LAYER F: DISSEMINATION & FOLLOW-UP

GRADING: WEAK

For youth inclusion to be meaningful, the scope of youth involved will have to be broad, and reach far beyond the group that makes it all the way to the actual UN meeting. In particular the scope can be widened by including more youth in the policy development process as described in chapter D; Youth policy development, in national advocacy activities as well as in implementation and follow-up.

In S+50 this kind of dissemination was partly done by the youth and youth movements involved in, for instance, the YTF and the YFG. These individuals and groups would then mirror the process back to their networks and constituencies. Also, tools for outreach, such as the consultations and the capacity building activities contributed to the dissemination.

The extent of this outreach is difficult to assess, but based on the accounts given regarding funding, events, consultations, social media strategies, etc., the picture that emerges is that dissemination remained rather limited. While the S+50 process had a focus on creating the right structures, tools and working methods, a future process should pay attention to seizing the potential, and focus increasingly on global dissemination and outreach.

Youths’ role in the follow-up of the S+50 outcomes appears to have gone missing. For instance, youths´ role in co-designing national action plans and implementation was not explored in 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 dissemination and follow-up;

F.a Mirroring of the process back to youth at local and network level

F.b. Youth inclusion in follow-up and implementation

F.a Mirroring the process back to youth on local and network level

F.a S+50 findings

The youth inclusion strategy encompassed communicating the process throughout. All parts and phases of the process were to be disseminated and mirrored back at national and local level. Interviewees indicate that the strategy to engage YFG and YTF, both with a global outreach, facilitated this kind of dissemination.

An Educational Pack, as well as a Tool Kit, were developed, to provide local youth with methods and tools that facilitated local and national involvement in the S + 50.42

42 The dissemination activities, are beyond the scope of this evaluation. Not much of the local and national impact has come to the fore in the evaluation accounts, Kenya is the one successful exception..

A communication strategy was in implemented, enabling global youth to follow the process. Also, several transparency measures facilitated dissemination. At the same time interviewees account for challenges regarding webpage building as well as outreach measures over social media.

The evaluator’s knowledge of the reach of the dissemination does not suffice for a satisfactory assessment to be conducted. The evaluator does, however, attempt to examine any possible enabling factors. The platforms, tools and methods created and applied (as briefly outlined below) are examples of factors that facilitated the process.

F.a Enabling factors

The enabling factors presented below have been identified as supporting the dissemination of the process to global youth:

I. Platforms for dissemination

One of the main benefits of a broad youth inclusion, is that it holds opportunities to disseminate the process to global youth. In the case of the youth process in S +50 , the individuals, organisations and constituencies involved through the YFG and YTF had the potential to conduct such outreach.

One respondent state that “the diversity of the members of the YTF enabled them to bring home the process to different corners of the world, and launch programs in their own countries.” Some interviewees and respondents also refer to regional, national and local activities such as capacity building and consultations implemented by members of the YTF.

II. Capacity building tools

The purpose of the Tool Kit and Educational pack was to build local capacity and provide tools for local and national dissemination and participation in the S+50 process.

III. Outreach by consultations and policy drafting

The purpose of the global consultation and open policy drafting was to create a bottom-up approach to youth inclusion and to disseminate the S+50 process to global youth. How this was done is further discussed in chapter D; Youth policy development, and the challenges of outreach in sub-chapter B.b; Inclusion and equality.

F.a Recommendations

Based on the findings in the evaluation the following recommendations can be made for an improved dissemination of the S+50 process;

I. Earlier establishment of the YTF

It takes time to prepare dissemination tools, such as a webpages, social media strategies, the youth policy paper, the Tool Kit, etc. As discussed throughout this report, the establishment of the YTF, and consequently the development of several crucial activities within the (youth) processes such as tools and methods for dissemination, should have taken place much earlier.

This would have provided for instance the YTF not only with the tools needed, but also with the time, to focus more on dissemination in the preparation phase.

II. Financial support for dissemination

Throughout S+50, funds dedicated to dissemination activities were being made available.

The evaluator cannot assess whether the dissemination funds were distributed equally. Nor is it possible to get an accurate view of the amounts and whether they were sufficient.

Observed from an external point-of-view, and given the pronounced ambition to ensure inclusive outreach, as implied by meaningful youth participation, the evaluator assumes that there would have been considerable potential to scale up the dissemination. Another assumption is that the budget for youth inclusion would have had to be increased, so as to strengthen dissemination at the global, regional and local levels.

III. Create regional outreach teams

Regional outreach was partly achieved through, for example, regional consultations supported by consultants. One proposal made by one of the interviewees is that the strategy could be further strengthened by forming specific regional outreach teams, that would focus on outreach at the regional, national and local level.

A youth outreach team including, for example, national youth platforms, would have the potential to promote the process as such, as well as the consultations and opportunities to get involved for youth and youth networks at local and national level. Each regional outreach team would, preferably, be supported by a regional consultant, even if just for a short period-oftime. The regional outreach teams could also be allocated the role to further develop methods and forms for the consultations relevant to their regional setting.43

IV. Increase social media usage

While the outreach and impact of social media communication in S+50 has not been assessed in this evaluation, one interviewee mentions different hurdles related to the social media outreach. The late start is referred to as one of the most difficult challenges.

The potential of using online consultation tools such as polls, etc. published and dissemination via different social media channels, should be investigated further. This could increase not only the outreach but also the consultation base for the policy drafting. In turn, this would contribute to increased legitimacy for the youth representation in the process.

I. A joint communication plan

In order to provide youth with support for dissemination over web and social media, a joint communication plan with a time table should be agreed upon by youth coordinators and relevant communications departments at UNEP. It should cover all aspects where communication measures need to be coordinated. Experiences gained, and web-infrastructure built are likely to contribute positively to future communication strategies.

II. A youth media hub for on-spot dissemination

One young interviewee brings up the idea of using video streaming from a youth corner to communicate what is happening at the meeting to young people across the world.

Decision-makers could be invited to participate in interviews led by youth. Interviews could then be broadcast on-line. Youth participants could also share their experience from inside of the venue. Journalistic stories from the negotiation process could be disseminated in a youthful way.

A reoccurring suggestion from youth respondents is to use the method of video letters. They would serve to showcase personal narratives behind the youth demands through short video inputs from youth across the world. A youth media hub at the venue could be used for such direct transmission of the reality and the demands of global youth into the international meeting.

F.b Youth inclusion in follow-up and implementation

If youth does not see any change in policy and implementation through follow-up, their inclusion in the initial decisions will not be seen as meaningful. In a youth inclusion strategy, the evaluator discerns two possible avenues of follow-up. One relates to the policy outcome and impact. The other concerns the inclusion of youth in processes related to S+50. An optimal model of youth inclusion in follow-up activities, would merge these two avenues, combining them in one. Youth could, for example, be invited to be part of designing and implementing national action plans.

In this subchapter we will assess to what extent youth was part of the follow-up and implementation in the S+50 process. Enabling factors as well as areas of improvement will also be highlighted.

F.b. S+50 findings

Representatives of the host country emphasise that follow-up was not part of the S+50 process. Hence, a follow-up strategy for youth inclusion was not part of the mandate given to youth. A few considerations can made though, regarding follow-up at international and national level.

National level follow-up

For youth inclusion in a process such as S+50 process to be meaningful, youth needs to be involved in the development of national action plans and their implementation. The implementation is an integral part of the policy making process. It is also the part that is closest to the local level where youth live and operate and the level that the highest amount of youth organisations and youth can practically be involved in a process such as S+50. Recommendation number 9 in the conclusions of S+50 called for political support to youth inclusion in the follow-up by asking member states to “engage with” the youth policy paper. At the same time, it is hard to map national implementation and youth inclusion at national level related to the S+50 follow-up. As a matter of fact, this was not part of the youth inclusion strategy of S+50.

According to respondents and interviewees, YTF members are being contacted to participate in the follow-up. This might indicate that follow-up activities are effectively being conducted at local and national level. Follow-up activities would have to be assessed after a period of time, and is not within the scope of this evaluation report.

Kenya – an inspirational example

One of the few good practices identified is that of Kenya. At the international meeting in Stockholm the Kenyan youth delegation encountered the president of Kenya. This resulted in a meeting with the government a few weeks afterwards. These meetings resulted in a Youth Advisory Board on environmental policy, and a structural engagement of youth from local to national level, giving them access to relevant decision-makers.

International level follow-up

The S+50 process is connected to several other international processes where youth are also present.44 Interviewees mention the following activities as instances in which the inclusion of youth advanced because of S+50;

• At COP 27, for the first time there was a Youth Pavilion;45

• Also, at COP 27, YTF members were invited and topics from the S+50 youth strategy were included in side events;

• In the Green Jobs for Youth Pact – an initiative of UNEP and UNICEF – youth have been invited to be in a youth advisory group as a response to youth calling for more inclusion at S+50;

• At their meeting with the YTF, The Nordic Council of ministers acknowledged that the question of Ecocide would be brought to the ministers´ attention. Approximately six months later, the concept has been endorsed and there are discussions about a fund to support this work;

• There is an interest in streamlining the format of a YTF as well as other youth inclusion measures throughout other UNEP/UN related processes, as expressed both by UNEP and Sweden.

• MGCY are part of several other conferences and processes, with thematical overlaps with S+50.

F.b Enabling factors

Below, some of the enabling factors supporting youth inclusion in the follow-up will be presented:

I. Ownership and empowerment were created

Through the different structures of engagement, ownership has been built among participants and organisations. There is a good potential that what came out of the S+50 process will be taken care of, and used also in the future. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the process itself contributed to strengthening and empowering youth and youth networks alike. For instance, interviewees confirm that many YTF members still informally coordinate and engage, and are part of youth initiatives at, for example, COP.

II. Visibility and credibility of youth increased

By prioritising youth inclusion in an international process, youth and their potential role is showcased to member states and other institutional partners. The example of Kenya sheds light on how the empowerment of youth in S+50 was used and up scaled to the national level

44 In the processes where youth are already involved, it is hard to say if their inclusion has been advanced by S+50, or if the youth involvement would have been the same otherwise. 45 COP27 took place in Egypt, November 2022 when it comes to follow-up processes.

F.b Recommendations

Based on the findings in the evaluation the following recommendations can be made for increasing youth inclusion in the follow-up:

I. Follow-up supportive measures

Interviewees indicate that they would have liked to have a plan for youths´ role in followup already from the beginning of the process, even if no follow-up was planned for S+50 as a process. This would have contributed to providing space for youth in the implementation phase, but also to channel the empowerment created among youth in the process. Below follow a few examples on how this could be done;

• A follow-up team could be established at the very beginning of the process, including institutions as well as young individuals/groups;

• Guidance and sharing best practice on youth inclusion in the follow-up phase could be developed and promoted as part of the process, and;

• Several interviewees stress the importance of youth getting access to a fund that would co-finance youth dissemination initiatives. One interviewee points out that it would be interesting to identify at least two follow-up activities per region to showcase learning examples of co-responsibility in implementation.

II. Link the outcome to other processes

The youth policy as well as the capacity building of youth themselves are the fruits of youths’ immense effort. Results from this process, can and should be used in other fora and processes, as pointed out by several interviewees.

The following measures identified by interviewees have the potential to contribute to reuse of good results from S+50.

• Include former YTF members in capacity building or hand-over sessions in other processs to strengthen synergies;

• Work on building ownership among different youth stake holders to continue advocacy around the youth policy paper systematically throughout as well as after the conclusion of the process. As pointed out by one of the interviewees: “One of the great benefits of the youth inclusion is the potential of dissemination and creating multiplier effect of ownership.”

• Provide youth with the tools to move swiftly between the position of advocate and facilitator/implementer. International level diplomatic engagement differs from implementation that needs to be driven by innovation, activism, mobilisation and project management, etc.

III. Prolong the mandate of the YTF

One YTF member mentions the challenge of working with follow-up, having to present himself as “a former member of the YTF”. While there is no reason to make the YTF permanent, the YTF needs to be given a longer mandate – ranging from a longer start-up phase to a “wrap-up and follow-up” phase after the international meeting.

I. Follow-up youth briefings

One interviewee suggests that youth briefings be used as a way to support youth inclusion in the follow-up work. The youth briefings could connect different processes and report on what is happening in the sector to interested youth and youth networks.

The youth briefings could also disseminate contents of the process from the national level as a way to spread best practices of youth inclusion in follow-up and implementation.

II. UNEP and UN to promote synergy effects

UNEP and UN would potentially have important roles to shoulder, in bridging different processes, identifying synergies as well as using experience about inclusion of youth in different processes. Routines need to be established, that will support the reuse of learnings from S+50 in similar, future processes.

There is no streamlined way of working with youth inclusion in the UN. One interviewee suggests that a cross-divisional collaborative platform be established in UNEP to focus on youth inclusion and environmental education. It could build on the format created in the Interagency network for youth, peace and security, where relevant UN departments meet, to discuss youth inclusion related to a certain thematical question.

III. Streamline youth inclusion principles

Several interviewees point to the fact that a momentum was created in S+50 for streamlining youth inclusion in UN processes. Youth was referred to as a reliable partner, with an important role to play in international policy processes. There are many lessons learnt, and a model/ structure has manifested that can serve as the cornerstones for future youth inclusion in international processes. Interviewees express interest for using the format of the YTF in other UNEP/UN processes.

Possible ways to systematically integrate the principles of meaningful youth inclusion in future processes that have been identified by interviewees include;

1. Presenting a paper with guiding principles to UNEA, building on youth inclusion and on experiences gained in S+50;

2. The elaboration of a paper/resolution on youth inclusion principles based on the format from the UN Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth Peace and Security (YPS), adopted in 2015

The paper/resolution should focus on guiding principles for meaningful youth inclusion. It should be kept flexible and adaptable to various contexts and circumstances and not limit youths´ ability to self-organise. The evaluator suggests that Sweden, having hosted the S+50, would be best positioned to elaborate and present such a paper as a legacy of the process.

The evaluator suggests that Sweden, having hosted the S+50, would be best positioned to elaborate and present such a paper as a legacy of the process.

IV. A comprehensive plan for Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)

This external evaluation of the youth inclusion process in S+50 was not initially planned for, and only started relatively late, in October 2022.

In similar, future processes, the evaluator recommends: for a monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) plan to be put in place from the very start; that an external evaluator be consulted, preferably during the entire process, in an ongoing, learning evaluation; that a midterm evaluation is conducted in order to share, learn and develop the process, and; for the programme actors to consider combining the various monitoring and evaluation requirements for different parts/actors of the process into one joint MEL strategy, so as to minimise costs/efforts.

QUESTIONNAIRE: YOUTH INCLUSION S+50

Dear respondent,

The purpose of the evaluation is to map and analyze the format for youth inclusion created for the S+50 process in order to identify success factors and enabling factors. It is neither the organisation, nor the organisers or individuals per se to be assessed, but rather the overall structure of the process.

By taking your time to answer the questions as detailed as possible you are contributing to identifying recommendations for designing and implementing future international youth inclusion processes. Thank you!

Please note that your reply is anonymous and that you can choose to skip to answer a particular question.

Best, Åsa Gunven

External evaluator

Background:

Gender:

Age:

What organisation did you represent in the Stockholm +50 process?

What activities/events of S+50 did you attend?

Why did you get involved in S+50?

Are you coming from Global North or Global South?

1. Youth Task Force. The Youth Task Force as a format was successful in facilitating the process of youth inclusion in the S+50 process.

Rate 1-10:

1 – I fully agree 10 – I don´t agree

1a) Please develop your answer by elaborating on the strengths and weaknesses of the Youth Task Force as a format for facilitating youth inclusion.

1b) Could you think of ways to improve the format of the YTF in similar, future processes?

2. Representation of youth. The YTF was a legitimate representative of global youth in S+50.

Rate 1-10:

1 – I fully agree 10 – I don´t agree

2a) Please explain and develop your answer.

To what extent was the YTF a legitimate representative of global youth and to what extent was it not?

3. Leadership dialogues. There was a meaningful inclusion of youth in the Leadership Dialogues of the S+50 process (an objective defined by the host country Sweden)?

Rate 1-10:

1 – I fully agree 10 – I don´t agree

Please explain and develop your answer.

3a) In what ways did the Leadership Dialogues successfully include youth in a meaningful way and in what ways did it fail to do so?

3b) Could you think of ways to improve the youth inclusion in the Leadership Dialogues in similar, future processes?

4. Decision making. Youth were included in decision making throughout the Stockholm +50 process (such as agenda setting, policy drafting, conclusion, procedural, etc.)?

Rate 1-10:

1 – I fully agree 10 – I don´t agree

4a) Were youth included in decision making (in the agenda setting, policy drafting, conclusions, etc.) and in what decisions would it have been desirable to involve youth further?

4b) Could you think of ways to improve the youth inclusion in decision making in similar, future processes?

5. Equal inclusion. Youth from global North/South were included in an equal way throughout the S+50 process.

Rate 1-10: 1 – I fully agree 10 – I don´t agree

5a) Were youth from the global North/South included equally throughout the S+50 process and in what ways were they not?

5b) Could you think of ways to improve the equal inclusion of youth from North/South in similar, future processes?

6. Dissemination. Youth were involved in communicating and spreading the contents and outcomes of S+50 in their networks and in local, national contexts throughout and after the S+50 process.

Rate 1-10: 1 – I fully agree 10 – I don´t agree

6a) Where youth involved in communicating and spreading the contents and outcomes of S+50 throughout the process?

6b) To the extent youth were not involved in spreading the process S+50 process to their networks and local level, what were the reasons youth did not/could not do this? Could you think of enabling/supportive factors that would strengthen youth’s role in dissemination in future processes?

Open Questions

Kindly reflect on the questions below, and elaborate your own answer.

7. Enabling and hindering factors for youth inclusion in S+50

7a) Please mention what you see as the most important enabling factors that contributed to the inclusion of youth in S+50 (such as resources, capacity building tools, organisational design, coordination, YTF, etc.).

7b) Can you think of any enabling factors for youth inclusion that were scarce or missing?

7c) Can you think of any hindering factors to youth inclusion in S+50?

7d) Can you think of ways to overcome these hindering factors in similar future processes?

8. Youth inclusion in the follow-up to S+50

8a) To your knowledge, were youth included in the development of concrete follow-up action-plans and implementing follow-up activities at local, national or international level?

8b) Please indicate if you know of, or have engaged in, follow up activities including youth. Feel free to add anything else you like to share with the evaluator here.

Presidents´ Final Remarks to Plenary

Key r ecommendations for accelerating action towards a healthy planet for the prosperity of all

In our capacity as Presidents, the following key recommendations emerged from Member States and Stakeholders, through the Plenary and Leadership Dialogues at the Stockholm+50 International Meeting

The recommendations reflect the resolve of the participants to urgently accelerate the implementation of commitments for a healthy planet for the prosperity of all, in the context of the decade of action and delivery for sustainable development - including a sustainable recov ery from the coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic – and taking into account the outcomes from the fifth ses sion of the United Nations Environment Assembly and from the special session of the United Nations Environment Assembly to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), held 3 - 4 March 2022 in Na irobi, Kenya .

Since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, the global community has adopted a wealth of Multilateral Environmental Agreements as well as other relevant commitments, including the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda. Fulfilment of the objectives and commitments of all these agreements would take us a long way towards securing a healthy planet for all.

Stockholm+50 has emphasized the global interconnectedness of the environment and the need to collectively address the triple crisis of our common environment – climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution – for present and future generations . Stockholm+50 has also underlined the urgent need for bold and deliberate actions as well as clear political will to accelerate action on these commitments, strengthen the multilateral system, increase ambition and solidarity, and set us on a credible path towards a healthy planet for all – leaving no one behind.

The discussions during Stockholm+50, reaffirmed the importance of local realities and national implementation, and the need for a combination of incentives and policies, finance and capacity support to achieve sustainable development. We have heard the following recommendations for actions to accelerate implementation

1. Place human well -being at the centre of a healthy planet and prosperity for all , through recognizing that a healthy planet is a prerequisite for peaceful, cohesive and prosperous societies; restoring our relationship with nature by integrating ethical values; and adopting a fundamental change in attitudes, habits, and behaviours, to support our common prosperity.

2. Recogniz e and implement the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment , through fulfilling the vision articulated in principle 1 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration

3. Adopt system wide change in the way our current economic system works to contribute to a healthy planet, through defining and adopting new measures of progress and human wellbeing, supported by economic and fiscal policies that account for the value of the environment; investing in infrastructure, developing effective policy and encouraging a global dialogue to promote sustainable consumption and production; and promoting phase out of fossil fuels while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with national circumstances and recognizing the need fo r financial and technical support towards a just transition.

4. Strengthen national implementation of existing commitments for a healthy planet, through enhancing environmental national legislation, budget, planning processes and institutional frameworks; promoting evidence-based policymaking, including by enhanced collaboration between academic disciplines and thematic scientific panels, drawing on insights and expertise from indigenous and traditional knowledge ; and scaling-up capacity support and development, access to and financing for environmentally sound technologies

5. Align public and private financial flows with environmental, climate and s ustainable development commitments , through developing and implementing well-designed policies to repurpose environmentally harmful subsidies; redirecting, mobilizing and scaling up the availability of public and private financial flows to support economic diversification ; and adopting recovery and stimulus measures, blended sources of capital, and de-risking instruments that augment financial flows.

6. Accelerate system -wide transformations of high impact sectors , such as food, energy, water, buildings and construction, manufacturing, and mobility, through adopting and implementing policies to promote circularity, resource efficiency, regenerative production approaches and nature-based solutions in value chains, and adopting frameworks that enhance and reinforce transparency and accountability by business; promoting just transitions through support for impacted youth, labour, and local communities by strengthening capacities and skills for the creation of green jobs and for micro, small and medium enterprises; and transforming food systems by promoting regenerative farming and fisheries approaches that provide healthy diets and minimize food waste , including investments in the ocean economy.

7. Rebuild relationships of trust for strengthened cooperation and solidarity , through recognizing the importance of developed country leader ship in promoting sustainability transitions; supporting capacity building and technology transfer for national efforts by developing countries to implement internationally agreed environmental agreements, taking into account national circumstances, including honouring the commitment to mobilize $100 billion every year for climate finance for developing cou ntries; and enabling all relevant stakeholders including youth, women, rural communities, indigenous peoples , interfaith groups and local communities to participate meaningfully in policy formulation and implementation at both national and international le vel.

8. Reinfor ce and reinvigorate the multilateral system , through ensuring an effective rules-based multilateral system that supports countries in delivering on their national and global commitments, to ensure a fair and effective multilateralism ; strengthening environmental rule of law, including by promoting convergence and synergies within the UN system and between Multilateral Environmental Agreements; strengthening the United Nations Environment Programme, in line with the UNEP@50 Political Declaration .

9. Recognize intergenerational responsibility as a cornerstone of so und policy-making, through engaging with the Stockholm+50 Global Youth Task Force Policy Paper; highlighting the important need of building the capacity of young people to engage with financial institutions; recognizing the critical role of young people in environmental action, and highlight that progress has been made on fostering meaningful youth engagement , and calling upon the multilateral environmental funds to include youth -inclusive parameters in funding schemes, and further take steps to ensure ease of access of funds for environmental action for youthled organizations.

10. Take forward the Stockholm +50 outcomes , through reinforcing and reenergizing the ongoing international processes, including a global framework for biodiversity, an implementing agreement for the protection of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction , and the development of a new plastics convention ; and engaging with the relevant conferences, such as the 2022 UN Ocean Conference, High Level Political Forum, the 27th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change , and the Summit of the Future.