Next year marks twenty years since the United Nations (UN) Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) was established in 2005. In those twenty years, billions of US dollars have been dispersed to over thirty countries with varying degrees of success in building peace and restoring stability on the ground. The twenty-year mark provides an opportune moment for the 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review to reflect on the implementation of the various UN resolutions related to the peacebuilding architecture and look ahead to addressing some of its key challenges. This takes place in the current global landscape which is marked by escalating inter and intra-state conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe with increasing options for how these conflicts can be managed. Such options to manage conflicts include ad-hoc security arrangements outside of institutions, use of private military companies or multilateral peace enforcement missions. This context is also characterised by significant governance gaps, development deficits and more extreme climate conditions in certain parts of the world. Importantly, this is all happening against the backdrop of a largely strained multilateral system influenced by member states with diverse economic and political interests – interests that have the potential to sustain or resolve conflict.
This non-exhaustive ‘list’ of current challenges and risks provide part of the context for envisioning more effective and coordinated approaches to peacebuilding. The review of the UNPBA is also particularly significant and in the context of the latest guiding multilateral frameworks, such as the recently revised African Union Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development (AUPCRD) policy, the New Agenda for Peace and the Pact for the Future – all of which promote more effective global governance responses to conflict management. As part of the review process, the UN Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) collaborated with ACCORD and the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) to host the African Regional Thematic Consultation on the 2025 review of the UNPBA. Given that a large proportion of ongoing UN-supported peacebuilding and peacekeeping initiatives are located within the African continent, documenting African experiences, lessons learned and recommendations are crucial. Recognising Africa’s engagement with the UNPBA was also important to ensure that the architecture remains accessible and responsive to the context-specific needs on the continent.
At the regional level where financing was discussed in terms of capacity shortages, it was recommended that a regional peace fund be developed in an effort to promote regionally driven solutions.
Tweet
The consultations brought together government representatives involved in peace processes, UN and AU officials, civil society organisations (CSOs) who are implementing peacebuilding-related initiatives, international partners including donor countries, international financial institutions and development organisations as well as academics and research institutions. The diverse range and representation of actors facilitated discussions on peacebuilding at the national, local, regional and international levels, recognising that each level presents a distinct set of challenges and recommendations. A snapshot of these rich discussions highlight three common or cross-cutting issues:
More predictable financing is needed
At the national and local level, domestic resource mobilisation still means that governments heavily depend on external sources of funding for peacebuilding. This reliance has implications for how local ownership is determined and was not seen as a viable option in the long-term. Innovative recommendations on this point focused on incentivising governments to develop financial support beyond the UN Peacebuilding Fund. For example, although previous UNPBA reviews have identified the value of collaboration with the private sector, its role remains limited. Stronger partnerships with the private sector, as also highlighted in the revised AUPCRD framework, were suggested. At the regional level where financing was discussed in terms of capacity shortages, it was recommended that a regional peace fund be developed in an effort to promote regionally driven solutions. At the international level, the discussions described how current peacebuilding efforts are hindered by a lack of predictable funding which sometimes leads to short-term interventions that cannot achieve sustainable peace. In addition to encouraging the development of new financing options, recommendations also focused on considering a change in the modalities of the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). As it stands, the PBF only disburses funds through a UN country office and not to governments. This tight control over access to funds and rigorous criteria for civil CSO eligibility for funding can be detrimental to national and local ownership.
[…] CSOs, traditional and youth actors were not seen as being sufficiently engaged in high-level peacebuilding conversations and decision-making even though these actors are well positioned to build peace at the local levels.
Tweet
CSOs, traditional leaders and youth-led structures still have limited local ownership/access
Even though fostering national ownership was emphasised in the 2016 twin resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly and Security Council A/RES/70/262 and S/RES/2282 and the 2020 UNPBA review, challenges remain on what local ownership means and how the various UN resolutions and reviews can be applied. A suggested approach is to develop more comprehensive and context-specific national peacebuilding strategies which are integrated into national development plans. Such national strategies could provide guidelines for UNPBA co-ordination. This coordination could also involve national actors facilitating meetings with donors and partners to create a space that is more conducive to emphasising national priorities and avoiding a duplication of initiatives. Additionally, CSOs, traditional and youth actors were not seen as being sufficiently engaged in high-level peacebuilding conversations and decision-making even though these actors are well positioned to build peace at the local levels. The UNPBA could improve its outreach programmes and provide clearer channels for these actors to access the Peacebuilding Commission and Peacebuilding Fund (PBF).
The governance-peacebuilding nexus needs to be better appreciated
The integration of governance and peacebuilding frameworks can enhance conflict prevention and management. Improved coordination between the UNPBA, the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and the African Governance Architecture (AGA) could facilitate such integration. Other bodies, such as the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) and AUDA-NEPAD were also identified as potential contributors to peacebuilding frameworks, especially in conducting their periodic governance reviews. The PBC was also seen as well-positioned to help strengthen national institutions and governance mechanisms, especially in terms of supporting governance reforms that could help to address some of the root causes of conflict.
Andrea Prah (PhD) is a Senior Researcher at ACCORD.
