B Explanatory memorandum
by Ms Inka Hopsu, rapporteur
1 Introduction
1. Young people’s role in preventing
and resolving conflicts, violence and extremism are essential to building
sustainable peace. Despite being often adversely affected by armed
conflicts, young people are valuable agents of democratic change
and as such should be actively solicited, empowered and engaged
as part of building peaceful communities. However, their potential
contribution and inclusion to effective peacebuilding has received
little attention and support.
Note
2. Over the years, the Assembly has called on member States to
improve young people’s access to quality education, to offer them
better job opportunities, to prevent their radicalisation and to
foster youth engagement in national policies and action.
NoteNote It has
also urged member States to protect children affected by armed conflict and
to end violence against children.
Note A
report on child participation is currently underway.
Note
3. In recent years, awareness has significantly grown among international
and some national actors of young people’s positive role in promoting
peace and security, which has translated into more avenues for youth political
participation. The adoption of the landmark United Nations Security
Council
Resolution 2250
(2015) (UNSCR 2250) on Youth, Peace, and Security (YPS) in
2015 generated a normative shift of the way young people are recognised
in the international peace and security platform. Several governments,
UN entities, civil society actors and others are stepping up to
implement the Resolution. Some international organisations, among
them the various UN agencies, the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe or the European
Union (UN), have created their programmes for youth representatives
to be involved in their work in international policy making. Limited
efforts have also been invested to systematically map and understand
how young people shape and influence the sustainability of peace
processes and agreements.
4. However, frustration reigns among young peacebuilders and
policy makers alike in relation to how to make intentions match
with the realities on the ground. The report by the UN Secretary
General, issued in March 2020, points to the outstanding core challenges,
including structural barriers limiting the participation of young
people and their capacity to influence decision-making, violations
of their human rights, and insufficient investment in facilitating
their inclusion and empowerment.
NoteNote
5. This report endeavours to analyse why, in over five years
since the adoption of the UNSCR 2250, the publication of several
ground-breaking policy papers advocating youth inclusion, and the
launching of various different initiatives to co-opt youth representatives
in institutional work, young peacebuilders find that their space
for action is diminishing rather than growing. I will focus on the
European context and examine how we could remove the obstacles and
rethink the decision-making processes that would enable young people
to fully play a meaningful role in the prevention and resolution
of the conflicts and tensions in and between Council of Europe member
States. The sudden escalation of the armed conflict in the Caucasus
in autumn 2020 is a bleak reminder that peace and security should
never be taken for granted, and that inclusive peacebuilding processes
are key for sustaining peace.
6. The Covid-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented global challenge.
In this time of crisis, young people are once again being the greatest
source of hope, but they are also most adversely affected by the health
crisis. Their active involvement is therefore even more important
in policy making in order not to create a lost generation.
2 Why young people’s role in the prevention
and resolution of conflicts matters?
2.1 Demography
and data
7. A wide variety of age definitions
is used to define youth. In this report, I will follow the definition
used in UNSCR 2250, which defines “youth” as people aged 18-29 years
but notes that variations exist at national and international levels.
8. Today, there are 1.8 billion youth in the world aged under
30, which is the largest number and proportion ever to have existed.
On the other hand, the 2020 Global Peace Index (GPI)
Note reveals
that the level of global peacefulness has deteriorated for the ninth
consecutive year. It is estimated that 408 million youth (or 23%
of the global population aged 15-29) live in a context affected
by armed conflict or organised violence,
Note which means
that one out of four young persons are influenced daily by wars
or armed conflicts in some way.
Note Millions of these youngsters
are displaced, most of them in neighbouring countries where they
remain vulnerable.
9. At the same time, over 900 peace agreements have been signed
globally in the last two decades, through negotiations in which
the voices of young generations have been largely absent. These
figures are important to understand the dynamics of youth and the
need for their engagement in conflict prevention and mediation process,
and for their much larger involvement in political decision making.
10. In Europe, the demographic situation as well as the rate of
conflicts is in many ways different. Only some 9% of global youth
aged 15-29 live in Europe and Russia-Eurasia combined. Statistically,
51 conflicts were counted in Europe in 2019, of which only one accounted
for a “limited war” and 16 others as “violent crises”. On the other
hand, Europe has seen the largest number of protests, riots and
strikes over the period of 2011-2018, totalling nearly 1 600 events.
Almost 70% of the conflicts in Europe remained at a non-violent
level.
NoteNote A few upheavals apart,
this figure has been relatively stable since 2005.
11. Despite the relative positive peace in Europe, too many still
grow up in areas of unresolved conflicts, which prevent their communities
from flourishing economically or socially. In a number of (f)ailing
democracies, young people cannot freely exercise their basic human
rights of freedom of assembly, speech or association. An increasing
number of young refugees who have fled wars in their home countries,
are struggling with their economic survival and integration into
European societies. Nonetheless, most European youth know little about
the atrocities of war; they are moreover faced with bullying at
school or the threats of intolerance, xenophobia, violent extremism
and terrorism in their daily lives. Today, European youth are also
raising their voices to prevent new potential conflicts related
to new challenges such as climate change.
12. Unfortunately, we are facing a general lack of data, including
in the European context, about how many young people are really
engaged in armed conflicts or organised violence, living in sub-national
regions where armed conflict is taking place or being displaced
by armed conflict, killed or injured by armed conflicts or having lost
family or loved ones in violent conflicts, or how many are unable
to attend school or work because of conflicts. No statistical data
exists either on how many young people are engaged in direct peace-making, peacekeeping
or peacebuilding activities.
13. Limited data yields limited knowledge, and limited knowledge
hampers meaningful involvement or action. Building statistical capacity
is therefore nothing less than critical groundwork for peace and
security, which needs to be taken into account within the YPS agenda.
2.2 Youth
as multi-dimensional stakeholders in the service of positive peace
14. Young people are far from being
a homogeneous group. They have diverse roles and experiences in civil,
political or military conflict, and in building peace. However,
they do have some collectively distinct challenges and opportunities,
as well as vulnerabilities and protection needs.
Note
2.2.1 Positive
vs negative peace
15. Most young people do not have
explicit intentions of participating in violent activities for the
sake of violence – or of working to build peace for the sake of
peace. However, they do share the will to live exciting and fulfilling
lives, to provide for and bring up their families, and to participate
in their society and culture. Whether they can fulfil their aspirations
or possibly resort to violence, is conditioned by whether they live
in the environment of “positive” and “negative” peace.
16. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) considers that
peace is much more than the absence of violence. Positive peace
contains “the attitudes, institutions and structures that create
and sustain peaceful societies”, whereas negative peace is defined
as “the absence of violence or fear of violence”. Furthermore, it identifies
eight pillars of positive peace:
Note
- well-functioning
government;
- low levels of corruption;
- sound business environment;
- equitable distribution of resources;
- free flow of information;
- good relations with neighbours;
- high levels of human capital, and
- acceptance of the rights of others.
17. Peaceful societies enjoying “positive peace” are those that
channel these positive pillars into productive activities and facilitate
the achievement of these goals. Violence, on the other hand, is
likely to be a symptom of under-developed positive peace. In societies
where positive peace is strong, everyone’s social engagement – including
that of youth – is less likely to manifest as violence.
Note
18. These eight pillars overlap significantly with the 17 UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and also correspond to the vision of peace
and security that young generations in modern societies wish for.
An independent study “The Missing Peace: the Independent Progress
Study on Youth, Peace, and Security” (2018)
Note carried out in assessment of the
implementation of the UNSCR 2250, shows that for many young people,
peace and security means more than just the absence of violence
or the end of violent conflict. It also includes positive visions
of free and democratic societies with environments conducive to
development and dignity, which address social, political and structural
inequalities. For the young people consulted during this study,
sustaining peace required addressing the underlying causes of corruption,
inequality and injustice that underpin violent conflict, as well
as the immediate triggers of violence (positive peace), rather than
just ending violence and addressing its symptoms and consequences
(negative peace). They argued that peace and security were inextricably
linked to the broader agenda of their stake in sustainable development,
and in the assertion or denial of their socioeconomic and cultural
rights.
19. It is therefore of utmost importance that youth peacebuilding
strategies go through a paradigm change and address all eight pillars
of positive peace and the ways that they affect the lives of young
people. Youth organisations and associations can work directly on
improving any of the eight pillars. At the same time, State and
international actors need to create an enabling environment for
youth to operate productively and non-violently within each positive
category within the broader peace and security agenda.
20. This expansion of the agenda is also essential to grasp when
dealing with the aspirations of youth organisations, networks and
youth leaders (not specifically focused on peace and security activities
in the traditional sense) when they claim in parallel for youth-inclusive
peace processes and their active inclusion as stakeholders in broader
decision-making in multiple policy areas at local, national and
international levels.
2.2.2 Debunking
stereotypes and misconceptions
21. The political agency of young
people in the context of peace processes is often associated with stereotypes
and negative perceptions: they are often perceived as the main perpetrators
of political violence, social unrest and violent extremism, or as
passive victims of conflict who lack agency and need protection. These
visions are mostly gendered: young men are seen as violent actors
who can be potential spoilers and destabilisers of peace processes
and dissidents to peace agreements, while young women are considered
as passive victims of violence.
Note The dominant narratives focus on
youth as “problematic” or on “at risk” instead of considering how
young people are positively contributing to peace in their societies.
It is critical to explore a more nuanced understanding of how young
people can shape their societies, both positively and negatively.
Note
22. Another misconception that has done more harm than good in
policy making is the reference to young people as “future generations”
or “future leaders”. The youth is not just the future, they are
the present. As a significant part of the population, they need
to be included and embedded in processes taking place now, with proper
agency and influence.
23. Finally, a peace process can only be youth-inclusive if it
recognises the diversity of youth identities. As young people span
across diverse identities and roles in peace processes, their inclusion
and participation must be understood and approached as multi-dimensional,
integrated and interconnected to other inclusion agendas.
3 Barriers
to inclusive participation in peace processes
3.1 Political
exclusion
24. Young people see peace and
security as deeply political issues, related to authorities and
institutions such as governments, media, businesses and NGOs. And
yet youth participation in formal political processes and institutions
has been declining in all countries except in some of the relatively
fledgling democracies, where young people tend to be more optimistic
and confident about their ability to make a difference through voting and
involvement in formal politics,
Note notably after “revolutions” that have
been brought about by fraudulent elections.
25. All in all, young generations increasingly express their lack
of trust in their governments, the international community and systems
of governance, which they view as corrupt, ineffective and outdated,
and which they manifest by low rates of electoral activity, political
participation (only 4.1% of young people under 30 are active party
members), and parliamentary involvement. Young people are starkly
under-represented in institutional political processes and policy
making. They are rarely found in parliaments, public administration
and decision-making committees on peacebuilding and constitution
building.
26. Despite the fact of the youth making up over 20% of the eligible
voting age of the population, their voice in mainstream politics
is very small, Only 2,2% of national parliamentarians worldwide
are under 30.
NoteNote In the Europe of 47, this figure
is not significantly higher – 3.9%.
Note
27. Apart from the politics being traditionally seen as the domain
of older, often male and wealthier citizens, significant obstacles
to youth political participation occur at different levels and in
different areas:
- The minimum
voting age requirement set for national elections at 18 in most
countries, which disenfranchises younger citizens.Note
- The minimum age for eligibility to run for office, which
is often set higher than the age to vote (often ranging between
25-40). The world average eligibility age is 22.2 years, namely
4-6 years after obtaining the voting right for the lower house and
27.9 years for the upper house.
- Increased costs for candidate nomination and campaigning
and the lack of political finance regulations make it even more
difficult for youth to start a political career.
- While participation of all citizens at the local level
is the cornerstone to building healthy democracies, it is often
at the local level that young people are not given the opportunity
to participate in decision-making processes.Note
- Contrary to other under-represented groups, few proactive
measures have been employed to boost young candidates. The result
is an often large disconnect between political leaders and young generations.
28. Young women are in many countries subject to “double discrimination” based
on their age and gender. They also often experience additional obstacles
compared with men.
29. When there are obstacles to participating in formal, institutionalised
political processes, young people can rapidly feel disempowered
and prefer alternative modes of participation over the more formal
routes. The rising tide of protests, political consumerism and populism,
and single-issue campaigns erupting everywhere all point to the
increasing appeal of non-traditional and informal modes of participation
to a youth population that is better educated, more aware and –
for the first time in history – has the tools to mobilise and organise at
short notice, thanks largely to the low-cost and high-speed connectivity
provided by mobile phones, the internet and social media. When it
comes to challenging institutions or when an issue close to their
hearts is at stake, young people are at the forefront of movements.
30. To enhance young people’s involvement in politics, governments
across the world have tried a number of measures including awareness
campaigns, compulsory voting, youth quotas, lower age requirements, establishment
of youth councils, and citizenship education. Evidence suggests
that while citizenship education can improve young people’s personal
social development and their participation in more individualised
and informal forms of engagement, compulsory voting and youth quotas
can partially help address the youth participation deficit in formal
politics.
Note So far, no European country
has introduced youth quotas at national level by legislation. However,
in nine countries political parties have set quotas.
Note
3.2 Limited
outreach, spaces and funding
31. It is not easy either for the
youth to have their voices heard through informal channels. Most
youth organisations and networks in Europe share similar hurdles
of lack of recognition, meaningful inclusion, funding and support.
Their voices are not strong, partly because their activities are
relatively unknown and have little outreach. Most of them attach
only a fragment of their focus and projects on peace and security
issues. Besides, the YPS agenda is inherently intersectional: it
must complement aspects of gender, peace and security while considering
the various factors of marginalisation of young people that need
to be tackled to achieve positive peace.
32. Despite there being more spaces created and dedicated for
young people working for and in peacebuilding, these spaces appear
not to be linked to decision-making but rather proposed as separate spaces
dedicated to youth only, such as youth parliaments
Note or youth conferences, rather than real
inclusion of young people in negotiation processes. The rare initiatives
that aim at including young people in these processes, mostly remain
tokenistic or ad hoc, targeting small groups of educated elites,
while the peacebuilding efforts on the ground seldom have a youth
lens.
33. Funding constraints play a significant role in determining
the types of activities that youth led organisations can undertake.
They operate on very limited funding, the annual budget of the organisations working
in conflict prevention and resolution in Europe amounting to an
average of 174 219 EUR
Note. This makes them
rely heavily on voluntarism (reportedly 97% of the staff). The inability
to access even small amounts of seed funding or grants impairs many
programmes from reaching wider audiences and having greater impact.
34. The various institutional and capacity-based obstacles to
receiving, managing and accounting for external funds leave youth
led organisations heavily dependent on local donations and contributions
of their own members. However, in some countries, youth organisations
are prohibited from registration or barred from the formal recognition
that might enable them to access funding. On the other hand, international
donor organisations function on supporting short-term, one-off,
small civil society projects that do not enable systemic change.
In addition, membership turnover in youth organisations is very
fast, which does not facilitate establishing long-term projects
or institutionalised partnerships, which participation in peace
negotiations would require.
35. Access to relevant and adequate funding is however fundamental
to the work of young people in conflict. Funding opportunities must
be sufficient, sustained and appropriate to young people; and be
administratively relevant to their reality (flexible eligibility
criteria for instance).
36. Finally, even if the role of youth in peacebuilding processes
is being increasingly recognised, the lack of support is also partly
due to the limited evidence based on what works or not in youth
peacebuilding strategies and programmes. As such, identifying and
measuring what initiatives have positive impact on the lives of
young people and their communities is vital to scaling up effective
support to youth around the world.
Note At the same time, monitoring and
assessing the impact should not put an extra burden on the organisational
capacity and programme implementation.
4 Overcoming
barriers
37. In trying to address the various
barriers and ways as to how to improve meaningful youth participation in
peace and security matters, I would apply the concepts used by the
IEP, approaching the question from two directions:
- Explicit engagement: initiatives
run by youth or that serve youth and directly apply their skills
and time to problem solving and peacebuilding in their communities
and countries (directly engaging youth in shaping their world);
- Implicit engagement: creating the enabling environment
for youth to avoid situations of violence, access peacebuilding
opportunities and participate in highly functioning societies that
allow human potential to flourish.
38. Both engagements must be seen at local (community), national
and international levels.
39. The key to any success in conflict regulation and peacebuilding
is building trust – both horizontally among youth themselves and
across generational divides within their communities, and vertically
in the relationships between young people and social institutions,
their governments and international stakeholders.
4.1 Explicit
engagement
40. Around 400 youth organisations
operate around the world that are in one way or another involved
in peacebuilding. These range from specialised organisations gathering
large numbers of young peacebuilders such as the UNOY Peacebuilders
that have successfully lobbied for the adoption of the UNSCR 2250
and its follow-up resolutions and help keeping YPS issues on the
UN agenda, to the European Youth Forum, which has only recently
started to focus on this thematic but is becoming increasingly stronger,
to regional peacebuilding initiatives such as the Youth Initiative
for Human Rights – a network of Balkan youth civil organisations
that won the Assembly Václav Havel Prize in 2019, to name but a
very few examples.
41. The strength of the various forms and layers of youth-led
organisations is that they often build relationships between the
formal and informal realms of peace negotiations, which may contribute
to the legitimacy of peace processes among the wider society. Youth
power may be best found in mass protests or special online media
activism for peace. Young people’s contributions to influence peace
negotiations through creative and alternative avenues, often considered
informal, need to be recognised as a critical bridge that shapes
and supports formal processes.
Note
42. Recent efforts by civil society organisations and youth experts
have helped the understanding of youth peacebuilding in the field.
The UN Inter-Agency Network on Youth Development (IANYD) Working
Group developed a
Practice
Note highlighting promising practices in policy and youth
programmes around the world. Likewise, the UNOY Peacebuilders and
Search for Common Ground developed
The
Global Survey on Youth, Peace and Security to map out the activities of youth-led organisations
working globally on peace and security. In turn, many of these initiatives
helped feed into the
Progress
Study on Youth, Peace and Security, which has contributed to define a strategy for the
implementation of UNSCR 2250.
43. These studies have highlighted many examples of different
approaches, tools and interventions that young people use to contribute
to peacebuilding in their communities, among them:
- strengthening community cohesion
and reconciliation through intercommunal, religious and ethnic dialogues
and events (for example exhibitions, plays, sports, concerts);
- building civic awareness through debates and public campaigns;
- engaging in community entrepreneurship and livelihood
programmes through capacity building and training;
- establishing alliances, networks, councils and clubs to
connect young peacebuilders, build their capacity and leadership,
and promote their participation in peacebuilding frameworks.Note
44. I would add to this list development co-operation, international
co-operation, volunteer programmes created and participated in by
young people, the actions of diaspora youth and nexus thinking.
45. Young people also play a critical role in supporting the disengagement
of their peers from violent groups, and their reintegration. Through
their presence on the ground and their better understanding of the
needs and local realities of disengaging youth, they may serve as
a bridge between disengaging youth and the community.
46. Much of the value of this work lies in youth’s ability for
outreach and mobilisation, reaching young people that governments
and international organisations often fail to reach. They are very
much at the frontlines of peacebuilding in their community, acting
as the ‘eyes and ears’ of their youth constituencies. However, their contribution
is more geared for conflict prevention (in all pillars of positive
peace) and post conflict reconciliation rather than a negotiating
force in peace processes.
47. That said, young peacebuilders have the legitimate right to
demand being more involved in political processes and decision-making,
and should be encouraged to take greater ownership and leadership
roles to build partnerships, conduct advocacy, and undertake participatory
research to strengthen youth inclusivity in peace processes. However,
there is still a need to map out the innovative ways in which youth
peacebuilders can operate within their context, in order to demonstrate
that investing in youth peacebuilders is key to building resilience
among their communities and countries. Considering that one in three
internet users is a young person, there are so many opportunities
for youth-led movements to significantly influence ongoing peace-making
efforts.
4.2 Implicit
engagement
48. To support young people working
in peacebuilding in overcoming the above-mentioned challenges, local,
regional and international authorities have the responsibility to
guarantee enabling environments for young people. The creation of
an enabling environment passes through education (including civic
and conflict resolving education, history and religious education,
media reading), health and well-being, employment and training opportunities,
political and civic participation, including in inclusive participation
in peace processes and political decisions, but also through fostering
the respect towards human rights, equal opportunities, protection
of the vulnerable, accessibility to justice and resources, and changes
in perceptions about young people.
49. Implicit engagement requires governments to aspire for positive
peace through investing in young people’s capacities, agency and
leadership and facilitating the engagement of youth organisations
and initiatives through substantial funding support, network-building
and capacity-strengthening. This approach recognises the full diversity
of youth and the ways young people organise. It prioritises partnerships
and collaborative action, where young people are viewed as equal
and essential partners for peace.
50. In this context, national and local governments should make
use of existing instruments, such as the Revised European Charter
on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life
of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and
create structures that allow real engagement of young people in decision-making
through youth councils and parliaments.
51. Implicit engagement is also relevant in preparing young people
involved in the State structures of peacekeeping and peace building,
notably in armed and police forces. It is of utmost importance that
the young recruits receive human rights education as well as training
in peace mediation, conflict resolution and reconciliation within
their training curricula. This would positively impact on the future
of the defence and law enforcement forces and would also provide
useful skills to all those enrolled in military and police training.
5 Challenges
of implementing the UN Security Council resolutions on youth, peace
and security
52. The UNSCR 2250 can be considered
as the first ever resolution to explicitly recognise the positive
role that young people play in the maintenance and promotion of
peace and security, asking for the establishment of “integrated
mechanisms for meaningful participation of youth in peace processes
and dispute-resolution”. It identifies five pillars for action:
participation, protection, prevention, partnership and disengagement
and reintegration.
53. The subsequent UNSCR 2419 (2018) and UNSCR 2535 (2020) reaffirmed
commitment to the full implementation of UNSCR 2250. UNSCR 2419
has an additional focus on the inclusive representation of youth for
the prevention and resolution of conflict, including when negotiating
and implementing peace agreements. All three resolutions urge member
States to consider ways to increase inclusive representation of
youth in decision-making at all levels, including possible integrated
mechanisms for youth to participate meaningfully in peace processes
and dispute resolution. The UNSCR recognised the critical need to
engage young people not as a security threat, but as partners in
key decision-making efforts including in political negotiations
that have a direct impact on their lives today and in the future.
Note
54. In September 2018, the UN launched the United Nations Youth
Strategy 2030, which provides an internal road map for the organisation.
While holistic in nature, it includes a specific priority on peacebuilding and
resilience-building, directly aligned with the YPS agenda. Under
its provisions, the UN is committed to recognising and supporting
the positive contributions of young people to development, peace
and security; social justice, the prevention of violence; disaster
and risk reduction; and humanitarian and climate action.
Note
55. The UNSCR 2250, 2419 and 2535 must be seen closely inter-related
with the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Although the
17 Sustainable Development Goals do not specifically mention young people,
the needs and role of youth are addressed in some of the targets
and indicators that underpin the SDGs, and the Agenda includes a
commitment to ‘the full realisation of [young people’s] rights and
capabilities, helping our countries to reap the demographic dividend’.
It creates the framework for moving towards more prosperous, equitable,
inclusive and peaceful societies, the building of which rests on
the shoulders of young people. The SDG 2030 will certainly help
the issue of YPS to be kept on international and national agendas
for the coming decade.
56. The UNSCR 2250, 2419 and 2535 collectively offer a blueprint
for meaningful youth engagement in youth-inclusive peace processes,
which are expected to create cascades of policy responses at international (in
this report’s context European) level. Indeed, there seems to be
a growing recognition of young people’s essential role in peace
and security. However, until today, most responses to translating
the recommendations to policies are fragmented, small-scale and
operating in bubbles, without opportunities for wider outreach. Many
intergovernmental and civic organisations appear to struggle with
creating a more systematic inclusion of young people in peace agreements
that would guarantee their sustainability.
Note
57. This is a challenge also within the Council of Europe where
the outcomes of youth programmes are not always visible or sustained
across its various institutions and member States, even if programmes
and projects evolve well in the pace of expected innovative solutions.
58. Thus, for example, in reaction to the first review of UNSCR
2250 in 2018, the Council of Europe North-South Centre focused immediately
its annual Lisbon Forum on identifying strategic approaches that
connect the implementation of the YPS agenda with the mission and
mandate of the Council of Europe. The Forum emphasised that the
building of democratic security, the fight against violence and
radicalisation, the promotion of human rights, social justice and
social cohesion, could not be disconnected from the issues around
YPS, and concluded that shared responsibility, reciprocal trust,
multilateral co-operation, and political involvement through inclusive
and comprehensive mechanisms of governance were the objectives that
should be pursued both by youth and political representatives to
ensure democratic processes aiming at a sustainable peace.
59. The Lisbon Forum’s recommendations consequently highlighted
three main areas:
- the cross-cutting
nature of the YPS agenda, which is key for a successful and effective
support of young people in the construction of peace;
- the need for partnership at the different levels of governance
and the importance to monitor the progress at these levels; and
- the meaningful and systemic inclusion of youth-led organisations,
including at grass-root level in decision-making and policy processes,
which must be accompanied by adequate funding to sustain their operation
and structural development.
60. The priorities and expected results of the youth sector for
2022-2023 will operate within the wider context of the Council of
Europe youth sector strategy 2030
NoteNote,
which will be the framework within which the next five biennial
“Youth for Democracy” sub-programmes will be implemented. Under
the thematic priority of “Living together in peaceful and inclusive
societies”, the activities planned will focus on enabling youth
workers and young people to gain the knowledge and skills to work
on peace-building and intercultural dialogue to prevent and combat
discrimination, exclusion and violent extremism. They aim to provide
young people with opportunities to play an active role in intercultural
dialogue; peace-building and conflict transformation; co-operation
with neighbouring and other world regions, specially through youth
mobility programmes and opportunities for intercultural learning;
convening institutions, representative bodies, community groups
and the wider society for dialogue; volunteering and solidarity
actions at local and international levels. A key emphasis will be
on mainstreaming inclusiveness, equality and intersectionality.
61. For over a decade, the Youth Sector of the Council of Europe
has initiated various projects and activities and developed educational
materials and training courses for youth in conflict-affected areas.
Note One of its flagship projects is
the Youth Peace Camp, which has been operational since 2003 and
has brought together young people (aged 18-25) from a number of
Council of Europe member States and beyond.
NoteNote These
Peace Camps allow young people across conflict divides to engage
in exchanges, learn to talk and listen to the others. Their aim
is also to have an impact on the work of public institutions and
support young people to work in their communities.
62. While it is important to invest in young people to lead peacebuilding
work, impact must be ensured beyond a selected few. For this reason,
in 2019 the YPC alumni were supported in planning and implementation
of the follow-up activities organised in their communities and allowing
to impact young people at the local level. Supporting young people
with resources at the local level seems to be crucial in order to ensure
the sustainability of the dialogue building activities. The participants
are lacking not only understanding, support and outright backlash,
but also resources for sustainable engagement in the peacebuilding,
such as funding and information on where to get support.
63. The youth sector of the Council of Europe pioneered, with
the Youth Peace Ambassadors, a project implemented between 2011
and 2014. The project promoted and supported the role of young people
in peace-building activities that contribute to living together
in dignity and dialogue. It was based on human rights, intercultural
dialogue, youth participation and the idea of young people being
ambassadors of the Council of Europe’s values in their local communities.
One of the main planned outcomes of the project is the Youth Peace
Ambassadors Network (YPAN), gathering over 80 young people active
in peace education, intercultural dialogue and conflict transformation.
The YPAN creation stands as an example of sustainability in which
young people receive institutional and financial support while remaining
fully autonomous and independent. YPAN currently has a seat in the
Advisory Council on Youth, another example of good practice in youth
participation and partnership.
64. The experiences of the Council of Europe Youth for Democracy
programme and youth-led projects across Europe show that non-formal
education and youth work are particularly effective and relevant
for peace and human rights education. Education about, through and
for human rights is central to peacebuilding, reconciliation and
approaching historical injustices.
65. The Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic
Citizenship and Human Right’s education supports the formulation
of the Council of Europe Reference Framework of competences for
Democratic Culture.
Note This competences framework provides
educational materials for education systems to equip young people
with competences to: defend and promote human rights, democracy
and the rule of law; participate effectively in a culture of democracy;
and to live peacefully together with others in culturally diverse
societies. The framework emphasises intercultural dialogue as a
guiding principle
Note to be implemented in the national curriculum
of primary and secondary schools, vocational training and higher
education across member States.
66. Young people do not need institutions to give them a voice.
However, institutions should work harder to amplify their voices.
In this spirit, several international organisations, including the
UN itself have initiated the participation of youth delegates in
their work as a key priority of their agenda on youth. All national
delegations are encouraged to involve youth delegates who would
participate – for one year – in their country’s official delegation
to the United Nations General Assembly and various functional Commissions
of the Economic and Social Council.
Note I deem it important that there could
also be Youth Delegates to the UN Security Council in order that
their voices be heard on a more permanent basis when it comes to
building and sustaining peace.
67. The European Union, which has been another frontrunner in
implementing the youth, peace and security agenda, has also several
projects for amplifying youth voices. Its Young Political Leaders
Programme aims at fostering peaceful dialogue, promoting long-term
confidence building and co-operation between leaders in third world
countries. The Young Mediterranean Voices initiative connects civil
society, educational institutions and policymakers across the Euro-Med
region to promote mutual understanding and to foster youth engagement and
leadership in view of shaping solutions to common challenges. The
Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange connects youth in Europe and the Southern
Mediterranean in a meaningful intercultural on-line experience to
enhance dialogue, media literacy and active citizenship. The network
of Young European Ambassadors fosters co-operation and sustainable
links between young people and youth organisations from the European
Union and the Eastern Neighbourhood countries. The European Union
has also supported the One Young World Peace Ambassadors initiative,
dedicated to preventing and countering violent extremism, promoting
peace-building efforts and conflict resolution through youth-led
initiatives in vulnerable communities.
Note
68. However, more crucial to the accomplishment of the YPS agenda
than empowering a limited number of youth leaders is to make a difference
to all young people on the ground in conflict zones. Presently,
the European Union is conducting close to 30 crises prevention and
response actions on four continents to strengthen youth resilience
and to promote youth-led peacebuilding.
Note
69. At the national level, Finland appears to be the only European
country that is developing its national road map for YPS and is
developing a national Action Plan on YPS. An action plan is being
drafted in collaboration with a network of youth organisations that
could serve as a blueprint for the development of action plans by other
States. Finland was also the country to host the 1st International
Symposium on Youth Participation and Peace Processes in March 2019
in Helsinki and has been a major donor country since.
70. This lassitude by most other Council of Europe member States
as regards the implementation of the UNSC resolutions may be explained
by their high degree of internal positive peace and the low societal
priority given to YPS issues (with the exception of terrorist threats).
Twenty-four Council of Europe member States are among the 50 top
countries of the 2020 Global Peace Index (GPI). Also, many EU countries
contribute to external development aid and conflict regulation in
the third world countries through the EU institutional structures.
On the other hand, the conflict-ridden member States at the bottom
end of GPI almost exclusively represent floundering democracies,
the governments of which do not aspire for positive peace solutions,
nor for giving dissenting voices a more prominent place around the
negotiation table or a greater participatory role in the society
as a whole.
6 Further
steps: rethinking decision-making processes and strengthening enabling
factors
71. Meaningful inclusion of young
people in the decision-making processes within conflict prevention, resolution
and reconciliation is undeniably a complex matter that should be
understood and approached as multi-dimensional, integrated and interconnected
to other inclusion agendas. Enabling young people’s participation
means supporting their visions of peace; creating spaces for engaging
in political processes; facilitating and supporting dignified livelihoods;
supporting education and capacity-building for peace; and facilitating
inter-community dialogue and exchange.
72. Every new process takes time to root, and a degree of perseverance
from the proponents and policymakers to keep it on track. The YPS
agenda has the chance to get inspiration and learn from the lessons of
the implementation of the UNSCR 1325 (2000) on women and peace and
security. However, differently from the gender issues, the youth
act both on the side of the villains and the victims and the entire
spectrum in between, which adds complexity to the matter when compared
to other vulnerable groups.
73. Many fragmented initiatives have been taken in the past years
by governments and international bodies. They look positive on the
surface, but often lack the substance required to turn young people
into real actors of peace. Best-practice examples from real-life
situations are still to a large extent missing.
74. As regards the UNSCR 2250, I see two intrinsic weaknesses
in their implementation: first, the missing data. The resolution
was probably launched too prematurely on political grounds, without
much empirical groundwork done on data collection. Thus, it is still
difficult to estimate how many young people are really affected
by the various conflicts and how many young people are participating
in peacebuilding. This is being done now, but data gathering needs
far more investment as the world embarks on the Sustainable Development
Agenda and seeks to operationalise UNSCR 2250.
75. Second, there is a clear mismatch of positive peace strategies
being proposed for negative peace contexts. The various recommendations
in the UNSC resolutions on YPS address democratic societies. However,
violent or armed conflicts are also a problem for countries with
autocratic and/or corrupt regimes where there is usually no trust
in politics, the army or the law enforcement. Though youth inclusion
policies might (one day) see daylight in paper in those countries,
they are not likely to be executed. It is of no surprise that only
five countries around the world are in the process of developing
national road maps for YPS. There needs to be a much stronger down-push
from the UN agencies and reflection on how to make youth involvement
work in negative environments. In fact, the question of how young
people in the conflict zones could be effectively included and participate
in peace processes, has not been fully answered in the UNSCR 2250
context, and must be given adequate attention. An example of this
could be the engagement of young people in any peace negotiations
based on the use of quota.
76. We also need a fundamental paradigm shift to design and implement
peace negotiations that include young people from the outset. Upon
the adoption of UNSCR 2535 in July 2020, the UNSC called on all
relevant actors, “to consider ways to increase the inclusive representation
of youth for the prevention and resolution of conflict, as well
as in peacebuilding, including when negotiating and implementing
peace agreements”. However, very little has been done to assess
how young people engage before and during peace negotiations to
shape a peace agreement. The processes themselves need to become
‘youth-inclusive’ as opposed to including youth in peace processes
as an add-on or tick box.
77. It seems impossible to work on the YPS agenda without working
on the democracy agenda and on the young people’s participation
in governance and political processes.
78. National parliaments can play an important role in ensuring
the implementation of the YPS agenda by adopting relevant legislation,
commissioning national road maps for YPS, allocating financial resources
and supporting inclusive youth participation. But first of all,
our parliaments need to open up to young generations. Improved youth
representation can strengthen the legitimacy of parliament, achieve
greater fairness in access to political decision-making, contribute
to better policy making and generate important symbolic effects
for youth and the political process.
79. The only quick fix to resolve the flagrant under-representation
of youth is through the use of quotas. Quota schemes have helped
other disadvantaged groups, including women and ethnic minorities,
to increase their shares in parliament and they could also help
young candidates. Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) data shows that
while a lower minimum age has not resulted in a significant increase
in the share of young people in parliaments, introducing youth quotas
has led to an increase in the number of young parliamentarians. Therefore,
not only would a youth quota of 10 or 20% directly boost representation,
it would also signal to young people in general that they have a
place in shaping politics and policies. All the same, rather than
imposing arbitrary figures on all countries, the targets should
be realistic and adjusted according to country contexts. Half the
proportion of the youth population under 30 appears to be a fair
target.
80. Along the same logic, I strongly hold that young people should
be much more involved in the work of international parliamentary
bodies such as the IPU, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly or the European Parliament
as well. Just as the last decades have called for the gender balance
in national delegations, there should be an age balance or generation
balance introduced as well.
81. Having started in politics at a young age myself, I feel it
is essential that meaningful youth participation should be promoted
at all levels when building and sustaining peace, security and stability.
Similarly to the United Nations Youth Delegate programme, I deem
it important that youth led organisations should participate on
a permanent basis in the work of the Assembly’s committees. At the
moment, it would not be realistic in the Council of Europe context
to have all delegations send their youth delegates, rather I would
see a great benefit from working with the Council of Europe Advisory
Council of Youth (CCJ) and enabling a meaningful and systematic
participation of youth representatives in the work of our Assembly
committees, and I am glad that our committee members upheld this
idea at our meeting on 26 March 2021.
82. One of the easiest ways to have an impact would be to introduce
a form of a youth partnership upon the analogy of the partnership
for democracy with the Assembly, with participation and speaking
rights within the committees, which would allow young people to
also have a say on matters that are not only focused on youth issues
but still impact them. I would also like to urge national delegations
to take into account, and relay to their parliaments, the youth
representatives’ expertise and opinions on the role and activities
of the Council of Europe, but also to ensure that the voice of young
people in their respective countries is heard in the Assembly.
83. As regards policy action, of the multitude of recommendations
that have been made by policy analysts, civil society organisations
or youth-led peacebuilding organisations on inclusive peacebuilding
policies, I find one particularly worthy of considering in this
report’s context – that of establishing global and interconnected young
mediation networks to increase youth participation and inclusion
in peace processes.
Note Collaboration and partnerships
between actors working at different levels should be considered
as a principle in designing and implementing such networks. Training
opportunities (possibly online) focussing on developing competences
on mediation, conflict transformation, leadership and peaceful political
participation are needed; pilot initiatives could be developed within
the Council of Europe youth sector.
84. As importantly, we should create spaces where young people
can freely express their voice and debate not only with their peers
but with policy makers, thus influencing behaviours, ideas and policies.
‘People to people’ contacts and networking between peers are important.
All spaces for young people to express their voices should focus
on understanding the needs of young people, so that the solutions
to address the youth issues would be tailored specifically for youth.
The consultations run with young people should become a widely used
tool to map the needs of young people, so that the policies designed
by decision makers address the root causes of the problems. It would
be worth considering creating more spaces at the Council of Europe and
its member States level to ensure a co-management system of decisions
on youth policies (taking as a role model example the Advisory Council
on Youth and the Joint Council on Youth).
85. Next to participation, the role of education remains key in
the development of core competences for the construction of peaceful
societies. Young people should be provided with useful and concrete
educational tools to fight violence, hatred and extremism. The Council
of Europe Competences Framework for Democratic Culture provides
a best guide for member States on the key competences required to
enable intercultural dialogues and to encourage member States governments
to include learning of reconciliatory skills already at an early
age, as this has been proven to be effective later on. The need
for quality education and its contribution to achievement of peace
is stressed in all the UNSC YPS resolutions. Member States should
include peace education in the formal curricula of the schools,
peace education being an important dimension in the Competences
Framework and is particularly suitable to develop skills on empathy,
mediation, conflict transformation, reconciliation, and human rights.
86. The role of non-formal education needs to be equally recognised
and supported. The experience of the youth sector on human rights
education with children and young people deserves being further
disseminated and promoted at national level, notably through the
Compass training courses. All areas and sectors of education should
contribute to the development of a culture of peace and human rights
in the spirit of the Council of Europe Charter on Education for
Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education.
87. Last but not least, enabling the engagement of youth in formal
political mechanisms does increase the fairness of political processes
by reducing democratic deficits, contributes to better and more
sustainable policies, and also has symbolic importance that can
further contribute to restore trust in public institutions, especially
among youth. Moreover, the vast majority of challenges that humanity
currently faces, such as the Covid-19 outbreak and climate change
require concerted global action and the meaningful engagement and participation
of young people to be addressed effectively. It is clear that the
crisis will only be surmounted through long-term responses looking
to ensure economic, social and environmental sustainability. It
will therefore be critical for youth to have a seat at the table
and contribute to global action towards challenges that will determine
their future.
