Yesterday, the Peacebuilding Commission held informal briefings on the situation in Burundi and Sierra Leone – the two countries that the Commission decided to focus its attention on in its first session.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs from Sierra Leone, Mr. Momodu Koroma, outlined to the assembled delegates the reform initiatives that the Sierra Leonean government has launched since the end of the civil war in an effort to consolidate peace and establish a viable state with stable institutions. Sierra Leone has made respectable progress, as was emphasized by representatives from the UN Integrated Office in Sierra Leone, the World Bank and the IMF, in terms of developing and putting into practice a Governance Reform Agenda, a Peace Consolidation Strategy and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. However, Sierra Leone still faces many challenges, the most urgent of which are widespread youth unemployment, insufficient education resources, lack of human capacity, a weak infrastructure and the bad state of Sierra Leone’s cities. The elections in 2007, the fear of a relapse into violence (50% of countries emerging from war fall back into conflict within five years), and the questionable chances of achieving sustainable development are issues of concern to Sierra Leone and the UN. Therefore, Mr. Koroma expressed his gratefulness for the attention his country now gets from the PBC. He extended an invitation to the members of the Commission to visit Sierra Leone and evaluate the situation on the ground – a suggestion that met great approval and enthusiasm among the participants of the hearing.

A representative from Burundi’s permanent mission to the UN gave the members of the PBC a general overview of the country in terms of geography, population and demographics and the state of the economy. Regarding recent successes in terms of political stabilization and the consolidation of peace, he then discussed the negotiations that resulted in the establishment of the current Burundi government in 2005, and the ongoing peace talks between the government and the rebels in Arusha. A World Bank representative pointed to the country’s weak economy but insisted that with well-planned financial assistance the international community can make considerable improvements. Despite Burundi’s apparent economic and peacebuilding challenges, the mission’s representative could not clearly articulate any suggestions on the role the PBC should have in the country.

Written by: Teel Lidow

On the 23rd of June, the US, Japan and Australia presented a suggested list of reforms meant as a compromise proposal to the G77's hard-line position. The G77 insisted upon lifting the budget cap without condition (a position from which the three previously mentioned states disassociated). However, on July 7th, the 5th Committee released a draft resolution that supported many of the points touched upon by the compromise proposal, including a major concession to budgetary discretion of the Secretary-General that allows him control of around $20m per biennium on an experimental basis. Further, the committee decided to "approve the adoption by the United Nations of International Public Sector Accounting Standards," which was a key point in the US/Japan/Australia compromise proposal. These are two considerable steps forward for reform and further show the willingness of the developing nations to cooperate with the reform process; the unwillingness that we saw at the end of June was most likely a specific reaction to the negotiation tactics of the US. Nonetheless, the current power struggle and its relevance to the reform issue should not be downplayed: the developing nations are still weary of loosening their grip on UN funds and are willing to risk loss of US funding in order to assert their steadfastness in this matter. All of the first secretaries of G77 states that I spoke to before the budget cap decision seemed to be under the impression that the G77 would have to compromise on its position for fear of financial withholding; this is clearly not what happened, so we should all be aware that this marks a dramatic statement on the ambassador level: the G77 will not tolerate movement away from what they perceive as multilateral controls of the purse-strings.

Teel Lidow is a senior in Princeton University’s Department of Philosophy. He has been covering UN Management Reform issues for the World Federation and contributing to related publications and posts.

Written by: Gray Southon, Special Officer for UN Reform, UNA New Zealand

There are common calls for the UN Secretariat to be more efficient, effective, responsive, open and accountable with high quality staff. While these are all desirable goals, it is not often realised that they come at a cost, and can substantially conflict with each other. Let us consider each of these characteristics in turn.
 
Efficiency refers to minimising the cost of specific activities (e.g., running a specific form of conference). One needs to specify the activities and ensure costs are accurately allocated to that activity, and eliminating any costs that do not contribute. Focussing on efficiency reduces flexibility and broad thinking.
 
Effectiveness refers to the impact on broader goals (e.g. increasing the success of dispute resolution) which are complex with diverse inputs. It requires a broader approach and coordination of many different stakeholders which requires spare resources and flexibility of objectives.
 
Responsiveness means that the organisation will respond quickly to changing demands. It requires the capability to assess changes and adapt to them, which requires broad thinking and flexibility. This also requires spare resources.
 
Openness means that people outside can know what is going on, and have an impact on decisionmaking. The provision of information that is generally understandable is expensive, and managing the subsequent response may be intrusive and disruptive. Especially in a highly political environment, stakeholders may have objectives which are not consistent with achieving effectiveness or efficiency. Openness can lead staff to be risk averse, avoiding politically sensitive issues, and confine themselves to easily defended actions.
 
Accountability refers to more formal reporting on activities and achievements normally based on pre-defined parameters, often on the basis of prescribed performance indicators. If the operation is at all complex, such accountability inevitably overlooks a substantial part of essential activities. A strong emphasis on such accountability encourages the organisation to distort priorities away from those activities not specifically addressed. Some forms of accountability carry with them penalties for substandard performance, such as budget cuts or staff changes, and can provide an incentive to bias the information provided.
 
Quality Staffing requires sensitivity to staff needs, not just in their employment conditions, but in the attractiveness of the working environment, such as the clarity of the tasks they are given, the level of support that they have in achieving their goals,  potential for taking initiative and the recognition they are given for their work. It needs to be the type of organisation that quality staff will want to work in. Unwarranted attacks, intrusive scrutiny, unreasonable constraints, unproductive paperwork, uncertain goals and inadequate support all increase staff frustration. Because of the very special characteristics of many UN activities, many skills can only be developed through long term experience, requiring considerable stability and support for long term careers.
 
All of these characteristics are important, and in an effective organisation are well balanced. However, external forces can disrupt this balance and degrade the organisation. It is important, therefore, in putting demands on an organisation, that one is aware of the potential impact. It was therefore of concern when the US placed the threat of a budget termination over the Secretariat, apparently ignoring the destructive effects of this uncertainty. Similarly, the G77 insistence on continued close scrutiny of the Secretariat by the GA, with no recognition of the destructiveness of such “micromanagement”, demonstrates a greater concern for their exercise of power than for the health of the organisation. Also, the highly politically motivated scrutiny which the SG and the secretariat were submitted to over the Iraq food for oil program is destructive of morale and integrity of the organisation.
 
Given such destructive forces on the Secretariat, one wonders what sort of person would offer themselves for the SG position. Would it be a person ignorant of the realities of this position, a person so enamoured with the attendant glory that they overlook such pressure, a person with an ulterior motive which justifies the pressure, or a person with the arrogance to ignore it. Further, the level that the current SG has raised expectations will make them difficult to fulfil. One hopes that a person with the required sensitivity and the wisdom is sufficiently forbearing to submit themselves to this ‘impossible task’. 

---

Gray Southon is an organisational analyst specialising in the health industry. He is Special Officer for UN Reform for UNA New Zealand.

Although the budget cap was successfully lifted by the UN General Assembly on Friday, there is growing concern that the lack of reform movement preceding this lifting of the cap may generate a negative reaction on Capitol Hill.  These concerns may indeed be well founded.  Late last week, the House of Representatives passed a series of amendments that would withhold US support from Human Rights related activities at the UN unless state sponsors of terrorism (including Cuba) are removed from the newly created Human Rights Council.  And while this is not specifically connected to Secretariat funding and management reform, it does show a continued willingness on Capitol Hill to financially withdraw from UN activities that the United States feels to be unilaterally undesirable.  This new legislation is further created in the shadow of the Hyde Bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee last year and threatens to substantially decrease US funding of the UN in the case that adequate reforms are not achieved.

However, there have also been voices of support for the UN coming from both the US Department of State and the US Senate.  A State Department representative called for continued financial support of the United Nations Human Rights Council and expressed hope that the United States could potentially run for a spot on the council in 2007.  Once again, while this does not refer directly to management reform and Secretariat funding, it should be indicative of a wider attitude of support for the institution and a continued willingness to financially support its endeavors.  Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), a ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, also reinforced an attitude of US commitment to the United Nations, suggesting that, "as we are pushing the UN to get its financial house in order, we should certainly not fall deeper into arrears on our obligations.”  Senator Biden has further successfully introduced legislation that allows the United States to increase its Peacekeeping dues to the UN from 25% of the UN Peacekeeping budget to 27% for the year 2007.

Written by: Momoyo Ise, Member of the Board, UNA Japan

The world is entering a new era, and I hope that the reform of the United Nations will be capable of responding to the global challenges that arise from it, such as the growing number of internal violent conflicts. In the UN reform debate, little attention is being paid to the important task of establishing an effective relationship between the UN and civil society. Yet, civil society and NGOs make essential contributions in the areas of humanitarian aid, peace negotiations, community development and various recovery-related activities, including the removal of landmines. Although the constituents of the UN are its member countries, a greater role for civil society and NGOs in peacebuilding missions could considerably enhance the effectiveness of the organization. UNAs could play a central role as intermediaries between the UN and civil society and help find solutions to complex problems of the 21st century.

The General Assembly established the Peacebuilding Commission in order to respond to the need for a coordinated, coherent and integrated approach to post-conflict peacebuilding and reconciliation resulting in sustainable peace. The purpose of the PBC may be summarized as follows: (a) to bring together all relevant actors to consult on and propose integrated strategies; (b) to focus attention on construction and institution-building in order to lay the foundation for sustainable development; and (c) to help insure financing for early recovery activities. The establishment of the PBC is thus an attempt to prevent incoherent strategies and inconsequent field actions that have in the past resulted in wasting of funds and ineffectiveness in post-conflict areas.

The participation of all relevant member countries as well as the UN and regional and international financial institutions in the PBC has been ensured. With regard to civil society, the GA resolution 60/180, “encourages the Commission to consult with civil society, non-governmental organizations, including women’s organizations, and the private sector engaged in peacebuilding activities, as appropriate.” I believe that the PBC cannot effectively realize its objectives and formulate relevant strategies without closely cooperating with civil society.

Real stakeholders, i.e. community leaders, residents of the post-conflict community, victims of the conflict, and actors providing aid to victims, need to play a major role in the peacebuilding process. In addition, consultations with those who are essential in the recovery and reconstruction process of the affected community, including teachers, legal personnel, merchants, etc. as well as relevant NGOs are crucial. While politically viable and neutral solutions are vital to the whole peacebuilding process, voices of ordinary citizens, particularly women who hold family together, must be heard and incorporated into strategies. Sustained peacebuilding and reconciliation must also include due actions addressing the psychological wounds caused by conflict, such as memories of brutality, hatred, guilt and shame.

“Citizen participation” doubtlessly brings some challenges with it. While the need to establish functional relations between the UN and civil society persists, a number of obstacles, including political hesitation, uneven capacities of NGOs, and difficulties in the selection of civil society representatives in light of the vast number of citizen organizations and groups, make this a difficult undertaking. Nevertheless, I hope the UN will address the issue of civil society participation as part of its reform agenda.

What UNA Japan could do more vigorously is to enhance people’s understanding of conflict situations and the living conditions of victims. A better comprehension of conflict will inspire the Japanese people to assist in community recovery activities. In particular, UNA Japan could educate young people about peacebuilding and its capacities.