A YOUTH TASK FORCE (YTF) TO FACILITATE YOUTH INCLUSION

The youth inclusion strategy in S+50 was built up around the YTF. We will therefore start the presentation of the evaluation outcomes by looking at the role, structure and working methods of the YTF as such, before we move on to assess the layers of the evaluation model.

The role and format of the YTF

On YTF’s official web landing (now closed), the organisation was described as follows; 1

“The main function of the YTF consists of coordinating and providing substantive youth inputs to the various thematic aspects of Stockholm+50, throughout the whole process, ensuring that the youth perspective is included in a meaningful way, facilitating engagement of broader youth communities, planning and conducting the self-organised youth activities and events of various scopes, through their networks, and mobilise winder youth communities via outreach, social media, and consultation based activities.

The YTF has a global representation, with 57 international youth delegates from different countries via an open application process, ranging from 16 to 35 years of age. They came from different regional, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds to bring their perspectives on youth engagement. The task force comprises focal points, representatives from youth engagement mechanisms, constituencies, and platforms that are relevant to the work of Stockholm+50.”

The YTF was established after an open call and what has been described by many interviewees as a rigorous selection process to ensure that the diversity of youth was represented - such as gender, geographical background, ethnicity, minority groups, etc. 2

The Youth Task Force was coordinated by MGCY, as Focal Point to UNEP, and LSU, in their role as Focal Point to the Swedish host country.3 While LSU, the youth platform of the host country Sweden, served as focal point, the youth platform of the co-host country Kenya did not have a coordinating position. The latter observation will be discussed later in this report.

The role of the YTF was to facilitate the different parts of the youth inclusion process, ranging from policy drafting, to Tool Kit development and communication. These tasks were mainly organised by the YTF through work streams, that were facilitated by YTF members, but also open for other youth involved in S+50, for instance over the YFG.

Findings about the YTF

Interviewees uniformly affirm that the YTF was a successful format for facilitation of youth inclusion. ”An interesting way to interact between regions was created in the YTF, moving away from representation only by two leaders”, one UNEP interviewee points out. According to interviewees there are also currently ongoing discussions about using a YTF in future UN processes such as COP (global climate summits) and other UN processes. This indicates that potentially a model for mainstreaming youth inclusion in UN level processes has been created with the YTF.

1 www.youthstockholm50.global

2 Over 350 applications were received and evaluated by a team of 19 volunteers.

3 More information about MGCY as well as LSU can be found in Part 1; Structure of the youth organisation

Several strengths of YTF as a format for facilitating youth inclusion have been identified in the evaluation. Interviewees and respondents highlight how the YTF:

• contributed to strengthening the role of youth throughout the process;

• was easy, as a structure, to communicate and visualise to member states and institutions;

• was successful in facilitating a policy process of high standard and reached all the way to the meeting conclusions. “Youth had a consistently high level of knowledge and input”;

• was a successful tool for capacity building and empowerment of a group of young people in a particular political process;

• created ownership of the process among a group of young change makers. Members of the YTF stayed engaged and continued to interact with each other also after the S+50 process ended.

Enabling factors

The following enabling factors have been identified by respondents and interviewees, and will be discussed throughout this report. The YTF:

• built on MGCY and its experience/expertise;

• included organisations other than those already active in MGCY for breadth and increased inclusion;

• enabled a close cooperation with the host country by giving a formal role to the host country´s youth platform/youth council;

• had a potential to disseminate as well as advocate with a global outreach, thanks to the broad global membership base.

Hindering factors

The following hindering factors have been identified by respondents and interviewees for YTF at structural level:

• Uncertainty among its members and the host country about whether it was a representative body (speaking on behalf of youth) or a facilitating body (facilitating the youth inclusion of a broader group of youth);

• The role division among the Focal Points was unclear;

• Language, experience and rhetorical skills differed among the participants. Some respondents/interviewees provide examples how this contributed to inequalities related to inclusion and power.

• The YTF was established too late and ended too early

These, and other, hindering factors will be discussed at depth throughout this report.

Recommendations

I. Earlier start

The YTF was established as late as November 2021, when the implementation of the S+50 process was about to start.4 Therefore, unfortunately, the preparation of necessary materials and tools to enable youth participation started only at the point of time when they should have been delivered. This included the youth policy paper, the Educational Pack, the Tool Kit as well as communication tools.

Interviewees advice that YTF should have been formed approximately one year prior to the international meeting, rather than six months, which was now the case.

Even the modality resolution, enabling the start of the preparations of the S+50 meeting itself, was agreed on as late as September 2021. This hampered the possibilities for an early start of the YTF and the youth inclusion process as such. This is a challenge that needs to be remedied by adequate prioritisation in future processes for stakeholder engagement to be implemented in a meaningful way.

II. MGCY should be given the mandate to coordinate youth

In S+50, LSU as well as MGCY were approached and involved as youth partners by the host country, resulting in an unclear role distribution between LSU and MGCY.

In order not to build parallel youth tracks, it is important that any structure created, and given the role to represent youth within a UN process, is based primarily on MGCY. “It is important to build on the structures we have”, as pointed out by one of the interviewees.

It was beneficial to include youth from outside MGCY in the YTF as discussed elsewhere in this report. However, the evaluator agrees with those interviewees that highlight the importance of placing the ownership of a youth inclusion process in UN with MGCY in order to; respect the existing global structure representing youth in UN; base the process on experience and knowledge from other processes; involve a youth partner positioned to represent youth in the initial negotiation and preparations; enable a quick start of the youth inclusion process by making use of MGCYs structure, network and working methods and create continuity and linkage between processes.

III. Co-host youth platforms as supportive coordinators

National youth platforms/youth councils of the host and co-host country have important roles to play in UN level processes. However, rather than acting as focal points (such as LSU in S+50), national youth platforms of the host countries should be given a more limited role as supportive focal points or the like, as outlined in Figure 5. Interviewees and respondents suggest they should take on two main roles; as links between global youth and the host country government and as support in the organisation of local youth events.

It is important to distinguish between the coordinating role and that of a supportive coordinating role from the very beginning. According to interviewees, the Swedish youth council (LSU), did not have a clear role description. This resulted in uncertainties related to the distribution of tasks and the political mandate. A clearer description of the supportive coordinating role from the side of the MGCY and the host country would avoid this uncertainty.

In S+50, the Kenyan youth platform was not present at the overarching coordination level, although they did have several persons represented inside the YTF. A Kenyan interviewee points out that all relevant tasks could be performed from this position, hence he is satisfied with the setting of the S+50 as it was. At the same time representatives from MGCY as well as LSU highlight the importance of including the co-host youth platform in the coordination of the S+50 at the overarching level in similar future processes. A structure with both host country youth platforms as supportive focal points, would be advisable (see Figure 5).

IV. More work streams and role division

Several interviewees state that the overall structure of different work streams /working groups was well working. They also point to the potential in developing this structure further in future processes. In particular, interviewees suggest that more work streams could have been created, in order to give more YTF members a task and a role.

A greater number of work streams, established from the very beginning, would have contributed to a smoother start of the YTF.5 One of the young interviewees states:

5 One interviewee mentioned that the YTF was given too little leadership in setting up their task and working structure due to the intention of giving them full autonomy. A work programme was already prepared as the YTF started. Still, a more detailed work programme, clearer role divisions as well as more work streams would have contributed positively to a better process for the YTF, the interviewee states.

“We had not worked together previously, only met online and did not know exactly what the expectations and tasks of the YTF were. Personally, I needed some starting time before I felt comfortable to take action.”

V. A slightly lower number of members in the YTF

Several respondents and interviewees suggest that the number of members in the YTF be decreased slightly in order to make it more of a facilitating, and less of a representative body. On the other hand, according to several interviewees, a relatively large number of members is necessary for the YTF to achieve a broad representation and inclusion. In a future process, organisers should therefore strive to find a good balance between inclusive representation and effective facilitation, possibly by reducing the numbers slightly.