Youth as Catalysts for Peace Consultation

A warm welcome to this consultation! 💫

👋 My name is Hannah and I work as a Programme Analyst at UNDP. Antara and I will be your moderators for this week. We are excited to hear your views, thoughts and responses to the questions! 

💻️ You can respond to the questions in any order (please include the question's number you are responding to in your comment).

Please feel free to respond in any language of your choice by clicking the Select your language button on the top right of the page, this platform will automatically translate it. Please feel free to ask questions, answer in your own words, or add links that you think would be helpful! 🖊️

We hope to have a rich and interactive discussion. 💬 Thank you and looking forward to our fruitful discussions this week. 

Hello everyone, and thank you for joining our consultation! 🙏

I am a Communication and Advocacy Assistant at UNDP, and I will be co-moderating this consultation with Hannah throughout the week.

We are inviting all young people, practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and partners to help shape UNDP’s new Policy Brief on Youth, Peace and Security (YPS), with a particular focus on National Action Plans (NAPs).

Before answering the questions, please take a moment to introduce yourself and share a little about your background or connection to YPS. ☮️

And if you know someone who could contribute to this discussion, please share the consultation link and invite them to join us. The more diverse perspectives we hear, the stronger the final policy brief will be! 💪

We look forward to hearing from you. 😊

Young people are not just the hope for peace — we are already building it every day in our communities. Yet too often, we are invited to speak but not trusted to lead. If the world truly wants youth to be catalysts for peace, it must move beyond consultation and give us real power, resources, and responsibility.
These are my honest reflections and practical proposals:
1. Trust us with real decision-making power
Create permanent local Youth Peace Councils where young people from different backgrounds sit together, identify tensions early, and design solutions with community leaders. When youth are co-owners of the process, peace becomes more practical and more lasting.
2. Connect peace with livelihoods
Hunger, unemployment, and lack of opportunity are silent drivers of conflict. Peace programs should include skills training, small business support, and paid community work. A young person with a stable income and a sense of purpose is far less likely to be drawn into violence.
3. Equip us to fight online hate and misinformation
Social media can destroy trust faster than any weapon. Train young people as digital peacebuilders — teaching fact-checking, countering hate speech, and creating positive content in local languages. This is one of the most urgent and cost-effective investments we can make.
4. Leave no one behind
Rural youth, young women, persons with disabilities, and minority groups are often the first to suffer from conflict and the last to be heard. Every consultation and every peace initiative must reach them through local languages, offline methods, and safe spaces. Inclusive peace is the only peace that lasts.
5. Fund youth-led solutions directly
Give small, flexible grants to youth groups so they can start their own peace projects — community dialogues, sports for peace, arts initiatives, or local mediation. When young people are trusted with resources, they deliver creative and sustainable results that top-down programs often miss.
Peace will not come from speeches alone. It will come when young people are treated as partners, not symbols. Give us the tools, the trust, and the space — and we will build the peaceful communities the world so desperately needs.

Based on my analysis of Pakistan’s formal frameworks and on-the-ground realities, I can answer your question directly. But first, I must validate your premise: Pakistan’s weak economy and poor governance have indeed crippled its institutional capacity, turning youth policies from transformative tools into symbolic bandaids.

Here is a frank assessment of the YPS-related mechanisms in Pakistan, their effectiveness, and the hard truths behind their failure. 
 

Tokenism – Youth are consulted but ignored in budgets/laws.
· Corruption & nepotism – Funds stolen, opportunities go to connected elites.
· Economic desperation – 29% youth unemployment + 25% inflation means survival trumps participation.
· State repression – Young activists are booked under anti-terror laws, silencing peacebuilders.
· No accountability – Policies have no enforcement or tracking mechanisms.

Rare successes happen outside the state – community jirgas and digital activism have forced local fixes because they bypass corrupt bureaucracies.

I try every possible way to frame the crippling and corrupt pakistan’s political system. This damage the overall potential and stability of youth of pakistan

My name is Martin Mburu, a peacebuilding researcher and experienced in grassroots peacebuilding, community conflict resolution and YPS. My focus goes to question 3. 
The young people around the world are no longer marginalized, they are already mobilizing and challenging the ruling class. They are doing this using the social media and other online platforms. This shows that young people have the capacity and knowledge to initiate change in their countries. 

Young people are the only way to peace. They know the routes, ways and means to end violence in their countries. For the longest time, young people have been viewed as the problem and security threat, but now they are the resource since they are good in reporting realtime happenings. This means they are key when it comes to early warning and early response. The question now is, how do we build on this to ensure we support them fully? 
1. Trust us with your money and resources. Young people only need the resources to actualize their ideas and knowledge towards meaningful change in their communities. Give them the chance to show their skills and experiences through funding and equal partnerships. 

2. Gives us real power. Let's young people make the decisions. Stop using them as flower girls in the meetings. Have the youth to decide and implement their ideas without micro-managing them. This is the only way they will learn and impact when they know that they are the ones who choose it. 

Hello Hannah & Antara,  

My name is Toluwanimi Ajise From Nigeria, I am a Cybersecurity GRC professional, Global Shaper at Global Shaper Community. I have expertise in youth development, monitoring and evaluation, community engagement, peace building, policy, advocacy and governance.

Currently I serve at the Institute For Integrated Transitions (IFIT) in Plateau State, Northern Nigeria, where I support community led peace building programs in rural communities and engage directly with the communities affected by crisis, insecurity and social tension in the Northern part of the country.

This experience has shown me how complex community challenges are, and how limited short-term interventions can be when there is no strong policy support behind them.It has also made me realize that many of the realities I see on the field are not fully reflected in decision-making processes. This gap is what I want to help address.

It’s a pleasure to be here. 

1. Yes, I know at the national level, Nigeria has a Youth, Peace and Security National Action Plan, which is an important recognition of the role that young people can play in preventing conflict and building peace. I also know that there have also been efforts to take the YPS agenda to the subnational level.

I am currently based in Plateau State and work in the peacebuilding space, I am particularly interested in how these commitments translate into what happens at the state and community levels. Here in Plateau there is the Plateau State Peace Building Agency, established in 2016, which provides an important institutional structure for peacebuilding, conflict prevention and dialogue in the state. I see this as valuable because it gives peacebuilding a more permanent place within the state's governance structure rather than treating it only as a response to crisis.

There have also been efforts to engage young people around peace and security issues in the state. For example, youth groups and the Plateau Youth Council have engaged with peacebuilding institutions like with the organization I serve with by creating opportunities for young people to discuss issues affecting them and explore how they can contribute to peace.

However, I think the bigger question is what happens beyond the consultation or engagement. Because from my perspective, there is still a gap between young people being recognized as stakeholders and young people having sustained influence over decisions. A young person can be invited to a dialogue, contribute an idea and even be part of a programme, but that does not necessarily mean they are involved when priorities are decided, resources are allocated or implementation is reviewed.

I believe this is where YPS National Action Plans need to become more practical. Young people should be involved not only in developing the plans but also in implementing and monitoring them. There should be clear mechanisms for young people to know what happened to their recommendations and how their contributions influenced decisions.

For me, the success of a YPS policy should therefore not be measured only by whether a plan exists or how many young people participated in a consultation. We should also ask: 

1. What decisions did young people influence?

2. What resources reached youth-led initiatives?

3. And what changed in their communities because of their participation?

I believe these would go a long way to helping YPS policy. 

Chamo-me Sulemani Waron. Sou congolês, refugiado desde criança, actualmente a residir no campo de refugiados , maratane, província de Nampula, Moçambique; e a viver a minha causa de activismo em Pemba, Cabo Delgado, uma das regiões de Moçambique mais afectadas por conflito armado nos últimos anos. Sou também Embaixador Global da Juventude-Theirworld.

Sobre as barreiras (Tema 3): Vivi em três países diferentes por causa do deslocamento forçado. Em cada um, comecei do zero, sem reconhecimento do que já tinha construído no país anterior. Isso é uma barreira real: um jovem refugiado não tem "currículo cívico" que atravesse fronteiras. Em Cabo Delgado, onde o conflito ainda deixa marcas visíveis na confiança das comunidades, jovens como eu enfrentam duplo obstáculo — o de serem jovens, e o de serem vistos como "de fora", mesmo estando na linha de frente do trabalho comunitário.

Sobre liderança e paz (Tema 4): Apesar disso, tornei-me Embaixador Global da Juventude da Theirworld, um título que só existe porque decidi agir mesmo sem ter as portas abertas. Isso prova algo importante: jovens deslocados não são apenas vítimas do conflito, são construtoras de confiança nas próprias comunidades que os acolhem. O que falta não é vontade juvenil, falta infraestrutura institucional que reconheça e sustente essa liderança antes que ela dependa apenas de esforço individual.

A minha recomendação é: Os Planos de Acção Nacionais deveriam criar um estatuto formal de reconhecimento para jovens refugiados ou deslocados como autores legítimos da paz e não apenas beneficiários de programas, mas parceiros na sua construção.

In India, young people have opportunities to participate through mechanisms such as the National Youth Policy, NYKS, NSS, youth parliaments and state-level youth engagement programmes. From my experience, these spaces can give young people a voice, but their impact often depends on whether their recommendations actually reach decision-makers. Youth participation is strongest when young people are involved in designing and implementing initiatives, rather than being invited only for consultation.

I have seen this through youth-led organisations, MUNs, youth consultations and community volunteering, where young people can discuss governance, education, social justice and development issues openly. These platforms are valuable because they build confidence and allow young people to organise, but they are still uneven in accessibility, especially for young people from disadvantaged or rural communities.

The biggest barriers are tokenistic participation, limited institutional follow-up, lack of awareness, and unequal access to decision-making spaces. Young people are often heard, but not always given the authority or resources to act on what they propose.

For me, the most important change would be to create formal youth participation mechanisms with a clear requirement for governments and institutions to respond to youth recommendations. Young people do not simply need a seat at the table, they need a meaningful role in shaping what comes out of it.

Thank you for this opportunity 

Halo semuanya! Salam Mulaikum, Om Swastiastu, Namo Budaya, Peace be upon you! 

My name is Saka Sora Walesa, a High-school Student from West Java. As you can see from my background.. I'm a nobody, from a random place on one of the most populated islands in the world answering a question UNDP is asking youths. 

In my opinion, youths today really do need to be given a voice, I totally agree with that, but we must first make sure that before Youth gives their opinion on matters of peace, and security they need to be taught on how to be brave. 

Why is that important? Because as you can see on my comment, as I said before, I'm a nobody from millions of people, I'm a nobody from hundreds of more educated and prestigious youths, but I have the bravery to put forth what I think is needed and what it isn't. That is what the world today needs, not only in the matters of peace and defence, but on a tutorial on how they channel their opinions. 

So if the UNDP asks: what big change I would like to see happen in governments, the UN, and organizations to give us voice is a simple change. 

Give youths the bravery needed to speak up. Give us simple open large-scale workshops/events where we can train to speak up, Give us opportunities to ensure speaking up isn't something frowned upon, but something that is our rights, make sure that speaking up is not something considered taboo. 

This is something I feel everyday, especially living in Indonesia, where we have a problematic government. Only a minority of youths have the bravery to speak up, while the rest, although restless of the current situation, stay silent. 

So a final question should be asked: What's the point of giving youths voice to speak, when they don't have the bravery to take that opportunity?

Hello everyone! 

I’m Ianja from Madagascar, and I would like to respond to Question 3 and Question 4, drawing from what I observe among young people in Madagascar and, more broadly, in Africa.

Question 3 – What are the main barriers preventing young people from meaningfully contributing to peace and security, and how can these barriers be addressed?

From my perspective, one of the main challenges is actually a paradox: many young people are willing to engage and contribute to their communities, but willingness does not always translate into meaningful participation in public action.

The issue is not necessarily a lack of motivation. Very often, young people lack the resources, knowledge, institutional access and practical experience needed to turn their ideas into action.

In Madagascar, I see at least four important gaps behind this situation.

First, there is a gap between political institutions and ordinary citizens, including young people. Many young people do not really understand how public institutions work, how decisions are made, or where and how they can effectively contribute.

Second, there is a trust gap. Politics is often perceived as something belonging to elites, associated with corruption, exclusion or interests that are far removed from everyday realities. This can discourage young people who would otherwise like to engage.

Third, there is a civic capacity gap. Civic education and leadership development are not always structured enough to prepare young people to participate meaningfully in public life. I strongly believe that we cannot reform what we do not understand.

Fourth, there is an organisational capacity gap. Youth organisations and local civic structures often have the willingness to act, but not always the funding, tools, technical support or institutional connections needed to implement their ideas effectively.

This is why I think we need to go beyond simply “giving young people a voice”. We also need to build their capacity to act.

That means investing in leadership and civic education, but also in practical skills such as mediation, dialogue, negotiation, conflict prevention and community problem-solving. But training alone is not enough. Young people also need opportunities to practice what they have learned.

Question 4 – What can be done to strengthen young people’s meaningful participation and leadership in peace and security?

For me, the answer is to combine training, experimentation, resources and real institutional responsibility.

For example, youth committees could work alongside local executives and community institutions, not only as consultation bodies, but as spaces where young people can identify local problems, propose solutions, test small initiatives and learn from implementation.

Small and flexible resources could allow youth-led initiatives to move from ideas to experimentation. At the same time, young people could be given opportunities to work directly with local authorities and community leaders, so that they can understand how decisions are made while also bringing new ideas and innovations into existing institutions.

This could create a different relationship between young people and institutions: not simply young people asking institutions to listen to them, but young people and institutions learning to co-design and co-implement solutions.

I believe this is also something that National Action Plans on Youth, Peace and Security (YPS NAPs) could integrate more strongly.

NAPs should not only ask whether young people participated in consultations. They should also ask:

Were young people trained?
Did they receive resources?
Were they given opportunities to experiment?
Did they influence decisions?
And what changed in their communities?

For me, meaningful youth participation therefore requires more than a seat at the table. Young people need the capacity, resources, institutional space and responsibility to make that seat meaningful.

That is where I believe we can move from youth participation to genuine youth agency — the capacity of young people not only to be heard, but to understand, act, innovate and contribute to lasting peace in their communities.

Hello Hannah, Antara and everyone

​My name is Tasneem Alkhabeer. I am from Sudan, a Youth Empowerment Advocate, deeply involved in volunteer and humanitarian work, and an active member of various youth networks.

​The issues we are discussing reflect a reality I have lived in my home country, especially after the war. However, this is not just about Sudan. It is the story of displaced youth and marginalized young people in conflict zones all around the world who are completely isolated from opportunities.

​Most international programs and opportunities today are tailored for youth who already have impressive CVs, polished LinkedIn profiles, and strong internet access. But what about the millions of passionate young people who do not even know what LinkedIn is? And what about displaced youth in IDP and refugee camps? We must ask ourselves from a purely humanitarian perspective if merely providing a tent is enough. Basic survival is critical, but without skills, training, and institutional backing, we are leaving an entire generation behind.

​Question 3 – Main Barriers:

Based on my experience, the biggest barrier is the disconnect between high-level policy dialogues and real action on the ground. We are constantly invited to consultations, causing consultation fatigue because these discussions rarely lead to tangible outcomes. For marginalized and displaced youth, the barrier is even higher. Bureaucratic complexities, heavy UN jargon, and strict application requirements automatically exclude those who lack formal experience or digital resources.

​Question 4 – One Key Change:

If I could ask for one critical change from governments, the UN, and partners, it would be to democratize youth participation and bridge the gap between policy and real action. We can achieve this by:

​Redefining Humanitarian Response: Integrate youth empowerment, capacity building, and leadership training directly into emergency responses. A tent provides shelter, but education and opportunities build a future.

​Inclusive and Equitable Access: Design entry-level programs specifically for grassroot youth and those without formal experience or professional networks, rather than repeatedly selecting the same privileged profiles.

​Moving to Co-ownership: Shift from symbolic consultations to actual co-ownership by giving young leaders active roles and simplified micro-funding to execute local projects.

​Simplifying Communication: Translate complex UN frameworks and applications into clear, simple language and distribute them through accessible channels so no young person is left out.

​When we simplify policies, level the playing field, and trust young people with real responsibility, participation moves from a symbolic gesture to sustainable impact.

I’m Katrina Leclerc, a researcher, practitioner and policy advisor specializing in Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) and Women, Peace and Security (WPS). Over the past decade, my work has focused particularly on the meaningful participation of young people—especially young women—in peace and security policymaking, and on how global YPS commitments are translated into national policy and practice.

I have worked directly on the development and implementation of national peace and security policy frameworks, including supporting the development of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s first National Action Plan (NAP) on YPS, as well as WPS NAP processes in several countries. I am the co-founder and Advisor of the Canadian Coalition for Youth, Peace & Security (CCYPS) and currently serve on the Advisory Group for the Second Independent Progress Study on YPS. I have also contributed to UN and civil society research, policy development and advocacy on the implementation and institutionalization of the YPS agenda.

My academic research (see here: https://www.leclerck.com/) similarly examines how young people, particularly young women, navigate and influence peace and security institutions and policymaking processes, with a focus on questions of participation, representation, power and institutionalization.

Below are my responses to the questions. I am happy to expand or answer additional questions at anytime. Feel free to contact me via email: [email protected]

Question 1:

In Canada, there is not currently a standalone NAP on YPS. However, YPS has increasingly been incorporated into broader peace and security policy frameworks, most notably Canada’s third National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (see my analysis of this here: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YF3EICCKFSMGGFUUNEEY/full?target=10…).

This represents an important evolution: young people, and particularly young women, are increasingly recognized not simply as beneficiaries of peace and security programming but as actors whose perspectives and leadership should inform policy and implementation. Canada has also supported YPS internationally through its foreign policy, peacebuilding and development programming, including support for youth-led organizations and global YPS initiatives.

There are also mechanisms outside explicitly YPS-labelled policies that create opportunities for young people to participate in governance and policy processes. These include government youth councils and advisory bodies, civil society consultations, and youth engagement processes connected to international policy development. Civil society networks, including the Canadian Coalition for Youth, Peace & Security (see: https://www.canadayps.org/notable-advancements), have played an important role in creating spaces for young people to engage with government officials, contribute to consultations, and advocate for greater implementation of the YPS agenda.

Based on my experience, however, the existence of a policy commitment or participatory mechanism does not necessarily translate into meaningful influence. Canada has created more opportunities for young people to participate in policy discussions, but these opportunities remain uneven and are often dependent on individual departments, officials, organizations or initiatives rather than being systematically embedded across peace and security policymaking. Young people may be invited to consultations or advisory spaces without having clear information about how their contributions will influence decisions, and there are often limited mechanisms for reporting back on which recommendations were accepted, rejected or acted upon.

One of the most important factors determining effectiveness is therefore the extent to which youth participation is institutionalized. Meaningful participation requires more than inviting young people into existing spaces: it requires sustained relationships, adequate resources, accessible and inclusive participation mechanisms, and opportunities to engage throughout the policy cycle—from identifying priorities and designing policies to implementation, monitoring and evaluation (see my doctoral dissertation on this: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/items/8ed2b17c-2286-474f-b76c-0a04026d2e6f). It also requires attention to which young people are able to participate. Barriers related to geography, language, disability, socioeconomic status, immigration status and other intersecting identities can mean that the young people most easily reached by institutions are not necessarily representative of the diversity of youth experiences in Canada.

Civil society and youth-led networks have helped address some of these gaps by building relationships between young people and policymakers, developing policy literacy, creating collective advocacy platforms, and maintaining institutional memory as government priorities and personnel change. At the same time, relying heavily on civil society to create and sustain these opportunities can itself be a limitation when organizations lack predictable funding or when participation depends on unpaid or under-resourced youth labour.

Canada therefore demonstrates both the potential and the limitations of integrating YPS into broader policy frameworks. Recognition of YPS within national policy is an important foundation, but its impact ultimately depends on whether commitments are accompanied by resources, accountability mechanisms and durable structures through which young people can exercise influence. The key question is not simply whether young people are present in policy processes, but whether their participation changes priorities, decisions, resource allocation or implementation.

Question 2:

Across the contexts in which I have worked, some of the most important mechanisms for advancing the YPS agenda have been youth-led organizations, national and regional YPS coalitions, and networks that connect local youth actors with national and international decision-making processes. These mechanisms are particularly important because meaningful youth participation does not begin with the creation of a NAP. In many contexts, youth networks and coalitions precede a NAP and are among the actors advocating for its development; they can subsequently play important roles in its design, implementation, monitoring and accountability.

This is increasingly supported by evidence from the 2025 Peacebuilding Fund Thematic Review on YPS (see: https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/YPS_TR). The Review identifies national youth councils, youth networks, YPS coalitions and other representative bodies as important mechanisms for expanding youth participation at local, national and regional levels. It found that national networks and coalitions can help connect local voices, strengthen coordination among youth actors, increase their collective visibility and voice, and provide avenues for young people to contribute to national decision-making. Importantly, the Review examined support for YPS coalitions alongside support for YPS NAPs and other national youth mechanisms, demonstrating that these are interconnected components of YPS institutionalization rather than interchangeable mechanisms.

There are important examples across West and Central Africa, where national YPS coalitions and youth networks have played roles in advocating for and contributing to national YPS policies and NAP processes. The PBF review found that national representative bodies and networks can provide an important bridge between locally rooted youth peacebuilding and national policy processes. However, it also cautions against attempting to create national or regional structures without adequate local foundations: without representative constituencies and meaningful local participation, such mechanisms risk becoming superficial or tokenistic.

In Canada, one example is the Canadian Coalition for Youth, Peace & Security (CCYPS), a youth-led and youth-serving platform that connects young people, civil society, researchers and policymakers working on YPS. The Coalition has created opportunities for young people to contribute to policy consultations and research, engage directly with government officials, develop collective advocacy priorities, and connect Canadian discussions with regional and global YPS processes. This type of mechanism is particularly important in a country without a standalone YPS NAP because it can help sustain attention to the agenda across changing political and institutional priorities.

Other mechanisms include National Youth Councils, youth parliaments, government youth advisory bodies, community peace structures, youth-led civil society organizations and informal or issue-specific networks. Importantly, organizations do not need to identify themselves explicitly as "YPS organizations" to advance the agenda. Young people working on gender equality, reconciliation, climate and environmental peacebuilding, violence prevention, human rights, migration or democratic participation may be engaging directly with issues covered by the YPS agenda even if they do not use YPS terminology.

From my experience, the most effective mechanisms share several characteristics. First, they combine youth ownership with access to decision-making institutions. Youth-led spaces allow young people to determine their own priorities rather than responding exclusively to agendas established by governments or international organizations. However, autonomous youth spaces also need pathways through which their priorities and recommendations can reach institutions with actual decision-making authority.

Second, effective mechanisms connect local, national, regional and global levels. National coalitions can be particularly valuable when they aggregate locally grounded priorities rather than becoming small, capital-based groups disconnected from the diversity of young people's experiences. This is one of the important lessons emerging from the PBF Thematic Review: national mechanisms are more likely to be meaningful and sustainable when they are built upon strong local participation and relationships.

Third, participation needs to be sustained and resourced. Many youth organizations and coalitions operate with very limited institutional funding while governments and international organizations rely on them to mobilize participants, provide expertise and represent youth perspectives. Short project cycles can create active networks without providing the resources necessary to sustain them. The PBF evidence similarly points to financing and sustainability as important considerations when supporting national youth platforms, structures and networks.

A related challenge is knowledge infrastructure: significant knowledge about how YPS is being localized and institutionalized exists within youth-led organizations and practitioner networks but is not necessarily captured in formal policy documents or academic literature. One initiative I am currently co-leading to address this gap is the forthcoming YPS Library (see: https://www.canadayps.org/yps-library), a practitioner–academic collaboration. Launching in September 2026, the Library is being developed as a global repository documenting national and regional YPS coalitions and youth-led efforts to advance YPS at the country level. It builds on a global mapping of YPS coalitions and aims to increase the visibility of youth-led peacebuilding, strengthen connections across the global YPS community, and facilitate knowledge-sharing on YPS localization and implementation.

Finally, I would distinguish between representation and influence. The existence of a youth council, coalition, advisory body or consultation process should not itself be treated as evidence of meaningful participation. The relevant questions are whether young people can shape the agenda; whether they have sustained access to decision-makers; whether diverse and marginalized youth constituencies are represented; whether their recommendations affect policies, budgets or implementation; and whether mechanisms exist to hold institutions accountable.

This distinction is particularly important for YPS NAPs. Youth coalitions should not simply be mobilized to participate in consultations or validate a plan once its major priorities have already been determined. Ideally, youth-led organizations and coalitions should help identify priorities, participate in drafting and decision-making, contribute to implementation and monitoring, and have the resources and political access necessary to hold governments accountable for the commitments contained in the NAP. In this sense, strong youth networks and coalitions are not peripheral to YPS institutionalization; they are part of the participation infrastructure that makes institutionalization possible, while initiatives such as the YPS Library can help build the knowledge infrastructure needed to connect, document and learn from these experiences.

Question 3:

From my research and practice, one of the most persistent barriers to meaningful youth participation is that institutions often conceptualize participation primarily in terms of access and presence rather than influence and power. Considerable progress has been made since the adoption of Resolution 2250 in creating spaces for young people within peace and security processes. However, being invited into a room, consultation, advisory group or policy process does not necessarily mean that young people can influence its priorities, decisions or outcomes.

This is a central finding of my doctoral research, which examines the participation of young women at the intersection of the YPS and WPS agendas (see link above). My research looks particularly at what happens once young people enter institutional policy spaces: who is invited, under what conditions they participate, whose knowledge is considered legitimate, and whether participation ultimately translates into influence. One of the challenges I identify is that institutions can simultaneously expand opportunities for participation while reproducing forms of tokenism and exclusion within those opportunities.

This is particularly visible in the tendency to treat “youth” as a homogeneous constituency. Young people experience peace and security institutions differently according to gender, race, socioeconomic position, disability, sexuality, geography, language and other intersecting factors. Young women, for example, may encounter age-based hierarchies within WPS spaces while simultaneously confronting gendered hierarchies within YPS spaces. Other young people may be effectively excluded because participation requires travel, unpaid labour, fluency in institutional or diplomatic language, access to technology, or familiarity with international policy processes. As a result, institutions can repeatedly engage a relatively small group of young people who already have the resources and networks necessary to access these spaces.

Another significant barrier is adultism and institutionalized age hierarchies. Young people are frequently positioned as beneficiaries, emerging leaders or representatives of a future generation rather than as political actors with expertise and legitimate claims in the present. Their knowledge may be valued as testimony or “lived experience” while adults and institutional actors retain authority over analysis, priority-setting and decision-making. This creates a paradox in which institutions increasingly seek youth participation while retaining control over the terms, boundaries and consequences of that participation.

These dynamics informed the Beyond Tokenism toolkit (see: https://www.canadayps.org/beyond-tokenism), which focuses on moving institutions beyond simply counting youth participation toward examining the quality and influence of that participation. A central lesson from this work is that tokenism should not be understood only as an individual bad practice—for example, inviting one young person to speak on a panel. It can be embedded in the design of institutions and participation processes themselves. Who establishes the agenda? At what stage are young people invited? What information and resources do they receive? Are they compensated? Can they disagree with institutional actors without jeopardizing future opportunities? Is there a mechanism for their recommendations to influence decisions? Do institutions report back on what they did with young people's contributions? These questions provide a much more meaningful assessment of participation than simply asking how many young people were consulted.

There are also important structural barriers to implementation of the YPS agenda itself. YPS remains inconsistently institutionalized across governments and international organizations, often relying on a small number of committed individuals rather than being embedded across institutions. Dedicated financing remains insufficient, particularly direct and flexible funding for youth-led organizations. Youth organizations and YPS coalitions are frequently expected to provide expertise, mobilize constituencies and participate in consultations without the predictable resources available to larger institutional actors. Changes in personnel or political priorities can therefore quickly weaken relationships and mechanisms that have taken years to develop.

National Action Plans can help address some of these problems, but a NAP does not automatically resolve them. There is a risk of equating the adoption of a YPS NAP with institutionalization when the more difficult questions concern implementation, financing, accountability and redistribution of decision-making power. A well-designed NAP should establish durable mechanisms for youth participation throughout its governance structure, identify responsible institutions, allocate resources, support youth-led implementation, and create monitoring and accountability mechanisms through which young people themselves can assess progress.

Overcoming these barriers therefore requires shifting the question from “How do we include young people?” to “What needs to change within institutions for young people to exercise meaningful influence?” This places responsibility for meaningful participation on institutions rather than assuming that young people need additional capacity before they are ready to participate.

In practice, this means involving young people from the earliest stages of agenda-setting rather than consulting them on predetermined priorities; providing sustained and flexible financing to youth-led organizations and YPS coalitions; compensating young people for their expertise and labour; removing financial, linguistic, geographic and accessibility barriers; creating mechanisms that enable diverse youth constituencies to participate rather than relying repeatedly on the same representatives; and establishing clear feedback and accountability processes that demonstrate how youth contributions have affected decisions.

It also requires recognizing young people as knowledge producers and policy actors, not simply consultation participants. Young people should have opportunities to co-design policies, produce and interpret evidence, participate in implementation, monitor commitments and evaluate outcomes. Governments and international organizations also need to invest in the capacity of their own institutions to work meaningfully with young people. Too often, “capacity-building” in YPS is directed toward young people, when institutional actors themselves may have limited understanding of YPS, meaningful youth participation, adultism or tokenism.

Ultimately, the challenge facing YPS is no longer simply whether young people are present in peace and security processes. Increasingly, they are. The more important question is what happens to power once they enter those spaces. Meaningful implementation of the YPS agenda requires moving beyond creating opportunities for participation toward changing the institutional conditions that determine whose knowledge matters, who sets priorities, who controls resources and who ultimately has the authority to make decisions.

Question 4:

I find it difficult to identify a single change, because meaningful youth participation is not something that can be achieved through one mechanism, policy or institutional reform. If anything, I would encourage governments, the United Nations and other partners to think less about finding the next mechanism for youth participation and more about how the YPS agenda itself is understood, sustained and produced.

One area that I believe deserves considerably more attention is knowledge creation and production. Much of what we know about YPS continues to be produced by institutions, researchers and organizations that study young people or consult them, rather than by young people themselves. Young people are frequently invited to contribute their experiences or perspectives, but they are less consistently recognized and resourced as researchers, authors, analysts and producers of knowledge. This matters because knowledge production shapes policy: it determines which issues become visible, how problems are framed, which forms of evidence are considered credible and, ultimately, which responses are prioritized.

This was an important motivation behind Youth Leading Change: Emerging Sites of Knowledge in Peace and Conflict, a book which I co-edited with Helen Berents and Erika Yague (see: https://www.leclerck.com/youth-leading-change). The volume deliberately sought to challenge conventional hierarchies of expertise by bringing together youth peacebuilders, practitioners and researchers and creating space for different forms of knowledge about YPS. One of the lessons I take from that work is that meaningful participation cannot be separated from questions about who gets to produce, interpret and legitimize knowledge about peace and security.

There is also an important question of institutional memory. Young people and youth-led organizations have generated an enormous amount of knowledge since the adoption of the YPS agenda, yet much of it remains dispersed across organizations, project reports, networks and individual practitioners. When projects end, funding cycles change or individuals leave organizations, that knowledge can easily disappear. Strengthening YPS therefore also means investing in ways to document, preserve, connect and build upon what young people and youth-led organizations have already learned, rather than continually beginning again with new consultations, mappings and short-term initiatives.

More broadly, I would like to see the next decade of YPS move beyond repeatedly demonstrating that youth participation matters. We have a substantial evidence base, almost a decade of implementation experience, multiple UNSC resolutions, NAPs, coalitions and youth-led peacebuilding initiatives. The question should increasingly be what institutions are learning from that experience and whether those lessons are changing how peace and security policy is developed, financed, implemented and evaluated.

For me, then, looking ahead is less about identifying one new mechanism and more about ensuring that young people are recognized not only as participants in the YPS agenda, but as people who produce its knowledge, shape its evolution and hold institutions accountable for what it becomes.

To make Youth, Peace and Security commitments effective, we must move beyond periodic consultations and establish formal, permanent youth advisory boards within local governance structures. When climate change accelerates resource competition and fuels local tensions, youth need a direct seat at the decision-making table. Institutionalizing youth representation ensures that local security strategies and climate adaptation policies are designed alongside the young people who are actively building resilience on the ground.

Babar Hashmi as a youth leader working on the ground in Southern Punjab, Pakistan, I want to highlight a major reality that often gets ignored in big policy discussions: genuine Youth-Led Organizations (YLOs) are systematically sidelined.

Whenever new funding or youth programs come up, large and well-established organizations suddenly label themselves as "youth-focused" just to capture the grants. Meanwhile, real grassroots youth groups—who actually know the local community and do the hard work—are left behind or used merely for token presence in photos and attendance sheets. On top of that, government youth policies only look good on paper. On the ground, there is no real budget, zero direct support, and endless bureaucratic hassle just to get permissions to work for peace and community development. Small youth-led groups are expected to match the heavy compliance and reporting standards of multi-million dollar organizations, and instead of building our capacity, donors simply disqualify us for not having corporate-style audit histories. Furthermore, when young people are struggling with extreme inflation and unemployment, you cannot expect them to stay engaged in peacebuilding without linking these initiatives to livelihoods.

If the YPS Agenda is to make a real impact, donors and UN agencies must reserve a direct funding quota specifically for authentic youth-led groups run by people under 35, simplify application processes for grassroots organizations, and give youth a real seat at the table where budgets are decided rather than just inviting us to one-off workshops. If we keep funding big bureaucracies to speak for youth instead of directly empowering youth-led organizations, these peace policies will never turn into real change on the ground.

When we talk about peace, I do not think we should only mean waking up one morning and hearing that all the kidnappers have been arrested or all the terrorists have been captured. To me, peace is much more than the absence of violence. Peace is being able to raise your voice without fear. Peace is giving a young person a genuine seat at the table when decisions are being made about the life and future they will live.

We often say that young people are the leaders of tomorrow. But I think we already know this; the problem is that we are not doing enough with what we know. Young people are not only leaders of tomorrow. They are capable of creating positive change today.

However, meaningful youth participation is not inviting one or two young people into a room of fifty adults to discuss the lives of hundreds of people and then calling it youth participation. It is not selecting a few young people to represent millions and presenting their presence as evidence that young people have been heard. Young people should be allowed to participate meaningfully in the policies and decisions that shape their lives.

We should also stop treating youth participation as something extraordinary. When a seventeen-year-old speaks at a conference or a twenty-year-old contributes to an important discussion, it should not become remarkable simply because of their age. It should be normal. Young people should not have to become exceptional before they are allowed to be heard.

Sometimes we give young people opportunities such as scholarships, conferences, or training and believe we have done enough. But opportunities without meaningful pathways to use them can become like giving someone a key without giving them a door to open. We keep telling young people that their time is coming, until eventually they lose the key or forget how to use it.

And this is why I believe we cannot talk about peace without talking about the lives of young people, especially children. If a child grows up knowing only hardship, exclusion, and the struggle to survive, what kind of future are we expecting that child to build?

Peace must be sustainable. We cannot build a temporary peace while leaving behind a generation that feels abandoned. The peace we build today should support the people who will come after us.

To me, that is what a better world means: each generation building something that makes life better for the next, and then trusting that next generation to continue the work.

If young people are truly the leaders of tomorrow, then we must allow them to begin leading today. We cannot prepare them for tomorrow by keeping them outside the decisions of today. We must give them the voice, trust, responsibility, and opportunities to practice leadership now.

For me, that is peace: not simply building a world without conflict, but building a world where the people who will inherit it are given the opportunity to help shape it.

For me, meaningful youth participation starts with actually listening to young people and giving them a real role in decision-making—not just inviting them to events or consultations.

At the community level, we need stronger spaces where young people can work with local leaders, civil society and policymakers to identify problems and develop solutions together. We also need better support for youth-led initiatives, including funding, mentorship, skills development and access to decision-making platforms.

What is still missing is a clear connection between youth voices and actual policy outcomes. Young people should be able to see how their ideas are being considered and what changes happen as a result.

NAPs can make a real difference if they include measurable commitments, regular youth participation and proper accountability. Most importantly, young people should be treated as partners in building peace and security, not only as beneficiaries.

Youth participation becomes meaningful when young people have a voice, a seat at the table, and the resources to turn their ideas into action.

This is Majid Rehman Graduated in BS political science with high CGPA.I am greatly involved in youth affairs as Youth activist working with Red Crescent,Alhidmat foundation and serving as Vice president in University society.Moreover, I member of Lp Youth Assembly and working with different research Think tank including Istitute of Policy Studies Islamabad and Roshni as a mentor. As my research assignment was based on topic : Hurdles in way of Youth participation in politics, empowers me to answer question no.3 so;
 

Answer to the question 3 is: Main barriers in way of youth Participation:1. Economic support 2.Government ignorance,3. Tokenism,4. Youth organisation just for consultations no Practical decision making, 5.lack of awareness amoung youth,6.Polarisation,7.Digital mis information and disinformation,8.Social barriers.

My name is Majid Rehman, a Political Science graduate from the University of Science and Technology Bannu (USTB) with a CGPA of 3.84. I am a member of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Youth Assembly and have been actively involved in youth leadership, volunteering, and community engagement through organizations such as Pakistan Red Crescent and Alkhidmat Foundation. I have also conducted research on the Hurdles in Youth Politics: Case Study of Bannu. These experiences have strengthened my interest in youth participation, peacebuilding, governance, and social change.
 

1. Laws, policies and mechanisms supporting YPS

From my experience as a Political Science graduate and member of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Youth Assembly, I have seen that young people in Pakistan do have platforms through which they can engage with governance, leadership and public issues. The KP Youth Assembly has particularly given me exposure to parliamentary-style discussion, leadership and civic participation. I have also participated in different youth, peace and development initiatives.

However, my experience has also shown me that having a platform does not automatically mean having influence. Young people are often given opportunities to speak, but there can be a gap between consultation and actual decision-making. My academic research on the Hurdles in Youth Politics: Case Study of Bannu also made me aware of challenges such as limited access, lack of opportunities, political barriers and the difficulty many young people face in turning participation into meaningful influence.

2. Groups, organizations and platforms

I have personally engaged with several platforms that create opportunities for young people to contribute to community and social issues. My involvement with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Youth Assembly, Pakistan Red Crescent, Alkhidmat Foundation, university society activities and different youth and leadership programs has allowed me to participate in community engagement, awareness activities, blood donation drives, plantation campaigns and social initiatives.

I believe the most effective platforms are those where young people are given responsibility rather than simply being invited as participants. For example, through my university leadership role as Finance Secretary and my volunteer and ambassadorial activities, I have experienced situations where young people were directly involved in organizing campaigns, mobilizing communities and implementing activities. These experiences have shown me that youth participation becomes meaningful when young people have ownership, responsibility and the opportunity to see the results of their contribution.

3. Main barriers

From my experience and academic research, one of the biggest barriers is the gap between youth participation and actual decision-making. Young people may be invited to consultations, conferences or forums, but their recommendations do not always reach policy or implementation.

I have also observed challenges related to limited opportunities in rural areas, lack of resources, economic constraints, political polarization, insufficient awareness and unequal access to networks and decision-makers. My research on youth political participation in Bannu particularly helped me understand how these barriers can discourage young people from becoming involved in politics and public decision-making.

I believe the solution requires more decentralized opportunities, stronger links between youth platforms and government institutions, financial and technical support for youth-led initiatives, and clear mechanisms through which authorities respond to youth recommendations.

4. One change I would like to see

The one change I would most like governments, the UN and other partners to make is to move from simply consulting young people to giving them a formal role in decision-making.

Young people should have structured and continuous opportunities to participate in local and national discussions on peace, security and development, with clear mechanisms showing how their recommendations are considered and implemented. In my view, meaningful youth participation means that young people are not only invited to speak but are also trusted with responsibility, resources and a genuine role in shaping decisions that affect their future.

Hello Everyone, Myself Pratik I am a M.Tech student from India.

1. National and Local Frameworks

Yes, there are some government programs and youth groups for young people. They give opportunities to join peace, development and social activities. But sometimes young people are not included much in decision making. More awareness and support can make it better.

2. Youth Civic and Political Engagement

Youth councils, NGOs, student groups and social organizations help young people to participate. Social media and community meetings are also useful. They are effective when young people can directly share their ideas with decision makers.

3. Barriers to Youth Participation

Main problems are lack of awareness, money, guidance and proper opportunities. Sometimes young people are not taken seriously by authorities. We need more youth programs, information and equal chances for participation.

4. Youth Leadership in Peace and Security

I want governments and other organizations to give young people more opportunities to speak and take part in decisions. Youth should be given proper platforms, training and support to become leaders in peace and security.

Thank you so much for listening my view

Halo Hannah dan Antara,

Perkenalkan, saya Aprillian, siswa kelas 12 di SMA Negeri 1 Pare, Kabupaten Kediri, Jawa Timur, Indonesia. Saya tertarik pada isu hubungan internasional, pembangunan berkelanjutan, kepemudaan, serta peran generasi muda dalam membangun masyarakat yang damai dan inklusif. Saya mengikuti diskusi ini terutama dari perspektif seorang pelajar yang hidup di daerah semi-perkotaan dan melihat secara langsung bagaimana ruang partisipasi pemuda tersedia, tetapi belum selalu terhubung secara kuat dengan proses pengambilan keputusan.

Saya akan menanggapi keempat pertanyaan yang diajukan.

1. Kebijakan dan mekanisme yang mendukung agenda Youth, Peace and Security

Indonesia sebenarnya telah memiliki sejumlah landasan hukum dan kebijakan yang memberikan ruang bagi pemuda untuk berpartisipasi dalam pembangunan. Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2009 tentang Kepemudaan merupakan salah satu dasar utamanya. Pemerintah juga terus mengembangkan kerangka pelayanan dan pemberdayaan kepemudaan, termasuk melalui Peraturan Menteri Pemuda dan Olahraga Nomor 6 Tahun 2026 tentang Pelayanan Kepemudaan.

Selain kebijakan kepemudaan secara umum, terdapat pula mekanisme perencanaan pembangunan seperti Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan atau Musrenbang. Di Kabupaten Kediri, proses perencanaan pembangunan berlangsung secara berjenjang dari tingkat desa atau kelurahan, kecamatan, hingga kabupaten. Dokumen pemerintah daerah juga secara eksplisit mengakui pentingnya partisipasi masyarakat dalam proses tersebut.

Namun, menurut saya, terdapat perbedaan antara "memiliki ruang untuk berpartisipasi" dan "memiliki pengaruh terhadap keputusan". Seorang pemuda dapat diundang dalam forum, menyampaikan pendapat, dan mengikuti kegiatan, tetapi belum tentu mengetahui apakah pendapat tersebut benar-benar memengaruhi prioritas anggaran, program pemerintah, atau keputusan akhir.

Dalam konteks YPS, persoalan ini menjadi semakin penting. Indonesia memang telah mengintegrasikan sebagian prinsip YPS ke dalam kebijakan lain, terutama agenda pencegahan ekstremisme berbasis kekerasan. Program BNPT dan UNDP yang diluncurkan pada 2026, misalnya, secara eksplisit mengintegrasikan agenda YPS dan pemberdayaan pemuda dengan upaya membangun ketahanan masyarakat serta mencegah ekstremisme kekerasan di ruang digital.

Namun, Indonesia masih membutuhkan kerangka YPS yang lebih terpadu. Diskusi nasional mengenai YPS pada awal 2026 juga menyoroti bahwa kebijakan yang berkaitan dengan pemuda, perdamaian, dan keamanan masih berjalan secara sektoral dan belum terintegrasi dalam satu kerangka YPS nasional yang komprehensif.

Bagi saya, keberhasilan kebijakan tersebut seharusnya tidak hanya diukur dari jumlah pemuda yang hadir dalam konsultasi. Kita juga perlu bertanya: apakah rekomendasi mereka ditindaklanjuti, apakah mereka memperoleh sumber daya untuk melaksanakan gagasannya, dan apakah terdapat perubahan nyata di masyarakat?

Sumber-sumber:

• https://jdih.kemenpora.go.id/peraturan/detail/71/undang-undang-republik-indonesia-nomor-40-tahun-2009-tentang-kepemudaan
• https://jdih.kemenpora.go.id/peraturan/detail/817/peraturan-menteri-pemuda-dan-olahraga-republik-indonesia-nomor-6-tahun-2026-tentang-pelayanan-kepemudaan
• https://www.undp.org/id/indonesia/press-releases/bnpt-dan-undp-luncurkan-program-penguatan-ketahanan-pemuda-terhadap-ekstremisme-kekerasan-di-ruang-digital

2. Ruang dan organisasi yang memungkinkan pemuda berpartisipasi

Di tingkat nasional, terdapat organisasi kepemudaan, komunitas masyarakat sipil, forum anak, organisasi sekolah, serta berbagai forum konsultasi pemuda. Di tingkat lokal, mekanisme seperti Musrenbang (Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan) dan organisasi masyarakat, termasuk Karang Taruna, dapat menjadi pintu masuk bagi keterlibatan generasi muda.

Di Kabupaten Kediri sendiri, dokumen perencanaan daerah mencatat keberadaan organisasi kepemudaan dan Karang Taruna sebagai bagian dari indikator pembangunan kepemudaan. Pemerintah Kabupaten Kediri juga memiliki arah kebijakan untuk meningkatkan kapasitas dan partisipasi masyarakat, termasuk pemuda, dalam perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan pemantauan pembangunan desa.

Sebagai siswa SMA, saya melihat sekolah juga dapat menjadi ruang penting bagi praktik YPS dalam skala kecil. Organisasi siswa, forum pelajar, kegiatan sosial, kegiatan lintas komunitas, dan pendidikan kewargaan dapat menjadi tempat belajar mengenai dialog, penyelesaian perbedaan, kepemimpinan, dan pengambilan keputusan secara demokratis.

Menurut saya, mekanisme yang paling efektif bukanlah mekanisme yang sekadar meminta pendapat pemuda, melainkan mekanisme yang memberikan umpan balik. Pemuda perlu mengetahui apa yang terjadi setelah mereka memberikan rekomendasi. Bahkan apabila rekomendasinya tidak dapat diterima, pemerintah atau lembaga terkait sebaiknya menjelaskan alasannya.

Prinsip sederhana yang saya anggap penting adalah: jika pemerintah meminta pendapat pemuda, pemerintah juga harus memberi tahu pemuda apa yang dilakukan terhadap pendapat tersebut.

Sumber-sumber:

• https://e-sakip.kedirikab.go.id/uploads/planning/d08f4ce773a328aaa72a69f913892cba.pdf
• https://e-sakip.kedirikab.go.id/uploads/planning/4d484f961c9eb3b989c906e628306bb3.pdf
• https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Download/210282/rencana-pembangunan-jangka-menengah-daerah-kabupaten-kediri-tahun-2021-2026.pdf

3. Hambatan utama terhadap partisipasi pemuda

Menurut pengalaman dan pengamatan saya sebagai pelajar di Kabupaten Kediri, salah satu hambatan terbesar bukan semata-mata ketiadaan forum, tetapi kesenjangan antara forum partisipasi dengan proses pengambilan keputusan yang sesungguhnya.

Pertama, masih terdapat kesenjangan informasi. Dokumen perencanaan Kabupaten Kediri sendiri mengidentifikasi bahwa akses masyarakat terhadap data dan informasi pembangunan masih menjadi persoalan dan kondisi tersebut dapat berdampak pada rendahnya partisipasi masyarakat.

Kedua, partisipasi pemuda masih dapat bersifat konsultatif. Pemuda mungkin diberi kesempatan berbicara, tetapi belum tentu memiliki kewenangan, anggaran, atau mekanisme tindak lanjut yang jelas.

Ketiga, terdapat kesenjangan geografis dan sosial. Kabupaten Kediri bukan hanya terdiri atas pusat-pusat permukiman, tetapi juga memiliki wilayah perdesaan yang luas. Kesempatan mengikuti forum yang berada di tingkat kabupaten atau bahkan provinsi tidak selalu mudah diakses oleh pemuda yang tinggal jauh dari pusat pemerintahan. Partisipasi digital dapat membantu, tetapi tidak semua pemuda memiliki tingkat literasi digital, akses informasi, atau kepercayaan diri yang sama.

Keempat, isu YPS sendiri belum cukup dikenal di kalangan pelajar. Banyak anak muda sebenarnya telah melakukan kegiatan yang berhubungan dengan perdamaian, toleransi, solidaritas sosial, lingkungan, dan pencegahan konflik, tetapi mereka mungkin tidak mengenal kegiatan tersebut sebagai bagian dari agenda Youth, Peace and Security.

Kelima, terdapat persoalan keberlanjutan. Forum pemuda dapat menghasilkan gagasan yang baik, tetapi gagasan tersebut akan kehilangan dampak apabila tidak memiliki pendanaan, pendampingan, indikator keberhasilan, dan mekanisme evaluasi.

Karena itu, saya tidak berpikir bahwa solusi YPS hanya dengan "memberi lebih banyak ruang kepada pemuda". Kita perlu memastikan bahwa ruang tersebut memiliki hubungan institusional dengan proses pengambilan keputusan.

4. Perubahan yang paling saya inginkan

Jika saya hanya boleh memilih satu perubahan, saya ingin pemerintah dan mitra pembangunan membangun mekanisme partisipasi pemuda yang bersifat permanen, terstruktur, dan memiliki kewajiban memberikan tanggapan terhadap rekomendasi pemuda.

Menurut saya, bentuknya dapat berupa Youth Peace and Security Council atau mekanisme sejenis yang terhubung dengan pemerintah daerah. Anggotanya harus berasal dari latar belakang yang beragam, termasuk pelajar, mahasiswa, pemuda desa, organisasi kepemudaan, kelompok lintas agama dan budaya, serta kelompok pemuda yang selama ini kurang terwakili.

Forum tersebut tidak perlu mengambil alih kewenangan pemerintah. Fungsinya adalah memberikan perspektif pemuda secara sistematis, mengidentifikasi potensi ketegangan sosial sejak dini, mengusulkan solusi, serta memantau pelaksanaan kebijakan yang berkaitan dengan pemuda, perdamaian, dan keamanan.

Yang paling penting, pemerintah perlu memberikan "respons wajib" terhadap rekomendasi tersebut. Misalnya, setiap rekomendasi harus dikategorikan menjadi diterima, diterima sebagian, ditunda, atau tidak dapat dilaksanakan, disertai alasan yang dapat diketahui publik.

Dengan mekanisme seperti ini, partisipasi pemuda dapat bergerak dari consultation menuju meaningful participation.

Saya juga percaya bahwa YPS tidak boleh dipahami hanya sebagai agenda yang berkaitan dengan konflik bersenjata. Bagi seorang pelajar di Kabupaten Kediri, perdamaian juga berarti kemampuan masyarakat untuk menyelesaikan perbedaan tanpa kekerasan, melawan misinformasi dan ujaran kebencian, menjaga toleransi, membangun kepercayaan antarkelompok, serta memastikan bahwa anak muda memiliki kesempatan untuk berkontribusi dalam pembangunan.

Indonesia memiliki modal sosial yang besar. Tantangannya sekarang adalah mengubah modal tersebut menjadi mekanisme kelembagaan yang membuat suara pemuda benar-benar memiliki konsekuensi dalam pengambilan keputusan.

Bagi saya, pemuda tidak membutuhkan kursi simbolis di meja pengambilan keputusan. Kami membutuhkan kursi yang memungkinkan kami ikut memengaruhi apa yang terjadi setelah rapat selesai.

Terima kasih banyak.

Sumber-sumber:

• https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/promoting-youth-peace-and-security
• https://www.undp.org/latin-america/publications/safe-territories-guide-formulation-local-youth-peace-and-security-plans
• https://www.undp.org/indonesia/adventures-tolerance-indonesian-youth-roadshow-peace-diversity
• https://asean-aipr.org/activities/discussion-series/asean-ipr-discussion-series-2023-session-2-lessons-learned-in-developing-national-action-plan-nap-on-youth-peace-and-security-yps
• https://amanindonesia.org/launching-policy-brief-intersections-of-women-peace-and-security-wps-youth-peace-and-security-yps-and-humanitarian-action-across-southeast-asian-nations/

Hi everyone! I’m Nazish Abro from Pakistan — a climate activist, journalist, and storyteller. 

I work on climate change and its impact on rural women and vulnerable communities, with a particular focus on biodiversity and coastal migration. I regularly organize and participate in seminars, webinars, and community initiatives to raise awareness and promote climate action.

I’ve had the opportunity to work with organizations such as UNICEF and Penny Appeal, and I’m also a Climate Tank Winner from Pakistan for my Floating Wetlands Project, which focuses on innovative solutions for water and environmental challenges.

I’d love to connect, exchange knowledge, and learn from others working for a more sustainable future.

Follow me on Instagram: @nazish_abro1
Let’s connect and make an impact together! 

Hello everyone,

My name is Maher Al-Medaani, a young media professional from Jordan. Through my work with youth initiatives and media, I have seen how important it is for young people to have a real voice in decisions that affect their communities.

Question 3: What are the main barriers preventing young people from meaningful participation, and what needs to change?

From my experience, one of the main barriers is having the wrong people in the right places. Sometimes young people are selected to represent youth without having the communication skills, experience, or connection with other young people needed to truly represent their voices.

Another challenge is the limited number of spaces where young people can genuinely influence decision-making. There are youth councils, youth parliaments, meetings, conferences and other opportunities that allow young people to meet decision-makers. However, I do not always see sustainability in these opportunities. Sometimes they are available repeatedly to the same group of young people, while others do not have the same access.

Most importantly, participation should not stop at listening to young people. Their recommendations should have a clear pathway to influence decisions and be followed up through concrete actions. Youth participation should be continuous, inclusive, and connected to real decision-making—not only a one-time event or consultation.

Question 2: What spaces, platforms, or institutions currently enable young people to meaningfully influence decision-making?

In Jordan, there are several spaces that create opportunities for young people to engage with decision-makers and contribute their ideas. One example is the annual Tawasol Forum, which brings together young people, decision-makers, experts and different sectors to discuss issues that matter to young people and the future of Jordan.

There are also youth programmes, volunteering initiatives, conferences and community activities that give young people opportunities to share their ideas, develop their skills and connect with people who can influence decisions. I have personally found these spaces particularly valuable through my involvement in media, creative work, volunteering and youth opportunities.

However, I believe the challenge is not only creating these spaces, but making them sustainable and accessible to a wider range of young people. Young people should have continuous opportunities to participate, not only during a specific event or programme. Their ideas should also be followed up so that participation can lead to visible outcomes and real change.

For me, meaningful youth participation means moving from simply giving young people a space to speak, to creating consistent pathways where their ideas can be heard, considered and followed up.

Question 4: What is the one change you would like governments, the UN, or partners to make to strengthen youth participation?

In my personal view, we need a sustainable youth participation pathway that guarantees access to young people from all backgrounds, including vulnerable groups and refugees. Youth participation should not depend only on specific conferences, events, or opportunities that are repeatedly offered to the same people.

I believe this pathway could carry a simple message: “I speak for myself — don’t speak for me.”

As a Syrian national who has been active in youth and community work for around ten years, I have experienced the challenges of having a voice while living in a country of asylum. I have also represented the voices and experiences of refugees in Jordan, yet I have never had the opportunity to travel or participate in an international UN opportunity where I could directly bring these perspectives to decision-makers.

My message to the UN and its partners is that refugees should not only be seen as people who need support. We should also have a role and a voice in shaping the communities we belong to and the societies we live in, even when we are living outside our countries of origin.

In host communities, young refugees should have meaningful opportunities to express their views, engage with decision-makers, contribute to policy discussions, and help shape solutions that affect their lives and communities.

For me, meaningful youth participation means creating pathways where young people — including refugees and young people from vulnerable backgrounds — are not spoken about or spoken for, but are given the space and opportunity to speak for themselves.

Question 1: Are you aware of any laws, policies, strategies, or plans in your country that support youth participation in peace and security? How effective are they?

Yes. I am aware of UN Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security, which recognizes the important role of young people in preventing conflict, building peace, preventing violent extremism, and contributing to decision-making.

As a young person active in media, volunteering, youth initiatives and community work, I see the importance of creating spaces where young people can contribute to these areas. I have personally applied more than once to participate in sessions and opportunities related to this agenda, but I was not selected.

This has made me think about an important gap between having frameworks that recognize the role of youth and ensuring that young people from different backgrounds can actually access the spaces created around them.

I believe the effectiveness of these policies and frameworks should not only be measured by the number of programmes or sessions organized, but also by who gets access to them, whose voices are represented, and whether young people’s recommendations are followed up and translated into action.

For me, the real success of Youth, Peace and Security is when young people from different backgrounds — including refugees and young people from vulnerable communities — are not only invited to listen, but are given meaningful and sustained opportunities to participate, influence decisions and contribute to building peaceful communities.

Introduction

For young people in Egypt, peace and security are not abstract international concepts. They are closely connected to whether young people can access education, employment, public spaces, civic participation, and institutions that they perceive as responsive and fair. Egypt has a large and diverse youth population, but “youth” should not be treated as a single constituency. Experiences and opportunities differ significantly by geography, socioeconomic background, gender, disability, education, and access to digital and institutional networks.

From a Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) perspective, the central question should therefore not simply be whether young people are being invited into conversations about peace. It should be whether they have meaningful opportunities to shape the decisions, institutions, and policies that affect the conditions for peace. The distinction between consultation and influence is fundamental.

1. What are the main barriers preventing young people from contributing to peace and security?

One major barrier is the gap between being invited to participate and having actual influence. Youth consultations, forums, conferences, and dialogue initiatives can create valuable spaces for expression, but participation becomes limited when young people's recommendations are not connected to identifiable decision-making processes. If young people repeatedly provide input without knowing what happened to it, consultation can gradually weaken rather than strengthen institutional trust.

A second barrier is unequal access to participation. Young people in major urban centers may have greater access to universities, civil society organizations, international programs, technology, transportation, and professional networks than young people in rural or economically disadvantaged communities. This creates a selection problem: institutions may hear repeatedly from the young people who already have the resources and confidence to enter formal participation spaces, while those facing the greatest barriers remain underrepresented.

The same issue applies to resources. Many youth-led initiatives have ideas and community legitimacy but lack sustained funding, organizational infrastructure, technical expertise, or access to decision-makers. Short-term competitions and grants can help, but they do not necessarily create the long-term institutional capacity required for youth initiatives to become durable contributors to peacebuilding.

There is also a question of institutional trust. Trust cannot be created simply by asking young people to trust institutions. It is built when institutions demonstrate that participation produces consequences: recommendations receive responses, commitments are tracked, and young participants can see where their contributions affected policy or implementation.

Finally, youth participation can sometimes be framed too narrowly around volunteering or awareness-raising. These are valuable forms of engagement, but YPS requires a broader understanding of young people as stakeholders, partners, and—in appropriate contexts—decision-makers.

These observations should be understood as policy considerations rather than universal claims about every Egyptian young person or institution. Reliable assessment would require disaggregated national and local data on youth participation, particularly across rural and urban communities.

2. What opportunities exist for young people to contribute to peace and security?

Egypt has significant potential to strengthen youth contributions through its existing educational, civic, community, and digital structures. Youth-led initiatives can contribute to social cohesion by creating spaces for dialogue, addressing misinformation, supporting community problem-solving, preserving cultural heritage, and connecting groups that might otherwise have limited opportunities to interact.

One particularly important opportunity is to recognize local knowledge as a form of peacebuilding capacity. Rural youth should not be approached primarily as beneficiaries who need to be brought into programs designed elsewhere. They can identify local tensions, barriers, community priorities, and practical solutions that may not be visible from national or institutional perspectives.

Digital platforms also create opportunities for youth participation, but digital participation should complement rather than replace offline mechanisms. Otherwise, young people with weaker connectivity, limited digital literacy, or fewer technological resources risk being excluded.

Education is another important entry point. Schools and universities can provide structured opportunities for dialogue, mediation, civic education, research, and collaborative problem-solving. However, these opportunities should not be reduced to symbolic youth councils. Young people should be given clearly defined responsibilities and channels through which their work can reach relevant institutions.

Youth-led organizations and initiatives can also serve as implementation partners, provided that partnerships include transparent standards, appropriate safeguarding, technical support, and sustainable funding. Institutions do not necessarily need to create every youth program themselves; they can strengthen existing youth-led capacity.

3. How can institutions make youth participation more meaningful?

The most important change would be to move from consultation toward structured co-decision-making.

First, institutions should establish formal youth participation mechanisms with clearly defined mandates. A youth advisory body, for example, should not simply be invited to provide opinions. Its role should specify which policies or programs it can review, what information it receives, when it is consulted, and how institutional decision-makers must respond.

Second, participation should include a feedback and accountability mechanism. Whenever young people submit recommendations, the responsible institution should publish or communicate whether each recommendation was accepted, modified, referred for further consideration, or rejected—with a brief explanation. This would transform participation from a one-way communication exercise into an accountable process.

Third, youth influence should be measurable. Institutions could track indicators such as the proportion of youth recommendations incorporated into policy documents, the number of programs redesigned following youth input, youth representation in relevant decision-making bodies, and the geographic and socioeconomic diversity of participating youth. These indicators should measure influence, not merely attendance.

Fourth, participation needs resources. If institutions expect young people from rural or disadvantaged communities to participate, they should address practical barriers such as transportation, connectivity, accessibility, language, scheduling, and participation costs. Otherwise, “open participation” can remain accessible mainly to those who already have resources.

Fifth, youth should be involved across the entire policy cycle: agenda-setting, policy design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. It is insufficient to involve young people at the beginning of a process and exclude them once decisions are made.

Finally, youth participation should include disagreement. Meaningful participation cannot mean asking young people to endorse predetermined policies. Institutions should create conditions in which young participants can challenge assumptions, identify unintended consequences, and propose alternatives without their disagreement being treated as a failure of the consultation.

4. What should be the final recommendation to UNDP and other institutions?

My central recommendation would be to establish a measurable framework for Youth Co-Decision-Making for Peace and Security, rather than relying primarily on consultation.

Under such a framework, participating institutions would commit to five principles: representation, authority, resources, transparency, and accountability.

Representation would require deliberate inclusion of youth from different geographic, socioeconomic, educational, and community backgrounds rather than relying exclusively on already-connected youth networks. Authority would require clearly defined areas in which youth representatives can influence or co-decide policies and programs. Resources would ensure that participation is realistically accessible. Transparency would require institutions to explain how youth recommendations were considered. Accountability would require measurable indicators and periodic public reporting on youth influence.

UNDP could support this approach by developing a practical YPS participation toolkit for national and local institutions, establishing minimum standards for meaningful youth engagement, supporting youth-led organizations with longer-term capacity-building and funding, and developing monitoring systems that measure what changed because young people participated.

The most important metric should therefore not be “How many young people attended?” but rather: “What decision changed because young people were involved?”

This distinction captures the broader shift that YPS requires. Young people should not be viewed only as a demographic to be consulted, a population vulnerable to instability, or a source of volunteers. They are also holders of knowledge, community actors, innovators, and potential partners in building social cohesion.

For Egypt and other contexts, the objective should not be to create more opportunities for young people to speak without changing institutional structures. It should be to build institutions in which youth participation has a defined pathway to influence. That would make participation more credible, strengthen institutional trust, and move YPS from a principle of inclusion toward a practical system of shared responsibility for peace and security.

Hi everyone! My name is Jasmine, I’m 17 and I’m from Kazakhstan. I’m a student and a youth volunteer involved in UNICEF’s Youth Council and I coordinate Y-PEER in my city, a youth network supported by UNFPA in Kazakhstan.

Through these roles, I work with young people and organize youth initiatives. So I’ll be answering these questions based mostly on what I’ve personally experienced in Kazakhstan.

1. What mechanisms support young people’s participation in peace, security and development?

Yes. In Kazakhstan, there are different youth councils, youth organizations and government-supported platforms that give young people opportunities to participate in community and development processes.

From my experience, Youth Councils are one of the most practical examples. Through UNICEF’s Youth Council, for example, young people can suggest ideas for activities, discuss issues affecting youth and actually help shape the programme.

I think these mechanisms work best when young people are not just invited to attend something, but are actually given a chance to suggest, organize and implement. The main limitation is that sometimes youth participation can become more symbolic than meaningful. Young people are heard, but not always involved in the final decision.

2. What platforms allow young people to participate?

In Kazakhstan, I’ve personally been involved in UNICEF’s Youth Council, UNFPA-supported Y-PEER, and youth-led organizations and initiatives. For me, the most meaningful spaces are the ones where young people actually have responsibility.

For example, in the UNICEF Youth Council, I’ve been involved in developing ideas for volunteer activities, training and challenges. I’ve also helped organize youth events and communicate with volunteers.

I think the reason these platforms work is simple: young people are trusted with real tasks. When you’re 17 and someone actually says, “Okay, this is your idea; go make it happen,” you become much more engaged.

3. What are the main barriers?

I think one of the biggest barriers is that young people often don’t know that they can participate in the first place.

There are opportunities, but information about them doesn’t always reach teenagers, especially outside major cities.

Another issue is the gap between being invited and actually having influence. Sometimes young people can attend a forum or meeting, but there is no clear way for their ideas to reach decision-makers afterwards.

We need more accessible information, regional opportunities, mentorship and follow-up. If a young person gives an idea, they should be able to see what happened to it.

4. What is the one change you would like to see?

I would love governments, the UN and other organizations to trust young people with more responsibility, not just invite them to events.

Give us a seat at the table, but also give us something to actually work on. Young people don't need to know everything, we’re still learning. But we know what is happening in our schools and online spaces because we are living it.

If our ideas are taken seriously and we get the right mentorship and resources, I think young people can become not just participants, but real partners in building safer and more peaceful communities.

Thanks so much for the opportunity to share our experience! My LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jasmine-vadodaria-09ba6a356

My name is Jennifer Owusuwaa Prempeh from, and I work at the intersection of youth empowerment, diplomacy, and sustainable development in Ghana. I currently serve as Protocol Head for the International Youth Empowerment Summit (IYES), a platform that has grown from about 250 to over 1000 young participants since 2020, and as Ghana's Country Representative for Best Diplomats. I began this path during my National Service at the SDGs Advisory Unit in Ghana's Office of the President, where I supported the National SDG Action Summit and the National Blue Economy Summit under the auspices of H.E. Nana Addo Danquah Akuffo Addo, both of which brought youth voices into national policy conversations for the first time in a structured way. I am also a UNICEF Digital Advocate, a Climate Reality Leader, and a UN Online Volunteer. This mix of protocol, advocacy, and grassroots organizing work is what draws me to this consultation: I have seen, from the inside, both how far young Ghanaians have pushed the doors of peace and governance spaces open, and how often those doors still only open partway. I am responding to all four questions below.

Question 1.

Ghana does have a growing architecture on this front, though much of it is still under construction rather than fully built. The National Peace Council, set up under Act 818 of 2011, is the country's main statutory body for conflict prevention and peacebuilding, and Ghana has a National Action Plan on UNSCR 1325 for women, peace and security (GHANAP II) that has opened some space for young women specifically. More directly relevant to me is that Ghana is one of a small group of countries, alongside Nigeria and the DRC, currently developing a dedicated National Action Plan on Youth, Peace and Security under UNSCR 2250, led by the National Youth Authority together with the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre. I have followed the stakeholder consultations and roadmap workshops that fed into this process. There is also the National Youth Policy (2022–2032) and its implementation plan, which names youth participation in decision-making as a core objective.

In practice, I would describe these mechanisms as promising but not yet transformative. The consultative stage has genuinely brought young people, including people like me, into rooms we were not in before, and the language of these frameworks now takes youth participation seriously rather than treating it as decorative. But a plan is not the same as a budget line, and a workshop is not the same as a seat at a decision-making table. What has limited impact so far is the gap between national-level frameworks and implementation at the regional and district level, inconsistent funding once the initial consultation energy fades, and the fact that security and peace institutions in Ghana still tend to be hierarchical spaces where youth input is welcomed as testimony rather than treated as a vote. Where these mechanisms have worked best, it has been because a specific institution, like the SDGs Advisory Unit during the summits I supported in 2022/23 under the office of the president as a National Service personnel , made a deliberate choice to build youth involvement into the design of the process from the start, rather than adding it on afterward.

Question 2.

On the formal side, Ghana has a National Youth Parliament concept that the National Youth Authority is trying to establish across district, regional, and national levels, giving young people a structured channel to raise concerns and hold local government accountable. On the civil society side, there are networks like Best Diplomats and youth-led summits such as International Youth Empowerment Summit (IYES) hosted by Pastor Brian Amoateng every March , where I work directly. On the UN-linked side, I engage through the UN Volunteers platform and as a UNICEF Digital Advocate, both of which create structured but flexible ways for young people to plug into ongoing programmes rather than one-off events.

From where I sit, the mechanisms that provide genuine influence share three features. First, young people are involved in designing the agenda, not just attending it; at IYES, the programme content and speaker line-up are shaped by a youth-led team, which is part of why participation has grown nearly threefold since 2015.

Second, there is continuity between events, so that ideas raised in one session actually feed into the next one, rather than each forum starting from zero.

Third, there is a named, accountable convener, whether that is a government agency, a UN entity, or an established civil society platform, who can be tracked and pushed to follow through. Purely symbolic structures, like youth councils that exist on paper in some districts but rarely meet or lack any budget, tend to fall away precisely because they lack these features. The community dialogue formats I have seen work best are smaller and less formal than national forums, but they are the ones where a young person's specific proposal is most likely to be acted on within weeks rather than years.

Question 3

The most persistent barrier is that youth participation is still largely consultative rather than decisional. Young people are regularly invited to speak, but far less often given a vote, a budget line, or a formal role in the bodies that actually decide policy or allocate resources. A second barrier is resourcing: many youth-led peace and governance initiatives run on volunteer energy and short-term grants, which makes it hard to sustain momentum once the novelty of a new forum wears off. A third is geography and access. Opportunities to engage with national-level peace and security processes are concentrated in Accra, so young people outside the capital, who are often the ones closest to the community-level tensions these frameworks are meant to address, face real costs of transport, connectivity, and time just to be in the room. A fourth barrier is generational trust: peace and security institutions in Ghana have historically been shaped by hierarchy and rank, which can make genuinely open dialogue with young people, especially young women, feel unfamiliar or even risky to some institutional actors.

What needs to change is fairly concrete. Youth participation needs dedicated, protected budget lines rather than being funded out of whatever is left over after other priorities are covered. Youth representatives need formal seats with voting or decision rights on the bodies implementing the National Action Plan on YPS, not just observer status at consultations. Implementation needs to be pushed down to the regional and district level, where the National Peace Council and local youth structures already exist but are often under-resourced. And there needs to be a simple, public way to track what happened to the recommendations young people make at these forums, so that participation stops feeling like it disappears into a report no one reads.

Question 4

If I had to choose one change, it would be this: move young people from being consulted to being resourced and empowered as co-decision-makers, with clear authority and a budget attached to that role. Right now, most YPS engagement stops at the point of gathering our input. What would change the picture is if governments and UN partners guaranteed young people formal seats, with real voting power, on the specific committees and boards that decide funding and policy for peace and security, and backed those seats with multi-year funding so youth-led organizations are not rebuilding themselves from scratch after every project cycle ends. That single shift, from listening to youth to sharing power with youth, is what would let the ideas coming out of forums like this one actually reach the people who need them.

Hello everyone 

My name is Julia and I’m currently a second year medical student in Lebanon, willing to answer Question 3.

From what I have seen in the past few years, we, the people of Lebanon, have experienced multiple wars and displacement (especially residents of South of Lebanon), which are main barriers preventing young people from participating in peace processes because they don’t even have peace in their own country. Other than that, I think accessibility is a main issue: people residing far from the capital city don’t have access to ongoing events to promote peace building and security implementing, which reflects the lack of education of these topics in those areas. What mainly needs to change is the education. We need to educate young people at schools about the importance of peace and security so that they grow up having value to these topics and they work on implementing them in their community.

this way, each person who’s educated on that topic could educate 10 people around him, and so on.. we would have a whole generation of young people willing to invest in peacebuilding. Here, I would like to end my comment by a life motto that I have always believed in “alone we can do so little; together we can do so much” .

Thank you for your time

Question 3

My name is Yassin, and I am a first-year engineering student from Egypt. Alongside my studies, I have been involved in volunteering, youth initiatives, scientific research, innovation and community activities.

Through these experiences, I have realized that one of the biggest barriers facing young people is not a lack of ideas or willingness to contribute, but limited and unequal access to opportunities.

One of my earliest experiences with youth leadership was through my school’s Rotary Interact Club, where I served as President. Through this role, I worked with other students to organize activities and community service initiatives within the school. This experience showed me that young people can take responsibility, lead others and contribute to their communities even while they are still students. At the same time, it made me realize that not every young person has the same access to spaces where they can develop these skills or take on leadership responsibilities.

I have seen this further through my work in youth-led initiatives. Many students are interested in volunteering, leadership, research and community activities, but opportunities are not always easy to find or accessible to everyone. Sometimes young people simply do not know where to look, while others may not have the networks, financial resources or guidance needed to participate.

This is also one of the reasons I started using digital platforms to make opportunities and knowledge more accessible to young people. I manage a WhatsApp Channel where I share opportunities, competitions, programs and important deadlines, particularly to help young people who may not already have access to strong networks that regularly share these opportunities.

I also create content across social media, including a TikTok profile, with a particular focus on making scientific research and research-related knowledge more accessible to Arabic-speaking young people. I believe that language itself can sometimes become a barrier, especially when much of the available scientific and educational content is presented in English or in highly technical language.

Another experience that shaped my perspective was co-founding Scholars’ Research Club. We wanted to create a space where students could access research knowledge and mentorship and turn their ideas into actual projects. In our first nationwide program, we received more than 400 applications and selected 160 students from 25 Egyptian governorates, with more than 70 students going on to complete research projects.

For me, this experience was an important example of what can happen when young people are given an accessible opportunity and the right support. The potential was already there; what was often missing was the bridge between young people's interest and the resources, information and guidance needed to act.

The wider numbers in Egypt also show why this matters. Young people aged 15–29 represent around 25% of the population. At the same time, youth unemployment among those aged 15–24 was estimated at 18.3% in 2025, while 23.8% of young people were not in education, employment or training in 2024.

I believe these barriers are also directly relevant to Youth, Peace and Security. Meaningful participation in peace and security cannot happen if young people who are already facing barriers to education, employment, information and leadership opportunities are also excluded from the spaces where decisions about their communities are made. Young people need to be able to access these spaces, understand the issues being discussed, contribute their perspectives and have a real opportunity to help shape and implement solutions.

This is particularly important because young people often understand challenges in their communities from a different perspective. When participation is limited to a small group of young people who already have strong networks or institutional access, decision-makers may miss the experiences and ideas of many others.

For me, meaningful youth participation should therefore go beyond inviting young people to attend consultations or events. Young people need accessible pathways to participate, learn, lead, implement ideas and receive feedback on the impact of their contributions.

Governments, the UN and other organizations can help by making opportunities easier to discover, reducing unnecessary barriers to participation, supporting youth-led initiatives with mentorship and small grants, and creating spaces where young people from different backgrounds can participate not only those who already have strong networks or impressive CVs.

I believe young people should not have to wait until they graduate or become established professionals before their ideas are taken seriously. We can contribute now when we are given the opportunity, trust and responsibility to do so.