LAYER A: A MANDATE FOR A HIGH LEVEL OF MEANINGFUL YOUTH INCLUSION

GRADING: SATISFACTORY

This chapter analyses the mandate given to youth within the S+50 process.

In sum, findings from the evaluation indicate that an adequate and clear mandate for meaningful youth inclusion was given to youth, and that it was by large supported throughout the process by the host country. At the same time, roles and expectations could have been clarified at the very start of the process, for example through a written cooperation agreement and clearer descriptions of roles. Also, an earlier start of the process as such would have contributed greatly to the supportive measures of the youth mandate.

A detailed account follows below. It covers the two components that have been identified in the evaluation model as fundamental prerequisites for a mandate for a high level of meaningful youth inclusion through one sub-chapter each. The two sub-chapters deal with:

A.a A clear, formal and known mandate for meaningful youth inclusion

A.b Political commitment and support for the mandate from the host country

A.a A clear, formal and known mandate for meaningful youth inclusion

A prerequisite for a high level of meaningful youth inclusion is that the mandate given by the host country is clear, formal and recognised by all actors involved in the process; formal in order for the youth inclusion to be right based and formalized in the process, clear and known in order for both youth as well as other institutions and decision-makers to understand the role and mandate of youth.

An account of the mandate given to youth, as described by respondents and interviewees, and recommendations for future processes follows below.

A.a S+50 findings

Youth were given a clear mandate to design and implement an ambitious youth inclusion strategy, based on a representative structure with universal participation. The YTF, coordinated by MGCY and LSU, was given a political approval by the host country to represent/facilitate the youth inclusion.6 The mandate was given a strong political commitment and support by the host country, which contributed to an increased interest among member states and institutions to get involved.

6 Both the terms “represent” and “facilitate” are used as a) there is a certain lack of common understanding regarding this and b) the YTFs role combined both of these elements as discussed in the Layer B, Representation.

Interviewees indicate that the intention of the host country was to mainstream meaningful youth engagement throughout the process. The accounts from the side of the interviews clearly indicate that the host country was ambitious in their strive to providing the right conditions for a meaningful youth inclusion. Interviewees explain that it would be: “the most youth including process in the history of the UN”, with “a high level of meaningful youth inclusion”. The aim was to “make youth an integrated part of the process, as opposed to creating a separate youth track”, and also to provide the resources and support to make this possible, according to one of the interviewees representing the host country.

Interviewees explain that, in many UN processes, major groups such as MGCY are only allowed to send two representatives. The S+50 youth inclusion strategy, with its comprehensive youth format, comprising all components of the youth inclusion model, as outlined in figure 2, stands in stark contrast to this.7

Some interviewees indicate that the mandate, the roles and expectations should have been specified even further, and that the youth structure should have been communicated more proactively to member states and institutional partners in the initial phase. Another critique that has emerged is that the communication/commitment from the side of the host country was too “fluffy” and enthusiastic for expectations of youth to be realistic/adequate.

A.a Enabling factors

The following enabling factor have been identified as supportive for the mandate given to youth:

I. Host country priority

Interviewees mention that Sweden highlighted the importance of youth inclusion and intergenerational dialogue already during the negotiations of the mandate of the conference as an integral part of the S+50 process. Youth was then highlighted as a priority throughout the process by the host country, also at minister level.

A.a. Recommendations

The recommendations below, is the evaluator’s summary and elaboration of reflections and suggestions provided by interviewees and respondents:

VI. Clearer roles and expectations

While the mandate given to youth was clear, expectations and roles were partly unclear throughout the process. A host country should give autonomy to the youth, as was done, but there is also an identified need for direction, confirmation as well as common framework for cooperation.

Interviewees point out a need for the host country and the youth coordinators to jointly define expectations, roles as well as what their cooperation/coordination should look like, preferably in a written format. This could be done in a start-up meeting including the host country and MGCY, possibly together with the supportive focal points.8

7 For an analysis of optimal models of youth inclusion within the UN, a comparable analysis to other youth inclusion strategies of other international processes should be undertaken. This should include an analysis of process related and policy related outcomes and also assess to what degree the processes live up to the principles of youth inclusion, as outlined in the evaluation model in this report. This kind of comparative analysis is beyond the scope of this evaluation.

8 This kind of cooperation agreement could for instance define; expectations, roles, cooperation arrangements (such as update meetings, administrative tasks, access to information as well as access to communication channels), boundaries of the youth inclusion set by the process, youth outputs expectations, funding and expectations of the size of youth participation at the meeting, planning of monitoring and evaluation activities, etc.

VII. Measures to make the YTF well known

The mandate and the role of the YTF has to be clearly communicated to all institutional partners in order for the YTF to be recognised as a partner. Interviewees highlight the responsibility of the host country to proactively, and repeatedly, communicate the existence of the YTF at an early stage. That way, all involved members states and institutional partners would know about their roles and mandates.

A.b Political commitment and support for the mandate from the host country

Continuous advocacy, political commitment but also support in terms of resources and providing access to the process is vital for a meaningful youth participation to take place.

Below follows a detailed account of the evaluation findings regarding the host country commitment and support for the youth mandate, including recommendations for future processes.

A.b S+50 findings

Several interviewees representing the host country stress the importance of backing up the mandate of youth both budget-wise and by prioritizing human resources to facilitate the youth inclusion. And indeed, youth was given priority when it came to resources as well as access to the process, one example being speaking time. Support provided by UNEP, in particular the civil society unit, was also of importance, as was financial support provided by other donors.

Sweden´s S+50 ambassador Johanna Lissinger Peitz9 as well as representatives at ministerial level of the host country repeatedly stressed the importance of youth inclusion and participation. Institutional partners, UNEP, co-presidents of the Leadership Dialogues and the Swedish S+50 secretariat among others were continuously made aware that youth was a priority in S+50. Interviewees highlight how this influenced also them to make youth a priority.

Interviewees explain how Sweden reached out to the member states highlighting the importance of involving youth in, for example, national delegations from the outset of the S+50. Swedish embassies were also encouraged to promote youth inclusion.10

Another example of support from the host country, this time from Kenya, was present at the side event ‘A Common Agenda for Future Generations’. Mr. Keriako Tobiko, the Kenyan minister of environment and forestry, specifically urged member states to support the inclusion of the youth demands in the conclusions of the meeting.

Time and human resources is a crucial factor for the host country to be able to provide this kind of support for youth inclusion. As a matter of fact, this is a factor repeatedly highlighted by interviewees representing the host country. A challenge in this regard worth noting, is that the resolution establishing the meeting was adopted only in May 2021, around one year before the international meeting. Throughout this evaluation the shortage of time reoccurs as a hindering factor of youth inclusion.

A.b Enabling factors

The enabling factors below have been identified as supportive for the host country to deliver political commitment and support for a meaningful level of youth inclusion:

I. Youth treated as a partner

On the whole a picture is given that youth was treated and received as a partner. As discussed elsewhere in this report, interviewees highlight how youth was given autonomy to selforganise and an open climate of communication was created. Also, as the endorsement of the youth policy paper suggests, youth input was considered seriously. Information was shared and space provided for youth, even if interviewees do highlight the need for youth to continuously push for this.

II. Human resources for youth inclusion

Host country interviewees repeatedly mention the need of time to successfully implement a meaningful youth inclusion process. Approximately 1.5 full time position were dedicated to the youth inclusion in the Swedish S+50 secretariat. The ambassador tried to prioritize the youth, by accepting the invitations from youth whenever possible. Both human and financial resource allocation will be further discussed elsewhere in this report.

A.b Recommendations

The recommendations below, is the evaluator’s summary and elaboration of reflections and suggestions provided by interviewees and respondents:

I.

Create

A Host Country Guide On Youth Inclusion

A guide for youth inclusion should be provided to the host country by UNEP at the very start of the process.11 The guide could, among other items, contain the following:12

• an outline of the actual process itself in order for the host country to be able to plan for, and ensure integration of youth;

• guiding principles for meaningful youth inclusion;

• a presentation of key stakeholders, with a special focus on MGCY and its structure;

• a rough outline of the format of meaningful youth inclusion in a UN process;

• a rough timeline, including recommendations regarding preparation and foresight in accreditation and Visa applications/processes;

• recommendations and enabling factors for host country facilitation of youth inclusion

It is important that youth are part of shaping the youth inclusion process, hence MGCY should be included in the drafting of a host country guide in some way. MGCY should also be invited to run a crash course in “UN level youth inclusion” for the host country.

II. Create a member state guide on youth inclusion

Youth’s role within the member states in relation to the international policy process needs to be clarified and strengthened. Interviewees representing the host country explain that they experienced a genuine and high interest in youth inclusion among member states, but that there is a need to promote it repeatedly.

11 This report could potentially form the basis of such a guide, in order to build on the experience made in S+50.

12 The list of items is not exhaustive, but rather the evaluator’s analysis of reflections, assessment and soft recommendations provided by interviewees and respondents.

The evaluator recommends to produce a guide for member states on youth inclusion in international processes. These guidelines for member states should be produced well ahead of the outset of the policy process. Several interviewees have provided input regarding contents of such a set of guidelines. Suggestions are summarised below.

• The importance of ensuring that youth are given space in developing the national priorities is highlighted by several interviewees. The youth inclusion process should build on existing organised and semi-organised youth structures and be given adequate resources for consultations and policy development.

• Member states should accommodate young people to be represented in their national delegations. UN delegate programs can be used to build capacity of such youth delegates, as highlighted in the youth policy paper.

• Youth should be involved in the follow-up work at national level. In particular, youth should be invited to participate in the drafting of national, regional and local action plans as well as in their implementation. Co-funding as well as access to local and regional decision-makers throughout the implementation phase is an important enabling factor.