A/47/PV.52 General Assembly

As members will recall, at its 3rd plenary meeting, the General Assembly decided that the debate on agenda item 79 would be held directly in plenary meeting, on the understanding that action on the item would be taken in the Second Committee. The report of the Secretary-General on the institutional arrangements to follow-up on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development has been circulated in document A/47/598 and Add.l. The report of the Conference has been issued as document A/CONF.151/26, volumes I to IV. I should like to inform the Assembly that I have received a letter dated 30 October 1992 from the Permanent Representative of Denmark on behalf of the Western European and other States requesting that the Assembly hear in plenary meeting statements by the Observers of the Holy See and Switzerland during the debate on agenda item 79. Members will recall that, in accordance with the established practice of the General Assembly, observer non-Member States may normally make statements only in the Main Committees. However, following consultations, and taking into account the importance attached to the issue under discussion, it is proposed that the General Assembly take a decision to hear the Observers of the Holy See and Switzerland in the course of the debate in plenary meeting on this agenda item. I take it that there is no objection to this proposal. It was so decided.

I should like to propose that the list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed this afternoon at 5 p.m. If I hear no objection, it will be so decided. It was so decided.

I therefore request those representatives wishing to participate in the debate to inscribe their names as soon as possible. I call on the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I have looked forward to the opening of this debate. It is an occasion to share with you my thinking on the United Nations as an agent of development. The report of the Conference on Environment and Development (A/CONF.151/26, Vol.I-IV), ranging so widely over economic and social questions, gives me my platform. I shall also touch upon matters relating directly to the follow-up of that Conference, which is now in your hands. In my first year of office, I have had the privilege of participating in three important United Nations events dealing with global development! first, the Cartagena Conference on Trade and Development; secondly, the Rio Conference on Environment and Development; and, thirdly, the high-level segment of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). I have also taken part in the work of regional commissions in Asia and in Europe. My evaluation of these events - recently summed up in my annual report on the work of the Organization (A/47/1) has reinforced my conviction of the potential of this instutition. The Rio Earth Summit was an example of the capacity of the United Nations to mobilize political, public and instutitional energies around key issues of global development. Only the United Nations could have achieved it; its potential is unique. The challenge after Rio is to maintain the momentum of commitment to sustainable development, to transform it into policies and practice, and to give it effective and coordinated institutional support. My conviction is sustained by my sense of the opportunity for constructive action created by the end of the cold war. We can now work for an era of North-South cooperation that is not distorted by ideological and political East-West tensions. Peace and prosperity are indivisible, but they are threatened by gross inequalities within and between nations. Balanced planetary development is not only an enlightened aim; it is <a foundation for the enduring progress of all societies. Development cooperation must be carried forward on this basis, in parallel with technical and financial support to help the former planned economies in their transition. This new era brings new intellectual and political challenges. While the command economy is discredited, the market economy has yet to achieve its potential. The market is an instrument of efficiency and of material growth. But development is more than growth; it is the improvement of human well- being. Economic growth is the mainspring of development, but its thrust must be guided by equity, justice and social and ecological responsibility if development is to endure. This, in my view, is the meaning behind sustainable development. This is the ground for the new contest of ideas. Many guestions are open in democratic political discourse. Even in richer market economies, social tensions and environmental degradation pose serious problems of governance. In countries everywhere, the policies to deal simultaneously with unemployment, inflation, debt and trade imbalances have proved elusive. In the years of bipolar confrontation, it was easy to fall back on stereotypes. These are now irrelevant. Democracy and the market economy must not become mere slogans. The new convergence on these forms brings with it an obligation to engage in a sober analysis of successes and failures in orienting market forces in different national conditions towards democratically determined goals. It requires a renewed commitment to support developing countries in their efforts to build democratic, market-oriented societies. It requires a fresh look at the international environment in which such societies can flourish. This debate on the content of democratic governance and development, national and international, sets the context for a redefinition of the role of the United Nations in these spheres. This Organization must be a major source of ideas in this debate. It must be faithful to its mission while adapting to evolving needs. Its perspective must be global, seeking out the common interests of the world community. It must be centred on people, their rights and their talents. It must highlight the unspoken concerns of the poor and the needs of future generations. From such a perspective, the United Nations must bring the major issues to the Member States' attention. In its areas of competence, it must help them to come to grips with the problems of these times. Member States, for their part, must work to keep alive the consensus that is unfolding from the special session of the General Assembly, through Cartagena and Rio, to the Economic and Social Council. This consensus is a source of guidance and commitment to policy creation and institutional renewal. I am convinced that this Organization can meet the twin challenges of substance and structure. The intellectual and managerial task is vast. But we are guided by the genius of the Charter, so rich, so flexible, and yet so straightforward in its provisions for international economic and social cooperation. This Organization must put its development objectives on a par with its political and security commitments. Intergovernmental bodies must promote policy coherence and programme coordination. And different types of programme activities, particularly analytical and operational activities, must support and reinforce each other. Intergovernmental reform and Secretariat reform are two sides of the same coin. Member States have their share of responsibility in this joint venture. It is for them to adopt consistent positions and take decisions on the reform of intergovernmental structures, and for me only to urge expeditious action and to advise on its content. I set great store on the continuing reform of the Economic and Social Council. I want to see it live up to its central responsibilities under the Charter. The Council, functioning intersessionally as needed, should address development issues that affect international security and bring them to the attention of the Security Council. Integrated oversight is needed, through the Economic and Social Council, of the governance and priorities of all funding programmes for development operations, including the amount and predictability of their financing. The Commission on Sustainable Development should bolster the Council's efforts to promote coherence and coordination. While the Council must respond to a diversity of interests among Member States, the logic of priority-setting must lead to thinning the undergrowth of subsidiary bodies. There are now some 40 bodies reporting directly to the Economic and Social Council. Many have their own subsidiaries, bringing the (The Secretary-General) total number of expert and intergovernmental committees in the economic and social field close to 200. While there were, I am sure, valid technical, substantive reasons for their creation, how many Governments can truly cope with such an extensive machinery? What is the limit beyond which such a machinery becomes a burden, rather than a source of useful inputs for national Governments and international policy-making? I trust that, in the context of the current debate on the reform of the intergovernmental machinery, there will be the necessary political will to address these questions squarely. These are matters for decision by Member States. But a contribution can be made by improvements in the functioning of the Secretariat. A more effective Secretariat can provide better service to Member States and to the intergovernmental machinery. It can also stimulate and facilitate the reform of that machinery. The process of streamlining intergovernmental structures should not hold up Secretariat reform. A revamped Secretariat can better serve the existing machinery while awaiting the new. The Secretariat should not be sxibdivided by its legislative history or by the geography of the intergovernmental bodies it serves. All staff, whether in a department, a programme or a fund, must be unified under the authority of