First Open-ended Consultative Meeting on the PBC Review

Submitted by kitagawa on Fri, 02/19/2010 - 21:33.

Members of the Security Council and the General Assembly gathered on Wednesday for the first open-ended consultative meeting on the 2010 Peacebuilding Commission review. A timeline was articulated by the co-facilitators—Ireland, Mexico and South Africa—appointed by the President of the General Assembly in December last year.

Marking the first of a series of three consultation meetings to be held through the spring and summer, Wednesday’s discussion saw the emergence of key elements on which general consensus appeared to be slowly crystallizing—both on the approach of the review process itself, and the issues that should be addressed. Many of the speakers called for a strengthened strategic role for the PBC, as the central political forum for discussing peacebuilding practice and policy and sustaining attention on post-conflict countries.

Among the issues that were suggested to be reviewed and improved were the PBC’s working methods, its role and position in the wider UN system, and its “networking” role vis-à-vis external actors, in particular international financial institutions and regional organizations.

The link between peacekeeping and peacebuilding was under heavy emphasis, alongside the possibility of a more formal consultative relationship between the Commission and the Security Council. Many speakers raised the need for the PBC to deliver tangible results on the ground, including through ensuring national ownership of peacebuilding processes and promoting further coordination and coherence in peacebuilding strategy among various UN and non-UN actors.

Participants included the Secretary-General, the Presidents of the General Assembly, ECOSOC and the Security Council, and numerous Permanent Representatives of Member States from the PBC and principal organs.

Background

The PBC is under its critical first five-year review, as mandated in its 2005 establishing resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. The review, which seeks to assess the performance of the Commission since its operationalization in 2006, is seen as an opportunity for both taking stock of the PBC’s working methods and institutional components, and correcting the course where necessary in order to strengthen the young advisory body.

The nature of the PBC’s review is very much informal, in contrast with modalities in the form of Preparatory Committees, or the much longer review process occurring in Geneva of the Human Rights Council, which emerged alongside the PBC from the World Summit in 2005.

Led by the three facilitators—Ireland, Mexico and South Africa—appointed by the President of the General Assembly in December last year, the PBC review process consists of a series of informal meetings with stakeholders within the Secretariat, the PBC, and external actors, including the Bretton Woods bodies and development banks.

Review process and timeline

The co-facilitators presented a broad timeline for the process, including participation in the annual PBC Organizational Committee retreat to take place 5-6 March, two seminars involving States, civil society and other actors, and a field visit. The second open-ended consultative meeting with Member States is slated for April, during which facilitators are expected to present an “Issues Emerging” paper. The facilitators envision wrapping up the review in June, with the third and final open-ended consultative meeting, leading to preparations in July for any appropriate General Assembly and Security Council action. View the Outline Timetable.

The methodology and substance of the review had been under discussion among PBC Member States since last fall. It remains uncertain whether the General Assembly and Security Council will re-visit the founding resolutions of the PBC for substantive reform.

Many speakers on Wednesday, however, emphasized the importance of having clear objectives for the review and of producing an outcome that improves the added value of the PBC as one of the central bodies in the UN peacebuilding architecture. The co-facilitators all stressed the need for a transparent and inclusive review process in this regard.

President of the General Assembly Remarks

The President of the General Assembly (PGA), Abdussalam Treki, opened the meeting on Wednesday. His reflection on the PBC’s performance subtly took the PBC to task for “a general feeling that more should have been accomplished in the time so far,” and too much time spent on procedure and process.

Raising issues that should be addressed in the review process, the PGA questioned the success of the PBC in creating an impact on the ground in countries on its agenda, how coordination and coherence could be improved in international support including UN efforts, and the assurance of adequate resources and full national ownership of the peacebuilding process.

He said he would work closely with the Presidents of the Security Council and ECOSOC and the Secretary-General to ensure a successful outcome for the review.

Secretary-General Remarks

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the PBC must consider three key questions with the view to ensuring more tangible impacts on the ground:

- Identify specific areas the PBC has made significant contribution and how such results can be consolidated and applied to other countries;
- Identify weaknesses and challenges, and explore ways to address them; and
- Explore ways to enhance the PBC’s partnership and working methods with actors on the ground and UN bodies at Headquarters.

The Secretary-General added that better peacebuilding would prevent the recurrence of conflict, and subsequently help to ensure that peacekeeping missions would achieve intended results. He also urged Member States to consider ways of promoting national ownership, effectively monitoring progress made, coordinating security and development partners, and strengthening mutual accountability between the post-conflict countries and their partners. Greater coherence among various UN and other actors was highlighted. See the full statement and the related UN News Centre article.

President of the Security Council Remarks

The President of the Security Council (France) emphasized the need for a calibrated balance between the work of the PBC and the Security Council, and said the review process was appropriate to take stock of the PBC. He highlighted in particular the need to examine the strategic role of the PBC and its coordination work. The value-added of the PBC must be increased, he added.

Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission Remarks

The Chair of the PBC, Amb. Peter Wittig (Germany), said the PBC had originally been given a very ambitious role. While it had demonstrated signs of success, the review was a unique and timely opportunity to tap into the PBC’s potential. He said the co-facilitators must work to unite Member States behind a common goal to improve the PBC’s performance, and further encouraged them to visit the field to engage at the country-level.

Calling the review a “reality check”, the Chair highlighted several key issues, including the need for practical methods in future referrals of countries to the PBC and stronger engagement from ECOSOC, the Security Council, the General Assembly and various UN funds. The link between peacekeeping and peacebuilding and the importance of national ownership and capacity-building were also raised.

The Issues: Highlights

PBC within the UN System
A number of speakers including Switzerland and Nepal stressed the PBC should seek a closer, formal relationship with the Security Council, and others further proposed a structured relationship with the General Assembly and ECOSOC. The Netherlands, the former Chair of the Sierra Leone Configuration, suggested that the Security Council draw on the PBC’s advice in designing future integrated missions.

Canada, the Netherlands, and others agreed that the PBC should act as a core forum for discussing broader peacebuilding policy. It was also the PBC’s task to invigorate Member States’ engagement, Denmark on behalf of the Nordic countries said.

Spain on behalf of the EU, Uganda and others said the PBC should promote a framework of mutual accountability, and help ensure the delivery of commitments on Member States.

Peacekeeping and peacebuilding
There was wide agreement that peacekeeping and peacebuilding must be further integrated to ensure a smooth transition after peacekeepers pull out. EU countries specifically suggested that the PBC’s work be linked to the forthcoming substantive session of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, or C-34.

Interaction with IFIs, development partners and other actors
Many speakers emphasized the importance of increased interaction with international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank and IMF, to ensure coordination and alignment in peacebuilding policy. New Zealand, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Nepal and others suggested that, alternately, IFIs could benefit from the PBC’s convening and coordinating function. Several speakers said the PBC also had a role in further engaging donor countries, as well as the private sector, in peacebuilding processes.

Speakers including Botswana on behalf of the African Group said synergy should similarly be pursued between the PBC, regional and sub-regional organizations, and civil society actors.

Contribution to country-specific situations
There was a general consensus that the PBC must continue to ensure national ownership, including through the use of existing local strategies and actors. Some speakers, including Spain on behalf of the EU and Canada, emphasized the importance of the PBC’s early engagement with countries emerging from conflict. The Commission could contribute to an early analysis of peacebuilding potential and threats, by identifying critical gaps in peacebuilding efforts, and mobilizing the necessary support.

New referrals and changes to working methods and governance
The issue of new country referrals was also under debate. Many of the speakers suggested the PBC consider the possibility of engaging other countries, and in other regions, but there appeared to be a general acknowledgement that this would require changes to the PBC’s working methods that would allow it to expand its current agenda.

A number of speakers, including current country-specific chairs Switzerland and Canada, supported a multi-tiered, focused approach, with the PBC focusing on a narrow set of priorities for each country.
The Netherlands stressed, however, that the internal working methods of the PBC should be considered by the PBC itself, with the involvement of the Organizational Committee Chair and the Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support.

Peacebuilding Support Office
Concerns were raised that the PBC needed improved assessments of progress made on the ground, and additional support from PBSO. In this regard, speakers including El Salvador, Nepal and Uganda said the PBSO’s capacity must be enhanced to ensure it can play its role more effectively.

Speaking on Wednesday were: Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; Ali Abdussalam Treki, President of the sixty-fourth session of the General Assembly; Nicolas de Rivière, Deputy Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations, President of the Security Council; South Africa (Co-Facilitator); Ireland (Co-Facilitator); Mexico (Co-Facilitator); Amb. Peter Wittig, Permanent Representative of Germany and Chair of the Organizational Committee;

And representatives of: Botswana (on behalf of the African Group), Spain (on behalf of the European Union) Bangladesh (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement countries), Denmark (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Belgium, India, Brazil, United Kingdom, Peru, Japan, Switzerland, Uganda, Poland, Portugal, Kenya, USA, France, Jamaica, Canada, Benin, Pakistan, Tanzania, Nepal, New Zealand, Sierra Leone, Burundi, El Salvador, Uganda, and Chile.

Watch PBCUpdate for further statements & reports from the consultative meeting.

PBCUpdate issues new matrix of issues from the open-ended consultative meeting. (1 March 2010)

Photo Credits: UN Photo / Eskinder Debebe, 17 Feb 2010.

Country: Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Burundi, Global
Source: Security Council, PBC | Organizational Committee, General Assembly