NEW YORK OFFICE The UN Peacebuilding Commission: Benefits and Challenges Background Paper prepared by the International Peace Academy for the Regional Seminars organized by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung 6 June 2006 Introduction Contrary to popular perception, since the end of the Cold War, there has been a decline in the number of civil wars raging worldwide. This is primarily due to the ending of many existing wars through negotiated settlements. 1 Yet, a startling and now oft-cited statistic paints a bleaker picture: over the same period, almost fifty percent of peace agreements have collapsed within five years, sending countries spiraling back into conflict. 2 A recent study concluded that countries that played host to post-conflict UN field missions since 1988 have been just as likely to revert to war as countries where the UN had no presence. 3 These statistics indicate that the opportunities presented by peace agreements are not being realized. When insufficient attention is paid to the needs of societies emerging from conflict, the consequences are severe for all concerned. The societies themselves risk poverty, population displacement, a reversal of development gains and renewed violence, sometimes at levels worse than the prior phase of war. If only two peace agreements of the 1990s – the 1991 Bicesse Agreement for Angola and the 1993 Arusha Accords for Rwanda – had been successfully implemented, some two million lives would have been saved. The effects on neighboring states can be severe as well, from refugee and arms flows, to long­term economic costs. For the international community as a whole, weak post-war states can threaten global security by serving as attractive milieus for terrorists and transnational crime. Clearly, there is a collective stake in improving this record. The current international response in the aftermath of civil war suffers from several persistent weaknesses. Some of these are problems of commitment. Too often, there is a lack of sustained political attention to post-conflict countries: after peace agreements are signed, or after a peacekeeping mission draws down, countries cease to attract the attention of the UN Security Council and donor governments. Related to this, there is difficulty in securing sustained and predictable financing for peacebuilding activities, which often occupy a grey area between peacekeeping and development. In particular, there is a lack of early funding, as donors are slow to mobilize, and there are gaps in funding for activities that donors consider sensitive, such as those linked to political reform or the country’s security architecture. Even when sufficient funds are pledged for 1 Havard Hegre,‘The Duration and Termination of Civil War’, Journal of Peace Research 41:3(2004), p.244. 2 Paul Collier et al, The Conflict Trap(World Bank and Oxford Univ. Press, 2003), p. 7. 3 Charles T. Call, Institutionalizing Peace: A Review of Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Concepts and Issues for DPA, 31 January 2005, p. 8. - P. 2 Background Paper PBC-