CIVICUS discusses the outcomes and limitations of the Annual CSO-UN Dialogue on Peacebuilding with Sweta Velpillay, co-director of Conducive Space for Peace (CSP), an international civil society organisation (CSO) that works at the intersection of civic agency, global collaboration and peacebuilding.

Launched in 2023, the Annual CSO-UN Dialogue on Peacebuilding offers a rare platform for civil society to engage with the United Nations (UN) peacebuilding architecture at a system level. However, the extent to which such dialogues translate into meaningful influence on policy and practice is questionable, particularly as civic space is subjected to growing restrictions globally and grassroots civil society faces mounting barriers to participation.

What’s the Annual CSO-UN Dialogue on Peacebuilding?

This is one of the very few spaces where civil society can engage not only with peacebuilding practice on the ground, but also with the peacebuilding system. That distinction is important because most civil society engagement is tied to specific countries or conflict contexts, and while that work is essential, it is often fragmented and disconnected from how global peacebuilding policies and priorities are shaped.

This dialogue is significant because it creates space to bridge a longstanding gap in how peacebuilding is approached. It brings civil society organisations, states and UN entities into the same space and allows civil society to engage at a system level rather than only through a country lens.

This year’s Dialogue, held on 11 and 12 December, focused on how to operationalise a whole-of-system approach to peacebuilding at a time when multilateralism is under significant strain. The emphasis was on moving beyond siloed interventions and strengthening coherence between development, humanitarian action, human rights and peace, with civil society as an equal partner across these pillars. There were discussions on conflict prevention, the inclusion of women, young people and other excluded groups and sustainable financing for peacebuilding.

At a time when civic space is shrinking globally and civil society operates under increasing restrictions, the UN’s convening power matters. It can offer political cover, legitimacy and access to decision-making spaces that are otherwise closed. But the value of the dialogue does not lie only in what happens during two days in a meeting room. Its real importance lies in how effectively it connects lived experiences from diverse contexts to global peacebuilding policy and whether that knowledge is meaningfully taken up beyond the event itself.

Does the dialogue offer genuine engagement opportunities?

The dialogue has real potential and serves a necessary purpose, particularly because there are so few spaces where civil society, states and UN entities can directly engage. There’s also been an evolutionary process, with organisers making real efforts to make it more inclusive. For example, last year youth participation was particularly strong.

However, the space hasn’t realised its full potential. This is not necessarily because lack of goodwill, but rather because of structural limitations. Civil society should not just be heard; it should exercise autonomous political agency to independently influence agendas, priorities and practice in its own right, not only through institutional uptake.

One recurring issue is lack of clarity around what happens to civil society’s input. Participants contribute experiences, insights and recommendations, but it’s often unclear how these feed into the UN agenda, decisions and policies. There have been important steps forward, such as when the 2024 Dialogue fed into the Peacebuilding Architecture Review, but what remains missing is a more consistent practice of closing the loop with civil society. Clearer feedback on what was taken up, what was not and why would strengthen accountability and trust.

Another challenge is continuity. Each dialogue often feels like a standalone event rather than part of a sustained process. There’s not always a clear thread connecting issues raised one year to tangible follow-up the next. Without mechanisms to track progress, acknowledge what was acted upon, or explain why particular issues could not be taken forward, momentum risks being lost.

There are also practical limitations related to design, format and language accessibility. While efforts are made to accommodate different languages and participation styles, uneven implementation or perception of it can still affect the quality of engagement. None of this reflects a lack of commitment, but it does point to the need for more transparent and structured approaches and stronger accountability, continuity and follow-up mechanisms.

The dialogue is moving in the right direction, but there’s still room to deepen meaningful sustained engagement. CSP, alongside many others in civil society, is keen to work collectively to strengthen continuity, follow-up and the ability of civil society engagement to shape agendas and practice over time.

How inclusive is the dialogue for grassroots and conflict-affected civil society?

Grassroots and conflict-affected civil society groups are essential to peacebuilding, yet they are often the most difficult to meaningfully include in global spaces like this. There are major barriers, including limited funding, travel costs, visa restrictions and unfamiliarity with UN processes. Even when there are sponsorship opportunities, many grassroots activists and organisations may not know such dialogues are happening. Beyond access, there’s also the issue of knowing how to navigate the UN’s complex institutional settings. In that sense, the regional consultations held in Africa this year are a positive development.

Once in the room, a major limitation is that engagement is structured around country-specific perspectives that can unintentionally narrow civil society’s contribution to local reporting, not harnessing the trans-local knowledge and connections civil society groups have and failing to realise their potential to shape global agendas.

As a result, more professionalised and well-resourced organisations tend to be overrepresented, while community groups and grassroots movements, those closest to the reality on the ground, remain underrepresented. If inclusivity is to move beyond intention, addressing access and role definition is critical.

How can the dialogue better bridge the gap between global commitments and local realities?

The gap between global commitments and local realities manifests in several ways. Many commitments look strong on paper, but it’s challenging to translate them into practice on the ground. Short-term political incentives, crisis-driven decision-making and resource constraints make long-term peacebuilding difficult to sustain.

Increasingly acute funding constraints affect both civil society and the UN, creating practical barriers to implementation. However, funding is not the only or even the most distinctive way the UN can support local civil society. Its convening power, norm-setting role and ability to provide political space and legitimacy are often just as critical, particularly in restrictive environments where civil society faces direct threats.

Civil society is formally present in many UN spaces, yet access has become more uneven and, in some cases, more restricted in recent years. Even where civil society has a presence, it does not always translate into influence over decisions that affect local realities. Bridging this gap requires engagement that is ongoing, multi-layered and transparent, and that recognises the shrinking of civic space and the procedural barriers that now limit physical and political access.

Stronger country-level consultation processes, alongside clearer feedback mechanisms at the global level, can help ensure that local contexts inform global commitments from the outset. Honest communication about how civil society input is used, what can be acted on and what cannot, is essential for building trust. Peacebuilding is inherently long-term, and acknowledging that reality while strengthening accountability through openness is critical to restoring confidence in multilateral processes.