Youth Participation (RO0051)
Overview
At-a-Glance
Action Plan: Romania Action Plan 2018-2020
Action Plan Cycle: 2018
Status:
Institutions
Lead Institution: Ministry of Youth and Sports (MTS), Directorate for Youth Projects and Policies
Support Institution(s): Non-governmental organizations of / for youth
Policy Areas
Capacity Building, Inclusion, Public Participation, YouthIRM Review
IRM Report: Romania Transitional Results Report 2018-2020, Romania Design Report 2018-2020
Early Results: No IRM Data
Design i
Verifiable: Yes
Relevant to OGP Values: Yes
Ambition (see definition): Low
Implementation i
Description
Improve consultation and public participation for youth
Lead implementing agency/actor Ministry of Youth and Sports (MTS), Directorate for Youth Projects and Policies Other actors involved State actors CSOs, private sector, multilaterals, working groups Non-governmental organizations of / for youth What is the public problem that the commitment will address? Insufficient development of active citizenship among young people: • low involvement of young people in the specific projects of the Ministry of Youth and Sport / DSTR / DSTMB; • low participation of young people in the decisionmaking process regarding issues that concern the youth. Commitment description What is the commitment? The commitment aims to undertake actions which lead to a collaborative relationship between authorities, youth and structures that work with young people, in order to generate dedicated action plans, with the help of dialogue mechanisms and tools, including ICT. The implemented actions and tools used will lead to the development of the social and civic competences of young people and to the increase of the decision makers' capacity, in order to contribute to building an open, diverse, intercultural and tolerant society. How will the commitment contribute to solve the public problem? - Strengthen the structured dialogue for policy making in the youth field, taking into account the views of young people; - Establishing and functioning of at least 83 youth advisory councils at local level: 41 advisory councils for youth at the level of county councils, 41 advisory councils for youth at the level of the local councils and of the county seat municipalities, 1 advisory 13 council at the level of CGMB; - Selection of at least 300 projects for youth and students based on objective criteria and transparent methodologies; - Selection of at least 2000 participants, young people and students, on the basis of objective criteria and transparent methodologies, using ICT tools. Why is this commitment relevant to OGP values? Making an open decision-making process in the field of youth policies at national level Milestone activity with a verifiable deliverable Responsible agency / partner Start Date: End Date: Conducting public consultations by the National Working Group on Structured Dialogue and the network of youth workers with competences in the structured dialogue process MTS December 2018 Elaboration of contest methodologies for youth projects of ONGT/ONGS MTS 2018 2020 Creating an online platform for selecting youth / student projects at the central level MTS 2019 2020 Establishing youth advisory councils at the level of county councils and town halls of county residences MTS 2018 2020 Funding by competition of at least 300 projects MTS 2018 2020 Additional information Budget required (lei): 6.500.000 lei Correlation with other government programs/strategies National Strategy in the Field of Youth Policy 2015 – 2020 The European Union Youth Strategy 2019 – 2027
IRM Midterm Status Summary
4. Improve consultation and public participation for youth
Commitment Text: "The commitment aims to undertake actions which lead to a collaborative relationship between authorities, youth and structures that work with young people, in order to generate dedicated action plans, with the help of dialogue mechanisms and tools, including ICT. The implemented actions and tools used will lead to the development of the social and civic competences of young people and to the increase of the decision makers’ capacity, in order to contribute to building an open, diverse, intercultural and tolerant society."
Commitment Objective:
- Strengthen the structured dialogue for policy making in the youth field, taking into account the views of young people;
- Establishing and functioning of at least 83 youth advisory councils at local level: 41 advisory councils for youth at the level of county councils, 41 advisory councils for youth at the level of the local councils and of the county seat municipalities, 1 advisory council at the level of CGMB;
- Selection of at least 300 projects for youth and students based on objective criteria and transparent methodologies;
- Selection of at least 2000 participants, young people and students, on the basis of objective criteria and transparent methodologies, using ICT tools.
Milestones:
-
- Conducting public consultations by the National Working Group on Structured Dialogue and the network of youth workers with competences in the structured dialogue process
- Elaboration of contest methodologies for youth projects of ONGT/ONGS
- Creating an online platform for selecting youth / student projects at the central level
- Establishing youth advisory councils at the level of county councils and town halls of county residences
- Funding by competition of at least 300 projects
Start Date: December 2018 ...............................................
End Date: 2020
Editorial Note: The commitment text is abridged. The full text can be found in the OGP 2018-2020 national action plan.
Context and Objectives
The commitment was continued from Romania’s third action plan (2016-2018). [38] Currently, youth in Romania is insufficiently involved in decision-making processes, in Ministry of Youth and Sports (MTS) projects, as well as in projects for youth at both county level and in Bucharest. [39] An interviewed civil society representative argued that under the EU Structured Dialogue, youth find it difficult to track which of their suggestions were implemented, while in the case of national consultations, the Inter-ministerial Council on Youth should consult the National Consultative Council more, especially on cross-sectorial policies. [40] Moreover, although law 350/2006 recommends that local public administrations create youth consultative councils, the recommendation has been weakly implemented because it was not compulsory and there were no secondary norms to make its implementation compulsory. [41] Only 15 local and regional consultative councils have been created. [42]
This commitment aims to strengthen the youth consultation process, ensure that the required youth advisory councils are set up, fund at least 300 projects for youth and students, and transparently select participants for youth and student competitions (e.g., the National Competition for Youth and the National Competition for Students). According to an MTS representative, the online platform the MTS will build (Milestone 4.3) will also offer youth information regarding workplaces, jobs, education, finances, competitions, as well as list the projects that MTS funded through its national and local competitions together with their achievements. The commitment therefore uses IT tools to promote civic participation and access to information, and its objectives and stated milestones make its implementation specific enough to be verifiable.
However, this commitment is likely to have a minor impact on youth engagement in decision making, and on the youth’s ability to access relevant information. The commitment’s objectives address the dysfunctions in the consultation process at the EU and at the local level, but do not explicitly address those at national level. According to an interviewed civil society representative, it is unclear what influence youth have through the Structured Dialogue consultations on national or European policymaking. [43] Furthermore, according to both the MTS and civil society representatives, the contest methodologies for youth projects are adjusted yearly to reflect feedback from NGOs who compete for the funding, as well as the priorities of the MTS. [44] Consequently, Milestone 2 reflects the functioning of MTS rather than an advancement of civic participation or access to information. According to the civil society representative, the digitalization of the application for funding would reduce the costs and bureaucracy associated with the current paper-based submissions. [45] Moreover, centralizing information on the platform on the winning projects and their achievements would help expose the work of the MTS and increase monitoring of the funding.
Nevertheless, MTS has not yet secured funding for the platform, [46] and while MTS is setting up a collaboration with a university to build the platform, it remains unclear which information from other ministries can and will be integrated into the MTS platform, as well as how the platform will be populated. MTS re-organized the National Consultative Council for youth in 2018 through government decision 141/2018. Nevertheless law 350/2006 law did not clearly stipulate that local administration and county councils must constitute a consultative council. [47] The Law of Youth [48] still being discussed in Parliament will enforce that requirement, [49] and once ratified, MTS will monitor its application. [50] But since the Law of Youth does not specify sanctions for not creating the local councils, an interviewed civil society representative pointed out that MTS will still have to lobby the local administration to apply the law, or will have to apply naming-and-shaming strategies to increase pressure on nonperformers with the support of the Government’s representative in the county (the institution of the Prefect). [51] Without a benchmark, it is difficult to assess the potential impact of having 3,000 funded projects with at least 2,000 beneficiaries on youth participation in the decision-making process.
Next steps
Given the limited youth participation in decision making in Romania and the current absence of a National Youth Strategy, this commitment is important and should be continued in the next action plan. The following recommendations can help guide its implementation as well as its continuation in the next action plan:
- MTS could clarify the role of the consultative councils (e.g., their mandate in relation to their constituting administration), their composition and operating procedures (e.g., frequency of meetings and topics covered), and expected output (e.g., an annual report and written recommendations).
- According to a civil society representative, MTS could increase the transparency of its funded activities—e.g., by publishing summaries of the projects that were funded at national and local level on its website and by publishing aggregated statistics on the types of activities and projects that were funded. [52]
- It should be clear before the start of a new round of Structured Dialogue how previous consultation recommendations are considered and where—e.g., in the European context, at the level of the national strategy for youth, or at the level of methodologies, procedures, etc. The Inter-ministerial Council for Youth could therefore discuss the suggestions that came up from the Structured Dialogue process and reveal how they will be used in designing and implementing the National Youth Strategy 2020-2025.
- As the new Romanian National Youth Strategy will have to be compiled in 2020, the Inter-ministerial Council for Youth could start consulting the National Consultative Council and the national youth associations on the MTS policies as well as on the public policies relating to youth of the other ministries (Ministry of National Education, Ministry of Labour and Social Justice, Ministry of Health, etc), that will enforce the government’s policy on youth through the new National Strategy on Youth.
[38] Commitment 8 of Romania’s 3rd national action plan: see "IRM End-of-Term Report on Romania 2016-2018", OGP, available at http://www.opengovernmentpartnership.org.
[39] See problem description of the commitment, available at http://ogp.gov.ro/nou/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Romania-2018-2020_NAP_EN.pdf
[40] Interview with Mihai Dragos, Romanian Youth Council (CTR), 9 September 2019.
[41] "2016-2017 IRM Progress Report on Romania", OGP, http://www.opengovernmentpartnership.org.
[42] Interview with Marcel Sabados, Ministry of Youth and Sports (MTS), 10 September 2019.
[43] Interview with Mihai Dragos, CTR, 9 September 2019.
[44] Interview with Marcel Sabados, MTS, 10 September 2019; Interview with Mihai Dragos, CTR, 9 September 2019.
[45] Interview with Mihai Dragos, CTR, 9 September 2019.
[46] Interview with Marcel Sabados, MTS, 10 September 2019.
[47] Law 350/2006, art. 4e, available [in Romanian] at http://bit.ly/2kUatlg.
[48] Article 16 of PL-x 716/2018, available [in Romanian] at http://bit.ly/2kygSlK.
[49] "PL-x nr. 716/2018, Proiectul Legii Tineretului", Camera Deputatilor a Romaniei, available [in Romanian] at http://bit.ly/2mubVLl.
[50] Interview with Marcel Sabados, MTS, 10 September 2019.
[51] Interview with Mihai Dragos, CTR, 9 September 2019.
[52] Interview with Mihai Dragos, CTR, 9 September 2019.
IRM End of Term Status Summary
4. Improve consultation and public participation for youth
Limited
According to the OGP repository, in 2018, the Ministry of Youth and Sports (MTS) held 14 consultation workshops with youths with 1,090 participants and conducted youth surveys with 1,886 respondents. [10] According to the Romanian Youth Council (CTR), in 2019, MTS organized the same structured consultations with 50 consultation workshops (1,942 participants) and surveys (2,547 respondents). [11] MTS also published the methodologies for the youth projects contests, to which youth and sports NGOs could participate in 2018, 2019, [12] and 2020. [13]
In October 2019, MTS organized a roundtable with youth-focused NGOs to discuss the creation of a platform that would centralize relevant information. The platform would have also allowed youth and student NGOs to submit projects for MTS funding through its national and local competitions and information on the winning projects. [14] According to the OGP repository, the platform was part of the Governance Program of the Government between 2017-2019. While funds were assigned to building the platform after the budgetary rectification in 2020, the platform is no longer part of the 2020 Governance Program, hence plans have stalled. [15]
MTS re-organized the National Consultative Council for Youth in 2018 [16] and again in November 2020. [17] In the absence of legal obligations to establish youth advisory councils, [18] only seven to eight local administrations and county councils have put one in place. [19] MTS has created a draft Youth Law that stipulates the duty to put in place youth advisory councils at county councils and town halls. However, by the end of the action plan period, the 2018 Youth Law had been delayed in the Chamber of Deputies for more than two years. [20]
According to the OGP repository, MTS funded 236 youth projects in 2018 and 203 projects in 2019. [21] There is no information available on the OGP repository for the projects funded by MTS in 2020, [22] but according to the government, the 2020 projects were funded only at county level due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [23] Over 37,000 youths were involved in the projects MTS funded in 2018-2019. [24] According to the government, MTS and county divisions also organized and carried out its own projects during the action plan period (394 in 2018, 391 in 2019, and 362 in 2020). [25]