A/70/PV.94 General Assembly

Resolution 70/262, adopted this morning, on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, constitutes a new chapter in the efforts to promote peacebuilding as a major target and goal of the United Nations in terms of maintaining, promoting and sustaining international peace and security. That resolution, which corresponds to Security Council resolution 2282 (2016), on post-conflict peacebuilding, also adopted today, takes into account the development, nature and scope of international crises and conflicts. The report of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/70/714) affirms the responsibility of all United Nations organs to contribute to the elaboration of an integrated vision of sustaining peace, based on the interconnectedness of security, political and development factors. That vision should enable a reduction in the number of armed conflicts and make it possible to find solutions thereto. One of the most important results of the comprehensive review of the peacebuilding architecture (A/69/968), therefore, is its effort to focus of the attention of the coming leadership of the Organization on the need to deal with the diffuse efforts among the various United Nations departments, agencies and programmes. In that regard, the Egyptian delegation affirms that the situation requires an effective, genuine change in the approach of the Organization and its organs in dealing with international crises and conflicts. Such a change should involve the dedication of political, human and financial resources to address the root causes of conflicts. We feel that the most important aspect of resolution 70/262 is its reference to partnerships with regional organizations and the need for effective frameworks for the promotion of international and regional ownership of peacebuilding efforts. Partnerships with the African Union and African subregional organizations take on special importance in terms of enabling a better and more effective United Nations response to the region’s conflicts and emerging issues, such as terrorism, piracy and illegal immigration, the prevention of which requires comprehensive strategies using a variety of tools. The basic guarantee for the success of the United Nations and regional peacebuilding efforts is their anchoring in national and objective priorities. That has become known, in the literature on peacebuilding, as the principle of national leadership and ownership. The commitment to the implementation of that principle is the linchpin of sustaining peace. We therefore feel that it is important to focus United Nations and regional efforts on investing in and contributing to programmes that build national capacity, thereby ensuring that the efforts concerned are more successful and effective. Such a transformation in the nature of international efforts requires ongoing, predictable and sustainable sources of financing. In that regard, Egypt considers it important to enable the Peacebuilding Fund to continue its constructive role in the financing of programmes and initiatives based on the national priorities of the receiving State. Egypt therefore calls for the establishment of mechanisms to provide predictable and sustainable financing. Such financing would promote the capacity of the Fund to bridge the financing gap that usually accompanies the lessening of donor State interest, once hostilities have come to an end and there has been a decrease in violence. I would also like to indicate that resolution 70/262 contains provisions and recommendations aimed at providing an impetus to and promoting the Peacebuilding Commission as a consultative organ. The unique membership enjoyed by the Commission distinguishes it from all other United Nations intergovernmental organs, as it allows the Commission to bridge peacebuilding efforts, which also contributes to the development and promotion of human rights. Egypt feels that the necessary political will on the part of Member States would make it an effective instrument for mobilizing political interest in States that have overcome crisis situations and for generating genuine will to build the institutions of those States and continue on the path towards sustainable socioeconomic development. The report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its ninth session (A/70/714) provides proof of the Commission’s potential and its growing interest in such vital causes as the promotion of the role of women in peacebuilding efforts, in addition to the growing focus on regional peacebuilding measures and partnerships with the interregional groupings. We should also view the consensus achieved on the resolutions adopted today by the General Assembly and the Security Council in the light of the more comprehensive framework of efforts to reform and develop the United Nations peacebuilding and security architecture. The review of the peacebuilding architecture and the review on progress made in implementing Security Council resolution 1325 (2000), on women and peace and security, provide two complementary frameworks to view the peacebuilding architecture. In that regard, the delegation of Egypt affirms the need for a united political message affirming that sustaining peace is the ultimate objective of the work of the Organization, and that it is time to reconsider and objectively evaluate the capacity and structure needed to achieve that objective. Egypt looks forward to cooperating with Member States in the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Peace and Security Council of the African Union during the coming months to translate the provisions of resolution 70/262 into action without delay, and to develop the policies and structures and pinpoint the resources that would promote the Organization’s efforts to sustain peace. Egypt, as a current member of the Security Council, accords the utmost importance and care to peacebuilding — especially in the context of the partnership with the African Union. We intend to submit a developed vision in that regard that embraces a more comprehensive perspective during the open debate of the Security Council to be held on 24 May on cooperation between the African Union and the United Nations.

At the outset, I would like to thank Angola and Australia for their leadership during the second stage of the review of the peacebuilding architecture, during which they facilitated the intergovernmental consultations that led to today’s adoption of resolution 70/262 by the General Assembly and resolution 2282 (2016) by the Security Council. My delegation is pleased that today’s review coincides with the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, the review of all United Nations peacekeeping operations and the review of the implementation of Security Council resolution 2122 (2013), on women and peace and security. We dare hope that our Organization will take full advantage of the unique opportunity offered by this series of closely related review processes with a view to redirecting our actions and strategies so as to build an integrated, strategic and coherent peacebuilding approach, bearing in mind that security, development and human rights are closely linked and mutually reinforcing. Clearly, the resolutions adopted this morning illustrate our determination to make a break by developing an approach to peacebuilding that is more consistent and better able to establish a genuine foundation for a lasting peace. With regard to the report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its ninth session (A/70/714), my delegation welcomes the continued collaboration between the Commission and regional and subregional actors concerning the general guidelines and activities to be carried out at the country level. Indeed, during several discussions held by the Commission on specific countries, the role of neighbouring countries and regional and subregional organizations was described as essential to the success of the political process and to the prevention of any risk of instability. In that regard, it is important to strengthen cooperation among regional partners. It is against that backdrop that we reiterate our request for the establishment of an institutional partnership among the Commission, the African Union and African subregional organizations. The repeated cycles of violence in Africa, despite the considerable efforts of regional actors and the United Nations, are the result of a lack of critical analysis of the underlying causes and triggers of conflicts on the continent. As such, it is necessary to adopt more effective conflict-prevention strategies that take into due account the needs in terms of economic and social developments in all peacebuilding activities. As pointed out in the report, that necessarily requires cooperation with regional actors such as the African Development Bank and the Economic Commission for Africa in order to respond more coherently to urgent peacebuilding needs. With regard to the Commission’s activities under the Guinea-Bissau country-specific configuration, we welcome the active role it has played in promoting coherent regional support for the efforts undertaken by the Guinea-Bissau authorities in accordance with the most pressing national priorities. Those priorities were set out by the Government of Guinea-Bissau in March 2015 at Brussels in the context of the international donors conference. They include a 10-year national development strategy that focuses on improving governance and access to basic services, the elimination of poverty and the promotion of economic prospects. Senegal, a long-standing strategic partner of Guinea- Bissau, did not fail to contribute to the success of that event, where pledges totaled €1.2 billion. However, the political tensions that arose in August slowed the efforts of Guinea-Bissau’s partners. Through the mediation efforts of the Economic Community of West African States and the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau, as well as the efforts of the international community, we have hope that the situation in that friendly country will improve further. With regard to the Republic of Guinea, we welcome the efforts of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Office for West Africa in support of the electoral process and post-Ebola recovery. With regard to the political process in the country, Senegal welcomes the successful presidential elections held last October, which resulted in the re-election of President Alpha Condé. On the issue of greater consistency in our efforts, we need more dynamic interaction among the Peacebuilding Commission and the principal organs of the United Nations and its funds and programmes, as well as international, regional and local partners. Only in that way will we manage to strengthen the necessary synergies and ensure that our initiatives have greater impact on the ground. On that point, my delegation would like to emphasize in particular the importance of boosting interaction between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. We believe that the Council should improve the Commission’s ability to play its role as a consultative body through more frequent use of its services, in particular in connection with providing advice, awareness- raising and resource-mobilization. Moreover, such a comprehensive approach should also be used when considering questions relating to peacebuilding through the development of an integrated strategy in several areas, including security, development and human rights, as well as gender equality and the rule of law. There should be greater cooperation between the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Commission, as called for at its 2015 annual session, during which participants strongly warned against the dangers of a fragmented financing system that lacked the necessary resources. As such, to fill the gaps it will be necessary to strengthen partnerships with international financial institutions, not only for peacebuilding projects but also for the development of future development strategies. In addition, for peace to be lasting the restoration of security must go hand in hand with economic development. Lessons learned from the peacebuilding process, in particular in Africa, give us the full measure of that dimension. Countries undergoing the peacebuilding process need resources to finance wealth- and job-creation projects for young people and women, who play a key role in economic and social recovery efforts. However, according to the report of the Advisory Group of Experts, the Peacebuilding Fund is just not sufficient to produce the expected impact on its own, and it is far from having attained its goal of serving as the catalyst for a stream of greater resources from other sources. My delegation also strongly supports the recommendation of the Advisory Group of Experts to invite the General Assembly to consider the possibility of adopting measures to ensure that core funding corresponding to $100 million, or about a symbolic 1 per cent of the value of all United Nations peacekeeping operations budgets, is allocated to peacebuilding annually from assessed contributions under the budget of the Organization.

I welcome the convening of this meeting to discuss the most recent reports on the current peacebuilding architecture of the United Nations. This meeting comes at a key moment, as it coincides with the adoption of resolution 70/262, on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. Spain fully aligns itself with the statement made by the delegation of the European Union (see A/70/PV.93), but would like to make several remarks in our national capacity. We believe that the reasons that led to the establishment of the peacebuilding architecture are more valid today than ever. On certain occasions — on too many occasions — countries that recently experienced conflict have slid back into instability and violence. Peacebuilding is a long-term undertaking that requires sustained effort throughout the entire cycle of conflict. Despite enabling us to maintain our focus on situations and needs that might otherwise be neglected, we have not made sufficient use of those tools, which explains their failure to reach their full potential. Overcoming those limits is the purpose of the current review. We welcome the report (A/70/714) describing the most salient activities carried out by the Peacebuilding Commission during 2015. We also welcome the report (A/70/715) of the Secretary-General on the Peacebuilding Fund, which warns us of the paradox of the disconnection between ambitions and results, on the one hand, and resources, on the other. The new review of the peacebuilding architecture being completed now has allowed for the identification of certain key elements to guide strategies and activities in support of peacebuilding processes with a view to improving their effectiveness, on the basis of experience and lessons learned in a variety of countries. It seems to us that this practical and operational approach is particularly correct. We would urge that synergies and complementarities between this review and those covering peace operations and women and peace and security be maximized. We must take advantage of the opportunity provided by the three reviews to be sure that they all play a greater role in fostering the necessary political commitment among member countries, promoting consistency, both within and beyond the United Nations system, and mobilizing resources. We also have to take into account the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (resolution 70/1). Unlike the Millennium Development Goals, the 2030 Agenda was designed to be a transformative vision for the entire international community. For the first time, an international development agenda includes a goal, in this case Goal 16, that addresses the challenges of politics, peace, security, governance and justice — because none of the least-developed countries that have been affected by conflict has achieved a single Millennium Development Goal. Without development and poverty eradication, there is no sustainable peace. In the Security Council’s open debate on peacebuilding on 23 February (see S/PV.7629), Spain emphasized that what we need now is a changed mindset in the organizational culture of the United Nations and greater coherence in the system, capable of strengthening a country’s sense of national ownership on the ground as well as its capacity for development. My delegation also stressed the importance of improving prevention and mediation and strengthening cooperation with regional and subregional actors. In Spain’s view, a key element to achieving a peaceful society is working on conflict prevention in its early stages. Moments of crisis and outbreaks of violence are often symptoms of long-term tensions. As the European Union has pointed out, in many cases sustaining peace equals conflict prevention. The United Nations system should make it a priority to help countries establish effective and inclusive mechanisms and institutions that will enable them to address the underlying socioeconomic and political causes, as well as the triggers of violent conflict. Such mechanisms should cover issues related to strengthening the rule of law, eradicating poverty, fostering social development and respect for democracy, and promoting and protecting human rights. Peace is not just an end in itself; it also brings prosperity. Preventive diplomacy is an important tool in achieving sustainable peace, and we should view collaboration with other international organizations in that manner, particularly those in Africa, not just in order to improve coherence and coordination between our strategies and actions, but also to take better advantage of their understanding of the local context. In order to do that, the Security Council should recapture the spirit of Chapters VI and VII of the Charter of the United Nations. For such preventive efforts we should also refine our early-warning and conflict-analysis systems, together with those already in existence, so as to enable us to share information, take advantage of and transfer capabilities, and replicate good experiences for anticipating conflicts. The good offices of the Secretary- General and his responsibility, in accordance with his mandate, to draw the Council’s attention to situations that threaten international peace and security, are other important tools in that regard. Secondly, it is essential to emphasize the prominent role that women should play at every stage of peacebuilding. We were pleased to see that the review (A/69/968) recognizes the importance of strengthening the gender aspect and women’s participation in peace processes from their early stages. In that regard, Spain, as co-Chair with the United Kingdom, has been promoting the creation of an informal Security Council group on women and peace and security, with the aim of addressing that issue comprehensively, studying prevention and recovery, as well as protection and participation. Regarding the importance of the Peacebuilding Commission as an advisory and evaluative body to both the Security Council and the General Assembly, the Commission can play a crucial unifying role in bridging the gaps and compartments that divide security, development and human rights commitments. The proposed reforms of the Commission’s working methods and functions should strengthen its role as a tool useful to the Council in dealing with situations that no longer qualify as crises but are still fragile and in need of specific and sustained attention, or when the Council has to address problems with implementing missions’ peacebuilding mandates or with drawing down and terminating missions. For that, we could also increase participation by the Chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission’s country-specific configurations in Security Council consultations. Similarly, the United Nations should integrate the work of the Security Council, the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council at Headquarters in order to enable them to lead more effectively on the ground. In the field, we can enhance the role of the country teams and their resident coordinators, who should be trained in managing and planning for building and sustaining peace. The fact that the Commission has no presence on the ground makes that even more essential. I would also like to emphasize the importance of promoting and concretizing the partnerships between the United Nations, national Governments and other stakeholders, including civil-society organizations, that are supposed to play a key role in peacebuilding. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the commitment of Spain, as a major donor to the Peacebuilding Fund and a member of the Commission’s Organizational Committee, to continuing to work with as many countries as possible in order to maximize the contribution of the United Nations system generally, and the Peacebuilding Commission in particular, to peacebuilding processes — something that seems to be in such short supply — on the basis of resolution 70/262, whose adoption we welcomed today. In that regard, Spain intends to resume its voluntary contributions to the Fund with the intention of establishing itself as one of the top 10 donors, proof of our commitment to the United Nations peacebuilding system.

This year’s annual discussion of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the Peacebuilding Fund is being held a decade after their establishment as part of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture in the wake of the landmark 2005 World Summit. It has also given us an opportunity for a comprehensive review of the peacebuilding architecture’s impact in terms of the role that it was expected to perform, particularly its role in facilitating countries’ successful transition in post- conflict situations and in contributing to the avoidance of any relapse into conflict. We are also meeting only months after the landmark adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (resolution 70/1), designed to be a guide in the collective global effort to build peaceful, secure and prosperous societies. The 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals also highlight the importance of the development dimension and the cross-cutting nature of the issues involved in building and maintaining peace. We welcome the adoption today of comprehensive resolutions on the review of the peacebuilding architecture by both the General Assembly and the Security Council (resolutions 70/262 and 2282 (2016), respectively), and we appreciate the work that went into the preparation of the report of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture (see A/69/968) for that major exercise. The resolution clearly outlines the complexity of the issues involved in sustaining peace. We especially welcome the emphasis given to the importance of sustainable development, economic growth and increased funding for promoting peacebuilding efforts. The Peacebuilding Commission, the Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office were designed to address the significant gaps identified in existing strategies for conflict prevention over the short and the longer term. The peacebuilding architecture was intended to provide international support for mobilizing financial and technical resources, in particular for assisting peacebuilding efforts. The Commission introduced a much-needed focus on the development dimension into the discourse on how to achieve lasting peace and security. However, the record of the Peacebuilding Commission’s effectiveness during its 10-year existence has been mixed at best. It has succeeded in highlighting the crucial importance of peacebuilding when conflicts end and peacekeeping missions are drawn down, and in providing some assistance in specific situations relating to improving capacities for institution-building, electoral reforms and so forth. The Ebola outbreak also provided a new context for the PBC’s efforts. But the impact of its peacebuilding efforts is still limited, primarily because of its very inadequate funding and less-than-optimum coordination with other United Nations bodies, including the Security Council. It is quite clear that those challenges can be overcome only if there is genuine political will among those who are able to contribute in that regard. The changing nature of conflicts is affecting the complexity of peacebuilding, especially in its tasks of avoiding relapses into conflict and building sustaining peace. While it is increasingly clear that instability in one part of the world can affect security and economic prospects even in far distant places, the focus on peacebuilding continues to be limited. That must be remedied. In a globalized world, peoples’ destinies are interlinked, and conflicts present common challenges. Their solutions also require collective responses. The funds available for peacebuilding continue to be a fraction of what is available for peacekeeping activities and are even declining. Only more predictable and sustainable financing will help the Peacebuilding Commission to be more effective. While we recognize the relevance of greater coherence and coordination within the United Nations system and beyond, the subject should be carefully examined, in view of the various responsibilities, tasks and priorities involved. If peacebuilding efforts are to be sustainable, they must be aligned with national priorities. The role of women and young people in peacebuilding, including in decision-making, is important. Skills development and job creation are crucial to maintaining peace and preventing relapses into conflict. We also recognize the importance of cooperation with regional organizations in peacebuilding efforts. With its unique membership and interaction with other organs, including the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, the Peacebuilding Commission can play an important role in sustaining peacebuilding over the longer term. As a member of the Commission since its inception, India stands ready to help strengthen the United Nations peacebuilding architecture.

The Argentine delegation is taking the floor in this debate to express its approbation of today’s joint adoption by the Security Council and the General Assembly of substantively the same resolution on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture (resolutions 2282 (2016) and 70/262, respectively). We know that the work on the text has been painstaking and reflects a balance among the various positions of individual countries and groups in the negotiations, while laying a foundation for further progress on the issue in future. My country would like to reiterate its thanks to the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of Peacebuilding Architecture, chaired by Ambassador Gert Rosenthal, for its efforts to identify and describe peacebuilding’s challenges, which to a large degree are addressed in the resolution. We would also like to thank the facilitators, the Permanent Representatives of Angola and Australia and their teams, for their efforts. Argentina supports the concept of “sustaining peace” as defined in the resolution, understood as a continuous process involving the peacebuilding system not only in the post-conflict stage but also before, during and after conflicts, based on a comprehensive approach that takes into account the importance of addressing the root causes of such conflicts by, among other things, strengthening the rule of law, promoting sustained and sustainable economic growth, eradicating poverty, fostering social development and promoting democracy and respect for human rights. The concept of “sustaining peace” is thereby linked to the Organization’s new and fundamental emphasis on prevention, an element that links the peacebuilding review to the other two recent peace and security reviews carried out in parallel, namely, those on peacekeeping operations and on women and peace and security. Another point that we would like to emphasize about today’s resolution is its insistence on the need for coordination among the principal organs of the United Nations, avoiding isolated actions in silos and working towards systemic coherence in peacebuilding strategies, in an approach that ensures inclusive national ownership with the participation of all relevant national stakeholders, particularly civil society, and that takes into account the importance of women’s leadership and participation in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. One aspect of the resolution where we would have preferred to see a firmer commitment on the part of Member States is the financing of peacebuilding activities. In that regard, we stress how important it is to be able to rely on predictable and sustainable funding for such activities, and we reiterate our support for the recommendation of the Advisory Group of Experts that about $100 million should be allocated annually to the Peacebuilding Fund from the contributions to the Organization’s budget. That is the minimum financial commitment that we should be willing to offer, and even that is insufficient considering the magnitude of peacebuilding’s tasks. We need only compare the insignificance of that contribution to conflict prevention and peacebuilding to the hundreds of billions of dollars that the world spends on military expenditures. Argentina welcomes the adoption of today’s resolution and encourages Member States to continue to work to improve the peacebuilding architecture in anticipation of the upcoming high-level meeting on the subject to be held during the seventy-second session of the Assembly, at which it will analyse the efforts and the opportunities to strengthen our work on sustainable security. We hope that this path will continue helping us to give the Organization increasingly effective tools for promoting the peace and development of our peoples.

At the outset, I would like to thank the President for convening this important joint debate on the report of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/70/714) and the Secretary-General’s report on the Peacebuilding Fund (A/70/715). I would also like to thank my colleague Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden and outgoing Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), for his detailed and edifying briefing this morning (see A/70/PV.93). I commend him once again for the exceptional professionalism and skill that he showed during his stewardship of the Commission. And while I have had the opportunity to do so on other occasions, I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the Permanent Representative of Kenya, Ambassador Macharia Kamau, on his new responsibilities and wish him resounding success for his tenure. I would also like to commend the outstanding work of the co-facilitators, the Ambassadors of Angola and Australia, in conducting the negotiations leading up to this morning’s adoption of resolution 70/262, on the review of the peacebuilding architecture. Without going into the details of the report, I would like to briefly echo some of its salient elements. First, regarding the principle of national ownership, at the risk of repeating myself, I would like to reiterate how important it is to ensure national ownership of the peacebuilding process by the countries benefiting from it and the ongoing commitment of the countries that receive peacebuilding support. Above all, we should ensure that there is consultation and close cooperation between international partners and national Governments, along with coordination of the efforts of those international partners, particularly in the area of resource mobilization. We should remember that identifying priority areas is the responsibility of national and local authorities and that the Commission’s role should be limited to one of support. Still with regard to national ownership, my delegation believes that ownership on a single level is not enough but must extend beyond that to the local, regional and continental levels, the three levels of ownership that are critical to implementing a sustainable peace process. Local, national, regional and continental ownership not only strengthens the legitimacy of the programmes’ execution but also helps to ensure the sustainability of national capacity as a whole once a peacekeeping operation has ended. Secondly, with regard to the regional aspects of peacebuilding, I would like to emphasize the importance of the regional dimension. As the Assembly is aware, the Commission is particularly well placed to promote greater harmony between the subregional, regional, continental and international aspects of a post-conflict response. The Commission’s experience in Burundi has shown that improved regional and subregional coherence is a key supporting factor for peacebuilding efforts. Integrating regional and subregional perspectives into the work of the Commission continues to be crucial. In fact, many countries may prefer to receive help and advice from peer nations in their own region, and regional organizations may be better placed to intervene at timely moments and help with decision-making in arriving at sustainable solutions to very sensitive issues. We welcome the fact that during the period covered by the report, the Commission stressed the importance of further strengthening regional cohereпсе, which is vital in helping countries to maintain peace and avoid relapses into conflict. While at times we have witnessed differences in views of the political situation in Burundi between our region, the African Union and New York, we nonetheless commend this dynamic approach to the regional dimension, which must be strengthened, maintained and above all sustained. Thirdly, regarding cooperation between the Commission, the General Assembly and the Security Council, my delegation believes that cooperation between the Commission and the three main organs of the United Nations remains crucial and should be further strengthened. The informal dialogues organized jointly by the President of the Security Council and the Chair of the Commission, the periodic assessment meetings at the expert level and the formal briefings to the Council on the countries on its agenda and on thematic issues have been extremely useful. In the interests of strengthening relations between the Commission and the Security Council, in future the Council should consider inviting the Chairs of country- specific configurations to Council briefings on matters concerning countries on the Commission’s agenda. We believe that their contributions, in addition to the Secretariat’s briefings, would be very useful to Member States in their stance on the issues. There can be no doubt whatever that informal bilateral interactions with the Security Council would help the PBC to maximize and capitalize on its advisory role and to come up with and share ideas that could well be reflected in Security Council resolutions. Fourthly, with regard to recognition of the vital issue of gender equality in cooperative activities with countries, my delegation believes that women’s participation in political life in the post-conflict period and the gender-specific aspects of peacebuilding deserve sustained focus and unwavering commitment. In order to get off to a good start, women should be able to participate in peace negotiations and thereby be part of the post-conflict transition process. We support and welcome the debate that began last year on formulating a strategy that takes into account the importance of ensuring parity in cooperative activities with countries on the PBC’s agenda. Among other things, such a strategy would enable the Commission to strengthen and concretize its commitments to gender equality, including those made in its declaration on women’s economic empowerment for peacebuilding, adopted in 2013, and thereby to naturally ensure greater structural integration of the gender equality issue into its work. Fifthly, regarding the fight against Ebola, we welcome the fact that the Commission has worked to conduct an information campaign in New York on the potential long-term effects of the Ebola crisis on peace, stability, social cohesion and economic well-being in the affected countries. The resolute commitment of Member States to collective action from the beginning of the epidemic showed that the Commission is capable of making use of its political assets. In short, we can say that the Commission’s involvement in the fight against Ebola as soon as it first appeared represents a shared success and a good experience that in future will enable us to deal effectively with similar cases that might arise anywhere in the world. Sixthly, concerning the subject of new cross- cutting issues, my delegation would like to emphasize the active role that young people can and do play in their countries. Very often, and this is certainly the case in Burundi, unemployed young people are likely to be manipulated and exploited by politicians for purely political ends. Such underemployed young people, often left to their own devices, resort to indiscriminate violence under internal and external pressures aimed at destabilizing fragile countries that have barely emerged from conflict. We should do everything possible to ensure that young people can find alternatives to violence. That can be done only by supporting the private sector in creating jobs that will significantly reduce unemployment in the countries concerned. To that end, we should encourage the establishment of public-private partnerships through which the business world can support efforts to enable countries emerging from conflict to launch social and economic reconstruction that is not vulnerable to the political tensions that result in, for example, the exploitation of natural resources, a lack of job creation, land disputes and attempts at regime change by external actors. Turning to the Peacebuilding Fund, it is extremely regrettable to learn that it has been underfinanced for two years in a row. That resource deficit has a negative effect on the Commission’s projects and programmes for its recipients. The report’s recommendations concerning the need for sufficient and predictable funding deserve particular attention from Member States, particularly donor States. I would like to conclude by commending the work of the Peacebuilding Support Office under the able leadership of Mr. Oscar Fernandez-Taranco and his team, to whom we once again reiterate our full support.

Switzerland welcomes today’s unanimous adoption of resolution 70/262, on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. Today’s adoption highlights our collective commitment to a stronger and more comprehensive vision of peacebuilding. Over the past decade, substantive progress has been made in peacebuilding, with regard to both the concept itself and the related institutions and activities. Among the many important achievements of the resolution, my delegation would like to highlight five. First, we welcome the notion of “sustaining peace”, meaning preserving peace over time, and thereby the inclusion of a more holistic perspective of peacebuilding, which includes efforts aimed at conflict prevention. This reflects one of the key recommendations of the review and clearly strengthens the understanding that peacebuilding is relevant before, during and after armed conflicts. Switzerland remains convinced that the peacebuilding architecture can and should contribute to preventing relapses into armed conflict, and we fully support the recognition of this aspect in today’s resolution. Secondly, the resolution renews and fosters our collective commitment to supporting and further strengthening coordination, coherence and cooperation within the United Nations and regional and international actors, and acknowledges the role of civil society. While this is not a new endeavour, the resolution provides a solid foundation for helping to ensure this key condition for the success of preventive measures and peacebuilding. Thirdly, the resolution highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to transitional justice in peacebuilding by recognizing that peace, poverty reduction and the promotion of good governance may be achieved only with justice and the rule of law. Fourthly, Switzerland welcomes the call for more predictable financing of peacebuilding activities. We look forward to studying the forthcoming recommendations by the Secretary-General with a view to increasing the overall predictability and availability of funding for peacebuilding. Fifthly, my delegation is convinced of the particular merit of the Peacebuilding Commission and its country configurations to address specific situations. We look forward to continuing our shared reflection on the diversification of working methods and remain convinced that a strong peacebuilding architecture should remain the backbone of the United Nations peacebuilding efforts. While the resolution adopted today represents a solid framework and vision for the future of peacebuilding, our collective efforts in building peace will need to be pursued with vigour and unity of effort. Switzerland is pleased to note today’s strong commitment of the General Assembly to further strengthen the peacebuilding architecture, and we very much remain committed to contributing in future to that end.

On behalf of the Nigerian delegation, I thank the President of the General Assembly for convening this important joint debate on the annual report of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) (A/70/714) and the Secretary-General’s report on the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) (A/70/715). I would also like to thank Mr. Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of Kenya, Chair of the PBC, for his statement, which provided fresh perspectives on the activities of the Commission. I would also like to thank Ambassador Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden and former Chair of the PBC, for his able and committed leadership during his tenure. My delegation would further like to express profound appreciation to the Chairs of the various country-specific configurations and Mr. Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, Assistant Secretary- General for Peacebuilding Support, for their untiring efforts in channelling assistance to countries emerging from conflict. My delegation welcomes the concurrent adoption of resolution 70/262 and Security Council resolution 2282 (2016), on the review of the peacebuilding architecture, and in this regard, commends the Permanent Representatives of Angola and Australia for effectively co-facilitating the intergovernmental process that culminated in the adoption of these resolutions. Nigeria associates itself with the statements made by the representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the PBC African caucus, and by the representative of Bangladesh on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (see A/70/PV.93). Nonetheless, I would like to underscore a few points of interest. While the reports before us provide a comprehensive overview of the substantive activities of the PBC and the PBF, it is vital to note that developments during the reporting period in some countries on the PBC agenda remain a cause for concern. The situation in these countries highlights the fact that peacebuilding is not a linear, progressive process, but a multidimensional approach, encompassing initiatives that must proactively engender sustainable peace. In this context, my delegation would like to reiterate the following points. First, when Nigeria convened an open debate on preventive diplomacy at the Security Council some years ago (see S/PV.6360), we were motivated by the concern that the nature of conflict was outpacing our collective ability to respond effectively to it. Ten years after the establishment of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, post-conflict peacebuilding remains a fragile undertaking, with mixed results. While peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict is indeed necessary, it cannot be an effective long-term strategy or solution. We believe that early intervention before simmering crises erupt into conflict is a critical peacebuilding strategy that must be embraced. We also believe that the global foresight of drawing up structural peacebuilding initiatives, encouragement in favour of institution-building, good governance, respect for democratic institutions, human rights, delivery of humanitarian assistance, as well as the socioeconomic empowerment of fledging States and regions, are essential prerequisites for a peacebuilding strategy to be effective. That is why we support the simultaneous adoption of the resolution on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, which emphasizes the centrality of the preventive approach to peacebuilding. Secondly, peacebuilding is essentially about enhancing the capacity of affected countries and regions to undertake the challenges of peacebuilding on their own. This is in line with the principle of national ownership, which is fundamental to discussions on peacebuilding. The PBC must therefore ensure that its engagement with the countries on the agenda results in strengthening the capacity of these countries to take up the tasks of peacebuilding on their own. In addition, the principle of inclusivity, which seeks to enhance women’s empowerment and participation and the role of young people in fragile societies, must be given primacy in the peacebuilding process. We believe that the resolution adopted today will facilitate the achievement of these goals. Furthermore, lessons from the field have also shown that due to the cross-cutting nature of the issues, especially the interconnectedness and commonality of challenges and opportunities within regions, the PBC must adopt a regional approach by strengthening collaboration with relevant regional organizations and entities, such as, inter alia, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and the Mano River Union, as a pragmatic engagement tool for dealing with crises, as was seen in the recent fight against the Ebola virus disease in West Africa. Nigeria therefore emphasizes the need for increased collaboration between the United Nations and regional organizations in the formulation and implementation of post-conflict peacebuilding activities. That is the case because only actors that understand the root causes of conflicts can undertake appropriate efforts to avert any relapse into conflict. We therefore strongly advocate that effective peace initiatives should be nationally owned and driven, regionally anchored and internationally supported. Thirdly, the commitment of individual and collective activities of the PBC must go beyond rhetoric and be supportive and results-oriented, with special focus placed on concrete contributions. It should be reflected in financial contributions, provision for material or technical contributions or the sharing of experiences. While developing countries may not be able to provide significant financial contributions, they may have a tremendous wealth of experience to share. In this regard, the overarching aim of the PBC should be to reflect on how best to systematically utilize all the accumulated lessons learned in the area of peacebuilding in the countries on their agenda. Fourthly, the PBC should intensify its efforts to strengthen inter-institutional cooperation and partnership with all relevant stakeholders, including the principal organs of the United Nations. In this regard, my delegation further welcomes the adoption of the resolution on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, which highlights the importance of strengthening the PBC’s advisory role with respect to the Security Council as well as in advancing a coherent approach to multidimensional peacebuilding mandates. In addition, forging coherence and complementarity of action and improving coordination of actors would avoid overlapping of actions or duplication of efforts. It would further ensure greater clarity of purpose, responsibility and accountability. There can be no meaningful peacebuilding without funding, as funding is key to achieving and implementing the critical peacebuilding mandate. That is why we attach great importance to the work of the Peacebuilding Fund. We believe that the commitment of Member States should be reflected in their willingness to make financial contributions, share their experiences and provide technical support. My delegation commends the steps taken by the Peacebuilding Support Office to continually improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Peacebuilding Fund. The 2015 PBF high-level stakeholders meeting was no doubt a great success. However, this laudable effort must be complemented by exploring other options for longer-term and predictable financing. We commend Member States and other donors for their invaluable contributions. We also urge other donors, especially in the private sector, to make sure their contributions engender the sustenance of global peace and security. In conclusion, I wish to reiterate Nigeria’s commitment to peacebuilding activities. It is our fervent hope that this debate will provide new insights and impetus for enhancing post-conflict peacebuilding and conflict-prevention activities, as we look forward to the concrete implementation of the resolution on the United Nations peacebuilding architecture adopted today.

Belgium thanks the Permanent Representatives of Angola and Australia for conducting negotiations that led us to adopt the comprehensive and consensual resolution 70/262, on the United Nations peace and security architecture. We also thank the Chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) for the report on the activities of the Commission (A/70/714) and the Secretary-General for his report on the Peacebuilding Fund (A/70/715). Belgium fully supports the statement made by the observer of the European Union (see A/70/PV.93). In our national capacity, we wish to emphasize the following. Priority should be given to conflict prevention. The fact that the resolution focuses on the sustainability of peace, rather than preventing relapse in post-conflict countries, as was the case in the past, is a step forward that we should welcome. If peacebuilding processes are to succeed, it is essential that they be subject to inclusive national ownership. In other words, they should involve both the Government and the opposition as well as civil society, including women’s and youth organizations. The Secretary-General has on many occasions stressed that massive and repeated violations of human rights are the warning signs of crisis and conflict. The peacebuilding process must therefore systematically incorporate respect and promotion of human rights. Peacebuilding is above all a political process in which the political will of the Government in question plays a decisive role, and international partners play a supporting role. The concept of “compact” detailing the common objectives of the country and its international partners illustrates this relationship. The Peacebuilding Commission can therefore play an important role in transition situations, whether they be political transitions — which are often at- risk periods — or transitions following the scheduled departure of a peacekeeping operation. The report of the Peacebuilding Commission rightly emphasizes the importance of the consolidation of political, administrative and judicial institutions in the countries concerned. Particular importance should also be given to demobilization, disarmament and reintegration and to security-sector reform, on the one hand, and to economic governance, the rebuilding of tax administrations, the fight against corruption and illicit financial flows and a rational use of natural resources for the benefit of the entire population, on the other hand. Belgium has decided to focus its development assistance on the least developed countries and countries in fragile situations. We are part of the country-specific configurations for the Central African Republic, Burundi and, more recently, Guinea, which has otherwise become a bilateral cooperation partner of my country. Work undertaken in the framework of the PBC’s country-specific configurations ensures close contact with the reality on the ground and the characteristics of each country on the agenda. It is a format that also allows for the participation of various development partners. This tailored approach is worth retaining, even if improvements could be made to the procedures and composition of the configurations. The contribution of country configurations to the Security Council’s thinking when it takes up issues relevant to the PBC needs to become more systematic. The Peacebuilding Fund has made it possible to quickly finance urgent action in support of political efforts, and its value added is widely recognized. However, Belgium calls for peacebuilding and the management of fragile situations becoming an essential and integral part of cooperation programmes with international partners in countries in fragile situations, whether these partners be the States Members of the United Nations working together, the World Bank, regional banks, or regional and bilateral donors. Indeed, the efforts aimed at peacebuilding go well beyond the United Nations, and synergies must be organized if we are to effectively reach our goals. As an example, I would mention the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, whose fifth meeting was recently held in Stockholm, and the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States and the cooperation initiative among fragile countries of the Group of Seven Plus. Belgium welcomes the adoption of the resolution on the peace and security architecture and assures the international community of its full implementation.

At the outset, I would like to thank Ambassador Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden and outgoing Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, and acknowledge him for his work. Similarly, I commend the efforts of Ambassador Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of Kenya and current Chair of the Commission. We also welcome the submission of the report of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/70/714) and the report of the Peacebuilding Fund (A/70/715) and we reaffirm our support and commitment as members of the Commission. The year 2015 was a year of particular importance for the future of peacebuilding and the Peacebuilding Commission, especially considering the five-year review of the peacebuilding architecture and today’s adoption of resolution 70/262. I welcome the resolution we adopted simultaneously in the General Assembly and the Security Council (resolution 2282 (2016)) and recognize the work done during the negotiations by the co-facilitators, the Permanent Representatives of Angola and Australia. This adoption is an important step towards strengthening the peacebuilding work of the United Nations work and, in particular, of the Commission. The resolution strengthens anew the path towards a unified and consistent vision of peacebuilding in which all stages of conflict require attention. In this approach, prevention is crucial to avoiding conflict and relapse and their human and economic costs, and that is why it should be a key task in the Commission’s work. With regard to the report of the Peacebuilding Commission and its work in 2015, the progress made in the diversification of the Commission’s working methods was important, and we welcome it. Let me reiterate Colombia’s readiness to work with the Chair of the Commission and the other members in order to improve these methods. Colombia believes that the Commission must become a valuable platform for all countries that seek its recommendations and support. In this regard, we welcome the idea of ​a more flexible Commission, which goes beyond the concept of configurations without losing its country- specific focus. Colombia considers it essential to continue to address the needs for consistency among peacebuilding policies and activities. With the first annual session of the Commission held in 2014, representative progress was made in identifying areas where coordinated work can be achieved. In this regard, we wish to highlight the joint work of the Commission with the Peacebuilding Support Office, under the leadership of Mr. Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, and with the Peacebuilding Fund. The harmonization of their complementary roles and strategies with a view to increasing cooperation has generated visible progress in countries that have received support. The Commission has proved to be an inclusive platform that brings together the countries concerned, regional partners, international financial institutions and regional and subregional organizations. In this sense, the recent meetings of the Peacebuilding Commission, which focused on the regional dimension of peacebuilding, are activities that remind us of and reinforce the importance of the Commission’s convening power. We cannot forget that the peacebuilding efforts require the mobilization of predictable financial, technical and political support in the short, medium and long terms. The Commission is the most appropriate platform to help develop and implement national strategies for resource mobilization for peacebuilding and to advocate for their timely deployment. In this connection, the resolution welcomes the valuable work of the Peacebuilding Fund and reaffirms the idea that the Fund provides quick and flexible responses that serve as a catalyst to conflict-affected countries. To achieve sufficient funds we must ensure that the financing of the Fund is sustained and predictable. In order to achieve voluntary contributions to the Fund and improve the predictability of funding, we welcome the Peacebuilding Fund donors conference, which will be held during the opening of the seventy- first session of the General Assembly. Colombia, as a country that has been both a donor and has received resources from the Fund, hopes that there is substantial participation in the conference and that financing for the Fund increases. Colombia also highlights the role that women play in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peacebuilding. We must continue to promote the integration of gender issues in the work of the Commission and the Fund. At this point, I wish to underscore the launching of the development of the gender strategy in the Peacebuilding Commission, which integrates the work on gender issues and moves women’s empowerment forward on matters of peace, the economy and access to security and justice. This improves quality of life, strengthens society’s confidence in the processes and fosters economic growth. Much remains to be done in these areas. The nations that know how difficult it is to achieve peace know that the road ahead is not easy, but we firmly believe that achieving peace is possible. My country, Colombia, has set in motion processes and innovative policy actions in pursuit of sustainable peace, with the invaluable support of the international community and the United Nations. After 50 years of conflict, my country hopes to become one of the success stories in achieving peace and to support those who are on this arduous path.

Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered this morning by the observer of the European Union (see A/70/PV.93). We would just like to add some additional remarks in our national capacity I thank the President for convening this meeting this year, which is of particular importance given the review of the peacekeeping architecture. The review is widely seen as a key challenge and opportunity to renew the concept of peacebuilding and the way it is embodied in the United Nations system. I seize this opportunity to congratulate the co-facilitators of this lengthy and inclusive process, the Ambassadors of Angola, Mr. Gaspar Martins, and of Australia, Ms. Gillian Bird, for its successful conclusion leading to the adoption this morning of resolution 70/262, as well as the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture and its Chair for their comprehensive and very useful report (see A/69/968). The concept of post-conflict peacebuilding, described as “action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict” (A/50/480, para. 33), was introduced in 1992 to the United Nations system and remains more than ever valued. Its potential remains to be better explored for the sake of sustainable peace and development. As the nature of conflicts changes and the new causes of conflicts and new threats to peace and security constantly emerge, the United Nations must be able to adapt and respond so as to remain relevant. In this context, a review of the peacebuilding architecture is critical, and the Advisory Group of Experts played an important role in this regard. I would like to point out that one of its key conclusions contained in the report is that the concept of peacebuilding cannot be confined to post-conflict situations; it requires a broad and holistic approach. The recognition of the concept of “sustaining peace” is a move in the right direction towards promoting and enabling the necessary actions to foster peaceful outcomes at every stage of the conflict. Sustaining peace calls for a new form of political engagement, a new strategic engagement and cooperation between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations, in which the role and participation of women and youth must be enhanced and promoted. It also calls for increased communication and close interlinkages between peacekeeping and political missions, which must be part of a whole. We all understand that the stakes and challenges we face are huge, and we trust that resolution 70/262 will set the stage for United Nations peacebuilding to better address conflict prevention and resolution and to sustain peace. The annual report of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) (A/70/714) adequately reflects the challenges that it currently faces. Procedures and negotiations in the PBC can be lengthy, sometimes leading to results that fall short of what is necessary to address. We must bear in mind that the PBC is and will be what Member States want it to be, and I believe we all understand that it is far from having fulfilled its potential, particularly as a vehicle for strategic prevention in conflicts. In this regard, I would just underline the need for an enhanced use of the PBC’s advisory role and of the interinstitutional dialogue and interaction between various United Nations bodies, in particular between the Security Council and the PBC. That would contribute to turning the PBC into what it was originally intended to be — a platform where relevant actors and stakeholders can be heard and effectively cooperate. Nonetheless, I would like to commend the PBC and its country- specific configurations’ continuous work to ensure peace wherever it is at stake. Portugal is an active member of the Guinea-Bissau-specific configuration of the PBC, and I would like to stress the important role it has consistently played in supporting peace and stability in the country and in keeping Guinea-Bissau on the international agenda. Concerning the Peacebuilding Fund, we strongly support a diversification of funding sources and a more predictable means of financing peacebuilding initiatives and activities. This can be done by, among other options, establishing public-private partnerships, promoting the involvement of financial institutions, development aid agencies and donations and, certainly, as we discussed last year, mobilizing domestic revenues in developing countries.

I would like to begin by expressing the appreciation of my delegation to Ambassador Olof Skoog, outgoing Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, for his leadership and commitment at the head of the Commission during 2015. His efforts to foster greater transparency, coordination and flexibility in the work of the Commission are highly valued and recognized by my delegation. We also welcome Ambassador Macharia Kamau and wish him success in his work as Chair of the Commission this year. We also welcome the simultaneous adoption by the General Assembly and the Security Council of resolutions 70/262 and 2282 (2016), respectively, on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. We take this opportunity to commend the leadership of the Permanent Representatives of Angola and Australia in their capacity as co-facilitators of the resolution. The presentation and discussion of the reports considered today (A/70/714 and A/70/715) and the resolution allow us to reiterate the importance of the work of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Fund in supporting countries in sustaining peace and contributing to their development. The report of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture (A/69/968) acknowledges this and identified the remaining challenges and put forth proposals to improve our work. Among the challenges, we recognize the importance of redoubling our efforts to ensure that the Commission can make an effective contribution to intergovernmental and operational consistency within the United Nations, as well as increase the amount and predictability of funding for peacebuilding. This is a real challenge that we must resolve because, as the report of the Peacebuilding Commission indicates, global needs for peacekeeping are rising while donor commitments are decreasing. The issue of predictable funding is crucial because sustaining peace requires political, technical and financial resources in the short, medium and long term. We also recognize how important it is to involve and ensure the participation and coordination of regional and subregional organizations — be they of a political or economic nature — as well as neighbouring countries, in order to ensure a more consistent response to the peacebuilding needs of each country. A cross-cutting and extremely important issue is the role of women in peacebuilding, as are our efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts. Therefore, we welcome the first phase of the development of the gender strategy completed in 2015 with a view to mainstreaming the gender dimension in the Commission’s work. This first report concludes that the attention given to this matter has been uneven; there is a hierarchy of degrees of importance and the implementation of the agreed commitments has not been systematic. We stress the importance of stepping up our efforts and making progress in the second phase of the strategy starting with the results obtained in 2015. In the same vein, we underscore that the Peacebuilding Fund has earmarked more than 15 per cent of its investments to support the empowerment of women. However, we must stress the need to further these efforts to reach the established target of using 15 per cent of all the funds administered by the United Nations for peacebuilding projects that promote gender equality, empower women and address their specific needs in these contexts. On the other hand, as pointed out by the report, the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach to peacebuilding requires greater coordination and communication among the various actors to overcome the existing fragmentation. We emphasize the importance of sustained and fluid communication with the Assembly and, in particular, the Security Council. We call for a recognition of this complementarity and a further exploration of the communication bodies. We must make better use of the knowledge and experience of the Commission as an intergovernmental advisory body. We call for work to be continued along the lines of the resolution adopted today and the report of the Advisory Group of Experts. We hope this exercise will help strengthen and improve the existing institutions and dynamics of the peacebuilding processes, which is a responsibility that ultimately concerns us all.

At the outset, my delegation would like to join previous speakers in thanking Ambassador Olof Skoog and his team for their work this year leading to the General Assembly’s joint adoption, with the Security Council, of today’s resolutions (70/262 and 2282 (2016), respectively). Eleven years ago, in December 2005, in order to build bridges between the three components of peace and security, development and human rights, the General Assembly and the Security Council adopted simultaneous resolutions (60/180 and 1645 (2005), respectively) providing for the creation of three entities — the Peacebuilding Commission, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office. With that structure, they sought to strengthen the institutional and structural capacity of the Organization in order to support countries in transition from violent conflict to sustainable peace. In that regard, I would like to highlight the opinion of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture that the issue cannot be limited to those three entities and that peacebuilding is a challenge that involves action on the part of the entire United Nations system and its members. I would also like to mention some factors identified in the report (see A/69/968) of the Advisory Group of Experts that have an impact on the United Nations institutional peacebuilding machinery, including a poor understanding of the nature of peacebuilding; the walls dividing the areas of responsibility of the principal intergovernmental United Nations organs responsible for helping to maintain sustainable peace — the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council; the fragmentation that exists throughout the United Nations and the Secretariat and between the latter and the rest of the Organization; and the growing number of conflicts, which have also become much more violent, in a complex and changing environment characterized by a combination of new political, economic, social and environmental aspects that are fraught with inequalities and that introduce new difficulties into efforts to resolve those conflicts. Ecuador acknowledges the importance of today’s adoption by the General Assembly and the Security Council of a joint identical resolution on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. It is particularly important that the resolution puts forward a broader and more comprehensive approach to sustaining peace, with new elements that create a framework for revitalizing the organizational capacity for generating more efficient and effective responses to the challenges and complexity of the environment in which current conflicts develop. It also strengthens the Peacebuilding Commission’s fundamental role as an advisory and liaison body between the three principal intergovernmental organs. Ecuador hopes that the Security Council will contribute to strengthening the Commission’s advisory role from one of intention, by instituting a permanent practice of regularly asking for and making use of the Commission’s advice when it reviews the mandates of its peacekeeping operations and peacebuilding missions. We commend the work of the Advisory Group of Experts for its conclusions and a number of the ongoing recommendations in their report, entitled “Challenge of sustaining peace”. Among its initiatives and recommendations, Ecuador particularly appreciates the gender aspect and its recognition of women’s leadership and their fundamental role in the processes of building and consolidating peace, as well as that of young people; the emphasis on the need for close cooperation and linked efforts between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations; the affirmation that development is a vital goal in itself; and the recognition of the United Nations system’s important contribution to peacebuilding, particularly through economic development and the eradication of poverty, among other things. Today’s resolution is the result of extensive analysis and debate and a thorough review of the issues related to the peacebuilding architecture that require greater attention and strengthening. Lastly, we share fully the commitment expressed in the 2005 World Summit Outcome to promoting and strengthening the effectiveness of the Organization through the implementation of its decisions and resolutions. We hope that today’s resolution will represent a turning point, after 10 years of structural fragmentation and failed efforts, towards a crucial redefinition and reorientation of the work of the United Nations, with the goal of taking on the challenge of establishing a just and lasting peace that will preserve future generations from the scourge of war.

The resolution adopted today (70/262) is of major importance for the entire United Nations system, since it not only strengthens but optimizes the role of the Peacebuilding Commission and its links to other United Nations entities. Uruguay is grateful to the delegations of Australia and Angola for their efforts as co-facilitators of the intergovernmental body working on the process, as well as to all the regional organizations and groups that played such a constructive part in it. We would also like to thank the Advisory Group of Experts, chaired by Ambassador Gert Rosenthal, for its report (see A/69/968), which has been a valuable tool in the negotiations and will continue to be a major reference point in the future. The new view of peacebuilding introduced by today’s resolution fosters new institutional synergies that will make it possible to address its current challenges holistically. Its approach will cease to be merely reactive but will evolve along with the various phases affecting vulnerable and fragile States. In that regard, Uruguay would like to pay tribute to the contribution that peacekeepers make to peacebuilding in its early stages and whose efforts are often so vital to societies beset by conflict. We commend those countries that have made voluntary contributions to the work of the Peacebuilding Fund and urge that they continue their efforts in order to ensure greater predictability for the Fund and greater continuity and certainty for the Commission in its work. We would also like to emphasize the importance of national ownership in all peacebuilding processes, as well as of ensuring that such processes are always inclusive and take into account the role to be played by all national stakeholders, so as to ultimately make sure that peace dividends reach every sector of society and that the peace itself is more likely to be sustained. For various reasons, as mentioned in the report of the Advisory Group of Experts and reflected in part in today’s resolution, there should be a particular focus on gender mainstreaming and a gender perspective in conflict resolution. Uruguay will continue to support and strengthen all activities conducive to empowering women, in particular in situations where their rights are especially vulnerable. Lastly, we should emphasize the importance of the links between today’s resolution and our achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, which are at the core of United Nations efforts. Together with its peacebuilding activities, they are already making a difference in the most fragile of our societies. We hope that the new momentum and constructive spirit displayed in both the resolution and the report of the Advisory Group of Experts will be reflected in all the United Nations bodies that so urgently need it.

Guatemala is grateful for the convening of today’s meeting to adopt the resolution entitled “Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture” (70/262), and we would like to take this opportunity to thank the delegations of Angola and Australia for their leadership of the negotiations on this important resolution. We are pleased to note that both the main sponsors of the resolution and various delegations considered the report (see A/69/968) of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture, chaired by Ambassador Gert Rosenthal, as a basis for launching the negotiations on that important resolution. In our view, the resolution is a constructive text, as it includes various significant aspects with regard to the structure of the peacebuilding architecture at the United Nations and the search for, maintenance of and building of peace. In particular, we are pleased to note that concepts on sustainable peace have been included describing the important role of civil society in achieving peace. Moreover, we also consider it appropriate to highlight the inclusion of language on the role of the Peacebuilding Commission as a bridge between the principal organs and relevant United Nations bodies by means of information exchange on peacebuilding needs and priorities, in accordance with the competencies and responsibilities of those organs. In that context, peacebuilding is recognized as a political process inherently aimed at avoiding crises or the escalation, repetition or continuation of conflict. In addition, it embraces a wide range of programmes and policies on development and human rights. As Member States we must ensure adequate, consistent and sustainable financing aimed at efficiently assisting countries in the area of peacekeeping and in preventing the escalation, continuation or resurgence of conflict. As States Members of the Organization, we must continue to work to ensure greater coherence in ensuring sustainable peace by coordinating the efforts of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, in accordance with their respective mandates as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations. However, we underscore the text’s lack of reference to human rights and emphasize the importance of the Human Rights Council as the most important United Nations intergovernmental body tasked with promoting and protecting human rights. It should therefore be involved to a greater degree within the peacebuilding architecture.

I should like once again to recall the enthusiasm that greeted the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2005 and its supporting institutions, namely, the Peacebuilding Support Office and the Peacebuilding Fund. More than 10 years later, the implementation and results have fallen short of the pledges made and the initial objectives when taking into account the fact that some countries that had already entered the peacebuilding stage have relapsed into conflict. Today that same enthusiasm is re-emerging based on both a proper analysis and relevant recommendations put forth by Ambassador Rosenthal and the members of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture. They submitted the report (see A/69/968) based on present revisions as well as General Assembly resolution 70/262, which was adopted this morning concurrently with Security Council resolution 2282 (2016). It was the result of strenuous negotiations of three months’ duration and the participation of the Ambassadors of Angola and Australia. Above all, Cameroon wishes to commend those individuals for their excellent and prodigious efforts, which have led to a revival of hope in a new start and a more promising tomorrow with respect to peacebuilding. I would like to underscore, without courting pessimism, the fact that, if we fail to fully draw upon the lessons of the past, we will risk making the same errors and experiencing the same disappointment later on in the review of the implementation of the resolution we have just adopted today. To avoid such a negative situation and bleak future, in our view four strategic factors demand close follow-up. The first is holistic coordination. The Peacebuilding Commission must strive today more than yesterday, and tomorrow more than today. It must work most assiduously to ensure that all stakeholders work together towards a coherent and synergistic vision and guidelines, especially in terms of the time frame on planning and tasks during the various stages of peacebuilding. Secondly, we must address the highly critical issue of resource mobilization, in terms of both sufficient quantity and quality. Is there a persistent need to highlight the fact that the Peacebuilding Fund, in its present state, despite the generous contributions of donors — whom we take the opportunity to commend — has not achieved its declared ambitions? That is due to scarce resources, unpredictability and other related constraints. Thirdly, we must note the lack of ownership, or perhaps insufficient ownership, of the realities and specificities characterizing each aspect of peacebuilding. In that regard, we have too frequently sought a one-size-fits-all approach to time management. Lastly, on capacity-building, we can never say often enough that peacebuilding, especially concerning countries just emerging from conflict, must focus particular attention on the issue of capacity-building. Countries mired in conflict, as well as institutions and individuals, have all been weakened. They now find themselves in a vegetative state of vulnerability, or perhaps even of non-existence. In that context, we must act, certainly in a diligent manner, but we must also act in a patient way while looking towards the long term in order to prevent the patient from rapidly relapsing. In conclusion, coordination, resource mobilization, ownership and capacity-building seem to us to be the crucial areas that warrant great focus in the implementation phase, and later in the evaluation stage, of the new resolution on peacebuilding that we adopted this morning. Otherwise, as the saying goes, we can expect to turn a thousand times around the same centre.

I join earlier speakers in thanking the President of the General Assembly for convening today’s meeting to consider the report of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) on its ninth session (A/70/714) and the report of the Secretary-General on the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) (A/70/715). Malaysia welcomes this morning’s adoption of resolution 70/262, on the review of the peacebuilding architecture. Malaysia commends Ambassador Gaspar Martins, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Angola, and Ambassador Bird, Permanent Representative of Australia, co-facilitators of the intergovernmental consultations on the 2015 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, for their tireless efforts and commitment in steering the process towards the successful adoption of the joint resolutions by the General Assembly and the Security Council (resolution 70/262 and resolution 2282 (2016), respectively). We are pleased with the comprehensive, transparent and inclusive approach undertaken by the co-facilitators and the constructive spirit and flexibility demonstrated by all delegations during the negotiations. Malaysia is confident that the adoption — and, more important, the subsequent implementation — of the resolutions on the review of the peacebuilding architecture will provide for a significant and positive shift in the PBC’s approach, in particular with regard to its advisory role and in sustaining peace. The scope and nature of the challenge of sustaining peace require close and strategic partnerships among the United Nations, Governments and other key stakeholders, including international, regional and subregional organizations, international financial institutions, civil society and the private sector, taking into account their national priorities and policies. The review comes at a crucial juncture when growing calls have been made on the need to address fragmentation in the efforts of the United Nations system and on the importance of building coherence in our collective efforts across the three pillars of the United Nations, namely, peace and security, development and human rights, at the intergovernmental and operational levels. As a member of the PBC, Malaysia is encouraged by the Commission’s continued engagement with States not on its formal agenda, namely, Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea and Somalia, which demonstrates that the PBC has the flexibility to engage outside the predetermined scope of its mandate. The Commission was also able to adopt a successful regional approach in supporting United Nations efforts to respond to the outbreak of the Ebola virus disease in West Africa. Such engagement indicates that the PBC possesses a latent ability to respond using a preventive approach. My delegation believes that the outcome of the review of the peacebuilding architecture recognizes that potential and that the Commission should consider taking and strengthening the necessary measures in that regard. We are also confident that the PBC will be able to strengthen its crisis-prevention role in the long term, which would contribute to the deepening of the culture of prevention. Investments in the prevention of outbreaks and their escalation and in the recurrence of conflicts are less expensive and more sustainable as compared to merely responding to crises. Malaysia is of the view that the conclusion of the review processes of the peacebuilding architecture, the United Nations peacekeeping operations and Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) provide an opportunity for the United Nations to better address the issue of fragmentation and to promote better synergy, coordination and complementarity in the work of the relevant United Nations bodies, agencies and mechanisms towards achieving the core objective of promoting and sustaining peace. My delegation would like to underscore the need for the implementation of the review of the peacebuilding architecture and its outcome to be aligned with the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (resolution 70/1). The eradication of hunger and poverty, as well as economic revitalization and stabilization, including by increasing the revenue-generating capacity of countries in transition, must count among the core objective of peacebuilding initiatives. At the same time, we support efforts to strengthen the participation of women and youth in peacebuilding. Therefore, the overall post-conflict peacebuilding effort should incorporate inclusive approaches and policies that involve all stakeholders in conflict-affected countries. There is no doubt that building a lasting peace requires predictable, sustained and adequate financing to address the root causes of conflicts. While Malaysia acknowledges that the role of the PBF in providing financing to countries has been important, nevertheless its impact has been very limited. We recognize the need to establish strategic partnerships, ensure full funding and establish blended financing from the United Nations, bilateral and international donors, multilateral financial institutions and the private sector to maximize the impact of peacebuilding efforts. In conclusion, we envisage that the overall outcome of the review of the peacebuilding architecture will provide an opportunity for the United Nations to improve the mandate and functioning of the PBC, which is a unique entity with enormous potential.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the President on his steering of the work of the General Assembly. We also take this opportunity to congratulate the Permanent Representative of Australia, Ambassador Gillian Bird, and the Permanent Representative of Angola, Ambassador Ismael Gaspar Martins, as well as their respective teams, for the successful work as co-facilitators of the joint resolution entitled “Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture”, which was adopted by consensus this morning by the General Assembly and the Security Council (resolutions 70/262 and 2282 (2016), respectively). We would also like to express our most sincere thanks for the untiring work carried out by the delegation of Bangladesh as the coordinator of the working group on peacebuilding of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. With the adoption of these resolutions, we are sealing our commitment to put into practice the recommendations that came about as a result of the review of the peacebuilding architecture. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is proud of having played an active role in the process of drafting the resolution and of having organized on 23 February, when we presided over the Security Council, an open debate on the theme “Post-conflict peacebuilding: review of the peacebuilding architecture” (see S/PV.7629). Today we are considering the report (A/70/714) of the Peacebuilding Commission on its ninth session and the Secretary-General’s report (A/70/715) on the Peacebuilding Fund. In that regard, we would like to commend the work carried out by the former Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, the Permanent Representative of Sweden, Ambassador Olof Skoog. We wish the current Chair of the Commission, the Permanent Representative of Kenya, Ambassador Kamau, every success. The Ebola crisis and the resumption of conflict in many countries throughout the world taught us some important lessons about the process of peacebuilding, some of which have been encapsulated in the far- reaching and substantive report (see S/2015/490) of the Advisory Group of Experts headed by Ambassador Gert Rosenthal. We find major objectives and changes emerging from that review. On the one hand, we must make preventing the resumption of conflicts in countries a United Nations priority, while taking into account the fact that peacebuilding is inherently a political process that requires sustained support and attention. On the other hand, we must always act on the premise that peace can arise solely from within societies and that Governments and national authorities must assume full responsibility for peacebuilding processes. At the same time, we should emphasize the fact that sustaining peace encompasses a process for developing a common vision within a society, taking into account all sectors of the population. We must also underscore to a greater degree the resumption of sustainable development in conflict- affected countries. We cannot hope to build peace when we ignore the needs of a population attempting to meet the most basic socioeconomic requirements, to obtain the simple means to earn a living and to put in place the groundwork for development that is inclusive, sustainable and fair, and ensures social justice. Therefore, we need to give the population ways to incorporate in the economy and in society the means to create the foundations of inclusive, sustainable and just growth, which must be part of the whole peacebuilding process. To that end, we should establish preferential and differentiated conditions in the international financial system in order to directly provide support to countries where war has ceased and where there is no desire to return to conflict. We must ensure that those countries emerging from conflicts are provided with the means for capacity-building, managing their own natural resources and managing their own economies. It is necessary for our countries and more important than support from this or that donor. Finally, we must acknowledge the fundamental role played by the Peacebuilding Commission in fostering a consistent focus among political actors — those dealing with relevant security and development efforts, both within and beyond the United Nations. The Ebola crisis served to reveal the challenges linked to peacebuilding and to highlight the Commission’s potential role in promoting security and development policies and providing international support and a sustained political focus on mobilizing resources and alliances with international, regional and subregional organizations, as well as in encouraging consistency among political actors dealing with the relevant security and development issues both within and beyond the United Nations. In Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the Commission played an important role by providing a rapid response by the international community and other parts of the United Nations system, in particular with regard to the risks posed by the crisis to the achievements in peacebuilding in those three affected countries. The early leadership of the Commission was strengthened by funding from the Peacebuilding Fund, thereby making it possible to cover various funding shortfalls in areas where political and social tensions were emerging in the affected countries. The Ebola crisis also revealed the extensive and ongoing challenge of reducing poverty, providing access to education and jobs for youth. It showed clearly that sustaining peace and minimizing the risk of a resumption of conflict required a continuing investment in those areas over time and measures to bolster confidence in State institutions. As also shown, the Peacebuilding Commission can play an ambitious role in preventing the outbreak, intensification, continuation and recurrence of conflicts by dealing with the deep-rooted causes driving them. However, certain conditions must first be in place in order to carry out that task effectively and in a sustained fashion. On the one hand, it is vital that peacebuilding activities carried out by the United Nations, and in particular by the Peacebuilding Commission, be able to count on predictable and ongoing funding. On the other hand, the Commission should adopt more flexible and innovative working methods so that it is able to study regional and intersectoral issues that are pertinent to sustaining peace. In addition, the Commission should establish much more well-defined synergy with the Peacebuilding Fund. It should focus on joint strategic planning within the entire United Nations system, with an emphasis on long-term cooperation in conflict- affected countries. Lastly, the Peacebuilding Support Office should be revitalized as one of the central pillars of the entire peacebuilding architecture. In conclusion, I would like to refer to the achievement of Latin America and the Caribbean in building a new zone of peace with an architecture of regional organizations that were established and revitalized our leaders — the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, the Union of South American Nations, PetroCaribe, the Southern Common Market, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, and the Special Initiative for Governance in Africa and the Caribbean Community. That achievement is proof of what countries can do when they deal with issues using their own vision and on the basis of inclusive leading models of participatory democracy, with absolute respect for the sovereignty of countries and the principle of non-interference.

We have heard the last speaker in the joint debate on agenda items 31 and 110. (spoke in English) The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda items 31 and 110. Before proceeding to agenda item 175, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the International Organization for Migration”, I should like to consult the Assembly on a matter pertaining to the rules of procedure. As agenda item 175 was included on the agenda of the seventieth session of the General Assembly at its 92nd plenary meeting, held on 26 April, in order to take up that item today, it will be necessary to waive the relevant provisions of rule 15 of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure, which reads as follows: “No additional item may, unless the General Assembly decides otherwise by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, be considered until seven days have elapsed since it was placed on the agenda”. May I take it that the General Assembly agrees to waive the relevant provision of rule 15 of the rules of procedure?

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/70/L.46, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the International Organization for Migration”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/70/L.46 without a vote?

May I take it that the Assembly wishes to conclude this stage of its consideration of agenda item 175?