The United Nations’ Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR) takes place every five years, providing UN actors and other stakeholders with an opportunity to review and improve the implementation and impact of the UN’s peacebuilding efforts. The year 2025 marked the fourth review since the creation of the UN peacebuilding architecture, comprised of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), and the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO). This most recent review occurred within a global context of notably pervasive conflict, high military expenditures, widespread political instability, and apprehension towards multilateralism. While the 2025 PBAR was more comprehensive than past PBARs, it also saw unprecedented acts of language dilution and omission, revealing disagreements among member states on key issues.
The 2025 review features changes in language and introduces new provisions that set it apart from earlier reviews. Notable omissions include references to multilateralism, gender, The Pact for the Future, The PBC Action Plan on Youth, and provisions for a PBC annual review of the Security Council agenda. Language on sustained financing for peacebuilding was also omitted. These shifts expose new gaps, making it harder for member states to prioritize these essential areas in the peacebuilding architecture’s objectives and implementation. Simultaneously, the twin resolutions encourage cooperation and system-wide coherence in the UN. They strengthen impact through accountability measures, promote synergies in peace operations via a peacebuilding nexus, and support national prevention strategies. A new “Peacebuilding Week” in June will serve as a future mechanism for the UN to foster further dialogue and increase participation in peacebuilding.
Both the omissions and additions in the 2025 PBAR will have significant implications for civil society organizations (CSOs). While the PBAR recognizes the role of local peacebuilders, there remains vague language around when and how civil society is consulted. The shift towards national ownership of peacebuilding efforts, while supported in principle by QUNO and many other CSOs, could significantly constrain CSO space. Increased military spending, coupled with the UN’s liquidity crisis, creates financing uncertainties for CSOs worldwide. Without mandates, monitoring, and sustainable financing, CSOs, especially those led by women and youth, are at risk of being included in principle but excluded in practice.
