Second Open-Ended Consultative Meeting on the PBC Review

Submitted by kitagawa on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 04:14.

The second opened-ended consultation on the five-year review of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) was held on 10 May. Speakers called for a more central and strategic place for the PBC within the overall UN architecture, and offered their views on how the PBC could improve its performance in resource mobilization, the promotion of mutual accountability, and delivering impact on the ground.

One of the most heated discussions revolved around the question of the PBC’s relationship to the Security Council and other key UN bodies, including a potential early advisory role for the PBC in the design and renewal of peacekeeping mandates. Also under discussion were the analytical and coordinating capacities of the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO), the PBC’s relationship to such external actors as international financial institutions and regional organizations, and possibilities for a “multi-tiered approach” for the PBC as it continues to explore new means of engagement.

BACKGROUND

The discussion was guided by an “Emerging Issues” paper, developed by the co-facilitators, which identified key issues and questions for the review under six clusters:

PBC Place within UN Architecture / Internal Organization
Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding
Mobilizing Resources / Development Issues / Mutual Accountability
In the Field
Regional Approaches to Peacebuilding
Scaling Up

The issues were identified by the co-facilitators on the basis of informal consultations they held with relevant stakeholders since the review was officially launched in January. The clusters aim to solicit focused input and proposals from the UN membership as the co-facilitators prepare their draft report of the review, which will be presented at the third and final consultative meeting expected to take place sometime in mid- to late June. The report will subsequently be submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council for appropriate action.

DISCUSSIONS BY CLUSTER

Cluster I: PBC Place within UN Architecture/Internal Organization

The paper proposes that the PBC should occupy a more central, strategic place within the overall UN system. Key challenges in this area include reassessing the PBC’s relationship to the principal organs (Security Council, General Assembly, ECOSOC), as well as mainstreaming peacebuilding into the work of the Secretariat and UN efforts as a whole. The paper further raises the question of whether the PBC can better “earn” a strategic place, including through revisiting the added value of the Organizational Committee and the Working Group on Lessons-Learned. Other questions include whether the PBSO currently has the sufficient strength and analytical capacity to provide the necessary support to the PBC, and what role the Secretary-General might be able to play in according more clout to the PBC.

The PBC and key UN bodies

Speakers on May 10th called for greater synergy between the PBC and the key UN bodies, in particular the Security Council. Many supported the idea that the PBC should be placed at the center of the UN peacebuilding architecture, and that it needed to “earn” its strategic niche within the system.

Critical to this, as a number of speakers noted, was recognizing the legitimacy conferred upon the PBC, given its institutionally diverse and geographically representative membership—its members are drawn from the Council, General Assembly, ECOSOC, top troop-contributing countries and top financial contributors.

While there was general consensus on the need for stronger ties between the PBC and the Security Council, there were nuanced interpretations of what a “closer” and more strategic relationship would entail. Some called for regularized meetings between the Chair of the Organizational Committee and the Council President, while others suggested the participation of PBC country-specific Chairs in the Council’s informal consultations, which are usually closed to non-Council members.

Japan, Switzerland and others called for regularized/monthly meetings between the OC Chair and the Council President. Japan said the meeting could identify potential issues for the PBC’s discussions that would be useful to the Council.
Switzerland said the Council should invite Chairs of Country-specific Configurations to its informal consultations.
Egypt said the PBC should have regular consultations with the Council on follow-up to such issues as children in armed conflict, and women, peace and security.
El Salvador suggested that the General Assembly hold thematic debates for certain issues relevant to the PBC, and that ECOSOC include an additional theme in its substantive session on such issues as development in post-conflict countries. Peru also called for a structured relationship with ECOSOC.
Belgium said it was possible to integrate peacebuilding more into UN efforts both at Headquarters and in the field. The Secretary-General could play a crucial role in developing the peacebuilding dimension within the UN itself. Belgium also stressed that international ownership should be strengthened through increased support of and attention to the PBC’s Strategic Frameworks, such as endorsements or acknowledgement of the document by the Security Council or the General Assembly.
The Netherlands said the PBC should play an advisory role to the Council in the formulation of mandates of integrated peacebuilding missions.
Peru said the Secretary-General could play a greater role in formalizing periodic meetings between the PBC and Special Representatives for an exchange of lessons-learned and best practices.
The United Kingdom and others stressed the need to preserve the flexibility of the PBC. The OC’s current role was “just about right,” the UK added.
Pakistan, on the issue of multi-tiered engagement, suggested establishing a “faster consultative mechanism” within the OC at the expert-level.

PBSO

Many speakers called for enhancing the analytical capacity of the PBSO to ensure adequate support to PBC processes, and to make the PBC/PBSO a center of excellence for peacebuilding policy coordination and knowledge-building. This required increased interaction with UN agencies, where much of the expertise resides, and enhancing relationships with such UN departments as the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO).

Canada and others stressed the need for more support from the PBSO and the UN system to enhance the PBC’s analytical capacity and ensure a stronger link with the field and UN actors.
Sweden and France emphasized the need to reinforce PBSO, especially in the form of technical and analytical capacity, to improve its performance in bringing the system together and providing greater input to Country-specific Configurations. Through a stronger PBSO, the PBC could increase its knowledge base and seek to strengthen its relationship with policy institutions, peacebuilding practitioners, regional and sub-regional actors, and NGOs, Sweden said.
The United Kingdom similarly called for a robust analytical capacity in PBSO to coordinate with IFIs, regional organizations and other UN entities in the field.
Brazil said the PBSO should garner existing expertise from UN departments, in particular DPA and DPKO. Like many others, Brazil called for increased resources for the PBSO. The Netherlands, echoing Brazil and others’ call for increased synergy with UN departments and agencies, supported increased coordination and coherence with DPA and the UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR).
Switzerland, Croatia and others said the PBSO should become a center of competence for UN peacebuilding policy.
Canada, Japan and others also called for sustained follow-up to the June 2009 report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict (S/2009/304).

Membership

A number of speakers raised the issue of geographical representation in the Organizational Committee, but others, including the Netherlands, discouraged the review process from becoming an institutional battle.

El Salvador called for a more equitable geographical distribution of seats, including a possible seat for Central America, while Uruguay suggested that the rotation for TCCs take place among the top ten contributors, instead of the top five.
Burundi saw the need for a greater number of developing countries in the OC.

Cluster II: Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding

The paper asserts the importance of including early peacebuilding perspectives into peacekeeping with the view to facilitate a smooth transition. A key consideration in this area is the potential early advisory role for the PBC, in particular in the drafting of peacekeeping mandates, a long-established ambit of the Security Council. The paper also notes the need to ensure that the peacekeeping-peacebuilding transition does not lead to a loss of international attention and allocation of resources.

Speakers on May 10th saw peacekeeping and peacebuilding as a continuum. Like the debate on the PBC-Security Council relationship, there were subtle differences in speakers’ views on how exactly the PBC might play an early advisory role. However, there seemed to be general agreement that the PBC could provide early advice on specific peacebuilding aspects that a peacekeeping mission should provide support to.

Many speakers said the Security Council should draw on the PBC in relevant, specific areas of mandate design and review.
Germany (PBC Chair) stressed that an early peacebuilding perspective in the design of peacekeeping mandates would ensure a coherent vision and allow for the sequencing of initial actions. Partnerships with development partners were also important. The transition to longer-term engagement of the UN should be seamless and based on country-specific benchmarks, Germany added. Germany (PBC Chair), Canada and others supported a possible targeted approach on such issues as rule of law.
Bangladesh (on behalf of NAM) said the Security Council could request advice from the PBC on early peacebuilding perspectives for existing peacekeeping operations.
El Salvador and Peru supported strengthening interaction between PBSO and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) for peace operations which encompassed early peacebuilding activities.

Cluster III: Mobilizing Resources / Development Issues / Mutual Accountability

The PBC is tasked with helping to marshal resources to meet the peacebuilding needs of its agenda countries. The PBC is responsible for engaging with international financial institutions (IFIs) and donor countries to this end, but lacks funds directly at its disposal. Some questions under consideration are ways to strengthen cooperation with IFIs and the extent to which the interaction between the PBC and the PBF could be improved. There are also questions of motivation: whether the nature of the PBC’s efforts in resource mobilization should be catalytic or spotlighting funding gaps, and what development or political/security needs the PBC should focus on. A third aspect is how the PBC could promote a framework of mutual accountability between the government and the international community in resource allocation.

PBF

The Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) is a separate entity from the PBC and is housed in the Secretariat under the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. The decision-making processes of PBF allocation are in large part country-driven, through national steering committees which consist of national authorities, the UN presence, donor presence, and in some cases, civil society representatives. The PBF is nevertheless linked to the PBC, through its support to projects in countries on the PBC’s agenda. The Terms of Reference of the PBF, which set out guidelines for how the PBF operates, were just revised in May 2009, but the relationship between the PBC and the PBF has come under the discourse of the review process.

Aside from general agreement that synergy between the PBC and PBF is needed, there appear to be two major camps on the issue: a certain number of countries are calling for greater PBC oversight of PBF prioritization and decision-making processes, including resource allocation, while others (mainly donor countries) seem to prefer an apolitical PBF by keeping the PBC’s influence to a minimum.

Bangladesh (on behalf of NAM), Egypt and others called for a larger role for the PBC in priority-setting and resource allocation of the PBF.
Cameroon (on behalf of the African Group) suggested establishing a tracking mechanism to monitor the implementation of mutual commitments. Tanzania joined Cameroon and others in stressing the need for accountability and oversight mechanisms for the PBF.
Some donor countries delivered the counterpoint, arguing that the PBC should not take on an oversight role for the PBF (the PBF is a separate entity, housed in the Secretariat). Many speakers, however, noted that there was room for greater synergy and communication between the PBC and the PBF.
Sweden, Japan, and others said the PBF had a catalytic role to play.

IFIs and other actors

Speakers called for greater coordination and cooperation between the UN and IFIs, in particular the World Bank.
Germany (PBC Chair) stressed the importance of focusing on the political attention that the PBC could bring to a country and translate into resource mobilization. It was necessary to assess in which fora the PBC could leverage political weight in support of sustainable, political processes in the country, and where it could promote resource mobilization towards certain long-term issues or short-term funding gaps.
Canada said the PBC could advocate for a more strategic method of mobilizing resources, through multi-donor trust funds, outreach to non-traditional donors, and drawing attention to projects that were overlooked or neglected. This would be a way for implementing mutual accountability, Canada said.
The EU delegation said the PBC was ideally placed to promote mutual accountability. The PBC should take better advantage of the biannual review exercise in this regard, the EU said.
A number of speakers also highlighted the need for the PBC to reach out to non-traditional donors, and to explore South-South cooperation.
Bangladesh (on behalf of NAM) called for strategic PBC input to decision-making processes of IFIs.

Cluster IV: In the Field

The “Emerging Issues” paper highlights existing challenges in the PBC’s performance in the field, ensuring in particular that the PBC’s work in New York is well-connected with and effectively contributes to processes on the ground. Other areas under consideration are how the international community could best support national ownership, including through the option of a single strategy document such as the UN Joint Vision for Sierra Leone, and possibilities of new variations of engagement (rather than country-specific configurations) as part of a potential “multi-tiered” approach for the PBC.

Speakers on May 10th emphasized the importance of local and national ownership of the peacebuilding process, and the need for a tailored approach based on the country’s post-conflict needs.

France and others called for improved channeling of information from the field to New York, and vice versa. Norway said there should be close contact between the PBC/PBSO and the Executive Representative/Special Representative on the ground.
El Salvador, Tanzania, and the Netherlands, among others, called for the inclusion of a preventive diplomacy / conflict prevention approach in the PBC’s work.
The Netherlands noted that the PBC could pay more attention to the responsibility to protect, early warning and conflict prevention.
The United States identified best practices from past experience, including a good understanding of the situation on the ground through independent analyses, good coordination between various actors, flexible programming, a means to measure progress, and constant communication.

Canada, Germany (PBC Chair) and others stressed the importance of post-conflict needs assessments, noting that Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) could serve as a basis.
Canada said a multi-tiered agenda for the PBC will become appropriate, including a “light approach” that would consist of facilitating coordination and monitoring of progress of peacebuilding. This called for the consideration of other possible mechanisms, such as informal working groups, Canada added. Japan also supported a light engagement, including monitoring of funding gaps and thematic engagement on issues such as electoral processes and youth employment.
Denmark, Sweden and a number of other speakers suggested exploring possibilities for a PBC presence on the ground to act as a coordination mechanism, where needed.

Cluster V: Regional Approaches to Peacebuilding

The paper reaffirms the widely recognized role of regional and sub-regional organizations in supporting peacebuilding processes, and questions how the PBC could better take advantage of regional dimensions in its work.

Many speakers emphasized the important role of regional and sub-regional organizations, in particular the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Kenya said peacebuilding gains could be consolidated through economic reintegration with neighboring countries, and through efforts of regional and sub-regional organizations.

Cluster VI: Scaling Up

This cluster refers to possible new referrals for the PBC. The central question is whether the PBC is equipped with the necessary determination, tools and experience to move forward into an expanded agenda with other post-conflict cases, which may be more complex in nature, and larger in population and size, than the current four.

The co-facilitators were faced with tight time constraints as the day-long meeting was drawing to a close on May 10th. As a result, few member States delivered comments on this last cluster. The issue was touched upon in other parts of the discussion, but was not elaborated upon at great length.

NEXT STEPS

The co-facilitators will be taking the views of member States into consideration as they enter their final phase of the review process and begin the drafting, in June, of a draft review report. The draft report will be circulated among member States ahead of the third and final open-ended consultative meeting, which is expected to take place in mid- to late June, and subsequently submitted to the General Assembly and Security Council for appropriate action.

Speaking at the meeting on May 10th were the co-facilitators (Permanent Representatives of Ireland, South Africa, and Mexico), the Permanent Representative of Germany in his capacity as Chair of the PBC, and representatives of: Bangladesh (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)), Cameroon (on behalf of the African Group), India, United States, El Salvador, Canada, Egypt, Japan, Sweden, Brazil, Cuba, Burundi, Belgium, Kenya, Tanzania, the Netherlands, Peru, Croatia, Poland, United Kingdom, Lebanon, France, Switzerland, Uruguay, Pakistan, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Croatia, Norway, Angola, Denmark, Indonesia, Australia, the EU delegation, Thailand, and Benin.

Related Resources

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