Priority Areas in United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (survey and Critical Analysis)

Priority Areas in United Nations Peacebuilding Fund

(Survey and Critical Analysis)

NaveedUl Haq^[1] & N.S. Cooray^[2]

Abstract

For a decade an exclusive United Nations (UN) Peacebuilding Architecture (PBA) has beenat work. The United Nations establisheda Peacebuilding fund to meet the challenges of financing peacebuilding activitiesinfour priority areas. Authorsargue that practicallythe Peacebuilding fund bypasses the lasting approach by not accommodating conflict prevention in the first place. Though, researchers found that although the funds allocated to priority areas, provide a comprehensive vision for lasting peace at policy level, yet the projects are bound under programme limitations as current focus of PBA is in post-conflict rehabilitation. The authors highlight that UN however, can make use of PBF priority areas flexibility to help and cover fragile countries as well. In addition, author’s consensus is that the management of natural resources and environmental issue should be given appropriate importance due to their leverage.

Keywords: United Nations, Peacebuilding Fund, Post-conflict rehabilitation, Conflict prevention, Development, SSR, DDR, Natural resource, Environment

Introduction

A decade has gone since an exclusive United Nation (UN) Peacebuilding Architecture (PBA) is at work; Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) -the advisory body, and Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) administer Peacebuilding Fund (PBF)(United Nations, 2010).

The expert^[3]suggests to encompass “the Secretariat, the UN’s programmes and specialized agencies, and, of course, UN operations on the ground” in UN peacebuilding architecture for effective results (United Nations, 2015). One of PBA pillars, the PBF is set to meet the challenges of financing peacebuilding activities. PBF provides funds to UN agencies infour priority areas.

This article discusses the diverse academic literature on PBF in four priority areas to highlight main assumptions as well as policy weaknesses to overcome the challenges for practical understandings. Authors argue that PBF priority areas comprehensively adapts the liberal peacebuilding agenda, however, it bypasses the lasting approach by not accommodating conflict prevention in thefirst place.This effort will enable practitioners and readers in peacebuilding theory and policy to fore seek present knowledge, gaps between policy, its implementation and academic discourse. At the same time, it is admitted that the literature mentioned is not exhaustive but brief enough for the readers of peace studies to find mentionable concepts for the priority areas. The paper explores the sense in which academic theory and policy architecture differs from each other. Accordingly, the concepts of peacebuilding priority areas are central to the analysis.