The United Nations peacebuilding architecture—consisting of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), the secretary-general’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), and the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO)—is undergoing its fourth review since its creation in 2005. The purpose of the Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR) is to strengthen the UN’s capacity to prevent conflict and build sustainable peace. Unlike previous processes, this one is taking place against the backdrop of member states’ reduced financial commitments to development and humanitarian aid; the UN80 reform initiative; the process to select the next secretary-general; and a legitimacy crisis for the UN as multiple conflicts, including in Sudan, Gaza, and Ukraine, persist without resolution.

“National ownership” is a core principle of the UN’s approach to peacebuilding, but its meaning in practice has been debated by member states throughout the PBAR. For some, it is a matter of sovereignty, with national institutions shaping and driving the peacebuilding process. For others, it is a matter of local ownership, with peacebuilding going beyond the state to include community-based and civil society organizations. The latter understanding—of national ownership as local ownership—is the only sustainable path forward. After all, peace is not a one-size-fits-all concept. It means different things to different people: for some, it means security and having basic needs met; for others, it means justice, dignity, and inclusion; and for others still, it means respect between nations. Peace is all of these at once—an evolving journey of individuals, communities, countries, and humankind.

Local ownership requires community-based and local peacebuilding civil society to be equal partners with governments and funders, from strategic decision making to implementation. This is not only a moral imperative, but also one of sustainability and efficiency. Local peacebuilders possess deep contextual knowledge, have the trust of communities, and can implement cost-effective solutions, making them uniquely positioned to respond rapidly to crises and lead sustainable peacebuilding efforts.

Locally Owned Processes and the Barriers to Implementation

While the traditional approach to national ownership—centered on national governments—has helped tailor peacebuilding efforts to country-specific contexts, it does not incorporate the broader perspectives needed to promote and practice peace from the individual level to the national level. A locally owned process can support this endeavor.

Over the years, some member states have become more committed to locally led and owned processes that place civil society at the center. These include the 2015 PBAR, the Grand Bargain and its commitment to localize humanitarian aid in 2016, the Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development announced in 2022, and the UN General Assembly’s 2022 resolution on financing for peacebuilding.

But implementation of these commitments has been inconsistent. Shifting to a locally led and owned model is not only about shifting resources; it is about trust, truth, power, inclusion, and collaboration. When listened to closely, communities often already know the solutions to their problems. What they need is the technical support to plan, organize, and implement those solutions.

Yet several significant barriers remain to advancing truly locally led and owned models.

Complex funding criteria designed by international NGOs, donors, and multilateral organizations tend to unintentionally exclude community-based and local peacebuilding civil society. Grant applications are filled with technical jargon, lengthy forms, and rigid requirements. This lack of flexibility removes many local actors from the competition for funding—not because they lack competence but because many are young organizations with little prior experience accessing grants. Donors’ mistrust of local grantees entrenches these barriers to accessibility and partnership. As a result, funding decisions are often based more on how well a proposal is written and complies with donor requirements rather than on whether resources will meaningfully support communities.

Another barrier is misperceptions over the role of governments, donors, and international NGOs, in locally owned peacebuilding processes. The assumption is sometimes that locally owned processes exclude these actors rather than positioning them as supportive and complementary partners. As a result, some governments resist shifts toward locally led processes because they see them as challenges to sovereignty or to their own control of resources. Some community-based and local peacebuilding actors may also be resistant to the continued involvement of donors and international NGOs, whose behaviors they see as rooted in racism and neocolonial mindsets that contribute to a reluctance to change.

Local Ownership in Practice

What does a locally led approach look like in practice? The partnership between Peace Direct and Ladies Empowerment Goals and Support Initiative (LEGASI) offers a concrete example of how locally led initiatives can prevent and address the root causes of violent conflict.

LEGASI is a women-led, community-based NGO working in Nigeria that promotes peace through effective community dialogue and mediation, training in evidence-based advocacy, and political and socioeconomic empowerment. It has participated in Peace Direct’s intermediary funding model called the Local Action Fund (LAF), which inverts the NGO pyramid by prioritizing local and community-based organizations, trusting hub organizations like LEGASI to co-create with communities, and offering flexibility for inclusion and impact. Through LAF, LEGASI convenes open discussions with community members to identify priorities for peace. As LEGASI members often note, “Peace cannot be built on an empty stomach.” Through dialogue, LEGASI is able to better understand the basic needs of the community to build sustainable peace.

In Colombia, another Peace Direct partner works with the government to create an alternative to compulsory military service. The Social Service for Peace replaces weapons with tools and military discipline with social projects that transform communities. Instead of spending long days in barracks, young people help build houses in conflict-affected areas. Instead of preparing for war, they learn about human rights, reconciliation, and how to heal social and psychological wounds. This program gives young people the chance to channel their energy, passion, and talents into building a more just country.

Getting to this point of partnership was not easy. For years, proposals to create this service were rejected by Congress. The arrival of a government committed to “Total Peace,” however, opened the door. More than 200 young people from across the country gathered in Congress to discuss how to make it a reality. They came with stories, dreams, and a determination to show that peace is not simply a word but something that can be built—if those who need it most are heard. Today, this program is codified into law. This demonstrated how locally led peacebuilding could be undertaken through partnerships between local peacebuilding organizations and governments.

Making Peacebuilding More Holistic

Building on these and other examples, there are several ways that member states and the UN Secretariat can help bring the concept of local ownership from concept to practice across the UN peacebuilding architecture.

Member states and the UN Secretariat should better institutionalize the inclusion of community-based and local peacebuilding civil society in the strategic and decision-making processes of the PBC. In the PBAR negotiations, some member states have proposed options to ensure that civil society is systematically included in the deliberations of the PBC, such as by establishing a standing committee composed of civil society, member states, and the UN or creating advisory roles for civil society. Should these proposals come to fruition, they should include a follow-up mechanism to ensure that recommendations from civil society are tracked, acted upon, and reported back on. There should also be a learning loop whereby outcomes of these mechanisms are regularly reviewed, lessons are documented, and practices are adapted over time. This would also be beneficial for member states by providing a clear record of PBC activities, demonstrating progress over time, and enabling more efficient and adaptive use of resources.

At the PBF, there has already been significant progress in ensuring that financial resources reach local communities more directly, particularly marginalized groups such as women and youth, through the Gender and Youth Promotion Initiatives. In Sudan, for example, the PBF supported projects implemented by international and local civil society organizations to reduce tensions over scarce resources. The effort included building water infrastructure, distributing seeds for farming, and helping communities regain stability. These programs demonstrate that bringing the UN closer to local communities can be achieved without major restructuring or moving of offices. While this funding could still be more flexible and direct, these initiatives are a strong start and should be further expanded.

At the country level, in 2020, the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) and PBSO convened a joint UN–civil society working group to develop the UN system-wide Community Engagement Guidelines on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace. These guidelines were designed to strengthen coordination across the UN by systematizing practices. Developed through an open and consultative process with and for civil society, they aim to ensure that the UN “directly involves local populations in all aspects of decision-making and implementation to strengthen local capacities, community structures, and local ownership.” Despite their potential, however, the guidelines have not received sufficient visibility or support within the system. The drafting and consensus-building phase was an important first step, but the real challenge now lies in ensuring their implementation.

Implementing the guidelines requires ensuring meaningful local engagement and inclusion across UN field presences. Toward this end, member states should, where possible, require UN field presences to develop explicit and measurable objectives for local engagement. They should also encourage them to undertake joint conflict analysis and strategy design with local peacebuilding civil society and allocate a defined share of their budgets to support local peacebuilding. Resident coordinators and peace and development advisers will have a critical role to play in these efforts, particularly if the UN80 reform breaks down the power of central UN hubs like New York and Geneva and shifts it closer to country or regional offices. UN80 presents an opportunity to reform the system to create and sustain a culture of inclusion and equal partnership with community-based and local peacebuilding civil society. This cultural shift is crucial to move away from a centralized mindset and create space for community-based and local peacebuilding actors to lead.

Finally, member states should intentionally focus on and invest in locally led prevention efforts. Effective prevention efforts require community-based and local peacebuilding civil society to lead the design and implementation of programs. Their deep contextual knowledge and community relationships enable them to identify risks early, and detect warning signs of atrocities before national, regional or international actors, and provide critical insights for timely, context-specific responses.

However, these prevention efforts cannot work in isolation. The building blocks of peace are insufficient without parallel development and humanitarian support. For sustainable progress, different parts of the UN peacebuilding architecture must play complementary roles. The PBC can leverage its convening power to bring together governments, funders, and civil society around shared prevention priorities; the PBF can channel flexible resources directly to local actors; and PBSO can capture lessons and improve coordination across the system. Together, they can strengthen the systems that deliver essential services and ensure they have a tangible impact for populations torn apart by violent conflict.

From Competition to Partnership

The 2025 PBAR is taking place amid immense global need and heightened expectations. But sustainable peace cannot be imposed; it must be co-created. Member states now have the opportunity to shift power and processes in ways that turn commitments into reality. A locally owned process is not charity, but a partnership. It must be grounded in the fundamentals of trust, humility, respect, and mutuality. Yet local actors consistently tell us that this is not how they experience engagement with the Global North, nor do they see commitments being implemented. This disconnect reflects entrenched mindsets and worldviews that prevent us from embracing the values needed to transform our approach. Moving from competition to partnership requires more than rhetoric; it demands structural change and genuine accountability.

Contributions by Emine Sinjatari, Ana Escobar and Vahe Mirikian.