EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report assesses the youth inclusion in the Stockholm +50 process. The analytical framework builds on a set of widely recognised criteria that, together, determine “meaningful youth inclusion”. The criteria used are: a clear mandate; representation of global youth; youth autonomy; youth policy development; co-creation and dissemination and follow up.

The author concludes that the overall representative structure and the results of the process were, by and large, consistent with the set of criteria for meaningful youth inclusion.

Youth were given increased access to political fora. They were also provided with adequate supportive measures. The access was non-discriminatory in regards to age and background of youth involved. However, the inclusion of global youth at local, national and regional level as well as the reach of the process were limited.

The youth inclusion process paved the way for youths’ careful elaboration and advocacy of several demands and policy inputs. These were finally integrated into the conclusions of the international meeting in the form of a youth policy paper.

The evaluation concludes that adequate tools and structures for meaningful youth inclusion have been created and tested contributing to positive results in regards to youth inclusion. The report also identifies some aspects that should be adjusted and improved.

For instance, the youth inclusion process within the S +50 should have been launched much earlier. The late start is identified as one of the determining, hindering factors in the evaluation, because it delayed and hampered youth’s meaningful inclusion in S+50 in various ways.

One of the aspects that could be improved in future processes is dissemination. Constant and comprehensive dissemination activities throughout the process would have facilitated the communication about the process, its contents and the demands and positions of youth engaged in S+50. A wider scope would have contributed to a broader global outreach and inclusion of youth from the local and national levels in the process.

To conclude, the author strongly suggests that the parties of the S+50 process reserve time for sense-making, self-assessment, reflection and dialogue. The evaluation of the S+ 50 process identifies several experiences shared by all actors involved. They make up excellent opportunities for learning, constructive reflection, recycling of what works and improvements of what appears to work less well. Last, but not least, they are potential material for building similar processes in the future.

Dear reader,

When I, as an expert on youth inclusion and co-creation processes, was asked to conduct an external evaluation on the youth inclusion in Stockholm + 50 I was excited, flattered, but also frightened.

To evaluate a global process, characterised by a complex structure of which I, myself had not been part, was a big challenge to take on. I knew that I would have to detangle the functions of different structures, at diverse levels as well as the roles and links between several coordinators and institutions/organisations. Different perspectives of understanding, expectations, experience and values among various stakeholders would need to be analysed and comprehended. Besides, all of this had to be studied within the complex context of meaningful youth inclusion.

All too often I have seen examples of “youth washing”, where a few youth in sneakers are invited on stage, just so that the decision makers can “tick the box” of youth inclusion. I have seen youth being disillusioned after having participated in ambitious and well-resourced processes that, in the end, ignored the youth input. I have also seen money go to waste, as strategies have failed to include the knowledge of the very target group concerned; the youth.

I am aware this is a heavy report. I chose to include a detailed account of the analysis and the results of the evaluation. It is to serve as a documentation and a guide for anyone who may design future processes of meaningful youth participation; future host countries in particular. For other readers, my recommendation would be to consult the summary report, which will be published separately.

Since I did not attend Stockholm + 50 myself, I have based my assessment on accounts provided by the respondents and interviewees who availed themselves for the evaluation.

I apologise in advance for any misinterpretations, smaller factual errors, and approximations regarding numbers, the actual format of activities, outputs, etc. for which I am fully responsible.

I would like to thank UNEP, the Swedish government, MGCY, the Swedish National Youth Council as well as the Youth Task Force for their open and supportive contribution that made this evaluation possible. My gratitude also to Monica Johansson, who provided valuable guidance in her role as supportive evaluator.

Stockholm, 20 April 2023

Åsa Gunvén gunven.eu