LAYER B: REPRESENTATION OF GLOBAL YOUTH

GRADING: SATISFACTORY

For a youth inclusion in a global policy making process to be meaningful, there has to be a legitimate representation of global youth. This is a complex matter, representing various challenges. The vast number of youth and the immensely diversity regarding the basic preconditions for participation does pose serious challenges to the ambition of giving equal access to the process of youth at a global level. Geo-political settings, conditions of security and peace, communication and media coverage, Internet coverage, command of English and education level, just to name a few are all potentially discriminating factors that are likely to cause unequal inclusion and engagement among participants.

It is also important to remember that “youth” is not a homogenous group. It includes the intersection of various diversities related to, for instance; ethnic origin, gender, geographic origin, social strata, etc. This makes the process of organising the youth representation and the formulation of the “youth voice”, extremely difficult, and critical. Adequate tools of representation, capacity building, deliberation, cross-sectorial fertilization, consensus finding and collaborative policy development needs to be an integrated part of the process of representing the youth voice.

This evaluation seeks to examine whether the youth inclusion strategy in S+50 was successful in increasing the representation of global youth.

The evaluator’s assumption is that the process had neither the possibility, nor the ambition to create a completely legitimate and inclusive structure of representation.13 Besides, even attempting to assess whether the outputs and strategies adopted, did lead to a legitimate representation of global youth would be an impossible task. This evaluation has the aim to approach the challenge constructively.

In the following, the evaluation will set out to identify some of the tools that were used in the process, and assess their contribution in terms of facilitating youth representation.

On the whole adequate tools for representation and inclusion of global youth were developed and used throughout S+50. In particular the youth consultations and the youth policy paper provided the basis for inclusive deliberation as well as representation of the youth. Measures such as the coordinators’ capacity building exercise, conducted at the beginning at youth sessions, potentially mitigated some of the discriminating factors mentioned above. Also, the process as such empowered the youth involved.

Nevertheless, outreach and inclusion was limited, mainly due to shortage of time, limited human and financial resources as well as limited internet coverage among certain groups of youth. At the same time it should be stressed that very few additional discriminatory factors inside the process itself have been observed. The one that stands out is the exclusion caused by Visa applications not being granted.

13 When measuring an increase in youth representation, a point of reference (commonly referred to as a baseline in the field of evaluation) is needed. This is difficult in the case of S+50, since there is no established format for youth inclusion in UN. Several interviewees bring up a format that has been used in COP as well as other UN process where only two youth representatives are included, a format that can be used for comparison.

A detailed account follows below. It covers the three components that have been identified in the evaluation model as fundamental prerequisites for Representation of global youth through one sub-chapter each. The three sub-chapters deal with:

B.a Representation of global youth

B.b Inclusion and equality

B.c Capacity building and empowerment

B.a Representation of global youth

Below follows a detailed account of the evaluation findings regarding the representation of global youth within the S+50 process, including recommendations for future processes.

B.a S+50 findings

Figure 4 – The youth inclusion structure in S+50

The figure above, from Part 1, is a visual presentation of how global youth was represented and organised in the S+50 youth inclusion structure. But in what regards did this structure manage to represent global youth in a legitimate way? Through the evaluation process, the following aspects have been identified as contributing to a legitimate representation of global youth in S+50:

1. Universal/open participation of youth

MGCY laid the foundations for open engagement in the Youth Focus Group already at the planning stage of S+50, well before the YTF was established. Any organisation, network or individual could get involved in the process without being appointed.14

An unexpected outcome of the evaluation is the crucial role the youth policy paper played in creating a legitimate base for youth representation in S+50. It allowed for a universal/open participation through the consultations and the collaborative drafting process. And most importantly, it allowed for all youth advocacy to be streamlined around a collective position that could be seen as representing youth.

This process and format will be further examined in Layer D; Youth policy development. Subchapter B.b; Inclusion and equality, will include a discussion on whether this open process can also be understood as inclusive.

1. Youth platforms for engagement/facilitation/representation

MGCY

MGCY is “the UN General Assembly-mandated and self-organised mechanism for young people to meaningfully engage in certain UN processes.”15 As such it has a preestablished role and structure for youth representation. This role was of extra importance when it came to representing youth in the planning phase of S+50, before the YTF was established.16

The Youth Task Force

A YTF was selected through an open and inclusive process according to interviewees, with the aim to facilitate the youth inclusion process and the representation of youth. It represented global youth not by a representative mandate, but rather by representing “the demands of global youth” as formulated in the youth policy paper.

The YTF gained its legitimacy from: a) the mandate from the host country; b) the YFG that selected the YTF members; b) the organisations and constituencies to which members belonged, and; c) the youth policy paper that it facilitated and represented.

At the same time interviewees and respondents do express significantly diverse understandings on whether YTF was a legitimate representative of global youth or not.

The YTF as a representative or facilitating youth structure?

A majority (57%) of the survey respondents indicate that the YTF is “definitely not” a legitimate representative of global youth. Interviewees stress the value of open participation and the need to be inclusive of youth also outside of the YTF.17 They also indicate a need for institutional partners to understand that the role of the YTF was to facilitate youth inclusion, rather than to represent youth. This is also what transpires from the evaluator’s analysis.

At the same time approximately 30% of the respondents do refer to the YTF as a “legitimate representative of global youth”. Some interviewees also stress that they would have liked for the YTF to have played the role of a representative body, to speak on behalf of the youth as sometimes fast replies are needed.

14 The evaluator’s knowledge of the format, function and outcome of the YFG is limited.

15 https://www.unmgcy.org/about-overview MGCY: Who are we?

16 This evaluation does not assess the organisational structure nor the legitimacy of MGCY as a representative of global youth. However, the evaluator notes that it is a mature organisation with mechanisms for internal democracy, outreach and inclusion as well as external representation. In this capacity, MGCY contributed with legitimacy to the youth representation within the S+50 process.

17 It should be noted here that one of the fundamental principles of MGCY is that of universal (open) participation.

The evaluator concludes that there has been unclarity about YTF’s role among the actors in the process. The YTF did in effect act as a facilitator of youth inclusion. On the same note, YTF did also effectively contribute to the representation, in particular through the elaboration and presentation of the youth policy paper and the facilitation of youth representation. On a whole, the YTF together with the youth policy paper were successful tools for combining representative and participatory representation of youth in the process.

B.a Enabling factors

The following enabling factor, in addition to those outlined under “inclusion” and “capacity building” below, have been identified as contributing to the representation of global youth in S+50:

I. The youth policy paper as a tool for representation

In a one-off global process, with a short timeframe, it would be unrealistic to expect that a fully legitimate structure of youth representation would be established. Instead, the policy paper was elaborated as a tool for the representation of the opinions of youth and youth organisations inside the S+50 process.

The policy paper was based on global consultations, and the drafting was done in a collaborative platform open for all.18 The outcome was a solid base for representation, and used systematically throughout the process to streamline youth input to the S+50 process. The outcome, the endorsement of the youth policy paper, gives evidence to the adequacy of this tool. The policy paper is further discussed in chapter D; Youth policy development.

B.a Recommendations

While the overall assessment in the evaluations undertaken in S+50 gives an overall satisfactory account of youth representation, some hurdles were identified. Below, the evaluator will present some suggestions on how the representative structure could be improved further:

I. Strengthen the role of the youth of other MGs

Through the priority given to youth in S+50, one of the Major Groups (MGs) – MGCYsuddenly received a much higher priority. As one of the prioritized actors in the process, the youth was allocated more resources, had more speaking time, etc. Some interviewees state that the prioritising of youth initially represented a challenge vis á vis other MGs. This effect is, however, said to have been mitigated by efforts made by the youth organisers themselves, as well as by UNEP.

The priority given to youth did not necessarily have to result in a competitive situation between MGs. Youth as a group, cuts across all the other MGs, and indeed young people inside the YTF reflected most, if not all, of the MGs.

18 The open participation still meets challenges of inclusiveness, as outlined in section B.b Inclusion and Equality.

The evaluator concludes that the role of these YTF members could be strengthened and visualised further in order to avoid any conflicting situation with other MGs. This could, for instance, be done by establishing a MGs work stream inside the YTF. This would not only increase the visibility and inclusion of youth from other MGs, but also increase dissemination of the youth outputs among other MGs.

III. Avoid a separate inclusion of non-organised youth Interviewees representing UNEP explain that they have an obligation to include nonorganised youth in UNEP processes, and that this was done also in S+50.19

The evaluator believes there is a need to investigate if not all youth representation in the process, including that of non-organised youth, should be integrated into one structure in order not to have a fragmented representation of youth.

In the S+50 youth structure, non-organised youth were present, both through the YFG and the YTF. They were also included and represented through the consultations and in the youth policy development process. This indicates there is a structure in place to accommodate for this group and that UNEP, together with the youth organisers, in a future process should be able to find a common strategy for the inclusion of non-organised youth inside the youth structure.

B.b Inclusion and equality

Youth representation must be assessed not only based on its format, but also on its ability to include youth in an equal and non-discriminatory way. Structures and strategies should be in place to prevent exclusion based on ethnic origin, gender, geographic origin, social stratum, age etc. This involves not only the absence of discrimination, but also supportive measures to mitigate the effects caused by inequality.

In this sub-chapter we will look at these structures and strategies concerning inclusion and equal access to the process, assess enabling factors as well as identify areas of improvement.

B.b S+50 findings

The evaluation process yields a picture of an overall inclusive youth structure. Indicators supporting this valuation that have been identified by the respondents/interviewees include;

• The recruitment process to the YTF was open and broadly disseminated, not only to MGCY constituencies etc, but also to other networks and at the local level. The selection process was rigorous and transparent. Efforts were made to ensure broad and equal representation in regards to geography, ethnicity, social strata, gender, etc.;20

• The consultations were open, and due to their virtual format accessible to most youth;

• The YFG was an open network, where “anyone” could join in to make their voice heard and contribute to the youth processes and strategies;

• The youth policy paper was drafted in an open process, based on a relatively broad consultation;

19 The evaluator does not have sufficient information on the actual inclusion of non-organised youth to verify to what extent it effectively took place.

20 According to the S+50 Youth Engagement Framework written by MGCY, the YTF was composed as follows; Africa 29%, Asia Pacific 16%, LAC 10.5%, MENA 10.5%, Europe 18%, N-America 8% and SIDS 8%.

• Youth speakers were selected through rigorous selection processes to ensure equal representation, and;

• The reception and inclusion of youth was, largely, non-discriminatory and youth was gradually recognised and accepted as a partner throughout the process (i.e. the evaluator does not see any apparent signs of age discrimination).

At the same time, respondents and interviewees do highlight several challenges related to youth’s equal opportunities to participate in the process.

The biggest discriminatory factors identified by most young respondents and interviewees are lack of full access to Internet and technology for virtual participation, as well as the host country’s inability to provide all youth participants with a Visa. The insufficient funds for youth participants at the international meeting is also highlighted by several interviewees, also when funds were large compared to many other processes.

Another hindering factor highlighted by interviewees is the culture of “last minute” arrangements. Examples include meetings on short notice within the YTF, as well as delays in confirmation of funding and accreditation from the side of UNEP and Sweden.

Language skills, rhetorical capacity as well as international experience are all aspects identified by interviewees as likely to affect participants’ ability to participate effectively in the process. The organisers did try to mitigate these unequal preconditions by starting each of the open meetings with a capacity-building session. However, this measure might not have been enough to tackle structural inequalities.

Lastly, the correlation between inclusion and outreach strategies should be considered. With a small outreach, inclusion will by default remain limited. The recommendations concerning increasing outreach, as outlined in Chapter F; Dissemination and follow-up, should therefore be considered as contributing positively to inclusion in a future process.

B.b Enabling factors

The following enabling factors have been identified as supporting an inclusive approach to youth participation in a process such as S+50:

I.. MGCYs strategies for inclusion

MGCY has mainstreamed inclusion throughout its working structures and methods. Examples of such strategies include having one focal point from the global north and one from the global south. In S+50, the MGCY inclusion strategy to ensure equal representation regarding ethnicity, gender, geographical origin, etc. was used when it came to the selection of youth speakers, participants etc. Interviewees representing both institutions and youth conclude that “the selection process was rigorous and highly inclusive.”

Another inclusion strategy that was applied in the YTF was inviting to “twin meetings” at different hours in an attempt to enable participants from different global time-zones to attend meetings.

III. New groups of youth and youth networks

Youth from the local level, non-organised youth, as well as youth who were not familiar with UN/MGCY processes have considerable hurdles to enter an UN level process, also when structures for universal participation are applied. Interviewees highlight that measures were taken, that contributed to a broader outreach and a more inclusive process. Examples include the dissemination and recruitment across national and local network, the creation of a Tool Kit for local action, the open format for participation in policy drafting as well as engaging non-organised youth and “new” youth networks in the YTF and YFG.21 22

The evaluator has been unable to fully assess the effectiveness of the outreach measures but notes that local/national structures for outreach are largely missing.23

B.b Recommendations

The recommendations below, is the evaluator’s summary and elaboration of reflections and suggestions provided by interviewees and respondents on increasing inclusion and equality in the process:

I. Ensure an equal role of host & co-host youth platforms

The global south would have been more visible in the process, should the Kenyan youth platform have been allocated a more formal role in the coordination of S+50. As stated earlier, both MGCY and LSU highlight the benefit of giving both host country youth platforms the same status.

II. Develop further inclusion methods

An increased focus on inclusion measures is recommended if the model is replicated in future processes. Interviewees have identified the following possible inclusion methods that could possible contribute:

• Use more (preferably multilingual) aggregating tools, such as online polls. Online meetings alone will not be able to accommodate vast numbers of youth.

• Develop methods to lower the language barrier further in the consultation phase as well as in the policy drafting. Options can include parts of the consultations being conducted in multilingual virtual questionnaires/polls/brainstorming format (Menti, Slido) so that participants´ ability to present in English, does not limit their opportunities to influence the process.24

• One interviewee indicates that the use of more facilitation methods can increase inclusion. “MGCY has the knowledge to facilitate meetings, and shouldn’t refrain from making use of it for fear of limiting the role of the YTF.”

21 Non-organised youth are young people that are not affiliated with any particular organisation or movement. The evaluator does not have sufficient information on the actual participation of non-organised youth to verify to what extent this was a successful measure.

22 The evaluator lacks an overview of the exact number of youth representing these groups in the YTF and YFG.

23 Some recommendations on increasing outreach can be found in chapter F; Dissemination and follow-up.

24 Youth interviewee for example identifies the translation of the Tool Kit and the Educational Pack as a positive contribution to youth inclusion in S+50.

• A respondent indicates that “by giving more space to the commitments/demands/work already done, the voice of global south can be strengthened in the process.”

III. Increase inclusion by planning ahead

Several young people refer to the last-minute-organisation as a hindering factor for participation. Interviewees provide examples of how meetings were announced too late, and how accreditations were granted at short notice. The evaluator suggests that institutions involved as well as youth coordinators make an effort to change this culture. A few examples, elaborated on in chapter E; Co-creation, on how this can be done include:

• a timetable for accreditation and Visa, communicated at the beginning of the process by UNEP and the host country;

• a deadline for donors to contribute with travel related donations;

• for UNEP and the host country to take into account that youth, due to their limited financial resources and the nature of voluntary engagement, are particularly vulnerable to late decisions/accreditation/meeting announcements, etc., and;

• for the youth coordinators to actively contribute to a culture of early announcement of meetings etc. (whenever possible)

IV. Mitigate the digital barrier

One of the main hindering factors for equal inclusion of youth identified by respondents and interviewees is the lack of internet access in many regions of the world. Capacity building, consultations and policy drafting took place online, thus, excluding persons lacking internet access.

While it is beyond the scope of a UN process to provide global internet access, three potential possibilities might contribute to mitigate the effect;

• Spreading information about the consultations through bulk-SMS-messaging.

• Focusing funding on facilitation of internet access and involving youth in identifying priorities for financing/donors.

• More off-line activities, such as consultations at local/national level.

V. Increase the inclusion of children

Children below 18-years-of-age, and in particular under the age of 16, appear to have been largely absent from the youth inclusion structures in S+50 with a few exceptions.

Their involvement could potentially be strengthened. For instance, their priorities could be mapped in a separate children-consultation- strategy. Also, their role as advocates could be facilitated by non-traditional methods such as, for instance, video letters. The latter is a method that has been suggested by several youth respondents and means that young people record a video with their message to decision-makers.

B.c Capacity building and empowerment

A young person without access to adequate background information on the topic and the process will not be able to fully participate in a process such as S+50. Hence adequate capacity building and empowerment activities that contribute to youth policy development, as well as the advocacy and communication skills of youth, are key in facilitating meaningful youth participation.

Empowerment of the youth is also crucial, in order to support the long-term impact of the process itself. Empowered change makers will share and disseminate the outcome in their organisations, networks at local and national level. Dissemination and follow-up is a topic that will be discussed further in layer F.

Below follows a detailed account of the evaluation findings regarding the role of the capacity building strategy within the S+50 process, including recommendations for future processes.

B.c S+50 findings

Capacity building was given priority in the participation strategy developed by youth in S+50. It was part of;

• the start-up of the YTF;

• all consultation events, and;

• S+50 Youth Environmental Assembly (the youth pre-events in Nairobi and Stockholm)

In addition to this, the Educational Pack and the Tool Kit were two components of the process, created in order to build capacity locally for S+50 engagement.25

Furthermore, interviewees explain how the process itself was empowering for the youth involved. Consultations, policy drafting, working groups, engagement platforms, but also the youth events and the S+50 international meeting itself, empowered participating youth. There are accounts of individual journeys, of increased capacity to advocate and speak up, enhanced topical and process related knowledge etc. This resulted in what several interviewees from UNEP and the host country Sweden describe as “well informed and empowered youth leaders, activists and organisations”. The accounts indicate that capacity building and empowerment of youth contributed to successful youth representation within the process, as well as to the dissemination of the results and outcomes.

B.c Enabling factors

The following enabling factors have been identified as successfully contributing to the capacity building of youth in S+50:

I. A knowledge base provided by MGCY

As discussed elsewhere in this report, it was instrumental to the process and to the quality of the outcomes, that a platform like MGCY shared its cross-sectoral knowledge from different thematic areas, as well as from UN related political processes.

II. Collaborative preparation of youth interventions

For meaningful youth representation, the content of the youth interventions/inputs should be well informed and the youth speaker should be empowered to present it adequately. The policy drafting process with its capacity-building elements, but also the collaborative preparation of youth interventions (collaborative intervention drafting and capacity building of speakers) ensured what several institutional interviewees describes as a qualitative presence of youth in the S+50 process.

25 The evaluator does not have sufficient information about these components, to assess their use or effectiveness in the S+50 process.

III. Local level capacity building

The multilingual Tool Kit and Educational Pack were created with the purpose to disseminate the process to youth at local level. The Tool Kit provided an overview of the S+50 process, identified ways to participate on the global level as well as how to take action locally. According to interviewees, the strategy was further strengthened by national and local capacity building activities conducted by members of the YTF.

To optimise future strategies of local outreach and inclusion, it would be important to assess the outreach of the local capacity building strategy. It is, however, beyond the scope of this evaluation.