A/47/PV.55 General Assembly

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio last June, was attended by virtually all countries. More than 120 Heads of State or Government participated. There was a drawn-out preparatory process that involved Governments, international agencies and non-governmental organizations. That such an international effort could be marshalled in order to focus discussion in an integrated manner on environment and development must be seen as a major, unprecedented achievement. Unlike the Stockholm Conference of 1972, UHCED elevated development issues to an equal footing with the issue of environment. UHCED took definitive steps to promote a global partnership for sustainable development, placing people at the centre of this challenge. It was a historic opportunity, of which we availed ourselves against the backdrop of major political, economic and social transformations that placed fresh demands on issues such as polarization between Horth and South, poverty and the neglect of the South and the fragile state of the planet, and with an enhanced public awareness world-wide. However, the actual results of Rio, in terms of written commitments and initiatives, fell far short of the promise raised. To many, the serious gap between the promise and the actual results amounts to a major failure of UNCED, arguably of historic proportions. shortcomings of UNCED. The Convention on Climate Change, for example, is disappointingly weak, revealing political timidity and the absence of resolve on the part of industrialized countries. Key issues of financial resources and technology have not been adequately addressed, neither is there a determined, clear response to issues of global warming, dumping of hazardous wastes in developing countries, consumption patterns in developed countries and nuclear-related issues. Agenda 21 fails to advocate accountability for some of the key actors in global environmental destruction, such as transnational corporations. A strong code of conduct is required to regulate the activities of the transnational corporations. The challenge before us now is to promote and implement real change from the national to the international levels. UNCED was hardly forthcoming in addressing the inequalities of the international economic structure. The follow-up to UNCED must make up for this lapse, examining issues such as the reverse South-North outflow of resources, improved South terms of trade and the reduction of the debt burden. Such reform is essential if the South is to gain the necessary economic space to implement a transition to ecologically sound and socially equitable development. Also, we must work for a total ban on the export of hazardous wastes and dirty industries from the North to the South. On the issue of nuclear weapons, if compared to the Stockholm Conference, UHCED went backwards rather than forwards. UNCED failed to address what needs to be done in the Horth in order to shift towards ecologically sound development, such as dealing with the problems of the unsustainable production and consumption patterns of the North. Another serious shortcoming of UHCED was the absence of leadership from the North. The differences of view between developed countries resulted iu the lack of a clear sense of direction from that group. Some industrialized countries took negative positions. Instead of forward movement on the core issues, one could detect a tendency, on the part of those countries, to hide behind each other, as was evidenced in respect of the issue of financial resources. With regard to the road ahead, it is clear that the transition to sustainable development involves major changes in the way in which we look at our use of nature. This is a complex exercise, and one of its basic components is scientific cooperation, particularly with regard to access to environmentally friendly technologies and, above all, the building up of the technical and institutional capacity of all countries to implement Agenda 21. These issues received a great deal of systematic attention in the UHCED process and are now reflected in a series of programmes that make up three chapters of Agenda 21. In many ways, the successful implementation of Agenda 21 requires that these cross-cutting programme areas, which deal with the knowledge base for sustainability, receive the most consistent and systematic attention at national, regional and international levels. The implementation of Agenda 21 programmes will clearly involve costs, which must be seen in the context of what would be the consequences of inaction. It can no longer be contested that developing countries require new and additional financial resources. The flow of new resources will serve the common interests of the developed countries and the developing countries. However, at present there is a substantial gap between the estimated $125 billion that is required annually by the South to implement Agenda 21 and the annual official development assistance of $55 billion currently provided to the South. Without the means of implementation the provision of financial resources, the transfer of technology and related issues, such as capacity-building and institutional development Agenda 21 will be meaningless. Many delegations at UNCED called for capacity-building programmes designed to help countries to develop their policy infrastructures and institutions, to train their human resources and co facilitate the participation of all stake-holders iu decision-making processes. The ability of a country to follow a sustainable development path is determined by the capacity of its people and its institutions. In this context, my delegation fully supports the initiative to launch Capacity 21 a capacity-building programme in support of Agenda 21. The UNCED secretariat has estimated the cost in the area of capacity-building as being between $300 million and $1 billion. Fulfilment of this responsibility will require resources in addition to those available from the core and special funds of the United Nations Development Programme and other existing mechanisms. On financial resources, the developed countries reaffirmed at the Rio Summit that they were committed to reaching the accepted target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance and to augmenting their aid programmes with a view to reaching this target as soon as possible. Some developed countries have agreed to reach the target by the year 2000. But this was not enough, as specifics were absent. The affirmation by the developed countries has to be further defined in terms of specific commitments so that the enhanced flows of aid to developing countries are predictable and provide a sound basis for long-term planning. We must translate the many promises made in Rio into specific commitments. We must also start the process of developing new sources of funding, because the steps we have taken still do not provide any guarantee that the larger needs will be met. The current situation is not encouraging as, at the end of UNCED, we are still not in a position to estimate the amount of the new moneys committed by the North. The indications are that they fall far short of the estimated amount. New moneys must also be generated through new sources of funding, such as the reallocation of funds wasted in existing subsidies or in support for non-environmentally-sound activities. Agenda 21 proposes the use of all available funding sources and mechanisms. Amongst these is the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank. Special consideration should be given to the idea of an earth increment to the tenth replenishment of IDA. The provision of additional funding through IDA, particularly for anti-poverty programmes and related areas of sustainable development, is vital to the effective fulfilment of Agenda 21. In many ways the tenth replenishment of IDA is a test of the credibility of the commitments made in Rio. However, the latest developments in this area are not encouraging, and the spirit of Rio appeared to be missing at the World Bank meeting held recently in Washington. Malaysia is disappointed at the lack of sufficient response from developed countries. I refer to the absence of any announcement, in clear and specific terms, of commitment to provide the new and additional financial resources required for the successful implementation of the various activities under Agenda 21. On the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), arrangements must now be made for the proposed restructuring agreed to iu chapter 33 of Agenda 21 - restructuring involving such matters as universal participation, transparency, flexibility in expanding the scope of the Facility, and coverage and predictability in the flow of funds without new forms of conditionality. At Rio leaders of major countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) committed themselves to increasing substantially the financial resources of GEF and to transforming the facility into a universal and transparent funding mechanism for the incremental costs associated with global environmental benefits. It was in these circumstances that developing countries agreed to accept GEF as an interim mechanism to fund implementation of the provisions of the Conventions on climate change and biodiversity. However, it is important to note that GEF would provide only a small, though strategically critical, portion of the required new and additional financial resources - only 2 to 10 per cent of the total required. My delegation looks forward to participation in the December meeting, in Cote d'lvoire, of the Participant Assembly of GEF intended to restructure the mechanism in line with UNCED decisions. We believe that the proposed Commission on Sustainable Development will have an important role to play iu monitoring the activities and outputs of GEF iu relation to the implementation of UNCED decisions that involve utilization of the funding mechanism. The transfer of environmentally sound technologies is integral to the efforts of developing countries to protect the environment while promoting growth and development. This, in our view, could be done by making use of international information networks, collaborative and human resources, capacity-building, environmental-impact assessment and sustainable-development planning. My delegation attaches great importance to the agreement referred to in chapter 34 of Agenda 21, which, among other things, highlights the need of developing countries for convenient access to environmentally sound technologies. Malaysia looks forward to the establishment, at this session of the General Assembly, of the Commission on Sustainable Development under the Economic and Social Council. Some Rio issues with regard to institutional arrangements are still unresolved. My delegation hopes that these issues will be properly addressed by the ad hoc working group on the UNCED follow-up. We are of the view that the Commission should be composed of 53 Member States elected by the Economic and Social Council for three years on the basis of equitable geographic distribution. There should also be arrangements for non-governmental organizations and other interested groups to contribute to the multifaceted work of the Commission. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the Commission on Sustainable Development iu monitoring the implementation of Agenda 21 and all other aspects of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UHCED), it is essential that the Commission have close links with all relevant organs, programmes and organizations of the United Nations system, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Bretton Woods institutions. Arrangements have to be worked out to ensure that the three entities take consistent and reinforcing decisions on sustainable development. UNCED has given us an opportunity for the interfacing of the Bretton Woods institutions and GATT with the United Nations system. My delegation supports a separate and identifiable secretariat to service the Commission; the secretariat should be headed by an Under-Secretary-General reporting directly to the Secretary-General. We also look forward to taking part in the negotiations on other important resolutions expected at this session, such as those on the international convention to combat desertification, on the global conference on sustainable development of small-island developing States, on the international conference on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, and on the overall outcome of UNCED. Malaysia stands ready to participate and contribute in the work of the the Commission on Sustainable Development, since such high expectations are being placed at its door. While we are open to all contributory efforts, we are determined to ensure the intergovernmental nature of the Commission. We must caution against not only excessive expectation but also against moving too fast and precipitiously in its work. The Commission should be seen as an evolving mechanism that must obtain progressively the confidence of Governments. We would be worried if the functions of the Commission were likened to that of the Security Council. He hold strongly that the Commission should not be dominated iu such a way that development is determined through solely an environmental prism. Also we would, with others, resist any efforts to erode the integrated approach and to "sectoralize" away from the Commission issues such as finance and trade. For the countries of the South, UHCED provides a crucial opportunity to work for a general policy orientation of the international agenda after a neglect of over 40 years. UHCED also provides us in the South with a sense of purpose to demonstrate our commitment to the environment and the state of the planet, given a collective commitment to enhance development in the South. The countries of the South have a direct interest and responsibility to ensure that their own environmental resources are protected and used wisely in the process of industrialization and development. We believe that the South, through UNCED, has been successful to some degree in placing the issue of development for proper address. It is now necessary for us in the South to organize ourselves to influence and steer the UHCED follow-up. We need to push further the sharing of the overarching conceptual framework of policy- making and action. He expect resistance that will make the future course not easy, but we in the South will insist on a clear and a shared role on managing global interdependence. On the environment we will not allow ourselves to be the sole targets of change and corrective actions. Our development cannot be hindered by impositions whi^ch shift the burden of protecting the ecology to the developing countries. He would insist on changes in the North and the process of self-correction in the North's production and consumption patterns. at the national level, my Government has taken steps to examine the various measures required for sustainable development. These include sensitizing all Malaysians to the decisions in Rio in terms of national commitments through a series of seminars and other efforts. What we hope to achieve in Malaysia is a clear national consensus to formulate overall policies that satisfy the developmental as well as the environmental aspects of national planning. Malaysia views sustainable development as an evolutionary process that would be phased in within the short-, medium- and long-term time-frame. He believe that environmental imperatives need not be incompatible with development objectives and would like to stress that an integrated approach on a national basis would require and benefit from inputs and participation from the non-governmental sector, such as business communities, academicians and other interest groups. On forestry, we would operate on the basis of the forest principles agreed to at UNCED and wish to call upon all countries to contribute towards efforts which would put in operation the principles agreed to in Rio. Finally, Malaysia welcomes the outcome of Rio. The Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, the forest principles, and the Conventions on Climate Change and Biological Diversity are agreements achieved at the highest level that we must now translate into implementable programmes. Malaysia readily shares in this commitment. We recognize the shortcomings but believe that the road from Rio can be constructive, given commitment by all. delegation's appreciation to the Secretary-General for his important introduction to his report now before us. We would also like to thank the Chairman of the Group of 77 for articulating the position of the Group. We meet at a unique juncture in history. The end of the cold war has ushered in a new era of promise and challenge. The ambitious agenda of our current session of the General Assembly clearly reflects the myriad interests and concerns associated with the changes inherent to the emerging new era. Peace and security are now seen as much in economic as in political and military terms and the degradation of the environment is considered a real and serious threat to the very survival of humanity. It is against this dynamic backdrop that we take up item 79, "Report of the United Hations Conference on Environment and Development". Central to our tasks is the need to build upon the momentum registered at Rio and to translate its commitments and outcome into tangible action. The major outcomes of the Conference, the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, have squarely placed sustainable development at the heart of international relations and have called for a new global partnership to give it concrete effect. The outcome has thus set a unique and solid framework within which the international community can pursue its critical goals iu the field of environment and development. It has also reinforced the growing recognition of interdependence between developed and developing countries for ecological survival and developmental imperatives. And it has clearly demonstrated that a lasting solution to global environmental degradation can only be achieved through shared responsibility in the implementation of the concept of sustainable development. Moreover, UNJED reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on how we, the international community, should effectively address the situation of worsening poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the alarming deterioration in many of the world's vulnerable ecosystems. The Rio Conference is over, but the formidable task of translating its outcome into action now stands before us. We cannot allow the momentum generated at Rio to be squandered. Rather the challenge before us is to ensure the concrete implementation of its landmark outcome while at the same time striving to build an international economic environment conducive to achieving these ends. Allow me therefore to address the questions of follow-up action that are required of this current session of the United Hations General Assembly. In doing so, my delegation would like to focus only on certain aspects of the follow-up process.* Mrs. Escaler (Philippines), Vice-President, took the Chair. Agenda 21 constitutes a comprehensive and far-reaching programme designed to ensure sustainable development for the 1990s and beyond. As such, its implementation at the national, regional and international levels is of crucial importance. Thus to achieve these objectives and to monitor the implementation of the Agenda, it was agreed in Rio to establish the high-level Commission on Sustainable Development as an intergovernmental mechanism. Its purpose was to achieve the vital environmental and developmental goals outlined in Agenda 21. In view of the great importance of the work of the high-level Commission to all member countries, it is imperative that its membership reflect the widest possible representation. For this reason Indonesia is in favour of a convergence of views on membership size emerging during consultations among the membership, which stands at 53. We trust it will not only act as a follow-up to Rio but also provide full coordination for all United Nations bodies in the implementation of Agenda 21. The formulation of its modalities represent the next step. Ihe Group of 77 has already presented its positions on this matter. He would particularly like to emphasize the position of the Group on the importance of the Commission's functions regarding the adequacy of both funding and mechanisms, together with the transfer of technology and the necessity of capacity-building, so that implementation of Agenda 21 can be secured. We look forward to addressing the Secretary-General's report on institutional arrangements during the forthcoming meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group dealing with the matter. We would like to recall in this connection that at the Tenth Summit, recently held in Jakarta, the non-aligned countries adopted a Declaration in which they expressed their concern with the new and increasing threats to the environment, which, if left unchecked, could jeopardize the long-term survival of the ecosystem and undermine the world's ecological balance. They confirmed their longstanding conviction that, since the issues of environment and development were inseparably linked, they should be addressed both in an integral manner and on the basis of common but differentiated responsibility. They also attached great importance to the effective implementation of agreed policies and the need for constant monitoring. In this context, in order to maintain the momentum generated at Rio, the Heads of State or Government could meet at appropriate and mutually agreed upon times under the aegis of the United Nations General Assembly. Another urgent agenda item requiring concerted follow-up action by the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly is that of combating desertification. Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 contains specific programmes for dealing with this serious problem. Its harmful conseguences for human life and the environment at the national, regional and global levels are a source of deep concern to my delegation. In this context, as is well known, we fully support the United Nations Plan of Action to Combat Desertification. Yet my delegation cannot hide its disappointment with the lack of progress in implementing this important plan. Failure to do so is largely due to the lack of adequate financial resources. Ill As stated by the Secretary-General in his report, funds allocated to drought and desertification activities are not commensurate with the scale of the problems. iiit However, we are pleased to note that, with the advent of the UHCED process, the level of global awareness of desertification and drought facing many developing countries, particularly in Africa, has been increased dramatically. In view of the seriousness of these problems, it is our sincere hope that the international community will strive to increase the volume of resources and the level of assistance for these problems as directed in the Agenda. Therefore my delegation would like to reaffirm its commitment to the efforts for combating desertification outlined in chapter 12, and, on behalf of the non-aligned countries, to fully support the establishment of the intergovernmental negotiating committee for the elaboration of an international convention to combat desertification, particularly in Africa. That convention should be finalized by June 1994. Allow me now to turn to a topic of crucial importance to UNCED's follow-up. Undoubtedly, the availability of new and additional financial resources and the transfer of environmentally sound technology on the basis of preferential and concessional terms are essential requirements for achieving sustainable development in developing countries. Since progress in sustainable development is the sine qua non for a meaningful contribution by developing countries for the preservation of the global environment, the absence of adequate financial flows and the lack of access to technology could jeopardize the significant achievements already reached in Rio. Agenda 21 has in fact clearly spelled out the crucial requirements. It states that the provision of effective means, inter alia financial resources and technology,' to the developing countries will serve the common interests of both developed and developing countries, including their future generations. In this light, we therefore trust that the developed countries and others in a position to do so will give positive effect to this decision of UNCED at the current session of the General Assembly. It is important, however, that these efforts not be stymied by restrictions of conditionality. We also trust that the developed countries will take solid steps towards facilitating developing countries in their gaining access to and the transfer of environmentally sound technology. Another important issue for attention in this regard is that of island developing countries. Such countries, particularly small and remote ones, are intimately associated with numerous difficulties concerning the environment and development. Many such difficulties arise from such factors as their vulnerability to natural disasters, their lack of natural resources and their fragile ecosystems, together with the high cost of infrastructure and public services. In addition, their highly limited internal markets and their heavy dependence on imports represent severe constraints. Moreover, global warming resulting in the rise of sea-levels poses special threats to the existence of these territories. As an archipelagic State, combined with the longest coastline in the world, Indonesia is deeply concerned with the potentially disastrous impact of global warming and rising sea-levels. He therefore fully support the convening of a global conference on the sustainable development of small island developing countries to take place in 1993. This first global conference should be designed to elaborate strategies and measures to enhance the sustainable development of small island developing countries in the context of increased national and international efforts to promote environmentally sound and sustainable development. never before have the issues of forest and forestry generated such interest as they have today. Hot only are they important resources for development, but they are also an important component of the global ecosystem. Therefore the conservation of forests is not an objective per se but rather an instrument to be employed on the larger stage of achieving national and international development priorities. Indonesia, as a country blessed with vast and bountiful forest resources, is acutely aware of the need to protect and conserve existing forests and to promote their sustainable management. Such resources are essential for both promoting development and preserving the global environment. A proper balance between these two essential dimensions should be sought on the basis of the right of all countries to develop their natural resources according to their own socio-economic needs, as well as taking into account their national policies for sustainable development. In this context, we welcome the non-legally-binding statement of principles for the sustainable management of global forests adopted at Rio. For our part, in Indonesia we are acutely aware of the endangered rainforests and have taken concrete steps towards sustainable forest management, including cooperation with other countries and parties to achieve these worthy goals. I would like to add that we strongly believe that the ability of the developing countries to tackle these concerns ultimately depends upon whether or not a supportive economic environment is in place. In conclusion, let me reiterate that while we are pleased with what was accomplished at Rio, we cannot afford to be complacent. Much more needs to be done. Today's challenge is for the international community to take effective action towards the achievement of the goals set in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. The Hon-Aligned Movement is seriously interested in the matter and ready to participate actively in the high-level Commission on Sustainable Development.

The Earth Summit recently concluded in Rio de Janeiro laid down important areas of commitment in the field of environment and development. The Assembly at this forty-seventh session is expected to put in place the necessary institutional mechanism to follow up the achievements of that Summit and look into possible ways of making further progress. The United Hations and its family of agencies are thus expected to lead the way forward, to ensure that the goals of Rio are achieved. Agenda 21 stands as the most comprehensive framework for attaining the objective of sustainable development. It responds to the understanding that our planet Earth can no longer sustain a human species caught between the desperation of the poor, whose bid to survive drives them towards its destruction, and the unrestrained appetite of the rich, whose consumption patterns have become unsustainable. The clarion call from Agenda 21 is that all nations of the world must now join in a global partnership for sustainable development. The focus from now on must be on sustainability and continuity. In Rio, from the perspective of developing countries came the objectives of reducing poverty, attaining economic growth and managing the environment. The thrust of Agenda 21 is that measures adopted to protect the environment should not be at the expense of the development process. Developing countries must have the legitimate right to utilize their natural resources for their own development. Preservation of the ecosystem and the promotion of concerted management of sustainable development must go hand in hand. This means that environmental questions must be integrated into the broader issue of sustainable development in its social and economic sense. This also calls for a new responsibility: while we set out on the path of sustainable development, we should also take cognizance of the impact of our policies that might be detrimental to those around us and beyond. In developing countries the difficulty in coping with environmental problems has been exacerbated by poverty, natural disasters, such as the drought and famine which have brought havoc to most parts of southern and eastern Africa, with disastrous consequences for crops and with loss of life, exemplify our incapacity to cope with these problems. This terrible incapacity, coupled with lack of awareness of the inevitable consequences of exhausting our fragile resources, have been in part responsible for the ecological disasters. In our case, therefore, given the over-reliance of our economies on agriculture, the case can be made that the concept of sustainable development for the present can only start from the application of sustainable agricultural productivity. Agricultural production can be sustained on a long-term basis only if the resource base land, water and forests - is not degraded. Agricultural production should then be able to rediversify into new crops and new agro-industries. It follows, therefore, that human resource capabilities necessary for implementation of sustainable development programmes must be one of the top priorities. Practical steps to provide access to environmentally efficient technologies will be a necessary complement to this critical area and must be given equal priority. International cooperation is required to assist developing countries in the framework of meeting the demands of Agenda 21. The larger question, however, still remains: how can developing countries be expected to cope with the myriad environmental problems facing their fledgling economies? Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest per capita debt ratio in the world. Debt-servicing alone has come to penalize the region's economic growth and its capacity to protect the environment. As a result, it is not uncommon to see natural resources being overexploited in order to increase production in the effort to get export earnings to pay for the unending debts. It is therefore evident that implementation of the programmes under Agenda 21 will require enormous resources. Yet throughout the UHCED process and out of Rio, no clear commitment has emerged in this critical area so far. It should be pointed out that the pledge to commit 0.7 percent of gross national product to development assistance was actually first made in 1980, almost 12 years ago, and has since been repeated year after year. Only a few devoted countries have been able to demonstrate their commitment to assisting developing countries since this pledge was made. But for the majority of the developed countries in a position to assist, if the pledge made in 1980 has remained largely unfulfilled, how can we be sure that this will now be honoured and met by the year 2000, as was pledged in Rio de Janeiro? Those who have indicated that they will pay their contributions through the Global Environment Facility will be missing the mark. It is now a matter of common knowledge that most of the programmes under Agenda 21 could not possibly fit into the constitution of the Global Environment Facility. Essentially, if the goals of Agenda 21 are to be met, it will be necessary for the Global Environment Facility to be restructured so as to meet both the reguirements of Agenda 21 and the format of representation. As constituted today, governance and management of the Global Environment Facility is hardly representative of developing countries. Its method of operation has yet to be made transparent. Fundamentally, there is need to review its criteria for selecting programmes if the programmes of Agenda 21 are to fit in its scheme of funding. The Global Environment Facility must therefore do more to demonstrate its commitment in fulfilment of the provisions of Agenda 21. Implementation of Agenda 21 is going to be a country-driven process. Many developing countries are now in the process of drawing up their action plans for the implementation of Agenda 21, which will involve drawing up priorities and time-tables for their implementation. Given the conditions of abject poverty and chronic deprivation in many developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, there is no way countries of the region can be expected to come up with resources of their own for the implementation of the programmes of Agenda 21. Hew and additional funding will be required to support developing countries in their efforts to achieve sustainable development, and to be able to participate meaningfully in measures to obviate global risks. It is in this regard that Uganda wishes to reiterate here what we have often stated in different forums that the starting-point for the raising of financial resources for Agenda 21 must be a programme that will release resources from these categories: first, the cancellation of all official bilateral debts; secondly, the cancellation of all commercial debts procured under arrangements of import-export guarantees; and, thirdly, with the support of donor countries, the cancellation of all debt owed to multilateral financial institutions, which for countries in sub-Saharan Africa constitute the bulk of external indebtedness. These actions should be complemented by the provision of new and additional resources for the implementation of Agenda 21. These measures will no doubt provide resources for a head-start in the implementation of Agenda 21. This forty-seventh session of the General Assembly was mandated to set up a high-level commission on sustainable development that will oversee the implementation of programmes under Agenda 21. The most critical element for the yet to be established commission will be its coordinating functions. The United Nations system must play a leading role by ensuring that its various bodies and agencies cooperate in an integrated way in the implementation of the programmes of Agenda 21. To be able to function effectively, the Commission on Sustainable Development will need to be supported by a strong and effective secretariat. The secretariat will have to be headed by a person of sufficient knowledge and seniority, appointed by the Secretary-General. A lot of hope is therefore pinned on the Commission on Sustainable Development yet to be established. Through it, we hope to see Agenda 21 implemented with vigour and vitality in the integration of environment and development.

In the wake of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UHCED), which was called for, and which became a watershed in the life of the international community, for the first time we are to address environment issues in the context of sustainable development, giving questions related to protection of the environment priority, instead of treating them as ancillary matters, and integrating them into all areas of United Hations activities. As this debate confirms, it is no secret that the results of the Rio de Janeiro forum are viewed with different degrees of optimism in different countries, which is only natural. Diversity of opinion is an essential element of a creative search for consensus and its practical implementation. In Rio a sound foundation was laid for a complex and lengthy process of harmonizing the movements of States through unexplored terrain towards the historically unprecedented objective of sustainable development as both a prerequisite for, and the final objective of, the strengthening of universal security, of a new partnership now at last being removed from the tethers of polemics and ideology. The large picture can only be seen from a distance. Less than five months after the Conference, I am sure that the scale of its achievements has not yet been fully comprehended. But even now one can see that a code of rules of sustainable development has emerged in the form of the Rio Declaration. Hhile perhaps the text itself may not be sufficiently polished due to lack of time, the work proposed by the Secretary-General in his Rio address may well be continued with a view to its completion in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. It is important that these efforts be generated in advance, on a well thought-through organizational and practical basis. Further, we now have Agenda 21 embodying a concrete programme of joint action by States in the interests of sustainable development. This programme defines both the most important tasks and directions of cooperation and the technological, financial and organizational mechanisms for implementing it. Obviously, success will depend, decisively, on efforts at the national level; but for the first time it has become possible to integrate these efforts into economic policies at all levels. I would also like to emphasize that we attach special importance to coordination of existing and new mechanisms, to ensure that in practice sustainable development and environmental issues are brought from the fringes to the forefront of the activities of the United Hations, its General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, with a secretariat to which clear functions are assigned and adequate personnel and resources allocated, should become an important instrument for evaluating the implementation of the Rio decisions and for continuing dialogue initiated at the Conference. To ensure the effective work of the Commission, it is important to maintain the momentum built up during preparation for the Conference. Establishing the optimal organizational framework for the Commission's future effective work is one of the cardinal tasks before the Assembly under this agenda item. The Secretary-General's report and his statement in this forum contain very interesting and wise considerations to this effect and'should be heeded in our work. It would also be useful, in our opinion, to take a decision in principle on putting the work of the Environmental Centre for Urgent Assistance onto a permanent basis. The scope of global environmental issues covered by international legal agreements has expanded significantly. Conventions on climate and biological diversity have been signed, reflecting the interests of all countries, including those with transitional economies. Principles governing the management, preservation and development of all types of forests have been agreed upon with a view to concluding a relevant convention. Preparations have been initiated for negotiations on a convention on combating desertification. There is another factor too. The new global partnership that was born in Rio has already encompassed the interaction of governmental and non-governmental structures, joint efforts aimed at promoting environmental education with the wide and active participation of all major population groups. Thus the Rio Conference has accomplished much the maximum possible in today's circumstances, it might be said and the pivotal task is perceived to lie in managing this formidable treasure pragmatically, without a maximalist "all-or-nothing" approach, without egoism, prejudice and suspicion, but with a readiness to bolster the concept and practices of sustainable that is, environmentally feasible development. Russia, despite all the difficulties of its transition to a market economy, has demonstrated such readiness. A new confirmation of this is to be found in the "National Report on the Condition of the Environment of the Russian Federation in 1991", recently published in Moscow. One of the features of the report is its impartiality. The document points openly to the unsatisfactory condition of the human environment in Russia. Environmental deterioration, in particular contamination by harmful substances, continues. The report states that the substantial decline in environmental situation. In 84 Russian cities, repeatedly and sometimes regularly, atmospheric contamination levels were recorded at a level 10 or more times higher than the maximum concentration allowed by sanitary norms. Today, critical ecological conditions prevail in 13 regions, with a total area of 2.5 million square kilometers, or almost 15 per cent of Russia's territory. However, another virtue of the report is that it is not restricted simply to recording existing problems. The document objectively describes the growing number of positive signs that are mostly associated with the adoption on 19 December 1991 of the comprehensive market-oriented law "On the protection of the natural environment". The introduction by the Russian Government of fines for polluting the environment has heightened the role of environmental criteria applicable to norms and standards that are a vital part of the mechanism ensuring the efficient implementation of environmental protection legislation. To monitor the implementation of this legislation, more than 267,000 enterprises and organizations were screened last year. The same spirit of balanced and thoughtful analysis permeates environmental forecasts aimed at taking appropriate preventive measures. The proposed complex of priority measures legal, organizational and economic intended to prevent a worsening of the environmental situation in the country during the next two or three years is designed to create an efficient legal and economic basis for strengthening environmental security. The task is set to work out a new State policy to lay an efficient foundation for stable economic development based on the maintenance of the required parameters of the natural environment and a careful use of natural resources. Among the main lines of this policy is the elaboration of a new legal and economic mechanism for governing the interaction between State bodies at various levels and users of natural resources, as well as the inclusion of environmental requirements in assessing the social and economic efficiency and consequences of managerial decisions. A series of measures are envisaged to ensure environmental safety on local, regional and global levels in full accordance with international agreements and conventions in force. The document proposes to initiate the elaboration and implementation of ad hoc State programmes of environmental protection and efficient use of natural resources; it recognizes the active participation of all strata of the population and all social groups in the environmentalization of the economic reforms under way as an absolute condition of the efficient implementation of environmental policy. The task is set to elaborate an efficient mechanism to implement the right of each citizen and I stress, each citizen to participate in the adoption of decisions that affect his or her interests; to receive compensation for health damage due to environmental pollution or other harmful effects; and to receive swift, accurate and analytical information on the state of the natural environment and on the quality of drinking water and food products. It is not difficult to see that the measures envisaged are fully compatible with the recommendations of the United Hations Conference on Environment and Development, with the letter and spirit of the Rio Declaration, with Agenda 21; they form a natural part of our resolve to implement the recommendations of this forum. The understanding and solidarity of the international community and a favourable attitude on its part towards our problems, requirements and capacities in the period of transition are of especial importance to us in the realization of these endeavors. The Russian delegation will do everything at this session to strengthen the new global partnership, to imbue it with more concrete meaning and to transform it into the driving force of qualitatively new United Nations activities in the economic, environmental and social fields. We are grateful to all the enthusiasts of the Earth Summit, including the secretariat of the Conference. In particular we salute its Secretary-General, Mr. Morris Strong, who is also a special adviser to the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme and head of the prominent company Ontario-Hydro for his steadfast and active commitment to the ideals of our Organization. This is a further manifestation of the unity between word and deed, between the concept and the practice of sustainable development. It is such unity that is capable of ensuring the implementation of the greatest possible proportion of Agenda 21, even in this century, of making sustainable development a reality and of bringing closer the time when the great achievements in the field of environmental protection and development, as a valuable contribution to the strengthening of peace, will be assessed by the world community at their true value and will come to the notice of the Nobel Prize Committee. When this will happen depends on all of us, in my opinion. express its great interest in the follow-up of the United Hations Conference on Environment and Development (UHCED). We look forward to the concrete results of these deliberations and their implementation, which should meet the aspirations of mankind. We have read the comprehensive reports of UHCED and of the Secretary-General, and we listened with great interest to the Secretary-General's incisive statement focusing on the crucial issues before us as well as on the restructuring of the United nations system. Israel brings to this dialogue its belief in the frontier direction of human history, its conviction that progress and sustainable development, not predetermined repetition, is the law of life. It has been our view for many years now that the gap in standards and capacities between the rich and poor nations is still a greater threat to universal peace and a stronger affront to man's dignity than any threat arising from the admitted neglect of ecological prudence and restraint. Our solutions must come to terms with industrialization and technical advances. The scientific inheritance is not going to be the monopoly of those countries which are fortunate. The aim is to find a positive reconciliation between development and the preservation of man's natural legacy. There can be no real, long-term solution to the poverty problem unless environmental concerns are properly integrated into all development activities. A global, integrated approach should encompass human development, protection of the environment, social and demographic problems, vocational training, health and education for all, transfer of technology and eradication of poverty. This inextricable link between environment and sustainable development was indeed recognized in Rio. In Stockholm 20 years ago the United nations Conference on the Human Environment aroused impressive universal ecological awareness. The Earth Summit in Rio marks the beginning of action. The main success of Rio lies in the fact that it managed to lay down new important commitments for environment and development cooperation. As was strongly emphasized in Rio, the environment is an integral part of sustainable development and cannot be viewed in isolation. Agenda 21 certainly opened up new vistas for attaining the objective of sustainable development. It is incumbent upon us to continue to build on the momentum of international cooperation on the environment and sustainable development. We must create a new sense of partnership for the future. We must translate the words of the Agenda into deeds. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. A great deal of responsibility lies with the new Commission on Sustainable Development, which is to be established to become a primary forum for international cooperation and action. Israel is especially sensitive to the fragility of the environment and development, because our country's rebirth is a continuous ecological drama of rehabilitating a scarred, eroded, denuded landscape, of redeeming fertile valleys degraded into buzzing malarial swamps, and of reversing the rapacity and neglect which had created the desert. There are few examples in the literature of national movements of such compassion for a suffering landscape. This solicitude is deepened by a religious tradition which thousands of years ago enacted laws that land should lie fallow every seventh year and that domestic animals should be the objects of humane care. In our own day Israel, which now uses 100 per cent of its available fresh water, has given a unique emphasis to conservation, purification and desalination under strict centralized control. But the central gift of Israel's experience to the hope of environmental improvement lies in the Negev adventure. Believing that the desert is man's creation and not the inexorable decree of history, we have launched a campaign against aridity with results that are being shared with other nations of the world. We can avoid each other's errors and emulate each other's successes. Nothing is more urgent than a programme of environmental information, compilation, dissemination and monitoring under international auspices. Nearly every problem has a possible technological or scientific solution, provided that there is a desire to solve it and to make financial means available. Solutions are viable only if they are conceived and put into effect on a global scale. The United Nations may recapture much of its prestige and resonance if it gives first priority to those predicaments which have global dimensions. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, Mr. Shimon Peres, said in his statement to the General Assembly on 1 October 1992, "The United Nations must be the headquarters for an all-embracing struggle to safeguard the environment against new threats. It must be a powerhouse to arrest starvation." (A/47/PV.20, p. 46) Indeed, it seems that as a result of a world-wide concern it has finally been established that the environment is no longer an exclusive item on the agenda of rich nations. Threats to the environment make no distinction between nations and continents, and in order to combat them successfully a global approach is necessary. Ho country may be exempt from this effort, and each one, large or small, rich or poor, must contribute in facing the challenge to expertise, experience and resources must also prevail, so as to make this campaign for the protection of our planet truly global. The Earth Summit in Rio agreed on a framework for global sharing of responsibility for the well-being of our planet. While general awareness and policies must be outlined on a global level, special importance should be attributed to regional cooperation in solving the problems of common interest. In this respect, the Mediterranean Action Plan, of which we are proud to be an active member, may serve as an excellent example. Much of what has been achieved would not have been possible if dealt with on an individual national basis. The shores of Israel and those of other Mediterranean countries, to mention just one example, would not have become cleaner without a concerted effort by all Member States. We face the challenge of the future with the certainty that protection of the environment is not contrary to development, that in fact environment and development achievements will be in vain if we are unable to integrate with development in all sectors. Technology is a key element in sustainable development and it must be carefully selected with a view to adapting it to the specific needs of each developing country. Technological change holds the promise of meaningful medium- and long-term programmes towards sustainable development and environment. Research and development in the use of solar energy has been and is a major field of endeavour in Israel. Solar energy industrialization and uses of biomass have already been proved cost-effective. We are also concentrating on several projects for the utilization of solar energy for agricultural and industrial purposes. As part of the international effort to protect the environment, a group of more than a hundred Israeli companies are engaged in extensive research in order to develop sophisticated and innovative technologies that are export-oriented. A few of the areas of activity are reducing jet-plane noise, devising anti-pollution measures against chemical gases and biological pollutants, identifying poisonous substances in water, improving the removal of oil spills in the sea and converting crop-sprays into benign materials. We believe that such environmental technologies, which we are willing to share with other developing countries, could play an important role in the global effort to achieve sustainable development. These interrelated issues are certainly relevant to the implementation of Agenda 21. Our research is adapted to the peculiar requirements of our area, and it is linked to the very extensive development that has taken place in Israel in the use of water resources and in processes to desalinate sea water and brackish water in the desert. All this research and development, which includes the highest degree of water control in the world, is directed towards turning arid deserts into green, fruitful, food-bearing soil. Desertification affects the lives and well-being of 2.7 billion people. All of us who are concerned about the environment must redouble our efforts to eradicate desertification. It is our belief that today's scientific skills and developing technology offer hope of facing this problem and converting arid zones into habitable and productive ones. The national Desert Research Institute, at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, is engaged in research and development on arid zones and in particular the conversion of the desert into a productive environment. The scope of the Institute's activities transcends Israel's borders, for much of its research has world-wide significance. It is our aim to share our experience and know-how with any country. The Middle East possesses vast desert land but meagre water resources. The desert can be turned into green, fertile land. The experience and technology is available, water can be reused, and new, fresh water can be produced from the sea. From a historical point of view, man's endeavours to settle the desert and his attempts to extract a livelihood from the barren land are as ancient as man himself. The Biblical Prophet Isaiah gave expression to these endeavours when he said: "The wilderness and the arid land shall be glad; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom like the tulip." (The Holy Bible, Isaiah 35:11 It is obvious that a plan of action on an international scale is needed in order to combat desertification. Therefore, in this context we welcome the suggested establishment of a framework to draft a convention, and we hope that such action will be taken expeditiously. The human factor is no less central to development in bringing about the effective involvement of the population and in implementing national policies. Therefore, increased attention will have to be directed to human resources, sustainable development and the transfer of training and technology. We have placed a great deal of emphasis on the development of human resources, which has become the key to the country's technological expansion and a marked feature of its extensive technical and economic cooperation with other countries. The importance of adequate funding mechanisms cannot be overemphasized, for they represent the key to environmental protection. In the past decades the World Bank, the regional development banks and other international institutions have achieved laudable success in promoting development in agriculture, industry, education, health and social welfare in countless developing nations. They can exercise the same skill in fostering environmentally sound development. We must strengthen the capability of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to finance environmental programmes of concern to all nations. The December meeting in Cote d'lvoire should lead to the restructuring of GEF, as agreed in Rio, to become operational before the end of 1993. International organizations should play a transitional role in the developing world while the various nations are building a national infrastructure for environmental administration. In Rio our delegation proposed that the United Hations Development Programme network could be drafted into the service of the environment, and my delegation is pleased to note that the Administrator has already taken action to this effect. Hon-governmental environmental organizations should be given our support. It is our hope that they will continue to serve as catalysts for environmental improvement. We welcome the agreement reached in Rio on the institutional arrangements to follow up UNCED, and in particular the establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development. Follow-up to UNCED should be fully incorporated into the ongoing revitalization of the United Nations economic and social sectors, thus ensuring that the UHCED recommendations are integrated into the United Nations operational activities. We support the view that the central purpose of the Commission should be to provide an appropriate intergovernmental forum for the exchange of information about national and multilateral experiences. We must ensure not only that the Commission will be an efficient and effective body, but also that it will represent the national interests of all nations, so as to ensure genuine international cooperation. In deciding the composition and membership of the Commission, we should take into consideration the principle of universality. We support the view that Member States that are not members of the Commission should have the right to participate fully in its deliberations as observers. As we have mentioned before, regional cooperation is an essential element for the implementation of environmental action. All agree that environmental problems know no boundaries; nevertheless, conflicts and disputes all over the world prevent genuine cooperation. The Middle East holds tremendous potential for economic development. A variety of joint and multilateral projects for economic cooperation would be of mutual benefit and would enhance the well-being of all parties. We are currently engaged in bilateral negotiations to bring an end to the conflicts of the past and in multilateral negotiations to lay the foundations for the future. During the recent multilateral talks in the framework of the Middle East peace process, Israel presented detailed and concrete proposals on projects for regional cooperation and development in the fields of, inter alia, arid-zone agricultural development, a centre for combating desertification, alternate sources of energy, desalination technology and protection of the environment. Those projects mean not only cooperation, but also, and above all, confidence-building and progress towards peace. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development stipulates in Principle 25 that "Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible." It is our desire and vision that peace should eventually embrace all neighbouring countries, so that we can achieve a comprehensive settlement in our region that will enable us to live together with equality, trust and mutual respect, thus making it possible for all people and nations in our area to devote and dedicate their efforts, resources and energies to social and economic development through genuine cooperation - for peace and prosperity are indivisible. The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m.