|
MNENJE
|
|
Evropski ekonomsko-socialni odbor
|
|
Ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih
|
|
_____________
|
|
Ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih
[mnenje na lastno pobudo]
|
|
|
|
SOC/728
|
|
|
|
Poročevalka: Katrīna LEITĀNE
|
|
Sklep plenarne skupščine
|
24. 2. 2022
|
|
Pravna podlaga
|
člen 52(2) Poslovnika
|
|
|
mnenje na lastno pobudo
|
|
|
|
|
Pristojnost
|
strokovna skupina za zaposlovanje, socialne zadeve in državljanstvo
|
|
Datum sprejetja na seji strokovne skupine
|
6. 9. 2022
|
|
Datum sprejetja na plenarnem zasedanju
|
21. 9. 2022
|
|
Plenarno zasedanje št.
|
572
|
|
Rezultat glasovanja
(za/proti/vzdržani)
|
158/0/5
|
1.Sklepi in priporočila
1.1Politična participacija je osnova vsake delujoče demokracije. Za mlade Evropejce je glavna prednost EU spoštovanje demokracije, človekovih pravic in pravne države. Ključno je zagotoviti, da imajo mladi besedo pri odločitvah, ki vplivajo na njihovo prihodnost, saj imajo lahko na mlade in prihodnje generacije velik vpliv tudi posredni učinki. Na življenja mladih lahko močno vplivajo tudi politike, ki niso neposredno usmerjene vanje ali se ne prištevajo k tradicionalnemu področju mladinske politike. Pomembno je ponuditi učinkovite mehanizme, ki dopolnjujejo obstoječe participativne mehanizme ter so usklajeni z demokratičnimi načeli in prilagojeni potrebam mladih. S tem se lahko prispeva k boljšemu in učinkovitejšemu oblikovanju politik.
1.2EESO meni, da je izobraževanje med najučinkovitejšimi načini nagovarjanja in obveščanja mladih o možnih oblikah participacije in vrednotah evropskega projekta. Z obstoječimi programi za podpiranje formalnega in neformalnega izobraževanja, kot sta Erasmus+ in evropska solidarnostna enota, se je uspešno izboljšalo mnenje mladih glede demokratične participacije ter vrednot in načel Evropske unije.
1.3EESO poudarja, da je mlade nujno treba vključiti v oblikovanje politik, in sicer z resnično participacijo na način, ki jim najbolj ustreza, čemur morajo slediti spremljanje, vrednotenje in ocena učinka, da bi se njihova mnenja zagotovo upoštevala pri sprejemanju političnih odločitev. Vključenost v celotni postopek oblikovanja politik med mladimi in drugimi vzbuja zaupanje, saj omogoča, da so prepoznani kot pomembni in bistveni v tem procesu. Ti postopki bi morali vključevati vidno in pregledno sporočanje izidov v zvezi z vključenostjo mladih, saj je to ključen element za vzpostavitev zaupanja med mladimi in oblikovalci politik. Zelo pomembna sta tudi socialno vključevanje in nagovarjanje skupin z različnimi potrebami.
1.4EESO se strinja, da imajo lahko organizacije civilne družbe bistveno vlogo pri vključevanju mladih v reševanje družbenih izzivov in s tem pri njihovi participaciji pri oblikovanju politik in demokratičnem procesu. Take organizacije lahko delujejo kot mostovi in podporne mreže, ki mladim pomagajo sodelovati s formalnimi javnimi organi in jim omogočajo, da postanejo aktivni državljani. EESO podpira delovanje teh organizacij in mladih državljanov ter poziva, naj se sprejmejo ukrepi, ki jim bodo to omogočali.
1.5EESO spodbuja institucije in države članice EU, naj izvajajo ukrepe in mehanizme, s katerimi bodo zagotovile, da se bo vidik mladih upošteval na vseh področjih politike, hkrati pa naredile prostor za mlade, da bodo lahko prispevali skladne in strokovne informacije o izzivih, s katerimi se soočajo. Te strukture bi morale vključevati tudi pregledne in prepoznavne mehanizme za spremljanje in nadzor ter dopolnjevati obstoječe instrumente za participacijo mladih, ne da bi se financiranje zato zmanjšalo. Zagotoviti bi bilo treba ustrezne vire za resnično participacijo mladih pri oblikovanju politik.
1.6Participacija mladih v procesih oblikovanja politik in odločanja lahko prispeva k boljšemu pravnemu urejanju in politikam, in sicer z evidentiranjem in razumevanjem sedanjih in prihodnjih trendov, ki vplivajo na življenje mladih in prihodnjih generacij. To lahko tudi olajša delo avtorjev predlogov, saj lahko prejmejo kvalitativne prispevke za dopolnitev sekundarnih podatkov.
1.7EESO želi poudariti, da ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih temelji na ključnih ciljih strategije EU za mlade in evropskega leta mladih, ki oba poudarjata pomembnost vključevanja mladinskih vprašanj v oblikovanje politik, za kar je potreben medsektorski pristop. To je tudi eden od ukrepov, navedenih v poročilu o končnem izidu Konference o prihodnosti Evrope, ki so ga potrdili vsi udeleženci s pravico do glasovanja v okviru plenarnega zasedanja Konference in državljani. Za dolgotrajen učinek in zapuščino, ki se bo ohranila tudi po evropskem letu mladih, je treba mlade opolnomočiti, da se bodo postavili na čelo sprememb in ustvarili boljšo prihodnost.
1.8EESO je seznanjen, da je Evropska komisija v sporočilu o izidih Konference o prihodnosti Evrope omenila oceno učinka EU z vidika mladih, vendar poudarja, da njen predlog ni v skladu s cilji in sredstvi prvotnega predloga, ne obsega vsebinskega sodelovanja z mladinskimi organizacijami in strokovnjaki ter vključevanja mladinskih vprašanj v vse politike in ne upošteva dolgoročnega učinka politik na prihodnje generacije. Meni, da bi morala biti ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih kot ločeno orodje vključena v zbirko orodij za boljše pravno urejanje, saj si prihodnje generacije in mladi zaslužijo posebno pozornost.
1.9EESO poziva, naj institucije okrepijo sodelovanje pri usklajevanju uspešnih obstoječih pobud, kot so mladinski dialog EU, „Vaša Evropa, vaš glas!“ in Evropska prireditev za mlade, in naj bodo te pobude povezane s prihodnjimi, kot je ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih, v skladu s strategijo EU za mlade. Poleg tega navaja seznam predlogov za participacijo mladih pri njegovih dejavnostih, v katere namerava uvesti koncept ocene učinka EU z vidika mladih.
2.Splošne ugotovitve
2.1Vloga mladih pri ustvarjanju evropskega projekta
2.1.1Mladi so gonilna sila evropskega projekta, njihova ustvarjalnost, energija in navdušenje pa so podlaga za njegovo vzdržnost. Leto 2022 je bilo določeno za evropsko leto mladih. Predsednica Evropske komisije Ursula von der Leyen je poudarila, da „Evropa potrebuje vse svoje mlade“ in da „mora imeti [naša Unija] dušo in vizijo, ki jih nagovarjata“.
2.1.2Projekta EU v trenutnem demokratičnem okolju ni mogoče učinkovito in ustrezno uresničiti, ne da bi priznali, kako pomemben je diskurz o politični participaciji mladih v okviru demokratičnih tradicij in geopolitičnih razmer. Podpredsednik za spodbujanje evropskega načina življenja Margaritis Schinas je izjavil: „Evropsko leto mladih bi moralo spremeniti paradigmo glede vključevanja mladih v oblikovanje politik in odločanje.“ To se utemeljuje s tem, da je treba mladim omogočiti dostop do resnične participacije in jih opolnomočiti zanjo.
2.1.3Po podatkih iz javnomnenjskih raziskav Eurobarometer Evropski uniji zaupa manj kot polovica Evropejcev (47 %), v pozitivni luči pa jo vidi le 44 %. Prihodnost evropskega projekta je močno odvisna od tega, kako trdna je povezanost mladih z vrednotami Evrope in v kolikšni meri so pripravljeni sprejeti evropsko identiteto. Aktivno sodelovanje mladih v političnih postopkih in postopkih odločanja je ključno, saj je njihova prihodnost odvisna od današnjih odločitev, zato bi bilo treba uvesti participativne instrumente, da bi se mnenja mladih zagotovo upoštevala. Na vseh ravneh je treba okrepiti sodelovanje v civilnem in demokratičnem življenju, da bi zagotovili blaginjo Evrope v prihodnosti, ter priznati, da na vzorce politične participacije mladih v EU vpliva demokratična zrelost.
2.1.4Pobuda EU za sklic Konference o prihodnosti Evrope je delovala kot spodbuda za podpiranje participativnega dialoga z državljani v Uniji. Za napredek je treba izboljšati učinkovitost obstoječih mehanizmov za participacijo mladih in vzpostaviti nove. V skladu s predlogom v končnem izidu Konference o prihodnosti Evrope bi to lahko vključevalo oceno učinka zakonodaje z vidika mladih, ki bi obsegala oceno učinka in mehanizem za posvetovanje s predstavniki mladih.
2.1.5Ocena učinka z vidika mladih na oblikovanje politik deluje kot metoda za strateško predvidevanje. Strateško predvidevanje je pomemben koncept, ki ga Evropska komisija namerava uporabiti v postopku oblikovanja politik. Ker temelji na načelih, kot so obzorno preiskovanje, analiziranje megatrendov, načrtovanje scenarijev in oblikovanje vizije, je neizogibno, da se v tem okviru upošteva vidik mladih in prihodnjih generacij. V postopku predvidevanja se sicer upošteva, da prihodnost ni vnaprej določena, zbirajo pa se informacije o možnih scenarijih, da bi se pripravili na nastajajoče izzive. Medgeneracijski dialog lahko vključuje dragocena orodja, ki zagotavljajo, da se ti trendi in scenariji za prihodnost upoštevajo v osnutkih politik. Z izvajanjem analiz, pri katerih se upošteva vidik mladih in prihodnjih generacij, je mogoče in bi bilo treba prispevati k boljšim in bolj prilagojenim politikam, s katerimi se bodo lahko obravnavali izzivi prihodnjih generacij.
2.1.6Za oblikovanje boljših politik, pripravljenih na prihodnje izzive, je treba v njih priznati in zaščititi pravice mladih in prihodnjih generacij ter preprečiti vsakršen negativni učinek na posamezne generacijske ali socialne skupine. Te skupine so bile doslej pogosto prezrte ali so se štele za del drugih skupin, kar ne ustreza dejanskemu stanju, zato izzivi v politikah niso ustrezno obravnavani, kar prispeva k upadanju zaupanja v formalne institucije in neudejstvovanju v njih.
2.2Potreba po resnični participaciji mladih
2.2.1Resnična vključenost pomeni delitev pristojnosti – sposobnost odločanja s sodelovanjem drugih deležnikov pod preglednimi pogoji, s katerimi so seznanjeni vsi zadevni akterji. Z dobro zasnovanimi postopki prevzemanja odgovornosti se vzpostavi zaupanje vseh deležnikov v postopke politične participacije. Vse deležnike bi bilo treba obvestiti o izrecnih odgovornostih posameznih akterjev.
2.2.2Zaupanje mladih v javne institucije vse od svetovne finančne krize s konca prvega desetletja enaindvajsetega stoletja tiči na mrtvi točki, nespremenjeno pa je tudi njihovo dojemanje lastnega političnega vpliva in zastopanosti pri odločanju. Participacija mladih v demokratičnem življenju lahko poteka v različnih oblikah, vendar glasovanje na lokalnih, nacionalnih in evropskih volitvah velja za najučinkovitejši način, da nosilci odločitev upoštevajo njihovo mnenje (39 %). Delež mladih, ki zaupajo tej vrsti demokratične participacije, pa je še vedno zelo majhen. Mladi, za katere je verjetno, da se v politiko ne bodo spuščali, imajo takšno stališče zaradi pomanjkanja vsebinskega sodelovanja in zaupanja ter zaradi občutka, da nima smisla sodelovati, če se njihov prispevek ne upošteva. Med glavnimi ovirami za udejstvovanje mladih je prepričanje, da nosilci odločitev „ne poslušajo ljudi, kot sem jaz“. Spodbujanje zaupanja in krepitev dialoga med mladimi in javnimi institucijami je zato ključno, da se zagotovita pripravljenost in odpornost družb za soočanje s prihodnjimi pretresi.
2.2.3Večina (70 %) mladih meni, da imajo pri pomembnih odločitvah, zakonih in politikah, ki vplivajo na EU kot celoto, le malo ali nič besede. 24,8 % mladih misli, da sploh nimajo vpliva na teme javnih in političnih razprav, 40,8 % pa navaja, da nanje nimajo večjega vpliva. Poleg tega dve tretjini anketirancev menita, da bi lahko mladi bolj vplivali na javno politiko, če bi se politiki bolj zavedali njihovih težav, več kot 50 % pa jih misli, da bi k takemu vplivu mladih prispevala tudi večja vloga mladinskih organizacij v politiki.
2.2.4Mladi so spremenili načine participacije in zdaj dajejo prednost oblikam političnega sodelovanja, ki niso institucionalizirane in zlasti ne obsegajo volitev. Vedno več raziskav kaže, da je to povezano z vse manjšim zaupanjem v javne organe in nezadovoljstvom z delovanjem predstavniške demokracije. Nekonvencionalna politična participacija mladih je vse bolj spremenljiva, individualizirana in personalizirana s poudarkom na vključevanju v posamezna vprašanja ali teme, pa tudi na neposrednem aktivizmu in protestiranju, na kar vplivajo odločitve posameznika o njegovem življenjskem slogu. Na splošno so mladi politično zelo motivirani. Strokovnjaki za politično participacijo so se pri obravnavi vprašanja participacije mladih osredotočili na to, ali mladi želijo sodelovati ter kje in kako želijo izraziti svoja politična stališča. Mladi si danes za vplivanje na politike in politično delovanje prizadevajo na najrazličnejše načine, zato je očitno, da je treba v okviru demokratičnih institucij upoštevati nekonvencionalno naravo politične participacije, participativno odločanje, okrepljeno obveščanje in mehanizme za preglednost. Oblikovanje politik v javnih organih bi bilo treba ustrezno prilagoditi in zasnovati tako, da bi pri sprejemanju političnih odločitev nagovarjali in vključevali vse skupine mladih. Participativni mehanizmi bi morali biti vključujoči in predstavljeni tako, da bodo dosegli različne javnosti in skupine, ki jih je težko doseči.
2.2.5Organizacije, ki jih vodijo mladi, so razvile strokovno in drugo znanje o najrazličnejših temah, povezanih s težavami, s katerimi se soočajo mladi, zato bo njihova vključenost v postopek oblikovanja politik privedla do skladnejših in bolj prilagojenih pravil in predpisov. Na to kaže tudi dejstvo, da se tem organizacijam pridružuje vse več mladih.
2.2.6Ključno je vsebinsko sodelovanje z mladimi. Participacijo mladih je treba izboljšati, pri čemer je treba obravnavati zlasti njihovo slabo demokratično zastopanost in neupoštevanje vidika mladih zunaj tradicionalnega področja mladinske politike. Mladi želijo biti vključeni v oblikovanje politik, ki vplivajo na njihovo življenje. Neenakost med generacijami v starajočih se družbah je mogoče odpraviti z medgeneracijsko pravičnostjo.
2.2.7Obstoječa orodja za analizo učinka na mlade, kot je orodje št. 31 v zbirki orodij za boljše pravno urejanje, ne zagotavljajo vključevanja mladinskih vprašanj ter vključenosti mladinskih organizacij in mladih z ustreznim strokovnim znanjem, ki lahko prispevajo sistematičen pregled vprašanj z vidika mladih. Poleg tega se po podatkih iz razpoložljivih publikacij taka orodja uporabljajo redkeje, kot bi bilo potrebno glede na pomembnost in težo predlogov.
3.Posebne ugotovitve
3.1Ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih
3.1.1Predlog temelji na treh stebrih, in sicer posvetovanju, ocenjevanju učinka in ukrepih za blaženje, ter ponuja okvir za izboljšanje uspešnosti in učinkovitosti politike na podlagi okrepljene participacije mladih in vključevanja mladinskih vprašanj v oblikovanje politik, obenem pa upošteva tudi ranljive skupine mladih, kot so mladi invalidi, mladi, ki niso zaposleni, se ne izobražujejo ali usposabljajo, mladi, ki živijo na oddaljenih območjih, itd. Ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih z različnimi elementi ponuja skladno strukturo za oblikovanje kakovostnih in boljših politik, ki obravnavajo vprašanja, s katerimi se bodo morda soočale prihodnje generacije.
3.1.2V okviru ocene učinka EU z vidika mladih je treba najprej ugotoviti, ali so prihajajoči osnutki predlogov politik relevantni za mlade in prihodnje generacije ter ali imajo učinek nanje. Na ta način je mogoče ugotoviti, ali je treba za te bodoče politike izvesti celotno oceno učinka z vidika mladih. Ocenjevalci s kontrolnim seznamom preverijo, ali je osnutek predloga resnično relevanten za mlade in ali ima posredni ali neposredni učinek na mlade in prihodnje generacije. Če ugotovijo, da je tako, se ocena učinka z vidika mladih nadaljuje s fazami posvetovanja, ocene učinka in ukrepov za blaženje. Kazalniki seznama bi temeljili na potrebah in zamislih mladih, da bi se predlogi, ki so relevantni zanje, obravnavali z njihovega vidika.
3.1.3V naslednji fazi se morajo ustrezni ocenjevalci vsebinsko posvetovati z deležniki, povezanimi z mladimi, da bi ti prispevali sistematično strokovno znanje za podrobno analizo. Na podlagi tega sodelovanja si bodo ocenjevalci prizadevali opredeliti pomisleke mladih v zvezi z morebitnimi učinki osnutka politike, vključenega v oceno. To sodelovanje mora biti pregledno in mora zagotavljati dovolj prostora za prispevke najrazličnejših predstavnikov mladih, organizacij, ki jih vodijo mladi, in mladih z ustreznim strokovnim znanjem, da se zagotovi sistematičen pristop k vprašanjem, obravnavanim v osnutkih predlogov politik. Sodelujoče mladinske organizacije, predstavniki mladih in mladi z ustreznim strokovnim znanjem lahko za oceno učinka prispevajo zelo raznoliko in edinstveno ozadje. Ocenjevalci lahko z vsebinskim sodelovanjem dobijo celovit pregled na podlagi obsežnega strokovnega in drugega znanja, ki so ga pridobili ti mladi. Analiza učinka je s temi prispevki lahko dovolj podrobna, da se z njo prepoznajo izzivi in vidiki, kjer bi politike morda povzročile motnje.
3.1.4Na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov, ki se zbirajo skozi celotni proces, in rezultatov posvetovanj lahko ocenjevalci ob upoštevanju tem s kontrolnega seznama pripravijo osnutek analize učinka, pa tudi analizo predvidevanj za prihodnje generacije.
3.1.5Če ocenjevalec ugotovi, da je učinek negativen, bi moral predlagati ukrepe za blaženje, osredotočene predvsem na skupine, ki živijo v negotovih razmerah, in prikrajšane mlade. Koristno je, če ocenjevalci v posvetovanje vključijo vprašanja o morebitnih ukrepih za blaženje, ki bi bili lahko vključeni v analizo. Priporočljivo je, da se v prihodnjih letih opravi ocena za spremljanje učinka politik in blaženja negativnih učinkov z ukrepi.
3.1.6Ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih ne bi smela nadomestiti vsebinskega sodelovanja z mladimi na splošno, ampak bi morala dopolnjevati obstoječe participativne mehanizme.
3.1.7Predlog je bil pripravljen kot rezultat niza razprav z največjimi mladinskimi mrežami v Evropi, posebej pa je bil omenjen tudi v več priporočilih mladinskega dialoga EU, odkar je bil ta (in strukturni dialog, ki je bil njegov predhodnik) vzpostavljen. Mladi so izrazili veliko željo po preglednem postopku oblikovanja politik, ki bi jim omogočil, da prispevajo k pripravi osnutka in spremljajo rezultate.
3.1.8Predlog se zgleduje tudi po preizkusu za mala in srednja podjetja, ki je primer ustreznega orodja za oceno učinka na ravni EU, temelji pa na treh stebrih, in sicer posvetovanju, analizi učinka in ukrepih za blaženje. Tako kot preizkus za mala in srednja podjetja bi bilo treba tudi oceno učinka EU z vidika mladih vključiti v zbirko orodij za boljše pravno urejanje kot ločeno orodje, da bi v skladu s sporočilom predsednice Evropske komisije poudarili vlogo mladih v prihodnosti Evrope.
3.1.9Predlog temelji na primerih orodij za oceno učinka na mlade, ki jih že ima več držav članic, med njimi Avstrija, Nemčija in Francija ter regija Flamska v Belgiji, pa tudi tretjih držav, med njimi Nova Zelandija in Kanada.
3.1.10Predlagana ocena učinka ponuja rešitev, s katero bi zagotovili, da se bodo pri učinku politik upoštevali potrebe in pričakovanja mladih, področje uporabe pa se bo razširilo s tradicionalnega področja mladinske politike. Z vidika mladih se analizirajo le redki predlogi Evropske komisije, čeprav številni posredno in neposredno vplivajo na kakovost njihovega življenja.
3.1.11EESO predlaga, naj se ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih vključi v javno razpoložljive ocene učinka v okviru boljšega pravnega urejanja in objavi na evropskem mladinskem portalu, vendar bi bilo treba dodatno preučiti, kateri način je najučinkovitejši. Kljub temu poziva Generalni direktorat za komuniciranje, naj oceno aktivno podpira, da bi zagotovil njeno prepoznavnost, generalni sekretariat pa bi moral spodbujati njeno sprejetje v različnih generalnih direktoratih. Oceno učinka EU z vidika mladih bi lahko objavile tudi institucije, ki se odločijo, da jo bodo izvajale, vključno z objavo na spletnem mestu EESO. Ko bosta objavljeni ocena učinka in končna različica predloga, si bodo mladinski deležniki, ki so bili vključeni v posvetovanje, lahko ogledali, kako se je upošteval njihov prispevek.
3.1.12Ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih se predlaga kot struktura, ki se lahko v sodelovanju z institucijami Evropske unije izvaja na lokalni, regionalni ali nacionalni ravni.
3.1.13Ocena učinka EU z vidika mladih bi lahko omogočila izboljšanje politik, vendar mora tudi temeljiti na resničnih participativnih mehanizmih, saj je z izkoriščanjem znanja skupnosti mogoče zagotoviti učinkovitost in uvesti izboljšave.
3.2Participacija mladih v EESO
3.2.1EESO se zaveda, kako pomembno je sodelovanje mladih za oblikovanje prihodnosti Evrope, zato je uvedel več uspešnih pobud, kot so „Vaša Evropa, vaš glas!“, okrogle mize za mlade o podnebju in trajnostnosti ter evropski podnebni vrh mladih, ki ga organizira skupaj z Evropskim parlamentom. EESO je kot nadaljnji ukrep po svojem mnenju NAT/788 v svojo uradno delegacijo na zasedanju Konference pogodbenic Okvirne konvencije Združenih narodov o spremembi podnebja leta 2021 (COP26) prvič vključil delegata mladih, v okviru evropskega leta mladih pa bodo z nagrado EESO za civilno družbo v letu 2022 nagrajene učinkovite, inovativne in ustvarjalne pobude, namenjene ustvarjanju lepše prihodnosti za mlade Evropejce in skupaj z njimi.
3.2.2EESO si bo prizadeval, da bi glas mladih in mladinskih organizacij podprl z bolj strukturiranimi, smiselnimi in ciljno usmerjenimi participativnimi mehanizmi za mlade, zato da bi okrepil notranje sodelovanje mladih in mladinskih organizacij pri svojem delu. V ta namen bi moral sprejeti naslednje ukrepe:
·moral bi uvesti pregledne in presečne usklajevalne mehanizme za vključevanje vidikov mladih v svoje delo in zakonodajo,
·v pripravo ključnih mnenj bi lahko vključil mlade z ustreznim strokovnim znanjem,
·v okviru evropskega leta mladih bi bili mladi lahko skupna tema za jesenski krog mnenj na lastno pobudo,
·lahko bi vodil tematske razprave z evropskimi mladinskimi organizacijami in lokalnimi organizacijami, da bi učinkoviteje povezali nacionalni in evropski vidik,
·vsako leto bi lahko za svoje študije izbral teme, povezane z mladimi,
·pri vseh mnenjih, ki jih pripravi, bi moral upoštevati tudi medgeneracijski vidik (kot upošteva vidik spola),
·lahko bi vzpostavil živahne odnose z drugimi institucijami EU, da bi evidentirali participativne mehanizme za mlade ter okrepili dejavnosti za nagovarjanje mladih in mladinskih organizacij na nacionalni, regionalni in lokalni ravni,
·lahko bi sprejel resolucijo o sodelovanju mladih v EESO, katere osnutek je pripravila koordinacijska skupina za evropsko leto mladih,
·na svoje spletno mesto bi lahko dodal zavihek o sodelovanju mladih, kjer bi opozarjal na pretekle, sedanje in prihodnje dejavnosti, povezane z mladimi, vključno z mnenji, javnimi predstavitvami, dogodki itd.,
·v svojem okviru bi lahko vzpostavil stalno strukturo, da bi se delo na področju sodelovanja mladih v EESO in z drugimi institucijami nadaljevalo tudi po letu 2022.
3.2.3EESO bo še naprej preučeval in obravnaval možnosti za uporabo koncepta ocene učinka EU z vidika mladih pri svojem delu, da bi oblikoval usklajen pristop k vključevanju mladih v svoje dejavnosti.
3.2.4EESO poziva Evropsko komisijo, naj se odzove na to mnenje na lastno pobudo in predlog ocene učinka EU z vidika mladih ter skupaj z njim razmisli o možnostih za izvedbo.
V Bruslju, 21. septembra 2022
Christa SCHWENG
predsednica Evropskega ekonomsko-socialnega odbora
*
* *
APPENDIX
The Concept Note The EU Youth Test: Investing Now in the Union's Future
Young people are not only the present, but the future as well. As a result of the pandemic and the severe financial crises in the last decade, we have seen that young people are one of the first groups within our society who are affected by the new measures, such as austerity measures or lockdowns. These policies not only impact the economic possibilities of future generations, but also create inequalities and serious consequences on mental health, among other things. In 2019, we saw a record turnout at the European elections which included a significant increase in youth participation. Young people have a strong opinion on issues that impact them, such as economic growth, digitalisation or the climate crisis. It is time to provide sufficient means to include them in policy-making since they are the ones who need to carry the burden of these decisions.
Several participatory processes exist in the European Union (EU), such as the "Have your say" portal. Young people have a number of opportunities to express their view on topics they are asked about. However, it is not enough to consult with young people, invite them on stage and just move on without taking them into consideration. There is a clear call for meaningful participation and engagement, while there is also a need for follow-up on how the voice of young people has been heard. By now, it is clear that young people are affected by policies that are outside the scope of traditional youth policies, yet they are rarely included in the policy-making process. The EU needs to step up and work on policies that consider the impact on those who will suffer the consequences: young people today and future generations.
The EU Youth Test is an impact assessment tool that will ensure that young people are considered during the policy-making processes within the EU. As a result, the EU will be able to create better policies that are long-lasting and impactful, actively close inequality gaps, and take into account current and future generations. Policies will address the experiences, needs and expectations of young people and they will help Europe's youngest generation maximise their potential.
·EU Youth Test: with and for youth
The EU Youth Test is designed to evaluate the impact that any new proposals may have on young people in the EU and identify mitigation measures necessary to avoid any negative impacts.
It is based on three pillars:
§Meaningful engagement with relevant youth stakeholders.
§Impact assessments of draft proposals.
§Mitigation measures to address adversities facing groups of young people, with a special focus on groups living in vulnerable situations.
It supports the mainstreaming of young people by addressing the lack of involvement in policy fields that are not usually considered youth-related, e.g. sustainability, economic or infrastructure policies.
The EU Youth Test will focus on all proposals coming from the European Commission. All EU proposals should be assessed to see the impact on the lives of young people. The assessment carried out by each Directorate-General (DGs) would include the following steps:
§application of a standardised checklist to determine how relevant the proposal is to young people and future generations (those yet to be born);
§qualitative consultation with representatives of young people from youth-led organisations and experts;
§analysis of the draft proposal based on the available data and the outcomes of the discussions;
§summary of the impact on young people with clear indication of the proposal's degree of suitability;
§in case of a low level of suitability, clear recommendations for changes to mitigate the potential negative impact;
§publication of the result of the EU Youth Test (e.g. on the Youth Portal).
The EU Youth Test should be conducted by every DG. DGs should be prepared to use the impact assessment tool and would need to be properly trained to include youth stakeholders meaningfully in the policy-making process.
·Bringing the missing 25% to the forefront
Young people make up 25% of the whole EU population and, while they will live the longest with the consequences and impacts of the regulations designed today, they are underrepresented in political processes and in consultations.
The EU Youth Test has already proven to be useful in several national legislative processes. For example, in Germany in the last four years, the level of relevance was checked in the case of more than 500 laws, with more than 100 impact assessments conducted. These assessments cover a wide range of topics such as the implementation of the Climate Protection Programme 2030 in tax law. While in Germany the test does not include mitigation measures, it highlights how certain legislation can impact the life of young people. The assessment pointed out several benefits for young people in terms of affordable, long-distance commuting opportunities, but also warned that the increased access to mobility is relevant only for those young people who live close to existing infrastructure.
Furthermore, we believe a youth impact assessment could have been highly beneficial for the EU in several instances in the past. One of the most recent examples would be the EU taxonomy proposal. This exact proposal is highly relevant for young people and future generations. As we are aware, climate change and the destruction of our environment is something that not only the future generations will have to live with, but is already taking the lives of millions of young people every year. It is therefore the bare minimum to include young people in the discussion about energy sources such as nuclear power or natural gas. Based on recent events, it is clear that young people would have provided stronger political momentum in opposing the clear error of including gas and nuclear as sustainable energy sources. Furthermore, young people are considered to be the drivers of the circular economy and future generations should be the main beneficiaries of sustainable investment opportunities. Policies addressing the new ways of the economy will have an impact on the employment, health and wellbeing of future generations. This needs to be considered now, otherwise such policies will cause further disruptions, barriers and inequalities within our society.
As has been said many times, young people are not only the future, but also the present. As rightly pointed out by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, young people have been one of the groups within our society most affected by the previous financial crisis and the current health crisis and faltering economy. There is now a clear need to create policies that consider their point of view.
Mainstreaming young people into all policies: an existing objective at EU Level
An EU level Youth Test is one of the measures set out in the Conference on the Future of Europe Outcomes Report that was endorsed by all voting components in the Conference plenary and citizens. Young people are demanding proper consultation on all policies that affect them, and to have their voice taken into account in the shaping of these policies. While the Youth Test meets these expectations, it also acknowledges that young people's interests are wide-ranging and go far beyond traditional "youth" topics such as education and mobility exchanges. Mainstreaming youth into all policies is also an aim of the EU Youth Strategy (2019-2027) and one of the four key objectives of the European Year of Youth 2022. Adoption of the Youth Test is therefore a way to implement this strand of the Strategy, to realise this 2022 objective, hence providing a long-lasting legacy and following up concretely on a measure coming from the Conference on the Future of Europe.
·Numerous "Best Practices"
The EU Youth Test exists in several Member States at national and regional levels in different forms, but always for the benefit of and involving young people. In some cases, it is conducted by a separate entity (Germany, Flanders) while in others it is carried out by the respective ministries (Austria, France). Several child and youth impact assessment tools were launched as a result of the recommendation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (New Zealand, Canada, Scotland). Even though these tools only partially address the challenges, since they are conducted after the approval of the legislation rather than beforehand, and hence without including young people in the decision-making process, they prove that there is a global trend towards assessing the impact of legislation on young people by involving them. We can also see that, thanks to NextGenerationEU, more and more countries are working on youth impact assessments (Italy), which should be something that the Commission not only expects from the Member States but should also champion, including by introducing a standardised mechanism for them.
While these best practices prove to be rather diverse in terms of methodology and scope, after the Youth Forum conducted interviews with several National Youth Councils, we found that the youth impact assessment tools are considered to be a great way to mainstream youth policy, ensure that youth inequalities are mitigated and removed, and include young people's perspective in the policy-making procedure.
Last year, the European Youth Forum collected and analysed several examples of youth impact assessment tools based on the input from five National Youth Councils and available online information. These examples cover both the national and regional level and focus on the implementation of youth impact assessments on legislative proposals. However, the spectrum and the methodology of each differ, in some cases significantly. Further research is expected to be conducted to include the perspective of the representatives of the authorities, particularly EU Member State representatives. The table below is intended to indicate the scope and the methodology of the impact assessment tools, identify the entities conducting them, and suggest relevant aspects to be considered for the development of an EU Youth Test.
|
Region/
Country
|
Scope
|
Methodology
|
Conducted by
|
Transferable best practice principles to be considered in the development of the EU Youth Test
|
|
Flanders
|
Young people
0-25 years of age
|
An extensive report with 14 questions. During the assessment, data and indicators are expected to be provided by the assessor
|
Respective ministry
|
The assessment report is easily understandable and thorough
|
|
Austria
|
Children and youth (under 18 years of age)
|
Either an extensive assessment with concrete indicators or a simplified questionnaire, depending on the relevance
|
Federal administration, the department that is proposing the initiative or legislation
|
The checklist can be a good way to assess the relevance of the draft policy for young people, and as such decide on further steps in the impact assessment
|
|
France
|
Young people 16-25 years of age
|
N/A
|
Respective ministry
|
The impact assessment clause is part of the legislative framework that could make it binding and highly visible. High-level political support.
|
|
Germany
|
Young people 12-27 years of age
|
Standardised assessment tool and a two-stage assessment process considering areas of life and several impact dimensions
|
Competence Centre Youth-Check - a separate institution from the ministry
|
The two–fold assessment process gives a detailed picture of the impact on youth
|
|
Italy
|
Young people
|
Under development
|
Several stakeholders are involved in the impact assessment, such as scholars, youth representatives and policy-makers
|
Related to the NextGenerationEU funds and the National Recovery and Resilience Plans
|
|
New Zealand
|
Children and young people
|
Two-step screening based on an extensive questionnaire
|
Public authorities but it can be freely used by anyone - enhancing transparency and widespread adoption
|
Publicly available and to be carried out by anyone
|
·Road to the EU Youth Test
The European Youth Forum and its more than 100 member organisations urge the Commission to adopt an EU Youth Test and make the promises of the European Year of Youth a reality for all young Europeans. It is a chance to create a long-lasting legacy that will support the future generations in living a sustainable life. Together with other relevant stakeholders, such as EU institutions, representatives of youth-led organisations and Member States, the Youth Forum has started to map the possible scenarios for an EU Youth Test. Based on the previous discussions, we suggest that the European Commission take the following steps in the coming months of 2022:
§conduct research and analysis on existing youth impact assessment tools;
§finalise the proposal for an EU Youth test with the involvement of youth stakeholders;
§together with youth stakeholders, draft the procedure and guidelines, including the checklist and the analysis;
§expression of interest by DGs to include a youth perspective and future generations in policy-making processes;
§capacity-building of DGs to readily apply the EU Youth Test when drafting new proposals;
§monitor the implementation of the EU Youth Test on an ongoing basis.
The EU Youth Test can be a successful instrument if it is used widely by DGs and if policy-makers are able to have meaningful engagement with young people. While the EU Youth Test might seem to require additional resources from the EU institutions, it is in the utmost interest of all EU Member States that the policies do not impose threats and negative impacts on future generations.
Regional youth impact assessment:
Flanders
The Child and Youth Impact Report, or JoKER for short, assesses the effects of new proposed decrees on children and young people. Every time a minister submits a draft decree to the Flemish Parliament that directly affects the interests of persons under the age of 25, it must be accompanied by a JoKER. This consists of the impact of the proposal and alternatives, while also providing data to strengthen the assessment. JoKER mainly relies on the 2003 comments on "general measures of implementation" of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including a child impact analysis. The competent minister and administration are responsible for drawing up a JoKER when submitting a decree, and involve the contact point for youth and children's rights policy. They can also ask for help from the Department of Culture, Youth and Media. The assessment follows a questionnaire that details the objectives, the alternative policy options, the analysis of impacts, and the outline of the consultation included, among other things.
EU Member States' youth impact assessment:
Austria
In 2013, Austria introduced an overarching impact assessment on proposed legislation. This impact assessment aims to provide clarity on the priorities, effects on the budget and effectiveness of the proposals. It is carried out during the drafting phase and considers several policy areas ("impact dimensions"), such as finance, environment, consumer protection, businesses, children and youth, and gender equality. If a piece of legislation does not affect the state budget, or does not have substantial financial relevance (below EUR 1 million), it is enough to carry out a simplified assessment first to see in which policy areas the legislation has relevance. This simplified assessment is a short survey, which is now also digitalised. The impact assessment consists of a problem analysis (why government action is necessary), formulation of objectives (what impact is to be achieved in society), formulation of measures (how the respective goals are being pursued) and assessment of the effects. In case a youth perspective is found to be relevant, the impact assessment is carried out by considering the following aspects:
§protection and promotion of the health, development and upbringing of children and young adults;
§care and support of children and eligible young adults, and compensation for child costs;
§security of the future of children and young adults in the medium term.
In case of the simplified impact assessment, no indicators are used and no assessment of the effects is carried out.
The underlying initiative will be evaluated after five years at the latest, which means that the respective departments carry out an internal evaluation, during which effects that actually occurred are compared with the assumptions made at the time of the assessment. In case of a simplified impact assessment, this step is not carried out either.
France
French Law requires all draft laws to include a preliminary evaluation of the economic, financial, social, and environmental consequences of the adoption of the law (with the exception of finance and budget laws, Organic Laws, laws modifying the Constitution, etc.). An internal note from the Prime Minister from 2016 stresses the need to systematically conduct youth impact assessments (but this is not binding). All impact evaluations are supposed to be available on the website of the SGG (Secrétariat général du gouvernement). In the Ministry of Education, the DJEPVA (Direction de la jeunesse, de l’éducation populaire et de la vie associative – in charge of developing, coordinating, and evaluating policies in favour of youth, community education, and the voluntary sector) is in theory consulted and involved in the development of impact assessments of draft regulations. The drafting ministry (which also drafts the impact assessment) can ask for the support of the DJEPVA in doing this. Upon receipt of these documents, the SGG can ask the advice of the DJEPVA if it considers the impact assessment insufficient. The SGG then convenes a scoping meeting bringing together the drafting ministry, the DJEPVA and all other services concerned by the cross-cutting impact. A notice of 48 hours is required which means that observations on the impact assessment are only circulated for a period of 48 hours. In practice, most of the time, this scoping meeting is the first time the DJEPVA sees the impact evaluation. The policy pursued in favour of young people aims in particular to support them in their efforts to gain access to employment and become independent. It also aims to guarantee all young people access to public services, essential for building their life project.
Germany
The Youth-Check in Germany was introduced in 2017. So far, the Competence Centre Youth-Check (ComYC) has examined over 500 pieces of legislation. The examination of legislation can be initiated by the Minister for Youth or by the ComYC itself through its monitoring process. The ComYC conducts a preliminary examination of all laws that are accessible to the ComYC (usually all laws where the Ministry of Youth is involved or is in charge). Where there is a relevant, non-obvious impact on young people, the Youth-Check is carried out and the results published. The assessment is carried out during the drafting phase (pre-parliamentary). The ComYC has the possibility to carry out an initial assessment and, if the legislation changes after the input of other stakeholders (i.e. cabinet, local reps), the ComYC still has the chance to give final input. The Ministry forwards the Youth-Check together with the legislation to the lead ministry which proposes it as a government bill to the Parliament. The ComYC also publishes the shorter version of the Youth-Check to support the discussion in the Parliament. The Youth-Check is based on a standardised assessment tool and a two-stage assessment process. As a first step, it is confirmed whether the legislation is relevant for young people and it is determined whether young people or specific groups of them between the ages of 12 and 27 are affected by the proposed legislation. If the legislation is relevant for young people, the next step is the main impact assessment. During the main impact assessment, the legislation is examined in terms of which individual areas of life are affected by the proposed legislation.
Source:
https://www.jugend-check.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/the-youth-check-in-germany-regulatory-impact-assessment-for-the-young-generation.pdf
Various methodological approaches are chosen in order to obtain indications of the possible effects, and data from several sources is used as well. Secondary data is primarily used (statistics, available publications, etc.). However, in isolated cases, if there is no available data, ComYC conducts surveys and interviews with experts and youth representatives. In general, the youth-check consists of a description of the affected groups and the relevant passages of the bill as well as the resulting effects on young people. In addition, the affected areas of life are identified and, if necessary, "notes and remarks" are given. As already mentioned, a shorter version is produced and sent out to members of the Bundestag and another short version is drafted that uses a youth-friendly language that is published on the website under the corresponding section. However, these versions are not drafted in every case. The youth-friendly language makes it accessible for young people with different backgrounds and education. Finally, besides sending the Youth-Check to the respective decision-makers, all versions are published on the Youth-Check's website. Furthermore, there is the ComYC App, which provides information on the legislative process and the assessment procedure and which enables the Youth-Check to be tried out interactively.
Italy
In 2021, Italy established a Committee to monitor the impact of public policy on young people and future generations. The idea is mainly related to the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) funds and the National Recovery and Resilience Plans (PNRR in Italian). It consists of several stakeholders such as the youth ministry, the National Youth Council, the national agency, the national statistical office, the public health authorities and experts on impact assessments. The stakeholders collaborate in four groups covering different areas of work, namely:
§Group for a shared definition of measures for young people;
§Group for the assessment of generational impact and models practised in other EU countries also with reference to the Agenda 2030 SDGs;
§Group analysing good practices and reforms of youth policies at European level;
§Group to support the monitoring of the implementation of Pillar "F" of Regulation (EU) 2021/241.
As a result of this distribution of tasks, the Committee's ultimate aim is to provide data and information useful for more effective government action on the coordination and implementation of youth policies. The measures analysed initially are those with a direct impact on young people. The impact assessments are not public and are submitted to the Youth Minister every six months.
The stakeholders collaborate in groups covering four areas of work:
1.Group for a shared definition of measures for young people: the group is responsible for analysing all of the government's measures for young people in the budget law, in the PNRRs – which is the plan using NGEU funds – and in the National Investment Plan that complements the PNRR.
2.Group for the assessment of generational impact and models practised in other EU countries also with reference to the Agenda 2030 SDGs: the group deals with establishing the national (and local) taxonomy of indicators for the assessment of generational impact, with a view to ensuring intergenerational equity.
3.Group analysing good practices and reforms of youth policies at European level: the group will set indicators to determine good practices at European level and their transferability.
4.Group to support the monitoring of the implementation of Pillar "F" of Regulation (EU) 2021/241: in order to assess the ongoing consistency of the "youth priority" – a priority identified as cross-cutting in the PNRR – with the specific objective of Pillar "F" of Regulation (EU) 2021/241. Quantitative and qualitative indicators will be established in conjunction with the PNRR "Control Room" of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of the Economy.
Third country impact assessment
New Zealand
Following the 2011 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendation, New Zealand established the Child Impact Assessment (CIA), which is a tool for public officials to assess whether policy proposals will improve the wellbeing of children and young people. It is also based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The tool is used to support the debate and decision-making surrounding a proposal and can be freely used by the conducting entity. With this tool, the first step is to check whether the proposal has any youth relevance through the screening sheet. When completing the screening sheet, note should be made of:
§positive impacts on children and young people by the proposal;
§mitigations for any negative effects or unintended consequences.
If there is a direct impact on young people, the full impact assessment is conducted. There is more scope in the full Child Impact Assessment (than in the screening sheet) to unpack the broader context of any proposal, for example, how it may impact on issues such as school engagement, socio-economic factors (such as child poverty), youth wellbeing/development or disability. During the assessment, consultation is encouraged with all relevant stakeholders, such as experts, youth representatives, policy-makers, etc.
Further examples to be discovered:
§
Netherlands
§
Sweden
§
Finland
§
Scotland
§
Canada
Global report:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/fit-for-generations-global-youth-report-highlights.pdf
Provisional structure of the checklist to assess the relevance of the proposal for young people
|
|
Questions
|
On a 1-3 scale
|
|
|
Score
|
|
Which level does the proposal impact...
|
|
Direct impact
|
3
|
|
Basic Human Needs
|
approximately 5 questions related to the basic needs of young people, such as clean and safe energy, affordable housing or access to information.
|
each question to be scored by the assessor
|
|
Indirect impact
|
2
|
|
Creation of wellbeing
|
approximately 5 questions related to wellbeing aspects, such as health care, material footprint or transition to adulthood
|
each question to be scored by the assessor
|
|
No impact
|
1
|
|
Opportunity
|
approximately 5 questions related to opportunities for young people, such as participation, freedom of expression or access to infrastructure
|
each question to be scored by the assessor
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
if the average is over 1.5, the proposal is youth relevant
|
_____________