• Print
• Share

Update Report No. 4: Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: Institution Building

Word • PDF

Expected Council Action
On 21 January the Council at the initiative of January’s president, Bosnia and Herzegovina, will hold an open debate on institution building as part of post-conflict peacebuilding.

The Secretary-General is expected to provide a UN Secretariat perspective on this issue. Timor-Leste’s vice prime minister, Jose Luis Guterres, will give insights on Timor-Leste’s experiences in institution building and will also be speaking on behalf of the G7+ (a forum of 17 fragile states and conflict affected states which includes Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Liberia, Nepal, the Solomon Islands, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Timor-Leste). German Ambassador Peter Wittig is expected to be the first Council member to speak and will address the Council both in his capacity as chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) (which he holds till the end of January), as well as in his national capacity as a newly elected member.

On 10 January Bosnia and Herzegovina circulated a concept paper (S/2011/16) to help guide the discussions during the open debate.

A draft presidential statement is currently being discussed by Council members and is expected to be adopted at the end of the meeting.

Key Recent Developments
Bosnia and Herzegovina has had keen interest in the issue of post-conflict institution building given its experience in this area. It hopes to be able to share both positive and negative lessons learnt in post-conflict peacebuilding. In its concept paper, Bosnia and Herzegovina notes that although the Council has discussed post-conflict institution-building in the past there remains a number of outstanding issues that need to be addressed. The paper suggests that the Council should answer some of the following questions:

• Does the Council consider the process of institution building when preparing for a mission?
• How can the UN and international community more efficiently assist in building upon existing national capacities and resources?
• Can better partnerships be developed among international actors in order to improve institution building?What is the Council’s role in enhancing this partnership?
• What are the additional steps the UN system could take for a better integrated and more coordinated approach to institution building processes?
• How can the advisory role of the PBC help develop a more integrated approach to institution building and addressing gaps in transition?

The presidential statement being discussed by Council members at press time is expected to repeat a number of elements agreed upon in recent presidential statements on this issue along with some new elements. These may include:

• the importance of the UN and the international community having a coherent response to institution building in post-conflict peacebuilding;
• the need for the UN and international community to be more coordinated in how it helps develop existing national capacities in building state institutions and ensuring national ownership;
• improving integration, predictability and accountability within the UN in institution building;
• the advisory role of the PBC in tackling critical obstacles to peacebuilding and how the Council can utilise this;
• the importance of focused partnerships between the UN and other key actors;
• commitment to improving the Council’s consideration of institution building issues in designing the mandates of peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations.
• reference to the upcoming report of the review of civilian capacity which is expected in the first half of 2011 ( this review is a key element from the 2009 Secretary-General’s Report on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict and aims to improve the international response to countries emerging from conflict by strengthening the availability, deployability, and appropriateness of civilian capacities for peacebuilding);
• a request for the Secretary-General to include recommendations to strengthen the UN and international community capacities to support national institutions in his 2011 report on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict together with an assessment of the impact of his recommendations to strengthen the UN response in the immediate aftermath of conflict as set out in his 2009 report.

Developments in 2010
In 2010 the Council held two debates on post-conflict peacebuilding and adopted two presidential statements, as well as a resolution on the outcome of the PBC review. In addition a number of peacekeeping related debates also addressed the issue of early peacebuilding tasks and the overlap between peacekeeping and peacebuilding.

On 16 April 2010, under the Japanese presidency the Council discussed post-conflict peacebuilding strategies to prevent the recurrence of conflict and adopted a presidential statement which reiterated the importance of national ownership, highlighted the peaceful settlement of disputes and recognised the importance of developing state capacity. It also highlighted the critical role of and need for greater coordination with the PBC.

On 13 October 2010 another debate on post-conflict peacebuilding was held, this time focusing on two reports: the Secretary-General’s report on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict and his report on women’s participation in peacebuilding. In its presidential statement following the debate the Council reiterated its request to the Secretary-General to move forward with efforts to further clarify roles and responsibilities in core peacebuilding areas, to strengthen capacities and ensure greater accountability in assistance delivery. It also reiterated the importance of national ownership and early and predictable funding for those efforts. In addition it took note of the Secretary-General’s report on women’s participation in peacebuilding and looked forward to its consideration by all parts of the UN system.

On 29 October the Council adopted a resolution on the review of the peacebuilding architecture. In it the Council requested all relevant UN actors to “take forward, within their mandates and as appropriate, the recommendations of the report”. It also requested the PBC to reflect progress made in taking forward the recommendations in its annual reports and called for a comprehensive review in 2015.

Readers may like to refer to recent Security Council Report publications on the areas of peacekeeping, peacebuilding and conflict prevention:

• Peacekeeping, Monthly Forecast, November 2010

• Peacekeeping, Monthly Forecast, October 2010

• Peacekeeping (High-Level Meeting), Monthly Forecast, September 2010

• Peacebuilding, Monthly Forecast, October 2010

• Peacebuilding, Monthly Forecast, August 2010

• Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Prevention, Update Report, 14 July 2010

• Peacebuilding, Monthly Forecast, August 2010

• Peacebuilding, Update Report, 12 April 2010

• Peacekeeping , Monthly Forecast, February 2010

• Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa, Monthly Forecast, December 2009

• Peacebuilding Commission, Monthly Forecast, November 2009

• Support for AU Peacekeeping, Update Report, 22 October 2009

• Peacekeeping, Monthly Forecast, August 2009

• Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, Update Report, 17 July 2009

• Peacekeeping, Update Report, 25 June 2009

• Peacekeeping, Update Report, 16 January 2009

Key Issues
An immediate issue is whether to limit the presidential statement to general language essentially repeating agreed past language or whether to focus also on concrete action in addressing issues surrounding institution building in post-conflict peacebuilding.

A related issue is whether the Council can build momentum from the recent discussions on the overlap between conflict prevention, peacebuilding and peacekeeping activities and the review of the PBC.

Also related is the issue of whether the Council is ready to take up the recommendations made in the 2010 PBC review to the Security Council regarding its role in peacebuilding including seeking the PBC’s advice when peacekeeping mandates are being established, reviewed or approaching a drawdown.

A further issue is the fact that the 2011 Council has a large number of members who are also members of the PBC’s Organisational Committee and whether this will allow for innovative ideas on how to develop a more organic relationship between the Council and the PBC.

An underlying issue in delegations’ minds is likely to be the financing implications of peacebuilding tasks involving institution building.

Options
Options available to the Council include:

• adopting a relatively bland presidential statement essentially reiterating its past pronouncements on this issue;
• developing concrete recommendations in the presidential statement which could help the Council refine its approach towards the logical overlap between peacekeeping and peacebuilding.
• setting up an informal working group of experts to look at ways of injecting greater substance and relevance to interactions between the Council and PBC as suggested in the review of the PBC architecture published in July 2010.

Council Dynamics
Having held several discussions on post-conflict peacebuilding, as well as a number of debates on the overlap between peacekeeping and peacebuilding some Council members have questioned the need to have another debate on post-conflict peacebuilidng at this point in time. However, there appears to be general acceptance that this issue is of importance to Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly the issue of national ownership which is expected to be a key focus of the discussion.

So far negotiations on the presidential statement have been relatively smooth. This appears to be due to the fact that much of the substance has been agreed on in the past. However, there appears to be little appetite to come up with new recommendations at this stage.

A number of the new non-permanent members such as India, South Africa and Portugal have a keen interest in peacebuilding and are expected to pay close attention to this issue while on the Council but may want to pursue these issues over a longer time frame.

Some of the African members of the Council have highlighted the importance of cooperation with regional organisations in institution building and the need to consider more innovative ways of funding activity including possibly looking at assessed contributions.

The subject of the recommendations from the PBC review is likely to be a little more controversial. Members have not yet agreed on how best to interact with the PBC. Having both Germany, the chair of the PBC since January 2010, and Brazil, the chair of the Guinea-Bissau country-specific configuration, as well as South Africa, one of the co-facilitators of the PBC review, on the Council may bring a new dimension to this issue. Other elected members like Portugal have also in the past highlighted the need to improve the relationship between the Council and the PBC. Some permanent members on the other hand prefer a more cautious approach, particularly if it might impact on the working methods of the Council.

UN Documents

• Print
• Share

• Share or print this post