PRESS CONFERENCE ON PEACEBUILDING FUND

 

As a third part of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, the Peacebuilding Fund, launched this morning, would be a lively tool for United Nations peacebuilding, the Head of the United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, Carolyn McAskie, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.

Following this morning’s successful launch, it looked as if the Fund, which had an initial target of $250 million, had received a first total of some $144 million in contributions and pledges from donors, with indications that there would be some additional pledges.  “This is a good start,” she said.

Providing a background for the Fund’s establishment, she noted that, in December, the General Assembly had approved the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission and had authorized the Secretary-General to set up the Peacebuilding Support Office.  The Secretary-General had also been authorized to set up the Peacebuilding Fund as the third part of the peacebuilding architecture.  While the Fund was separate from the Commission, it would work closely with it.

The General Assembly had already approved the Fund’s terms of reference, she added.  While the Fund would report back to the Assembly for policy guidance, it would be run under the Secretary-General’s authority through the Peacebuilding Support Office.  The actual disbursements would be managed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).  As a small outfit, the Peacebuilding Support Office was designed to be a catalyst and facilitator within the system.  “We’re not a new organ, doing new programming,” she explained.

The Peacebuilding Support Office was designed to make what the United Nations system and other partners did in the peacebuilding phase more effective and focused, she said.  In all cases, the Office was working through existing United Nations institutions.  In the case of the Fund, the disbursements would be affected by the UNDP.  In that regard, the Office was about to sign off on a memorandum of understanding with the UNDP on the actual details.

In addition to this morning’s launch of the Fund, the first two meetings of the Commission’s country-specific committees would take place this week, she said.  The Commission had accepted the requests of Burundi and Sierra Leone, endorsed by the Security Council, as the first countries to come under the Commission’s consideration.  That meant that Burundi and Sierra Leone would be identified as the first initial recipients under the Fund.

Expenditure under the Fund was not, however, restricted to countries that were in a formal consultative relationship with the Peacebuilding Commission, she added.  The Secretary-General could designate other countries in a post-conflict situation as eligible for expenditures under the Fund.  She expected additional contributions to the Fund.  The chances for meeting the Fund’s target were good.  Many donors had made multi-year commitments.

A drop in resources to countries coming out of conflict was a critical element of whether they would be able to maintain the path to peace, she said.  Economic investment in the immediate post-conflict period was a critical element in reducing the risk of recurrence of conflict.  The Fund was an important element of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture and she hoped it would be used as an effective tool.

Asked how the Fund would spend the money, she said the Fund’s terms of reference were very broad.  A Government coming out of a long period of conflict was often faced with a situation in which every sector was in a state of underfunding and undercapacity.  The Fund could be used in a number of ways, including for the holding of elections, setting up truth and reconciliation commissions, getting justice systems up and running, and bringing home refugees.  While the Fund could act as a catalyst in such areas, it could never be a panacea for all sectors, or for the full requirements of any one sector.

Asked specifically how much money Burundi and Sierra Leone would get and what kind of projects would be funded, she said it was too early to say.  The first meeting on Sierra Leone would take place tomorrow and the Burundi meeting was scheduled for Friday, kick-starting the process by establishing them as eligible under the Fund.  The leaders of the United Nations country teams in those countries were in New York.  One of the first things they would be asked to do, when they returned next week, was to sit down and provide a financial plan.  The United Nations could then get some money out to the field against those priorities, which would be established by the Peacebuilding Commission.  The Commission would not, however, establish the priorities for the funding of countries that were not under its consideration.

Asked to provide a timeline in the case of Burundi and Sierra Leone, she said she would not put herself in a box by making a prediction.  “If we’re really good we can do something in a couple of months, but three to four months would be a reasonable estimate,” she said.

Would the arrangement with the UNDP be permanent? a correspondent asked.

Responding, she said that, while nothing was written in stone, the UNDP was a logical partner.  It was currently running the Iraq trust fund and the experience there had been very good.  The advantage of UNDP administering the Fund was that they had financial officers in every country in which the Commission was likely to work.  The other alternative would be to go through Secretariat budget processes.  While that would be more than adequate for Headquarters purposes, it would require a field support operation, bringing the process back to the UNDP.

Asked whether the Fund would be used for ongoing conflicts, she said it would not be used for such conflicts.  There was, however, a body of thought that could logically argue that peacebuilding interventions during a conflict could speed up the peace process.  At the current time, however, the tool had not been refined sufficiently to say under which circumstances that would be done.  “We’d like to walk before we can run,” she said.

Responding to a question on Burundi and Sierra Leone, she said the international community would be making a grave mistake if it waited until everything was fixed before getting involved.  The international community had to be ready to take the risk and jump in as soon as possible.  Investors would hesitate if the situation in a country was such that it was impossible to move around.  That was not the case in Burundi or Sierra Leone.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo was close to being a post-conflict situation, she said in response to another question.  Statistics showed that the few months before an election were actually a peaceful time.  After an election, however, there were winners and losers, giving rise to another set of tensions.  It was not a matter of automatic criteria, but a judgement call.  In terms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the country would have to ask for the Peacebuilding Commission’s assistance.  Nobody had asked yet.

Asked to describe the eligibility requirements, for consideration by the Commission, she said the Commission had not laid down formal criteria, other than what was in the resolution establishing that body.  Countries could request consideration; the Secretary-General, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council could refer countries.  Was a country ready to engage in a process of dialogue with the international community to consolidate their peace process?  If a country was ready, that would imply the existence of a peace process.

Asked whether the Assembly resolution establishing the Commission stipulated how to determine candidate countries, she said the resolution did not enter into the criteria, but called on the United Nations to establish peacebuilding strategies for the countries that were selected.  One of the Peacebuilding Support Office’s most important jobs was to become the knowledge centre.

Could the Security Council veto a country being referred to the Commission? a correspondent asked.  Only if that country was under the Council’s consideration, she said.

Given that the Secretary-General could designate countries, which ones was she recommending to him? a correspondent asked.  That stage had not been reached, she replied.

It was a very delicate issue, she added.  Of course, she had a list, but it was rather like the prevention debate -– nobody wanted to be on the list, because it implied there was something wrong.  Some might want to be on the list because it implied they were next in line to access the Fund and the support.  The Commission might not, in fact, choose those countries.  It was a dangerous game that she, as an international civil servant, was not going to play.  But the Office would have a list that it would start to monitor.  It would have to discuss with the Commission, and the countries themselves, whether or not the list became quasi-public.

“But there is a delicate issue here, related to the State’s own decisions in terms of how they are viewed and how they are defined,” she said.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record