EU Statement – UN General Assembly: Joint debate on the Report of the Peacebuilding Commission, Peacebuilding and sustaining peace and SG Report on the Peacebuilding Fund

Mr. President,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.

The Candidate Countries, Türkiye, North Macedonia^*, Montenegro^*, Serbia^*, Albania^*, the Republic of Moldova, and Georgia, as well as Andorra align themselves with this statement.

Mr. President,

Thank you for convening today's joint debate on the Annual Report of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Secretary General's Report on the Peacebuilding Fund.

The world is facing multiple crises and no region has been spared. To meet these challenges, we need a UN support systemfor conflict prevention that is more coherent, better resourced and better prepared.

I wish to take this opportunity to highlight three priority areas, where the upcoming Summit of the Future and the 2025 Review of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture provide important windows of opportunity.

Firstly, the universal responsibility of conflict prevention and the importance of nationally led and owned prevention strategies.

It is close to one year since we received the UN Secretary-General's New Agenda for Peace. The EU strongly supports this agenda and its renewed focus on conflict prevention and sustaining peace as a universal obligation with a strengthened UN toolbox. In its spirit, we hope that the Summit of the Future in September signals a reinforced global political commitment to sustaining peace.

One deliverable that we hope to see from the Summit is a more systematic focus on nationally led conflict prevention strategies. Developed on a voluntary basis based on national ownership, people-centred national prevention strategies are fundamental to address the drivers of violence and armed conflict.

These strategies could be presented in the Peacebuilding Commission, underpinning the PBC's bridging and convening role.

We must dispel the myth that conflict prevention is something intrusive and negative, when in fact it is a universal responsibility that we have all signed up to in the UN Charter. In this context, it is especially noteworthy and commendable that several countries have already stepped forward to present their national prevention and reconciliation efforts at the PBC.

National prevention strategies also provide an entry point for systematic engagement with the PBF and potential support through the PBF.

This brings me to my second point, which concerns financing.

We know that financing conflict prevention is cost effective, but peacebuilding still suffers from an alarming funding gap. Conflicts are on the rise but development assistance for peace is at a record low.

Last December, the General Assembly unanimously acknowledged the necessity for adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding. We are encouraged by the substantial, ambitious, and balanced resolution to provide much needed assessed funding to the PBF. Yet, more is needed, including through voluntary contributions.

It is essential that the upcoming Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture includes concrete proposals on how to meet the challenges to Financing for Peacebuilding, further examining the implementation of UNGA Resolutions 76/305 and 78/257.

At the operational level, the Peacebuilding Fund has proven to be a useful instrument in supporting coordinated efforts across the humanitarian development-peace nexus. There is however, a need to broaden its donor base and to strengthen the relationship between the IFIs and regional development banks with the PBF. The EU and its MS provide more than 60% of the PBF's financing.

While PBF will benefit from assessed contributions and we welcome a wider engagement with its work, jointly, we must ensure that the autonomy, independence and uniqueness of the PBF are preserved.

The PBC could also play a greater role in mobilising resources for sustaining peace by convening member states, the UN Country Teams and IFIs.

Thirdly, we would like to see an increased interaction and complementarity between the PBC and the Security Council.

This interactionhas intensified in the past couple of years. We have seen record numbers of advice being sent from the PBC to the Security Council, and briefings by the PBC Chair to the Security Council have become more frequent. We have also seen countries on the agenda of the Security Council engage with the PBC as well as stronger attention to programmatic activities in peacekeeping operations.

Efforts to sustain the peace are also an integral part of the peacekeeping operations' transition strategies. A closer cooperation with the PBC is key to enhance the inclusion of peacebuilding components in UN peacekeeping and to fully, effectively and meaningfully engage women and youth in peacebuilding activities. Timely advice between the Council and the PBC on this is therefore important.

More operationally, a more regular, free-flowing and sequencedinteraction between the PBC and Security Council would facilitate the partnership between the two bodies and ensure the relevance of the PBC's advice.Finally, UN briefers could interact with the PBC on the peacebuilding components of UN field based missions and their mandates.

Thank you.

*North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.