A/76/PV.98 General Assembly

Since no candidate obtained the required two-thirds majority in the previous ballot, there remains one seat to be filled from among the Eastern European States. We shall therefore proceed to the seventh unrestricted ballot. In accordance with rule 94 of the rules of procedure, this seventeenth round of balloting shall be unrestricted. May I remind the Assembly that any Member State from among the Eastern European States may be a candidate except those who will remain members of the Economic and Social Council as of 1 January 2023, as well as those who were already elected for a term beginning on 1 January 2023. The following members can therefore not be voted for in the present balloting: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Slovakia and Slovenia. Before we begin the voting process, I should like to remind members that, pursuant to rule 88 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order on the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now begin the voting process. Ballot papers will now be distributed and the voting has begun. Members are requested to check the box next to the name printed on the ballot paper or to write the name of another eligible State on the blank line. If the box next to the name of a State is checked, the name of that State does not have to be repeated on the blank line. There should not be more than one checked box or handwritten name for the vacant seat to be filled. Accordingly, members can only check one box or write one name of an eligible State from among the Eastern European States in the space provided. If the ballot paper contains a vote for a Member State that will remain a member of the Economic and Social Council as of 1 January 2023 or that was already elected for a term beginning on 1 January 2023, the ballot paper will be declared invalid. Finally, if a ballot paper contains any notation other than a vote in favour of an eligible Member State, those notations will be disregarded.

In the interest of time, the General Assembly will now proceed to consider the other items announced in The Journal of the United Nations while the ballots are being counted. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 115.

I now give the floor to the representative of Egypt, former Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, to introduce the report of the Peacebuilding Commission.

I am pleased to brief the General Assembly on the annual report of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) (A/76/678). The report covers the fifteenth session of the PBC, under the chairmanship of Egypt. Egypt assumed the PBC chairmanship in the wake of the successful conclusion of the third comprehensive review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. Throughout 2021 and in line with the mandates contained in the twin resolutions of the General Assembly (resolution 75/201) and Security Council (2558 (2020)), the Commission led efforts to operationalize the review outcome as contained in those resolutions. Those efforts included the exploration of avenues to strengthen the PBC’s advisory, bridging and convening roles. Particular emphasis was placed on enhancing the impact of peacebuilding at the field level. In that connection, it gives me great pleasure to report to the Assembly that the Peacebuilding Commission achieved considerable progress across the following six areas in 2021. The first area concerns the expansions of the scope of its geographic and substantive focus. In 2021, the Commission engaged in the support of 13 country- and region-specific settings, including the holding of meetings for the first time on the Gulf of Guinea and the transition in Chad, which brought the number of the Commission’s engagements to a total of 23 countries and regions, the highest number since its inception, reflecting the overall trend in the Commission’s increasing engagement. The Commission’s thematic engagements, which made up 40 per cent of its meetings, considered new themes, including interlinkages among peacekeeping and peacebuilding, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, security sector reform, the Secretary- General’s Our Common Agenda (A/75/982) and mental health and psychosocial support. The Commission also produced a total of 66 outcome documents, including statements delivered at non-United Nations forums such as the Aswan Forum and the Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development, the number of which increased from zero in 2020 to nine in 2021. The second area concerns the strengthening of the PBC’s advisory and bridging roles. The Commission further expanded and strengthened its relations with the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council through the designation of informal coordinators for the Commission’s relations with those organs and better alignment with their programmes of work. In 2021, in addition to providing advice nine times to the Security Council and four times to the General Assembly and making three submissions to the Economic and Social Council, for the first time the Commission advised the Security Council on the Great Lakes region (see S/PV.8884) and the General Assembly on causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (see A/75/PV.104). The Commission also briefed the Economic and Social Council during its High-Level Political Forum. Moreover, throughout its engagement, the Commission continued to convene all relevant stakeholders with a view to improving coordination and avoiding fragmentation and duplication of effort. The third area concerns the fostering of effective partnerships in peacebuilding. The Commission solidified the trend of its increased engagement with partners outside the United Nations. Non-United Nations briefers comprised 67 per cent of all briefers at its meetings, including national and local Government officials; representatives of regional and subregional organizations; representatives of civil society organizations, in particular of international financial institutions, private sector companies, academia and think tanks; and independent experts. Moreover, the Commission engaged for the first time with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and joined its Trade for Peace Network, which aims to facilitate the accession of conflict-affected countries to the WTO. The Commission also held its fourth informal consultative meeting with the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, which called for more frequent exchanges between the two intergovernmental bodies and a strategic alignment of their programmes of work. The fourth area concerns advancing the discussion on financing for peacebuilding. Recognizing peacebuilding financing as a critical challenge, the Commission advanced the discussion on financing with a view to assessing the status of options introduced by the Secretary-General since 2018, while also exploring other possible options. The Commission’s work throughout the year culminated in its annual session and the submission of its letter to the General Assembly, which encouraged the Assembly to consider all financing options, including voluntary assessed and innovative sources of funding. We look forward to the successful conclusion of the recently launched intergovernmental negotiations to translate Member State commitments into concrete actions. The fifth area concerns advancing the implementation of the women and peace and security and the youth, peace and security agendas. The Commission adopted action plans on both agendas and continued to take concrete actions to enhance the important role of women and young people in peacebuilding and sustaining peace. I would like to share some statistics drawn from a stocktaking exercise conducted last year, which revealed that a concerted effort was made during 2021. Indeed, 91 per cent of the Commission’s outcome documents promoted the importance of women’s full, equal and meaningful participation in peacebuilding, while there was a significant increase in the percentage of its meetings that included briefings by women peacebuilders  — from 22 per cent in 2019 to 74 per cent in 2021. The exercise also showed that the Commission continued to amplify the voices of women and brought their recommendations to the attention of the Security Council. Similarly, the Commission recorded a significant increase in the percentage of its meetings that included briefings by young peacebuilders — from 5.4 per cent in 2020 to 44.4 per cent in 2021. The sixth area concerns promoting recovery from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in 2021. Through its national and regional engagement, the Commission continued to consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on national peacebuilding objectives, in addition to mobilizing international support and attention towards building the capacity of those human institutions most needed, in line with nationally identified peacebuilding priorities. In conclusion, as an intergovernmental advisory body that supports peacebuilding efforts, the Peacebuilding Commission continued to play a critical role in enhancing effective multilateralism by positioning itself as a platform for global solidarity and coordination, in response to the growing demand for peacebuilding support.

I am pleased to deliver this statement on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ). First, let me congratulate Egypt and its very capable representative for that country’s excellent work as Chair of the Commission in 2021, as well as Bangladesh for the leadership it has shown so well in 2022. I would also like to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of Assistant Secretary-General Spehar and her predecessor, as well as the entire team at the Peacebuilding Support Office. Both the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the Peacebuilding Fund were in fact created to fill what Kofi Annan famously called a “gaping hole” in the institutional architecture of the United Nations in order to help ensure sustained international attention, political support and advocacy for countries managing the risks of violent conflict. We have to say, however, that despite the considerable successes of the past decades those challenges are even greater today than they were in 2005. Countries at risk of conflict must now grapple with the devastating impacts of the coronavirus disease pandemic, the climate crisis and the worsening food insecurity and economic shocks triggered by Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine. (spoke in French) Peacebuilding and conflict prevention are not just the right things to do, they are the smart — and indeed the necessary — things to do. The earlier we act, the more tools we have at our disposal and the more we can save human lives and financial resources. We welcome the progress this year in strengthening the PBC’s advisory role, in particular in offering advice to the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as in expanding its engagement to non-United Nations bodies. We also welcome the efforts made in recent years to expand the PBC’s engagement beyond Africa, in particular its recent engagement with peacebuilding challenges in the Pacific islands. We hope to build on those discussions and deepen the PBC’s overall consideration of the peacebuilding challenges posed by climate change as the single-biggest security threat in the Pacific. However, we regret that the PBC has not been able to fully exercise its mandated bridging role and was prevented from accepting an invitation to brief the Human Rights Council last year. We were pleased to see the invitation renewed for 2022, and we encourage the Chair to accept it. (spoke in English) We believe that the PBC is at its best when it puts inclusivity at the heart of United Nations peacebuilding work. We welcome the progress we have made in past years — and this year, as the representative from Egypt said  — to strengthen efforts to include civil-society briefers and to deepen and expand our engagement with women and young peacebuilders. In adopting action plans on gender and youth and committing to monitoring and reporting on their implementation, the PBC is setting an example that we hope other bodies will follow. As we have learned, building and sustaining peace require time, patience and above all a willingness to listen. They also require resources. The Assembly will have heard me say before from this rostrum that strategy without resources is better called hallucination. If we do not have the resources, we cannot do the job. We have to recognize that United Nations conflict-prevention and peacebuilding work, which actually involves many different agencies of the United Nations, as well as the Secretariat, is in fact fragmented and underfunded and relies too often on a small pool of donors for extrabudgetary support and voluntary funding. CANZ firmly believes that United Nations peacebuilding and conflict prevention work must be adequately, predictably and sustainably financed. We are very pleased to be among the top donors to the Peacebuilding Fund, and we all remain committed to providing voluntary contributions to it. We call on all Member States to consider making and increasing voluntary contributions to the Fund. However, we recognize that no single funding model will meet all peacebuilding and conflict-prevention needs. We therefore support the call from the Secretary-General to consider assessed contributions for the Fund, with modalities to be determined by the Fifth Committee, maximizing the Fund’s value as a predeployed and catalytic resource for funding critical peacebuilding activities before, during and after conflict. CANZ welcomes the ongoing intergovernmental negotiations led by Kenya and Sweden on financing for peacebuilding, which are still under way. We remain committed to ensuring a concrete, action-oriented outcome that will put the important conflict prevention and peacebuilding work of the United Nations on a more sustainable footing.

I thank the President for convening today’s meeting. I would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Osama Mahmoud Abdelkhalek Mahmoud, Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations, for presenting the annual report (A/76/678) of the fifteenth session of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), in his capacity as Chair of the Commission in 2021. I also want to thank the Secretary- General for his report on peacebuilding and sustaining peace (A/76/668 and A/76/688/Corr.1). This year peacebuilding needs have grown in many dimensions and in various regions. Conflicts, the devastating effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and accelerating global challenges such as food insecurity, the energy crisis and the financial crunch all pose serious risks to the peacebuilding gains that the Commission has been supporting for years through the implementation of its mandate. To ensure that our work results in tangible support to national and regional peacebuilding priorities, this year the Commission strongly emphasized results and expanding the Commission’s work to more settings, based on requests. The Commission’s annual work plan, which guides its forward-looking agenda, considered the relevant recommendations contained in the Secretary-General’s report Our Common Agenda (A/75/982) as they pertain to the requests of specific countries and regions. I would like to share some highlights of the PBC’s work in the past six months. First, founded on a demand-driven approach, the Commission has emphasized delivery, particularly by responding to requests from Member States in a timely manner. According to its annual work plan, the Commission was prepared to engage with 12 different countries and five different regions in addition to its ongoing thematic priorities. To date, the Commission has convened 13 ambassadorial-level meetings and a field visit by the Chair of the Liberia configuration. It has held country-specific meetings at the request of Colombia, the Central African Republic, Guinea- Bissau, Liberia and Burkina Faso, and region-specific meetings on the Sahel, the Lake Chad basin and the Pacific islands. At each meeting, the Commission discussed peacebuilding challenges and priorities identified by and specific to those countries and regions. On the thematic front, a meeting on youth, peace and security was convened and preparation is under way for other thematic meetings, including on women and peace and security and peacekeeping. Secondly, the Commission has continued to prioritize national ownership and inclusivity in all its interactions. In that regard, before organizing meetings, the Commission has engaged with an array of relevant national and regional stakeholders to ensure that the PBC responds to the real needs on the ground. For instance, ahead of the meeting on the Sahel, the PBC, with support from the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, held extensive consultations with representatives of the Sahel and its international partners. Building on the cross-border initiative on transhumance in the Sahel region of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the International Organization for Migration, which has been implemented with support from the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) under the auspices of the United Nations Integrated Strategy for the Sahel, the meeting created an opportunity to generate additional political, technical and financial support to address the specific peacebuilding challenges in that region. Similarly, the meeting held at the request of the Pacific Islands Forum witnessed participation by the Pacific countries and other relevant stakeholders from the region. The Commission heard their unique peacebuilding challenges, including those accelerated by the negative impact of climate change and the inadequacy of the financial support afforded developing countries in addressing them. The Commission continues to promote inclusive approaches to peacebuilding, including by engaging with a larger number of local actors, particularly women and youth briefers. The percentage of national and local actors who briefed at PBC meetings is 43 per cent. The participation rate of women briefers in PBC meetings so far has been 80 per cent, while the participation rate of young peacebuilders is 60 per cent, and we are committed to maintaining the trend throughout the year. Thirdly, greater attention to United Nations coherence, as well as accountability, has remained a priority for the Commission this year. So far, the Commission has given due attention to promoting integrated, strategic and coherent approaches to peacebuilding and has placed emphasis on synergies with the PBF. In June, the Commission held a meeting with the Chairs of the country-specific configurations on the progress achieved and upcoming activities. The Commission also received updates on PBF activities from the Peacebuilding Support Office. As agreed in its programme of work, the Commission will continue to bring all relevant parts of the United Nations system together, including agencies, funds and programmes, with a focus on its representatives in the field, who are leading United Nations efforts in supporting national peacebuilding priorities, addressing conflict risks and enhancing the capacity of national institutions. An ambassadorial-level meeting in that regard is currently being planned. Fourthly, the Commission has been pursuing effective partnerships with regional and subregional organizations and with international and regional financial institutions. So far this year, a wide variety of partners have participated in the meetings of the PBC, including the African Union, the European Union, the African Development Bank, the Economic Community of West African States, the Lake Chad Basin Commission, the Group of Five for the Sahel, the Pacific Islands Forum and the Pacific Community. The annual informal consultative meeting between the PBC and the Peace and Security Council of the African Union is expected to take place later this year, during the African Union’s Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development Awareness Week. The Commission is also working to enhance South-South and triangular cooperation in support of peacebuilding and sustaining peace, and is exploring opportunities to further strengthen its relationships with international and regional financial institutions. Fifthly, peacebuilding financing continued to remain in focus this year. In the lead-up to the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on peacebuilding financing held from 27 to 29 April, the Commission held an interactive dialogue with the Secretary-General. In that context, the Commission also provided input to the President of the General Assembly, seeking an action-oriented outcome and encouraging the Assembly to consider all options for enhanced peacebuilding financing, including voluntary, assessed and innovative financing, at its high-level meeting. The Commission will continue its advocacy for ensuring adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding, including by exploring ways to encourage flexible funding for local peacebuilding organizations and developing approaches to foster innovative financing for peacebuilding. Sixthly, the Commission has continued its efforts to enhance its advisory, bridging and convening role and has particularly emphasized improving the quality and timeliness of its submissions and briefings to other intergovernmental bodies and peacebuilding forums, including the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. So far during the sixteenth session of the PBC, the Commission has sent eight advisories and delivered 10 statements at various meetings. The Commission’s submissions to the Security Council include advisories on Burkina Faso, Central Africa, the Great Lakes, women and peace and security and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on peacebuilding. The Commission has also briefed the Security Council this year on the United Nations Office for West Africa and the Sahel and the PBC’s workplan and capacity-building in Africa (see S/PV.9106). Apart from its submission to the General Assembly on peacebuilding financing, the Commission delivered a statement at a joint event of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council on financing for the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa. The Commission also made contributions to the Economic and Social Council during its high-level political forum, humanitarian affairs segment and meeting on the Kimberley Process. Before I conclude, I would like to add a few words on how to improve the PBC’s advisory role vis-à-vis the General Assembly. Building on the encouraging results of the Commission’s advisory role to the Security Council, there is scope for further deepening its advisory role for the General Assembly, particularly in the context of the current efforts to revitalize the work of the General Assembly and its expanding role in addressing the root causes of conflicts. The Commission acknowledges the need to better align the programmes of work of the General Assembly and the Peacebuilding Commission, especially in areas where the mandate of the Commission complements that of the General Assembly. This year, for the first time, the Commission formally shared its programme of work with the General Assembly immediately after its adoption in March. That is a major step towards institutionalizing the advisory relations between the PBC and the General Assembly. The Commission’s programme of work could potentially be an effective tool for exploring complementarities between the agendas of the Assembly and the Commission. As such, the PBC Chair this year has participated in the high-level dialogue on the theme “The Africa We Want: Reconfirming the Development of Africa as a Priority for the United Nations System”, convened by the Presidents of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The Commission also appointed South Africa as its informal coordinator for the General Assembly, as a new practice established only last year. In addition to the informal coordinator, the members of the Peacebuilding Commission who are elected from the General Assembly, as well as the countries that have engaged with the PBC, can play a significant role in advancing the PBC’s advisory role to the Assembly and increasing the PBC’s visibility and impact among the broader United Nations membership. Finally, more regular dialogues between the General Assembly and the Peacebuilding Commission, both in a formal and informal setup, would go a long way to strengthening the relations between the Assembly and the Commission. Those meetings could also possibly be included in the annual agenda of the Commission and the Assembly’s work.

It is my honour to address the General Assembly on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) during the joint debate on the report of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/76/678), peacebuilding and sustaining peace, and the report of the Secretary-General on the Peacebuilding Fund (A/76/687). In the past few decades, the international community has witnessed a significant rise in the number of peacekeeping operations. Moreover, the nature of armed conflicts has become increasingly unpredictable and is posing severe threats to peacekeeping operations. Within that context, civil wars, low-intensity conflicts, terrorism and other transnational crimes have emerged as critical challenges to international peace and security. Peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding have been indispensable tools in the United Nations system for preventing the outbreak, escalation, recurrence and continuation of conflicts. That said, more multilateral efforts are required to resolve those issues in a comprehensive and integrated approach and manner. Against that backdrop, ASEAN has endorsed numerous frameworks in support of peacebuilding and sustaining peace efforts. That includes the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting, where we comprehensively discuss regional security issues, mitigation efforts and initiatives promoting harmonious partnerships for peace and stability in the region. In the broader security context, the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus and the ASEAN Regional Forum are regional frameworks established to yield cooperation through preventive diplomacy mechanisms and ensure that any disputes and differences are addressed peacefully and constructively. Indeed, ASEAN continues to offer long-standing and strong support to peace and stability in pursuing sustained economic growth and sustainable development. In view of supporting women’s full, equal and meaningful participation at every level of peace processes and security efforts, ASEAN is committed to advancing the women and peace and security agenda as a regional priority. ASEAN’s female military and law- enforcement officers have also continued to make a positive impact globally through their active participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations. That also includes their role as early peacebuilders in line with their mandates and host countries’ peacebuilding and national development priorities. In that regard, we encourage Member States’ efforts to further translate the women and peace and security agenda into practice and work to build capacities and increase opportunities for women at the local, national, regional and global levels. The Gender and Youth Promotion Initiative is a fundamental factor in sustaining global and regional peace. Its aim is also to promote the inclusive and meaningful participation of women and young people in local peacebuilding. The peacebuilding financing gap remains a critical challenge. We support the Secretary-General’s call for adequate, predictable and sustained financing, and we note the important role of the Peacebuilding Fund in contributing to the achievement of peacebuilding efforts. Every Member State should advance potential solutions and make commitments aimed at addressing the financing gap for conflict prevention and peacebuilding. We encourage Member States to contribute to peacebuilding efforts in order to sustain peace and create an environment conducive to development. The ASEAN Member States have played their parts individually and collectively in working for that goal. In conclusion, ASEAN reaffirms its steadfast commitment to ensuring the inclusivity of United Nations peacekeeping operations and peacebuilding efforts, as well as to promoting cooperation with all parties concerned with a view to contributing to the peace process around the world.

I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU). I would first like to thank the President for convening today’s debate on the annual report (A/76/678) of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the report of the Secretary-General (A/76/687) on the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). With the new agenda for peace, the Secretary- General has set a new, ambitious goal for preventive diplomacy, conflict prevention and peacebuilding, affirming that the United Nations peacebuilding architecture is a cornerstone of the Organization’s contribution to global peace and security. The EU and its member States have been reliable supporters of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Fund since their establishment, and we offer our continued political and substantial support to strengthen the readiness of the United Nations to respond to global challenges to peace and stability. We welcome the fact that this year the Peacebuilding Fund delivered its highest level of investment and its second-highest level of donor contributions, continuing its vital catalytic role in peacebuilding. We commend its leadership in promoting women and young people’s meaningful contribution to peacebuilding, focusing on peaceful elections and climate and security. We also recognize the importance of the investments in monitoring and evaluation that have helped the Fund to more than double its evaluation coverage. At the same time, we fully support all the recommendations in the annual report for further strengthening and streamlining the work of the PBC. The EU and its member States are primary investors in the Peacebuilding Fund, and we will continue our close cooperation on peacebuilding on the ground with the Fund and the wider United Nations system. The EU’s engagement in peacebuilding and stabilization has been strengthened with the enlargement of its contribution to the PBF and its adoption of the new Global Europe programme on Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention, which has a budget of €900 million and will build capacities for conflict prevention and peacebuilding in fragile countries and marginalized communities. In our engagement, we also recognize the importance of ensuring better coordination among peacebuilding actors. The United Nations agencies need to improve cooperation, just as we as donors need to work towards better information-sharing. While better coordination and a more efficient use of funds will go a long way to covering the financial needs, there is no doubt that new ways of funding United Nations peacebuilding have to be explored to ensure adequate, stable and predictable funding. We recognize that voluntary contributions have not been sufficient to meet the growing peacebuilding needs and that assessed contributions will be crucial to adequate and predictable financing for peacebuilding. On that basis, the EU is actively and constructively engaged in the ongoing negotiations in the General Assembly on a draft resolution on peacebuilding financing. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Kenya and Sweden, the co-facilitators of the draft resolution, and we hope the negotiations will reach a consensus conclusion. The Peacebuilding Commission has proved its potential as a convening power for promoting peaceful solutions to conflicts and the prevention of violence and as an adviser to the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly. In the past year, those functions have been strengthened. We need to continue to enhance the PBC’s role as a promoter of the system-wide coherence of the United Nations and to foster partnerships, just as we must further explore possible synergies between the PBC and the PBF. I would like to conclude by expressing our deep appreciation to the Chair of the PBC, Ambassador Muhammad Abdul Muhith, and his splendid team, whom we would like to thank for their commitment and excellent work.

Italy aligns itself with the statement just delivered on behalf of the European Union (EU). For a second time we will limit ourselves to a few additional comments in our national capacity. All the reports we are considering today share an overarching message, which is that the costs of responding to crises have become increasingly unsustainable. Preventing conflicts is one of the priorities of our time. In line with the Secretary-General’s commitment, it is time to change the paradigm from crisis management to conflict prevention and sustaining peace. We should not have to choose between peacekeeping and peacebuilding. That is a false dilemma and a dangerous one, suggesting that our efforts can go only one way. Both peacekeeping and peacebuilding are part of the same essential mission of the United Nations and of our collective commitment, and they must both rely on appropriate funding. Italy fully endorses the Secretary-General’s call for ensuring adequate, stable and predictable funding for United Nations peacebuilding. As we speak, Italy, along with its EU partners, is supporting the adoption of an ambitious General Assembly draft resolution on peacebuilding financing, including the allocation of significant assessed contributions for that purpose. We must maximize the effectiveness of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. Together, the Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Fund have significantly contributed to ensuring the consistency of prevention and response systems by advocating for the synergy of multidisciplinary and multistakeholder solutions. Italy will be back in the Peacebuilding Commission as of January 2023. We intend to actively contribute to the further centring of this increasingly important body. We also look forward to a more ambitious and structured collaboration between the Peacebuilding Commission and the Security Council, as the Commission is ideally placed to raise the Council’s awareness on regional efforts, the understanding and expertise of local communities and the cross-border dimension of conflict.

I am pleased to be participating in today’s joint debate in the General Assembly on peacebuilding. I would like to congratulate Bangladesh warmly on its chairing of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) since February and thank Egypt for its contribution to the PBC’s initiatives. The world today has begun to better grasp the complex and interlinked facets of peacebuilding. The global perspective on addressing conflicts has undergone a paradigmatic shift from resolution, reconciliation and recovery to prevention and reconstruction, thereby making peacebuilding a critical pillar in our collective response to conflict situations. As one of the leading troop- and police-contributing countries to United Nations peacekeeping missions, India has been an active member of the PBC since its inception. As we speak, we have more than 5,500 personnel deployed across nine missions. Serving under the blue flag, 177 gallant Indian soldiers have made the supreme sacrifice, the largest number among the troop- and police-contributing countries. We believe that the PBC and the Peacebuilding Fund need enhanced support and increased focus from Member States in fulfilling their mandate. In that context, I would like to submit the following. First, we continue to underscore the importance of the cardinal principle of inclusivity in order to advance national peacebuilding objectives. An exclusively donor-driven approach to peacebuilding is therefore not the most prudent path to follow. Secondly, the ongoing discourse on enhanced financial support for peacebuilding activities through sources other than voluntary contributions merits an in-depth and careful study of the potential ramifications for the United Nations ecosystem. Any decision to that effect must be consensus-based. Furthermore, the PBC should exercise its convening role more effectively. Thirdly, it is important to set clear benchmarks and criteria for an exit strategy for the countries under consideration, and the PBC’s peacebuilding advocacy should draw down when such criteria are met. India has always played a constructive and significant role in the context of peacebuilding through its extensive development partnership with countries of the global South. We continue to assist countries through bilateral and multilateral forums in post- conflict situations by providing substantial grants and soft loans. Even during the coronavirus disease pandemic, India has stood in solidarity with the global South by further strengthening existing development partnerships. Guided by the Kampala Principles, which Prime Minister Modi enunciated in July 2018 in his address to the Ugandan Parliament, a total of 204 lines of credit, to the tune of more than $12 billion, have been extended by India to 42 African countries. I would also like to take this opportunity to touch on the India- United Nations Development Partnership Fund, which was established in 2017. In the short span of five years, the Fund has developed a portfolio of 66 development projects in partnership with 51 developing countries, 17 of them in Africa, focusing on South-owned, South-led and demand-driven sustainable development projects. Since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the disruptions to the food and commodity supply chains, India has also been providing financial and food assistance to countries in need. In the past three months alone, India has exported more than 1.8 million tons of wheat to countries such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, the Sudan and Yemen. In our immediate neighbourhood, we have continued to help our good friend and neighbour Sri Lanka to ensure its food security by providing nearly $4 billion in food and financial assistance over the past few months. As Prime Minister Modi has said at the United Nations in the past, “let us pledge to reform the global multilateral system to enhance its relevance, to improve its effectiveness, to make it the basis for a new type of human-centric globalization”. (High-level segment of the Economic and Social Council, 17 July 2020) Going forward, India will continue to be a force multiplier for all peacebuilding efforts driven by that very human-centric approach.

My delegation aligns itself with the statement just made by the representative of Cambodia on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Thailand would like to thank Ambassador Osama Mahmoud Abdelkhalek Mahmoud of Egypt for his excellent chairmanship of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) last year. The comprehensive report of the Commission’s work in 2021 (A/76/678) and its record number of outcome documents are a testament to the concrete contributions of the PBC towards our common goal of sustaining peace. We also want to express our sincere appreciation to Bangladesh for its active chairmanship of the PBC this year and to thank the Secretary-General for his contributions to peacebuilding and sustaining peace, including through the Peacebuilding Fund, which continues to have an impact on the ground. At this timely General Assembly debate, Thailand would like to share the following three points. First, peace is not an island entirely of itself. For sustainable peace to take root and thrive, it needs an enabling environment that mutually reinforces security and sustainable development, while contributing to human security for all people. As a long-standing contributor of United Nations peacekeepers and a current member of the Economic and Social Council and the PBC, Thailand will continue to prioritize ensuring sustainability across the three pillars of the United Nations. In particular, we support the development of a new agenda for peace to include an integrated and holistic approach to working for peace and security across the peace continuum. We also support the continued efforts to put the Sustainable Development Goals back on track with a view to achieving a sustainable future for all. We will also continue to support that holistic approach in the work of the PBC. Secondly, in taking forward our common goal of sustaining peace, Thailand supports the collaborative efforts to promote South-South and triangular cooperation modalities in order to share best practices and lessons learned. That could include the role and contributions of regional and subregional organizations in supporting national peacebuilding efforts and their partnerships with the United Nations and other stakeholders. For its part, Thailand stands ready to share its home-grown approaches to sustainable development in support of national and regional efforts to build and sustain peace. In particular, our peacebuilders have been sharing Thailand’s bio-circular-green economic model and sufficiency-economy philosophy, as well as our best practices in areas such as sustainable agriculture and water management with local communities. That is in line with our long-standing belief that with the consent of host Governments, peacekeepers can help to contribute to early peacebuilding efforts in line with host countries’ socioeconomic and human development priorities. In addition, later this month Thailand will be hosting the Global South-South Development Expo, which will not only showcase best practices from various countries and regions but will also facilitate discussions on South-South and triangular cooperation modalities that could support efforts to address various development challenges in the global South, including in conflict-affected settings. Thirdly and finally, Thailand supports the ongoing efforts to ensure adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding. We welcome the valuable contributions made at the high-level meeting on financing for peacebuilding and in the constructive negotiations on a General Assembly draft resolution, with a view to taking forward this important issue. To that end, Thailand is pleased to have supported the Peacebuilding Fund through its voluntary contribution. We also believe that those financial resources should be accompanied by strengthened human resources, especially on the ground, in order to ensure lasting impact and resilience. We would therefore welcome greater coordination and strategic alignments across the United Nations system to identify and address funding and capacity gaps in order to effectively and comprehensively support peacebuilding and sustaining peace in the countries and regions concerned.

Let me begin by thanking the President for convening this joint debate on peacebuilding and sustaining peace. I also want to express our appreciation to Ambassador Osama Mahmoud Abdelkhalek Mahmoud, Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations, for presenting the annual report of the fifteenth session of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/76/678) in his capacity as Chair of the Commission in 2021. South Africa also fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by Bangladesh in its capacity as the current Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission. I also want to thank the Secretary-General for his report on peacebuilding and sustaining peace (A/76/668 and A/76/688/Corr.1). I would like to make a number of points. First, let me reiterate South Africa’s commitment to the Commission’s work. I want to stress that South Africa will continue to advocate for an effective peacebuilding approach that enhances the prevention of new, emerging and protracted conflicts with a view to safeguarding the attainment of the global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and regional development objectives as well. We remain concerned, however, about the possibility that the coronavirus disease pandemic, the global economic downturn and violent extremism, as well as the marginalization of women, girls and other vulnerable groups, will continue to exacerbate poverty and deepen inequalities, thereby threatening and undermining hard-won peacebuilding gains. Secondly, we commend the delegations of Kenya and Sweden for their leadership as co-facilitators of the ongoing intergovernmental negotiations on the draft resolution on financing for peacebuilding. They are advancing, exploring and considering options that will ensure adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding and that are currently being negotiated by our experts. In the context of the Organization’s twin resolutions on peacebuilding, Security Council resolution 2558 (2020) and General Assembly resolution 75/201, let us remain committed to the principles and purposes of the text and ensure a concrete and action-oriented outcome addressing the peacebuilding financing gap in support of nationally owned and regional peacebuilding processes in all settings, which the Commission supports. Thirdly, South Africa agrees with the Secretary- General’s assessment that the prevention of violent conflict, peacebuilding and sustaining peace are central to the work of the Organization as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, with financing as one of its most important enablers. However, the demand for peacebuilding far outpaces the available resources, creating a financing gap. In that regard, it is our considered view that the provision of new and more sustainable funding sources, including voluntary and assessed contributions for the Peacebuilding Fund, will strengthen the Fund’s catalytic role. That will enhance transparency, accountability and effectiveness, thereby ensuring and supporting national ownership of peacebuilding initiatives in the delivery of mandates across the United Nations system. Strengthening predictability in order to address the financing gap will also require innovative solutions, including support from the private sector, and that includes greater coherence with the international and regional financial institutions that play a critical role in the implementation of national plans and programmes. Fourthly, South Africa will continue to engage with the proposals on the new agenda for peace in the report of the Secretary-General on Our Common Agenda (A/75/982), which underscores the importance of investing in prevention and preparedness as a cost- effective means for peacebuilding with respect to both human and financial resources. Further to that, and as outlined in the Common African Position on the 2020 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, South Africa believes that regional organizations remain uniquely positioned and experienced in that regard, as we have seen with the African Union and its strong cooperation with the United Nations in conflict prevention in Africa. Both organizations must strengthen and undertake joint conflict analyses, assessments and action in preventive diplomacy, conflict resolution and mediation. To come to my fifth and final point, South Africa remains committed and continues to intensify interventions geared to supporting and enhancing the role of women in peacebuilding processes, including in political leadership, mediation and negotiations. As a champion of the Action for Peacekeeping Plus initiative, which underscores the importance of enhancing the women and peace and security agenda in peacekeeping operations, we believe that United Nations peace operation mandates can also be strengthened to reflect more gender-responsive disarmament, demobilization and reintegration processes, which also require the identification of barriers that prevent the inclusive participation of women. The space for the participation of young people in peacebuilding must also be broadened, and their engagement with the Commission has made that more evident. In Africa, youth makes up more than half of the population. Their contributions as change makers are therefore critical to finding long- term peacebuilding solutions, as many of them will be affected by those solutions in the future. Let me conclude by highlighting that as the current informal coordinator of the PBC and the General Assembly with the support of all Member States in bringing together the PBC and the Assembly, and as a candidate for re-election to the Commission for the 2023-2024 term, we believe that the Commission’s role within the United Nations in addressing a multitude of challenges before, during and after conflict remains indispensable as an advisory body with a unique convening and bridge-building role that is critical to supporting the core mandate of the Charter and its principles.

As the counting of the ballots has been completed for the election of members of the Economic and Social Council, I will now briefly suspend the Assembly’s consideration of these items.

The General Assembly will resume its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 115, entitled “Election of members of the Economic and Social Council”. The result of the voting is as follows: Number of ballot papers: 174 Number of invalid ballots: 0 Number of valid ballots: 174 Abstentions: 4 Number of members present and voting: 170 Required two-thirds majority: 114 Number of votes obtained: Russian Federation: 90 North Macedonia: 80 Since no candidate obtained the required two-thirds majority in the previous ballot, there still remains one seat to be filled from among the Eastern European States. We shall therefore proceed to the eighth unrestricted ballot. In accordance with rule 94 of the rules of procedure, this eighth round of balloting shall be unrestricted. I would like to remind the Assembly that any Member State from among the Eastern European States may be a candidate except those that remain members of the Economic and Social Council as of 1 January 2023, as well as those that have already been elected for a term beginning on 1 January 2023. The following members therefore cannot be voted for in the present balloting: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. Before we begin the voting process, I should like to remind members that pursuant to rule 88 of the rules of the procedure of the General Assembly, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order on the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now begin the voting process. Ballot papers will now be distributed. The voting has thus begun. Members are requested to put an X in the box next to the name printed on the ballot paper. There should not be more than one checked box or handwritten name for the vacant seat to be filled. Accordingly, members can check only one box or write one name of an eligible State from among the Eastern European States in the space provided. If the ballot paper contains a vote for a Member State that will remain a member of the Economic and Social Council as of 1 January 2023 or that has already been elected for a term beginning on 1 January 2023, the ballot paper will be declared invalid. Finally, if a ballot paper contains any notation other than a vote in favour of an eligible Member State, those notations will be disregarded.

In the interest of time, the General Assembly will now proceed to consider the other items announced in The Journal of the United Nations while the ballots are being counted. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 115.

We now resume the joint debate.

I thank the President for convening this meeting. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and the Peacebuilding Support Office, for guiding and facilitating our discussion on the peacebuilding agenda. At the outset, I would like to emphasize the importance of mobilizing our efforts for peacebuilding and sustaining peace with respect to all three pillars of the United Nations — peace and security, human rights and development. The United Nations peacebuilding architecture, with the PBC at its core, should facilitate those efforts. With that in mind, I would like to share Japan’s view on how to direct future efforts regarding the PBC and the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). I would like to begin by discussing a few points about the PBC. First, the PBC is a hub bridging all the relevant United Nations bodies to ensure system-wide coherence at the United Nations and the triple nexus for achieving the peacebuilding objectives. In that regard, the PBC’s thematic meetings should be utilized to share knowledge and best practices among a wide range of stakeholders within and outside the United Nations system. Japan welcomed the increase of thematic meetings at the PBC to 40 per cent last year. We believe that the key to sustaining peace is to build trustworthy institutions in areas related to the basic functions of the State. Secondly, we should strengthen the PBC’s advisory role for the Security Council, General Assembly, and other United Nations organs. We welcome the recent momentum for actively submitting written advice from the PBC to the Security Council. When Japan becomes an elected member of the Security Council as of January next year, we will further contribute to strengthening the PBC’s advisory role as a member of both the Council and the PBC. Thirdly, we should enhance the role of the PBC as a platform for strengthening partnerships with various peacebuilding actors outside the United Nations system. We are encouraged by the steady increase in the number of non-United Nations briefers at the PBC since 2018. While the United Nations should continue to play a central role, we should also acknowledge the limits on what the United Nations can achieve alone. Turning to the PBF, its comparative advantage vis-à-vis other funds lies in its ability to respond quickly and flexibly to peacebuilding needs on the ground, an indispensable feature in supporting cross- regional and transitional programmes. We welcome the increase of the Fund’s allocation to those programmes. Looking ahead, what can be done to strengthen the PBF, including its financing, while preserving its comparative advantages? First, it will be important to monitor and evaluate the results of PBF programmes, make them visible and publicize them within and beyond the United Nations system, including to the international financial institutions, the Member States and the general public. The efforts by the Secretariat to date, including the submission of evaluation reports and the launch of dashboards, have greatly contributed to bringing in around $180 million in voluntary contributions in 2021. For its part, Japan has been steadily implementing its commitment of $10 million to the PBF for the period from 2020 to 2024. Secondly, we should strengthen the link between the work of the PBF and the discussion in the PBC. Currently, the sole oversight body of the PBF is the PBF Advisory Group, which reports to the Secretary- General. While some might argue that there is a lack of inclusivity and transparency, the Advisory Group format has been accepted on the basis that the PBF is funded by voluntary contributions. If we introduce a more formal process of reporting to and consulting with the Member States, for example through the General Assembly, there is a high risk that the agility and flexibility of the PBF would be lost. In Japan’s view, the PBC has an important role to play in that regard. By increasing opportunities to share success stories and lessons learned from PBF-funded programmes in the PBC, we should be able to increase the PBF’s transparency and still maintain its comparative advantages. The PBC would also benefit from such exercises. In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm Japan’s full commitment to supporting the United Nations agenda for building and sustaining peace.

Switzerland welcomes the three annual reports under consideration today (A/76/678, A/76/668 and A/76/688/ Corr.1, and A/76/687). We thank the speakers for their important work for peace. The reports cover what has been a challenging period, characterized by the continued consequences of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Added to that is the overall impact of the war in Ukraine on food security, energy supplies and the economy. We must intensify our efforts to address those challenges in a sustainable manner. We commend the Peacebuilding Commission, under the successive chairmanships of Egypt and Bangladesh, for continuing to adapt and innovate in its work. Although the political and security environment has deteriorated, the Peacebuilding Fund has set records on the majority of the benchmarks in its current strategic plan. It is particularly encouraging that the Fund has approved 47 per cent of its total investments in support of gender-sensitive peacebuilding. Yet as the Secretary-General has pointed out, the current funding is still inadequate. Switzerland welcomes the way forward presented in the reports and would like to emphasize three points. First, there is evidence that redirecting investment to conflict prevention saves lives and resources. Conflict prevention also protects development gains. But we all need to do better. COVID-19 and the increase in climate-related risks have highlighted the importance of moving from crisis response to conflict prevention and the need for better anticipation. We need to further strengthen the synergies and coherence between the three pillars of the United Nations  — peace and security, human rights and development. Secondly, predictable and sufficient funding for all these efforts remains paramount. Accordingly, Switzerland has increased its annual contribution to the Fund for its 2020-2024 strategy. It is encouraging that the Fund has had its strongest year of investment in peacebuilding and its second-highest year of donor contributions. But as the Secretary-General pointed out, that is simply not enough. In order to meet the increased needs of peacebuilding and prevention efforts, new options for adequate, predictable and sustainable funding  — including assessed contributions to the Fund — are needed. A decision in favour of such assessed contributions would represent the shared commitment of Member States to peacebuilding and peacekeeping. Switzerland strongly supports the ongoing discussions in the General Assembly, co-facilitated by Kenya and Sweden, on financing peacebuilding. We call on all Member States involved in the negotiations to commit to finding sustainable solutions. Thirdly, the Commission has been successful in convening, building bridges and advising. Its engagement and interaction with entities outside the United Nations, such as the World Trade Organization and the private sector, are essential contributions to the mobilization of all peacebuilding efforts and should be intensified. In addition, we welcome the work of the Commission in establishing links with other entities and bodies of the United Nations system, including through the efforts of the informal coordinators with the General Assembly and the Security Council. Enhanced interaction with the Council is particularly important. We welcomed the efforts made in that regard during the Brazilian presidency of the Council in July, including the Commission’s dedicated briefing (see S/PV.9101). The earlier the Commission can advise the Council, the easier it will be for the Council to integrate these contributions into its own work and results. It is the responsibility of the States members of the Commission to ensure that the results of their deliberations are properly reflected in the communications transmitted. We therefore hope that the Chair of the Commission will be able to accept the invitation to brief the Human Rights Council on the Commission’s peacebuilding activities. We need to enhance the impact on the ground through dialogue and partnership. The Commission and the Fund play a key role in our efforts to prevent conflict and build back better after the pandemic. We support the proposal to develop a new agenda for peace, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s report on Our Common Agenda (A/75/982), with more investment in prevention and peacebuilding, and we encourage the Commission’s strong engagement in that process. Switzerland will continue its commitment to peacebuilding as a member of the PBC Organizational Committee, as Chair of the country-specific configuration for Burundi, as a donor to the Fund and as a future member of the Security Council.

I would like to start by thanking my colleague Ambassador Osama Mahmoud Abdelkhalek Mahmoud for the comprehensive overview of the work of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) in 2021. We are grateful to him and to Egypt for the insight and leadership they gave us last year. I also want to express my warm thanks to Ambassador Rabab Fatima for her support and leadership in the Peacebuilding Commission in the first half of 2022, as well as for her contribution to putting the collaboration between the PBC and the General Assembly at the top of our agenda. I wish Ambassador Muhith a happy and productive term as Chair of the Commission. He can count on my delegation’s continued cooperation. The presentation of the annual report of the Commission for 2021 (A/76/678) has provided several examples of significant contributions that the PBC can make by playing its advisory, bridging and convening roles. The PBC is well suited to work as a platform for promoting greater coordination among the relevant partners of specific countries at risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict. Additionally, it can mobilize regional organizations and international financial institutions and foster South-South and triangular cooperation arrangements in support of national peacebuilding activities. The Commission can also support the implementation of peacebuilding activities by peacekeeping operations and help mobilize political support for the promotion of reconciliation, the women and peace and security agenda, institution-building and other nationally defined peacebuilding priorities. However, there is more that the PBC could do. As Brazil and others have pointed out a number of times, the Commission is but a teenager within the United Nations family. The Commission’s relationships with the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly remain to be fully explored. That matter is a priority for most PBC members, and that is why the relationship between the PBC with other bodies was included in its 2020 programme of work. In that regard, I want to raise the issue of communication and take advantage of this opportunity to reach out to the broader United Nations membership. Today’s debate provides a good opportunity to once again present the suggestion that a seminar should take place in which current or former countries supported by the PBC or the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) could share their experiences with potential new partners, as a long- overdue measure of clarification for countries that may still be hesitant to seek PBC support for lack of understanding of the Commission’s role. The General Assembly is by far the best venue to address the issue of stigmatization that still hinders the outreach of the PBC. I hope that the Commission and countries under its consideration can offer valuable input on this topic. Since today’s debate also encompasses the work of the Peacebuilding Fund, I would like to bring to the Assembly’s attention the following points on issues of financing for peacebuilding. First, the PBF is conceptually geared as a seed resource, not a replacement for traditional development cooperation. Secondly, in evaluating the PBF’s functioning, we have to balance the objectives of agility and accountability, which very often work at cross-purposes. And thirdly, the PBF should not be seen as a means to make up for the significant reduction of development cooperation that we are witnessing today. Before I conclude, I would like to thank our co-facilitators, Kenya and Sweden, for leading our discussions to finalize a draft resolution on this topic. So far, many of the questions we raised have been addressed to some extent, including on the concern regarding the reopening of policy mandates conferred on the PBC by the 2020 twin resolutions (Security Council resolution 2558 (2020) and General Assembly resolution 75/201) and on concerns about accountability and oversight. Nonetheless, we still think that no final decision on the adoption of assessed contributions to the PBF should be taken at this stage. The Fifth Committee must complete its work to properly assess the effects of such a proposal on Member States as well as on the Organization as a whole, given its financial and procedural impact. Only when that process is completed successfully should the Fifth Committee decide on the issue.

Preventing violent conflict and building and sustaining peace are fundamental aspects of the work of the United Nations. They are derived from the Charter of the United Nations and highlighted in the report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding and sustaining peace (A/76/668 and A/76/688/Corr.1), which we welcome. It is in the full conviction of the importance of those tasks that Costa Rica has held a position on the Peacebuilding Commission since January 2021. We also appreciated the presentation of the report of the fifteenth session of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/76/678) by Ambassador Osama Mahmoud Abdelkhalek Mahmoud, Permanent Representative of Egypt, in his capacity as Chair of the Commission in 2021. We have discussed at length the benefits of the implementation of peace mechanisms focused on prevention, and we have concluded that their implementation not only brings stability, cost- efficiency and effectiveness, it also creates the necessary conditions for sustainable peace. Despite that, we continue to witness disproportionate increases in military spending and the weaponized approach that many nations adopt when managing crisis situations. So far there has been no coherent position taken regarding excessive military spending, and neither has due attention been paid to the repercussions of such actions for the development of a peacebuilding agenda based on prevention and consolidation. While the issue of financing for conflict prevention is a major concern for all of us, excessive military spending should be an issue that benefits from the same momentum and priority in any debate that seeks to promote an inclusive and sustained world peace. Costa Rica therefore calls for coherence. It is time to dismantle primitive and ineffective methods of action based on coercive security paradigms where force prevails, in order to make way for the full implementation of action plans that involve a comprehensive approach based on dialogue, inclusion and human security. We must abandon our dependence on weapons and invest our resources in projects that respect life. If prevention and peacebuilding are to succeed, they also require long-term intergenerational approaches that recognize and support the role of women, girls and young people. That includes adequate and sustainable funding for networks and organizations led by them. Costa Rica recognizes that dealing with prevention and peacebuilding also requires properly addressing the impact of climate change, since this has visible and tangible social effects, one example of which is the reported increase in the flow of local migrations due to food insecurity caused by abrupt changes in temperature. We cannot ignore the fact that a large percentage of the people displaced by conflict are in countries that are also vulnerable to climate change. It is therefore important that as peacebuilders we recognize the nexus between gender, climate and security, because it is crucial to provide a proactive, receptive, inclusive and sustainable response to the unpredictable effects of climate change and avoid increasing people’s vulnerability to conflict as much as possible. Considering that, Costa Rica reiterates its determination to undertake concrete and essential measures to strengthen the capacity of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Organization as a whole to address the challenges faced by the international community. Let us do it together, united by our confidence in the Commission and in the prospects for sustainable peace.

Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and would like to add the following remarks in its national capacity. We welcome the report (A/76/678) of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), the report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding and sustaining peace (A/76/668 and A/76/668 Corr.), as well as the report of the Secretary-General on the Peacebuilding Fund (A/76/687). As a staunch defender of peace and security, Portugal has been a long-time supporter of the Peacebuilding Commission and a consistent contributor to the Peacebuilding Fund. We are well aware of the important role that the PBC plays in conflict prevention, and especially in avoiding its recurrence by consolidating peace. The past year has shown us how crucial and urgent it is to invest in prevention and peacebuilding, and to address the root causes of conflict. It is unquestionably much more efficient and much less costly than having to respond to the consequences of crises and conflicts. As the Secretary-General highlighted in his report on Our Common Agenda (A/75/982), we need to shift our focus from a reactive perspective to a preventive one. His recommendations for strengthening the Peacebuilding Fund, expanding the role of the Peacebuilding Commission and putting women and girls at the heart of security policies, in particular, raised widespread interest and support. The key role of the PBC in convening and coordinating a broad common effort that involves the whole United Nations system, as well as international, regional and subregional organizations, international financial institutions, civil society and the private sector, must continue to be further strengthened. We also need to strengthen the PBC’s advisory role with the Security Council and the General Assembly. In that context, I would like to join others in acknowledging and praising the efforts of the successive chairmanships of the PBC, as well as the Chairs of its country-specific configurations, in furthering the Commission’s advisory, bridging and convening roles. We all know that successful peacebuilding and sustaining peace processes must be nationally owned and inclusive, ensuring that the needs of all sectors of society are taken into account. Furthermore, we know it is crucial to ensure that peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts, including transitions, are properly funded. We have been saying that for a long time. It is now time to take the necessary steps to achieve concrete results in finding ways to ensure adequate, predictable and sustainable financing for peacebuilding, making use of all the options on the table. The ongoing negotiations on the draft resolution on financing for peacebuilding must be a token of our commitment. We thank Kenya and Sweden for their work as co-facilitators and hope that the Assembly will adopt the draft resolution at its current session. We owe that to future generations.

We welcome the convening of this meeting as well as the presentation of the report of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/76/678). We also welcome the reports of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding and sustaining peace (A/76/668 and A/76/668 Corr.) and on the Peacebuilding Fund (A/76/687). Our delegation continues to believe that we need a conducive international environment in order to achieve sustained and lasting peace, one based on respect for multilateralism, international law, the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and amicable and cooperative relations among countries. Sustained peace demands the eradication of the root causes of conflicts, especially the social and economic development problems affecting our nations as a consequence of the current unjust international order, and particularly the countries of the global South. The full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the creation of capacities in developing countries and their access to technologies under equal conditions and without discrimination, as well as the fulfilment of official development assistance commitments, without preconditions, would help to address those issues. From the early beginnings of peacekeeping operations, our country has traditionally supported peacebuilding activities designed to help countries emerging from conflict develop and strengthen their national strategies for sustainable development. National Governments have the primary responsibility for implementing strategies for building and sustaining peace. The role of the United Nations is to assist them in those efforts, as requested and within the framework of the functions and mandates given to the various bodies of the United Nations. As with preventive diplomacy, early warning and mediation, and the good offices of the Organization, such assistance must be given in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and in full respect for international law. The consent of the host State and respect for ownership and national priorities are also essential, along with total respect for the sovereign equality of States, the peaceful solution of international disputes, the political independence of countries, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs and the rejection of the threat or use of force. That is the only way we can objectively and impartially support peacebuilding and sustain peace. We join the call for increased funding for United Nations peacebuilding and sustaining peace activities. Decisions are required to ensure adequate, predictable and continued funding for those activities. At the same time, those activities should not divert or affect the resources allocated to development. Our country, which is a faithful defender of peace and proud to belong to the Latin American and Caribbean region, proclaimed a zone of peace, will continue to honour its commitments by virtue of that transcendental declaration.

The United Kingdom is grateful for the work of Egypt and Bangladesh in driving the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) these past 18 months. Sustaining peace is the shared responsibility of all pillars of the United Nations, but the Commission is the only dedicated global forum for supporting countries with their peacebuilding processes. Under Egypt’s stewardship, the Commission continued to expand its geographic reach and increased its engagement with women peacebuilders. Under the leadership of Bangladesh, we have an ambitious workplan and a renewed focus on impact. The United Kingdom sees the potential of the Peacebuilding Commission. Through activist Chairs, including Egypt and Bangladesh, this youngest body of the United Nations system has matured. We think it has still greater potential. By continuing to deepen its follow- up on the countries with which it engages and rallying collective responses to peacebuilding challenges, the PBC will continue to grow in value. With emerging new threats to peace and security, it is more important than ever that we take a comprehensive approach to addressing global challenges. The world can no longer afford the cost of conflict. We must focus on prevention. Peaceful, just and inclusive societies are critical to achieving sustainable development and resilience. We encourage all national and international actors to put peacebuilding and sustaining peace at the centre of their policies and approaches. That means finding more integrated, inclusive and strategic policy approaches, working on smarter financing and casting the net of cooperation and partnerships more widely. The Peacebuilding Commission, through its convening role and increasingly in and of its own right, is a critical part of that equation. And the Secretary- General’s Peacebuilding Fund is the foremost financing instrument of the United Nations for strengthening the Organization’s peacebuilding work on the ground in partnership with host countries and Governments. As a historic top donor to the Fund and co-Chair with Sweden of the Group of Friends of the Peacebuilding Fund, the United Kingdom has consistently championed it, and we welcome all efforts to ensure that it is properly resourced and equipped. I would like to conclude by recognizing the tireless work of the Peacebuilding Support Office. The United Kingdom is deeply grateful to Assistant Secretary- General Spehar and her team.

At the outset, I would like to warmly thank the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and its former Chair, my brother Ambassador Osama Mahmoud Abdelkhalek Mahmoud, for his comprehensive briefing as well as his relevant comments on the report of the fifteenth session of the PBC (A/76/678) in 2021. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate my sister Ambassador of Bangladesh, Ms. Rabab Fatima, for her successful conduct of the work of our Commission. I wish her every success in her new United Nations functions. In 2021, our Commission spared no effort in implementing the relevant recommendations contained in the peacebuilding and sustaining peace resolutions and the priorities identified in the report of the PBC during its previous session (A/75/747). They included expanding its geographical and substantive focus, strengthening its advisory, bridging and convening roles, promoting effective partnerships in the area of peacebuilding, fostering the implementation of the women and peace and security and youth, peace and security agendas and aiding recovery after the coronavirus disease pandemic. The sense of urgency and the fundamental role of peacebuilding grow every year, given the extent of the existing threats and the newer multidimensional challenges that have emerged. In addition, it is vital to move from response to prevention, which is cost-efficient, and to employ creative methods when it comes financing, taking into account current challenges and their evolving nature. The needs in terms of peacebuilding and financing continue to increase. Bearing that in mind, the Kingdom of Morocco is of the view that a general stocktaking and geo-specific mapping of current threats could be crucial in guiding peacebuilding, financing and efforts in pressing areas, all while continuing to respect national ownership. We are also of the view that the establishment of winning partnerships and cooperation are critical to peacebuilding. Morocco will therefore continue its dynamic, multifaceted and supportive cooperation, which is aimed at promoting sustained peace at the regional and international levels, particularly on the African continent. It goes without saying that the lack of tangible progress in financing for peacebuilding continues to be a major obstacle to future progress. To that end, we believe it is important first to establish the issue of financing as a priority for the general peacebuilding landscape and sustaining peace at the United Nations. In that regard, we reiterate our support for predictable and adequate funding for peacebuilding, including the possibility of regular contributions amounting to $100 million for financing for peacebuilding. Secondly, we should emphasize the importance of adequate funding for the prevention of conflicts and resolution of disputes. Thirdly, it will be important to increase the number of successful, solid and organized partnerships with international financial institutions, regional organizations, the private sector and civil society in order to ensure intensified action on the ground, particularly in terms of innovation. In line with the priorities of King Mohammed VI, Morocco has always sought to help to uphold peace and security at the regional and international levels by taking advantage of every means of cooperation, whether bilateral, trilateral, South-South, multilateral or international, in combating challenges that undermine the peace, stability and security of States. That especially includes our brother African countries that are courageously confronting a series of multidimensional threats. In that regard, Morocco has productive partnerships with friendly African countries on the political, security, social, environmental, humanitarian, educational, health and, of course, military fronts. Here I should point out that the Kingdom of Morocco has more than 1,000 partnership agreements with African countries aimed at strengthening security and socioeconomic development on our continent. Morocco will work to further consolidate that cooperation, which is a fundamental lever of its foreign policy. The Kingdom of Morocco will continue to actively participate in the work of the Peacebuilding Commission and will spare no effort in its capacity as Chair of the Central African Republic country configuration. Together with all our regional and international partners, we have continued to work tirelessly to ensure peace and stability in cooperation with our brother country of the Central African Republic, with the full ownership of its authorities and in conformity with the country’s national priorities. I should not conclude without expressing our full support for the efforts of the Permanent Representatives of Sweden and Kenya, the co-facilitators of the draft resolution on financing for peacebuilding. I thank them for their efforts to arrive at a balanced and inclusive text that meets all of our aspirations and expectations. We wish them every success in their efforts.

My delegation appreciates the inclusion of these agenda items in this plenary session of the General Assembly, items that are also the subject of the reports of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding and sustaining peace (A/76/668 and A/76/688/Corr.1), in the context of which we would like to focus on the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). Our own experience has confirmed that peacebuilding is a continuing and long-term process in which catalytic and cross-cutting interventions are essential in responding to the special needs of vulnerable groups, as is a work ethic that creates effective coordination and has a genuine impact on the population. In that context, the PBF has been crucial in enabling us to make greater progress towards peace and sustainable development. It has thus become an important instrument through which multiple interventions have been organized based on our national priorities. Between 2018 and now, a total of more than $17 million has been invested in key areas such as the reintegration of returned migrants, the meaningful and effective participation of young people in decision-making for peace, the elimination of violence against women, violence prevention, transitional justice and the fight against corruption, as well as humane and dignified movement. The Fund also makes it possible to address immediate needs in emergency situations, as we saw at the beginning of the coronavirus disease pandemic. Its multidimensional, flexible and catalytic nature has resulted in significant, concrete results that benefit Salvadorans. We also recognize the proactive and coordinated work being done by national institutions and organs of the United Nations system, which has been essential to ensuring that results are action-oriented. Based on its experience, El Salvador is of the view that international support for peace efforts must be long-term. Initiatives such as the PBF are well on their way in that regard. El Salvador is grateful to the donor countries whose voluntary contributions make it possible to implement these actions through the PBF. However, we share the concerns about the peacebuilding funding gap. That is why we commend the Secretary- General’s proposal in his report to invest in prevention and peacebuilding. He encourages the promotion of action aimed at ensuring adequate, predictable and sustained financing for the Fund. Member States are already discussing that issue in the negotiations on a draft resolution on financing for peacebuilding, co-facilitated by the Permanent Representatives of Sweden and Kenya. Once adopted, it will serve as the frame of reference for subsequent decisions made in the Fifth Committee at the end of this year. El Salvador has participated in this process since its inception and will continue to contribute effectively to it. Reaching concrete and conclusive decisions on the matter will also enable us to better meet objectives outlined in other initiatives such as Our Common Agenda (A/75/982). Accordingly, my country affirms its full willingness and commitment to lending continuity to the activities and programmes carried out with the support of the Fund, as well as to providing recommendations and above all, sharing useful experience with a view to the improvement of future project delivery. In conclusion, El Salvador recognizes the fundamental role of the Peacebuilding Commission as an intergovernmental advisory body in this field. I should point out that we are also founding members. We recognize the work conducted by the previous Permanent Representative of Bangladesh and the Permanent Representative of Egypt at the head of the Commission. In our determination to continue this important work we have presented our national candidacy in this forum for the period from 2023 to 2024, confirming our commitment and support to ensuring that multilateralism can help to build peace.

At the outset, I would like to thank the President for convening this important meeting today. My delegation would like to commend the able stewardship of the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations, His Excellency Mr. Osama Mahmoud Abdelkhalek Mahmoud, in his capacity as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) during its fifteenth session in 2021. We appreciate his efforts as well as those of his delegation and the Peacebuilding Support Office in presenting the Commission’s report (A/76/678). In the wake of escalating conflicts and growing humanitarian situations across the world today, the need for an urgent shift towards prevention and peacebuilding cannot be overemphasized. Likewise, utilizing the PBC’s unique advisory, bridging and convening mandate effectively is now more critical than ever to enhancing global peacebuilding efforts. We note with satisfaction that the fifteenth session of the Commission made laudable progress in advancing the peacebuilding agenda and witnessed an expansion of its thematic and geographic focus. The Commission also strengthened the call for adequate, sustainable and predictable financing for peacebuilding during its annual meeting in November 2021 on the subject. In the same vein, the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) recorded its highest year of investment in peacebuilding and its second-highest year of donor contributions despite the adverse effects of the coronavirus disease, which created tremendous financial burdens and diverted large parts of budgets in many States. The current sixteenth session of the PBC, guided by the 2022 programme of work, continues to offer productive engagement and opportunities for the Commission to enhance its mandate. However, while we welcome the progress that the Commission and its members have made in the past few years, it is important to recognize that a shift to a greater focus on conflict prevention and peacebuilding, as recommended by the Secretary-General, will require immense and concerted efforts. In that regard, I would like to highlight a few points that we believe should be at the forefront of the work of the PBC and peacebuilding efforts in general. First, achieving nationally outlined peacebuilding priorities should be seen as a collective effort requiring the involvement of a wide range of actors. It is therefore vital to set realistically achievable targets that can enhance national ownership. It is also important to enhance cross-pillar collaboration, especially between peace and development actors, as well as South-South cooperation and peacebuilding. Secondly, in view of the nexus between peacekeeping and peacebuilding, especially in the context of transitions, we need greater synergy and collaboration between the PBC and the Security Council. The PBC’s advice to the Council, especially during important mandate renewals and drawdowns of peacekeeping missions, should be complementary and provide clearer insights into the implications for nationally determined peacebuilding priorities. Likewise, the Commission’s engagement with the Economic and Social Council is critical, considering that the ability to sustain economic growth and development remains vital to peacebuilding. Thirdly, promoting the women and peace and security and youth, peace and security agendas is critical to ensuring inclusive and sustainable peace. Women must play a key role in the peace process, and the PBC’s advisory and convening roles are important in highlighting issues related to women and peace and security, especially in country-specific contexts. Adequate commitment to the effective implementation of the Commission’s strategic action plan on youth and peacebuilding is also essential. Lastly, at a time when demand is greatly overstretching peacekeeping’s capacity, the General Assembly has a unique and important role to play in providing concrete solutions to addressing the critical need for adequate, predictable and sustainable financing for peacebuilding. We encourage the delegations currently negotiating the draft resolution on financing for peacebuilding to maintain flexibility with a view to opening every avenue that can increase both voluntary and assessed contributions as well as exploring innovative solutions for financing peacebuilding. In conclusion, I want to reiterate Nigeria’s commitment as a member of the PBC to continuing to support efforts by the United Nations that enhance conflict prevention and peacebuilding, which are far less costly than responding to conflicts.

I thought that I would leave the Assembly with some thoughts on peacebuilding drawn from our own experiences of a conflict that lasted more than 30 years. At the end of that conflict, we had 12,000 security detainees, 594 child soldiers, a programme of restorative justice and a Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission, from which we drew very rich experiences. For the purposes of our own learning, I believe it is possible to identify three aspects of post-conflict peacebuilding  — creating stability, restoring State institutions and addressing the socioeconomic dimensions of the conflict. At an international level, in keeping with the norms and standards required by the United Nations. I should recall in passing that we have had our own share of experiences in international peacekeeping. Sri Lanka has been blessed with armed forces from colonial times and made a substantial contribution to maintaining law and order at a domestic level and more recently in Mozambique in 1994, where a contingent of 11 police officers formed part of a successful United Nations mission. That was followed by contingents deployed to Timor-Leste, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire, the Sudan, Liberia, Haiti, South Sudan and Darfur. Their services were highly commended. To return to the main topic, the first aspect of post-conflict peacekeeping, and an important one, is the desire to reinforce stability and discourage combatants from returning to war. In every respect, peacebuilding continues to be an important function of peacekeeping, encompassing efforts to maintain a ceasefire, uphold stability and monitor the combatants. In our experience, however, peacebuilding goes beyond that feature of peacekeeping in a number of ways. Peacebuilding activities directly attempt to reduce the means and incentives to return to conflict. That requires disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, security-sector reform and arms control for light and heavy weapon systems. There is a saying that if peace is to prevail, the toys must be removed from the boys. But it is not enough to try to reduce the material means for going to war. The reintegration of former combatants requires alternative avenues for pursuing livelihoods and social recognition. As I said, at the end of our conflict, we had just over 12,000 security detainees and 594 child soldiers. Of the 12,000 security detainees, almost 11,900 were returned to their previous pursuits after rehabilitation. All of the child soldiers were returned to their parents. So peacebuilding activities directly attempt to reduce the means available and the incentives for non-State actors to potentially return to conflict. The second dimension is helping to build or restore key State functions that have the capacity to generate basic public goods and that have a semblance of legitimacy. In our experience, a basic function of the State is the production of public goods. But many States, especially those emerging from conflict — and we have experienced that ourselves — find it difficult to deliver those goods. As a result, peacebuilders either replace the State or partner with the State to rebuild basic facilities, public administration, the rule of law, transportation, communication networks and utilities and to create education and health infrastructure. The third dimension is an attempt to build the ability not only of the State but of the society to manage conflict peacefully and develop the socioeconomic infrastructure needed to underpin economic development. To that end, peacebuilders are involved in trauma counselling, transitional justice and reconciliation, community dialogue and the strengthening of civil-society organizations, among other things. Although there is a tremendous debate on the basic functions of the State beyond the provision of security, and about the minimal degree and kind of State that is required to underpin peace, several elements in this process may be controversial. To begin with, actors must have an incentive to preserve the State and its institutions. What matters, then, is the utility of the State to provide reasonable security guarantees and that powerful actors believe that they benefit from a State that can enforce the essential rules. In that respect, I say the test for the emergence of the State is the appearance of a political unit persisting in time and fixed in space and the development of permanent, impersonal institutions; agreement on the need for an authority that can give final judgments; and the acceptance of the idea that such authority should receive the basic loyalty of its subjects. I do not think there is anything short of that formula. In the final analysis, led most prominently by, and with the help of, developed States, there is a growing interest in making sure that States, especially those emerging from conflicts, such as ourselves, have the capacity to maintain stability and counter transnational threats, which is another aspect of it. The degree of the State, then, matters, not only because it provides a useful function for domestic society, but also for international society. Yet the desire to make sure that the post-conflict State is strong enough to contend with uncivil forces might easily undermine the desire to build a liberal State, one that is accountable to society and fastened by nothing less than the rule of law. If so, then peacebuilding, in my respectful view, might prove to be successful to the extent that States do not return to war five years or a short while after peace agreements and a failure to the extent that it leaves in place an authoritarian structure.

We have heard the last speaker in the joint debate on these items. May I take it that is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda items 32 and 113?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 66.

The result of the voting is as follows: Eastern European and other States (1 seat) Number of ballot papers: 178 Number of invalid ballots: 1 Number of valid ballots: 177 Abstentions: 3 Number of members present and voting: 174 Required two-thirds majority: 116 Number of votes obtained: Russian Federation 95 North Macedonia 79 Since no candidate obtained the required the required two-thirds majority, there still remains one seat to be filled from among the Eastern European States. We shall therefore proceed to the ninth unrestricted ballot. In accordance with rule 94 of the rules of the procedure, this ninth round of balloting shall be unrestricted. I remind the Assembly that any Member State from among the Eastern European States may be a candidate, except those that remain members of the Economic and Social Council as of 1 January 2023, as well as those that were already elected for a term beginning on 1 January 2023. The following members can therefore not be voted for in the present balloting: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Slovakia and Slovenia. Before we begin the voting process, I should like to remind members that, pursuant to rule 88 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order on the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now begin the voting process. Ballot papers will now be distributed. The voting has begun. Members are requested to write an “X” in the box next to the name on the ballot paper or to write the name of another eligible State on the blank line. If the box next to the name of a State is checked, the name of that State does not have to be repeated on the blank line. There should not be more than one checked box or handwritten name for the vacant seat to be filled. Accordingly, members can only check the box or write one name of an eligible Member State from among the Eastern European States in the space provided. If the ballot paper contains a vote for a Member State that will remain a member of the Economic and Social Council as of 1 January 2023, or that was already elected for a term beginning on 1 January 2023, the ballot paper will be declared invalid. Finally, if a ballot paper contains any notation other than a vote in favour of an eligible Member State, those notations will be disregarded.

In the interest of time, the General Assembly will now proceed to consider the other items announced in the United Nations journal while the ballots are being counted. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 115.

I now give the floor to the representative of South Africa to introduce draft resolution A/76/L.76

On behalf of the core group of the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative, I wish to introduce draft resolution A/76/L.76, on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, which calls for a high-level meeting on this very important topic. The core group members and main sponsors — Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Costa Rica, Ghana, Indonesia, Jamaica, New Zealand, Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden and Viet Nam — worked to present a draft resolution that is procedural and to request the General Assembly to call for a high-level meeting in New York where Heads of State and Government would adopt a succinct political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response no later than the end of the last day of the general debate of the General Assembly at its seventy-eighth session. With the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic now in its third year, the need to develop an inclusive and durable solution for pandemic, prevention, preparedness and response remains as important as ever. It is our belief that a continuous demonstration of political will is vital to ensure that whole-of-society approaches to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response are adopted and operationalized. The COVID-19 pandemic has also highlighted the need for concerted political action at the global level and an increase in international financing for preparedness focused on addressing the gaps. The COVID-19 pandemic has served to refute several previously held truths about pandemics and reveal significant shortcomings in current national and global capacity to prepare for, detect and respond to them. Consequently, a high-level political moment is needed to refocus attention on persistent challenges in COVID-19 and other pandemic responses, as well as opportunities for new and ambitious multilateral solutions for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response moving forward. It is our view that the high-level meeting being proposed will facilitate a political decision for the global community to support pandemic prevention, preparedness and response processes that are currently being discussed in Geneva. Similarly, we are confident that the high-level meeting would be mutually reinforcing with the other high-level meetings on public health that are also scheduled for the seventy-eighth session of the General Assembly. It is imperative that we cooperate and coordinate such that we can prevent epidemics from spreading and becoming pandemics. That will require coordination at the international level through political will.

I now give the floor to the representative of Argentina to introduce draft resolution A/76/L.77.

Before introducing the draft resolution, I would like to mention an event that is now public knowledge. Last night, an attempt was made on the life of the Vice-President of the Republic of Argentina, Mrs. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, from which, fortunately, she emerged unscathed. We would like to express our solidarity with the Vice-President, our firm condemnation of the incident and our commitment to life, peace, democracy and human rights. I am pleased to introduce draft resolution A/76/L.77, on the International Day for Interventional Cardiology, to be commemorated on 16 September to raise awareness about an area of medicine that improves public health and increases life expectancy. We believe that the adoption of the draft resolution would enable greater recognition of interventional cardiology as a very powerful diagnostic and therapeutic tool, thanks to technological progress and human resources training. The date chosen, 16 September, coincides with the first percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty performed by Dr. Andreas Grüntzig on a patient, on 16 September 1977 in Zurich. We believe that this International Day will serve to commemorate and reaffirm the commitment to interventional cardiology, alongside various stakeholders, such as civil society, academia and the private sector, as stipulated in the draft resolution. In that context, we believe that the role of the World Health Organization will be crucial in implementing the text, as it is the agency that specializes in that area. Moreover, marking this International Day is an opportunity to share experiences and potential forms of cooperation in that area of medicine. We thank all delegations for their contributions and their constructive involvement on the text. Furthermore, we warmly thank all those delegations that co-sponsored the text, which, according to the number we have, stands at 33 countries. Allow me to conclude with the words of the well- known Argentine cardiac surgeon René Favaloro: “medical and bioengineering progress can be considered true achievements for humankind when everyone has access to their benefits, and they are no longer a privilege for the few”.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/76/L.76, entitled “High-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

The present oral statement, which will be distributed to Member States, is made in the context of rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. Under the terms of paragraph 1 of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would decide to hold a one-day high-level meeting, by no later than the last day of the general debate of the General Assembly at its seventy-eighth session, to adopt a succinct political declaration aimed at, inter alia, mobilizing political will at the national, regional and international levels for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. With regard to that paragraph, in the absence of modalities for the high-level meeting, it is not possible at the present time to estimate the potential cost implications of the requirements of the high- level meeting. Upon a decision on the modalities of the meeting, the Secretary-General would assess the budgetary implications and advise the General Assembly in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. Furthermore, in accordance with established practice, the date of the high-level meeting would be determined in consultation with the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management. In that regard, references made to paragraph 11 of resolution 69/250 and subsequent resolutions, the most recent of which is resolution 76/237, in which the Assembly invited Member States to include in new legislative mandates adequate information on modalities for the organization of conferences and meetings. The statement I just made will be made available in The Journal of the United Nations and under the e-statements link for the meeting.

We will now take action on draft resolution A/76/L.76. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to the delegations listed in the document, the following countries have become sponsors draft resolution A/76/L.76: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, the Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Djibouti, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, the Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, the Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Sudan, Spain, the Sudan, Suriname Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/76/L.76?

We shall now turn to draft resolution A/76/L.77, entitled “International Day for Interventional Cardiology”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to the delegations listed in the document, the following countries have also become sponsors of draft resolution A/76/L.77: Algeria, Armenia, Belarus, Botswana, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, India, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Morocco, Paraguay, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Serbia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/76/L.77?

Before giving the floor for explanations of position on the resolutions just adopted, may I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be delivered by delegations from their seats.

Our statement concerns resolution 76/301. The coronavirus disease has taught the international community that we urgently need to redouble our collective efforts to detect new health emergencies and respond to them in a timely, efficient and coordinated manner. Brazil welcomes the initiative to convene a high-level meeting of the General Assembly on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. We thank the core group for proposing it. The high-level meeting will achieve its purpose only if it is consistent with the ongoing negotiation processes in Geneva. Brazil believes that the proposal should have moved the date of the meeting to a time after the conclusion of both sets of negotiations on an instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response — within the intergovernmental negotiating body and via the process of the reform of the International Health Regulations. In the same vein, we believe that the resolution should have included fundamental elements that are an integral part of the negotiations in Geneva. In the preamble, for instance, there is no reference made to equitable access to medical counter-measures, which is part of the decision of the World Health Assembly special session SSA 2 (5) of 1 December 2021. There is no reference either to research and development or to the production of vaccines in health technologies, which is also a central issue in the existing debate. And there is no mention of recovery as an important element in comprehensively addressing the subject. For the next phases concerning the modalities of the meeting and the succinct political declaration to be adopted as an outcome, it is crucial that negotiations be conducted in a way that allows for a transparent, open and inclusive process, with sufficient time for broad consultations and consensus-building. In reaffirming its commitment to joining collective efforts to better address health challenges, Brazil looks forward to working with other delegations so that the modalities of the meeting, as well as the succinct political declaration, give adequate political impetus to the issue, while ensuring that the ongoing processes in Geneva can fully run their dual course.

Switzerland welcomes resolution 76/301, entitled “High- level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. As underscored in the resolution, leadership, multilateral cooperation and ongoing engagement are necessary in order to prevent future global health emergencies such as the coronavirus disease pandemic. We believe that the World Health Organization (WHO) should play a central and leading role in those efforts. We therefore welcome the recognition of its leadership role on global health issues in the text of the resolution and its involvement in preparations for the high-level meeting in question. Our shared commitment to strengthening pandemic preparedness and response must contribute to coherent global health governance and, at the core, a strong and effective WHO. It is therefore crucial to ensure complementarity and coherence between the high- level meeting and the work under way in Geneva in the intergovernmental negotiating body to draft and negotiate a World Health Organization convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. At this stage, we would have preferred that our work be focused on the discussions under way in the intergovernmental negotiating body and at the WHO, and then return to the General Assembly with the format of a high-level meeting once the first draft of a new international instrument had been presented to the World Health Assembly in May 2024. Lastly, we would like to stress that preparations for the high-level meeting must be guided by the principles of transparency and inclusiveness to enable all Member States to participate actively.

The United States would like to express support for the intention of resolution 76/301 to maintain and strengthen political attention on pandemic preparedness and response. That is a shared global priority and a major focus for the United States. The special session proposed as part of the resolution has the ability to support those goals in New York, while reinforcing the critical work taking place in Geneva, Washington, D.C., and capitals around the world. The timing of the special session must be planned and scoped accordingly, with a solid appreciation for the complementary processes, negotiations and efforts taking place in other forums, including ongoing discussions on pandemic-related issues occurring at the World Health Organization on International Health Regulations amendments and in the intergovernmental negotiating body to draft and negotiate a World Health Organization convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It will be critical that a future special session be informed by, and help to support, those concurrent efforts while being respectful of their distinct processes. While we support the goals of the resolution, to increase commitment across the United Nations system on this important issue, we would like to register concerns with the process on this short procedural text. The text was not properly negotiated or placed under the silence procedure. Many delegations across regions expressed concerns about the process and timing of the special session during the only two brief informal meetings that were held. Those concerns were not addressed in any subsequent drafts of this text. As we approach the General Assembly high-level week in 2023, we want to ensure that any additional events on global health priorities provide a strong value and add to the packed agenda. We look forward to the high-level meetings on universal health coverage, the outcome of which would also add to the pandemic- preparedness architecture that we are all seeking to strengthen and solidify. The United States will engage constructively and proactively in the upcoming modalities negotiations for the special session in order to ensure that the timing and scope of that session amplifies, complements and does not duplicate existing processes. Pandemic preparedness and response requires ongoing political attention and mobilization, as well as commitment across the United Nations system and sectors in order to help reinforce the work taking place in Geneva and elsewhere. We welcome the opportunity to reflect on this special session as we look ahead to next steps.

At the outset, my delegation would like to express our appreciation to South Africa and the core group of the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative for drafting this important resolution (resolution 76/301). The Republic of Korea shares the view that the coronavirus disease pandemic has clarified the critical importance of preventing, preparing and responding to pandemics and global health emergencies, as well as of the need to maintain a high-level of momentum. In that regard, allow me to share a few reflections on the resolution and the process to follow. First, we must ensure that the high-level meeting enhances synergy with the other health-related agendas, such as universal health coverage and tuberculosis, already scheduled to be discussed in the General Assembly during its seventy-eighth session. Secondly, the initiative should serve to complement the work under way in Geneva. The General Assembly can best do that by mobilizing political will among all Member States, while focusing our common efforts and leveraging what can be done here in New York to help prevent unnecessary duplication and overlap with the ongoing discussion in Geneva. Thirdly, considering the topic at hand, we must better engage with multiple stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society and the World Health Organization, in a transparent and inclusive manner. To that end, the Republic of Korea will play its part to constructively and proactively contribute to ensuring those processes, such as by discussing the modality for the high-level meeting. Bearing that in mind, we must work towards establishing practical, concrete and action-oriented results in convening the high- level meeting.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the voting. We will now hear statements after the adoption of the resolution. I give the floor to the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.

I deliver this statement on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The candidate countries Türkiye, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova; the country of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina; as well as Georgia, Andorra, Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. The EU and its member States welcome the adoption of the enabling resolution (resolution 76/301) on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. As a sign of our strong support, all 27 EU member States co-sponsored it. We would like to thank South Africa, as well as Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Costa Rica, Ghana, Indonesia, Jamaica, New Zealand, Rwanda, Sweden and Viet Nam, for their leadership in garnering political support for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The lessons learned from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have clearly underlined that we need to improve global health security and prevent and prepare better for future pandemics in a joint and global effort. The importance of that issue cannot be overstated. Team Europe, the EU and its member States, have been at the global forefront of showing multilateral solidarity and responding to the COVID-19 pandemic — whether it be in supporting countries in need with essential health supplies, providing vaccines to low- and middle-income countries or providing support to vaccine-manufacturing capacities in developing countries. The EU strongly supports multilateral action. In the forward-looking perspective, the EU and its member States will be the first to support initiatives that aim to strengthen the political support of the global community for measures to prevent and respond to future pandemics. We expect that initiative in the General Assembly to be fully aligned with, and complementary to, the negotiations mandated by the World Health Assembly, as well as the reforms of the International Health Regulations, the establishment of the new financial intermediary fund for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response at the World Bank and the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative in the General Assembly. We also trust that the preparatory process will be open, transparent and inclusive, reflecting contributions from all relevant stakeholders. We must ensure full inclusion of the World Health Organization in every step of this process in order for it to provide technical guidance and leadership and help ensure complementarity between New York and Geneva processes. Lastly, we would like to stress that the timing of this initiative should remain flexible in order to ensure that it provides the best possible timing and support to ongoing negotiations. The EU would also like to avail itself of this opportunity to inform the United Nations membership of the forthcoming renewed EU Global Health Strategy and invites stakeholders to partake in the ongoing public consultations in preparation for the strategy.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 129?

The result of the voting is as follows: Eastern European States (1 seat) Number of ballot papers: 178 Number of invalid ballots: 0 Number of valid ballots: 178 Abstentions: 3 Number of members present and voting: 175 Required two-thirds majority: 117 Number of votes obtained: Russian Federation: 97 North Macedonia: 78 The unrestricted ballot has again been inconclusive. One seat remains to be filled from among the Eastern European States. In accordance with rule 94 of the rules of procedure, we should continue with a series of balloting. In view of the lateness of the hour, further balloting will take place on a date to be determined, during the seventy- seventh session. May I take it that the General Assembly concludes its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 115?