LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation

Definition

IWGs Informal Working Groups (of the LDs)

LDs Leadership Dialogues

LSU The National Council of Swedish Children and Youth Organisations

MGCY Major Group for Children and Youth

S+50 Stockholm +50

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

YEA Youth Environmental Assembly

YFG Youth Focus Group

YTF Youth Task Force

Background

The evaluation assignment

This external evaluation was commissioned by LSU, the Swedish Youth Council and financed by SIDA and the Nordic Council of Ministers, that are also two of the donors of the youth inclusion strategy in S+50.

The youth inclusion structure and strategy in S+50 was a pilot, aimed to try out new formats for youth inclusion in international policy making. LSU, the Swedish Youth Council, wanted an external eye on what could be learned from this experience, that could be used in similar, future processes. To this end, the evaluation documents and assesses the youth participation in S+50, and aims to contribute to similar, future processes, by capturing what was learned through the process implementation.

Åsa Gunvén1, author of this report, was commissioned in September, 2022 to undertake this evaluation. Mrs Gunvén is a political scientist2 specialised in participation and co-creation processes for policy making on both practical and strategic level.3

Evaluation questions

The evaluation questions below were formulated by LSU to serve as framework for the evaluation. The evaluation plan also included several detailed indicators, all of which are included in the evaluation model presented in the next chapter.

Evaluation questions

1. Goal achievement. Has the promise of a high and meaningful youth participation and influence been incorporated into the entire Stockholm 50+ process (before, during and after the international meeting)?

3. Prerequisites. Have the conditions (structures and enabling factors) for a high level of youth influence and participation been created? If/when they were missing, what were the consequences?

4. Inclusion. Was the opportunity for active participation equal from a Global North/Global South perspective?

In addition to answering the questions above, the author decided to create an “evaluation model”. The model should be designed so that it could be used as a checklist in creating structures for participation in similar processes in the future.

1 gunven.eu

2 Economics and Politics (MA Hons), University of Edinburgh

Delimitations

The focus in this evaluation lies on the main activities of S+50, as well as the main output of the interventions of the YTF.

Due to time constraints, certain delimitations have been necessary, regarding the scope of the events/activities/participants covered. For instance:

The Youth Focus Group, the S+50 Youth Environmental Assembly, the youth advocacy and the dissemination activities are only dealt with briefly, and mentioned only when respondents/interviewees refer to them as contributing factors to the youth inclusion as such.

The role of the co-host country Kenya has not been evaluated at depth. Advocacy meetings, side events, etc. have been excluded.

Evaluation methods

Different research methods were used in the evaluation process;

• Text analysis

Text analysis was done, mainly based on information found on the webpages of the organisations involved. The analysis was conducted with the aim to do a first mapping of organisations involved, activities and events and what came out of the process.

• Questionnaires

Questionnaires were sent to all members of the YTF and to several individuals within each of the organisations involved; MGCY, LSU, UNEP and the Swedish government offices. In total, 12 people responded.4 The purpose of the questionnaire was to capture tendencies and indications that could later be tested in the interviews. A questionnaire is attached in Appendix 1. Some minor adjustments were done, depending on target group.

• Focus groups

The Youth Task Force was invited to two focus groups. Due to low numbers of participants, a few interviews were conducted instead.

• Interviews

Three persons each from MGCY, LSU, UNEP and the Swedish government offices were invited to participate in an interview. In total, 10 interviews plus one focus group were held with representatives of the different organisations. All the 57 YTF members were invited to participate in individual interviews in addition to the focus groups. In total, four longer interviews were held with members of the YTF, including one with the Kenyan youth platform.

The first tendencies and threads could be discerned in the questionnaire answers. A few mapping interviews served to form a few assumptions.

At the next stage, in depth interviews were conducted to a) confirm/contradict these assumptions and b) form new assumptions. Statements in the final report are backed by evidence provided by at least two or three interviewees/respondents.

The recommendations were based on the challenges identified or suggestions/requests collected during interviews.

4 The number of respondents was relatively small and replies were quite fragmented. Half of the YTF respondents would take one position, and the other half another in regards to a certain question. While this is a useful indicator of diverging expectations and experiences for the evaluator, answers could not be used to draw reliable conclusions.

Several of the main recommendations were also presented to, and to, confirmed as relevant by the main coordinating organisations.