Press Release ECE/GEN/00/21
Geneva, 4 May 2000
Introductory speech to the 55th annual session
of the Economic Commission for Europe
by the Executive
Secretary, Yves BERTHELOT
Excellencies, Dear Friends,
I should like to talk to you about the
Commission. The 1996-1997 reform confirmed its importance and established enduring
relations of trust between the member States and the secretariat. Its implementation has
revitalised the annual sessions of the Commission, led its principal subsidiary bodies to
define their priorities, strengthened our ties with our regional partners, and launched
transsectoral and intrasectoral activities. All this should be maintained or continued.
The Plan of Action also required the Commission to adapt to changes and be flexible. So
far it has done so case by case, but I think that the time has now come for the Commission
to acquire the means to do so more systematically.
As I invite you to reflect on this
subject, I should like to review some of the challenges facing our region or our
institution.
I shall do so by drawing inspiration first
of all from the discussions of these past two days. They were in keeping with a tradition,
which I hope is now well established: a tradition of quality and of openness. I would like
to thank the speakers, who set the tone, and all of those who took the floor, illustrating
the diversity of experiences, and thus helping us to distinguish between those lessons
that are generally applicable and those relating to particular circumstances. Personally,
I shall remember first of all the widening disparities between countries and within each
country, the sources of both internal tension and tension among member countries. The
cohesion of our societies and that of Europe are suffering as a result. This is a subject
on which I have often expressed my opinion. I did so before you a year ago. Since then I
have had the opportunity to speak with the new Secretaries-General of the OSCE and of the
Council of Europe. They share this concern and are willing for the three secretariats to
cooperate more closely and to jointly present their conventions, norms and activities that
contribute to the continent’s harmony. I should like this to continue and I should
also like to call on Governments to make more use of these three forums, where European
countries meet on an equal footing and forge their guiding principles and rules. This is
particularly important for those countries that do not intend to join the European Union
or for which membership is not feasible in the foreseeable future.
To this theme of cohesion in Europe I
should like to link that of the dynamism of regional movements, because I am convinced
that subregional cooperation, of which the most advanced model for everyone is the
European Union, is propitious, not to say necessary, for the development of countries and
is at the same time a factor of regional integration and participation in the
globalization. Yesterday and last week in Almaty on the occasion of the Eurasian economic
summit, I was astounded to hear arguments on this line which themselves concurred with the
conclusions of the debate held in Bangkok on the occasion of UNCTAD X between the
Secretary-General of UNCTAD and the five Executive Secretaries of the Regional
Commissions. This is the vision that should inspire the way in which the Commission
carries out its operational activities and maintains its relations with the subregional
entities.
I also recall from the debates of these
past two days that the growing inequalities are due, admittedly, to the initial situations
and to the way in which reform has been carried out in each country, but also to the
inappropriate advice given or imposed and to the barriers raised by the more developed
countries to the imports of sensitive products. Listening to the comments from the
different speakers, reading the analyses of the most liberal of minds, it seemed to me
that the analyses of our Survey have in these past ten years been well-founded and to the
point. So I should like these analyses to be better known and more widely used. Moreover,
I should like them, on the one hand, to be extended with economic advice and, on the
other, to cover structural changes more systematically in particular in the transport,
energy and trade sectors.
For me this presents a two-fold interest:
first, our Surveys will be a more useful tool for decision makers in the sequence of
reform and economic choices; second, the activities of the Commission (analyses,
negotiation of conventions and norms, operational activities) will be better integrated so
that our technical work can be enlightened by an economic perspective.
This vision of the Survey, for which the
Executive Secretary is responsible, is demanding and requires a serious commitment. I have
therefore asked Paul Rayment, the Director of the Economic Analysis Division, to prepare,
provisionally, only two volumes of the Survey a year and to devote the time thus gained to
the necessary commitment and to a more active participation in seminars on transition
issues so that the Survey can become better known.
Mr Chairman, I should now like to broach
three challenges that are not related to the discussions of these past days but that I
believe are important for the Commission.
Complementary to the cohesion of Europe,
which I mentioned a moment ago, is the place of our Region in the world. I am delighted
that many of our conventions and norms are adopted or adapted by countries that find them
interesting or that they become worldwide instruments in the framework of the Economic and
Social Council. But, what was mere satisfaction of seeing that our work was useful to
others has now become a necessity: the experts are warning us that our achievements in the
fight against air pollution will be reduced to nothing within the next ten years by
pollution from Asia if that continent does not swiftly take measures similar to those that
we have taken. To take another example, the growth in trade among the countries of the
Mediterranean, which is a precondition for development and peace, will be facilitated if
our trade and transport instruments are adopted by all these countries. The cooperation
with the other Regional Commissions which has developed over the course of these past few
years must therefore be systematically strengthened.
Secondly, we can see just how far the
organisation of production and demand change as a result of information technology at the
same time as frontiers between sectors of activity become blurred. Although the Commission
develops EDIFACT and has taken a first intersectoral initiative with transport and
environment, the Commission has not studied in enough depth the consequences of these
changes on its work and its priorities. I think it would be advisable to enlist the help
of recognised experts and organise some brainstorming sessions on the consequences of
these changes on the secretariat, the principal subsidiary bodies and the Commission.
Finally, I should like to mention one
definition of the Commission that the Plan of Action overlooked, that of a "regional
outpost" of the United Nations, because the requests from New York are increasingly
numerous. I should like to mention, for instance, the organisation of the regional
preparatory meeting for Beijing+5, or the high-level ECOSOC debate on information
technology or the special meeting on financing for development and the regional follow-up
for the Revision of the 1981 International Plan of Action on Ageing. Responding seriously
to these requests is one way of giving a place to the problems of transition in the
worldwide debates or of harmonising the positions of member countries before these
debates. It is therefore in the interest of the member States, but the necessary time must
be found in the work programme so that these contributions can also be immediately useful
to the Region.
The note which has been submitted to you
"Challenges to the Region: Elements for an ECE Response" takes up the themes
that I have just broached and proposes a way to think them through which is fully in line
with the Plan of Action. I hope that you will agree to hold this reflection and that you
will also accept the stages suggested to start up this process.
Mr Chairman, Dear Friends, you may find it
strange that I should be proposing reflections that will have an impact on the future work
of the Commission when I will be leaving it soon. I am doing so for the simple reason that
I would have delivered the same speech if I had stayed on. I am convinced that such a
reflection is now necessary and I am pleased that my successor shares this view.
Allow me to end on a more personal note.
My career as a "civil servant" (this expression is so much more pleasing to the
ear than the term "functionary") is drawing to a close in the best of
circumstances: I am proud of the path covered since some undoubtedly well-meaning spirits
wanted to abolish the Regional Commissions and of the work that the secretariat and the
delegations have accomplished together during these six years when, discreetly but
competently, we have made a disinterested contribution to Europe’s cohesion and to
the transition process. I am happy to leave the Commission full of ideas for new
initiatives rather than tired of the routine. I am confident that Danuta Hübner has the
qualities to both pursue what is good and make the member countries fully use the
Commission. She will have at her disposal a staff that is truly remarkable and enjoy the
good relations that have been established between the secretariat and the member
countries. I am sure that everyone will put their trust in her just as they put their
trust in me. This trust has been my most precious support and I thank all of you for it.
In order to provide you with a better service, we would appreciate it if you
would send a copy of your article to: 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],
Thank you. |