Intersectional Youth Participation in Peacebuilding

A Q&A with Luisa Kern, previously a Research Fellow at UNU-CPR, and now a Senior Learning and Research Analyst at Peace Direct.

🎧 Listen to this Q&A with Luisa Kern here.

Hi Luisa – in your field visits to Guinea, what did you observe about how young people's identities, like gender, disability or rural background shaped their roles and challenges in peacebuilding?

So during our research visit to Guinea, we attended a UNFP workshop on developing a national action plan and on the youth peace and security agenda more broadly, which was close to the Guinea capital in Korea, which brought together youth from a very wide range of backgrounds, young women, peacebuilders, youth of disabilities and youth representing different regions, for instance.

I think what really stood out to me was how each person brought very distinct priorities and perspectives to the table all very strongly advocating for more meaningful, inclusive, youth participation, peacebuilding, and also mentioning the necessary prerequisites for inclusivity, like working for trusted intermediaries and building understanding with the families and communities. 

And I think it was also quite eye-opening to see how some of the young people we spoke to realized that the work that they had already been doing, for instance, on community dialogue or conflict prevention or also. Advocacy was quite aligned with the youth peace and security agenda, but they just weren't aware that they had this like whole framework, and language that could connect them to donors or also to national policy efforts and support.

And we also traveled to collab where we met with youth who were involved in a project that worked on local youth councils, in some of the most conflict prone areas in the country. And both the youth, but also local authorities that we met. For instance, a mayor mentioned how crucial it was to have dedicated youth structures for youth to discuss their grievances and how that really helped lower conflict, decisively.

And I think these visits really emphasize how identity markers, for instance, backgrounds whether they were from, for instance, urban areas or, rural locations. not only shaped the challenges that you face, but also how they're perceived and peaceful spaces.

So when you actually met with youth and women involved in climate security and decision making projects in The Gambia, what were some concrete examples of intersectional barriers to participation you encountered on the ground?

In The Gambia, we saw several concrete examples of intersectional barriers. I would say especially related to gender, but also to economic marginalization and whether youth were part of, formal structures. so youth were often not included in the past and formal decision making and the youth efforts, some of which, supported by PBF projects had really tried to change that by creating or working with children's assemblies and Youth Parliaments and National Youth Councils. and not how important preparation was for that and properly thinking through accommodation strategies.

We also heard about quite a lot of issues around young women's participations with power holders, often being very patriarchal and, projects, for instance, recruited mentors, who could speak, on behalf, of, the women or these young women with, local decision makers and also support them in that process and one standout project, also really made a push to reach out to youth who were very marginalized, those not in school or, not part of, formal structures. 

And, because of that outreach National Partners began talking about how to scale that project beyond the, initial, regions.

Something that I also wanted to note was how we saw a lot of, quite creative approaches that helped bridge the divides and specifically reach more, marginalized, youth. So we also visited a community in The Gambia had so fractured and divided. 

For instance, we were told, people from different, communities could not, attend events of the other, or they even had two separate, football teams. And project actually formed, a United, I think it was called Ang United Team. And. Because they ended up actually, winning the football games, or soccer games, , that really helped, , build a lot of trust and we realized how important, , activities like sports or the arts, there were quite a lot of examples throughout, , the projects that we reviewed, , that they were really powerful spaces for dialogue.

And I think it really helped us see that it's quite important to listen to what is actually helpful for young people and , what could they actually , want in these peace building, projects.

Across the projects you studied, how did intersectional approaches change the way youth were engaged in peace building efforts?

There's quite a tendency to consider youth as a uniform or as a homogenous group that has been flagged quite a lot by youth peace and security, research. , And that often means that other identity markers are not considered, which may mean that there's like less attention paid to the specific needs, but also the vulnerabilities of young people.

So applying an intersectional lens really allowed for. Projects to better identify who was not included and to also recognize hidden structural barriers. Also youth programming also has a tendency to sometimes support and engage youth who are. Already involved, , the kind of the usual suspects.

, That's how it was like phrased to us and not necessarily reach you from more disadvantaged groups, for instance, based on a rural urban divide or. Educational backgrounds. And I think we saw a couple of standout projects that, , also really applied particular accommodation strategies to encourage the participation of youth from marginalized groups.

So for instance, in El Salvador to projects, Embrace this, leave no one behind approach and focus specifically on LGBTQI plus, , youth. , Something that was actually a first for peace building fund programming in that country. Context. And in Sri Lanka, another project focused on reaching young women without previous project experience or access in areas with like little NGO or UN presence.

And it brought them together across different ethno religious lines and supported them in carrying out small grants initiatives, which was really powerful given the conflict context. They also put in place very practical accommodations, , for instance, for youth with disabilities. And that really showed that inclusion also needs to be backed, by resources.

And I think what I also found compelling was that intersectionality was not just about who was engaged, but also how you first supported to. Build trust and be part of longer term peace efforts. So for example, in Somalia youth and especially young women were seen as key to addressing intra communal conflict because , they weren't as burdened by historical grievances.

And I think that shift

in thinking, seeing youth as change agents, , and not despite their identities, but because of them, was. A real strength of the intersection strategies, and also I think helped unpack this bias of youth as troublemakers.

Your research notes that intersectional programming can introduce new protection risks for youth, especially those with vulnerable identities. Based on your field work, what kinds of risks were most evident and how did the projects you studied attempt to mitigate them?  

Projects focused on marginalized or vulnerable youth can. Also really create protection concerns, , for instance, by inadvertently exposing their identities to their communities or increasing their visibility. And the projects we studied, some teams prevented or mitigated these risks by keeping a lower profile.

Or really by relying on their team members' intimate knowledge of community dynamics or by working with trusted intermediaries, it was pointed out to us a lot that, , security, or protection risks or concerns could really change from basically from street to street or from person to person.

So having someone on the team who was really. Quite keenly aware of that was really important. And what stood out to me in my interviews on protection do no harm, was really the emphasis that protection experts placed on. Building a culture of protection and of all team members being aware and considering protection as their responsibility in addition to having dedicated focal points.

And they also highlighted how important it's to have some budget leeway for safeguarding and protection concerns. And I think also, The review highlighted that you have to think about protection from the get go. So doing, , project design, doing implementation, but also, , doing follow up.

Looking across the various country cases in the review, what conclusions did the research draw about the long-term impact of intersectional youth engagement?

I think one project that really stood out to me was in Sri Lanka that worked with, , young women Peace Builders without, previous, access. And it took a very intentional approach to youth inclusion, not just at the beginning, during consultation sessions, but throughout the entire project cycle.

They, for instance, brought in youth researchers who accompanied and helped evaluate the project itself. And I think that kind of ownership and involvement, Is still quite rare and worked really well. And I think it was one of the reasons why the project was so successful and the NGO actually ended up receiving follow-up funding from other donors.

And this, , project was seen as a model For applying intersection in an intersectional lens. And the young women who were involved in that project, actually continued to be active for I think a couple of years and follow up studies, , showed that, they were still active in some of the initiatives, , that they started doing the first project.

I think at the same time we also saw that many of the most deeply intersectional projects were also smaller in scale and quite resource intensive. And so they often required more time, for instance to build trust, not just with participants, but also with local stakeholders, and communities.

While the impact was then often quite powerful of this project, it really also highlighted the need for donors, , and implementers to invest and think long term. And it was also often highlighted to us when it comes to sustainability that longer project faces and more flexible funding could.

Be very helpful in this regard and could ensure that structures, youth structures that were built during the projects could endure after, the project, , finished.

Thanks, Luisa.  Anything else to share?

I think it's very important to think of intersectional youth engagement, not just as like. A box to tick, but really to consider it as a long-term investment. I think then it makes project not only more inclusive, but also more, effective and, sustainable.

And taking the time to apply this intersectional lens and to really not consider youth as a uniform group is really crucial. and I think there's been quite a lot of interest. and something I'm really passionate about myself is sort of this intersection of youth peace and security and women peace and security.

I think what the work on the review also really taught us was that it's important and that it's I think a general learning that has been emphasized by a lot of reports and youth peace and security and women peace and security practitioners is to not lump youth and women together, but to really look at potential synergies between, the programming.

I think another thing is to really also ensure that funding actually reaches youth-led organizations. I think that's still something that's quite difficult. A lot of, uh, funding goes to bigger, for instance, UN programs or agencies and then Triples down to, youth led organizations, who often have to deal with a lot of reporting requirements when it comes to funding and might not have the, resources and capacity available for that because they already have so much other things to do. A lot of people in youth structures, do it on a voluntary basis.

so that's oftentimes means that you do not have access to, funding. But I think if you take. Youth inclusion and youth participation seriously and not just as a tick the box, task. You really have to make sure that young people actually receive direct funding and flexible funding and are able to design, and implement activities, themselves and yes, are accountable too.

the funders, but I think in first line should be accountable to the youth they work with and to think about shifting that a little bit.

Thanks for listening to that Q&A with Luisa Kern on her field research as part of the 2025 Peacebuilding Fund Thematic Review on Youth Peace and Security.