INTRODUCTION

Stockholm +50 (below S+50) set out to prioritise youth by ensuring a high level of meaningful youth inclusion.

This evaluation concludes that the youth inclusion model was successfully piloted in S+50.

Youth have been given access to decision-making and decision-makers through a variety of cocreation tools and supporting measures, such as human and financial resources. Representative structures and participatory tools have been created to provide youth with access to the S+50 process, in particular through the youth policy paper. There are even indicators that the youth inclusion strategy has contributed to lowering the threshold for youth participation in UN level processes.

“I have never seen anything as inclusive of youth”, one interviewee with insight to UN level processes comments, with reference to the overall S+50 process. Several interviewees also mention that the youth policy paper was endorsed in the final conclusions of the meeting as “an unprecedented achievement at a UN process”.

However, the evaluation also indicates several challenges. In particular the late start of the process as such, as well as the Youth Task Force (below YTF). Late confirmation on funding is highlighted as a hindering factor. Another challenge was that the roles and expectations remained unclear throughout the process. Last but not least, time, resources and tools were insufficient for an outreach that would be consistent with meaningful youth participation on a global level.

In sum, tools have been created and tested, but for a future process the challenge will be to scale up the youth inclusion and fine-tune its implementation.

BACKGROUND Evaluation assignment

This external evaluation was commissioned by the Swedish Youth Council (below LSU), and financed by SIDA and the Nordic Council of Ministers with the aim to capture what was learned through the S+50 process regarding youth inclusion. An external evaluator, Åsa Gunvén, was engaged and provided with the following evaluation questions;1

Evaluation questions

1. Goal achievement. Has the promise of a high and meaningful youth participation and influence been incorporated into the entire Stockholm 50+ process (before, during and after the international meeting)?

2. Prerequisites. Have the conditions (structures and enabling factors) for a high level of youth influence and participation been created? If/when they were missing, what were the consequences?

3. Inclusion. Was the opportunity for active participation equal from a Global North/Global South perspective?

Conceptual framework and evaluation model

The evaluation exercise started by developing an evaluation model in order to deal with a rather complex structure and process that could be expected to result in multi-layered outcomes.

The first task was to create a conceptual framework to define what is meant by a high and meaningful youth participation and influence. The conceptual framework, presented in Appendix 1, includes;

(I) The ladder of participation, Arnstein (1969);

(II) The concept of co-creation, with reference to Abrahamsson (2015)

(II) MGCY’s definition of youth participation

Based on this, an evaluation model was developed that covers six layers: mandate, representation, autonomy, policy development, co-creation, dissemination and follow-up. For each layer, two-three components/preconditions have been identified, and assessed in the evaluation. The evaluation model in Appendix 1 can also, potentially, be used as a model when designing future processes of meaningful youth inclusion.

Evaluation method

Different methodological tools were used in the evaluation process: text analysis, questionnaires,2 two focus groups and ten interviews. MGCY, LSU, UNEP as well as the Swedish government offices took part in the evaluation.

From the analysis of these initial evaluation activities, assumptions were then formed. Assumptions were confirmed/contradicted through in-depth interviews. Only assertions backed by evidence from at least two interviewees/respondents are included in the final report.

The evaluator has used the findings to assess whether or not change can be traced in the direction of meaningful youth engagement.

The Stockholm +50 process

The S+50 international meeting, took place 2-3 June 2022 in Stockholm and resulted in key recommendations to tackle the planetary crisis. It was coordinated by UNEP and Sweden, the host country, supported by the co-host country Kenya, and included three thematical Leadership Dialogues, each dealing with a specific thematic area.

2 The questioners notably only had 12 responses.

Below is a graphical timeline of the key events of the S+50 process, highlighting the key moments of youth inclusion in the focal process as well as in the youth led process. Key to this process is the establishment of the YTF, that functioned as a facilitator for the youth inclusion process and its outputs. The YTF was coordinated by the Major Group of Children and Youth (below MGCY)3 together with LSU.