.
The Executive Secretary, Yves
Berthelot, also in introductory remarks, said it was very
difficult to talk about enhancing cooperation in the region of
the ECE without speaking of the numerous tragedies in the
South-Eastern region of Europe. The ECE could help in setting up
a comprehensive recovery programme aimed at restoring growth and
the confidence in investors; rebuilding the infrastructures and
speeding up institutional and structural reforms; re-establishing
good neighbouring relations in Southeast Europe. The ECE should
participate to any machinery set up by the international
community jointly with any other regional or national programmes
in areas where the ECE had competence, for example in the areas
of transport, environment, energy, statistics, and habitat.
Delegates agreed that the
Commission had a role to play in the re-structuring of countries
in transition. Once the Kosovo crisis was over, the ECE had a
considerable amount of expertise in vital areas that would be
called upon by all those engaged in the re-building of the
region. There was also considerable worry from many of the
participants for the lack of funding available for the
implementation of operational activities, including in the
Mediterranean region.
The Commission then moved on to
agenda item related to operational activities and cooperation
with regional/subregional groupings, initiatives and
organizations.
The meeting was then adjourned,
until 3.00 p.m.
Introductory remarks
The Chairman, Miroslav
Somol, in his address to the Commission, said that he had tried
to remain in close working contact with all working bodies of the
Commission, so as to understand fully the work of the Commission.
He had had specific meetings with different bodies, and had
enjoyed the meetings with the representatives of the different
groups within the secretariat. Reform of the ECE was on the right
track: improvement of the work was apparent, and there was
commitment to go forward in this direction. It was a task for
future Chairmen to encourage delegations into more active
involvement, and to make the work of the Commission more
attractive to these. Privatisation was an important task of the
work of the Principal Subsidiary Bodies (PSBs). Simplification of
the work of the formal meetings was underway, and was proving
effective and insightful. Seminars would continue to be an
important part of the work of the session, and would prove to be
of a consistent high standard.
The Executive Secretary of
the Commission, Yves Berthelot, stated that one general
lesson was drawn from the substance of the two days work, and
that was that there were no simple solutions to the problems
faced, therefore it was dangerous to act on the basis of
ideology. Ideology was often involved, but the reasonable
approach needed to be fine-tuned. Liberalisation and
privatisation did not necessarily lead to the right behaviour and
the right reform without institution building. There were no
simple solutions, and this emphasised the need for a political
approach to reform. The weight of history and of culture was
important. There was a need for programmes, and the ECE was
constructed to help to fuel these programmes.
The ECE operated like a
well-oiled motor, Mr. Berthelot went on pointing out that reforms
had been applied, and these seemed to stand up to practice and
experience. It was very difficult to talk about enhancing
cooperation in the region of the ECE without speaking of the
numerous tragedies in the South-Eastern region of Europe. All
neighbouring countries were being affected. Consultations had
been held with a number of countries, including all those
neighbouring Yugoslavia.
A paper entitled *Recovery in Southeast Europe after a settlement of
the conflict in Yugoslavia+ had been circulated, stressing three points which
were important for the future: the need to set up a programme for
reconstruction or economic recovery for the entire south-east
area, which should take into account the situation that existed
before the conflict; the need to rebuild infrastructures in the
area, and to speed up institutional and structural reforms; the
need to re-establish normal economic relations between the
countries of the region and to integrate them economically into
Europe as a whole.
The ECE should contribute to any
machinery set up by the international community conjointly with
any other regional or national programmes in areas where the ECE
had expertise, for example in the areas of transport, energy,
statistics, and habitat. There were conventions, standards and
norms in all these areas, and the ECE could therefore help
countries to implement these, thereby speeding up the reform
process. These standards facilitated good relations and economic
integration, since they encouraged cooperation and common
standards. Regardless of the machinery set up, the ECE would have
to contribute. It was not premature to raise this question, since
there was a need to be ready in order to be useful, there was an
immediate problem, and many other institutions and organizations
were examining problems and solutions, and the machinery of the
ECE needed to be recognised, in its capacity for being useful in
its areas of competence.
Discussion on Strengthening
cooperation within the ECE region
Murat SUNGAR, Permanent
Representative of the Republic of Turkey, said that Turkey
attached great importance to the strengthening of security and
stability as well as introduction of deeper political and
economic reforms in South East Europe. The framework of the
proposed process comprised political cooperation in security and
stability; cooperation in economy and environment; promotion of
humanitarian, social and cultural cooperation; cooperation in the
fields of justice, organised crime, elimination of terrorism,
illicit drugs, arms and human trafficking. The most appropriate
organizations should be mandated to carry out the necessary tasks
with a view to avoiding overlap, to ensuring greater impact, and
to using the available resources in the most rational manner.
Post-conflict aid efforts could bring together all creative
forces and mobilise the resources of the parties involved in
assuring peace and welfare in the region, and the ECE could
contribute in these areas.
Goce PETRESKI, Permanent
Representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said
that the issue of recovery in the area was most important, and
welcomed all actions to remedy the situation, and all programmes
for stability after the conflict ended. The danger of the
conflict spreading to neighbouring countries was still present.
The Republic of Macedonia faced a humanitarian catastrophe due to
the refugee situation. The commitment to resolving the crisis was
clear, but response was lagging. The international community had
failed in its response. The question was who would bear
responsibility for the situation. Sequencing should go through
the ending of the conflict, the prevention of its spreading to
other countries, and re-building. This would be in the expertise
of the ECE. The future of the region lay in integration, and in
finding a lasting solution to the crisis.
Ambassador LEWALTER,
Representative of Germany, on behalf of the European
Union, said that the situation in South-East Europe was grave.
The impact of the crisis on the whole region was important, and
the ECE could play a role in the facilitation of the process of
economic recovery. The suggestions of the Executive Secretary
could provide a format for efforts to restore security, stability
and democracy. The regional approach of the EU, together with the
proposed security pact proposed a viable solution to ensure
political and social stability for the region as a whole.
The Representative of the United
States of America said that the USA agreed that the ECE was
eminently qualified to play an important role in the process of
reconstruction, which should start as soon as the conflict ended,
in all countries of the region that had been influenced
negatively by the conflict and its consequences. There should be
a partnership, increased cooperation between the nations of the
region. The ECE had an important potential role to play in this
common effort.
The Representative of the Russian
Federation said that the ECE should not stand aside from
issues concerning the whole international community, and had
great contributions to make within its terms of reference and
resource limits to the post-conflict reconstruction. The ECE
could also help in limiting the consequences of environmental
pollution due to the conflict, and should develop specific action
to take in this area. The involvement of all of European
countries, without exception, would be the best way to build
confidence and stability in Europe and its sub-regions.
The Representative of Romania said that the ECE could make an effective contribution to the
post-conflict development of integration and re-building. The
Commission should go beyond putting its expertise at the disposal
of Governments, and should be more active in the obtention of
funding for implementing programmes contributing to the stability
of the region. Partnership could stimulate participating states
to work for the consolidation of stability. The objectives of any
partnership would be to resolve the most dramatic effects of the
crisis, securing the necessary conditions for the return of the
refugees, and the re-establishment of the economy.
The Representative of Bulgaria said that it was of vital importance that the ECE consider this
issue, without waiting for the end of the conflict. The burden of
the crisis on the countries around the conflict zone should not
be forgotten, and the ECE should examine stabilisation programmes
for the region as a whole. There was a need to clarify where the
suggested contribution would find its practical implementation.
An alleviation of the financial burden of the countries concerned
should be envisaged, since this would enhance their chances of
full transition. The various initiatives should form a
coordinated effort, given the enormity of the problem.
The Representative of Norway said that it was important to begin the process of discussion
regarding the reconstruction of the South-East region when the
conflict was over. There were interesting and important roles for
the Commission, and it should continue to develop the outlined
suggestions. The importance of coordination between all
organizations in the reconstruction effort could not be stressed
enough.
The Representative of Canada said that the issue of recovery in South-Eastern Europe after the
conflict was of high priority, and needed to be addressed in an
effective manner. It was important to properly coordinate the
actions of the various organizations that would be involved in
the reconstruction effort.
The Representative of Albania said that the ECE could play a major role in the reconstruction
effort. Those countries suffering due to the conflict and the
economic and political de-stabilisation needed to have these
issues addressed urgently. There was a need for funding, so that
reconstruction could begin as soon as the time was ripe. The
economic, social and political situation needed to be stabilised.
Each day of the conflict led to losses of millions of dollars,
which was an exacerbating factor in weak transition economies.
The ECE could make a contribution by contributing itself to
carrying out an evaluation of the impact of the conflict on the
economies of the neighbouring countries, and could programme
activities for the rebuilding.
The Representative of Poland said that the views of Germany and the USA were appropriate. It
was obvious that there was room for the ECE to be active in
reconstructing the countries affected by the crisis. Poland would
contribute in this effect, and would welcome seminars dealing
with the specificity of problems of emerging economies in the
Polish sub-region.
The Representative of Hungary said that Hungary welcomed the initiative of the ECE to actively
participate and be involved in the economic reconstruction of the
region. The conflict had had a certain impact on Hungary, and it
was ready to cooperate to bring back peace, stability and
democracy in the region. The ECE had a role to play in this.
The delegate from the Conference
of European Statisticians said that the two-pronged approach
would be most appropriate. The ECE could play a definite role in
the re-building after the end of the conflict. A programme of
institution building could be developed for each country of the
region.
The Representative of Kazakhstan said that the operational activity of the ECE was of great
practical interest. The ECE had contributed greatly to the Kazakh
economy and political structure, by providing consultants, for
example. This strengthened democratic reforms and the trade
initiatives of the whole Kazakh region.
Mr. Berthelot, the Executive
Secretary, concluded the discussion, thanking the delegations
for welcoming the paper submitted, and acknowledging the
potential contribution of the ECE. There were urgent immediate
problems that needed to be addressed. He further stressed that
the capacities of the ECE should be fully used and that dialogue,
in terms of what could and should be done should be maintained
with all partners, whether national or international.
The Chairman summarised the
discussion by saying that all delegations had given high
appreciation to the note prepared by the secretariat. The ECE
could play an important role in the re-building process.
Reconstruction process did not just concern those countries
directly affected by the conflict, but also concerned
neighbouring countries. All measures should be fully coordinated,
and assistance should be provided. There was a need for good and
effective cooperation with all other international organizations
concerned in the process.
Discussion on Operational
activities and cooperation with regional/subregional groupings,
initiatives and organizations
Mr. Berthelot said that as to
the operational activities of the ECE, a note had been submitted
to the Commission (ECE/1368). There were four points: demand was
growing, and the resources of the Commission were not; resources
therefore needed to be increased; the structuring of the
responses needed to be changed, cooperation programmes should be
mutually reinforcing; PSBs should be fully involved. A more
substantial report would be produced on operation activities and
how they could be improved would be submitted if this was the
desire of the Commission. Cooperation in the context of the
Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI) would continue
and be reinforced. With respect to the Special Programme for the
Economies of Central Asia (SPECA), the ECE would step up
activities within it. SPECA was first of all the work of the five
countries of the area, but was also a hope and inspiration for
international cooperation.
The Representative of Romania said that the Commission had done a lot of work strengthening
cooperation at regional level. The document under consideration
was fully supported. Analyses would show the great need for
substantial financial resources. Operational activities were most
important for countries in transition. Additional resources for a
special fund for countries in transition, as suggested by the
Executive Secretary, were required. SECI projects corresponded to
the norms and standards of the European Community. These had
reached the stage where additional financial resources were
required.
The Foreign Minister of Tajikistan said that SPECA was important for all countries of the region.
Operational activities of the Commission in the interest of
states in transition were extremely important for Tajikistan,
which counted on the continuing and stepping up of the work.
There was therefore a need for additional resources. Tajikistan
had already subscribed to the various accords and agreements upon
the programme, and supported its regional nature of this last.
The process of agreeing on the conceptual basis should be
concluded successfully, as should the development of work
programmes. SPECA would create conditions in the region that
would be attractive to foreign investors. A serious contribution
would be made to enhancing the economic activities of the region.
The Representative of Turkey said that although the ECE had not been established as a main
technical assistance agency, in order to give effect to its
normative work it had to offer appropriate technical assistance,
particularly to countries in transition. There had been decreases
in the resources allocated to the ECE for this purpose.
Therefore, it should constantly review, adapt and prioritise its
technical assistance both in terms of methods of delivery and in
terms of the selection of beneficiaries. Support provided to
subregional groupings was a cost effective manner of providing
technical assistance. The first year of SECI had been successful.
Turkey also supported SPECA, and was ready to cooperate with the
Central Asian countries as a supporting state. The cooperation
between the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) and the ECE was
also welcomed. PSBs should be asked to review their operational
activities and report back to the next session.
The Representative of Germany,
on behalf of the EU, said that developments and progress made in
operational activities should continue. Financing would remain
difficult, and it was therefore important to use available
resources as effectively and usefully as possible. Closer
cooperation with the relevant financial institutions would be a
positive step. The establishment of SECI was welcomed, as was
SPECA. The geo-political implications and sensitivity of the
Mediterranean region were increasing, and the ECE should cover
Europe in a more balanced way, so that reports were more
comprehensive. The proposals made in the document under
consideration were supported.
The Representative of Malta said that the ECE/1368 document included positive and encouraging
elements of cooperation within the ECE region. Paragraph 22,
detailing lack of funding for activities in the Mediterranean
region was noted, and the ECE should continue to mobilise efforts
to obtain further resources, or should re-calibrate their budget
to improve this situation.
The Representative of the United
States of America said that in the post-Cold War period, the
challenge was to integrate countries into the European region.
Thus, SECI and SPECA were most welcome, in the context of that
initiative. The multi-lateral success achieved so far could not
have been done without the ECE, and this was appreciated.
The Representative of Ukraine said that it had a positive view of operational activity as
reflected in the report. The substantial specific features of
transition, regarding the adaptation to market conditions,
implied that there should be an abstention from applying
ready-made solutions to problems of these transitions. The needs
of today were much more specialised than ever before. More
detailed attention should be paid to the ways and methods of the
carrying out of operational activities. There was a need for an
overall analysis of the forms, directions and financial aspects
of the operational activities of the PSBs. The programme of
regional advisory services was an important element of the
assistance provided to countries in transition, and the reduction
of their activities for financial reasons should be repaired.
The Representative of the Russian
Federation said that Russia welcomed the operational
activities of the ECE, notably with regard to technical
cooperation given to countries in transition. Regional advisers
had played a great role on many levels. The resources for
financing programmes should not be curtailed. The Commission
should study the question of focusing regional activities on the
needs of countries in transition, which needed technical
assistance. The efforts of the Commission to ensure cooperation
between regional organizations should be encouraged. Russia was
ready to become a supporting state to SPECAs programmes.
The Delegate of the European
Commission welcomed all regional initiatives. However, there
was concern to ensure that SECI planned its projects in full
knowledge of EU activities. SECI should strive for complete
complementarity with EU actions. Joint projects were a
possibility. SPECA also had contractual relations with the EU.
The EU looked forward to continuing information being provided on
the development of activities, to ensure full complementarity of
efforts.
The Representative of Belarus said that Belarus supported the general approach, including that
effective operational activities were effective in improving the
situation in transition countries. The steps taken by the ECE
secretariat to strengthen coordination were welcomed. There was
interest in forming partnerships with all regional organizations.
There should be consideration of a stage-by-stage reformation of
the programme of operational activity, with the basic idea of
creating a single Europe. The long-term objective was
cooperation. The proposals by the secretariat were supported,
regarding consultation during the next session.
The Representative of Israel said that Israel was in full agreement with the aims of the ECE,
and was particularly supportive of principles of economic
cooperation and integration, improvement of the quality of life,
expansion of trade and promotion of investments. The potential
contribution of the ECE to the development and welfare of Israel
was very important. The ECE enhancement of the economic activity
in the Mediterranean region, would represent a considerable
contribution towards the efforts to bring about regional economic
integration and development. Israel fully supported the aims of
the ECE, and believed that it could serve as an instrument in the
promotion of cooperation among the Mediterranean countries.
The Representative of the Slovak
Republic said that the paper gave a good basis in the areas
of technical initiatives and regional cooperation. Trade issues
would play a growing role in the countries concerned. Trade
facilitation was one of the most important issues for the ECE.
Slovakia was making efforts in this area.
The Chairman of the Committee
on Trade, Industry and Enterprise Development of the ECE said
that the consensus was welcomed on the fact that the ECE would
have a role in the settling of the conflict in Yugoslavia. As
time moved on, the Commission would consider the ways and means
of this. These may justify interruptions of regular programmes
and of regional advisers work. The Committee would consider the
reallocation of funds, in order to aid the resolution of the
conflict.
Mrs. Danuta HÜBNER, Deputy
Executive Secretary of the ECE, said that technical
assistance and regional advisory activities contributed to the
process of transition, and developed relationships between
governments and regions. The reality of today was the reduction
of resources, and this regarding operational activities. The
possibilities of finding new financial possibilities should be
explored. PSBs should be more involved in the whole exercise.
Cooperation with financial institutions should and would be
developed, but this was not an easy task. Mrs. Hübner further
stressed that the basis for complementarity was communication.
The session was then adjourned,
to reconvene at 3.00 p.m.
For further information,
please contact:
Information Unit
United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe (UN/ECE)
Palais des Nations, Room 356
CH - 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (22) 917 44 44
Fax: +41 (22) 917 05 05
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.unece.org