Wednesday, 7 November 2012 

Structured Dialogue Achievements

In this blog entry I want to present the successful transformation of the process of Structured Dialogue with young people in the European Union (EU) from a vague idea first mentioned back in a Council of Ministers Resolution in 2005 as a follow up to the White Paper on Youth for which the Youth Forum pushed very hard in its early years, to the Council Resolution in November 2009 which laid the ground for the structured dialogue process. As Chair of the European Steering Committee since January 2011 I oversaw the transition from the first to the second cycle and now the preparation of a third one. Despite many challenges remaining it is important to focus on and stress the achievements.
  

Structured dialogue has now become a standard, an established process for youth participation in policy-making in the youth field at EU level. The participatory process is successfully implemented in all EU Member States – through functional National Working Groups – and at EU level – coordinated by European Steering Committee and conducted at EU Youth Conferences.

Structured Dialogue strengthened the Youth Forum's cooperation with the Presidencies and the Commission and opened up the opportunity to communicate and influence youth policies in the Council (Youth Working Party); it brought a much improved cooperation with Presidencies in drafting youth policies: a clear example is that at the invitation of the Cyprus Presidency, the Youth Forum submitted a direct contribution to the draft Council Resolution on Structured Dialogue that was being discussed in the Council Youth Working Party (to be adopted in November 2012).

Structured Dialogue now has more political outcomes: the results of each phase fed directly into youth policy-making of the Council of the EU (high number of Joint Recommendations from the EU Youth Conferences were integrated directly in the text of the Council Conclusions on the topic in the ‘’Invite section’’). Compared to 1st cycle, young people were involved in all youth policies discussed by youth decision-makers in the Council – all Council Conclusions of the Youth Working Party. However, the follow-up and implementation of the political outcomes in Member States needs improvement and this will be one of the central elements of the 3rd cycle.

The progress is visible through an increased participation at all levels: 

• National Working Groups (NWGs) organised successful participatory processes, not only at national level, but also at local and regional levels, involving many young people, youth organisations and various stakeholders such as national authorities, local and regional government, MEPs, etc. NWGs invested efforts in new and creative methods to improve the structured dialogue with young people. 
• Much more INGYOs participated in the process in the second cycle (17 INGYOs versus 3 in 1st cycle) bringing a European dimension to discussions and a European added value to Structured Dialogue – progress acknowledged and welcomed by all actors, including  Commissioner Vassiluou. Building on this progress, there is still space for improvement particularly by securing the INGYOs’ participation in EU Youth Conferences in the 3rd cycle. 
• National Youth Councils (NYCs) have a leading role in almost all NWGs. This proves that the process has developed the NYCs capacity and empowered them with a strong voice in the dialogue on youth policies in their respective countries.

The understanding and recognition of the Structured Dialogue is growing:

• at national level, ministries other than Youth, members of national parliament and MEPs support the process in some Member States (e.g. Slovenia, Germany);
• at EU level, the recognition of Structured Dialogue process and its outcomes is growing cross-sectorially: recently, EPSCO Council acknowledged the importance of structured dialogue with young people as a forum for continuous joint reflection in its Conclusions on 4 October;
• Structured Dialogue has become an integral and significant part of the agenda of each Presidency to the extent that the Presidencies do not conceive not to address their priority of youth policy in the Structured Dialogue;
• Structured dialogue is also developing at national level, some Member States having a separate process on national topics, proving again the value of the process and structures in place;
• Structured Dialogue is now taken as model for other policy fields – e.g. intention to develop such a dialogue process in the education field.

All in all, structured dialogue is not the desired co-management principle we enjoy in the framework of the Council of Europe but has tangible impact on youth policy at EU level, improves participation of young people in decision-making, empowers the National Youth Councils as recognised representatives of young people and strengthens the cooperation between youth structures and policy-makers at national and European level.  

The process is far from being perfect, with main weaknesses being the lack of funding and deficient follow-up on the outcomes. The continuity of the 18-month process and coherence of the overall topic has been a major challenge of the 2nd cycle but we are pushing hard together with our NYCs to improve that in the 3rd cycle the Team Presidency Ireland-Lithuania-Greece. 

The Youth Forum with its clear position paper outlining the main points of improving the process and our members continue to be committed to the structured dialogue process as stressed at the recent seminar of NYCs in Limassol and other regional seminars organised by our member organisations. I want to thank all of them and the activists and youth workers behind this sometimes lengthy and difficult process which nonetheless contributes to the maximum extent currently possible in shaping youth policy at EU level directly.