LAYER E: A CO-CREATION PROCESS

OVERALL GRADING: SATISFACTORY

Of all the layers in the evaluation model, the one concerning co-creation is perhaps the most fundamental for a meaningful level of youth inclusion to take place. It concerns the space provided to youth, their access to and influence in the process, as well as the practical implications hereof.

As discussed in Part 1; co-creation is a process in which citizens/civil society/youth are included in the identification of the problem, in the search for solutions, in the negotiation and, finally, in the implementation of policy. While co-creation does not give a group the formal right to co-decide, it does provide access to the process where youth inputs will be taken into serious consideration, and accommodated when possible.

Co-creation is a culture as much as a structure. Some of the factors that may contribute most to co-creation can be symbolic gestures, such as the official greeting of youth who are present in the room.

The evaluator’s overall impression is that a culture that favoured co-creation was present in S+50. Youth had easy access to decision-makers and were to some extent included in decision making. Other enabling factors were the human and financial resources allocated to youth. The outcome of the youth inclusion process, with the meeting conclusions endorsing the youth policy paper as well as basing recommendation 3 on youth demands, is an indication of a successful co-creation process. The recommendations also offer a kind of political accountability, even if not binding.

Important prerequisites for co-creation such as early inclusion of youth into the decision-making process, feedback to youth about their demands/inputs as well as early funding confirmation were, however, lacking. To create a guide for host countries on meaningful youth inclusion in international processes, could possibly help to mitigate such challenges, a recommendation put forward in chapter A.

Below follows a detailed account of the findings in the evaluation regarding the two components that have been identified as fundamental prerequisites for a meaningful cocreation process:

E.a. A structure to enable co-creation, including sufficient supportive measures as well as tools for accountability

E.b. Inclusion of youth in decision making and access to decision makers throughout the entire process

E.c Youth participants given the right preconditions

E.a A structure to enable co-creation, including sufficient supportive measures as well as tools for accountability

In this sub-chapter, the structure created to enable co-creation will be analysed and discussed. Enabling factors, as well as areas of improvement will also be highlighted.

E.a S+50 findings

The structure of the youth inclusion process as well as the youth structure itself is presented in Part 1 of this report. Youth were provided space and access to the process in particular through speaking time granted in the IWGs , LDs and the preparatory meetings (including the official one at the UN headquarter in New York) as well as through direct access to the host country and UNEP.

A number of supportive factors were in place to enable co-creation. They included:

• a structure for representation of youth, based on a policy paper and a YTF to facilitate youth inclusion;

• budget for youth organisation (admin, etc.) as well as for youth participants at the meetings;

• continuous communication between youth and institutional organisers;

• youth was received as a partner on the whole (absence of age-discrimination)

Interviewees also identify considerable challenges to a successful co-creation process in S+50. They include:

• a late start of the S+50 process in general, and of the youth process in particular;

• consistently late funding confirmation for youth organisation and participation;

• insufficient inclusion of youth in procedural and organisational planning/preparation;

• the youth process was partly parallel to the “main” S+50 process, even though the host country confirms that “our ambition was to integrate youth in the actual process rather than to create a parallel youth track”.

E.a Enabling factors

The following enabling factors have been identified as supporting the co-creation structure for youth (in addition to those outlined above in S+50 findings):

I. Experienced youth focal points

MGCY as coordinator, with its familiarity of the UN system and UN processes, was of particular value for youth navigating the process, for a quick start-up phase, as well as for having an impact. In particular MGCY had an important role in representing youth in the process leading up to S+50.

Also, LSU had already established a trustful cooperation with the Swedish government in previous youth inclusion processes, and could contribute to building a culture of co-creation by its open and constructive communication with the host country.

II. Volunteers’ commitment

When assessing the outcomes of the youth inclusion process of S+50 it is important to keep in mind that the majority of work was done on a voluntary basis within the Youth Focus Group and the YTF. The fact that it managed to bring out this powerful engagement of many young people is a considerable accomplishment. Furthermore, the outcomes would never have been achieved without dedication and commitment from the side of youth volunteers, often in parallel with full-time work/studies.

“Sometimes deadlines could not be met, as the YTF work was very extensive.”, one interviewee explains. This aspect should be taken into account when discussing, for example, the starting time of the YTF, efforts to reduce extra workload on youth, the allocation of sufficient funds for youth project management/admin, etc.

III. Accessible institutions

Coordination meetings between youth and the S+50 secretariat in Stockholm as well as with UNEP were held on a regular basis. Interviewees describe the secretariats and leadership, of both Sweden and UNEP, as accessible.

IV. Dedicated human resources

Interviewees from the host country confirm the importance of prioritising time and human resources to the youth inclusion process. “Meaningful youth inclusion requires considerable time on behalf of the host country”. An enabling factor was that 1.5 full time staff positions were dedicated to youth inclusion in the S+50 Secretariat.

V. Dedicated financial resources

The majority of work that enabled the youth inclusion process was done on a voluntary basis, but the process was also greatly supported by funds allocated to administrative staff within LSU and MGCY. The staff/consultants supported youth with administration, travel arrangements, events management, communication etc.

The evaluators does not have sufficient data to assess whether financial resources allocated were sufficient. According to several interviewees, it was the timing of funding, rather than the amount of money, that proved to be the biggest challenge.

E.a Recommendations

Based on the findings in the evaluation, the following recommendations can be made for improving co-creation structures in international policy processes:

I. Early budget arrangements

A minimum level of financial resources must be allocated early on in the process in order for youth structures to make an adequate project planning. Early funding commitments would allow for:

• defining realistic and common points-of-reference when discussing youth inclusion formats and funding needs with the institutional partners.

• starting the process off earlier, with a goal to have all outputs, including the youth policy paper, ready six months prior to the international meeting;

• the focal points to develop a common vision through common strategic planning and project development, including role division and task assignment;

• developing a coherent activity plan, and;

• setting up an optimal youth secretariat format.

II. Scheduled coordination meetings

When included in the coordination, youth can contribute in the identification of challenges to youth inclusion and their solutions. Scheduled coordination meetings between youth and the host country / UNEP respectively would strengthen this potential according to several interviewees.30

Such coordination meetings took place also during S+50, but they should preferably be scheduled. The exact frequency would vary between processes as well as throughout the process, but a bi-weekly interval in the most intense part of the implementation could serve as a goal.31

III. Scheduled multi-institutional update meetings

If there would have been a structure for scheduled briefings for all parties (host country/ UNEP/MGCY/youth platforms), for example on a bi-monthly basis, transparency in S+50 would have been greater. The purpose of such meetings would be to keep all parties up-to-date with events and processes and to facilitate a smoother and more efficient inclusion of youth.32 Besides, it would contribute to dissemination.33

IV. Host country capacity building

While there was a political commitment and a strong willingness to create a meaningful youth inclusion, according to some of the interviewees, the Swedish Secretariat partly lacked knowledge on UN processes, structures and youth inclusion. “There was a lack of knowledge, not of willingness” one interviewee sums up.

One interviewee from the host country explains how: “with the best intentions an event organised for youth landed totally wrong. We would have needed a few guiding principles to always base our work on.”

Capacity building trough workshops and a guideline for the host country would have been useful.34 Also, the recruitment of more staff with knowledge and previous experience of youth inclusion would have increased the know-how of the host country.

A couple of interviewees, in particular from the host country, also highlight the need to include

30 A regular structure for coordination/information meetings was part of the YTF procedural input.

31 One interviewee presents the One Planet Summit as a good example, where youth was included on a weekly basis in the regular coordination meetings with agencies donors etc. In addition to the regularity, also the fact that youth was included in the regular coordination activities, as opposed to youth specific coordination meetings, was beneficial for the youth inclusion in One Planet.

32 An example of this would be how the youth coordinators did not know about the accreditation application deadline until three days before. The information was made public, but youth were not guided to take part in it. No party had bad intentions but an efficient tool for transparency and efficiency was missing.

33 For example, the host country explains that other member states approached the Swedish government with questions about where and how youth inclusion could be supported the host country explains. Being well informed of all aspects would allow better dissemination of the youth inclusion process.

34 A recommendation on the creation of a guide for host countries is put forward under section A.b.

staff in the secretariat that is relatively young and with a background in the youth movements in order to enhance the knowledge on youth inclusion. This would indeed contribute to increase the competences of the secretariat. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that such a measure would not have contributed to youth inclusion as such, while both autonomy and representation would be lacking.

V. Avoid last minute planning/announcement

“On-the-go” project planning and implementation comes at a high cost for youth inclusion in general and youth organisers in particular. A couple of examples from S+50 brought up by interviewees include:

• late accreditation of youth participants to the preparatory-meeting in New York (only three days in advance);

• the three-day-notice of accreditation application deadline for the Stockholm meeting, and;

• the funding for youth participants that was only granted a few weeks prior to the international event.

With late access to information, project management related to the selection procedure, preparation, administration of travel, Visa and accreditation, event planning but also keeping the limited budget becomes challenging.

Measures must be taken to change this last-minute-culture, and to take into account that youth movements are more vulnerable than other stakeholders/institutions due to their voluntary engagement and strictly limited financial margins.

VI. Investigate a potential supportive administrative role of the Youth Desk

Several interviewees mention the need to follow the development of the Youth Desk at the UN, and reflect on how it could support the youth inclusion strategy and process.35

MGCY needs to be consulted and involved in this work. It is important to avoid that new, competing structures are established alongside those already existing, and to support complementary roles and tasks among organisations involved.

E.b Inclusion of youth in decision-making and access to decision-makers throughout the entire process

For youth inclusion to be meaningful, youth need to be included in decision-making on a cocreation basis, i.e. not necessarily having the role to take decisions, but rather to participate and having the opportunity to influence them. Importantly, co-creation should take place throughout the process, including agenda setting, policy development, meeting conclusions as well as organisational and procedural arrangements.

In this sub-chapter the access of youth to decision-making and decision-makers in S+50, will be analysed and discussed. Enabling factors as well as areas of improvement will also be presented.

E.b S+50 findings

It was relatively easy for youth in the S+50 process to access decision-makers as well as decision-making. Around 30% of the respondents of the surveys stated that youth were included in decision-making throughout the S+50 process. This appears to be a fairly good indicator. Several interviewees also point to the access to high level decision-makers through the S+50 as one of well-functioning aspects of the process.

35 The Youth Desk is a coordinative structure within the UN that is currently under development.

In particular the following opportunities to be involved in decision-making was mentioned by interviewees and respondents;

• Youth was part of the regional consultations implemented by UNEP;

• Youth was given space to present their positions within the LDs;

• High profile decision-makers visited the youth events;

• There was an open and regular communication between youth and the S+50 secretariats at UNEP and the host country;

• Youth had access to the UNEP coordinator as well as the Swedish ambassador to S+50

Youth’s fora for interaction with decision-makers in the S+50 process included for instance the following high-level advocacy meetings:

• The S+50 preparatory meeting at the UN headquarters in New York;

• UN Secretary-General António Guterres met with the Youth Task Force;

• Inger Andersen, Secretary General of Stockholm+50 and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), met with youth delegates at an event hosted by the Stockholm+50 Youth Task Force;

• 12 Nordic youth delegates met the Nordic environment and climate ministers and the Secretary General of the Nordic Council of Ministers;

• UN Youth Envoy, Jayathma Wickramanayake met with youth at the YEA in Stockholm

• Zoom meeting with youth and the US embassy;

• Ambassador Ms. Johanna Lissinger Peitz met with youth on several occasions;

• Swedish environmental minister Strandhäll met with youth at the Youth Environmental Assembly

The endorsement of the youth policy papers in the final recommendations/conclusions, as well as the youth influence regarding recommendation number 3, is a clear indication of access to decision-makers and decision-making of youth.36 While accountability by and large is lacking in a non-negotiated process, the inclusion of youth demands in the conclusions offers, at least, the possibility of accountability. In future processes, as well as in follow-up, the S+50 endorsement of, and urge to engage with, the youth policy paper can be used by youth as a point-of-reference.

At the same time there were numerous limitations regarding youth access to decision-making. One was the late structural inclusion of youth in the planning phase, resulting in an exclusion of youth in most of the procedural decisions, where decisions were taken early on.37 Other challenges include the structural limits to the inclusion of youth set by the process itself. The lack of feedback to youth regarding decisions also hindered meaningful co-creation as well as accountability.

36 The host country confirms that recommendation is partly based on youths´ demands. It should be mentioned that no other interviewees could identify any recommendation, except for number 9, that was based on youths´ demands, indicating that feedback on decision making is lacking.

37 While youth inclusion in early decision making/planning was limited, MGCY was engaged in early lobbying for the process to take place, as well as for it to include an ambitious youth inclusion strategy. This sheds light on the importance of having a permanent youth structure such as MGCY in order to be part of early decision making.

E.b Enabling factors

The following enabling factors have been identified as supportive in facilitating youth access to decision-makers and inclusion in decision-making;

I. Youth as a reliable partner

Youth in S+50 positioned themselves as knowledgeable and well prepared. “It was a high commitment and delivery of results – we could rely on them [youth]”, a UNEP employee confirms.

Youth interviewees confirm that they, by and large, were received as a partner by decision-makers and institutional partners, in particular by the host country.

II. Speaking time in the Leadership Dialogues

One of the great achievements of the youth in S+50 was to secure what interviewees phrase as “an unprecedented amount of speaker time” in plenary as well as in the IWGs. In the preparatory meeting in New York, youth was for example the only stakeholder given speaking time.38

Speaking time is not necessarily the most effective mean for advocacy, but it remains one of the most visual manifestations of youth inclusion. It increases the status of youth, contributes to their advocacy abilities and promotes the idea of youth inclusion as such. It is also an important recognition given to all young people involved in the process.

The high visibility of youth in fora where decision-makers were present, was the result of successful negotiation and advocacy from the side of the youth, as pointed out by one youth coordinator.

III. Access to national decision-makers

Youth interviewee have stressed the importance of creating links between youth and local decision-makers to enable follow-up and implementation. Policy makers and youth alike mention the importance of “bi-laterals” , i.e. discussions between two parties, as well as informal advocacy. Interviewees confirm that bilateral meetings between youth and member states took place before, during and after the international meeting.

The host country can support bilateral discussions and pave the way for national youth inclusion. A successful example brought up by the host country is a garden party organised by a Swedish embassy for youth and local/national decision-makers. “We have the capacity to make the decision-makers come and can, at a small organisational cost, enable networking between local youth and national/local decision-makers at the embassies”.

Another positive example is the meeting with the Kenyan president to present the youth policy paper. This was then followed up by a process of collaboration concerning the domestication of the S+50 outcomes, including setting up a youth advisory board to the Keynesian government.

38 It is outside the scope of this evaluation to make a detailed comparative analysis with other UN processes, something that would be interesting to make.

IV. Youth encounters prioritized by the host country

The Swedish ambassador Johanna Lissinger Peitz stresses the importance of giving priority to encounters with youth at various levels in order to get an increased understanding of youths´ priorities and experience. She highlights the advocacy impact of these encounters; “The very next day I would bring their message up at a high level meeting.”

Also UNEP made themselves available as speakers at youth events with the purpose to offer youth a direct connection with them. Youth interviewees also highlights how Ms. Haruko Okusu, the UNEP S+50 coordinator, was highly responsive to youth.

E.b Recommendations

Based on the findings in the evaluation, the following recommendations can be made for increasing youth access to decision-makers and inclusion in decision-making:

I. Include youth already in the planning phase

Early invitation and engagement of youth in the planning, as well as the preparation, enhances young peoples´ inclusion decision-making. It is only ahead of the resolution establishing the meeting that a real chance exists to influence the process procedurally. “The host country needs to create a space for youth, in particular for the MGCY, at this stage”, one interviewee points out.

II. Avoid a ”youth track”

While it was the goal of Sweden not to create a parallel track, youth did lack access to key moments of decision-making. One example is the summary of the key messages from the IWGs.

Another example, mentioned by interviewees, is the fact that youth were mainly dealt with over a youth responsible in the secretariat. Naturally, youth cannot be invited to all coordination activities, but there needs to be regular moments where youth engage with those taking the coordination decisions, such as the head of the secretariat.

III. Greater youth policy influence

It was an unprecedented step in UN to endorse a youth policy paper in the meeting conclusions as highlighted by several interviewees. At the same time there is a need to increase the youth influence further for a meaningful co-creation process to take place.

To start with, even when endorsed, the youth policy paper remains a youth product, separated from the official conclusions. One example of the limitation this poses, is the fact that the youth policy paper is hard to find online, in particular after the S+50 youth webpage has gone offline. A link to the youth policy paper is also absent on the official page of the meeting conclusions.

Several youth interviewees also point out that in a non-negotiated process, it should be politically feasible to base more of the single recommendations on the youths´ demands.

IV. Separate long-term and short-term youth inclusion measures

Youth continuously tried to push for enhancing the youth inclusion in S+50, one example being a procedural input put forward by youth.

The evaluator holds that youth are right in taking on a role in pushing the boundaries for youth inclusion.39 However, there is a need for the host country/UN, on the reception of such demands of increased youth inclusion, to distinguish between short-term and long-term measures needed. Measures that can be taken within the framework of the current process can, and should whenever possible, be accommodated for in the short-run. Measures where changes need to be made to the actual framework itself, on the other hand, need to be tackled in the long-run instead.

Already during the process, a document could be created, defining structural challenges for youth inclusion to be tackled in the long-run. The document could be part of the evaluation as well as an input in a continuous discussion on how to optimise the structure for youth inclusion through systematic change.

V. Feedback on decision-making as accountability measure

Co-creation does not mean co-decision. It is rather a process of open dialogue and joint problem solving with youth fully and practically involved. The youth participation in this process can be meaningful also when the decisions taken do not reflect the will of the youth, in as far as the demands of youth have been seriously considered.

Providing feedback helps youth to understand that their demand was considered also when not (fully) met. As such, the feedback becomes an important part of the accountability in a co-creation process. The youth inclusion in S+50 would have benefited greatly, had such feedback been given regarding the policy outcome from the IWGs and the LDs as well as on organisational/procedural matters. In future processes, a structure for feedback on decisions should be established as an integrated part of the co-creation structure.

E.c Youth participants given the right preconditions

Youth presence at the international meeting is a fundamental part of youth inclusion. This is where decisions are being made, where youth have access to all decision-makers involved and where they can present themselves, voice their demands and advocate for their policies. It is also a place for networking – both among youth themselves and with decision-makers. It is important to note the symbolic value of a high presence of youth, as it contributes to the perceived value of meaningful youth inclusion among youth.

In this sub-chapter the ability for youth to participate at the international meeting will be analysed and discussed. Enabling factors as well as areas of improvement will also be examined.

E.c The S+50 findings

Interviewees provide an account of how youth, on the whole, were given the right preconditions to participate in a meaningful way at the international meeting(s) in S+50. These preconditions included;

39 It is worth noting that youth themselves, in the evaluation, explain that they did have an understanding of the limitations of the process regarding youth inclusion, and why demands could not be met.

• Visibility of youth

• Capacity building of youth

• Non-discrimination (in accommodation of youth)

• Political support from decision-makers/host

• Accreditation/visa for youth (partly)

• Some financial resources to partly enable equal representation of youth (inclusion measures such as travel reimbursement, etc.)

The overview below is to provide an understanding of the scale of youth participants as well as the funding of youth participants.

Nairobi International Meeting: 40 fully funded youth at UNEA

New York preparatory-meeting at UNGA: 4 fully funded youth Youth Environmental Assembly, Stockholm: 200+ participants Stockholm International Meeting: 300+ youth accredited for the main meeting, 71 fully funded youth places

E.c Enabling factors

The following enabling factors have been identified as supporting youth participation on the spot.

I. Stockholm+50 Youth Environmental Assembly (YEA)

The S+50 YEA was an important preparation arena for the youth participation. They (one in Nairobi, and one in Stockholm) were organised in a hybrid format in order to be more inclusive. Around 300 young people participated in the meeting in the Swedish capital, along with several thousand joining online according to presentations from the organisers.

According to respondents and interviewees, the pre-event promoted the meaningful youth inclusion through:

• serving as a space for consultation and in person finalization of policy document;

• allowing youth to be up to date with the youth policy document as a preparation for advocacy;

• preparing youth participants by enhancing their knowledge of the process and their capacity to take part;

• exchanging of best practices, as a preparation for follow up;

• offering a unique space for global youth to meet, and also to increase the feeling of inclusion which is an important element of youth inclusion as such;

• providing a platform for youth to access high level decision-makers that attended the youth event, as well as bi-laterals, and;

• increasing the visibility of youth vis á vis the member states.

II. Funding for youth participation

For a meaningful youth inclusion, the funded youth spaces are crucial. It enables a more equal representation on the spot from a North-South perspective, and it contributes to a stronger youth presence for visibility and advocacy. Youth interviewees highlight that youth as a group is particularly vulnerable to financial conditions, as they predominantly take part on a voluntary basis and as they, as a group have a weak financial situation.

The Swedish government, SIDA, UNEP, Nordic Council of Ministers, Finland, etc. contributed with funds to make youth inclusion possible. The financial assistance was allocated to support costs for preparation (such as staff/consultants for admin, travel, communication) and youth participation at the international meetings.

It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to advice on a relevant level of funding for participants. Still, it is worth noticing that while considerable funding was made available for youth participants, the lack of financial means remains the determining limiting factor for equal participation at the actual international meeting. Interviewees highlight that there was an expectation of youth getting access to a much larger budget for travel. One possible strategy, introduced by a couple of interviewees, that would aim at overcoming this challenge might be to establish a multisource fund for mobilising financial resources from a wider spectrum of donors.

III. Absence of age discrimination

Several interviewees and respondents indicate that youth were received without any obvious discrimination in relation to their age. As a matter of fact, no situations of discrimination at the international meeting have come to the fore in the accounts given by the respondent and interviewees. Representatives from institutions also stress how youth were perceived as a reliable partner throughout the process and that there was a strong willingness among decision makers to accommodate youth.

E.c Recommendations

Based on the findings in the evaluation, the following recommendations can be made for improving youths’ conditions to participate on the spot:

I. Time table to accreditation and Visa

The failure to provide Visa to all youth participants was one of the main discriminatory factors identified in the evaluation. To avoid an unwanted situation where “we started too late with the Visa process”40, the host country together with UNEP should agree on a common time table regarding accreditation and Visa at the very beginning of the process. With access to such a timetable, youth coordinators would also be better positioned to facilitate their selection process, applications and travel arrangements, ensuring a more inclusive process.

II. Early confirmation on travel contribution from donors

Not only the level of financial support to youth participation is of importance, also the logistical implications of such support. “We did not know if to plan for 10, 50 or 500 youth participants until a few weeks prior to the event”, one organiser explains, highlighting the importance early confirmation of funding.

Organisers should examine the idea of setting a (semi-flexible) deadline for confirmation of travel contribution from donors. This allow for a rigorous selection process to take place at a lower organisational cost; youth to prepare adequately (capacity building etc) and travel 40 Interviewee from the host country.

arrangements to be done minimising administrative and budgetary costs.

III. Flat rate travel contribution

In projects with a short implementation phase, there is a challenge to create a structure and culture of accurate accounting. Interviewees narrate how LSU found themselves in a position where they could initially not cover for the travel reimbursements, due to the donor requirements. This poses a considerable burden not only on LSU, the financial administrator, but particularly on the youth and youth movements that had advanced the money.

Given the vulnerable economic situation in which the great majority of youth find themselves, alternative ways of providing reimbursements should be considered.

A funding structure that could be suggested in future, similar processes is the flat rate financing model (also called unit travel contribution). This “will reduce administrative burden/costs for beneficiaries and the granting authority, speed up the payment process and facilitate increased focus on the quality of the results”, as well as “reducing irregularity” according to the EU Erasmus+ Programme that is using this model of financing travel.41

IV. Pre allocation of funded seats

While interviewees refer to the selection process as rigorous and transparent, there were differences in terms of expectations regarding the allocation of funded youth seats. According to interviewees, members of the YTF, in particular, were anticipating more seats to be allocated to them.

To avoid such a situation, a rough allocation of the funded youth spaces could be agreed beforehand. This would avoid disparities in expectations among donors, institutional partners, youth coordinators as well as participating youth.

The pre allocation of (funded) seats should indicate what shares should be reserved for MGCY, the YTF, non-organised youth and host country youth platforms respectively. The allocation should be set by youth themselves, and preferably only be minimum levels, with plenty of room for adjustment.

V. A youth corner at the international meeting

In S+50, youth had a separate venue for their events away from the main international meeting. While this youth venue, according to interviewees, worked well for the Youth Environmental Assembly, a youth corner inside the international meeting would have been advisable.

A youth corner would facilitate youth participation as it:

• is a place for young people to feel safe, included and to boost confidence and energy:

• can function as a youth melting-pot, thus contribute to team building and networking as well as facilitate project planning for follow-up;

• attracts attention and makes youth more visible, and;

• provides youth with a venue for advocacy meetings.

A physical youth corner at the meeting also provides possibilities to work with dissemination activities, which will be discussed in the last layer below.

41 DECISION authorizing the use of lump sums and unit costs under the Erasmus+ Programme 2021 – 2027, 18/10/2022