S/PV.6740 Security Council

I thank Mr. Ladsous for his briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. Malcorra. Ms. Malcorra: I would like to join in Mr. Ladsous’ recognition of the importance of United Nations engagement in peacebuilding in our mission areas and note the fundamental role of effective transitions in ensuring that we leave behind a sustainable peace. Delivering an effective response to the peacebuilding needs of post-conflict countries requires from field support systems the same agility and flexibility that is required for other peacekeeping tasks. Indeed, the magnitude and extent of field missions and the funding involved throughout the duration of a mission’s life cycle can have a significant impact, through job creation and local procurement, for example, each of which contributes to the building of peace. At the same time, it is recognized that their impact on the socio-economic situation can also be negative, for example, as a result of environmental degradation or distortions made to the job market. In the global field support strategy (GFSS), due consideration has been given to the potential social and economic impact of United Nations missions and the need to support mission goals in peacebuilding. I would like to take this opportunity today to brief the Council on some examples where support given to field operations has had a positive impact. The economic impact of our large multidimensional field missions is significant, especially when considering that deployment often occurs in post-conflict nations without a stable macroeconomic climate, which makes local acquisition of goods and services very difficult. As part of our strategy, we are introducing mechanisms that can promote local and regional procurement, which is an activity that can plant the seeds for private sector development. To that end, the GFSS will enable our teams on the ground to target local vendors and clearly communicate procurement requirements in the official language of the country where possible. That can be challenging in the start-up phase of a mission, and it may not be feasible to rely on the local market. However, over time, local vendors can get a sense of the requirements of the mission, and hopefully their business sense and ingenuity will encourage them to start offering the goods and services required. There are certain products and services for which the local market can have a distinct advantage. Although that may represent a low percentage of our overall procurement, it can have an important impact on the local market. The flow-on effect in the private sector can be considerable and, if properly planned, can generate a growing and sustainable process for propelling individuals into long-term development, thereby contributing to efforts to break the cycle of poverty. It goes without saying that all such efforts must be undertaken in the context of United Nations rules and regulations. Efforts have also been made to focus on a mission’s ability to address critical social issues such as unemployment. The United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) provided clear and positive examples in that regard. High levels of unemployment and slow economic recovery make it difficult for youth and war- affected populations to find legal income-generating opportunities locally. As was explained in the 2011 World Development Report, such a situation presents a serious impediment to war-affected populations’ ability to establish alternative livelihoods and encourage sustainable reintegration in local communities. In response to that need, UNMIL and its partners — the World Bank, the World Food Programme, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Ministry of Public Works — designed a series of labour-intensive road repair projects designed to increase accessibility and create short-term employment opportunities. The projects were concentrated around vulnerable communities, such as communities along borders and those in close proximity to desirable natural resources. Such projects created more than 75,000 jobs and channelled almost $6 million into local communities, with the workforce comprising representation from all communities, ex-combatants, returnees and women. Six hundred kilometres of primary roads and 300 kilometres of secondary roads were rehabilitated, which improved year-round access to many parts of the country. The impact of the projects was reviewed through an independent assessment that concluded that the security situation in communities established along the roads improved, as there were real job opportunities. Furthermore, income was reinvested in small businesses, used to repay debt and put towards longer- term expenses such as education and housing. In other words, the project was building peace. From a Department of Field Support perspective, the issue of transitions from one United Nations presence to another is equally critical, often requiring drawdown or sometimes a surge in operations. In Burundi and Sierra Leone, for instance, the liquidation of one mission coincided with the start-up of another. One of the key lessons we have learned from such transitions is the need to prepare contingency plans in order to lay the foundation for adequate support for the possible follow-on presence, in addition to building a sustainable peace. Transitions may be inherently political processes, but they can succeed only if they are well prepared and executed. For that to happen, it is crucial that the substantive side and the support side plan in an integrated manner. That is particularly important as we need to recognize that many support issues, such as the question of asset liquidation, are highly political, while also dealing with the issue of expectations management and a fear of mission exit in terms of socio-economic impact. In many countries, peacekeeping missions provide major support to national authorities with regard to infrastructure maintenance, transport and logistics, among others. As with our efforts in peacebuilding, we also have to work with our national counterparts to prepare for the impact that mission drawdown is likely to have on national resources, capacities and budgets. The experiences of the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste and UNMIL demonstrate how joint planning with national counterparts can address those challenges and, to the extent possible, mitigate the impact of reduced logistical and infrastructural support to our national partners through coordinated planning and capacity-building. That being said, such a reduction in peacekeeping resources has wider implications for all partners, not only the national Government, as it is likely to impact on those partner’s programmes and require increased commitment by them, both within the United Nations and beyond. Against that background and recognizing the importance of integrating support services, we are working with our partners in the Integration Steering Group and its sub-working groups to harmonize support costs across the United Nations. That will extend our services to agencies, funds and programmes and create greater transparency on how a smaller role of one United Nations entity will impact the resource requirements of others on the ground. That will also be facilitated through greater cooperation on the issue of trust funds and support costs applied to them. In this regard, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Secretariat have signed a memorandum of understanding that has overcome past funding constraints on the Peacebuilding Fund. The broader cost-recovery policy directed by the Controller is well under way. A different yet important contribution the United Nations brings to post-conflict societies is in the form of national capacity development. Several of our missions have introduced specific strategies and programmes, such as certification programmes, that are aimed at strengthening national staff capacity. That was done in the Sudan, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Timor-Leste. That should be our priority from the outset, given that national staff will play a critical role in the development of their country beyond our presence. Our ongoing work on civilian capacities will be another vital part of that effort. Accessing more effectively the needed civilian experts and deploying them into missions to support the development of national capacities and to help us plan and execute peacebuilding tasks and effective transitions will depend on stronger partnerships between the United Nations and external providers, principally Member States. As such, we have to work together if we are to succeed. Critically, national ownership underpins the entire civilian capacity initiative. That was identified clearly in the recent regional consultations in Bali, where the Finance Minister of Timor-Leste stressed her country’s wish to lead its own peacebuilding process and direct international support in accordance with the country’s own priorities. Better support to national capacity-building is therefore a priority for civilian capacity, which in turn must be a priority for peacebuilding and effective transitions. UNDP is leading a system-wide group in looking at how we can do better in post-conflict contexts, and is carrying out a survey of United Nations field presences to understand what tools are needed to do this more effectively. We expect that UNDP will be able to make recommendations this summer. The situation does remain challenging, however. We still fail to deploy timely, certain civilian capacities in a timely manner to countries emerging from conflict and face persistent capacity gaps in five core areas: safety and security, the rule of law, inclusive political processes, core Government functionality and economic revitalization. Much like with our sourcing of key enabling assets for peacekeeping, we are also having difficulty in accessing niche capacities to respond to specialized needs. We are, however, working out how to tackle those challenges. We are focused on building partnerships with Member States, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations and others, and on South-South cooperation in this regard. We are also recognizing the added value that comes from the real world experience of post-conflict recovery, democratic transition or building national institutions from scratch or very low capacity. That is the sort of capacity that those nations emerging from conflict find most useful — the experience of those who have actually confronted and worked through the same challenges they are now facing. We must ensure that we are working to our strengths or, as we put it, delivering based on the principle of comparative advantage. Missions do not have to implement everything themselves and, of course, other partners may be better placed to deliver on the wide range of tasks that are expected. We will continue to work towards realizing mechanisms and modalities to best support that process. Each of those activities — be they focused on the building of peace during a mission, on effectively transitioning to a sustainable and nationally owned peace as we withdraw, or on the deployment of the right civilian personnel to the right place and playing the right roles alongside our partners — are all aimed at delivering on our mandates, building national institutions, and ensuring that we do not have to return again once our missions have left. The Security Council plays an enormous role in that, setting the direction for our efforts not only through mandates, but also through building and maintaining the political support required for delivery. In addition, we count on the Council and its members to work with us as partners in ensuring a coherent, coordinated and sustained response to the complex challenges we face in building peace before, during and after the departure of our missions.

I thank Ms. Malcorra for her briefing. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers.