Opinion on the European Economic and Social Committee on The EU Youth Test (own-initiative opinion)
Date: 2022-09-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU law, participatory democracy, political participation, representative democracy, young person, youth policy








C_2022486EN.01004601.xml










21.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 486/46






Opinion on the European Economic and Social Committee on The EU Youth Test
(own-initiative opinion)
(2022/C 486/07)






Rapporteur:



Katrīna LEITĀNE











Plenary Assembly decision


24.2.2022




Legal basis


Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure




 


Own-initiative opinion




Section responsible


Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


6.9.2022




Adopted at plenary


21.9.2022




Plenary session No


572




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


158/0/5




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1


Political participation is the basis of every functioning democracy. The main asset of the EU for young Europeans is the respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law (1). It is crucial to ensure that young people have a say in decisions affecting their future since even an indirect effect can still have a strong impact on young people and generations to come. Policies not directly targeting young people or not considered to be part of the traditional youth policy field can still have a strong impact on young people’s lives. It is important to offer efficient mechanisms which complement the existing participatory mechanisms and are aligned with democratic principles and tailored to the needs of young people. This can contribute to better and more effective policy-making.












1.2


The EESC believes that education is one of the most effective ways of reaching out to young people and to inform them about all the possible forms of participation and the values the European project represents. Existing programmes supporting formal and non-formal education, such as Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, have successfully improved the views of young people when it comes to democratic participation and the values and principles of the European Union.












1.3


The EESC points out that there is an explicit need to include young people in policy-making through their meaningful participation in the way most suited to young people, followed by monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment to ensure that the views of young people have been taken into account when policy decisions are made. Involvement throughout the policy-making process creates trust among young generations and beyond, enabling them to be seen as relevant and significant during that process. These processes should include visible and transparent communication of the outcomes of their involvement. This element is crucial in order to build trust between young people and policy-making (2). Furthermore, social inclusion and reaching out to groups with different needs is very important.












1.4


The EESC agrees that civil society organisations can play a critical role in engaging young people in societal challenges and therefore in their participation in policy-making and the democratic process. Such organisations can serve as bridges and support networks to help young people engage with formal public bodies and enable young people to become active citizens. The EESC supports these organisations and young citizens in taking action and calls for measures to enable them to do so.












1.5


The EESC encourages the EU institutions and Member States to implement measures and mechanisms that ensure that the youth perspective is taken into account in every policy field, while also creating space for young people to provide consistent and expert input on the challenges they are facing. These structures should also include transparent and visible follow-up and monitoring mechanisms, and complement existing youth participation instruments while not resulting in decreased funding. Suitable resources should be made available for meaningful youth participation in policy-making.












1.6


Young people’s participation in policy and decision-making processes can support better regulation and policies by mapping and understanding the current and upcoming trends that are impacting the lives of young people and future generations. This can also make the task of the author of a proposal easier, since they can receive qualitative input to complement secondary data.












1.7


The EESC would like to stress that while the EU Youth Test is built on the key objectives of the EU Youth Strategy (3) and the European Year of Youth, both emphasise the importance of youth mainstreaming in policy-making, which requires a cross-sectoral approach. It is also one of the measures set out in the Report on the Final Outcome (4) of the Conference on the Future of Europe which has been endorsed by all voting components in the Conference plenary and citizens. To achieve long-lasting impact and a legacy beyond the European Year of Youth, young people need to be empowered to lead the change and to build a better future.












1.8


The EESC acknowledges the reference to the EU Youth Test in the European Commission’s Communication on the outcomes of the Conference on the Future of Europe (5). However, it stresses that the Commission’s proposal is not in line with the goals and means of the original proposal and lacks meaningful engagement with youth organisations and experts, the mainstreaming of youth in all policies and does not consider the long-term impact of policies on future generations. The EESC believes an EU Youth Test should be part of the Better Regulation Toolbox as a separate tool, since future generations and young people deserve specific attention.












1.9


The EESC is calling for more cooperation between the institutions on aligning existing successful initiatives such as the EU Youth Dialogue, ‘Your Europe, Your Say!’ and the European Youth Event, and for them to be connected to future initiatives such as the EU Youth Test, in line with the EU Youth Strategy. Furthermore, the EESC outlines a list of proposals on youth participation in the EESC and aims to introduce the EU Youth Test concept in its work.




2.   General comments

2.1   
The role of young people in building the European project










2.1.1


Young people are the engine of the European project and their creativity, energy and enthusiasm is the driving force for its sustainability. The current year 2022 has been designated the European Year of Youth, with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, stating that ‘Europe needs all of its youth’ and ‘Our union needs a soul and a vision they can connect to’ (6).












2.1.2


The EU project cannot be effectively and properly achieved in the current democratic environment without recognising the discourse on youth political participation (7) within democratic traditions and geopolitical contexts. The Vice-President for Promoting our European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, has stated that ‘The European Year of Youth should bring a paradigm shift in how we include young people in policy and decision-making’. The underlying justification is to provide access to, and to empower (8) young people to engage in meaningful youth participation.












2.1.3


According to Eurobarometer polls (9), less than half (47 %) of Europeans trust the EU and only 44 % have a positive image of it. The future of the European project is highly dependent on how strong young people’s association is with Europe’s values and their willingness to embrace a European identity. Young people’s active engagement in the political and decision making processes is crucial since their future will be determined by today’s decisions. Therefore, participatory instruments should be introduced to ensure young people’s voices are taken into account. Participation in civil and democratic life has to be strengthened at all levels to ensure Europe’s future prosperity, acknowledging that democratic maturity influences (10) patterns of political participation among young people in the EU.












2.1.4


The EU’s initiative to convene a Conference on the Future of Europe worked as an incentive to promote participatory dialogue with citizens across the Union. Improving the effectiveness of existing youth participation mechanisms, and developing new ones, is considered to be the way forward. As suggested in the final outcomes of the Conference on the Future of Europe, this could include a ‘Youth Test’ (11) of legislation, with an impact assessment and a consultation mechanism involving representatives of young people (12).












2.1.5


The Youth Test acts as a method of Strategic Foresight for policy-making. Strategic Foresight is a valuable concept that the European Commission aims to use within the policy-making process. As it builds on principles such as horizon scanning, megatrends analysis, scenario planning and visioning, it is inevitable that the youth perspective and that of future generations is considered within this framework. While the foresight process acknowledges that the future is not predetermined, it collects information on possible scenarios and aims to prepare for emerging challenges. Intergenerational dialogue can include valuable tools that ensure that the policies drafted consider these trends and future scenarios. Conducting analysis that considers the perspective of young people and future generations can and should contribute to better and more tailored policies that are capable of addressing the challenges of future generations.












2.1.6


In order to create better policies that are fit for future challenges, these need to acknowledge and safeguard the rights of young people and future generations, ensuring there are no negative impacts on any specific generational and social groups. These groups are currently often ignored or considered as part of other groups, which does not reflect the reality. As a result, policies do not properly address challenges and contribute to the decline in trust and disengagement with formal institutions.




2.2   
The need for meaningful youth participation










2.2.1


Meaningful involvement is about power-sharing, an ability to make decisions, with the engagement of other stakeholders, under transparent conditions known to all actors concerned. Well-designed accountability processes establish the trust of all stakeholders in political participatory processes and the explicit responsibilities of the various actors should be communicated to all stakeholders.












2.2.2


Young people’s trust in public institutions has stalled since the global financial crisis in the late 2000s (13) and their perception of having political influence and representation in decision-making remains unchanged. Youth participation in democratic life can take diverse forms. However voting in local, national or European elections is considered to be the most effective way of making their voice heard by decision-makers (39 %) (14) while the proportion of young people trusting this type of democratic participation is still very low. At the same time, for those likely to stay away from politics this is due to the lack of meaningful engagement and trust and the feeling that there is no point in participating without their contribution being taking into account. One of the main barriers for young people to participate is the belief that decision-makers ‘don’t listen to people like me’ (15). Promoting trust and strengthening the dialogue between young people and public institutions is thus crucial to ensuring the preparedness and resilience of societies to cope with future shocks (16).












2.2.3


A majority (70 %) (17) of young people feel they do not have much, or any, say over important decisions, laws and policies affecting the EU as a whole. 24,8 % (18) of young people feel they have no influence at all over what topics enter public or political debates and a further 40,8 % say they do not have much influence. Furthermore, 2/3 of the respondents consider that more awareness among politicians of young people’s concerns would help young people to influence public policy more, while more than 50 % of them think that a stronger role of youth organisations in politics would serve this purpose as well.












2.2.4


Young people have changed their modes of participation, now preferring non-institutionalised, and particularly non-electoral, forms of political engagement (19). Research has increasingly shown that this is linked to declining levels of trust in public bodies, and dissatisfaction with how representative democracy works. Young people’s unconventional political participation has become increasingly fluid, individualised and personalised with a preference for engaging on single issues and topics as well as direct activism and protest in the sense of ‘individual lifestyle choices’ (20). Overall, young people are highly motivated politically. Experts on political participation, when considering the question of youth participation, have turned their focus from whether young people wish to participate to where and how they choose to express their political views (21). Considering the wide range of ways young people now seek to influence policy and politics, there is a clear need to take account of the unconventional nature of political participation, participatory decision-making, enhanced communication and transparency mechanisms within a democratic institutions framework. Policy-making within public bodies should be adjusted and designed accordingly to ensure outreach and engagement with all groups of young people when policy decisions are made. Participatory mechanisms should in fact be inclusive and communicated in such a way as to reach a diverse public and those who are hard to reach.












2.2.5


Youth-led organisations have developed expertise and knowledge of a wide range of topics related to issues young people are facing. Including them in the policy-making process will result in more coherent and adapted rules and regulations. This is also supported by the ever increasing number of young people who are joining these organisations (22).












2.2.6


Meaningful engagement with young people is crucial. Youth participation needs to be improved, tackling in particular: lack of youth democratic representation, and lack of a youth perspective outside of the traditional youth policy domain. Young people wish to be included in shaping policies that impact their lives. Intergenerational justice (23) is how inequality between generations in ageing societies can be healed.












2.2.7


The existing tools for youth impact analysis, such as Tool #31 in the Better Regulation Toolbox, do not provide for youth mainstreaming and the inclusion of youth organisations and young people with relevant expertise, who are able to provide a systematic review of the issues from a youth perspective. What is more, based on the publications available, such tools are implemented less frequently than the relevancy and significance of the proposals would require.




3.   Specific comments

3.1   
The EU Youth Test










3.1.1


The proposal is based on three pillars: consultation, impact assessment and mitigation measures (24). It provides a framework for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of policy, based on strengthened youth participation and youth mainstreaming in policy-making, while also taking into account vulnerable groups of young people, such as young people with disabilities, NEETs (25), young people living in remote areas, etc. With the different components of the EU Youth Test, it provides a coherent structure for producing high quality and better policies that address issues that future generations may face.












3.1.2


The first step of the EU Youth Test is to determine the relevance and impact of any upcoming draft policy proposals for young people and future generations. This will help determine whether a full Youth Test should be carried out on that upcoming policy. Through a checklist tool, the assessors determine whether the draft proposal is indeed relevant for young people, and the direct and indirect impact of the proposal on young people and future generations. If such a determination is made, the Youth test proceeds to the full consultation, impact assessment and mitigation measures stages. The checklist indicators would be based on the needs and ideas of young people in order to ensure it considers the relevant proposals from their perspective.












3.1.3


Under the next step, the respective assessors are expected to consult meaningfully with youth-related stakeholders in order to ensure that systematic expertise is provided for a thorough analysis. Based on this engagement, the assessors will seek to identify young people’s concerns about the potential impacts of the draft policy being tested. This participatory component needs to be transparent and provide space for a wide range of youth representatives, youth-led organisations and young people with relevant expertise to provide input. This way, a systematic approach to the issues tackled by the draft policy proposals can be ensured. Including youth organisations, youth representatives and young people with relevant expertise can give a very diverse and unique background to the impact assessment. Through meaningful engagement, the assessors can receive a comprehensive overview based on the overarching knowledge and expertise that these young people have established. Using this input, the impact analysis can be detailed enough to identify the challenges and aspects where policies might cause disruption.












3.1.4


Based on the available data to be gathered throughout the process and on the outcomes of the consultations, the assessors are able to draft the impact analysis following the topics mentioned in the checklist and also provide foresight analysis for future generations.












3.1.5


If a negative impact is identified, the assessor ought to propose mitigation measures which should primarily focus on groups living in vulnerable situations and disadvantaged young people. It is advisable that, during the consultation, the assessors include questions about possible mitigation measures that could be included in the analysis. In the coming years, it is recommended that an evaluation be carried out to monitor the impact of the policies and how the mitigation measures have addressed the negative impacts.












3.1.6


The EU Youth Test should not substitute meaningful engagement with young people in general and should complement existing participatory mechanisms.












3.1.7


The proposal was an outcome of a series of discussions with Europe’s largest youth networks, while also being specifically mentioned in several recommendations of the EU Youth Dialogue since it (and its predecessor the Structured Dialogue) was established. Young people expressed their strong wish for a transparent policy-making procedure that would allow young people to contribute to drafting and to monitor the outcomes.












3.1.8


The proposal is also inspired by the SME test, which is an example of a suitable EU level impact assessment tool, based on the three pillars of consultation, impact analysis and mitigation measures (26). Furthermore, like the SME test, the EU Youth Test is also intended to be part of the Better Regulation Toolbox as a separate tool in order to emphasise the role of young people in the future of Europe, in line with the communication of the President of the European Commission.












3.1.9


The proposal is based on the examples of youth impact assessment tools already existing in several Member States, such as Austria, Germany, France, Flanders in Belgium and outside of the EU as well, like in New Zealand and Canada.












3.1.10


The proposed impact assessment is providing a solution to ensure the impact of policies take into account the needs and expectations of young people and provides a scope outside of the traditional youth policy field. Only a small part of the proposals from the European Commission is analysed from the youth perspective. However, a significant part of these proposals directly and indirectly affects the quality of lives of young people.












3.1.11


It is suggested to include the EU Youth Test in the publicly available Better Regulation impact assessments and publishing it on the European Youth Portal. However, the most impactful way should be further explored. Nonetheless, the Directorate-General for Communication is encouraged to actively promote it to ensure its visibility, while the Secretariat-General should support its adoption across different DGs. The EU Youth Test could be also published by those institutions that decide to implement it, including on the website of the EESC. By publishing the assessment and the final version of the proposal the youth stakeholders involved in the consultation will be able to see how their contribution has been taken into account.












3.1.12


The EU Youth Test is proposed to be a structure that can be implemented at local, regional and national level, together with the institutions of the European Union.












3.1.13


The EU Youth Test can potentially improve policies but it also needs to be based on meaningful participatory mechanisms, because drawing on community knowledge is a way to ensure efficiency and bring about improvements.




3.2   
Youth participation within the EESC










3.2.1


The EESC acknowledges the importance of youth engagement in shaping Europe’s future (27), and thus runs several successful initiatives such as ‘Your Europe, Your Say!’, the Youth Climate and Sustainability Round Tables, and the EU Youth Climate Summit jointly organised by the EESC and the European Parliament. As a follow-up to the EESC’s opinion NAT/788 (28), the EESC included a youth delegate in its official delegation to the UNFCCC COP meeting for the first time in 2021, on the occasion of COP26. Furthermore, in the context of the European Year of Youth, the EESC Civil Society Prize 2022 will reward effective, innovative and creative initiatives which aim to create a better future for and with young Europeans.












3.2.2


The EESC will endeavour to magnify the voices of young people and youth organisations through more structured, meaningful and targeted youth participatory mechanisms in order to enhance the internal engagement of young people and youth organisations in the EESC’s work. Accordingly, the following steps by the EESC should be taken:






—


transparent and cross-sectional coordination mechanisms should be introduced to mainstream youth perspectives in the EESC’s work and legislation;










—


young experts with relevant expertise on key opinions could be introduced;










—


in the context of the European Year of Youth, to have youth as a common topic for the autumn round of own-initiatives opinions;










—


to hold thematic debates with European youth organisations and grass-root organisations to link national and European perspectives more effectively;










—


youth-related topics could be selected for EESC studies (29) yearly;










—


all opinions drawn up by the EESC should also always take into account the intergenerational perspective (as they do for the gender perspective);










—


to build vibrant relations with other EU institutions to map youth participatory mechanisms and to strengthen outreach activities with youth and youth organisations at national, regional and local level;










—


to adopt the resolution on youth engagement in the EESC drafted by the Coordination Group for the European Year of Youth;










—


to create a ‘youth engagement’ tab on the EESC website to highlight the past, current and future youth-related activities including opinions, public hearings, events etc.;










—


a permanent structure could be established within the EESC to ensure that the work on youth engagement within the EESC and with the other institutions will continue beyond 2022.
















3.2.3


The EESC will further explore and consider possible ways to apply the EU Youth Test concept in its work to develop a consistent approach on youth involvement in the EESC.












3.2.4


The EESC invites the European Commission to respond to this own-initiative opinion and the EU Youth Test proposal and to brainstorm together on the implementation.





Brussels, 21 September 2022.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG




(1)  Desk research European Youth in 2021.

(2)  Influencing and understanding political participation patterns of young people, European Parliament, 2021.

(3)  European Council Resolution on The European Youth Strategy 2019-2027.

(4)  Conference on the Future of Europe, Report on the final outcome, May 2022.

(5)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0404&qid=1660827033223

(6)  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_21_4701

(7)  Deželan, T., Moxon, D., Influencing and understanding political participation patterns of young people: The European perspective, study, 2021.

(8)  Barta, O., Boldt, G., Lavizzari, A., Meaningful youth political participation in Europe: concepts, patterns and policy implications, research study, 2021.

(9)  Eurobarometer 96 — Winter 2021-2022.

(10)  Kitanova, M., ‘Youth political participation in the EU: evidence from a cross-national analysis’, Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 23, No. 7, 2020 (paper received in 2018).

(11)  https://www.youthforum.org/files/YFJ_EU_Youth_Test.pdf

(12)  Report on the final outcome of the Conference on the Future of Europe.

(13)  Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice Fit for all generations? Highlights.

(14)  Flash Eurobarometer on Youth and Democracy, conducted between 22 February and 4 March 2022.

(15)  European Parliament youth survey Report (European Parliament, September 2021).

(16)  Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice Fit for all generations? Highlights.

(17)  European Parliament youth survey Report (European Parliament, September 2021).

(18)  Youth Survey Report (Under the Trio Presidency Germany-Portugal-Slovenia, January 2022).

(19)  Youth Survey Report (Under the Trio Presidency Germany-Portugal-Slovenia, January 2022).

(20)  Youth Survey Report (Under the Trio Presidency Germany-Portugal-Slovenia, January 2022).

(21)  Deželan, T., Moxon, D., Influencing and understanding political participation patterns of young people: The European perspective, study, 2021.

(22)  Eurobarometer on the European Year of Youth: Young Europeans are increasingly engaged, European Commission, 2022.

(23)  Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice Fit for all generations? Highlights.

(24)  https://www.youthforum.org/files/Concept-Note_final.pdf and https://www.youthforum.org/files/YFJ_EU_Youth_Test.pdf

(25)  OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 27.

(26)  Better Regulation Toolbox — SME Test.

(27)  SOC/706 European Year of Youth, OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 122 and SOC/589 A new EU Youth Strategy, OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 142.

(28)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 44.

(29)  There is an ongoing EESC study on structured youth engagement: mapping local, national, EU and international good practices to develop the necessary and appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the voices of young people will be heard.