Young people will inherit the consequences of decisions taken in multilateral institutions today, yet their voices remain largely sidelined in global governance. This webinar, the seventh and final instalment in the ENSURED series, examined how institutions can move beyond token gestures of youth inclusion towards meaningful participation that gives young people more influence over the decisions that will shape their futures.
The panellists included:
- Emily Wegener, Senior Policy Officer at Transparency International Defence & Security, with experience of multilateral processes including the UN Convention against Corruption, the Summit of the Future, the Peacebuilding Architecture, the EU and NATO.
- Oni Papa, Global Communications Co-Lead for the UN Environment Programme’s Children and Youth Major Group and Programme Manager for the Asia region at the International Federation of Liberal Youth, and co-founder of Kilos Ko Youth in the Philippines.
- Prathit Singh, Programme Officer on Youth and Democracy at Interpeace and Project Coordinator of the Geneva Policy Outlook.
The session was moderated by Samuel King (CIVICUS).
Youth Participation
Emily opened by describing a growing credibility gap concerning multilateral institutions, as young people have less trust in their effectiveness and relevance. Meaningful youth participation, she argued, must move beyond tokenistic gestures towards structural, decision-oriented involvement. This could include: youth representatives on governing boards, youth delegates embedded in state negotiating teams, or professional pathways such as Young Professional schemes. She noted that progress varies sharply by sector: peacebuilding and anti-corruption work are further ahead than defense and security, where top-down decision-making leaves little space for civil society even as military spending grows.
Oni said that tokenism is present in nearly all levels of institutions, where young people are invited to speak, consulted, or photographed without anyone tracking what changes afterwards. A key distinction she made was that "access is not the same as power." A young person being in the room does not mean institutions act on what they say. Genuine participation requires involvement early enough to shape the agenda, not merely to validate decisions already made, and clear accountability for what input was acted upon and why. She also stressed youth are not a monolith, so participation must account for differences in class, geography, gender, disability, language and migration status, since institutions often only reach the privileged, mobile, and English-speaking young people.
Structural Barriers and Resourcing
The discussion then turned to the practical barriers facing young people, especially those from the Global South. Emily pointed to the difficulty of obtaining ECOSOC consultative status, which is a resource-intensive process that disadvantages grassroots and decentralised organisations. A state or institutional sponsor is often required to host side events, which is especially hard for groups operating in restrictive environments.
Oni gave a detailed account of what genuine support for youth engagement requires: flexible, long-term funding rather than short-term project grants; coverage of logistical costs (transport, medicine, per diems paid before travel); early invitation and visa-support letters for Global South passport holders; translation and interpretation; and compensation for labour through stipends or paid roles. Without this, only financially secure young people can sustain participation over time, and institutions lose valuable sectoral memory as advocates are forced to exit the space.
Prathit challenged the common proposal of mandatory youth quotas, arguing that numerical targets do not reflect an authentic voice. Drawing on his research into Gen Z movements in Nepal, Bangladesh, Madagascar, Kenya and Tanzania, he argued young people organise through existing constituencies and networks. Participation models should therefore be constituency-based, engaging with and building the capacity of these networks.
Emily added that funding design itself is a barrier: travel grants often cover staff but not Global South chapter representatives. She praised Interpeace’s CSO-UN Peacebuilding Dialogue for deliberately prioritising and funding youth and Global South attendance, and creating access to permanent representatives who can carry civil society recommendations into negotiations. She also cautioned against treating youth inclusion as unconditional, arguing that institutions must build trustworthy and safe spaces for youth rather than simply expecting their cooperation.
Future Prospects
Asked about realistic openings for reform, Oni pointed to environmental multilateral organisations as areas where youth could be made more influential rather than having to constantly fight for access. She also highlighted the growing recognition of youth as partners for organisations rather than just beneficiaries, which also creates leverage to demand more funding. Oni framed these openings as pressure generated by increasingly assertive youth and civil society, rather than ones offered voluntarily by institutions.
Emily argued that a deeper requirement is a mindset shift: their needs need to be seen as valid now. She linked this to anti-corruption movements, where youth-led protests against entrenched corrupt leadership demonstrated that young people’s political power was underestimated. Prathit said that youth movements also need independent convening power outside traditional institutional structures, similar to the lobbies that the private sector has.
Asked how young people can find meaningful opportunities, Oni stressed that meaningful work need not start in multilateral spaces: organising locally, with even a small group, is itself valuable, alongside joining existing networks such as the Children and Youth Major Group or CIVICUS. She called on institutions to do more to publicise opportunities, since using online listings alone excludes certain young people.
In closing, Oni urged young people from the Global South to trust their lived experience over institutional language, to hold institutions accountable rather than remain uncritically grateful, and to keep applying for opportunities. Emily encouraged young people to recognise their power and to demand that institutions earn their trust. Prathit argued that young people in the Global South do not need advice given their demonstrated capacity to drive national political change; instead, his advice was directed at Global North institutions and stakeholders to take young people seriously, warning that multilateral institutions risk their own relevance and legitimacy if they fail to listen.
Missed the Webinar? Watch it Here:
About the ENSURED Webinars
In Conversation with Civil Society is a year-long webinar series exploring how global governance institutions can become more effective, robust, and democratic. Each session brings together ENSURED researchers, policymakers and civil society leaders to discuss practical reform pathways across seven key policy areas. Through a conversational format, the series connects ENSURED’s research with the experience of civil society actors, identifying political opportunities for institutional change and highlighting where advocacy can have the greatest impact — especially across fragmented governance landscapes and persistent North–South divides.
The webinar series is coordinated and facilitated by CIVICUS.
Photo: Ygor Lobo / Unsplash
.png)
