UNOY Network & Membership Coordinator (Historical Reference): Closed The Hague Role (€2,556 per month, 0.8 FTE)

UNOY Network & Membership Coordinator (Historical Reference)

The United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY) advertised a Network and Membership Coordinator position based in The Hague. That vacancy is now closed. UNOY’s official network-governance page currently lists Carolina Resigotti as its Network and Membership Coordinator, with responsibility for network development and relations. The original application form also resolves to a closed Google Forms page. Those two checks matter: this is an archive entry about a completed hiring round, not a live job listing.

The vacancy’s published deadline was 22 March 2026. No replacement Network and Membership Coordinator cycle is announced in the official UNOY material checked for this update. The page therefore keeps the real closing date in the deadline field and uses historicalReference = true. Readers should not treat the old form or the information below as an invitation to submit a new application.

Status at a glance

What UNOY was hiring this person to do

This was a network-development role rather than a conventional administrative membership post. UNOY described its network as central to the organisation’s work, and the coordinator was expected to help it function across regions, member organisations, staff, partners, and donors. The role combined relationship management, governance support, programme coordination, and people management.

The main responsibility was overseeing the network’s decentralisation process. In practical terms, that meant helping the organisation move meaningful coordination and decision-making closer to its regional structures while preserving enough shared process for the global network to work together. A strong candidate would have needed to understand the difference between inviting regional input and actually giving regional colleagues room to shape decisions. The work called for careful documentation, reliable follow-up, and the ability to identify when a central process was creating unnecessary friction.

The coordinator was also responsible for coordinating UNOY’s six regional networks. That included maintaining regular relationships with regional colleagues, supporting common rhythms of communication, helping regional work connect with network-level priorities, and making it easier for members to participate. The vacancy referenced six Regional Coordinators, so the role required someone comfortable supporting colleagues who work across different contexts, time zones, and organisational cultures.

Network-level programming was another part of the brief. This could include shaping activities that benefit members across regions, coordinating meetings and consultations, tracking actions after decisions, and helping the secretariat turn network feedback into practical plans. The position was not only about keeping a database current. It required judgement about what members need from a network, how to make participation useful, and how to maintain accountability when responsibility is distributed.

UNOY also expected the successful candidate to recruit and manage a Network Officer. That added a direct management component to the job. The coordinator would have had to set priorities, give clear feedback, protect time for learning, and make sure the officer’s work connected to the needs of the regional networks. The role also involved overseeing the work of the six Regional Coordinators, which called for a supportive management style rather than a command-and-control approach.

The position reported to the Co-Director responsible for strategy and required close collaboration with staff, interns, Regional Coordinators, members, partners, and donors. Someone who enjoyed only one-to-one member contact would probably have found the scope demanding. The work moved constantly between individual relationships, network governance, programme planning, internal coordination, and external communication.

Pay, hours, and benefits in the closed round

The advertised salary was €2,556 gross per month for 0.8 FTE, equivalent to a four-day, 32-hour working week. The vacancy stated that the salary could grow annually within UNOY’s salary scale. The amount is not a grant, stipend, or freelance fee; it was the gross salary for a paid staff appointment.

The package also included an annual holiday allowance equal to 8% of gross annual salary. Staff received 20 days of annual leave together with Dutch public holidays. UNOY described commute and work-from-home compensation calculated according to the distance travelled to the office. The organisation also offered a remote-working allowance of six weeks per year, an annual training budget, and opportunities for international travel connected to peacebuilding activities, meetings, or training. Free vegetarian lunches were available when working from the office.

These benefits should be read as the conditions of the closed vacancy. They are not a promise that a future UNOY post will use the same salary, working pattern, benefits, or contract length. If UNOY publishes another vacancy, applicants should rely on that new notice for the operative terms.

Eligibility and the profile the vacancy sought

The vacancy asked for a relevant Bachelor’s degree or a comparable educational and professional foundation. Relevant areas included peace and conflict studies, international relations, development studies, gender studies, and related disciplines. The degree was only one part of the profile. UNOY was looking for evidence that an applicant could help a distributed network make decisions, maintain relationships, and follow through on shared work.

At least two years of relevant paid or voluntary experience were expected. The scope included peacebuilding, development, human rights, humanitarian action, network development, and community management. Volunteer experience could count when it involved real responsibility: coordinating a coalition, organising member meetings, supporting a governance process, running onboarding, managing a working group, or maintaining communication across partner organisations. A candidate did not need to have held the exact job title before, but needed to explain what they had coordinated and what changed as a result.

Excellent English was required. French was strongly preferred, while Spanish or Arabic could be useful additional languages. The language requirement made sense for a network with regional relationships and international partners. It also meant that a candidate’s application needed to show more than a list of language names. Examples of communicating across cultures, clarifying misunderstandings, facilitating inclusive discussions, or producing clear shared documentation would have been relevant evidence.

The location and work-authorisation conditions were material. The role was based in The Hague and required at least half of the working week in the office. Applicants needed to be already authorised to work in the Netherlands; the vacancy did not provide visa or work-permit sponsorship. A person living elsewhere could have considered the role only if they could satisfy those legal and practical requirements independently.

The strongest applicants would also have shown alignment with locally led peacebuilding, decolonisation, gender equity, participation, and youth leadership. That alignment needed to appear in examples, not just in familiar phrases. Useful evidence might have included sharing decisions with regional partners, changing a process after member feedback, making meetings more accessible, or handling disagreement without treating local expertise as an obstacle.

How the original application worked

The closed application was submitted through an online form. Applicants were asked to upload a CV and respond to questions about motivation and skills. The form was the application route for the vacancy; a reader cannot use the current closed endpoint to submit a new application.

For the historical round, a sensible application package would have included a concise CV tailored to network development and member engagement. The relevant evidence was not limited to formal NGO employment. Candidates could have highlighted community coordination, coalition work, youth-led organising, governance support, facilitation, cross-border partnerships, or volunteer network leadership. Each example would have been stronger if it named the scale of the work, the applicant’s own contribution, and the result.

The motivation answers needed to connect directly to the post. A general statement about caring about peace would not have explained why the applicant could coordinate six regional networks or support decentralisation. A better answer would have described a real situation in which the applicant helped people with different priorities work toward a shared decision, then explained what they learned about power, communication, and follow-through.

Applicants also needed to prepare examples of member engagement. Good examples could include improving onboarding, creating a predictable communication rhythm, maintaining a member database, facilitating a working group, supporting elections, or building feedback loops that led to a concrete change. The point was to show that engagement is a set of practices: listening, responding, documenting, inviting participation, and making the network useful to its members.

Because the form could time out, applicants were better off drafting their answers separately and checking every upload before opening the form. They should have confirmed that their CV showed relevant experience near the top, that claims about language ability were accurate, and that they could meet the office and work-authorisation conditions. Those steps applied to the closed round only; they are preparation guidance for understanding the archived process, not instructions to submit now.

What readers should take from this archive

This opportunity was attractive because it placed a coordinator at the centre of a global youth peacebuilding network. The work offered genuine scope: six regional networks, a decentralisation process, member relationships, network-level programming, and responsibility for a Network Officer. It also carried practical constraints that were easy to miss in a short summary: a four-day schedule, regular office work in The Hague, existing Dutch work authorization, and a salary stated at 0.8 FTE rather than full-time.

The opportunity is no longer open. The official UNOY team page is the important current reference because it shows the organisation’s present staffing, while the closed form preserves the original application destination. Until UNOY announces another Network and Membership Coordinator vacancy, there is no current application window to follow from this page. Anyone interested in similar work should monitor UNOY’s official jobs and network pages and read a new vacancy on its own terms.

Official sources

• UNOY Network Governance and International Secretariat — current official team listing, including the Network and Membership Coordinator.
• Original UNOY application form — original application destination, now closed.