• Print
• Share

Special Research Report No. 2: The Peacebuilding Commission

Introduction • Background • Key Developments and Activities in the Third Year • Expected Action • Assessment of PBC Outcomes • Looking Ahead • UN Documents • Other Relevant Facts • Useful Additional Sources

Report in Word • PDF

1. Introduction
This Special Research Report analyses the third year of operations of the UN’s Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and is a follow-up to Security Council Report’s Special Research Reports of 17 October 2008 and 5 October 2007, analysing the second and first years of the work of the PBC, respectively, and the Special Research Report of 23 June 2006 which reported on the lead-up to and establishment of the PBC.

Its third year saw the PBC continue to focus on four countries—Burundi, Central African Republic (CAR), Guinea-Bissau and Sierra Leone. No new countries were added to its agenda. The Commission’s report was formally adopted by the PBC on 4 September and is expected to be considered by both the Security Council and the General Assembly in late November 2009. (This timing was set to align it with the new timeline for election of its members in December to assume office in January 2010. On 18 December 2008, the General Assembly adopted resolution 63/145 indicating that the term office for members of the Organisational Committee elected from the General Assembly shall begin on 1 January. The resolution also invited other UN organs with members on the PBC’s Organisational Committee to adjust the term of office of their respective members accordingly.)

The most important strategic decisions taken by the PBC since its inception have been decisions to divide its work into country-specific sections managed by country-specific configurations and to utilise integrated peacebuilding strategies as frameworks for progressing peacebuilding in different ways that respond to the needs of different countries on its agenda.

Notable outcomes from the third year included:

• adopting the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in Guinea-Bissau (PBC/3/GNB/3);
• adopting conclusions on the second (PBC/3/BDI/3) and third biannual (PBC/3/BDI/4) reviews of the implementation of the Strategic Framework for the PBC in Burundi;
• adopting the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in CAR (PBC/3/CAF/7); and
• approving the government of Sierra Leone’s “Agenda for Change” as the core strategic document to guide all future national and international development efforts (PBC/3/SLE/L.2).

top

2. Background
The PBC was established on 20 December 2005 by concurrent resolutions of the Security Council (S/RES/1645) and General Assembly (A/RES/60/180), also referred to as the “founding resolutions”, as an intergovernmental advisory body with an Organisational Committee of 31 member countries. The Commission held its first official meeting on 23 June 2006 in New York.

The Commission’s Organisational Committee consists of:

• seven members from the Security Council (the permanent five members of the Security Council, or P5, plus two elected members);
• seven from the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC);
• five top providers of assessed contributions to UN budgets and of voluntary contributions to UN funds, programmes and agencies, excluding committee members already selected from the Security Council and ECOSOC;
• five top providers of military personnel and police to UN missions, excluding committee members already selected from the Security Council and ECOSOC or selected based on assessed and voluntary contributions to the UN; and
• seven members determined by the General Assembly with consideration given to equitable regional distribution and post-conflict experience.

Membership in the PBC Organisational Committee is for a term of two years and is renewable. However, the Security Council has in practice limited the tenure of its non-permanent representatives to one year renewable terms on the Organisational Committee. Also, as a result of the way the Security Council decided on its representation, the P5 in effect have permanently assigned seats.

Under the founding resolutions, a country can be included on the Commission’s agenda by a request from the Security Council or the Secretary-General or in “exceptional cases where the country is on the verge of lapsing or relapsing into conflict” by a request from the ECOSOC, the General Assembly or the country itself. But, in accordance with article 12 of the UN Charter, the General Assembly and ECOSOC cannot initiate action on any issue being considered by the Security Council.

On 21 June 2006, the Security Council requested that the PBC provide advice on the situation in Burundi and Sierra Leone (PBC/OC/1/2). In response to that request, Burundi and Sierra Leone were placed on the agenda of the Commission at the Organisational Committee’s second meeting on 13 July 2006 (PBC/1/OC/SR.2). On 11 December 2007 the Security Council requested that the PBC take up the situation in Guinea-Bissau (S/2007/744). The Commission placed Guinea-Bissau on its agenda on 19 December 2007 (S/2008/87). CAR became the fourth country to be added to the PBC agenda on 12 June 2008 (S/2008/419), following a referral of the country by the Security Council to the Commission on 30 May 2008 (S/2008/383).

The PBC now has a “country-specific configuration” for the handling of each of these four countries. Each configuration comprises the 31 PBC Organisational Committee members plus the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) (often referred to as the International Financial Institutions, or IFIs) the UN country team, relevant neighbouring countries, significant donor countries and regional and international organisations with an interest in PBC agenda countries. These country-specific configurations are led for twelve months by a member state which is willing to take on a leading role and strong commitment to the respective countries. A practical hands-on approach has developed with the chair of the configuration typically organising informal meetings and numerous visits to each of the four countries.

On the Secretariat side, peacebuilding is led by the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) with resources available from the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). Both of these were also established through the same December 2005 Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. The PBSO has three functions:

• to support the Commission;
• manage the PBF; and
• assist the Secretary-General to bring together the peacebuilding actors in the UN system.

The Fund is not formally linked to the Commission but the PBC has requested the Secretary-General to allocate funds to countries on its agenda. The PBF is designed to promptly make available finances needed to launch urgent peacebuilding activities, including in countries not on the PBC agenda.

The Commission, the PBSO and the PBF are collectively known as the UN peacebuilding architecture.

Resolutions 1645 and 60/180 established three main functions for the PBC, as follows:

• bring together all relevant actors to marshal resources and to advise on and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery;
• focus attention on the reconstruction and institution building efforts necessary for recovery from conflict and to support the development of integrated strategies in order to lay the foundation for sustainable development; and
• provide recommendations and information to improve the coordination of all relevant actors within and outside the UN, to develop best practices, to help to ensure predictable financing for early recovery activities and to extend the period of attention given by the international community to post-conflict recovery.

In practice these have resulted in identification of the following main tasks:

• using the country-specific configurations to develop practical coordination of all relevant actors;
• working with the governments of the four countries to reach agreement on priority reconstruction and institution building efforts;
• developing integrated strategies tailored for the needs of each country;
• collecting information on developing best practices;
• assisting in ensuring predictable financing;
• prolonging the period of attention given by the international community beyond the initial post-conflict phase; and
• bringing together all relevant actors to generate requisite peacebuilding resources.

An innovation of the PBC, as part of its quest to bridge security, political and economic issues that require simultaneous addressing in post-conflict societies, has been the development of integrated peacebuilding strategies for each of the four countries currently on its agenda. These integrated strategies are designed to provide a platform for joint decision-making (between national authorities, bilateral donors, key financial institutions like the IFIs, the UN development system etc.) and to achieve more coherent international support in peacebuilding contexts. The integrated strategies have taken the form of formal agreements on overarching challenges and priorities for the respective countries on the PBC’s agenda (further information on developments relating to the respective integrated peacebuilding strategies are highlighted in later sections of this report).

A second innovation is the development of assessment tools. These have been designed by the Sierra Leone, Burundi and CAR configurations for the monitoring of progress achieved in the implementation of the integrated peacebuilding strategies, or frameworks. Sierra Leone and Burundi have respectively adopted comprehensive review mechanisms known as “monitoring and tracking mechanisms.” CAR’s integrated peacebuilding framework has built-in assessment criteria directly linked to the identified priorities in the strategic framework.
top

3. Key Developments and Activities in the Third Year
3.1 The Organisational Committee
Much of the year 2008 in the Organisational Committee was dominated by a nine-month disagreement regarding representation on the PBC by regional representatives of the members of the troop-contributing countries (TCC), ECOSOC and the General Assembly. The Organisational Committee was able to arrive at a solution acceptable to all its members in December 2008. (The high degree of interest and competition among member states regarding the elections to the Organisational Committee resulted in postponement of the decision from April till December. For more background details on the PBC Organisational Committee elections please see our 17 October 2008 Special Research Report and 5 June 2008 Update Report.) The new members will serve two-year terms, subject to the duration of membership on or in accordance with special arrangements previously agreed upon by the organs and/or groups from which the memberships are drawn.

Another procedural decision was the Organisational Committee’s agreement in May to align its work with its new electoral calendar. Consequently, the issuance of its annual report was shifted from June to September with the Security Council and the General Assembly expected to consider the report in late November.

On 7 January, Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz of Chile was formally elected chairman of the Organisational Committee for the year 2009, and Ambassador Park In-kook of the Republic of Korea was elected Vice-Chairman.

Muñoz outlined seven objectives for the PBC for 2009 during his inaugural speech on 7 January, as follows:

• continuing to project the PBC’s profile in various forums “as an actor which contributes to the identification of the priorities in post-conflict and able to mobilise determination and resources for a sustainable peace”;
• finding new partners in peacebuilding activities, including non-governmental organisations, foundations and the private sector;
• searching for new collaborative arrangements with regard to the issue of early recovery of post-conflict countries, including the possibility of creating “a civilian corps of expert volunteers for peace” (e.g. administrators and agricultural experts) for rapid deployment mindful of the principle of national ownership;
• enhancing coordination between headquarters and the field, between the PBC and other multilateral agencies and with regional and subregional bodies;
• strengthening links with the Security Council, General Assembly and ECOSOC;
• beginning to think about the 2010 PBC mandate review process (mandated by the founding resolutions); and
• stressing the complementary nature of peacekeeping activities and the work of the PBC.

The objectives set by the current chair built on a number of questions raised by the previous chair (Ambassador Yukio Takasu of Japan) during the concluding meeting of the second session of the PBC on 22 June 2008. This included the following questions:

• Was the PBC attempting to apply the same template to different cases?
• Were solid national ownership and the primary responsibility of national authorities for peacebuilding present, respected and supported?
• Were the linkages between security, development and human rights and rule of law adequately prioritised and sequenced as crucial building blocks for peacebuilding to ensure smooth transitions from peacekeeping activities?
• Were steady efforts for advancing a constructive political process for peace being effectively made for consolidating peace?
• Was an appropriate mix of support in place to ensure effective balances in government affairs to promote institutional capacity building and reform for capable and accountable nation building?
• Was there speedy and timely provision of tangible peace dividends available to the people in order to ensure a smooth transition to recovery and economic development?
• Were coordinated, coherent and integrated approaches being put in place, to bring all the relevant actors together, to handle national and international efforts to promote a smooth transition on the ground?
• Had political will been demonstrated to take a longer-term view with regard to sustainable engagement?
• Was there readiness to respond to the call of countries that require international attention and support?

3.2 Burundi
On 26 August 2008 Sweden briefed the Security Council as the then Chair of the Burundi Configuration of the Commission. He indicated that there had been several positive developments. However, the peace process still faced significant challenges requiring coordinated and robust international and regional support (S/PV.5966).

On 12 December the Burundi country-specific configuration of the PBC held a meeting with the South African facilitator of the Burundi peace process on developments in the country. The configuration subsequently recommended (PBC/3/BDI/1) that:

• both the Burundian government and the then last remaining major rebel group , Palipehutu-FNL (Parti pour la libération du peuple Hutu-Forces nationales de liberation) to urgently implement the outcome of the 4 December 2008 Great Lakes Summit in Bujumbura and of the Comprehensive Ceasefire Agreement (that the government signed with the Palipehutu-FNL), and stressed the importance of immediate international support in that regard;
• the international community to urgently extend the necessary support for the preparatory tasks in connection with the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) process; and
• the Palipehutu-FNL to release without further delay all children associated with its forces and take necessary steps to transform itself into a national political party.

On 4 February 2009 the second report on the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in Burundi (PBC/3/BDI/2) was issued, describing progress made during the July to December 2008 period and the remaining challenges to peacebuilding.

On 6 February the Burundi configuration held its second review of the implementation of the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in Burundi. Its conclusions (PBC/3/BDI/3) included:

• the government should ensure an environment conducive to the holding of credible elections in 2010;
• good governance should be enhanced and the fight against corruption should be intensified;
• the Comprehensive Ceasefire Agreement should be strictly implemented;
• security sector reform is essential;
• human rights, rule of law and transitional justice should be improved; and
• socioeconomic issues need more attention.

Recommendations to the PBC and international partners included:

• providing required resources to ensure the success of the 2010 elections;
• supporting the peace process and security sector reform; and
• mobilisation of resources for peacebuilding.

On 29 June the Permanent Representative of Switzerland, Ambassador Peter Maurer, took over as Chair of the Burundi configuration. (PBC regulations are flexible regarding the election of non-Organisational Committee members as chairs of the country specific configuration. Indeed, Belgium, Canada and Switzerland, chairs of the CAR, Sierra Leone and Burundi configurations respectively, are not members of the Organisational Committee and Brazil—chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration—is the only PBC member holding such a role).

On 29 July 2009 the Burundi configuration completed its third semi-annual review of the implementation of the Strategic Framework for the Peacebuilding in Burundi. The recommendations to the Burundi government and international partners largely echoed those from the previous biannual review indicating that on a number of key peacebuilding tasks progress was slow.

3.3 Central African Republic
In October 2008 the PBC country-specific configuration for CAR formally adopted its peacebuilding priorities (including security sector reform, the rule of law and good governance). This was rapid progress in view of the fact that the country had only been on the Commission’s agenda since June 2008. Work was subsequently concentrated on drawing up an integrated peacebuilding framework for CAR.

The chair of the country-specific configuration set up for CAR, Belgian Ambassador Jan Grauls, led a ten-member PBC mission to CAR from 30 October to 6 November 2008 focusing on interaction with the government and stakeholders on CAR’s peacebuilding priorities and challenges, and the nature and scope of international support the country would require.

On 22 December 2008 the PBSO submitted a document mapping resources for peacebuilding in CAR to the PBC country-specific configuration. It detailed the resources and gaps for peacebuilding in the country and aimed at assisting the Commission in its elaboration of an integrated peacebuilding framework, as well as improved resource mobilisation and coordination of international support for the country.

On 20 January 2009 Ambassador Grauls issued a statement welcoming the positive outcome of the December inclusive political dialogue held from 8 to 20 December 2008 in CAR’s capital, Bangui, involving 150 participants from the government and its allied political parties, opposition parties, rebel movements and civil society, and stressing the need to sustain the momentum created by the positive outcome (PBC/3/CAF/4). (The political situation in CAR had witnessed some improvement following the successful convening of the dialogue, which was the culmination of two years of strenuous national and international efforts, aimed at achieving a nationally owned vision for building sustainable peace and development in CAR. The meeting culminated in the adoption of a number of key recommendations spanning political and governance issues, security and socioeconomic matters.)

On 9 March the CAR configuration expressed concern about the resurgence of violence in the northern part of the country and the consequent insecurity and displacement of thousands of civilians. It indicated that necessary action was needed to sustain the momentum of the dialogue and the successful implementation of the DDR programme.

On 10 March the then Special Representative of the Secretary-General in CAR, François Lonsény Fall, briefed the PBC on developments in CAR, during which he expressed his pleasure that the outcomes of the inclusive political dialogue were at the core of the draft integrated peacebuilding framework, which was being developed by the PBC.

On 23 March a draft strategic framework for peacebuilding in CAR (PBC/3/CAF/L.1) was drawn up and a consultative process aiming at its eventual adoption was put in place. On 9 June the CAR country configuration of the PBC formally adopted the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in the Central African Republic (PBC/3/CAF/7). Three mutually reinforcing peacebuilding priorities were identified by the framework:

• security sector reform (including DDR);
• governance and the rule of law; and
• organising the national economy around local growth engines which assist initiatives aimed at restoring administrative services and supporting improved availability and access by the citizenry to basic social services and infrastructure.

The adoption of the framework also served as a response to the 30 May 2008 request (S/2008/383) from the Security Council to the PBC for advice and recommendations on the situation in CAR.

On 7 April the Security Council adopted a presidential statement (S/PRST/2009/5) welcoming the Secretary-General’s recommendation to establish a UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA) to succeed the UN Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BONUCA), with part of the mandate of BINUCA being assisting the PBC with the implementation of the (then still anticipated) Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in CAR and projects supported through the PBF, and assisting in peace consolidation generally. (The concept of integrated peacebuilding missions is new and follows from the goal of using the peacebuilding architecture to bring coherence to UN peacebuilding work being carried out by various UN agencies, funds and programmes (e.g. humanitarian, development etc.), as well as between the UN and international donors, and between the integrated mission and relevant regional organisations in countries with ongoing peacebuilding activities, through effective coordination by the head of the UN integrated mission in the country.

3.4 Guinea-Bissau
Following a new government assuming office in Guinea-Bissau in early August 2008, the chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration, Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti of Brazil, undertook a visit to the country from 10 to 12 September 2008 to discuss progress of the Commission’s work on the strategic framework for peacebuilding in the country.

On 23 September 2008 the Commission adopted conclusions from the visit (PBC/3/GNB/1). These included conclusions that:

• the political situation in the country had stabilised following the establishment of a new government on 5 August; and
• the government supported continued engagement with the PBC.

On 1 October 2008 the Commission adopted the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in Guinea-Bissau (PBC/3/GNB/3). This took into account final input from the government of Guinea-Bissau. The framework highlighted peacebuilding priorities, such as:

• strengthening law enforcement;
• reforming the security sector; and
• wealth generation and modernising the country’s public administration system.

The Guinea-Bissau configuration subsequently began work towards the eventual adoption of a monitoring and tracking mechanism for the strategic framework.

However, on 22 November there was an armed attack against the residence of the then president of Guinea-Bissau, João Bernardo Vieira (Vieira escaped unharmed in the overnight attack on his home by mutinous soldiers but one soldier was killed with several others injured).

Following the announcement of the results of legislative elections, on 26 November the Guinea-Bissau configuration adopted conclusions and recommendations to enhance the implementation of the framework for peacebuilding (PBC/3/GNB/4). The configuration also condemned the resort to violence.

On 1 and 2 March respectively, army chief of staff, General Tagme Na Waie and Guinea-Bissau President João Bernardo Vieira, were both assassinated. In response to the killings, on 4 March the chair of the PBC country configuration on Guinea-Bissau called on the international community to continue assisting the implementation of the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in Guinea-Bissau and organising presidential elections (for further information on this issue please see our April 2009 Monthly Forecast).

Work to assess progress with the country’s integrated peacebuilding framework was put on hold until its semi-annual assessment of the situation in the country originally scheduled for June, in order to focus on other immediate priorities like the successful holding of new presidential elections. However, at press time, the biannual assessment had not yet been held but a review process had been started in the country by national authorities and the UN Peacebuilding Support Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNOGBIS) regarding the country’s peacebuilding priorities. There was also an ongoing information gathering exercise by the country-specific configuration from its members in New York to review the implementation of PBC commitments regarding the country. (This process is expected to end in mid-December, following the configuration’s upcoming annual field trip to Guinea-Bissau.)

On 8 April 2009 the chair of the Guinea-Bissau PBC country configuration told a Security Council meeting (S/PV.6103) that mobilising funding to organise elections planned for June and for security sector reform were areas in which the Commission could make significant contributions in the short term.

The PBC configuration on Guinea-Bissau was subsequently engaged in efforts to secure peacebuilding funding, including by convening a meeting in May on the work of the IMF and World Bank in the country. In an attempt to help get Guinea-Bissau’s urgently needed security sector reform effectively underway, the PBC organised a mid-April meeting dedicated to security sector reform and assisted with preparations for the Roundtable on the Restructuring and Modernisation of the Defence and Security Sector in Guinea-Bissau held in Cape Verde on 20 April. (The roundtable was convened by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Mediation and Security Council, and its organisers included UNOGBIS and the Guinea-Bissau government.) The round table highlighted key challenges and the short term efforts in the security sector reform process in the country.

On 5 June 2009 a new wave of political violence against high profile personalities occurred in Guinea-Bissau when Baciro Dabό, a candidate in the then ongoing presidential election race, and Helder Proença, a former government minister and member of Parliament, were killed. On 16 June the Guinea-Bissau configuration issued a statement condemning the killings (PBC/3/GNB/6).

On 26 June the Security Council adopted resolution 1876 extending the mandate of UNOGBIS until 31 December 2009 and requesting the Secretary-General to establish the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS) to succeed UNOGBIS for an initial period of 12 months beginning on 1 January 2010. One of the key tasks of UNIOGBIS will be to assist the “Commission in its work in addressing critical peacebuilding needs in Guinea-Bissau.”

On 28 June presidential elections were held to select a successor to Vieira. Malam Bacai Sanhá of the governing African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde and Kumba Yalá of the opposition Social Renewal Party had won the highest—but not outright majority—number of votes during the first round.

On 26 July run-off presidential elections were held between Sanhá and Yalá. Malam Bacai Sanhá was declared the winner with 63 percent of the votes. Sanhá was inaugurated as president of Guinea-Bissau on 8 September 2009.

The chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration visited the country to attend the inauguration of Sanhá on 8 September and subsequently reported to the Commission on the outcome of her visit, saying a window of opportunity arising from the peaceful elections existed in Guinea-Bissau and that it merited increased international assistance.
top

3.5 Sierra Leone
On 4 August 2008 the Security Council replaced the UN Integrated Office in Sierra Leone (UNIOSIL) with the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone (UNIPSIL) in resolution 1876. UNIPSIL was mandated to coordinate with the PBC and support its work, as well as implement the Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework and projects supported through the Peacebuilding Fund—and thus act as a bridge between the Council and the PBC in their peace consolidation efforts in the country. On 15 September 2009, UNIPSIL’s mandate was extended until 30 September 2010 through resolution 1886.

On 15 December 2008 the Commission held its second review of progress in implementing the 12 December 2007 Sierra Leone Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework. It resulted in the adoption of conclusions and recommendations including:

• recommending that the government of Sierra Leone finalise its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, strengthen its monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and put in place emergency plans and long-term strategies for energy sector investment and development;
• calling on the UN and international partners to direct budgetary funding and contribute to UN multi-donor efforts on Sierra Leone, and assist the poverty reduction strategy; and
• calling on the PBC itself to galvanise all stakeholders to support Sierra Leone in attaining its priorities, including assisting the government in widening its donor base.

On 25 February 2009 Ambassador John McNee of Canada was elected by the Organisational Committee to replace Ambassador Frank Majoor of the Netherlands as chair of the Sierra Leone configuration.

On 6 April McNee issued a statement welcoming the joint communiqué between the two leading political parties in Sierra Leone following the March interparty political violence and recommending follow-up action by the international community in that regard (PBC/3/SLE/4). (From 13 to 16 March 2009, in the wake of a disputed local council special election in southern Sierra Leone, political violence had flared up in the capital, Freetown, between supporters of the country’s largest political parties—the ruling All People’s Congress (APC) and supporters of the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP). Following bipartisan dialogue facilitated by the UN, the APC and SLPP on 2 April agreed to: a bipartisan understanding on the role of the ruling and opposition parties; rejection of all forms of violence; and mechanisms for enquiry into the violent clashes.)

McNee visited Washington on 12 May to further explore the PBC’s cooperation with the IMF and the World Bank. He also visited Sierra Leone from 20 to 24 April for an assessment of the situation on the ground and reviewed key peacebuilding issues.

On 10 June the PBC held a High-Level Special Session on Sierra Leone, which brought together senior representatives of the member states, the UN and civil society, with the aim of garnering support for the Sierra Leonean president’s Agenda for Change (which is the primary national framework for development and peace consolidation). The session also provided a basis for continued PBC engagement and generated support for the UN Joint Vision for Sierra Leone and launched the UN Multi-Donor Trust Fund. It highlighted the fact that the country had made significant progress towards peace, security and democratic governance since the end of its decade-long civil war in 2002. At the same time, sustained national leadership and international support remained crucial to surmounting the root causes of the conflict and tackling emerging threats to peace consolidation.

The meeting agreed on the following conclusions as the basis for its future engagement of the PBC with Sierra Leone (PBC/3/SLE/6):

• continued national and international political support would be important for the implementation of the political parties’ joint communiqué;the “Agenda for Change” of the Government of Sierra Leone would be recognised as the core strategic document to guide all future national and international development efforts. (The Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework, adopted by the Government of Sierra Leone and the PBC in December 2007, would now be aligned with Sierra Leone’s Agenda for Change.) Peacebuilding priorities derived from the Agenda for Change, which were also highlighted in the Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework (i.e. promoting good governance and the rule of law; combating illicit drug trafficking; and addressing youth unemployment) would be focused on;
• supporting the UN joint vision for Sierra Leone as a new and innovative approach to peacebuilding and to mobilise financial resources for its implementation; and
• enhancing the coordination and coherence of international support to Sierra Leone’s peace consolidation efforts in line with the joint communiqué and the Agenda for Change and in advance of the forthcoming Consultative Group meeting on Sierra Leone.

In this context, the PBC appealed to its member states to provide the necessary financial resources for funding the programmes, projects and activities that are part of the joint vision for Sierra Leone.

3.6 Field Missions
The Commission continued to undertake visits to IFIs and other relevant international organisations (e.g. the EU) to publicise its work and to further engage prospective international partners on ways in which they could facilitate the PBC’s work. The chairs of the respective configurations continued to periodically visit the countries on the agenda to directly engage with the situations and the challenges on the ground and to interact with the key local actors on the issues.

3.7 Peacebuilding Fund
The General Assembly completed the first review of the original terms of reference of the PBF (A/60/984). This detailed review was related to the allocation and disbursement modalities of the PBF, management of the fund and the role of the PBC in advising the Secretary-General on the selection of countries eligible for consideration for funding. The review was carried out following the release of a report by the Secretary-General (A/63/818 of 13 April 2009). The General Assembly approved the new terms of reference on 17 June 2009 (A/RES/63/282).

The revised terms of reference specified four priority areas with direct and immediate relevance to peacebuilding, based on the past utilisation of the PBF, as follows:

• response(s) to imminent threats to the peace process, and support for the implementation of peace agreements and political dialogue, in particular regarding strengthening national institutions and processes set up under those agreements;
• enhancement of national capacities to promote coexistence and peaceful resolution of conflict and to carry out peacebuilding activities;
• efforts to revitalise the economy and generate immediate peace dividends for the population at large; and
• setting up of essential administrative services and related human and technical capacities.

The new terms of reference also set up two separate mechanisms (called facilities) for accessing PBF resources to replace the previous “three windows” structure (these had involved separate categories for: (i) countries on the PBC’s agenda; (ii) non-PBC agenda countries deemed eligible for funding by the Secretary-General; and (iii) emergency projects in both PBC and non-PBC agenda countries).

The new facilities were designed to enhance flexibility and responsiveness:

• the Immediate Response Facility (IRF); and
• the Peacebuilding and Recovery Facility (PRF).

Allocations from either facility will be based on needs, and rely on action plans already in existence that clearly address peacebuilding goals.

While the scope, aim and modalities for utilising both facilities are expected to be outlined in the revised PBF guidelines currently being drafted, there is a general expectation that:

• The IRF will be the project-based financing mechanism of the PBF, designed to address critical and unexpected needs which could constitute an imminent threat to a peace process. It will provide a rapid, flexible response to contingencies that arise in the post-conflict and recovery stages.
• The PRF will be the regular financing mechanism of the PBF, built around a full and effective partnership between the UN in-country presence and national authorities.  

Two key aspects of the terms of reference remained unchanged:

• All PBF financing will continue to be disbursed to UN recipient organisations (e.g. UN Development Programme, UN Children’s Fund, Food and Agriculture Organization, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UN Habitat, etc.) based on their own rules, regulations and policies. These organisations will work with national partners to implement approved projects and build their capacity.
• Countries on the agenda of the PBC will be eligible for PBF assistance, as well as some non-PBC agenda countries if determined eligible by the Secretary-General. (The new terms of reference emphasise the importance of engagement by the PBC in the review of PBF proposals from countries on the PBC agenda.)

Unlike the previous requirement which called for a review within two years of the original terms of reference (paragraph 8.1 of the annex of A/60/984), the new terms of reference set no time limits for another review but says that the head of the PBSO “in consultations with the Advisory Group, may initiate a formal process to amend the terms of reference.” It also requests regular, time bound, progress reports on and evaluations of the work of the PBF.
top

3.8 Peacebuilding within the Intergovernmental Bodies in the UN System
Regular and direct interactions by the chair of the PBC Organisational Committee with the presidents of the Security Council, the General Assembly and ECOSOC continued during the third session of the Commission. The PBC chair also addressed the General Assembly and the Security Council on 9 and 21 October 2008 respectively, when the two bodies held their annual debates on the Commission’s report on its second year of work.

The Security Council continued to hear frequent briefings on ongoing peacebuilding activities from the chairs of the respective PBC country configurations whenever the Council took up the issue in its regular periodic considerations of those country situations.

For example, on 9 February 2009 the then chairman of the Sierra Leone configuration, Ambassador Frank Majoor of the Netherlands, told the Council that the creation of UNIPSIL had been a groundbreaking innovation for the UN family (S/PV.6080). He said it was creating a truly integrated approach to peacebuilding. Executive Representative of the Secretary-General Michael von der Schulenburg stated during the meeting that formidable challenges still confront Sierra Leone seven years after the civil war and said UNIPSIL was the nexus of partnership between the Sierra Leonean government and the UN, especially the Council and the PBC (S/PV.6080).

A major new contribution to coherence has been the Council’s decisions (S/RES/1829, S/PRST/2009/6 and S/RES/1876) to support proposals for transforming existing Council mandates of missions in three of the countries on the PBC’s agenda (i.e. CAR, Guinea-Bissau and Sierra Leone) into “integrated peacebuilding missions,” all of which are expected to assist the PBC in its work in achieving better coordination and coherence in tackling critical peacebuilding needs in the three countries by enhancing the synergy of the efforts of various actors in peacebuilding.

3.9 PBC Working Group on Lessons Learned
The PBC Working Group on Lessons Learned continued its interaction with a number of international and national actors, expert practitioners, policy analysts and member states with relevant post-conflict experience, to enrich the deliberations of the Commission on the countries on its agenda. (The Group was set up in December 2006 to analyse best practices and lessons on critical peacebuilding issues.) Informal meetings held by the Working Group during the third session of the PBC included panel discussions on:

• “Lessons Learned on Sustainable Reintegration in Post-Conflict Situations”, including panelists from Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Development Programme and a representative of Colombia’s High Commissioner for Reintegration, held on 28 May;
• “Promoting Collaboration and Improving Coordination between the PBC and Regional and sub-regional Organizations”, with a briefing by ECOWAS and the Organisation of American States, held on 30 March;
• “Comparative Experiences in Developing National Capacities after Conflict”, with the Permanent Representatives of Guatemela and Mozambique presenting insights from their respective national experiences on the topic, held on 15 December 2008;
• “Learning from a Regional DDR Approach in the Great Lakes Region of Africa”, with the participation of the representatives of the World Bank’s Multi-Country DDR, the UN Inter-Agency Working Group on DDR, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the UN Development Programmme, held on 24 November 2008; and
• “Comparative Lessons from the United Nations Rule of Law Assistance,” with panelists drawn from the Rule of Law and Security Institutions Section of the DPKO, the UN Rule of Law Unit of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, as well as the participation of Alvaro de Soto, former Under Secretary-General and Special Representative of the Secretary-General, held on 20 October 2008.

Lessons drawn from some of these discussions were expected to feed into country-specific meetings of the Commission later. They were also made available to the UN Peacebuilding Community (e.g. the Peacebuilding Community of Practice and the Peacebuilidng Initiative of the programme on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research).
top

3.10 Appointment of the Peacebuilding Support Office Head
On 17 August 2009, after a long vacancy at the helm of the PBSO, Judy Cheng-Hopkins (Malaysia) was appointed the new Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support.

3.11 Relationship with Civil Society and Private Sector
The PBC’s relationship with civil society continues to be largely confined to country-specific situations on the ground. However, civil society has participated in monitoring and review of the strategic framework for each of the countries on the Commission’s agenda.

The PBC chairman, Chilean Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz, continued to reiterate the importance of the private sector as a nontraditional source of finance for peacebuilding that required building of partnerships. While the private sector has been willing to explore the prospect of such engagement as part of corporate social responsibility, the question of adequate political guarantees in such politically volatile environments seems to be a problem for some. Also there have been concerns from governments that vulnerable countries need guarantees and that a balance needs to be struck to ensure that no negative trade-off occurs for their population through private sector monopoly or strangle hold on resources (e.g. the provision of water).
top

4. Expected Action
4.1 Annual Report: Security Council and General Assembly
The report of the PBC on its third session (S/64/341-S/2009/444) will be considered by the General Assembly on 20 November and the Security Council on 25 November, in the form of an open debate and public debate in the respective organs.

4.2 Responses to the Secretary-General’s Report on Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict
Initial responses from the Security Council and the General Assembly to the Secretary-General’s report (A/63/881-S/2009/304) submitted to the Council and the General Assembly on 11 June 2009 has been positive. The report focused on the challenges that post-conflict countries and the international community face in the immediate aftermath of conflict—defined as the first two years after the main conflict in a country has ended. The PBC played an advisory role in shaping the report. The Secretary-General made recommendations on how to strengthen UN response in the immediate aftermath of conflict as well as recommendations on how to facilitate an earlier, more coherent response from the wider international community, including:

• stronger, more effective and better supported UN country teams on the ground, as well as early agreement on priorities and alignment of resources behind the teams;
• strengthening national ownership of the peacebuilding process and capacity development from the outset;
• rationalising and enhancing the UN system’s capacity to provide knowledge, expertise and deployable personnel to meet the most urgent peacebuilding needs, together with partners who have a comparative advantage in particular areas, as well as assisting countries to identify and draw on the most relevant capacities globally; and
• working with member states, particularly donors, to enhance the speed, alignment, flexibility and risk tolerance of funding mechanisms.

The Secretary-General further highlighted the critical role of the PBC in achieving those goals and made suggestions as to how it could strengthen its advisory role in relation to the early post-conflict period.

On 13 July 2009 the Organisational Committee of the PBC met to consider the Secretary-General’s report. The Commission’s members generally welcomed its contents, including the emphasis on national ownership in peacebuilding processes, enhancing the role of the PBC and the need for faster and more flexible funding. There were also reported calls by some members for the PBC to consider adding countries that were just emerging from conflict to its agenda.

Following a day-long open debate (S/PV.6165 and resumption 1) on post-conflict peacebuilding on 22 July 2009, the Security Council adopted a presidential statement (S/PRST/2009/23) emphasising the vital role of the UN in post-conflict peacebuilding. It supported the Secretary-General’s recommendation to “broaden and deepen” the pool of international civilian experts available to assist in those areas and strengthening of UN leadership of peacebuilding activities on the ground. The Council also stressed the critical role of the PBC in ensuring a coherent approach among all actors in those situations and requested the Secretary-General to report within a year on progress achieved in fulfilling his recommendations to improve UN peacebuilding efforts.

For the future, member states await the Secretary-General’s follow up report in July 2010 on the implementation of his recommendations regarding enhancement of UN peacebuilding efforts in the immediate aftermath of conflict.

4.3 Election of New Organisational Committee Members
Election of new members to replace those member states on the PBC’s Organisational Committee representing ECOSOC (Algeria, El Salvador and Luxembourg) and the General Assembly (Georgia and Jamaica) are expected. Their terms should have ended in June but were extended until the end of 2009 to align them with the new PBC electoral and annual session calendar.

El Salvador, from the regional group, Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC), will make its exit from the PBC because its term on ECOSOC ends in December. Brazil (an incoming Security Council member to serve on the Council for the 2010-2011 period) is expected to replace El Salvador on ECOSOC slate through the endorsement of GRULAC. Similarly, Egypt has been endorsed by the AU to replace Algeria whose term on ECOSOC ends in December. Egypt, like Brazil, has indicated interest in serving on the PBC through the category of ECOSOC representatives. It was not certain at press time which countries will be replacing Luxembourg (from the ECOSOC category) and Georgia and Jamaica (from the General Assembly category).

The current representatives of troop and financial contributors on the Organisational Committee will remain unchanged until their respective tenures expire in December 2010.

The one year tenure of the Security Council’s non-permanent representatives on the PBC’s Organisational Committee—Burkina Faso and Mexico (S/2009/168)—ends on 31 December. Because Burkina Faso’s tenure in the Council also ends in December it cannot be reelected to represent the Council again. It is, however, likely that another African country in the Council, possibly Uganda or Gabon (which is an incoming Council member for 2010-2011), will replace Burkina Faso in the Committee. Nigeria, which is also going to be on the Council during 20010-2011 is already a member of the PBC’s Organisational Committee in its capacity as a top troop-contributor and is therefore not eligible to represent the Council.

Mexico’s tenure on the Organisational Committee technically expires at the end of the year, but it could be re-elected by the Council to the Organisational Committee since its tenure on the Council ends in December 2010.

A new chairman of the Organisational Committee is expected to be elected for the fourth session of the PBC which begins in January 2010, following the expiration of the term of current chair Heraldo Muñoz of Chile in December this year. The new chair is also expected to be elected from one of the two remaining regional groups which have not had anyone serving in this post, the Eastern European Group or the Western European and Others Group.
top

4.4 Additional Countries for PBC Agenda
There have been discussions regarding the addition of new countries to the PBC agenda. The general preference among the PBC members has been to better reflect regional diversity (all countries currently on the agenda are from Africa).

Consideration is also being given within the PBC to the possibility of diversifying the forms of the PBC’s engagement with countries on its agenda, including through a “multi-tiered” method (i.e. the PBC concentrating on a specific aspect of certain country’s needs—e.g. security sector reform—rather than a full scale engagement in the nation’s development programme).

The last country proposed for inclusion on the agenda of the PBC was CAR in June 2008. A recurring issue is that of Côte d’Ivoire (the country is still in a state of flux in terms of peace consolidation due to delayed elections).

Côte d’Ivoire made a request to be placed on the PBC agenda in April 2008. The request was expected to be considered in 2009, but it was shelved by the Security Council due to the postponement of the presidential elections (most recently until 29 November 2009). The general view is that the prospects for adding Côte d’Ivoire in 2010 could be increased if successful elections are carried out this year.

A related question—of more general application as well—is whether the technical and socioeconomic challenges confronting the electoral and peace processes suggest the need for enhanced peacebuilding action during the peacekeeping phase. This issue is directly within the Council’s ambit and has been tentatively addressed in two Council decisions (S/PRST/2009/24 and S/PRST/2009/23). The case for more effective coordination and coherent resource mobilisation during the peacekeeping period could be considered as part of the measures to move the peace process forward, especially in the case of Côte d’Ivoire since it requested last year to be placed on the agenda of the PBC.
top

5. Assessment of PBC Outcomes
5.1 Evolution/Adaptation of Integrated Peacebuilding Frameworks
A mark of its third year of operation is that the PBC has shown itself capable of evolution and adaptation of its methodology to suit particular situations. A case in point is its choice of a lighter approach in monitoring the strategic framework for CAR when the PBC agreed on 6 May to link benchmarks directly to the priorities that were identified by the peacebuilding framework in a consolidated document. It was a marked shift from the approach used in the two previous cases of Sierra Leone and Burundi—with the Guinea-Bissau configuration looking to follow the assessment model used for those two countries. CAR’s framework has proved to be an innovative approach to assessments, taking into account the primary concern about the lack of local capacity to deliver on the comprehensive demands of the monitoring and tracking mechanisms used in the situations of Sierra Leone and Burundi. In effect, a one-size-fits-all approach to assessment of peacebuilding was jettisoned in the case of CAR and replaced with one that was deemed to be appropriate for the local situation.

Similarly, the PBC Sierra Leone configuration’s decision to endorse the government of Sierra Leone’s Agenda for Change (i.e. the government’s medium-term poverty reduction strategy which became the primary national framework for development and peace consolidation) as the core strategic document to guide all future national and international development efforts implied a willingness to shift away from past frameworks and be flexible. Certainly it has been seen as a concrete demonstration of acceding to national ownership and partnership in peacebuilding work. The Commission relegated the Sierra Leone Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework (previously agreed between the government and the PBC in December 2007) and effectively replaced it with the Agenda for Change. This has in practical terms translated into focusing on a number of peacebuilding priorities derived from the Agenda for Change—some of which were also highlighted in the Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework—including promoting good governance and the rule of law, combating illicit drug trafficking and addressing youth unemployment.

Future replication in other PBC country configuration contexts of the Sierra Leone case of replacing or subsuming PBC integrated peacebuilding frameworks will largely be dependent on the capacity of national authorities of countries on the PBC’s agenda to come up with comprehensive development and peace consolidation strategies. Steady effort by the Commission to concretely support national ownership in that regard will also be crucial.
top

5.2 Interface between the PBC, the Security Council and other Organs
There has been a steady improvement of the interface between the work of the Security Council and the work of the PBC. The complementary roles of the two bodies regarding to the countries on the Commission’s agenda—Burundi, CAR, Guinea-Bissau and Sierra Leone—has been highlighted. The advisory role of the PBC on issues which the Council has been tackling—largely issues that threaten peace and security—has been more apparent.

This has been further illustrated in the recent trend of the Council towards transforming some missions into integrated peacebuilding missions tasked with coordinating the peace consolidation activities of UN funds, agencies and programmes (reminiscent of the integrated approach adopted by the Commission in dealing with country-specific issues). The mandates of UNIPSIL, BINUCA and UNIOGBIS make provision for assisting the PBC with the implementation of the respective PBC integrated strategic frameworks for peacebuilding for each of the countries where they are located, projects supported through the PBF and peace consolidation generally.

5.3 Impact of the Commission’s work
Viewed from New York, and with the benefit of some feedback from member states involved, it seems that the PBC in its first three years has definitely added value to the work of the international community at large, and the UN in particular, in the areas of:

• keeping international political and financial focus sustained on the four countries on its agenda which have recently emerged from conflict;
• emerging coherence between different players by providing a platform for attaining a more integrated approach to peacebuilding;
• providing better common ground between the relevant UN bodies (including major organs like the General Assembly, ECOSOC and the Security Council) and reducing the bitter atmosphere that prevailed in the past; and
• helping to steer initial funding from the PBF for countries on its agenda to meet emergency funding gaps.

Bearing in mind the relatively young period of existence of the PBC (and the fact that inevitably it was experimenting in its first two years), Sierra Leone and Burundi—the first two countries placed on the PBC agenda—seem to have achieved some real success in consolidating peace. Burundi has made head way with it its peace process, including the gains relating to its inclusive political dialogue. Sierra Leone has also chalked significant milestones and emerged as a post conflict state on the tracks of peace consolidation, with clear reforms in socioeconomic and security sector aspects. Both countries have also had to deal with some potentially serious setbacks and in both cases it seems that the proactive involvement of the PBC has added value in overcoming those problems.

The PBC’s firm response in the wake of the violent developments that threatened to derail the peace consolidation processes in Guinea-Bissau gave further credence to its role in dealing not only with political processes but also security challenges by keeping a global spotlight on local situations that could have otherwise been off the radar or receive less attention from the international community.

Instances of violent relapses from peace consolidation were rectified in a systematic manner. Accordingly, major political challenges to the peace consolidation process remained on track and these have been cited as reflective of increasing resilience of the new peacebuilding architecture and the positive outcomes from the PBC involvement in these countries.

It seems that the PBC has also added value in securing resources for quick impact projects that have been important in delivering to traumatised populations some immediate dividends of peace. All four countries on the Commission’s agenda have so far received funding totaling about $86 million (or 62 percent) of the allocated PBF funds.

On the other hand, generating funds from the broader international community seems to be an area where there still remains room for improvement. The effectiveness of the PBC in wider resource mobilisation remains a challenge and is an area in need of further enhancement, although the PBC does not have exclusive responsibility for this.

A second area mentioned, as needing improvement, is the absence of a strategic approach by the PBC to engage the emerging middle countries—with growing socioeconomic and attendant political clout—on the world stage (e.g. India, Brazil, etc.) as actors in the peacebuilding architecture in ways that could yield additional funds for peacebuilding purposes.

A third area where questions remain relates to the real impact of the PBC’s work on the ground in the countries on its agenda. Better assessment tools will have to be developed and agreed upon for such an exercise. Pertinent questions include:

• how well the priorities established for individual countries have been realised; and
• how success is viewed by the local population or communities (i.e. the intended beneficiaries of the work of the PBC), since this remains germane in galvanising local support.

Again, these are questions which are not exclusively within the PBC’s control but which are nevertheless important to any definitive view of its importance.
top

5.4 Integrating the Concept of Peacebuilding
A key element of the vision that led to the creation of the PBC was the need for a new twenty-first century machinery that could energise all to actively integrate peacebuilding tools to allow peace processes to bear fruit. The efforts towards coherence by the PBC have gained increasing attention. Also, the recent decisions by the Security Council to set up integrated peacebuilding missions have been widely welcomed as practical step in that regard.

The need for further coherence in peacebuilding efforts is gradually beginning to take hold at the UN and this has been reflected in Security Council decisions, but is still at an early stage. For instance, the penultimate paragraph of the Security Council’s presidential statement of 5 August (S/PRST/2009/24) recognised the importance of introducing peacebuilding elements in peacekeeping operations before a transfer to the PBC, but this recognition remains yet to be translated in any country-specific context. (A non-paper issued in July by the DPKO and the Department of Field Support entitled New Horizon, which had informed the Council meeting that adopted the statement, examined how effective partnerships are critical for boosting management and oversight of UN peacekeeping operations. It identified critical peacebuilding tasks as one of the three key challenges presently posing operational dilemmas for the missions. The other two challenges were the need for robust peacekeeping and protection of civilians.)

Other outstanding areas in related UN discussions include exploring the idea of peacebuilding being introduced in the immediate aftermath of conflict, as well as the idea of peacebuilding being introduced before the end of conflict.
top

6. Looking Ahead
The upcoming 2010 PBC review exercise requested in operative paragraph 27 of the founding resolutions will be an opportunity to take stock, to galvanise new momentum and to fine tune the workings and direction of the PBC. Challenges identified above will need to be addressed.

The review exercise could set the stage for peacebuilding to become a distinct core pillar of the UN alongside with other key ones like peace and security, development, human rights and humanitarian affairs. It seems that member states are keen to take the lead regarding the review exercise rather than leaving it to the Secretariat.

An underlying issue is likely to be the need to broaden the base of countries willing to contribute financial and technical assistance. The PBC may be required to explore ways of engaging non-traditional partners, such as the diasporas, private foundations and the private sector in order to supplement the flow of funds available for peacebuilding, especially regarding the key tasks emerging in most country-specific cases—fostering employment creation, economic recovery and growth in the early post conflict phases.

While some noticeable progress is being made in the peacebuilding context, it still competes against more high-profile conflict and crisis situations in engaging the interest of the Secretariat, the member states and the media. A key task for the review, therefore, will be to ensure that peacebuilding is not relegated to an auxiliary matter on the UN agenda.

Although the PBC is beginning to achieve some encouraging results, its success also has to be measured against the extent to which it is likely to achieve concrete results for the people on the ground. While this is difficult to determine, the legitimacy of the work of the PBC will be impacted by perceptions of such concrete outcomes. A number of factors remain essential in this regard for its success. These include:

• continued donor support for implementation of strategies;
• adequate and sustained funding from the traditional donors;
• stepping up efforts to involve new donors; and
• capacity building, coordination and coherence, resulting in tangible and measurable results needing to be a central element of all the PBC’s activities on the ground.

Ultimately, the yard stick for measuring the success of the Commission, beyond its ability to produce tangible peace dividends on the ground, hinges on fulfilling its primary mandate of preventing countries on its agenda from relapsing into violent conflict. On that score, overall, the PBC has done well so far, especially in the face of challenges this past year. Ultimately, in the years ahead another measure of the effect of the PBC’s performance will be when countries graduate from the agenda of the PBC.
top

7. UN Documents

8. Other Relevant Facts

9. Useful Additional Resources

• IPI Blue Papers, Peacebuilding: Task Forces on Strengthening Multilateral Security Capacity, No. 10 2009 (International Peace Institute)
• Taking Stock, Looking Forward: A Strategic Review of the Peacebuilding Commission, Center on International Cooperation and International Peace Institute, April 2008
• PBSO Organigramme and Branch Description

top

• Print
• Share

• Share or print this post