Remarks from “Advancing the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Agenda through Capacity Building for Conflict Prevention and Human Rights Protection”

Her full remarks follow.

---

Good afternoon, Your Excellencies, distinguished colleagues,

Thank you to the Permanent Missions of Malawi and Sierra Leone, and to IWPG Switzerland, for co-hosting today’s conversation. It’s a privilege to speak alongside dedicated diplomats, advocates, and peacebuilders committed to advancing the Women, Peace and Security agenda.

My name is Katrina Leclerc. I am the Chair of the Women, Peace and Security Network – Canada, a coalition of activists, researchers, and practitioners working at the intersection of feminist foreign policy, peacebuilding, and rights-based approaches. I am calling in today from the lands of Tsawwassen First Nation, on the beautiful West Coast of Canada. This afternoon, I bring forward findings from a recent initiative led by members of our Network with support from the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives through the Permanent Mission of Canada to the UN in New York—focused on how we can strengthen partnerships between governments and civil society to meaningfully advance the WPS agenda.

We convened dialogues with WPS networks similar to ours, as well as a wide range of WPS actors in Canada, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, Nigeria, and Rwanda. These included bilateral engagements, a global Learning Lab on Women, Peace and Security, and a membership-wide survey. The insights and recommendations that emerged are grounded in the lived experiences of civil society advocates from across 19 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Canada, Colombia, the DRC, Fiji, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Palestine, Rwanda, Serbia, South Sudan, Switzerland, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 

Across all these spaces, one core theme emerged:

The success of WPS depends on relationships.

Not just frameworks. Not just policy language. But real, reciprocal relationships built on trust, transparency, and accountability.

It may sound obvious, but this is precisely what is too often missing in practice.

Let me start with where the gaps are.

This is not a procedural issue. It’s a power imbalance. And it undermines the legitimacy and sustainability of the very processes governments are trying to strengthen.

Second, localization and decolonization efforts are being watered down.

We heard from participants in Bukavu, in Medellín, in Baalbek—that while governments frequently invoke “localization,” in practice it often remains limited to consultations in national capitals or participation by large NGOs.

But for those on the ground, localization means ownership—the ability for communities most affected by violence and exclusion to shape priorities tailored to local needs, lead implementation, and define what peace looks like for them.

True localization is not about ticking a box. It’s about redistributing power. It means recognizing that women and gender-diverse peacebuilders in conflict-affected regions are not only beneficiaries—they are leaders, strategists, and organizers.

And yet, they continue to operate with little to no flexible funding, limited access to decision-making spaces, and significant personal risk.

Third, the gap between stated commitments and actual implementation is growing.

Yes, 113 countries now have WPS National Action Plans. But we cannot confuse adoption with effectiveness.

What we heard across the board is that implementation falters when it’s divorced from justice. When it fails to account for systemic oppression, intersectional realities, and rising authoritarianism.

We heard from colleagues in Lebanon who asked: How can I talk about the NAP when there’s an active war? How can a national plan possibly meet the needs of 1.4 million displaced people without a rights-based framework?

WPS cannot be separated from the broader demands for justice, accountability, and protection of rights in times of crisis.

We cannot focus only on increasing the number of women at peace tables while ignoring the criminalization of protest, the shrinking of civic space, and the rise in gender-based violence.

Fourth, funding mechanisms remain one of the greatest structural barriers.

Grassroots actors are being asked to lead community-based peacebuilding, monitor policy implementation, and conduct advocacy—without sustainable funding. Many described navigating overly complex application processes, short-term grants, or being shut out by eligibility requirements that favour larger, better-connected organizations.

We need to say it plainly: without accessible and flexible funding, participation is not meaningful.

Short-term project grants do not support long-term peacebuilding.

And intermediaries who impose their own agendas dilute the impact of frontline work. We need funding structures that reflect the realities of the people we say we want to support—and that includes trust-based resourcing.

So where do we go from here? What does meaningful government-civil society partnership actually require?

From our year-long consultations, we have developed clear, actionable recommendations—many of which I believe are applicable across contexts:

1. Centre justice across all four pillars of WPS.

WPS is not just about participation—it’s about redressing structural violence. Governments must align WPS with other Security Council resolutions on justice and accountability, including on conflict-related sexual violence. Plans must be responsive to displacement, militarization, and political repression—not just inclusion metrics.

2. Develop mechanisms for true co-creation—not just consultation.

Engage civil society early, often, and with transparency. Ensure feedback loops are closed. Provide clear timelines, realistic expectations, and clarity on what can and cannot change. Consultation without feedback is extraction.

3. Invest in independent civil society convenings.

Before asking grassroots leaders to join government-led processes, support their ability to strategize and consult internally. This fosters more coordinated, informed engagement and avoids placing the burden on individuals.

4. Make funding accessible and intersectional.

Reduce bureaucratic barriers, extend grant timelines, and offer core funding. Design funding criteria in ways that include groups led by Indigenous women, racialized women, young women, LGBTQI+ peacebuilders, and women living with disabilities.

5. Institutionalize shared accountability.

Create structures—like Canada’s WPS Advisory Group established under its second NAP and continued under its third—that are co-chaired and function as ongoing mechanisms for shared learning and course correction. But these spaces must be equipped with resources and authority to influence policy, not just provide input.

6. Resist the urge to depoliticize peacebuilding.

Peacebuilding is inherently political. So is feminist foreign policy. And civil society must be free to speak truth to power—even when it’s uncomfortable. Governments must welcome that discomfort if they are serious about transformative change.

We also urge the international community to view WPS not only as a standalone agenda, but as a core part of how we respond to today’s global crises—from climate change, to forced displacement, to attacks on democracy and human rights. In essence, WPS is a precursor to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

We cannot advance gender equality without addressing militarism. We cannot protect peacebuilders while enabling arms exports. And we cannot localize peace while centralizing power.

Let me return, finally, to the idea of partnership.

In our sessions, one participant said:

“Partnership is a word we hear a lot. But in practice, it often feels like we are junior associates in a process we didn’t design.”

That has to change.

Partnership cannot be conditional on deference. It cannot end when the funding cycle ends. And it cannot be reduced to photo ops.

Partnership is built over time. It is tested through disagreement. And it thrives when it is grounded in mutual accountability, respect, and shared purpose.

We must also remember that civil society is not monolithic. Within our networks are contradictions, tensions, and dynamic debates. That’s a strength—not a weakness. Governments must recognize and make space for these realities rather than defaulting to the most palatable or familiar voices.

So let me close with this:

The Women, Peace and Security agenda was not born in a boardroom. It was forged in protest, in organizing, in resistance to systems that perpetuate violence and exclusion. Much of which is thanks to the tireless activism of racialized women peacebuilders in conflict-affected communities.

That spirit must remain central as we confront the challenges ahead. Civil society is not simply a stakeholder to be engaged. It is the engine of this agenda. It is where innovation happens. It is where accountability is built.

And it is only by honouring those voices—not just in words, but in action—that we will see the kind of peace this agenda promises.

Thank you.

---

The views in this blog are those of the author only and do not necessarily represent those of the WPSN-C or its membership.