Firstly, I would like to thank the Swedish Government, on behalf of UNDP for organizing the international forum on genocide and for inviting us to participate.

In UNDP we look at the issue of prevention from the broad perspective of violent conflict, of which genocide is the most dramatic expression.

In this respect, I would like to start by referring to the SG’s report on 'the Prevention of Armed Conflict' that urges the United Nations to move from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention. As the report says this "lies at the heart of the UN mandate in the maintenance of international peace and security. The report also recognizes that "one of the principal aims of preventive action should be to address the deep-rooted socio- economic, cultural, environmental, institutional and other structural causes that often underlie the immediate political symptoms of conflicts."

UNDP’s increased emphasis on "early prevention" is based on facts, It is estimated of the 34 countries that are furthest away from achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 22 are affected by current or recent conflict. In addition, among the countries classified in the Human Development Index as showing high development in 2000, only 2% experienced civil war in 1997-2001; in contrast, of those with only medium and low development, 30% and 56%, respectively, experienced strife during the same period. Experience in many parts of the world has therefore consistently shown that violent conflict and civil strife force back the process of change, erode hard-won development gains, while disabling the human, social, physical and institutional capital that is needed for long-term sustainable development. Countries emerging from crisis are also particularly prone to relapse into violent conflict.

A lot of work has gone into setting up Early Warning mechanisms. One such example is the The UN Interdepartmental Framework for Co-ordination on Early Warning and Preventive Action (known as the Framework Team/FT): A mechanism for early warning and preventive action among 15 UN agencies, departments, offices and programs, the FT addresses situations with a potential to develop into a complex emergency or conflict and where there is a case for UN preventive action.

On the other hand there is certainly a need for increased Action by the International Community to deal with early warning signals and triggers of violence.

UNDP is well placed to address the systemic and longer-term root causes of violent conflict, through its regular programming affecting social and economic inequalities, poverty, governance-related issues of participation, representation, dispute resolution and the rule of law, as well as through its crisis prevention and recovery approaches in transition/post-conflict situations. Furthermore, in pursuing the crisis prevention agenda UNDP has gone deeper into 'early prevention' in developing 'conflict sensitive' support programmes. There is now increased attention to how investments and development programmes can influence conflict and conversely how investments and development programmes can foster reconciliation and strengthen economic ties between potentially conflicting communities.

Several examples could be cited: from a media training programme undertaken with NGO partners in Ivory Coast to reduce the spread of 'hate media'. To community development projects in Burundi that foster common economic interests between communities that do not trust each other. Here an important consideration must be given to existing or traditional reconciliation mechanisms in society and promote them rather than trying to apply external models. The promotion of Civil Society; encouraging widespread constructive dialogue within a country; promoting the participation of all strata of society in the future of their countries and ensuring that the national and international justice systems deal with the instigators of violence and that there is not that frustrating feeling of impunity among the population. Those are key elements of conflict sensitive development.

While international tribunals addressing war crimes in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda do bring some degree of justice, the UN also recognizes that transitional justice "reconciliation" mechanisms play an important role in a post-conflict peace-building process. For instance, UNDP currently supports the truth and reconciliation commissions in Sierra Leone and East Timor in order to ensure sustainable peace-building mechanisms and prevent future violence and human rights violations.
Experiences in South Africa, Rwanda, Guatemala, point to the importance of processes to build multi-stakeholder consensus (e.g. national dialogues, civic dialogues, constitutional dialogues, etc), as well as traditional processes such as gacaca in Rwanda, and the loya jirga in Afghanistan, in fostering lasting dialogue, reconciliation, and redress of grievances, including as a complement to more formal tribunals and courts. In Rwanda, a community-led process combining elements of justice and reconciliation, while varied in its results, has offered an effective complement to the international tribunal in Arusha. In Guatemala, while specific elements of the 1996 peace accords have seen only partial implementation, the mainstreaming of the concerns of the indigenous population into the national political discourse has been successfully accomplished.

As we have heard from many of the speakers, ignorance and poverty are elements that facilitate the political manipulation of masses. Prevention starts with the creation of an environment that is conducive to human development and that values differing cultures and aspirations. From this angle we certainly can help prevent violent conflict and we will continue because being and remaining involved is an issue of collective responsibility and not a choice.

Thank you