The United Nations’ Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda suffers from an ongoing burden: the need for less talk and more action. Invariably, several speakers raise this issue at the Security Council’s annual Open Debate on WPS. But we are now experiencing a very concerning backslide.

The Security Council passed the first WPS resolution, UNSCR 1325, on 31 October 2000, after much collaboration with feminist civil society organisations. It was a natural evolution of the women and armed conflict objective of the Beijing Platform for Action, which was developed from the UN’s world conferences on women.

By late 2000, there was enough momentum to get UNSCR 1325 off the ground. This was helped by a highly successful international workshop on gender and peacekeeping hosted by Namibia, which at the time held the UN Security Council presidency.

There are now 10 resolutions on WPS, highlighting the importance of women’s participation in conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution and recovery. Grounded in the language of existing international law, they also prioritise protection from and justice for conflict-related sexual violence.

In 2013, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women passed General Recommendation 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations, articulating States Parties’ obligations beyond the Security Council.

Despite this progress, for more than a decade we have seen a pattern of certain member states trying to roll back women’s rights across the UN system. While this is most obvious at forums such as the Commission on the Status of Women, it has also affected the Security Council.

Antonio Guterres’s appointment as UN Secretary General followed She4SG, a campaign calling for a woman to fill the role. Guterres made a concerted effort to increase female leadership within the UN system, achieving positive results.

But women remain excluded from peace processes. More women and girls than ever are affected by conflict. Reports of conflict-related sexual violence, including those verified by the UN, are increasing.

Today, the body of evidence supporting the relationship between gender and security is huge. Not only do we know that women’s participation in peace processes makes them more enduring;  we know that responding to women’s security concerns ensures better security outcomes. We know that the way a nation treats its women is the best predictor of its willingness to go to war, and that the higher the level of violence against women, the more likely a country will be to break international norms and treaties during wartime.

In many ways, we have come a long way since 2000. For example, 112 countries now have national action plans to help them implement the WPS resolutions. However, many of the problems identified in the Global Study on the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 remain. Most national action plans are unfunded, and women-led organisations in countries affected by conflict struggle for even meagre supports.

Despite global pacts to localise humanitarian and development programming, organisations working on women’s rights in the world’s most conflict affected areas—including Afghanistan, South Sudan, Yemen, Gaza and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—are crying out for the most basic supports.

The Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund was developed to provide readily accessible funds to small organisations working directly on WPS issues. But it’s largely failing: its bureaucracy prevents timely release of funds; its structure leads to insufficient responses; and its governance requirements are unrealistic in the oppressive environments in which many women’s rights defenders operate.

Globally, the ongoing failure to invest in aid and development continues to threaten peace and security. In Britain, cuts to aid were justified as enabling increased defence spending. Ideally, Australia would spend 1 percent of its budget on aid. But at the last budget, aid spending fell from 0.68 percent to 0.65 percent.

Especially as uncertainty grows around the United States’ international role, democracies must support the rules-based order and provide the funds women’s groups need to advance gender equality in their own communities.

Meanwhile, impunity remains for conflict-related sexual violence, even when this violence is perpetrated by groups seemingly despised worldwide, such as Islamic State. Of the tens of thousands of foreign fighters that travelled to Syria and Iraq, only two have been prosecuted for sexual violence, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide perpetrated against Yazidi women and girls. These prosecutions occurred in Germany and France.

Australia’s own National Action Plan has remained woefully under-implemented. The plan contains two outcomes related to justice for conflict related sexual violence. Despite this, and despite thousands of Yazidis calling Australia home, there has been no accountability or justice for survivors of Australian perpetrators, even in the face of parliamentary calls for investigations and prosecutions.

The plan’s implementation report was delayed several times and lacked any substantive reporting on the qualitative outcomes of government efforts. The Department of Home Affairs is missing in action despite having significant responsibilities for displaced women, including women’s rights defenders.

WPS has certainly progressed since October 2000. We have seen considerable talk, but the world’s women need more action. Countries, including Australia, need to do far more to stop the backsliding on the WPS agenda.