INGRID VALLADARES, ERIKA ISABEL BULAN YAGUE AND HELEN BERENTS |

Executive summary

This report discusses the strategies used and challenges faced by youth activists working in peacebuilding and environmental justice in Southeast Asia (SEA) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Considering the lack of attention to both regions in global agendas such as the Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) and Climate, Peace and Security (CPS), this report aims to provide key insights from youth peacebuilders and climate activists where commonalities and particularities are perceived at the intersection of both agendas. These insights emerge from a pilot project, which included an online South-South Knowledge Exchange facilitated by the research team in January 2026, where youth involved in peacebuilding and environmental justice from both regions shared their advocacy experiences and reflections. Based on this workshop and a desk review, this report presents six recommendations based on the challenges experienced by youth activists in SEA and LAC in their work on youth, climate, peace and security.

Youth, peace and security and climate, peace and security in Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean

Southeast Asia (SEA) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) face significant and intersecting challenges and threats to peace, security, and the environment. Across both regions, youth are key agents of change by engaging at grass-roots levels to monitor and address security and climate-related issues, advocate for transparency and accountability and press public institutions to respond more effectively.[1] Climate impacts magnify existing inequalities, disproportionately affecting children and young people, intensifying poverty trajectories in LAC and stressing social contracts in SEA.[2] These impacts intersect with the violence and insecurity experienced in both regions, further undermining young people’s livelihoods, restricting their access to opportunities and heightening the barriers to meaningful participation in decision-making spaces for peace and security.

Both regions are often overlooked in global discussions and frameworks that are highly relevant to them, such as the Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) agenda, and the emergent Climate, Peace, and Security (CPS) agenda. The YPS agenda, established by unanimous passage of Resolution 2250 in the UN Security Council in 2015, emphasises recognition of the positive role of youth in peace and security and the need for more inclusive policies and practices.[3] Similarly, the emerging CPS agenda identifies climate change as a threat multiplier and stresses the urgency of climate-informed peacebuilding.[4]

Figure 1: Map showing Southeast Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean

Engagement with YPS and CPS in other regions

In the case of YPS, while some regions of the world have seen rapid and comprehensive uptake, others have lagged—often lacking political will or appropriate organisations or a unifying sense of shared issues of relevance to the agenda.[5] In Africa, the African Union adopted the Continental Framework on YPS and a 10-year implementation plan.[6] In MENA, countries like Jordan were centrally involved in the push for a UN Security Council resolution[7], and the League of Arab States now have a regional strategy.[8] Even the European Union has been a proponent.[9]

For CPS, regional uptake has also been uneven. In Africa, the first continental Climate Change and Resilient Development Strategy and Action Plan (2022-2032) was adopted in 2022, embedding climate-security linkages into continental planning frameworks.[10] In the Pacific, the Boe Declaration Action Plan identifies climate change as the “single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing,” anchoring a regional climate-security framing.[11] In Europe, the EU’s 2023 Joint Communication on Climate-Security Nexus commits to integrating climate risks across foreign, defence and crisis management policies.[12] In the Arab region, while there is no formal framework, the Regional Climate Security Network functions as a regional CPS architecture to promote integrated regional approaches to climate change mitigation[13] and other efforts on CPS programming have been on the table.[14]

However, the integration of youth in both agendas has been uneven and inconsistent across regions, particularly in relation to regional adoption and implementation. Moreover, when regional conversations do occur, they are frequently led by institutions and framed on their terms, with youth tokenised and delimited in their participation.[15]

In SEA and LAC, the YPS and CPS dynamics share several features despite the regions’ distinct historical, political, social and environmental contexts. Both regions have large youth populations who are increasingly recognised as essential contributors to peacebuilding, climate action and democratic participation, but little formal engagement with youth leadership for climate, peace and security.[16]

At the same time, the drivers of insecurity differ between the two regions, shaping the ways youth engage, participate and advocate in their everyday lives and how YPS and CPS are integrated into policy and practice. In LAC, security debates are dominated by urban violence and organised crime, with climate impacts interacting with economic precarity and displacement. This calls for integrated policies that link violence prevention, social protection and climate adaptation at municipal and metropolitan levels.[17] The absence of a strong regional architecture in the region places greater weight on national and civil society leadership, including networks that bridge violence prevention and climate justice.[18] Furthermore, national governments remain largely disengaged from adopting and implementing the YPS agenda, leaving advocates to work independently and with limited resources.[19]

In the case of SEA, subnational conflicts, maritime disputes and uneven civic space mean youth often advance goals within both agendas with the support of regional platforms such as ASEAN, which has made efforts to integrate youth perspectives into peace, security and climate processes through governance, community adaptation and rights advocacy.[20] Nonetheless, youth have also long mobilised independently, including issues on gender equality, ethnic and racial divisions and discrimination, Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) and human rights.[21] However, while there has been increasing youth participation and influence in policy-making (e.g. ASEAN Children & Youth Climate Declaration, known as the Langkawi Declaration), tokenism remains a key challenge, with meaningful participation in decision-making often constrained by institutional follow-through, inconsistent consultation processes and structural barriers that prevent youth from genuinely shaping policy outcomes.[22]

Despite youth work across both areas, the YPS and CPS agendas also remain siloed from each other.[23] Recent efforts, including youth-led and climate-responsive peacebuilding advocacy at the UN Security Council level (UNSC/S2024/207, 2024), signal growing attempts to bridge these agendas, but gaps remain substantial not only in the in linking the agendas but also in including youth perspectives from both regions.

Responding to this landscape, this report examines how youth advocates envision their future at the intersection of climate and security and how both agendas can become valuable instruments to advance youth-led efforts in addressing climate, peace and security issues.

South-South knowledge exchange workshop

On 14/15 January 2026, an online South-South Knowledge Exchange workshop^[24] brought together nine youth peacebuilders and climate activists between the ages of 19 and 35 from SEA and LAC. Each participant is active in a regional network or non-governmental organisation, either in peacebuilding, environment or both (see Table 1). The participants were identified publicly based on their work as well as through existing networks of the research team. 

Table 1: Participant origins and network representation

Country	Regional network/organisation
Bolivia	GYBN LAC – Latin American and the Caribbean Youth Biodiversity Network
Cambodia	Major Group for Children and Youth (MGCY)
Colombia	Life of Pachamama
El Salvador	National Coalition on Youth, Peace and Security
Indonesia	ASEAN Youth Forum/KAMI Damai Indonesia/Youth Action Team Asia-Pacific
Myanmar	Climate Cardinals
Peru	Green Dreams – Latin America
Philippines	Negrosanon Initiative for Climate and Environment (NICE)/UNICEF EAPRO (East Asia and the Pacific Regional Office) Young People’s Action Team / Climate Cardinals
Philippines	Youth Service Philippines (Disaster Response/P/CVE/YPS)

The knowledge exchange workshop was purposefully small in its number of participants, enabling it to become a space where participants could get to engage with and know each other more in-depth, as well as have greater opportunities to participate and share their knowledge. Participants reported that the workshop was valuable to start connections and learn from other advocates.

The workshop was facilitated by the research team and supported by two professional interpreters for English-Spanish simultaneous translation. The workshop lasted two hours, organised in four sessions covering strategies, challenges, regional context and reflections.  The views presented are from participants and not the organisations they represent. Participants had the option of being named or having their contributions included anonymously.

Insights and strategies

Participants in the workshop shared insights on common strategies, as well as the complexities and challenges that activists face within their regions. Their strategies for success, the barriers to their advocacy, and the structural contexts are discussed in turn here.

Youth strategies for regional advocacy: Insights and successes

Youth peacebuilders and environmental activists shared some of their most significant experiences and successful strategies used in their advocacy at regional levels. These are:

Institutional Participation: Attending official events, youth consultations and working groups sustained engagement with ministries, agencies and other youth networks can bring opportunities for youth advocates to educate about and include often marginalised voices.  It also offers the opportunity to link diverse perspectives and agendas to discussions of issues that are often perceived as isolated.

“[I] had joined the National Action Plan working group, especially in the thematic Working Group on youth engagement. It is one of the gateways for us to advocate and also navigate the government’s intentions regarding the youth, peace and security. […] I also had mediated with the government officials, especially in the National Counterterrorism agency, to include more youth, more women, and also include young people with disabilities, to engage it all.”

 (Rhaka, Indonesia)

Coalition-building: Mapping key actors and stakeholders, such as other youth networks, communities, CSOs, NGOs and institutions to co-design actions and strengthen their advocacy can build stronger and more resilient coalitions with initiatives that can scale up, overcoming political changes and backlash. It also enables advocacy across local, regional and global levels. 

“To implement and carry out projects and initiatives, it is very important to find out who are the key stakeholders, who are on the field, in the front line […] because very often, obviously they have the knowledge, and they’ve tested action before, and they’ve got the experience that we need. […] what’s important is… creating the right network so that we can all bring our expertise and knowledge to achieve success with our projects.”

(Juan David, Colombia)

Grassroots mobilisations for awareness and capacity-building: Organising community-level events and dialogues with or without government can promote knowledge sharing, solidarity and the creation of safe spaces for collaborative work. At the same time, bottom-up approaches enable youth to speak more openly, network and strategise, particularly in repressive or violent contexts. Additionally, resources developed by youth and for youth form a part of the capacity-building that youth advocates engage.

“One of my first actions is to find out what is the safe space for me to advocate…I like to connect with people from NGOs, I-NGOs through pre-existing networks, join capacity buildings and discussions, summits, consultations and also connect with people on ground who often don’t get the opportunity to share.”

 (Florence, Myanmar)

“At a global level, we [youth] created a guide with examples on how to act in situations of socioenvironmental conflicts; it was shared online for youth and at events.”

 (Flavia, Bolivia)

Legal and treaty leverage:  While engaging with national government and public officials can be complex for youth activists due to ageism and differing agendas, public campaigns through education, social media, petitions and dialogues that leverage existing laws and policies are efficient strategies for pressuring and making governments accountable. Additionally, some of these legal tools can ensure the safe participation of youth activists, such as in the case of the Escazú Agreement^[25] in LAC.

“In 2024, because of our continued engagement with our Ministry of Environment, we were able to get a cease order in a palm oil plantation that affects Indigenous communities and thus cause the rebel groups to come to their areas.”

(Joshua, Philippines)

“A successful campaign and lobbying effort has been working on the promotion and advocacy of a Regional Treaty for Access to Information, Justice, Participation and the protection of environmental defenders…I.t is not yet enough, but it is a legal basis to guarantee justice for those who defend the land and water.”

(Carlos, El Salvador)

Localisation of global and national agendas: Adapting core principles to the local context is important. This includes understanding other threats and issues that may be impacting communities and how these intersect, such as climate, peace and security. Translating key frameworks or agendas is an initial step to raise awareness within communities about these, to promote local understanding and ownership.

Figure 2: Intersection of threats impacting communities

Source: Authors.

“What really worked well for us [was translating] the national action plan into our regional languages, especially in Bisaya, it is in a manner that we made it bite-sized, where we share what the SDGs are and be able to share what the agenda is. And somehow this continues onto our libraries and onto this good practice.”

(Wacky, Philippines)

“We have worked on the Youth, Peace and Security Agenda, and we have developed the Local Agendas on Youth, Peace and Security, which includes environmental work.”

(Carlos, El Salvador)

While the contexts under which youth peacebuilders and climate advocates work differ, they highlighted the importance of global agendas and treaties as well as coalition building for effective advocacy. Furthermore, their advocacy work is strengthened when they combine insider access to institutional spaces with outside pressure through public and social media campaigns.

Youth advocacy barriers in LAC and SEA

Youth across the two regions noted shared challenges, as well as some that are more prominent in specific contexts. Together, these obstacles highlight systemic barriers that constrain youth participation, inhibit opportunities for intergenerational collaboration and challenge the sustainability of youth-led initiatives.

Shrinking civic space and heightened security risks: Despite institutional attention to the risks youth advocates face,[26] youth in SEA and LAC describe a pervasive climate of fear, intimidation and surveillance when engaging in activism or advocacy work related to climate, peace, security or human rights. Participants across both regions shared experiences of:

• Direct questioning or pressure from authorities, who often interpret youth-led dialogues as signs of dissent or political dissatisfactions
• Criminalisation and persecution, particularly against environmental defenders and peace activists.^[27]
•  Severe threats and intimidations, ranging from online harassment to physical threats, were also particularly stressed by participants in SEA^[28].

“The [government] rhetoric of anti-national, anti-governments rhetoric that is working [against] the communication strategies of the NGOs… regarding the peace and also human rights and climate activists. We all suffer that… because the government are targeting [local] language content, and also, they can track down and terrorise you.”

(anon youth activist)

These security concerns have resulted in a culture of self-censorship where youth opt for safer topics, private discussions or reduced public engagement to avoid drawing negative attention. This is compounded by negative youth stereotypes, where climate and peacebuilding activists are portrayed as destabilising forces or national threats, and a lack of mechanisms and institutions that provide youth not only with a platform for discussion but also for reporting and accountability.[29]

Despite these challenges, youth in both regions continue to mobilise by adapting their advocacy strategies. In LAC, for example, some rely on the Escazú Agreement to safeguard access to information and protect civil rights. In SEA, youth adjust their communication strategies, such as producing content in non-local languages to reduce state scrutiny.  However, youth adapting and operating in these spaces often means young people are forced to make difficult trade-offs between personal safety and the visibility or impact of their work.

Barriers to intergenerational collaboration: Youth highlighted intergenerational tension as a significant obstacle in their advocacy work. Efforts to bring young people together with senior public officials or elders were frequently met with suspicion, as youths’ legitimacy is questioned. This distrust of younger generations contributes to the reluctance of policymakers and leaders to meaningfully engage with young people, further isolating youth and pushing them to seek alternative communities where they are recognised as equals.

“They [the government] feel threatened, just to talk about organising a dialogue with the youth and the local authority. [The organisers]  got questions from the authority, “why do you organise this event? Did you feel not safe in this country? Or is it something that you feel not satisfied about?” […]”

(Dalen, Cambodia)

Despite these tensions, youth advocates emphasised that intergenerational collaboration is crucial for learning, mentorship and shared problem-solving. As noted by one participant, in the case of the Philippines, youth and government cooperation can result in more context-appropriate solutions as these are developed around the realities of the people.

“In the National YPS Coalition at El Salvador, we have a group of senior mentors where we organised a dialogue. But it is also important to talk about an intergenerational but also an intercultural dialogue.”

(Carlos, El Salvador)

Lack of funding and institutional support: Youth described difficulties in securing funding and institutional support.  Stereotypes about youth lacking experience, along with the politicisation of peace and security work, create barriers to financial resources and engagement with policymakers.^[30] As a result, many youth-led organisations limit their work to digital spaces, missing opportunities for strategic engagement, capacity building and influence over policy processes. Without funding and institutional support, youth struggle to scale and sustain their work, despite strong motivation and community efforts.

“There are many youth-led orgs formed for the past few years and often ended as simply social media pages or channels as they cannot move past writing content to raise awareness [and] share digital resources. They’re very important agenda but they do not receive the support to make impact to government or policy or connect with the “adults” or NGOs who will give guidance and support.”

(Florence, Myanmar)

“There are other forms to diversify financial resources that come towards projects and initiatives that many times are unknown and end up being a structural barrier. I think it is important to promote the access to information that can support how [we work]… In my organisation, we have a mapping tool where it shows where the money is and how to access it.”

 (Carlos, Colombia)

Many youth-led organisations work informally and without legal registration, lack a multi-year track record and have limited administrative capacity, which are requirements by most donors.[31] While part of this gap may be attributed to limited trust and a lack of political will from governments to meaningfully include youth in policymaking,^[32] an emphasis on seeking support outside structures also illustrates a wariness to collaborate with government actors. This dynamic ultimately makes it more challenging for youth-led initiatives to secure long-term resourcing and influence formal policy processes.

Lack of shared platforms for cross-regional collaborations: The limited opportunities for shared and accessible cross-regional collaboration constrain knowledge exchange among youth advocates. Youth expressed the need for spaces that allow them not only to discuss climate, peace and security issues but also to share experiences, exchange strategies and collectively address common challenges faced in their advocacy work.

Currently, opportunities for such collaboration are limited by language barriers, institutional constraints and geographic isolation. The absence of safe, inclusive platforms results in siloed activism weakening collective influence at regional and global levels. This fragmentation also restricts access to networks, information and opportunities that could strengthen their advocacy and enhance the sustainability and impact of their initiatives.

“We don’t have this kind of spaces […] to talk about the [advocacy] issues or problems. So, I think that young people right now, we have so much, so many ideas, so much power, so much energy for that, but we are not interconnected, and that’s also a big issue. Also, the language as well. I think in Latin America we have Spanish, but not only Spanish, also many, many native languages as Asia.”

(Barbara, Peru)

The challenges described by youth peacebuilders and climate advocates across SEA and LAC demonstrate a landscape where their activism is constrained by external structural pressures and internal systemic limitations. The shrinking in civic space, criminalisation and funding gaps, combined with the fragmentation from global networks, remain barriers to their advocacy work. Despite their significant motivation, creativity and resilience, youths’ ability to effect long-term change is repeatedly undermined by the absence of enabling environments, safe spaces and sustainable institutional support systems.

Structural challenges and the role of global agendas

Reflecting on their specific contexts, the youth shared insights on why they believe both regions have been overlooked in global agendas. Their reflections highlight not only the disadvantages associated with being young but also the structural inequities faced by those living in the global South.

Enduring historical legacies: The enduring legacy of colonialism and extractivism, which continues to shape social, economic and political structures, was identified as an underlying issue in both regions. These historical patterns influence the relationships between communities, governments and international actors. For example, a participant noted that LAC continues to be one of the most heavily exploited regions in terms of biodiversity, which creates layers of socioeconomic vulnerability and conflict. Similarly, another participant highlighted that SEA’s political structures, such as the ASEAN principle of non-interference, limit the extent to which regional civil society advocacy can influence state policies.

“LAC is currently the region being most heavily exploited in terms of biodiversity. This was the latest IPBES report. This, combined with social, political, and economic crises, places us in a very complex context, because we have unstable and often violent governments that make it difficult to provide solutions to this environmental crisis. We also face high levels of poverty, and with this biodiversity exploitation, people become more vulnerable due to their age, identity, or gender, because there are fewer and fewer resources available to live with dignity.”

(Flavia, Boliva)

Participants also argued that the “overemphasis on conflict” from a global perspective, particularly related to war, sidelines both the violence experienced and the contributions that young people in both regions make to peacebuilding, climate actions, human rights and community resilience^[33]. A participant noted their countries are often perceived as “weaker,” and therefore their innovations, knowledge and local solutions are undervalued even when these could offer crucial lessons for global challenges. This dynamic reinforces historical hierarchies that shape whose expertise is considered legitimate. 

Language barriers: Many of these challenges are further exacerbated by language barriers. Often, many of the documents produced for global agendas are only available in English, limiting equitable access to information and participation^[34]. As a result, youth from LAC and SEA are often unable to fully engage in global conversations, shaping whose voices, knowledge and realities influence global policymaking.

Exclusion of diverse youth: Youth noted other dynamics that limit their visibility in global agendas, such as the systemic exclusion of diverse youth voices (e.g. youth with disabilities), urban-rural divides, underrepresentation of Indigenous perspectives, and intergenerational hierarchies, where youth participation in governance is culturally constrained.

Harnessing global agendas and frameworks: Despite these challenges experienced by youth in both regions, global agendas such as the YPS, human rights frameworks and climate commitments remain essential tools in their peacebuilding and climate advocacy work. They provide a common language about rights-based claims, enabling youth to frame local struggles within broader global movements. These movements also help articulate the intersectionality between peace, rights and climate, making visible the interconnections that shape young people’s experiences.

“These global agendas are very important because […] it’s a way to guarantee our human rights, the rights of people.  For example, in Salvador, we have promoted the  without political support; however, from the communities and territories we understand that they are important instruments to advance towards lasting and durable peace.”

(Carlos, El Salvador)

“The global agenda helped us understand the intersectionality and the relevance in local context. We need to embrace and learn the roots in the relation with local people.”

(Rhaka, Indonesia)

However, youth emphasised that localising these agendas remains a major challenge. In many countries, governments have not integrated these commitments into national policies, leaving implementation largely to the voluntary work of youth and civil society. Without government support, communities struggle to secure the resources needed to translate global commitments into practical and sustainable initiatives.

Recommendations

Youth peacebuilders and climate advocates across SEA and LAC shared their experiences and knowledge through the workshop, often relating to each other and offering new avenues to address issues in their advocacy work. Despite the challenges faced in their work, they remain hopeful about their advocacy work in climate justice and peace. Young people see their work as influencing the future with strategy, planning and taking action.^[35] With these reflections and the challenges experienced by the youth activists in mind, the following recommendations are made to guide future research and practice.

RECOMMENDATION 1

Strengthen safe and enabling civic spaces:

1. Leverage existing treaties and mechanisms such as the Escazú Agreement in LAC and ASEAN soft-law instruments in SEA to safeguard access to information and participation. This must be accompanied by capacity-building, where young activists can understand the mechanisms available to access justice and transparency.
2. Integrate risk-informed approaches into all youth consultations at government and non-government levels to ensure accessible options for anonymous or low-visibility participation if necessary.
3. Strengthen national justice systems to operate independently from political interference and to respond rapidly to cases involving threats, harassment and criminalisation of youth peacebuilders and climate advocates.

RECOMMENDATION 2

Sustainable and flexible funding:

1. Adapt funding application processes and goals by donors to youth local realities instead of pre-established parameters that mostly benefit their own priorities.
2. Expand funding to ensure youth-led initiatives are inclusive of translation and administrative costs.
3. Develop a centralised platform to map funding opportunities for youth to bridge information gaps and reduce the inequities experienced in the funding process.

RECOMMENDATION 3

Promote meaningful intergenerational collaboration:

1. Create intentional and structured spaces where mutual understanding between young people and old, adult stakeholders can engage in genuine dialogue. This involves not only inviting young people to adult-spaces, but rather to develop spaces and activities where adults or seniors also listen and learn from young people, promoting a co-learning environment^[36].
2. Institutionalise youth roles within regional bodies (if these exist) and national ministries where youth play an active role in discussing issues on climate and peace and security as interconnected issues. These roles should have clearly defined mandates, formal influence on decision-making processes and structured follow-up mechanisms to ensure that youth inputs are translated into concrete actions. 
3. Provide targeted education and capacity-building programmes for senior officials, policymakers and institutional leaders to address entrenched negative perceptions of youth and recognise youth as legitimate actors who are already driving positive change in their communities.

RECOMMENDATION 4

Enhance youth access to policymaking and high-level advocacy spaces:

1. Create structured entry points for youth to contribute to regional agendas such as COPs, climate Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) updates, and climate and security plans to overcome issues of connecting with government stakeholders.
2. Provide mentorship and capacity-building tailored to policy engagement, including training on policy drafting, coalition building and safe advocacy strategies.
3. Ensure transparency and accountability by requiring institutions to publicly respond to youth recommendations and explain how they inform policy decisions.
4. Integrate youth-led evidence, research and knowledge into decision-making processes at national and regional levels.

RECOMMENDATION 5

Create platforms for cross-regional collaboration:

1. Establish cross-regional youth collaboration platforms that enable regular exchange on climate, peace, human rights and security issues, supported by multilingual facilitation and accessible communication tools.^[37]
2. Support thematic communities of practice (virtual and in-person) where youth can jointly address shared challenges such as digital safety, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP), strategies for safe mobilisation and others.
3. Address language barriers across and within countries, recognising that communication challenges arise not only between regions but also within diverse linguistic contexts where Indigenous languages are spoken.
   • Ensure institutional investment in multilingual accessibility including translation and interpretation services for regional and cross-regional exchanges; youth-friendly communication tools and the development of material and briefings in multiple languages.
   • Engage local community members as cultural and linguistic mediators in contexts where formal interpretation for Indigenous language does not exist, ensuring that meaning, values and cultural context are accurately conveyed.

RECOMMENDATION 6

Develop research partnerships that centre youth expertise from overlooked regions

1. Prioritise research on emerging intersections between YPS and CPS. Given the limited research on convergence of both agendas in SEA and LAC, the following lines of inquiry are recommended for future research:
   • Localised climate-related drivers of conflict and insecurity affecting youth
   • Youth roles and leadership in climate-related peacebuilding, including local conflict resolution, environmental stewardship, community resilience and the prevention of violence linked to climate pressures
   • Intergenerational dimensions of climate and peace advocacy, examining how stereotypes, power hierarchies and institutional cultures shape youth engagement and influence policy outcomes
   • Local knowledge systems and governance and the role of youth from Indigenous or Afro-descendant communities draw on traditional practices to address climate insecurity and contribute to peacebuilding.
2. Support youth-academic collaborations focused on youth, climate, peace and security as well as some of the challenges mentioned by participants such as civic space dynamics, digital repression, environmental defender protection and youth-led peacebuilding.
3. Document and disseminate good practice from Global South contexts, particularly SEA and LAC to inform global agendas such as YPS and CPS. Research efforts should bring together academics, local youth and practitioners to co-produce knowledge and elevate diverse perspectives.
4. Promote multilingual research dissemination to ensure accessibility and knowledge exchange across regions. Publications should be available not only in English but also in the official and local languages of the context studied.
5. Encourage the publication of research outputs in accessible and user-friendly formats.

Conclusion

Youth peacebuilders and climate advocates across SEA and LAC, despite being geographically distant to each other, share challenges and successes in their advocacy work in climate justice and peace and security.

Youth activists shared strategies including the use of legal treaties to ensure their civil rights such as their participation and access to information are respected; coalition building to strengthen advocacy efforts; institutional participation, even when this sometimes may be tokenistic or symbolic; grassroot mobilisation and capacity-building for raising awareness; and the localisation of global and national agendas.

While these successes came from their strategic advocacy, they also experience obstacles in their work. Despite the differing contexts in each region, youth shared experiences of state repression, marginalisation and criminalisation often placing youth in a position where their decisions to continue their work relies on assessing risks. Lack of funding and institutional support also marginalises their voices in the policymaking process. Hierarchical dynamics continue to challenge their meaningful engagement and participation at institutional levels. Finally, lack of cross-regional collaboration limits their possibilities to learn from others.

Global agendas are valued by youth as reference points and enabling frameworks, yet localisation remains challenging. Colonial legacies, western-centric funding designs and administrative requirements that exclude youth organisations create systemic barriers to access and participation. In this context, the burden of translating global commitments into practice often falls on youth organisations and CSOs with limited resources. While their efforts have been already creating impact in their nations and regions, sustainable progress requires governments and regional bodies to integrate YPS and CPS into national policies and plans. This must also be accompanied by involving diverse youth more meaningfully so that their needs and those of their communities are addressed as their voices are at the centre of policies.

Global agendas for peace and climate justice must become more inclusive of youth from often overlooked regions whose experiences and voices have been historically marginalised, ensuring global discussions and frameworks are shaped by the diversity of knowledge emerging from regions such as SEA and LAC. Advancing peace and climate security in both regions depend on recognising youth as co-architects of solutions, resourcing leadership, safeguarding their participation and bridging the divide between YPS and CPS. Doing so will not only enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of policy responses but also root them in the lived realities, innovations and knowledge of young people, who are both the most impacted and most engaged in peacebuilding and climate justice.

---

About the authors

Ingrid Valladares

Ingrid Valladares is a Research Associate affiliated with Griffith University, Australia. She is a decolonial scholar whose work bridges Latin American critical thought and Global North academic traditions. She holds a PhD from QUT, where her research theorised intergenerational dialogue and its role in young people’s political participation. Her research centres on examining youth’s agency and intergenerational dynamics in global politics, particularly in peacebuilding, sustainability and environmental justice. She has previously worked across government, non-profit and community sectors in Ecuador and Australia. She holds a Dual Bachelor of Economics, a Bachelor of Education and a Master of International Relations.

Erika Isabel Bulan Yague

Erika Isabel Bulan Yague is a PhD Candidate at Griffith University with over a decade of experience in humanitarian emergency, peacebuilding, and disaster risk reduction, working across government, civil society, and the United Nations. Erika’s research sits at the intersection of youth peace and security, emergencies and inclusive governance, with a focus on translating policy into practice. She also holds a Master’s in Peace and Conflict Studies (University of Queensland), a Bachelor of Science in Community Development (University of the Philippines), and a Professional Certificate in Youth, Peace and Security Leadership (Columbia University).

Helen Berents

Helen Berents is Associate Professor in the School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia and a member of the Griffith Asia Institute. She is a feminist scholar centrally interested in the interconnected areas of the presence and roles of young people in global politics; everyday experiences of conflict and peacebuilding; and local-global relations in peace and security governance. Her work is motivated by a genuine belief in the importance of recognising the contributions and capacities of young people in navigating violence and building peace. She lives and works on the unceded lands of the Turrbal and Yuggera Peoples.

Notes and references

---

[1]      Anaya Jiménez, L. M., & Ali, K. (2025). Generation Peace: Youth-driven solutions for security in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Youth Leading Change (pp. 147–159). Springer; ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (ASEAN-IPR). (2025). Regional study on Youth, Peace and Security (YPS). https://asean-aipr.org/media/library/asean-ipr-yps-21-07-25.pdf

[2]     Caballero-Anthony, M., Trajano, J. C. I., Cook, A. D. B., Nanthini, S., Montesclaros, J. M. L. P., Landicho, K. P. C., & Goh, D. L. (2024, January 23). Climate change and its impact on peace and security in Southeast Asia. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/UN-Report-RSIS-Climate-Change-and-Its-Impact-on-Peace-and-Security-in-Southeast-Asia-Online-Version.pdf; Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), & UNICEF. (2025). The impact of climate change on child and youth poverty in Latin America. https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/82427-impact-climate-change-child-and-youth-poverty-latin-america

[3]     Berents, H. (2022). Power, partnership, and youth as norm entrepreneurs: Getting to UN Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace, and Security. Global Studies Quarterly, 2(3), ksac038; Berents, H., & Mollica, C. (2022). Reciprocal institutional visibility: Youth, Peace and Security and “inclusive” agendas at the United Nations. Cooperation and Conflict, 57(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367211007873; Simpson, G. (2018). The Missing Peace: Independent Progress Study on Youth and Peace and Security’, Progress Study on Youth, Peace and Security. New York: UN; United Nations Secretary-General. (2024). Youth and peace and security: Second report of the Secretary-General (S/2024/207). United Nations.

[4]     Ide, T., Bruch, C., Carius, A., Conca, K., Dabelko, G. D., Matthew, R., & Weinthal, E. (2021). The past and future(s) of environmental peacebuilding. International Affairs, 97(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa177;  

IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate doi:10.1017/9781009325844; Folke Bernadotte Academy, United Nations Development Programme and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute(FBA, UNDP, and SIPRI) (2024). Beyond Vulnerability: A Guidance Note on Youth, Climate, Peace, and Security. Stockholm: Sweden; Gan, S. (2025). Youth Climate Funding Study: Mapping the funding landscape for youth-led climate solutions. Youth Climate Justice Fund, in collaboration with Climatenetworks Foundation. https://ycjf.org/ycfs-2025

[5]     Anaya Jiménez, L. M., & Upadhyay, M. (2025). YPS regionalisation: Mapping existing constellations . Global Coalition on Youth, Peace and Security: Regionalisation Working Group. 
https://www.sparkblue.org/system/files/2025-12/YPS%20Regionalisation%20-%20Mapping%20Existing%20Constellations.pdf

[6]     African Union Peace and Security Council. (2020a). Communiqué—Adopted by the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union (AU) at its 933rd meeting held on 23 June 2020 on youth, peace and security in Africa (PSC/PR/COMM.(CMXXXIII)). African Union; African Union Peace and Security Council. (2020b). 10-year implementation plan for the Continental Framework on Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) 2020–2029. African Union.

[7]     Berents, H., & Prelis, S. (2020). More than a milestone: Road to UNSCR 2250 on YPS. Search for Common Ground.

[8]     League of Arab States (LAS). (2023). The Arab Strategy for Youth, Peace and Security 2023–2028. United NationS. https://dppa.dfs.un.org/sites/default/files/en_report_final_for_web.pdf

[9]     European Union. (2018). EU conference on Youth, Peace and Security—Summary report: Promoting youth in peacebuilding (23–24 May, Brussels). European Union.

[10]    African Union. (2022). African Union Climate Change and Resilient Development Strategy Action Plan (2022-2032). African Union. https://au.int/en/documents/20220628/african-union-climate-change-and-resilient-development-strategy-and-action-plan

[11]    Newton Cain, T. (2020). Let’s hear it for the Boe. Security Challenges, 16(1), 32-36; Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2018). Boe Declaration Action Plan.https://forumsec.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/BOE-document-Action-Plan.pdf

[12]    European Commission. (2023). A new outlook on the climate and security nexus: Addressing the impact of climate change and environmental degradation on peace, security and defence. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2023/JOIN_2023_19_1_EN_ACT_part1_v7.pdf

[13]    Arab Water Council & League of Arab States. (n.d.). Regional Climate Security Network.  https://rcsn.arabwatercouncil.org/

[14]    CGIAR FOCUS Climate Security, Adelphi, UNDP &WFP. (2023). Climate, Peace and Security Programming in the Arab States: Considerations for integrated programming in Jordan, Yemen, Iraq and Somalia.  https://www.undp.org/arab-states/publications/climate-peace-and-security-programming-arab-states-considerations-integrated-programming-jordan-yemen-iraq-and-somalia

[15]    Berents, H. (2025). “What we give up to get where we’re going”: Compromise in the institutionalizing of youth peace advocacy. Globalizations, 22(3), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2024.2408077; Kwon, S. A. (2019). The politics of global youth participation. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(7), 926–940.

[16]    Valladares Gonzalez, I. (2024). Exploring intergenerational dialogue in youth-led social movements: The case of Yasunidos in Ecuador (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology);

Yague, E. I. B., & Gómez, L. D. D. (2022). Advancing Youth, Peace and Security in Southeast Asia. United Nations.  https://www.youth4peace.info/files/system/files/2022-07/220603%20yps%20sea%20thematic%20paper_clean.pdf; Yague, E. I. B., & Berents, H. (2025). The paradox of youth engagement: The role of young people in historical and contemporary Southeast Asian peace. The Pacific Review, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2025.2507599; United Network of Young Peacebuilders. (2021). Hacia una Agenda Latinoamericana de Juventudes, Paz y Seguridad. The Hague: UNOY; ASEAN-IPR Regional Study on YPS.

[17]    Abdenur, A.E., Kuele, G., & Amorim, A. (Eds). (2019). Clima y seguridad en América Latina y el Caribe. Institutio Igarape. https://novo2025.igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-02-publication-Clima-and-Security-ES-web.pdf; Organization of American States (OAS). (2018). Youth, peace and security in the Americas: Risks and opportunities for Central American and Caribbean youth. https://www.youth4peace.info/files/system/files/2018-04/15.%20cfr_yps%20in%20the%20americas%20-%20central%20american%20and%20caribbean%20youth%20-%20oas_0.pdf; UNDP. (2023). Guidance note: Climate, peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean. https://www.undp.org/latin-america/publications/guidance-note-climate-peace-and-security-latin-america-and-caribbean

[18] UNDP Guidance note.

[19] Anaya Jiménez & Ali, ‘Generation Peace’; Anaya Jiménez & Upadhyay, YPS Regionalisation.

[20] ASEAN-IPR Regional Study on YPS; Caballero-Anthony et al, Climate change and its impact on peace and security in Southeast Asia.

[21] Yague & Gomes, Advancing YPS

[22] ASEAN-IPR, Regional Study on YPS; UNICEF Malaysia. (2025, September 4). ASEAN youth hand over Langkawi Declaration on the Climate to ministers (Press release). https://www.unicef.org/malaysia/press-releases/asean-youth-hand-over-langkawi-declaration-climate-ministers; Yague, Erika Isabel Bulan & Nong, Linh. (2025). Young People Shaping Southeast Asian Peace. In Youth Leading Change (pp. 133–146).

[23] FBA, UNDP & SIPRI, Guidance Note.

[24] This study received ethics approval from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (GU Ref#: 2025/868)

[25] The Escazú Agreement in 2018 became the first regional treaty in LAC focused on protecting environmental defenders, providing access to information and justice. However, it has also been linked to peace processes such as the Colombia Peace Accord. The Aarhus Convention, a similar treaty, was signed in 1998 and adopted by European countries. In SEA, since 2024, efforts to develop its region’s first environmental rights framework, similar to other regions started.

[26]    Izsák-Ndiaye, R. (2023). If I disappear: Global report on protecting young people in civic space. United Network of Young Peacebuilders. https://unoy.org/downloads/if-i-disappear-global-report-on-protecting-young-people-in-civic-space/

[27]  An example mentioned by one of the participants was that of Delpedro Marhaen in Indonesia, which echoes the case of many other youth activists in SEA and LAC. Delpedro Marhaen is a lawyer and human rights activist who was imprisoned by the Jakarta Metropolitan Police due to allegations of spreading misinformation about youth-led protests in Indonesia in August 202. Other cases exist, such as that of Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro in the Philippines in 2023, where they were kidnapped and tortured for defending the community lands from the construction of a Manila airport (Global Witness, (2024, September 10). Voces silenciadas: La violencia contra las personas defensoras de la tierra y el medioambiente. https://globalwitness.org/es/campaigns/land-and-environmental-defenders/voces-silenciadas/).  Amnesty International has documented many cases across both regions of those who advocate for climate justice, disappearing, being threatened, murdered and imprisoned 2025). América: Perspectiva regional 2024 https://www.amnesty.org/es/location/americas/report-americas/

[28] The increasing online harassment experienced in the region urged human rights defenders from ASEAN member states to call for a rights-based approach to tackle the surge in hate speech, disinformation and harmful online content that is resulting in state repressive measures and state-sponsored disinformation campaigns (International Commission of Jurists, (2025, August 27). ASEAN: ICJ and human rights defenders from Southeast Asia urge a rights-based approach to countering harmful online content. International Commission of Jurists. 
https://www.icj.org/asean-icj-and-human-rights-defenders-from-southeast-asia-urge-a-rights-based-approach-to-countering-harmful-online-content/)

[29] Izsák-Ndiaye, R. (2023). If I disappear: Global report on protecting young people in civic space. United Nations. https://unoy.org/downloads/if-i-disappear-global-report-on-protecting-young-people-in-civic-space/

[30] The lack of funding, ‘piecemeal resource capacity’ and inflated grant processes has been noted in youth-led peacebuilding by Mollica, C. (2022) “Resourcing Youth-Led Peace Work: Commit to the Long Term and the Local” Australian Outlook. 24 March.

[31] Anaya Jiménez and Upadhyay, YPS Regionalisation, p20

[32] Reports by the OECD (2022. Atender a la juventud: Cómo los gobiernos pueden situar a los jóvenes en el centro de la recuperación. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/es/publications/reports/2022/03/delivering-for-youth-how-governments-can-put-young-people-at-the-centre-of-the-recovery_4cf5236f/d1689664-es.pdf) and CAF – Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina y el Caribe, Organismo Internacional de Juventud para Iberoamérica, & UNDP (2024. Gobernabilidad y juventudes en América Latina y el Caribe (Serie Desafíos, Cuadernillo 2). https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-04/es_oij_dg_cuadernillo2_desafios_juventud_1.pdf) found that youth and youth organisations lack trust in their governments. They reported feeling overlooked in policymaking processes, which contributed to concerns about their human rights, access to public services, age-based inequalities, racial discrimination, political polarisation and the perceived lack of governmental commitment to addressing climate change.

[33] In 2021, an intergenerational meeting was held. The report and roadmap “Urgent need for positive peace with youth at its center” highlights insights from youth across the LAC region where peace is defined as “ a process of active and sustainable construction” with youth as “political subjects” and drivers of change.” 

[34] Berents (2026), creator of the first YPS Database that compiles public and official documents, academic dissertations and relevant work on Youth, Peace and Security, noted in The YPS Observer that there is a “language bias” in YPS publications, with 98% of these being in English. https://theypsobserver.substack.com/p/yps-database-significant-update-and.

[35] Hopeful, strategy and action were words shared by two participants in the “Reflections and future imagining” where they were asked to reflect on the future of their peacebuilding and climate change advocacy work.

[36] The creation of co-learning spaces enables the recognition of both youth and adults as critical and reflexive agents where diverse realities are shared, reshaping the way politics is understood as well as recognising the opportunities of bidirectional learning (Valladares, I. (2026). Young environmental activism and intergenerational structures in social movements. In S. Akram & B. Bowman (Eds.), Routledge handbook of young people’s environmental activism. Routledge.

[37] This Knowledge Exchange workshop was a first, limited effort towards this. These spaces should be organised more frequently, including with other regions.