Peace practitioner: “Supporting inclusivity means more than inviting voices in; it’s about creating the conditions for those voices to influence peace and dialogue”

Johanna Poutanen serves as Head of Inclusion and Digital Innovation at CMI – Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation, leading the organization’s priority on strengthening the role of women in peace processes and enhancing gender-sensitive mediation capacities of key actors globally. Prior to this, she worked for Demo Finland to support constructive cross-party dialogue in transition contexts, and worked for a variety of international agencies in the field of peace and security, including the Strategic Planning Unit of the UN Secretary-General in New York, the Finnish Embassy in Nepal and various community dialogue initiatives around the world.

1. How can civil society, regional and non-state stakeholders help fill the gaps in peace mediation left by weakened multilateral frameworks?

The future of peace mediation will be more fragmented. The era of one formal peace process led by a single multilateral actor appears to be behind us. In today’s landscape of geopolitical volatility, we are witnessing a troubling prioritization of militarized responses over diplomatic solutions. Yet this shift must not obscure the enduring need – and urgent relevance – of dialogue and mediation. Rather than viewing military and diplomatic tracks as mutually exclusive, we need to advocate for an approach that reaffirms space for dialogue even amid security-driven contexts.

Regional, civil society and non-state actors bring diversity of perspectives and legitimacy to peace efforts, but fragmentation also brings risks of duplication, competition and incoherence. What’s needed now is connective tissue: alignment across actors, regions and tracks. Organizations like CMI can help provide that connective infrastructure, ensuring that flexible, context-sensitive mediation efforts are not working at cross-purposes.

With an optimistic lens, this transition can be seen as a moment of possibility and renewal. If we take it seriously, the current disruption may open space to rethink how mediation is done, who defines it, and whose voices shape its priorities.

2. What are the best strategies to ensuring gender-sensitive mediation in conflicts?

Two key challenges stand out. First, inclusion is fundamentally political. It challenges entrenched power structures and will inevitably face resistance, whether overt or subtle. Recognizing and addressing this resistance requires close collaboration with national stakeholders and context-specific strategies to navigate political constraints.

Second, we often operate with overly fixed ideas of what gender-responsive mediation looks like. Metrics such as the number of women at the table or the inclusion of gender provisions are important, but they can also limit our imagination. Gender-responsive mediation must go beyond quotas or checklists. It should encompass a broader spectrum of strategies that consider how gendered power operates within specific contexts. This begins with rigorous analysis: mapping diverse forms of existing participation and possible contribution – both direct and indirect – and identifying who is best positioned to advance inclusion. The responsibility cannot fall solely on the mediator, although the mediator also has a responsibility to bear. Civil society, national decision-makers, technical experts, insider mediators and regional actors may all play pivotal roles. Our toolbox is deep. In practice, impact comes from tailoring approaches to fit each context – knowing which actors to engage and what strategies to prioritize.

3. What lessons can you share about promoting inclusivity in peace and dialogue?

Across the diverse contexts in which I’ve worked – from South Sudan to Yemen, Nepal and Palestine – there is a consistent and long-standing demand for inclusive dialogue. But what’s often missing is the infrastructure to support it.

In my role at CMI, we focus on investing in the structures that make inclusion possible. That means facilitating spaces – both physical and digital – where dialogue can happen and continue over time. These aren’t just one-off events, but structured, long-term processes that enable actors to build trust, develop ideas and shape decision-making. For example, CMI has worked with Yemeni women politicians who, due to geography and security concerns, cannot safely convene inside Yemen. We help provide the framework and physical space for them to meet elsewhere in the region. That space allows them to build trust across ideological divides and maintain a common platform, despite intense polarization and external pressures.

Ultimately, supporting inclusivity means more than inviting voices in; it’s about creating the conditions for those voices to influence peace and dialogue on their own terms.

4. How has your academic and field experience shaped your approach to gender-sensitive conflict management?

Both academic research and fieldwork nurture critical thinking, but in different ways. Academia trains you to question assumptions, to examine the structural forces behind policy frameworks, and to interrogate the language we use around concepts like inclusion and gender. It sharpens your analytical lens. At the same time, field experience constantly reminds you that there is no universal model. Every context challenges you to adapt, and any attempt to apply a one-size-fits-all approach will quickly fall short.

This tension has shaped how I approach gender and inclusion in mediation: not as a fixed template to be implemented, but as a flexible, evolving practice grounded in political realities. Policy guidance can be helpful but only if applied with a deep sensitivity to power dynamics, social context and institutional culture.

At CMI, we collaborate with universities, contribute to research and draw on theoretical insights that can strengthen practice. These relationships are mutually beneficial for both policy and academia. While I identify first and foremost as a practitioner, returning to academic spaces has been essential for keeping perspective on the broader questions that drive our field.

5. What advice would you give to young women aspiring to work in mediation and peacebuilding?

Working in mediation and peacebuilding doesn’t necessarily mean joining the UN or an organization like CMI. There are many entry points: through diplomacy, academia, civil society or even the private sector. What matters most is a genuine commitment to peace and dialogue and keeping that perspective as you find your own path.

I encourage young professionals to seek diverse experiences and spend time in different cultural or political environments. Exposure to other contexts builds sensitivity and empathy that are essential in this field. Before you work on the political or strategic dimensions of mediation, it is important to understand the social and human fabric beneath it.