The Southeast Asia consultation emphasized the need for an institutionalized role for civil society within the UN’s peacebuilding architecture and for the decentralization of the UN system to strengthen collaboration at the country and local levels. Participants emphasized that building and sustaining peace cannot be done through fragmented, top-down approaches, but must be rooted in lived experiences, local knowledge, and responsive to the complexity of conflict on the ground. A system-wide approach across the UN peacebuilding architecture was identified as essential to improving coordination and reducing fragmented engagement. The 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review is a critical opportunity to build a more effective system, one that centers local leadership and fosters sustained and genuine partnerships with civil society.

The Southeast Asia consultation is part of Interpeace’s broader series of regional engagements contributing to the 2025 UN Peacebuilding Architecture Review, aiming to ensure that the review process—and its outcomes—are rooted in local knowledge, reflective of regional priorities, and informed by the lived experiences of those working to sustain peace.

The Southeast Asia regional consultation was structured around three thematic areas: Intersectional Risks for Sustaining Peace in Southeast Asia, Experience Partnering with the UN, and a Solutions Marketplace. Participants self-organized into thematic groups based on the nature of conflict in their regions: post-conflict, democratic backsliding, and armed conflict or revolution. In some cases, participants from the same country joined different thematic clusters, underscoring the diversity and complexity of realities within and across Southeast Asian states. After each thematic session, groups reconvened to identify common patterns and develop actionable recommendations for transforming the UN’s peacebuilding architecture.

Key Insecurity Risks in Southeast Asia

Across the consultation, participants reflected on the intersecting and evolving risks that continue to threaten peace and stability in Southeast Asia. These risks are rooted in long-standing structural inequalities and shaped by the shifting nature of violence and governance across the region.

Persistent economic inequality and social exclusion were cited as key drivers of instability. Rising poverty, widening wealth gaps, and underemployment undermine long-term peace efforts by perpetuating social divisions and fuelling unrest. While, in post-conflict contexts, the uneven distribution of peace dividends and failed reintegration efforts have deepened mistrust in institutions. These dynamics are further exacerbated by exclusionary governance and poor coordination between local and national actors.

Democratic backsliding, increasing security sector overreach, and weaponization of counterterrorism frameworks were raised as urgent concerns. Participants described increasing electoral manipulation, impunity for human rights violations, and shrinking civil spaces which significantly restriction of the ability for civil society to operate. Disinformation was also seen an escalating threat, polarizing societies, undermining public discourse, and delegitimizing local peacebuilding efforts.

A shift from vertical to horizontal violence is increasingly common in the region, manifesting as community-based tensions over land, resources, and political representation. These localized conflicts, when left unaddressed, continue to destabilize fragile transitions and expose the limits of exclusionary peace processes.

Finally, accountability gaps, unaddressed trauma, and the absence of meaningful transitional justice were identified as persistent obstacles to sustainable peace. Participants also raised concerns around external interventions which often lack trust-building processes and exclude local stakeholders, thereby reinforcing existing power asymmetries, failing to address root causes of conflict, and, in some cases, exacerbating violence.

Together, these dynamics expose the limits of fragmented peace efforts and underscore the urgent need for systemic responses grounded in local knowledge and a coordinated, system-wide approach across the UN peacebuilding architecture.

Barriers to Civil Society Engagement with the UN

Participants described significant structural barriers to meaningful engagement with the UN. These include difficulty identifying county-level contacts, differences in engagement cultures between agencies, language barriers, and frequent turnover of UN personnel all of which contribute to inconsistent and fragmented engagement with civil society. The system was characterized as overly complex with many CSOs struggling to navigate opaque processes.

Consultations were seen as one-sided, with civil society actors positioned as implementers rather than strategic partners. Additionally, local NGOs described a “battle for space” with competition between UN agencies and the dominance of large international organizations crowding out local initiatives and directly competing for access and funding opportunities.

Participants described a deeper disconnect between UN peacebuilding frameworks and the priorities of civil society. They questioned the UN’s state-centric approach, asking “whose agenda are you carrying?” and noting that the interests of member states and donors often diverge from those of communities. The use of technocratic language, terms such as “sustaining peace” and “architecture,” was seen as exclusionary and abstract, further reinforcing distance between the UN and local actors. Many emphasized that peace must first be created before it can be sustained, and that peacebuilding must be grounded in lived experience, with communication shaped by and for the communities it aims to serve.

Participants made it clear that the responsibility lies with the UN to ensure its systems are accessible, transparent, and navigable for civil society.

Participants called for the institutionalization of civil society participation within the UN’s peacebuilding architecture through formal, recurring mechanisms that recognize CSOs not as passive stakeholders, but as co-owners of peace processes. This includes establishing a civil society advisory body to the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), enabling shadow reporting, and holding regular briefings on thematic and country-specific priorities. To expand CSO access throughout the UN system, they called for increasing the number of civil society organizations, especially local and grassroots groups, with ECOSOC status, and for registration barriers that prevent legitimate actors from participating to be address.

Another key recommendation was to decentralize the UN system, including by establishing dedicated civil society focal points at the national level and more frequent, transparent field missions that build long-term relationships with local actors. Civil society should be empowered to lead processes where they hold a competitive advantage and, to ensure relevance and effectiveness, international benchmarks and recommendations should be adapted to local capacities, political contexts, and lived realities.

To reduce fragmented and siloed engagement, participants urged the adoption a whole-of-UN approach that promotes coordination across agencies, aligns peacebuilding with development and human rights, and enhances collaboration with regional bodies such as ASEAN.

Lack of access to funding was cited as a significant hurdle, and participants emphasized the need to strengthen financing for local peacebuilding efforts by providing sustainable, flexible, and long-term support. They called for the Peacebuilding Fund to be made more accessible and responsive to the realities of grassroots CSOs, including through earmarked funding for CSO-led or jointly implemented initiatives.

Above all, participants stressed that building and sustaining peace requires approaches rooted in lived experience, shaped by local knowledge, and responsive to the complexity of conflict on the ground. They emphasized that civil society is already leading this work and must be supported through clearer entry points and long-term, trust-based partnerships with the UN. The 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review is an opportunity to reconfigure cooperation around proximity, co-ownership, and accountability, and to transform civil society’s role from ad hoc consultation to sustained, meaningful engagement.