LAYER C: YOUTH AUTONOMY

GRADING: GOOD

For youth to be a fully qualified partner in processes like S+50, they need to enjoy autonomy. This implies that youth will have to respect boundaries, rules and procedures set for all the players of the process. Youth will also have access to resources, just like other actors. Youth autonomy entails the right to self-organise within certain boundaries, as well as the autonomy in formulating and communicating inputs/demands, such as procedural content and policy proposals.

This chapter analyses to what extent youth was given autonomy in S+50. Interviewees and respondents give a picture of a high degree of youth autonomy regarding selforganisation. The open climate of communication is also said to have facilitated greatly to youth’s opportunity to formulate and communicate inputs autonomously to the process.

Below follows a detailed account of the findings in the evaluation regarding the two components that have been identified as fundamental prerequisites for youth autonomy;

C.a Youth autonomy in designing their representation and processes

C.b Youth autonomy in formulating and communicating their input

C.a Youth autonomy in designing their representation and processes

The democratic right to self-organisation is an intrinsic part of any meaningful inclusion. Youth also have the knowledge, skills and ability to optimise their own participation and organisation. This is why several interviewees highlights the importance of the concept by youth for youth as an underlying principle of the youth inclusion.

Below follows an outline of the findings in the evaluation, including enabling factors.

C.a S+50 findings

MGCY together with LSU established the YTF and the Swedish government gave it a political mandate. The YTF then decided on what tasks to perform and how to organise its work according to the principle “for youth by youth”. The youth policy demands were developed and presented by youth through a bottom-up approach resulting in a youth policy paper.

Youth also self-organised as they selected speakers and youth participants. Institutional partners describe the process as “impressive and inclusive”. The youth events, such as the Youth Environmental Assembly etc. were also successfully self-organised.

In conclusion, youth were given complete autonomy to self-organise their representation and process. No challenges have been mentioned by interviewees or respondents related to this matter.

C.a Enabling factors

The following enabling factors have been identified as supporting the self-organisation and autonomy of youth in S+50:

I. The youth funding and inclusion was unconditioned

Interviewees state that youth were granted a high degree of autonomy when the youth inclusion structure was established. One example mentioned by interviewees is that funding for project management as well as for the youth participants of the international meeting was, on the whole, unconditioned.

II. Previous experience and organisational know-how

Several interviewees indicate that MGCY, through its extensive involvement in UN level processes, was well equipped to lead the process of youth inclusion design. This experience is referred to as an important enabling factor for youth to act autonomously.

C.b Youth autonomy in formulating and communicating their input

Even if youth are allowed to organise themselves freely, set up their structures and processes, they can still be hindered from freely formulating their demands and inputs. Fear of repression, of losing access to funds or decision-makers are common reasons for selfcensorship among youth around the world.

In this sub-chapter, we will assess the level of autonomy achieved by youth, in terms of opportunities to formulate and communicate demands. Enabling factors as well as areas of improvement will also be examined.

C.b S+50 findings

Youth participation in UN is not rights based but “by invitation only”. Hypothetically there is a risk that this leads to self-sponsorship, where youth avoid raising uncomfortable issues, because of the fear of being excluded. Another similar structural challenge is that MGCY is not allowed to criticise member states.

Interviewees provide an account of an open communication climate in S+50, and indicate that youth enjoyed full freedom of expression without running the risk of being excluded. This meant that youth did not self-censor their inputs.

While youth as a group was given autonomy to formulate their demands, some youth participants indicate that they, for different reasons, sometimes felt excluded or side lined within the youth processes. The evaluator does not have sufficient information to assess the underlying causes or the extent of these tendencies. However, the findings do support the assumption that a sturdy organisation with democratic structures, is more likely to deal with inclusion adequately than an organisation that has been arranged ad-hoc.

C.b Enabling factors

The factors below have been identified as enabling and supportive to the autonomy of youth in S+50 regarding their input to the process:

I. Rights-based youth participation

Youth inclusion was structural and solid in S+50. Structures, such as YTF, were ensured a voice, unconditioned, throughout the process. Speaking time was granted, and coordination meetings held regularly with youth organisers. Youth was guaranteed relatively unconditioned budgets. The bias mentioned as a risk above does, hence, not appear to have been a challenge.

II. Pre-existing partnership

Interviewees have indicated that the LSU, as focal point “could put any issue or critique to their government without the fear of losing their confidence”, an indication of a functioning partnership. The fact that LSU and the Swedish government had established a stable contact already when the S+50 started, can be assumed to have contributed to this open climate of communication.